Climate Change Deniers Are Lying

[Wyatt earp]

n his book Storms of my Grandchildren, noted climate scientist James Hansen issued the following warning: "f we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.

So is that what is meant by climate scientists promoting CAGW?

Saying there's a 'substantial chance' a tipping point will be reached when certain difficult conditions are achieved?

Oh well, if that's the definition of
CAGW, I'll agree some climate scientists are guilty. So what?

So what? =what does it matter=Gruber= Harry Reid little lies don't matter

You guys make me want to puke.

You know it's a scam, we know it's a scam , so why the charades ?

 

[cnm]

"Consensus" is the way they did science in the dark ages. Now we use things called "logic" and "facts" and "experiments," none of which the AGW cult has on it's side.

And then the majority of scientists agree on what is the meaning of those experiments and logic and facts and a consensus is formed.

Next you'll be talking about 'scientific proof' just to demonstrate you really don't have a clue.

 

[cnm]

What is it when you call people insulting names like "denier?"

Accuracy.

 

[cnm]

So what?

What part of his comments do you disagree with?

 

[Wyatt earp]

"Consensus" is the way they did science in the dark ages. Now we use things called "logic" and "facts" and "experiments," none of which the AGW cult has on it's side.

And then the majority of scientists agree on what is the meaning of those experiments and logic and facts and a consensus is formed.

Next you'll be talking about 'scientific proof' just to demonstrate you really don't have a clue.

be specific, the majority of scientist agree on what? And if you go to that over zealous researching papers.... You lost all credibility.

 

[cnm]

You know what's REALLY childish?

You post a link from some pajama blogger that slimes one of America's most accomplished climate scientists as a "serial climate misinformer". I post her credentials and bio to give you a clue as to what an unlimited ass you really are -- and you REPLY to that post with her bio in it with attacks on me..

You got NOTHING but childish.. We're done.

So if you cite her how come you don't agree, along with her, on the scientific opinion on climate change?

Judith Curry

Judith Curry - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

While Judith Curry supports the scientific opinion on climate change,[15] she has argued that climatologists should be more accommodating of those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change.​

 

[cnm]

be specific, the majority of scientist agree on what? And if you go to that over zealous researching papers.... You lost all credibility.

They agree on the meaning of those experiments and logic and facts bripat talked about in order to arrive at a consensus. In this case

Human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change.​

Dude. Losing credibility with you is an affirmation.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Jesus Christ, on what proof?

Just because?

 

[cnm]

Jesus Christ, on what proof?

Just because?

Experiments and logic and fact.

What are you talking about?

 

[cnm]

Anyway, you didn't say with what part of Hansen's comments you disagreed. Are you going to?

 

[cnm]

Oh, here's the scientific opinion Judith Curry agrees with.

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.​

 

[Liminal]

That about nails Crick's ignorance of the term Catastrophic Global Warming right? But being the denier that he is.. He will claim next week again that he's completely unaware of any scary exaggerated statements from ANY Climate Scientists. He can't remember shit if it hurts his head to ponder it... He's been shown this same stuff for damn near 6 yrs now. Maybe my new footer will add the Hansen quote above just to remind him..

Rather childish, the way you like to personalize your alleged arguments. People often resort to that when they lack any actual argument.

You know what's REALLY childish?

You post a link from some pajama blogger that slimes one of America's most accomplished climate scientists as a "serial climate misinformer". I post her credentials and bio to give you a clue as to what an unlimited ass you really are -- and you REPLY to that post with her bio in it with attacks on me..

You got NOTHING but childish.. We're done.

Done? And after I spent all that money on an engagement ring.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Jesus Christ, on what proof?

Just because?

Experiments and logic and fact.

What are you talking about?

What experiments? European computer models that the Rothschilds going to get rich off of?

Or do you have a super secrete clone planet of earth where in the year 2015 no humans are on it?

Your theory goes just like this

We have a bunch of people on the planet , driving cars, using A/C

So it must be stopped.

A blue whale jumping out off the ocean can be detected now around the world.

You ever hear of any balance? You can not disrupt feeding people that are hungry today, you can not screw with people today that want good jobs

Just to perseve the planet the way it was 500 years ago.

All you are telling me is you have yours and screw everyone else, just to preserve the planet

 

[cnm]

So again that's an economic denial of a scientific theory. With what part of Hansen's comments do you disagree?

 

[IanC]

You know what's REALLY childish?

You post a link from some pajama blogger that slimes one of America's most accomplished climate scientists as a "serial climate misinformer". I post her credentials and bio to give you a clue as to what an unlimited ass you really are -- and you REPLY to that post with her bio in it with attacks on me..

You got NOTHING but childish.. We're done.

So if you cite her how come you don't agree, along with her, on the scientific opinion on climate change?

Judith Curry

Judith Curry - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

While Judith Curry supports the scientific opinion on climate change,[15] she has argued that climatologists should be more accommodating of those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change.​

a quote from your link-

The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century. Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence. Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution. It has been estimated that the U.S. national commitments to the UN to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree centigrade in warming by 2100...

it has been interesting to watch Curry over the last decade as she has walked farther and farther away from consensus, and given particularly good reasons for doing so.

 

[cnm]

I'm not the one talking about CAGW. Nor has anyone provided a cite of a climate scientist doing so. The only mention of it I see comes from deniers.

As far as I can see, Curry has been forced to come closer to the consensus from her original position of temperature change not being detectable.

 

[IanC]

I'm not the one talking about CAGW. Nor has anyone provided a cite of a climate scientist doing so. The only mention of it I see comes from deniers.

As far as I can see, Curry has been forced to come closer to the consensus from her original position of temperature change not being detectable.

hahahahaha. why do I get the feeling you have no idea on what Curry's position on anything is?

 

[cnm]

Why do I get the feeling you don't know what Curry's position was?

 

[IanC]

Why do I get the feeling you don't know what Curry's position was?

what year, what subject? I started reading her blog in 2010 and I think I have a pretty good idea of many of her positions since then.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So again that's an economic denial of a scientific theory. With what part of Hansen's comments do you disagree?

it reminds me of some scientist fear of setting off an atomic bomb in the 1940s and breaking the earths core.