Climate Change Deniers Are Lying

[Sun Devil 92]

So, I'll take it that we won't expect to see you in the bullring anytime soon.

Too bad.

It would be good to see a real debate on this topic.

Oh well.

Post evidence proving human beings have zero impact on the climate.

First, I am not sure I believe they don't. I think I've stated that.

Second, I asked him to take his debate to a venue where just his facts and his single opponents facts could be evaluated. That way we could see what both sides have to present and what information they feel is the most meaningful. I grow tired of having certain organizations held up as "the standard". Or if your doctor tells you he needs to cut off your balls do you just march in and have it done without really trying to understand why (but he is the expert....what could you possibly know). It's a legitimate suggestion.

Third, your request is silly. If you had said, prove humans have inconsequential impact on climate or consequential impact, then the question would have turned to a matter of metrics (which is probably where this whole disagreement resides anyway). After all some "deniers" would claim that volcanos have more impact than humans. And "alarmists" would argue that "rising ocean levels are a real concern. What is impact and why be concerned.

Lastly, is there a reason he shouldn't go there. Or do we continue with the proliferation of meaningless threads (which the OP starts) which all end with the same name calling, appeal to authority riddled, selective data plastered...goop ?

You criticism is spot on, it is a queston of metrics. That said, my question was loaded for emphasis, in fact some deniers are simply kooks who don't have any specialized knowledge. As for the alarmists, their concern isn't based on a fallacy but on data such as this:

NOAA s Ten Signs of a Warming World Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere

Denier is not a word used by real scientists, it's an AGWCult secret handshake word. That's how they identify each other

That's because 'denier" is a word used in reference to people who aren't really scientists.

Are you saying no scientist is a denier....?

Or that any scientist who denies is now no longer a scientist ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

First, I am not sure I believe they don't. I think I've stated that.

Second, I asked him to take his debate to a venue where just his facts and his single opponents facts could be evaluated. That way we could see what both sides have to present and what information they feel is the most meaningful. I grow tired of having certain organizations held up as "the standard". Or if your doctor tells you he needs to cut off your balls do you just march in and have it done without really trying to understand why (but he is the expert....what could you possibly know). It's a legitimate suggestion.

Third, your request is silly. If you had said, prove humans have inconsequential impact on climate or consequential impact, then the question would have turned to a matter of metrics (which is probably where this whole disagreement resides anyway). After all some "deniers" would claim that volcanos have more impact than humans. And "alarmists" would argue that "rising ocean levels are a real concern. What is impact and why be concerned.

Lastly, is there a reason he shouldn't go there. Or do we continue with the proliferation of meaningless threads (which the OP starts) which all end with the same name calling, appeal to authority riddled, selective data plastered...goop ?

You criticism is spot on, it is a queston of metrics. That said, my question was loaded for emphasis, in fact some deniers are simply kooks who don't have any specialized knowledge. As for the alarmists, their concern isn't based on a fallacy but on data such as this:

NOAA s Ten Signs of a Warming World Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere

Denier is not a word used by real scientists, it's an AGWCult secret handshake word. That's how they identify each other

That's because 'denier" is a word used in reference to people who aren't really scientists.

No, Honey Boo Boo, Denier, like Consensus, is a Cult word.

Oh really . dummy, you mean like consensus on FOX News.

So still no Bullring...?

Why ?

You seem so confident and I would appreciate seeing your information in consolidated fashion.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

That's what I knew. You are full of shit.

Doesn't that embarass you?

No. Does it embarrass you to be an eccentric weirdo?

So, I'll take it that we won't expect to see you in the bullring anytime soon.

Too bad.

It would be good to see a real debate on this topic.

Oh well.

Post evidence proving human beings have zero impact on the climate.

First, I am not sure I believe they don't. I think I've stated that.

Second, I asked him to take his debate to a venue where just his facts and his single opponents facts could be evaluated. That way we could see what both sides have to present and what information they feel is the most meaningful. I grow tired of having certain organizations held up as "the standard". Or if your doctor tells you he needs to cut off your balls do you just march in and have it done without really trying to understand why (but he is the expert....what could you possibly know). It's a legitimate suggestion.

Third, your request is silly. If you had said, prove humans have inconsequential impact on climate or consequential impact, then the question would have turned to a matter of metrics (which is probably where this whole disagreement resides anyway). After all some "deniers" would claim that volcanos have more impact than humans. And "alarmists" would argue that "rising ocean levels are a real concern. What is impact and why be concerned.

Lastly, is there a reason he shouldn't go there. Or do we continue with the proliferation of meaningless threads (which the OP starts) which all end with the same name calling, appeal to authority riddled, selective data plastered...goop ?

You criticism is spot on, it is a queston of metrics. That said, my question was loaded for emphasis, in fact some deniers are simply kooks who don't have any specialized knowledge. As for the alarmists, their concern isn't based on a fallacy but on data such as this:

NOAA s Ten Signs of a Warming World Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere

Once again....

I am not disputing any of that.

The real question is the quality of analysis that goes into using this data to make statements about what might result.

We can provide good economic data to 10 economists and get 10 different predictions of what it means.

I can give lab results to three different doctors and get three very different recommended courses of action.

 

[Liminal]

Post evidence proving human beings have zero impact on the climate.

First, I am not sure I believe they don't. I think I've stated that.

Second, I asked him to take his debate to a venue where just his facts and his single opponents facts could be evaluated. That way we could see what both sides have to present and what information they feel is the most meaningful. I grow tired of having certain organizations held up as "the standard". Or if your doctor tells you he needs to cut off your balls do you just march in and have it done without really trying to understand why (but he is the expert....what could you possibly know). It's a legitimate suggestion.

Third, your request is silly. If you had said, prove humans have inconsequential impact on climate or consequential impact, then the question would have turned to a matter of metrics (which is probably where this whole disagreement resides anyway). After all some "deniers" would claim that volcanos have more impact than humans. And "alarmists" would argue that "rising ocean levels are a real concern. What is impact and why be concerned.

Lastly, is there a reason he shouldn't go there. Or do we continue with the proliferation of meaningless threads (which the OP starts) which all end with the same name calling, appeal to authority riddled, selective data plastered...goop ?

You criticism is spot on, it is a queston of metrics. That said, my question was loaded for emphasis, in fact some deniers are simply kooks who don't have any specialized knowledge. As for the alarmists, their concern isn't based on a fallacy but on data such as this:

NOAA s Ten Signs of a Warming World Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere

Denier is not a word used by real scientists, it's an AGWCult secret handshake word. That's how they identify each other

That's because 'denier" is a word used in reference to people who aren't really scientists.

Are you saying no scientist is a denier....?

Or that any scientist who denies is now no longer a scientist ?

In much the same way as the deniers claim opposing views are all corrupt and duplicitous; I say that the deniers, the minority of scientists, are all directly or indirectly employed by multi national energy corporations.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No. Does it embarrass you to be an eccentric weirdo?

So, I'll take it that we won't expect to see you in the bullring anytime soon.

Too bad.

It would be good to see a real debate on this topic.

Oh well.

Post evidence proving human beings have zero impact on the climate.

First, I am not sure I believe they don't. I think I've stated that.

Second, I asked him to take his debate to a venue where just his facts and his single opponents facts could be evaluated. That way we could see what both sides have to present and what information they feel is the most meaningful. I grow tired of having certain organizations held up as "the standard". Or if your doctor tells you he needs to cut off your balls do you just march in and have it done without really trying to understand why (but he is the expert....what could you possibly know). It's a legitimate suggestion.

Third, your request is silly. If you had said, prove humans have inconsequential impact on climate or consequential impact, then the question would have turned to a matter of metrics (which is probably where this whole disagreement resides anyway). After all some "deniers" would claim that volcanos have more impact than humans. And "alarmists" would argue that "rising ocean levels are a real concern. What is impact and why be concerned.

Lastly, is there a reason he shouldn't go there. Or do we continue with the proliferation of meaningless threads (which the OP starts) which all end with the same name calling, appeal to authority riddled, selective data plastered...goop ?

You criticism is spot on, it is a queston of metrics. That said, my question was loaded for emphasis, in fact some deniers are simply kooks who don't have any specialized knowledge. As for the alarmists, their concern isn't based on a fallacy but on data such as this:

NOAA s Ten Signs of a Warming World Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere

Once again....

I am not disputing any of that.

The real question is the quality of analysis that goes into using this data to make statements about what might result.

We can provide good economic data to 10 economists and get 10 different predictions of what it means.

I can give lab results to three different doctors and get three very different recommended courses of action.

I can drop a bowling ball off the Golden Gate Bridge and guarantee 99% of people will agree it will fall into the water. The other 1%?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No. Does it embarrass you to be an eccentric weirdo?

So, I'll take it that we won't expect to see you in the bullring anytime soon.

Too bad.

It would be good to see a real debate on this topic.

Oh well.

Post evidence proving human beings have zero impact on the climate.

First, I am not sure I believe they don't. I think I've stated that.

Second, I asked him to take his debate to a venue where just his facts and his single opponents facts could be evaluated. That way we could see what both sides have to present and what information they feel is the most meaningful. I grow tired of having certain organizations held up as "the standard". Or if your doctor tells you he needs to cut off your balls do you just march in and have it done without really trying to understand why (but he is the expert....what could you possibly know). It's a legitimate suggestion.

Third, your request is silly. If you had said, prove humans have inconsequential impact on climate or consequential impact, then the question would have turned to a matter of metrics (which is probably where this whole disagreement resides anyway). After all some "deniers" would claim that volcanos have more impact than humans. And "alarmists" would argue that "rising ocean levels are a real concern. What is impact and why be concerned.

Lastly, is there a reason he shouldn't go there. Or do we continue with the proliferation of meaningless threads (which the OP starts) which all end with the same name calling, appeal to authority riddled, selective data plastered...goop ?

You criticism is spot on, it is a queston of metrics. That said, my question was loaded for emphasis, in fact some deniers are simply kooks who don't have any specialized knowledge. As for the alarmists, their concern isn't based on a fallacy but on data such as this:

NOAA s Ten Signs of a Warming World Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere

Once again....

I am not disputing any of that.

The real question is the quality of analysis that goes into using this data to make statements about what might result.

We can provide good economic data to 10 economists and get 10 different predictions of what it means.

I can give lab results to three different doctors and get three very different recommended courses of action.

Quality of analysis? What analysis? There isn't any! It's altered data and computer models

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And which one of your Zealots was it that stated the polar ice caps would all be melted and our children wouldn't know what snow is... You fucking moron..

Uh huh, I wonder why it is then that you simpletons and liars rely so much on a minority of opinions rather than actual evidence.

AGWCult "Evidence" = turning on the Weather Channel and shrieking, "MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING YOU FUCKING DENIER!!! DIE!!!!"

 

[Wry Catcher]

And which one of your Zealots was it that stated the polar ice caps would all be melted and our children wouldn't know what snow is... You fucking moron..

Uh huh, I wonder why it is then that you simpletons and liars rely so much on a minority of opinions rather than actual evidence.

AGWCult "Evidence" = turning on the Weather Channel and shrieking, "MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING YOU FUCKING DENIER!!! DIE!!!!"

For those who don't know CrusaderFrank, he's a member of the 1% who believes said bowling ball dropped off the Golden Gate Bridge won't hit the water. He'll spin the argument into dropping the ball on the part of the bridge not spanning the bay waters, or suggest a ship will intercept the ball. All of which miss the point, but make him feel relevant.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And which one of your Zealots was it that stated the polar ice caps would all be melted and our children wouldn't know what snow is... You fucking moron..

Uh huh, I wonder why it is then that you simpletons and liars rely so much on a minority of opinions rather than actual evidence.

AGWCult "Evidence" = turning on the Weather Channel and shrieking, "MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING YOU FUCKING DENIER!!! DIE!!!!"

For those who don't know CrusaderFrank, he's a member of the 1% who believes said bowling ball dropped off the Golden Gate Bridge won't hit the water. He'll spin the argument into dropping the ball on the part of the bridge not spanning the bay waters, or suggest a ship will intercept the ball. All of which miss the point, but make him feel relevant.

Well, it there was a black hole between the drop point and the water, the ball would never hit the water, Freddo

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The AGWCult can silence the skeptics by showing us in a lab how much of a temperature increase is caused by a 120PPM increase in CO2.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Also, there's a modification of the laws of gravity (MOND) that accounts for the mechanics of galaxies far better than "Dark matter"

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So, I'll take it that we won't expect to see you in the bullring anytime soon.

Too bad.

It would be good to see a real debate on this topic.

Oh well.

Post evidence proving human beings have zero impact on the climate.

First, I am not sure I believe they don't. I think I've stated that.

Second, I asked him to take his debate to a venue where just his facts and his single opponents facts could be evaluated. That way we could see what both sides have to present and what information they feel is the most meaningful. I grow tired of having certain organizations held up as "the standard". Or if your doctor tells you he needs to cut off your balls do you just march in and have it done without really trying to understand why (but he is the expert....what could you possibly know). It's a legitimate suggestion.

Third, your request is silly. If you had said, prove humans have inconsequential impact on climate or consequential impact, then the question would have turned to a matter of metrics (which is probably where this whole disagreement resides anyway). After all some "deniers" would claim that volcanos have more impact than humans. And "alarmists" would argue that "rising ocean levels are a real concern. What is impact and why be concerned.

Lastly, is there a reason he shouldn't go there. Or do we continue with the proliferation of meaningless threads (which the OP starts) which all end with the same name calling, appeal to authority riddled, selective data plastered...goop ?

You criticism is spot on, it is a queston of metrics. That said, my question was loaded for emphasis, in fact some deniers are simply kooks who don't have any specialized knowledge. As for the alarmists, their concern isn't based on a fallacy but on data such as this:

NOAA s Ten Signs of a Warming World Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere

Once again....

I am not disputing any of that.

The real question is the quality of analysis that goes into using this data to make statements about what might result.

We can provide good economic data to 10 economists and get 10 different predictions of what it means.

I can give lab results to three different doctors and get three very different recommended courses of action.

I can drop a bowling ball off the Golden Gate Bridge and guarantee 99% of people will agree it will fall into the water. The other 1%?

Well, I'd need to see something that says you've got that.

If you appeal to "scientists", I say give me the data, make your case, and I'll make up my mind.

You never did respond to my question: If your doctor wants to cut off your balls, do you just march to the operating room or do you get a second opinion (but why would you need it if he is the expert...and what do you do if he says you should have your balls cut off ?).

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So, I'll take it that we won't expect to see you in the bullring anytime soon.

Too bad.

It would be good to see a real debate on this topic.

Oh well.

Post evidence proving human beings have zero impact on the climate.

First, I am not sure I believe they don't. I think I've stated that.

Second, I asked him to take his debate to a venue where just his facts and his single opponents facts could be evaluated. That way we could see what both sides have to present and what information they feel is the most meaningful. I grow tired of having certain organizations held up as "the standard". Or if your doctor tells you he needs to cut off your balls do you just march in and have it done without really trying to understand why (but he is the expert....what could you possibly know). It's a legitimate suggestion.

Third, your request is silly. If you had said, prove humans have inconsequential impact on climate or consequential impact, then the question would have turned to a matter of metrics (which is probably where this whole disagreement resides anyway). After all some "deniers" would claim that volcanos have more impact than humans. And "alarmists" would argue that "rising ocean levels are a real concern. What is impact and why be concerned.

Lastly, is there a reason he shouldn't go there. Or do we continue with the proliferation of meaningless threads (which the OP starts) which all end with the same name calling, appeal to authority riddled, selective data plastered...goop ?

You criticism is spot on, it is a queston of metrics. That said, my question was loaded for emphasis, in fact some deniers are simply kooks who don't have any specialized knowledge. As for the alarmists, their concern isn't based on a fallacy but on data such as this:

NOAA s Ten Signs of a Warming World Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere

Once again....

I am not disputing any of that.

The real question is the quality of analysis that goes into using this data to make statements about what might result.

We can provide good economic data to 10 economists and get 10 different predictions of what it means.

I can give lab results to three different doctors and get three very different recommended courses of action.

Quality of analysis? What analysis? There isn't any! It's altered data and computer models

Computer models are not analysis ?

What would they be based on ?

Even if it is altered data....there has to be a translation.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

First, I am not sure I believe they don't. I think I've stated that.

Second, I asked him to take his debate to a venue where just his facts and his single opponents facts could be evaluated. That way we could see what both sides have to present and what information they feel is the most meaningful. I grow tired of having certain organizations held up as "the standard". Or if your doctor tells you he needs to cut off your balls do you just march in and have it done without really trying to understand why (but he is the expert....what could you possibly know). It's a legitimate suggestion.

Third, your request is silly. If you had said, prove humans have inconsequential impact on climate or consequential impact, then the question would have turned to a matter of metrics (which is probably where this whole disagreement resides anyway). After all some "deniers" would claim that volcanos have more impact than humans. And "alarmists" would argue that "rising ocean levels are a real concern. What is impact and why be concerned.

Lastly, is there a reason he shouldn't go there. Or do we continue with the proliferation of meaningless threads (which the OP starts) which all end with the same name calling, appeal to authority riddled, selective data plastered...goop ?

You criticism is spot on, it is a queston of metrics. That said, my question was loaded for emphasis, in fact some deniers are simply kooks who don't have any specialized knowledge. As for the alarmists, their concern isn't based on a fallacy but on data such as this:

NOAA s Ten Signs of a Warming World Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere

Denier is not a word used by real scientists, it's an AGWCult secret handshake word. That's how they identify each other

That's because 'denier" is a word used in reference to people who aren't really scientists.

Are you saying no scientist is a denier....?

Or that any scientist who denies is now no longer a scientist ?

In much the same way as the deniers claim opposing views are all corrupt and duplicitous; I say that the deniers, the minority of scientists, are all directly or indirectly employed by multi national energy corporations.

Yes, I've heard this before (and know, in at least a few instances, it isn't totally true).

But, the fact that many on the alarmist side have some potential motivation of the same kind.....well, I don't hold that against them.

I'd prefer to see what they have to say.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

And which one of your Zealots was it that stated the polar ice caps would all be melted and our children wouldn't know what snow is... You fucking moron..

Uh huh, I wonder why it is then that you simpletons and liars rely so much on a minority of opinions rather than actual evidence.

AGWCult "Evidence" = turning on the Weather Channel and shrieking, "MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING YOU FUCKING DENIER!!! DIE!!!!"

I've asked Liminal...he's not responding...so I'll ask you.

Why don't you issue a challenge in the Bullring to an "alarmist" (like Liminal) and let the rest of us watch you go at it.

You get to pick three judges who'll decide who won.

You interested ?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And which one of your Zealots was it that stated the polar ice caps would all be melted and our children wouldn't know what snow is... You fucking moron..

Uh huh, I wonder why it is then that you simpletons and liars rely so much on a minority of opinions rather than actual evidence.

AGWCult "Evidence" = turning on the Weather Channel and shrieking, "MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING YOU FUCKING DENIER!!! DIE!!!!"

I've asked Liminal...he's not responding...so I'll ask you.

Why don't you issue a challenge in the Bullring to an "alarmist" (like Liminal) and let the rest of us watch you go at it.

You get to pick three judges who'll decide who won.

You interested ?

It's been the same "Debate" for nearly a decade now. We ask for "Evidence", the post Mann's one tree ring, link to a chart with no temperature axis, call me a DENIER!!!!! then well, call me a DENIER!!! say 97% Consensus and call me a DENIER!! again

It's predictable

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Post evidence proving human beings have zero impact on the climate.

First, I am not sure I believe they don't. I think I've stated that.

Second, I asked him to take his debate to a venue where just his facts and his single opponents facts could be evaluated. That way we could see what both sides have to present and what information they feel is the most meaningful. I grow tired of having certain organizations held up as "the standard". Or if your doctor tells you he needs to cut off your balls do you just march in and have it done without really trying to understand why (but he is the expert....what could you possibly know). It's a legitimate suggestion.

Third, your request is silly. If you had said, prove humans have inconsequential impact on climate or consequential impact, then the question would have turned to a matter of metrics (which is probably where this whole disagreement resides anyway). After all some "deniers" would claim that volcanos have more impact than humans. And "alarmists" would argue that "rising ocean levels are a real concern. What is impact and why be concerned.

Lastly, is there a reason he shouldn't go there. Or do we continue with the proliferation of meaningless threads (which the OP starts) which all end with the same name calling, appeal to authority riddled, selective data plastered...goop ?

You criticism is spot on, it is a queston of metrics. That said, my question was loaded for emphasis, in fact some deniers are simply kooks who don't have any specialized knowledge. As for the alarmists, their concern isn't based on a fallacy but on data such as this:

NOAA s Ten Signs of a Warming World Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere

Once again....

I am not disputing any of that.

The real question is the quality of analysis that goes into using this data to make statements about what might result.

We can provide good economic data to 10 economists and get 10 different predictions of what it means.

I can give lab results to three different doctors and get three very different recommended courses of action.

Quality of analysis? What analysis? There isn't any! It's altered data and computer models

Computer models are not analysis ?

What would they be based on ?

Even if it is altered data....there has to be a translation.

No, AGW models are not analysis. You keep white noise into them and they spit out the hockey stick

 

[Liminal]

You criticism is spot on, it is a queston of metrics. That said, my question was loaded for emphasis, in fact some deniers are simply kooks who don't have any specialized knowledge. As for the alarmists, their concern isn't based on a fallacy but on data such as this:

NOAA s Ten Signs of a Warming World Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere

Denier is not a word used by real scientists, it's an AGWCult secret handshake word. That's how they identify each other

That's because 'denier" is a word used in reference to people who aren't really scientists.

Are you saying no scientist is a denier....?

Or that any scientist who denies is now no longer a scientist ?

In much the same way as the deniers claim opposing views are all corrupt and duplicitous; I say that the deniers, the minority of scientists, are all directly or indirectly employed by multi national energy corporations.

Yes, I've heard this before (and know, in at least a few instances, it isn't totally true).

But, the fact that many on the alarmist side have some potential motivation of the same kind.....well, I don't hold that against them.

I'd prefer to see what they have to say.

And YOU know. Well, aren't we fortunate to have someone on this forum who really knows.

 

[westwall]

All they have left. Reality is kicking in their teeth. The El Nino this year is going to demonstrate just how stupid the deniars are.

El Niño even if it did happen is natural so what?

So, we had a record year for heat last year with a neutral El Nino, this years El Nino will far exceed the past record years. And likely establish a new spike, so that when the following years are all in the top ten, but not exceeding it until another strong El Nino develops, you can point and say, 'See, it's cooling" LOL

No, we didn't. If you wish to talk about people lying, then this is exactly what you're doing. And you know it. A .01 degree C "record", when the error bars are ten times greater is a LIE. The warmists, like you and your ilk, do it all the time. It's all you have left.

 

[Crick]

Did you note the conversation between Tom Peterson and Ross McKittrick about error bars?

Do you deny that 1998 was a very strong El Nino?

How many denier sources, yabbering about "no warming for the last 17 years" make note of that El Nino?

Have the error bars grown? Are these numbers less certain then the temperatures they are supposed to have exceeded?

What do you think those error bars (assuming you've got the right ones) mean? Do you think it's been cooling? Do you think they mean that global warming is over? Do you think they mean that CO2 doesn't absorb IR? Do you think it means that atmospheric GHG levels have not been climbing?

WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE?