Climate Change Deniers Are Lying

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

I think I am, at least, willing to qualify my response.

Your total lack of information or analysis (despite being the OP making a rather acrid statement about those you disagree with) is wearing thin. You can either put up or shut up.

And posting links does not cut it. Bring the information from the link you wish to highlite and state why you think it is relevant.

 

[Liminal]

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.

I think I am, at least, willing to qualify my response.

Your total lack of information or analysis (despite being the OP making a rather acrid statement about those you disagree with) is wearing thin. You can either put up or shut up.

And posting links does not cut it. Bring the information from the link you wish to highlite and state why you think it is relevant.

You can qualify your responses with all the opinions you want; try refuting the content of the link with something besides more opinions.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

I think I am, at least, willing to qualify my response.

Your total lack of information or analysis (despite being the OP making a rather acrid statement about those you disagree with) is wearing thin. You can either put up or shut up.

And posting links does not cut it. Bring the information from the link you wish to highlite and state why you think it is relevant.

You can qualify your responses with all the opinions you want; try refuting the content of the link with something besides more opinions.

It's not an opinion.

I know scientists, not employed by anyone close to your hit list, who don't agree with your global warming claims.

What link are you making reference to ?

Please don't tell me the link in the OP. A year old article that essentially says nothing.

 

[Liminal]

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.

I think I am, at least, willing to qualify my response.

Your total lack of information or analysis (despite being the OP making a rather acrid statement about those you disagree with) is wearing thin. You can either put up or shut up.

And posting links does not cut it. Bring the information from the link you wish to highlite and state why you think it is relevant.

You can qualify your responses with all the opinions you want; try refuting the content of the link with something besides more opinions.

It's not an opinion.

I know scientists, not employed by anyone close to your hit list, who don't agree with your global warming claims.

What link are you making reference to ?

Please don't tell me the link in the OP. A year old article that essentially says nothing.

Here's an interesting link for you, an extensive list of prominent global climate change deniers. Some fascinating connections these people have, looks like some deep pockets.
Global Warming Deniers Database

 

[bripat9643]

Climate change deniers lie about everything all the time, they can't do anything else.
Google Company stops funding ALEC over climate change denial.

Eric Schmidt's opinion is just that: his opinion. It has no significance in the larger world.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I think I am, at least, willing to qualify my response.

Your total lack of information or analysis (despite being the OP making a rather acrid statement about those you disagree with) is wearing thin. You can either put up or shut up.

And posting links does not cut it. Bring the information from the link you wish to highlite and state why you think it is relevant.

You can qualify your responses with all the opinions you want; try refuting the content of the link with something besides more opinions.

It's not an opinion.

I know scientists, not employed by anyone close to your hit list, who don't agree with your global warming claims.

What link are you making reference to ?

Please don't tell me the link in the OP. A year old article that essentially says nothing.

Here's an interesting link for you, an extensive list of prominent global climate change deniers. Some fascinating connections these people have, looks like some deep pockets.
Global Warming Deniers Database

AGW cult members have connections with the biggest pockets of all. They are connected with the federal government.

 

[bripat9643]

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

The actual data says otherwise:

 

[Liminal]

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

I think I am, at least, willing to qualify my response.

Your total lack of information or analysis (despite being the OP making a rather acrid statement about those you disagree with) is wearing thin. You can either put up or shut up.

And posting links does not cut it. Bring the information from the link you wish to highlite and state why you think it is relevant.

You can qualify your responses with all the opinions you want; try refuting the content of the link with something besides more opinions.

It's not an opinion.

I know scientists, not employed by anyone close to your hit list, who don't agree with your global warming claims.

What link are you making reference to ?

Please don't tell me the link in the OP. A year old article that essentially says nothing.

Here's an interesting link for you, an extensive list of prominent global climate change deniers. Some fascinating connections these people have, looks like some deep pockets.
Global Warming Deniers Database

AGW cult members have connections with the biggest pockets of all. They are connected with the federal government.

 

[Liminal]

Climate change deniers lie about everything all the time, they can't do anything else.
Google Company stops funding ALEC over climate change denial.

Eric Schmidt's opinion is just that: his opinion. It has no significance in the larger world.

Is there a larger world inside your head?

 

[Crick]

The actual data says otherwise:

I assume you realize, Paddie, we could cherrypick other periods and get pretty much whatever trend we desire. And, just for shits and giggles, what's the significance, the error bar, the standard deviation of that data you've got there? Doesn't that look as if it wanders away from the faired line quite a bit considering the length of your dataset. Looks that way to me.

 

[jc456]

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

Why do you call those who disagree with you "deniers".

Would you call me a "denier" if I disagreed with the theory that the moon is made of cheese?

Of course you wouldn't. You and your ilk are merely resorting to a logical fallacy because you have no reasonable and logical argument to back up your fear-mongering claims that humans are causing catastrophic global warming via CO2 emissions.

I recall comparing you to CrusaderFrank, the archetype of the Idiot-Gram, and you may or may not be a denier. A denier believes little or no human activity has any effect on the climate, or even if some change is human related the earth is able to repair it self miraculously.

Remember when leaded gas, acid rain, burning rivers and clear cutting forests were a cause for "alarmists"?

So question, do you, or have you seen that evidence? Just curious what it is you working off of.

 

[jc456]

Climate change deniers lie about everything all the time, they can't do anything else.
Google Company stops funding ALEC over climate change denial.

Eric Schmidt's opinion is just that: his opinion. It has no significance in the larger world.

Is there a larger world inside your head?

much much larger than yours.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The actual data says otherwise:

I assume you realize, Paddie, we could cherrypick other periods and get pretty much whatever trend we desire. And, just for shits and giggles, what's the significance, the error bar, the standard deviation of that data you've got there? Doesn't that look as if it wanders away from the faired line quite a bit considering the length of your dataset. Looks that way to me.

When you post a chart, we ask, "Where's the temperature axis?"

2 decades, no warming. Time for a new theory

 

[jc456]

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.

dude, still haven't provided any names on who is denying climate changes. Or is it you, are you the denier. Ahhhhhhh, there it is, you are the denier, the big egg in the sand.

 

[jc456]

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%?

it's been tested and why your statistic would be that high. Now, again, what evidence is it you've actually seen that adding 120 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere increases warming?

 

[jc456]

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.

who are you talking to?

 

[jc456]

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 a really simple request, and one that hasn't been answered for over a year now for me on this forum. That is, show me evidence that adding 120 PPM of CO2 increases warming. It's that simple. the warmer deniers response, already gave it, thousands of pieces, mountains of evidence, and to date as Frank and others on here will, that evidence has never, never been provided. I do have one, Herr Koch 1901, proved that it wouldn't. Ask old rock, he likes to post it up weekly on about every thread, by the way, I think violates the rules here, but I enjoy getting to point to my guy Herr for my counter argument that he or any other have ever been able to counter back.So, get someone on the warmer denier list to supply that evidence. Let's go.

 

[jc456]

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

nope, you're wrong, but that's not unexpected.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

Why do you call those who disagree with you "deniers".

Would you call me a "denier" if I disagreed with the theory that the moon is made of cheese?

Of course you wouldn't. You and your ilk are merely resorting to a logical fallacy because you have no reasonable and logical argument to back up your fear-mongering claims that humans are causing catastrophic global warming via CO2 emissions.

I recall comparing you to CrusaderFrank, the archetype of the Idiot-Gram, and you may or may not be a denier. A denier believes little or no human activity has any effect on the climate, or even if some change is human related the earth is able to repair it self miraculously.

Remember when leaded gas, acid rain, burning rivers and clear cutting forests were a cause for "alarmists"?

So question, do you, or have you seen that evidence? Just curious what it is you working off of.

Have I seen the evidence of burning rivers?
Google

Have I seen the evidence of leaded gas?
Photo s of Smog LA Basin - Google Search

Love Canal
10 Superfund sites Love Canal New York MNN - Mother Nature Network

Clear cutting, not only mudslides but less trees to eat CO2
Photos of mudslides do to clear cutting of forests - Google Search

 

[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.

who are you talking to?

Those who don't know CrusaderFrank.