Climate Change Deniers Claim to Understand Science

[Missourian]

The scientific method, Warmer-coolerist reboot:

Form a conclusion.

Perform zero experimentation.

Does the data fit the conclusion? No.

Change the data.

Call unproven hypothesis "settled science".

Silence any opposition.​

The NEW IMPROVED Scientific Method of the Warmer-coolerists.

Then start a thread called "Deniers know nothing about science." <chuckle>

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The scientific method, Warmer-coolerist reboot:

Form a conclusion.

Perform zero experimentation.

Does the data fit the conclusion? No.

Change the data.

Call unproven hypothesis "settled science".

Silence any opposition.​

The NEW IMPROVED Scientific Method of the Warmer-coolerists.

Then start a thread called "Deniers know nothing about science." <chuckle>

Hide the Decline
Mann's Nature Trick
Redistribute wealth using AGW Scam

 

[Stephanie]

Apparently all the deniers have to work with are false equivalencies.
How science deniers use false equivalence - Skeptical Raptor

Why did the name change from Global Warming to Climate Change?

Thanks.

It didn't!

Why are you stupid enough to think it did?

Thanks.

oh YES IT DID. how can you live with yourself lying to the people?

 

[Bugler]

The scientific method, Warmer-coolerist reboot:

Form a conclusion.

Perform zero experimentation.

Does the data fit the conclusion? No.

Change the data.

Call unproven hypothesis "settled science".

Silence any opposition.​

The NEW IMPROVED Scientific Method of the Warmer-coolerists.

Then start a thread called "Deniers know nothing about science." <chuckle>

Ad hominem are not valid debate tactics.

 

[edthecynic]

Apparently all the deniers have to work with are false equivalencies.
How science deniers use false equivalence - Skeptical Raptor

Why did the name change from Global Warming to Climate Change?


Thanks.

EXACTLY? They are so stupid to see these WARMERS/politicians/scientist GOT together and changed it because the Earth wasn't warming. so they come up with CLIMATE CHANGE. I mean Seriously AND these people still falls for it

Why are deniers so gullible?

The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C). Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'. The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.

In fact, according to Google Books, the usage of both terms in books published in the United States has increased at similar rates over the past 40 years:

And a Google Scholar search reveals that the term 'climate change' was in use before the term 'global warming', and has always been the more commonly-used term in scientific literature:

 

[Freewill]

Doesn't really matter if those who are not scared of a few degrees rise in temperature understand science. And i have not heard that claim made. What we do know is that the GW fearists are full of crap. We are not buying the fear.

Is that it? You call that a rebuttal? I guess that's as deep as your understanding goes when all your science comes from FOX News. That's about as much science as they need.

OK, I rebutted your opinion with my opinion, sounds like we are both guilty of the crime you alledge.

So let's start with information from NOAA:

 

[edthecynic]

Apparently all the deniers have to work with are false equivalencies.
How science deniers use false equivalence - Skeptical Raptor

Why did the name change from Global Warming to Climate Change?

Thanks.

It didn't!

Why are you stupid enough to think it did?

Thanks.

oh YES IT DID. how can you live with yourself lying to the people?

And there you have it, deniers continue to religiously cling to their lies even after confronted with the truth.
Thank you.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Apparently all the deniers have to work with are false equivalencies.
How science deniers use false equivalence - Skeptical Raptor

Why did the name change from Global Warming to Climate Change?

Thanks.

It didn't!

Why are you stupid enough to think it did?

Thanks.

But it did. Look at the OP's title. Just curious why the marketing label changed from Global Warming to Climate Change. Did Global Warming not do well in focus groups?

 

[Stephanie]

Yea steph, you are like me, logical thinker, who follows no one's rules, we may suck at grammar and spelling, but our mind races to fast to bother with it and don't care.

Yep, and the older I get, the LESS I trust any of these STINKING politicians. on both sides

thank goodness I taught my two sons to THINK for themselves and not bow to these people like these Scientist/politicians

 

[Bugler]

Doesn't really matter if those who are not scared of a few degrees rise in temperature understand science. And i have not heard that claim made. What we do know is that the GW fearists are full of crap. We are not buying the fear.

Is that it? You call that a rebuttal? I guess that's as deep as your understanding goes when all your science comes from FOX News. That's about as much science as they need.

OK, I rebutted your opinion with my opinion, sounds like we are both guilty of the crime you alledge.

So let's start with information from NOAA:

View attachment 43103

Not only is an unprovenienced graph meaningless, it isn't even relevant to GLOBAL WARMING, since it is only claiming to portray temperatures here in the U.S.

 

[Missourian]

The scientific method, Warmer-coolerist reboot:

Form a conclusion.

Perform zero experimentation.

Does the data fit the conclusion? No.

Change the data.

Call unproven hypothesis "settled science".

Silence any opposition.​

The NEW IMPROVED Scientific Method of the Warmer-coolerists.

Then start a thread called "Deniers know nothing about science." <chuckle>

Ad hominem are not valid debate tactics.

Translation: "I cannot rebut this."

Never fear. Intelligent Americans see right through your bullshit.

The same 32% of the gullible have been sucker by the pseudoscience of warming-coolerism for the last 26 years.

You are failing. Even years of continuous bombardment by propaganda and not even a skosh of uptick.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Doesn't really matter if those who are not scared of a few degrees rise in temperature understand science. And i have not heard that claim made. What we do know is that the GW fearists are full of crap. We are not buying the fear.

Is that it? You call that a rebuttal? I guess that's as deep as your understanding goes when all your science comes from FOX News. That's about as much science as they need.

OK, I rebutted your opinion with my opinion, sounds like we are both guilty of the crime you alledge.

So let's start with information from NOAA:

View attachment 43103

Not only is an unprovenienced graph meaningless, it isn't even relevant to GLOBAL WARMING, since it is only claiming to portray temperatures here in the U.S.

But flooding in Texas PROVES Manmade global climate warming change, amiright?

 

[Bugler]

Apparently all the deniers have to work with are false equivalencies.
How science deniers use false equivalence - Skeptical Raptor

Why did the name change from Global Warming to Climate Change?

Thanks.

It didn't!

Why are you stupid enough to think it did?

Thanks.

But it did. Look at the OP's title. Just curious why the marketing label changed from Global Warming to Climate Change. Did Global Warming not do well in focus groups?

Why do you believe it is a market label? Do you also believe that all scientists think and act like retail businessmen?

 

[WelfareQueen]

The cool thing about calling it climate change is.....well....climate is always changing.

Fucking idiots......

 

[WelfareQueen]

Apparently all the deniers have to work with are false equivalencies.
How science deniers use false equivalence - Skeptical Raptor

Why did the name change from Global Warming to Climate Change?

Thanks.

It didn't!

Why are you stupid enough to think it did?

Thanks.

But it did. Look at the OP's title. Just curious why the marketing label changed from Global Warming to Climate Change. Did Global Warming not do well in focus groups?

Why do you believe it is a market label? Do you also believe that all scientists think and act like retail businessmen?

Yes.....when their livelihood's depend on it.

 

[Bugler]

The scientific method, Warmer-coolerist reboot:

Form a conclusion.

Perform zero experimentation.

Does the data fit the conclusion? No.

Change the data.

Call unproven hypothesis "settled science".

Silence any opposition.​

The NEW IMPROVED Scientific Method of the Warmer-coolerists.

Then start a thread called "Deniers know nothing about science." <chuckle>

Ad hominem are not valid debate tactics.

Translation: "I cannot rebut this."

Never fear. Intelligent Americans see right through your bullshit.

View attachment 43105

The same 32% of the gullible have been sucker by the pseudoscience of warming-coolerism for the last 26 years.

You are failing. Even years of continuous bombardment by propaganda and not even a skosh of uptick.

Your response is off topic. The topic can be found in the OP. Try again.

 

[Bugler]

Apparently all the deniers have to work with are false equivalencies.
How science deniers use false equivalence - Skeptical Raptor

Why did the name change from Global Warming to Climate Change?

Thanks.

It didn't!

Why are you stupid enough to think it did?

Thanks.

But it did. Look at the OP's title. Just curious why the marketing label changed from Global Warming to Climate Change. Did Global Warming not do well in focus groups?

Why do you believe it is a market label? Do you also believe that all scientists think and act like retail businessmen?

Yes.....when their livelihood's depend on it.

And what livelihood are they marketing?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Turn on the Weather Channel! That proves Climate Change!

DENIER!!

What a group of fucking morons. Biggest collection of fucking morons that ever graced this once great nation

 

[Stephanie]

Ran across this just now. You see EVERTHING with these Globull warmers. WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE unless you give up your lifestyle and all your monies and LIVES over to these Politicians

Mother frikken Jones. that commie rag has been around since I was born. For crying out loud

SNIP:

ENVIRONMENT
→Climate Change,Climate Desk,Energy,Health,Science,Top Stories
Global Warming Is Now a "Medical Emergency" That Could Wipe Out 50 Years of Global Health Gains
Here's what we can do to stop that from happening.
—ByBryan Schatz

| Wed Jun. 24, 2015 6:00 AM EDT

Air pollution in Delhi, IndiaJean-Etienne Minh-Duy Poirrier/Flickr

Climate change, if left unchecked, threatens to undermine the last half century of gains in global health. That's the conclusion of astudyreleased Monday by an international commission convened by theLancet, a prestigious medical journal based in the UK.

Declaring it a "medical emergency," the authors argued that the potential impacts of global warming—such as floods, drought, heat stress, catastrophic storms, the spread of disease, and increased food insecurity—pose a "potentially catastrophic risk" to human health.

ALL OF IT HERE on some STUDY DONE in the UK
Global Warming Is Now a Medical Emergency That Could Wipe Out 50 Years of Global Health Gains Mother Jones

 

[Liminal]

Doesn't really matter if those who are not scared of a few degrees rise in temperature understand science. And i have not heard that claim made. What we do know is that the GW fearists are full of crap. We are not buying the fear.

Is that it? You call that a rebuttal? I guess that's as deep as your understanding goes when all your science comes from FOX News. That's about as much science as they need.

OK, I rebutted your opinion with my opinion, sounds like we are both guilty of the crime you alledge.

So let's start with information from NOAA:

View attachment 43103

You mean let's start with something else that you can't put into a context.