Climate Change Deniers Claim to Understand Science

[SSDD]

You don't know anything of the sort. You only know what others have told you.

So you are psychic now? You know how I arrived at my position? You get further and further away from reality all the time.

It doesn't take a psychic or a scientist to see that none of you guys knows anything about any kind of science. You only know what you're told.

Sorry guy, but you aren't very credible....you have already admitted that you don't have a clue when it comes to science...that immediately disqualifies you from making any judgement as to what someone else does or does not know with regard to science....yours is a position of faith...no more...no less. You believe what you are told and are unable to determine whether it is true or not....just as you are unable to determine what any skeptic says is true or not....you believe and that is the extent of the value of your opinion...you believe...that's it.

 

[Stephanie]

You don't know anything of the sort. You only know what others have told you.

So you are psychic now? You know how I arrived at my position? You get further and further away from reality all the time.

It doesn't take a psychic or a scientist to see that none of you guys knows anything about any kind of science. You only know what you're told.

Sorry guy, but you aren't very credible....you have already admitted that you don't have a clue when it comes to science...that immediately disqualifies you from making any judgement as to what someone else does or does not know with regard to science....yours is a position of faith...no more...no less. You believe what you are told and are unable to determine whether it is true or not....just as you are unable to determine what any skeptic says is true or not....you believe and that is the extent of the value of your opinion...you believe...that's it.

I call them tools/sheep
or they're getting PAID or making money off Globull warming aka Climate change so they don't care most people think they look like fools to push the BS

 

[Liminal]

You don't know anything of the sort. You only know what others have told you.

So you are psychic now? You know how I arrived at my position? You get further and further away from reality all the time.

It doesn't take a psychic or a scientist to see that none of you guys knows anything about any kind of science. You only know what you're told.

Sorry guy, but you aren't very credible....you have already admitted that you don't have a clue when it comes to science...that immediately disqualifies you from making any judgement as to what someone else does or does not know with regard to science....yours is a position of faith...no more...no less. You believe what you are told and are unable to determine whether it is true or not....just as you are unable to determine what any skeptic says is true or not....you believe and that is the extent of the value of your opinion...you believe...that's it.

I can't begin to tell you how impressed I've been with all the Wikipedia level knowledge around here, it's like a great undiscovered brain trust.

 

[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.

Because the general public doesn't understand the complexities of global climate and can't understand how the atmosphere can be warming but a local snow storm is worse than ever.

It is a way for the uneducated to understand a complex system.

I think most of us don't understand how you folks keep saying the same BS with a straight face, quite impressive.

I don't understand how you deniers get a pass on the forum rules. Is the moderator a denier him/herself? Not accusing anyone, but it sure seems that the rules are thrown around rather loosely in this forum And the reason why I ask is because despite my repeatedly pointing this out, the subject of this thread is not the climate science data. The subject of this thread is the tactics used by deniers to spread their lies. And so your posts continue to be off topic, unless you are using it as an example of those tactics. Is that what you are trying to do? Somehow, I have a doubt.

I made a joke, you go off on an unrelated diatribe, so who is really violating the rules?

here so info on the predictions of the 70s: Popular Technology.net 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism

Popular Technology was not a peer reviewed scientific journal.

 

[Freewill]

You don't know anything of the sort. You only know what others have told you.

So you are psychic now? You know how I arrived at my position? You get further and further away from reality all the time.

It doesn't take a psychic or a scientist to see that none of you guys knows anything about any kind of science. You only know what you're told.

Sorry guy, but you aren't very credible....you have already admitted that you don't have a clue when it comes to science...that immediately disqualifies you from making any judgement as to what someone else does or does not know with regard to science....yours is a position of faith...no more...no less. You believe what you are told and are unable to determine whether it is true or not....just as you are unable to determine what any skeptic says is true or not....you believe and that is the extent of the value of your opinion...you believe...that's it.

I can't begin to tell you how impressed I've been with all the Wikipedia level knowledge around here, it's like a great undiscovered brain trust.

i can see why you would be impressed, it is a big step up for you.

 

[Freewill]

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


Thanks.

Because the general public doesn't understand the complexities of global climate and can't understand how the atmosphere can be warming but a local snow storm is worse than ever.

It is a way for the uneducated to understand a complex system.

I think most of us don't understand how you folks keep saying the same BS with a straight face, quite impressive.

I don't understand how you deniers get a pass on the forum rules. Is the moderator a denier him/herself? Not accusing anyone, but it sure seems that the rules are thrown around rather loosely in this forum And the reason why I ask is because despite my repeatedly pointing this out, the subject of this thread is not the climate science data. The subject of this thread is the tactics used by deniers to spread their lies. And so your posts continue to be off topic, unless you are using it as an example of those tactics. Is that what you are trying to do? Somehow, I have a doubt.

I made a joke, you go off on an unrelated diatribe, so who is really violating the rules?

here so info on the predictions of the 70s: Popular Technology.net 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism

Popular Technology was not a peer reviewed scientific journal.

how many peer reviewed scientific journals have you actually read? My guess is zero. How many articles have you read in Time? I would guess more then one. That is how we got news back in the 70s through publications such as Time and Popular Technology. In reality is hardly different then today.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I call them tools/sheep
or they're getting PAID or making money off Globull warming aka Climate change so they don't care most people think they look like fools to push the BS

Toward the beginning of the movie "Independence Day" a bunch of morons climb the Capitol Records building to greet the aliens - that is what sort of retard cultist Liminal is. These are morons so desperate to find meaning that they flock to whatever idiocy catches their fancy. Liminal is the quintessential cultist, if not AGW he would be in a Jonestown cult. His type yearns for the grandiosity to the cult - they alone are saviors of world.

It's a form of mental illness.

 

[Stephanie]

I call them tools/sheep
or they're getting PAID or making money off Globull warming aka Climate change so they don't care most people think they look like fools to push the BS

Toward the beginning of the movie "Independence Day" a bunch of morons climb the Capitol Records building to greet the aliens - that is what sort of retard cultist Liminal is. These are morons so desperate to find meaning that they flock to whatever idiocy catches their fancy. Liminal is the quintessential cultist, if not AGW he would be in a Jonestown cult. His type yearns for the grandiosity to the cult - they alone are saviors of world.

It's a form of mental illness.

thankfully they are still the MINORITY.

 

[edthecynic]

Global land and sea temperature anomaly. Note the difference between what is posted about the US and this graph from the same source.

0.21 deg C in 30 years, yeah that seems to be something to worrry about.

View attachment 43114

Climate at a Glance National Centers for Environmental Information NCEI

Here is another plot that should make the GW believers happier:

View attachment 43116

Note; this shows a .48 degree change in 30 years. Interesting stuff charts, so visual.

Two can play the same game.

Climate at a Glance National Centers for Environmental Information NCEI

 

[Bugler]

Because the general public doesn't understand the complexities of global climate and can't understand how the atmosphere can be warming but a local snow storm is worse than ever.

It is a way for the uneducated to understand a complex system.

I think most of us don't understand how you folks keep saying the same BS with a straight face, quite impressive.

I don't understand how you deniers get a pass on the forum rules. Is the moderator a denier him/herself? Not accusing anyone, but it sure seems that the rules are thrown around rather loosely in this forum And the reason why I ask is because despite my repeatedly pointing this out, the subject of this thread is not the climate science data. The subject of this thread is the tactics used by deniers to spread their lies. And so your posts continue to be off topic, unless you are using it as an example of those tactics. Is that what you are trying to do? Somehow, I have a doubt.

I made a joke, you go off on an unrelated diatribe, so who is really violating the rules?

here so info on the predictions of the 70s: Popular Technology.net 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism

Popular Technology was not a peer reviewed scientific journal.

how many peer reviewed scientific journals have you actually read? My guess is zero. How many articles have you read in Time? I would guess more then one. That is how we got news back in the 70s through publications such as Time and Popular Technology. In reality is hardly different then today.

It may be how you got science news, but it isn't how science is done. Do a search of the science periodicals for the number of peer reviewed scientific papers that concluded that we were going into a global cooling, and come back here and report what you've found. Good luck with that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It may be how you got science news, but it isn't how science is done. Do a search of the science periodicals for the number of peer reviewed scientific papers that concluded that we were going into a global cooling, and come back here and report what you've found. Good luck with that.

Dogma is the heart of science, right? Once there is consensus, then we must never question. Science is based on faith in our rulers, the unquestioning obedience to what is told us by our betters.

Those infidels who preach that we should question, that we should formulate hypothesis, test them, observe the results, refine, test again, these are the enemies of science and must be put in prison or into work camps. Science can never be questioned, science does not allow for "what if?"

 

[Muhammed]

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

Bullshit!

It's actually the vast majority of global alarmists who cannot understand that confimation bias and soothsaying are not science. They also think tree rings are thermometers.

 

[Liminal]

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

Bullshit!

It's actually the vast majority of global alarmists who cannot understand that confimation bias and soothsaying are not science. They also think tree rings are thermometers.

Oh! Well that settles it then. Why didn't I think of that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Because the general public doesn't understand the complexities of global climate and can't understand how the atmosphere can be warming but a local snow storm is worse than ever.

It is a way for the uneducated to understand a complex system.

I think most of us don't understand how you folks keep saying the same BS with a straight face, quite impressive.

I don't understand how you deniers get a pass on the forum rules. Is the moderator a denier him/herself? Not accusing anyone, but it sure seems that the rules are thrown around rather loosely in this forum And the reason why I ask is because despite my repeatedly pointing this out, the subject of this thread is not the climate science data. The subject of this thread is the tactics used by deniers to spread their lies. And so your posts continue to be off topic, unless you are using it as an example of those tactics. Is that what you are trying to do? Somehow, I have a doubt.

And the reason why I ask is because despite my repeatedly pointing this out, the subject of this thread is not the climate science data.

That's good. Because it's so weak.

 

[Freewill]

I think most of us don't understand how you folks keep saying the same BS with a straight face, quite impressive.

I don't understand how you deniers get a pass on the forum rules. Is the moderator a denier him/herself? Not accusing anyone, but it sure seems that the rules are thrown around rather loosely in this forum And the reason why I ask is because despite my repeatedly pointing this out, the subject of this thread is not the climate science data. The subject of this thread is the tactics used by deniers to spread their lies. And so your posts continue to be off topic, unless you are using it as an example of those tactics. Is that what you are trying to do? Somehow, I have a doubt.

I made a joke, you go off on an unrelated diatribe, so who is really violating the rules?

here so info on the predictions of the 70s: Popular Technology.net 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism

Popular Technology was not a peer reviewed scientific journal.

how many peer reviewed scientific journals have you actually read? My guess is zero. How many articles have you read in Time? I would guess more then one. That is how we got news back in the 70s through publications such as Time and Popular Technology. In reality is hardly different then today.

It may be how you got science news, but it isn't how science is done. Do a search of the science periodicals for the number of peer reviewed scientific papers that concluded that we were going into a global cooling, and come back here and report what you've found. Good luck with that.

Popular Technology.net 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism

 

[flacaltenn]

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

Bullshit!

It's actually the vast majority of global alarmists who cannot understand that confimation bias and soothsaying are not science. They also think tree rings are thermometers.

Got this from some after-article comments.. Don't know where it came from..

"I think that I shall never see.....
A thermometer as bad as a tree.... :"

 

[flacaltenn]

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

Summary of this thread's Opening Post..

Gardisil, AIDs, vaccination, GWarming --- ALL of the dissenters are equally stupid. As far as GW deniers, there has been NO EVIDENCE that the AGW is about anything other than science.

................ Says a blogger from his couch... Not a shred of evidence, never seen any evidence of the begging and whining at UN Climate Conferences about redistribution. Or comments of key IPCC officials affirming their mission..

Did I sum up the OP? Anyone want to discuss? That's actually why this thread is here...

 

[SSDD]

With no offense intended but I am not sure how old your rocks are but the science in the 70s certainly was saying we were going into another ice age.

No offense intended, but that's completely false. The science of the 1970s was overwhelmingly predicting warming.

Your problem is you constantly confusing couple media articles with actual science. The actual science has been spot on correct.

Sorry hairball, but as usual...you couldn't possibly be more wrong. The global cooling scare laid the foundation for the growth of the climate science establishment as it exists today. The fact is that anyone who was anyone in the early to mid 1970's was convinced that long term cooling was not only on the way, but had already begun.

The western world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change. The stability of most nations is based upon a dependable source of food, but this stability will not be possible under the new climatic era.


Since the 1960's, a number of foreboding climatic predictions has appeared in various climatic, meteorological, and geological periodicals, consistently following one of two themes.

• A global climatic change was underway
• This climatic change would create worldwide agriculture failures in the 1970's.

By the fall of 1973 the Office of Research and Development (ORD) had obtained sufficient evidence to alert the Agency analysts that forecasts of an ongoing global climate change were reasonable and worthy of attention. ORD also determined that it was feasible to begin the development of forecasting techniques and impact assessment. However, Agency analysts remained skeptical, noting that the mix of approaches (Wisconsin, Scripps, RAND, NCAR) and the scientific personalities pursuing them prevented a clear explanation of what the recongnized authorities were agreeing on.

To resolve these issues, the principal investigators representing the various research approaches convened in San Diego in April 1974 to discuss these three specific topics:

• The state of climatological forecasting: identification of elements of the methodology wherein there is some consensus, current trends in development and new approaches
• Prospects for developing near term applications of climatology for Agency interests
• Recommendations for high and low risk approaches for long range climatological models development.

For two days they argued, discussed and defended their approaches to climatic forecasting and the impact of climate change. by the second day a consensus was reached on the following fundamental issues.

• A global climatic change is taking place.
• We will not soon return to the climate patterns of the recent past.
• For the future, there is a high probability of increased variability in an number of features of climate that are importance to crop growth.
• The most promising long range (1-5years) approach to climate forecasting appears to be the statistical synoptic approach. the consensus expressed caution in using these projections without an attempt to develop some physical understanding of the underlying weather forecasting mechanisms.

The conference participants unanimously recommended that the clear need for a long range perdiction dictated the establishment of an Operational Diagnostic Center charged with developing global forecasting techniques and for servicing the Government's needs for one to five year forecasts.

National Climate Plan

In the summer of 1973, the Wisconsin Plan for Climate Research was presented to the National Security Council. NOAA and the National Science Foundation were requested to review this plan to suggest how it should be implemented. The Wisconsin plan stimulated activity in many agencies.


In the Fall of 1973, three agencies sin the government became active in the development of climatic research plans: NSF, NOAA and the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Sciences established the Committee on Climatic Variation, chaired by Dr Larry Gates. The committed members completed tier recommendations for a National Climatic Research Plan in June of 1974. This plan is presently under assessment by the National Academy of Sciences. Its final approval is expected late this year. Early in 1974 NOAA began developing a plan which would include a Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment as suggested by preliminary recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences Committee. This plan would allow NOAA to respond rapidly to the needs of government agencies that are concerned with impact of climatic factors on both a national and global scale.

In the spring of 1974, the Director of Polar Studies Division of NSF developed a plan to establish a center for Climatic Research as well was to provide funding to appropriate academic centers.

Both of these plans have been incorporated into what is now called the National Climate Plan. NOAA would be responsible for developing methods for practical climate forecasting as well as developing techniques applicable for the assessment of national and international food production. NSF would provide support to responsible academic centers and establish a Center for Climatic Research. This center would operate in a similar manner as the present National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) at Boulder, Colorado. The national Climatic Plan is presently under review by NOAA and the NSF. They expect to seek approval from the Office of Management and Budget in the fall of 1974 for FY 1976 program funding.

CONCLUSIONS

Leaders in climatology and economics are in agreement that a climatic change is taking place and that it has already caused major economic problems throughout the world. As it becomes more apparent to the nations around the world that the current trend is indeed a long term reality, new alignments will be made among nations to insure a secure supply of food resources. Assessing the impact of climatic change on major nations will, in the future occupy a major portion of the Intelligence Community's assets.

So you see hairball, the global cooling scare is what laid the foundation for climate science as we know it today. The consensus was that the earth was not only heading for a long term cooling trend, the cooling had already begun. Anyone who was anyone in climate science was on board with the cooling prediction...and the reaction to the threat of cooling spurred funding for the climate science community we see to day.

Face it, there was a cooling scare in the 70's and the entire climate science community as it existed back then was on board. Deny if you like...in fact, your denial is quite entertaining..but denial of the facts doesn't alter the facts. The cooling scare was real.

 

[edthecynic]

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

Bullshit!

It's actually the vast majority of global alarmists who cannot understand that confimation bias and soothsaying are not science. They also think tree rings are thermometers.

Got this from some after-article comments.. Don't know where it came from..

"I think that I shall never see.....
A thermometer as bad as a tree.... :"

Funny thing is those kinds of proxies are what say there was a Medieval Warm Period and the deniers then take MWP proxies as gospel.

 

[mamooth]

Sorry hairball, but as usual...you couldn't possibly be more wrong

I'm absolutely right. Almost all the scientists predicted warming. A survey of scientific literature proved that. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. You've been shown that proof, over and over, which means you're deliberately lying.

A CIA report does not change that, being a CIA report is not the science, and only a liar pretends that a CIA report is the science. The science would be the scientific literature, almost all of which predicted warming.