Geologists On Global Climate Change

[Liminal]

And you were just about to show the evidence that substantiates your claim, any minute now. Right?

What claim are you speaking of, Mr. Admittedly Ignorant?

And if you are as ignorant as you claim to be, how would you even comprehend it in the first place?

I can't decide which motivates you more, is it ignorance or dishonesty?

False dichotomy.

You know damn well that it is science and truth that motivates my responses in this thread.

And since you have already admitted to being ignorant of the subject, perhaps it would be more educational for you to listen to the experts in the thread such as myself rather than trolling.

Yet not one of you half wit deniers has even bothered to present any evidence to support your claims. Why is that?

I asked now three times, what is it you are looking for? evidence of what claim?

And once again I'll ask for an answer to a simple question: Where is the evidence to support the claims that climate scientists all around the world are involved in a conspiracy with governments to suppress to truth about global climate change? Asked many times, not answered once.

 

[Liminal]

As you can vouch for yours.....

I'd rather put my money on the realists than on the liars.
IPCC has been discredited so often that a sane man wouldn't believe anything from them

And how would you know the difference without FOX News to tell you?

What does Fox News have to do with anything here?

He doesn't know. He's just following orders.

Just part of the massive, diabolical, global conspiracy of scientists and governments.

You sure your not old crocks twin? Posting endless (and meaningless) stupid shit adhominem attacks.

If you can read..(heavy on the IF because it seams like your posting as a sock-puppet) why dont you Google UN AGENDA 21 and read it... Your ignorant ass might learn something... then again maybe NOT!

View attachment 41217

I have no idea what this incoherent word jumble means.

 

[Ernie S.]

Far easier to understand than your stock and trade.

 

[Liminal]

And you were just about to show the evidence that substantiates your claim, any minute now. Right?

What claim are you speaking of, Mr. Admittedly Ignorant?

And if you are as ignorant as you claim to be, how would you even comprehend it in the first place?

I can't decide which motivates you more, is it ignorance or dishonesty?

False dichotomy.

You know damn well that it is science and truth that motivates my responses in this thread.

And since you have already admitted to being ignorant of the subject, perhaps it would be more educational for you to listen to the experts in the thread such as myself rather than trolling.

Yet not one of you half wit deniers has even bothered to present any evidence to support your claims. Why is that?

When you ask someone to prove you wrong, you are committing a logical fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof.

Your theory is that CO2 produced by human activity is causing deleterious climate change. The onus is on you to prove it. The burden of proof is not on those who are skeptical of your extraordinary claim.

No, you're wrong again, you got it backwards. The burden of proof is on you to substantiate the deniers claim of scientists and governments conspiring to suppress the truth about global climate change.

 

[Ernie S.]

What claim are you speaking of, Mr. Admittedly Ignorant?

And if you are as ignorant as you claim to be, how would you even comprehend it in the first place?

I can't decide which motivates you more, is it ignorance or dishonesty?

False dichotomy.

You know damn well that it is science and truth that motivates my responses in this thread.

And since you have already admitted to being ignorant of the subject, perhaps it would be more educational for you to listen to the experts in the thread such as myself rather than trolling.

Yet not one of you half wit deniers has even bothered to present any evidence to support your claims. Why is that?

When you ask someone to prove you wrong, you are committing a logical fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof.

Your theory is that CO2 produced by human activity is causing deleterious climate change. The onus is on you to prove it. The burden of proof is not on those who are skeptical of your extraordinary claim.

No, you're wrong again, you got it backwards. The burden of proof is on you to substantiate the deniers claim of scientists and governments conspiring to suppress the truth about global climate change.

It's all there in the emails, idiot. They are crooks and liars, and you are willing to bet the world's economy on admittedly fabricated data.

 

[Liminal]

I can't decide which motivates you more, is it ignorance or dishonesty?

False dichotomy.

You know damn well that it is science and truth that motivates my responses in this thread.

And since you have already admitted to being ignorant of the subject, perhaps it would be more educational for you to listen to the experts in the thread such as myself rather than trolling.

Yet not one of you half wit deniers has even bothered to present any evidence to support your claims. Why is that?

When you ask someone to prove you wrong, you are committing a logical fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof.

Your theory is that CO2 produced by human activity is causing deleterious climate change. The onus is on you to prove it. The burden of proof is not on those who are skeptical of your extraordinary claim.

No, you're wrong again, you got it backwards. The burden of proof is on you to substantiate the deniers claim of scientists and governments conspiring to suppress the truth about global climate change.

It's all there in the emails, idiot. They are crooks and liars, and you are willing to bet the world's economy on admittedly fabricated data.

So no evidence of any kind then....big surprise.

 

[Ernie S.]

I don't really need to present evidence to refute fradulent claims. See how that works?

 

[Liminal]

I don't really need to present evidence to refute fradulent claims. See how that works?

And again, you wouldn't have any way of distinguishing the difference without some media outlet to tell you.

 

[Muhammed]

What claim are you speaking of, Mr. Admittedly Ignorant?

And if you are as ignorant as you claim to be, how would you even comprehend it in the first place?

I can't decide which motivates you more, is it ignorance or dishonesty?

False dichotomy.

You know damn well that it is science and truth that motivates my responses in this thread.

And since you have already admitted to being ignorant of the subject, perhaps it would be more educational for you to listen to the experts in the thread such as myself rather than trolling.

Yet not one of you half wit deniers has even bothered to present any evidence to support your claims. Why is that?

When you ask someone to prove you wrong, you are committing a logical fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof.

Your theory is that CO2 produced by human activity is causing deleterious climate change. The onus is on you to prove it. The burden of proof is not on those who are skeptical of your extraordinary claim.

No, you're wrong again, you got it backwards. The burden of proof is on you to substantiate the deniers claim of scientists and governments conspiring to suppress the truth about global climate change.

False dichotomy.

You know damn well that it is science and truth that motivates my responses in this thread.

And since you have already admitted to being ignorant of the subject, perhaps it would be more educational for you to listen to the experts in the thread such as myself rather than trolling.

Yet not one of you half wit deniers has even bothered to present any evidence to support your claims. Why is that?

When you ask someone to prove you wrong, you are committing a logical fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof.

Your theory is that CO2 produced by human activity is causing deleterious climate change. The onus is on you to prove it. The burden of proof is not on those who are skeptical of your extraordinary claim.

No, you're wrong again, you got it backwards. The burden of proof is on you to substantiate the deniers claim of scientists and governments conspiring to suppress the truth about global climate change.

It's all there in the emails, idiot. They are crooks and liars, and you are willing to bet the world's economy on admittedly fabricated data.

So no evidence of any kind then....big surprise.

What claim are you speaking of, Mr. Admittedly Ignorant?

And if you are as ignorant as you claim to be, how would you even comprehend it in the first place?

I can't decide which motivates you more, is it ignorance or dishonesty?

False dichotomy.

You know damn well that it is science and truth that motivates my responses in this thread.

And since you have already admitted to being ignorant of the subject, perhaps it would be more educational for you to listen to the experts in the thread such as myself rather than trolling.

Yet not one of you half wit deniers has even bothered to present any evidence to support your claims. Why is that?

When you ask someone to prove you wrong, you are committing a logical fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof.

Your theory is that CO2 produced by human activity is causing deleterious climate change. The onus is on you to prove it. The burden of proof is not on those who are skeptical of your extraordinary claim.

No, you're wrong again, you got it backwards. The burden of proof is on you to substantiate the deniers claim of scientists and governments conspiring to suppress the truth about global climate change.

I never claimed that they were actual scientists in the first place.

 

[SSDD]

What claim are you speaking of, Mr. Admittedly Ignorant?

And if you are as ignorant as you claim to be, how would you even comprehend it in the first place?

I can't decide which motivates you more, is it ignorance or dishonesty?

False dichotomy.

You know damn well that it is science and truth that motivates my responses in this thread.

And since you have already admitted to being ignorant of the subject, perhaps it would be more educational for you to listen to the experts in the thread such as myself rather than trolling.

Yet not one of you half wit deniers has even bothered to present any evidence to support your claims. Why is that?

I asked now three times, what is it you are looking for? evidence of what claim?

And once again I'll ask for an answer to a simple question: Where is the evidence to support the claims that climate scientists all around the world are involved in a conspiracy with governments to suppress to truth about global climate change? Asked many times, not answered once.

And once again, conspiracy is your argument...it is a fraudulent argument as are most warmer arguments, but if it is all you have, it is all you have. There is no conspiracy, there is the natural tendency of big government types to increase the size of government....now perhaps, you can say which of those promoting AGW, and all of the government control required to bring it under control are not big government types....or receive their funding from big government types....or perhaps, you could tuck your "conspiracy" argument into a nice tight wad and shove it up your ass where your head apparently resides.

Your question has been answered...just because you don't like the answer does not negate the fact that it has been answered.

 

[Liminal]

I can't decide which motivates you more, is it ignorance or dishonesty?

False dichotomy.

You know damn well that it is science and truth that motivates my responses in this thread.

And since you have already admitted to being ignorant of the subject, perhaps it would be more educational for you to listen to the experts in the thread such as myself rather than trolling.

Yet not one of you half wit deniers has even bothered to present any evidence to support your claims. Why is that?

I asked now three times, what is it you are looking for? evidence of what claim?

And once again I'll ask for an answer to a simple question: Where is the evidence to support the claims that climate scientists all around the world are involved in a conspiracy with governments to suppress to truth about global climate change? Asked many times, not answered once.

And once again, conspiracy is your argument...it is a fraudulent argument as are most warmer arguments, but if it is all you have, it is all you have. There is no conspiracy, there is the natural tendency of big government types to increase the size of government....now perhaps, you can say which of those promoting AGW, and all of the government control required to bring it under control are not big government types....or receive their funding from big government types....or perhaps, you could tuck your "conspiracy" argument into a nice tight wad and shove it up your ass where your head apparently resides.

Your question has been answered...just because you don't like the answer does not negate the fact that it has been answered.

Wrong again, the conspiracy of scientists and governments is the foundation of the deniers argument. You don't even know what you stand for, what you believe, or why.

 

[westwall]

False dichotomy.

You know damn well that it is science and truth that motivates my responses in this thread.

And since you have already admitted to being ignorant of the subject, perhaps it would be more educational for you to listen to the experts in the thread such as myself rather than trolling.

Yet not one of you half wit deniers has even bothered to present any evidence to support your claims. Why is that?

I asked now three times, what is it you are looking for? evidence of what claim?

And once again I'll ask for an answer to a simple question: Where is the evidence to support the claims that climate scientists all around the world are involved in a conspiracy with governments to suppress to truth about global climate change? Asked many times, not answered once.

And once again, conspiracy is your argument...it is a fraudulent argument as are most warmer arguments, but if it is all you have, it is all you have. There is no conspiracy, there is the natural tendency of big government types to increase the size of government....now perhaps, you can say which of those promoting AGW, and all of the government control required to bring it under control are not big government types....or receive their funding from big government types....or perhaps, you could tuck your "conspiracy" argument into a nice tight wad and shove it up your ass where your head apparently resides.

Your question has been answered...just because you don't like the answer does not negate the fact that it has been answered.

Wrong again, the conspiracy of scientists and governments is the foundation of the deniers argument. You don't even know what you stand for, what you believe, or why.

Who benefits from the fraud? Government most of all because it gets almost total control over peoples lives. What government doesn't love that, and of course the super rich who must manage all the money that the poor and middle class once controlled but has been taken away from them because , well, you know, they're too stupid to understand how to take care of themselves.

Follow the money and the rest of the fraud becomes self evident to thinking people. When will you learn how to think?

 

[Muhammed]

He's willfully ignorant and refuses to educate himself.

 

[Liminal]

More opinions to substantiate nothing.

 

[Liminal]

Yet not one of you half wit deniers has even bothered to present any evidence to support your claims. Why is that?

I asked now three times, what is it you are looking for? evidence of what claim?

And once again I'll ask for an answer to a simple question: Where is the evidence to support the claims that climate scientists all around the world are involved in a conspiracy with governments to suppress to truth about global climate change? Asked many times, not answered once.

And once again, conspiracy is your argument...it is a fraudulent argument as are most warmer arguments, but if it is all you have, it is all you have. There is no conspiracy, there is the natural tendency of big government types to increase the size of government....now perhaps, you can say which of those promoting AGW, and all of the government control required to bring it under control are not big government types....or receive their funding from big government types....or perhaps, you could tuck your "conspiracy" argument into a nice tight wad and shove it up your ass where your head apparently resides.

Your question has been answered...just because you don't like the answer does not negate the fact that it has been answered.

Wrong again, the conspiracy of scientists and governments is the foundation of the deniers argument. You don't even know what you stand for, what you believe, or why.

Who benefits from the fraud? Government most of all because it gets almost total control over peoples lives. What government doesn't love that, and of course the super rich who must manage all the money that the poor and middle class once controlled but has been taken away from them because , well, you know, they're too stupid to understand how to take care of themselves.

Follow the money and the rest of the fraud becomes self evident to thinking people. When will you learn how to think?

Not a very scientific analysis, sounds more like a political opinion.

 

[mamooth]

Political opinions are all the deniers have ever had, being they are first and foremost loyal acolytes of a political cult. Hence, we constantly see all the bizarre rants about the VastSecretGlobalSocialistConspiracy.

Denialism isn't the actual cult. Right wing extremism is the cult, and every denier here is a proud member of that cult. Denialism is just one of many cult mantras that the cult members are required to chant. For example, such cultists also commonly believe that DDT is harmless, that abiotic oil exists in vast quantities, and that ozone depletion was all a scam.

In direct contrast, mainstream climate science is non-political, crossing all political boundaries across the globe. That's because it's actual science.

 

[SSDD]

False dichotomy.

You know damn well that it is science and truth that motivates my responses in this thread.

And since you have already admitted to being ignorant of the subject, perhaps it would be more educational for you to listen to the experts in the thread such as myself rather than trolling.

Yet not one of you half wit deniers has even bothered to present any evidence to support your claims. Why is that?

I asked now three times, what is it you are looking for? evidence of what claim?

And once again I'll ask for an answer to a simple question: Where is the evidence to support the claims that climate scientists all around the world are involved in a conspiracy with governments to suppress to truth about global climate change? Asked many times, not answered once.

And once again, conspiracy is your argument...it is a fraudulent argument as are most warmer arguments, but if it is all you have, it is all you have. There is no conspiracy, there is the natural tendency of big government types to increase the size of government....now perhaps, you can say which of those promoting AGW, and all of the government control required to bring it under control are not big government types....or receive their funding from big government types....or perhaps, you could tuck your "conspiracy" argument into a nice tight wad and shove it up your ass where your head apparently resides.

Your question has been answered...just because you don't like the answer does not negate the fact that it has been answered.

Wrong again, the conspiracy of scientists and governments is the foundation of the deniers argument. You don't even know what you stand for, what you believe, or why.

Sorry but it isn't....failure of science to provide any actual empirical evidence that the CO2 produced by mankind is altering the global climate is the foundation of our argument...again, your conspiracy argument is just a straw man.

You don't think scientists who favor big government can use their position to provide information that will be used by those in government to grow government? Of course you don't because clearly, history isn't your thing.

Do you think some "conspiracy" was involved to grow the welfare state and swell the government in the process? Social scientists who favored big government were perfectly willing to provide paper after paper in support of the welfare state and people in government who favored the welfare state and the money and power the growth of the welfare state afforded them were more than willing to use those papers to justify the growth of the welfare state and in turn the growth of government....and fund more papers pronouncing the benefits of the welfare state.

There were plenty of social scientists who were opposed to the growth of the welfare state and plenty of papers published predicting the disaster of the welfare state but like climate skeptics, funding was difficult for them to get and their predictions went mostly unconsidered, and unheeded. So here we are in the 21st century, and we see the predictions of those opposed to the growth of the welfare state were, in fact, correct...and we see that the welfare state was a disaster which cost hundreds of billions of dollars, caused incalculable suffering by creating generational dependence upon government handouts, and actually lifted very few, if any people out of poverty.

The point is that science that supported the growth of government was produced by willing participants who were funded by big government types in order to, in fact, grow government. It didn't involve any conspiracy...it was just the undeniable tendency for those who believe big government is good to do what they can to assure the continued growth of government and to restrict, whenever possible, access to those who may be seen as competition, who don't favor big government.

Poor science that depends almost entirely on failing models is where climate science stands today...just as poor science based almost entirely on poor models was where social science stood back in the day when the welfare state was the brass ring waiting to be grasped by big government types.

You are the one claiming conspiracy....us skeptics are saying bad science and reality is proving us correct at every turn. When the models which are the foundation of climate science are diverging further away from reality every day, who in their right mind continues to support the models?...other than those who see them as a means to continue to grow government?

 

[westwall]

I asked now three times, what is it you are looking for? evidence of what claim?

And once again I'll ask for an answer to a simple question: Where is the evidence to support the claims that climate scientists all around the world are involved in a conspiracy with governments to suppress to truth about global climate change? Asked many times, not answered once.

And once again, conspiracy is your argument...it is a fraudulent argument as are most warmer arguments, but if it is all you have, it is all you have. There is no conspiracy, there is the natural tendency of big government types to increase the size of government....now perhaps, you can say which of those promoting AGW, and all of the government control required to bring it under control are not big government types....or receive their funding from big government types....or perhaps, you could tuck your "conspiracy" argument into a nice tight wad and shove it up your ass where your head apparently resides.

Your question has been answered...just because you don't like the answer does not negate the fact that it has been answered.

Wrong again, the conspiracy of scientists and governments is the foundation of the deniers argument. You don't even know what you stand for, what you believe, or why.

Who benefits from the fraud? Government most of all because it gets almost total control over peoples lives. What government doesn't love that, and of course the super rich who must manage all the money that the poor and middle class once controlled but has been taken away from them because , well, you know, they're too stupid to understand how to take care of themselves.

Follow the money and the rest of the fraud becomes self evident to thinking people. When will you learn how to think?

Not a very scientific analysis, sounds more like a political opinion.

That's because that's what climatology has devolved into. Politics pure and simple. That's why they have to rely on "consensus" science. That is the science of politics and nothing else.

There IS no science behind the fear mongering. None. There is science fiction in the form of computer models that are less than worthless. That's all you have.

 

[westwall]

Political opinions are all the deniers have ever had, being they are first and foremost loyal acolytes of a political cult. Hence, we constantly see all the bizarre rants about the VastSecretGlobalSocialistConspiracy.

Denialism isn't the actual cult. Right wing extremism is the cult, and every denier here is a proud member of that cult. Denialism is just one of many cult mantras that the cult members are required to chant. For example, such cultists also commonly believe that DDT is harmless, that abiotic oil exists in vast quantities, and that ozone depletion was all a scam.

In direct contrast, mainstream climate science is non-political, crossing all political boundaries across the globe. That's because it's actual science.

Sure it is. Mainstream climate "science" is purely about political and economic control. Show us one thing that climatologists have suggested that actually reduces pollution. Go ahead I dare you.

 

[Muhammed]

If it's more than one of them involved in the purposeful deception, it is, by definition, a conspiracy.