Geologists On Global Climate Change

[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.

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?

Some interesting theories in your political diatribe, none of which does anything to substantiate the deniers claims of scientists suppressing the real truth about global climate change.

 

[Liminal]

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

It would have to be, wouldn't it. I wonder who's directing this insidious, diabolical, global conspiracy?

 

[Dot Com]

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?

Some interesting theories in your political diatribe, none of which does anything to substantiate the deniers claims of scientists suppressing the real truth about global climate change.

Get used to it. The deniers here are "one trick ponies"

 

[Liminal]

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.

Just unfortunate I guess that you never provide any compelling evidence to support your opinions.

 

[Liminal]

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?

Some interesting theories in your political diatribe, none of which does anything to substantiate the deniers claims of scientists suppressing the real truth about global climate change.

Get used to it. The deniers here are "one trick ponies"

I thought they could come with something, anything, even a little bit of anything. But no, just the same hackneyed phrases supported by nothing.

 

[jc456]

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?

Some interesting theories in your political diatribe, none of which does anything to substantiate the deniers claims of scientists suppressing the real truth about global climate change.

so I see you still deny the facts! what a true denier.

 

[jc456]

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

It would have to be, wouldn't it. I wonder who's directing this insidious, diabolical, global conspiracy?

uh the ones working in the governments? The ones who control the world? the ones who lie and cheat? yep them.

Edit: remember obama care? who got representation on that?

 

[jc456]

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?

Some interesting theories in your political diatribe, none of which does anything to substantiate the deniers claims of scientists suppressing the real truth about global climate change.

Get used to it. The deniers here are "one trick ponies"

what's the trick?

 

[jc456]

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.

Just unfortunate I guess that you never provide any compelling evidence to support your opinions.

and your compelling evidence is where?

 

[jc456]

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?

Some interesting theories in your political diatribe, none of which does anything to substantiate the deniers claims of scientists suppressing the real truth about global climate change.

Get used to it. The deniers here are "one trick ponies"

I thought they could come with something, anything, even a little bit of anything. But no, just the same hackneyed phrases supported by nothing.

I see, still no empirical evidence.

 

[jc456]

I love the pee wee herman game you all like to use. You must watch his films often.

 

[Liminal]

I love the pee wee herman game you all like to use. You must watch his films often.

Another compelling rebuttal, no doubt based on intensive scientific research.

 

[Muhammed]

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?

Some interesting theories in your political diatribe, none of which does anything to substantiate the deniers claims of scientists suppressing the real truth about global climate change.

Get used to it. The deniers here are "one trick ponies"

So, are you a climategate denier?

Do you deny that those e-mails are authentic?

 

[Liminal]

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?

Some interesting theories in your political diatribe, none of which does anything to substantiate the deniers claims of scientists suppressing the real truth about global climate change.

so I see you still deny the facts! what a true denier.

You don't have any facts, just more opinions about your perception of out of context snippets of information.

 

[Muhammed]

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

It would have to be, wouldn't it. I wonder who's directing this insidious, diabolical, global conspiracy?

Why?

 

[rdean]

Just the fact that scientists are saying it means to right wingers, it's discredited. Right wingers on the USMB think scientists have no integrity, live off their education, contribute nothing and lie about everything. You just can't trust them.

 

[Liminal]

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?

Some interesting theories in your political diatribe, none of which does anything to substantiate the deniers claims of scientists suppressing the real truth about global climate change.

Get used to it. The deniers here are "one trick ponies"

So, are you a climategate denier?

Do you deny that those e-mails are authentic?

I see Inspector Clouseau, the e-mails tell the whole story, obviously evidence of global conspiracy of 97% of climate scientists, every government of every civilized nation on earth, defense planners, private industries....all making contingency plans for nothing. Yes Inspector, I think you've uncovered the enormity of the conspiracy.

 

[SSDD]

Some interesting theories in your political diatribe, none of which does anything to substantiate the deniers claims of scientists suppressing the real truth about global climate change.

Observation is not theory.

And neither I, nor anyone I am aware of is making any real claim that scientists are suppressing the "real truth" about global climate change any more than the truth about what the welfare state was going to become was suppressed. There are plenty of papers being published that are skeptical of the AGW hypothesis, just as many papers were published pointing out where the welfare state was headed. Those papers that are skeptical, by the way, are nearly always based on observation and empirical evidence as opposed to modeling which make up most of the pro AGW literature. All one need do is be willing to look at the published material and not be blinded by political ideology...then and now. The very fact that one side is dependent on empirical evidence and the scientific method, while the other is heavily dependent on modeling which is dubious at best, and data manipulation should provide a clue to anyone who possesses actual critical thinking skills.

Then, as now, funding was scarce for people not promoting the big government solution...and then as now, the mainstream press is heavily invested in seeing the growth of government and the AGW hypothesis is the clearest path to that goal at present. When the AGW hypothesis has finally been put to rest, then the press, and big government types will move on to the next clearest path.

The fat that you must fabricate straw men to divert the conversation rather than relentlessly press forward the mountains of empirical evidence that prove the AGW hypothesis should give you a clue...that being, that there are no mountains of empirical evidence in support of the failed AGW hypothesis....and therein lies another clue that I am sure you are either not intelligent enough to figure out, or to politically motivated to take seriously.

 

[SSDD]

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

It would have to be, wouldn't it. I wonder who's directing this insidious, diabolical, global conspiracy?

Are straw men arguments really all you have?

 

[SSDD]

Get used to it. The deniers here are "one trick ponies"

Project much? It is us skeptics who are asking for actual observed empirical evidence....it is you warmers who can't produce and inevitably resort to straw men, appeals to authority, and simple lies.