Global Warming: the Relentless Trend

[Toddsterpatriot]

The subject was your claim of "consensus".

If 75/77 isn't consensus, I don't know what is.

Sorry Toddster, no idea what you are babbling about.

I'll add that to the already huge list of things you have no idea about.

That's deep, Toddster.

Yes, so was the proof of 97% consensus, using only 77 scientists.

All the Scientific Societies, all the Academies of Science, all the major Universities in the world have policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. That is a damned powerful scientific consensus. Against that, we have a couple of scientists stating that is not the case. The same scientists that said in front of Congress that tobacco is harmless, after the tobacco companies enlarged their bank accounts. Against that consensus of Scientists, we have such vast powerhouses of scientific knowledge as the obese junkie on the AM radio, and a fake British Lord. LOL

The same scientists that said in front of Congress that tobacco is harmless,

Link?

 

[westwall]

The subject was your claim of "consensus".

If 75/77 isn't consensus, I don't know what is.

Sorry Toddster, no idea what you are babbling about.

I'll add that to the already huge list of things you have no idea about.

That's deep, Toddster.

Yes, so was the proof of 97% consensus, using only 77 scientists.

All the Scientific Societies, all the Academies of Science, all the major Universities in the world have policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. That is a damned powerful scientific consensus. Against that, we have a couple of scientists stating that is not the case. The same scientists that said in front of Congress that tobacco is harmless, after the tobacco companies enlarged their bank accounts. Against that consensus of Scientists, we have such vast powerhouses of scientific knowledge as the obese junkie on the AM radio, and a fake British Lord. LOL

Appeal to Authority
Explanation
An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.
Logical Fallacies» Appeal to Authority

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sorry Toddster, no idea what you are babbling about.

I'll add that to the already huge list of things you have no idea about.

That's deep, Toddster.

Yes, so was the proof of 97% consensus, using only 77 scientists.

All the Scientific Societies, all the Academies of Science, all the major Universities in the world have policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. That is a damned powerful scientific consensus. Against that, we have a couple of scientists stating that is not the case. The same scientists that said in front of Congress that tobacco is harmless, after the tobacco companies enlarged their bank accounts. Against that consensus of Scientists, we have such vast powerhouses of scientific knowledge as the obese junkie on the AM radio, and a fake British Lord. LOL

Appeal to Authority
Explanation
An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.
Logical Fallacies» Appeal to Authority

Yeah, you always like to bust this out in a layman discussion of this topic. Yet I never see any of you deniers publishing science to undermine the accepted theories and the overwhelming consensus. So each of you seems to be arguing to your own authority...odd, given that you all have less than none....

So, given your utter and complete lack of any actual scientific work to back up the denial, you are left to simply call the scientists liars and incompetent. Who in their right minds would believe this, coming from a bunch of people with no experience or accomplishments in these fields? Given this obvious and easy choice, relying on authority can be appropriate.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sorry Toddster, no idea what you are babbling about.

I'll add that to the already huge list of things you have no idea about.

That's deep, Toddster.

Yes, so was the proof of 97% consensus, using only 77 scientists.

All the Scientific Societies, all the Academies of Science, all the major Universities in the world have policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. That is a damned powerful scientific consensus. Against that, we have a couple of scientists stating that is not the case. The same scientists that said in front of Congress that tobacco is harmless, after the tobacco companies enlarged their bank accounts. Against that consensus of Scientists, we have such vast powerhouses of scientific knowledge as the obese junkie on the AM radio, and a fake British Lord. LOL

The same scientists that said in front of Congress that tobacco is harmless,

Link?

Here you go, you lazy little shit :

Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'll add that to the already huge list of things you have no idea about.

That's deep, Toddster.

Yes, so was the proof of 97% consensus, using only 77 scientists.

All the Scientific Societies, all the Academies of Science, all the major Universities in the world have policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. That is a damned powerful scientific consensus. Against that, we have a couple of scientists stating that is not the case. The same scientists that said in front of Congress that tobacco is harmless, after the tobacco companies enlarged their bank accounts. Against that consensus of Scientists, we have such vast powerhouses of scientific knowledge as the obese junkie on the AM radio, and a fake British Lord. LOL

The same scientists that said in front of Congress that tobacco is harmless,

Link?

Here you go, you lazy little shit :

Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public

Scientists from the 1950s said smoking was harmless....and these scientists are still around today disputing AGW?

Thanks for the link. I didn't see any claim there that tobacco is harmless.

Those are some long lived scientists! I didn't see any names of these scientists that were testifying lately........

Maybe Old Rocks was wrong? Maybe he has a better link?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'll add that to the already huge list of things you have no idea about.

That's deep, Toddster.

Yes, so was the proof of 97% consensus, using only 77 scientists.

All the Scientific Societies, all the Academies of Science, all the major Universities in the world have policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. That is a damned powerful scientific consensus. Against that, we have a couple of scientists stating that is not the case. The same scientists that said in front of Congress that tobacco is harmless, after the tobacco companies enlarged their bank accounts. Against that consensus of Scientists, we have such vast powerhouses of scientific knowledge as the obese junkie on the AM radio, and a fake British Lord. LOL

Appeal to Authority
Explanation
An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.
Logical Fallacies» Appeal to Authority

Yeah, you always like to bust this out in a layman discussion of this topic. Yet I never see any of you deniers publishing science to undermine the accepted theories and the overwhelming consensus. So each of you seems to be arguing to your own authority...odd, given that you all have less than none....

So, given your utter and complete lack of any actual scientific work to back up the denial, you are left to simply call the scientists liars and incompetent. Who in their right minds would believe this, coming from a bunch of people with no experience or accomplishments in these fields? Given this obvious and easy choice, relying on authority can be appropriate.

Yet I never see any of you deniers publishing science to undermine the accepted theories and the overwhelming consensus.

Who could ever disagree with Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's deep, Toddster.

Yes, so was the proof of 97% consensus, using only 77 scientists.

All the Scientific Societies, all the Academies of Science, all the major Universities in the world have policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. That is a damned powerful scientific consensus. Against that, we have a couple of scientists stating that is not the case. The same scientists that said in front of Congress that tobacco is harmless, after the tobacco companies enlarged their bank accounts. Against that consensus of Scientists, we have such vast powerhouses of scientific knowledge as the obese junkie on the AM radio, and a fake British Lord. LOL

Appeal to Authority
Explanation
An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.
Logical Fallacies» Appeal to Authority

Yeah, you always like to bust this out in a layman discussion of this topic. Yet I never see any of you deniers publishing science to undermine the accepted theories and the overwhelming consensus. So each of you seems to be arguing to your own authority...odd, given that you all have less than none....

So, given your utter and complete lack of any actual scientific work to back up the denial, you are left to simply call the scientists liars and incompetent. Who in their right minds would believe this, coming from a bunch of people with no experience or accomplishments in these fields? Given this obvious and easy choice, relying on authority can be appropriate.

Yet I never see any of you deniers publishing science to undermine the accepted theories and the overwhelming consensus.

Who could ever disagree with Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann?

Lots of people. They've been shown to be wrong. Wait...you didnt know that? Sorry, I will keep in mind that you are not in possession of much information, regarding this topic.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's deep, Toddster.

Yes, so was the proof of 97% consensus, using only 77 scientists.

All the Scientific Societies, all the Academies of Science, all the major Universities in the world have policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. That is a damned powerful scientific consensus. Against that, we have a couple of scientists stating that is not the case. The same scientists that said in front of Congress that tobacco is harmless, after the tobacco companies enlarged their bank accounts. Against that consensus of Scientists, we have such vast powerhouses of scientific knowledge as the obese junkie on the AM radio, and a fake British Lord. LOL

The same scientists that said in front of Congress that tobacco is harmless,

Link?

Here you go, you lazy little shit :

Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public

Scientists from the 1950s said smoking was harmless....and these scientists are still around today disputing AGW?

Thanks for the link. I didn't see any claim there that tobacco is harmless.

Those are some long lived scientists! I didn't see any names of these scientists that were testifying lately........

Maybe Old Rocks was wrong? Maybe he has a better link?

"Testifying lately"

Ah yes, the little sidestep. Okay, toddster, let's be clear: you are demanding names of peolle who both lied about climate and tobacco.....LATELY. Right? Of course, "lately" will change, as necessary....

Can we just agree that the same "merchants of doubt" facilitated and supported these campaigns? Actually, I think there's a book about it....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, so was the proof of 97% consensus, using only 77 scientists.

All the Scientific Societies, all the Academies of Science, all the major Universities in the world have policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. That is a damned powerful scientific consensus. Against that, we have a couple of scientists stating that is not the case. The same scientists that said in front of Congress that tobacco is harmless, after the tobacco companies enlarged their bank accounts. Against that consensus of Scientists, we have such vast powerhouses of scientific knowledge as the obese junkie on the AM radio, and a fake British Lord. LOL

Appeal to Authority
Explanation
An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.
Logical Fallacies» Appeal to Authority

Yeah, you always like to bust this out in a layman discussion of this topic. Yet I never see any of you deniers publishing science to undermine the accepted theories and the overwhelming consensus. So each of you seems to be arguing to your own authority...odd, given that you all have less than none....

So, given your utter and complete lack of any actual scientific work to back up the denial, you are left to simply call the scientists liars and incompetent. Who in their right minds would believe this, coming from a bunch of people with no experience or accomplishments in these fields? Given this obvious and easy choice, relying on authority can be appropriate.

Yet I never see any of you deniers publishing science to undermine the accepted theories and the overwhelming consensus.

Who could ever disagree with Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann?

Lots of people. They've been shown to be wrong. Wait...you didnt know that? Sorry, I will keep in mind that you are not in possession of much information, regarding this topic.

Lots of people. They've been shown to be wrong.

People who disagreed with Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann have been shown to be wrong?
Is that why he won the Nobel Prize?

Sorry, I will keep in mind that you are not in possession of much information, regarding this topic.

Why don't you share the info you possess about Michael Mann's Nobel Prize?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

People who disagreed with Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann have been shown to be wrong?

About the hockey stick? Yes, that is correct. You sure do ask people to repeat themselves a lot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, so was the proof of 97% consensus, using only 77 scientists.

All the Scientific Societies, all the Academies of Science, all the major Universities in the world have policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. That is a damned powerful scientific consensus. Against that, we have a couple of scientists stating that is not the case. The same scientists that said in front of Congress that tobacco is harmless, after the tobacco companies enlarged their bank accounts. Against that consensus of Scientists, we have such vast powerhouses of scientific knowledge as the obese junkie on the AM radio, and a fake British Lord. LOL

The same scientists that said in front of Congress that tobacco is harmless,

Link?

Here you go, you lazy little shit :

Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public

Scientists from the 1950s said smoking was harmless....and these scientists are still around today disputing AGW?

Thanks for the link. I didn't see any claim there that tobacco is harmless.

Those are some long lived scientists! I didn't see any names of these scientists that were testifying lately........

Maybe Old Rocks was wrong? Maybe he has a better link?

"Testifying lately"

Ah yes, the little sidestep. Okay, toddster, let's be clear: you are demanding names of peolle who both lied about climate and tobacco.....LATELY. Right? Of course, "lately" will change, as necessary....

Can we just agree that the same "merchants of doubt" facilitated and supported these campaigns? Actually, I think there's a book about it....

"Testifying lately"​

​

Ah yes, the little sidestep​

All the Scientific Societies, all the Academies of Science, all the major Universities in the world have policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. That is a damned powerful scientific consensus. Against that, we have a couple of scientists stating that is not the case. The same scientists that said in front of Congress that tobacco is harmless, after the tobacco companies enlarged their bank accounts.

Old Rocks was talking about things that were supposedly said in the 1950s or 1960s?
Get the fuck out of here!!

That would be dishonest......or at least stupid.

you are demanding names of peolle who both lied about climate and tobacco.....LATELY. Right?

Only based on Old Rocks' moronic claim.
If you're saying no such testimony happened in the last 30 years,
I'll take your word that Old Rocks was full of shit, to be kind.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

People who disagreed with Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann have been shown to be wrong?

About the hockey stick? Yes, that is correct. You sure do ask people to repeat themselves a lot.

He won the Nobel Prize for his hockey stick?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

People who disagreed with Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann have been shown to be wrong?

About the hockey stick? Yes, that is correct. You sure do ask people to repeat themselves a lot.

He won the Nobel Prize for his hockey stick?

Irrelevant, Toddster.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

People who disagreed with Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann have been shown to be wrong?

About the hockey stick? Yes, that is correct. You sure do ask people to repeat themselves a lot.

He won the Nobel Prize for his hockey stick?

Irrelevant, Toddster.

How is his Nobel Prize irrelevant?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

People who disagreed with Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann have been shown to be wrong?

About the hockey stick? Yes, that is correct. You sure do ask people to repeat themselves a lot.

He won the Nobel Prize for his hockey stick?

Irrelevant, Toddster.

How is his Nobel Prize irrelevant?

It's irrelevant to the truth of the hockey stick, and irrelevant to the many affirmations of it. Tooddster, that was a stupid question.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

People who disagreed with Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann have been shown to be wrong?

About the hockey stick? Yes, that is correct. You sure do ask people to repeat themselves a lot.

He won the Nobel Prize for his hockey stick?

Irrelevant, Toddster.

How is his Nobel Prize irrelevant?

It's irrelevant to the truth of the hockey stick, and irrelevant to the many affirmations of it. Tooddster, that was a stupid question.

Michael Mann is a fine upstanding Global Warming supporter. Right?
Doesn't his Nobel Prize bolster the claims that only oil company lackeys disagree with AGW?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

About the hockey stick? Yes, that is correct. You sure do ask people to repeat themselves a lot.

He won the Nobel Prize for his hockey stick?

Irrelevant, Toddster.

How is his Nobel Prize irrelevant?

It's irrelevant to the truth of the hockey stick, and irrelevant to the many affirmations of it. Tooddster, that was a stupid question.

Michael Mann is a fine upstanding Global Warming supporter. Right?
Doesn't his Nobel Prize bolster the claims that only oil company lackeys disagree with AGW?

You have fun with that distraction. Imagine the laughter of those who get paid to misinform watch volunteers like you carry their water.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He won the Nobel Prize for his hockey stick?

Irrelevant, Toddster.

How is his Nobel Prize irrelevant?

It's irrelevant to the truth of the hockey stick, and irrelevant to the many affirmations of it. Tooddster, that was a stupid question.

Michael Mann is a fine upstanding Global Warming supporter. Right?
Doesn't his Nobel Prize bolster the claims that only oil company lackeys disagree with AGW?

You have fun with that distraction. Imagine the laughter of those who get paid to misinform watch volunteers like you carry their water.

Yeah, I understand why you don't want to talk about Michael Mann and his Nobel Prize.

Let me know if you find some of those nasty tobacco/oil scientists who aren't ancient fucking history.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Irrelevant, Toddster.

How is his Nobel Prize irrelevant?

It's irrelevant to the truth of the hockey stick, and irrelevant to the many affirmations of it. Tooddster, that was a stupid question.

Michael Mann is a fine upstanding Global Warming supporter. Right?
Doesn't his Nobel Prize bolster the claims that only oil company lackeys disagree with AGW?

You have fun with that distraction. Imagine the laughter of those who get paid to misinform watch volunteers like you carry their water.

Yeah, I understand why you don't want to talk about Michael Mann and his Nobel Prize.

Let me know if you find some of those nasty tobacco/oil scientists who aren't ancient fucking history.

And why would the tobacco guys be "ancient history", Todd-O? Where did they go? Could you solve this mystery for us?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How is his Nobel Prize irrelevant?

It's irrelevant to the truth of the hockey stick, and irrelevant to the many affirmations of it. Tooddster, that was a stupid question.

Michael Mann is a fine upstanding Global Warming supporter. Right?
Doesn't his Nobel Prize bolster the claims that only oil company lackeys disagree with AGW?

You have fun with that distraction. Imagine the laughter of those who get paid to misinform watch volunteers like you carry their water.

Yeah, I understand why you don't want to talk about Michael Mann and his Nobel Prize.

Let me know if you find some of those nasty tobacco/oil scientists who aren't ancient fucking history.

And why would the tobacco guys be "ancient history", Todd-O? Where did they go? Could you solve this mystery for us?

Because your link was about the 1950s and 1960s. DERP!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's irrelevant to the truth of the hockey stick, and irrelevant to the many affirmations of it. Tooddster, that was a stupid question.

Michael Mann is a fine upstanding Global Warming supporter. Right?
Doesn't his Nobel Prize bolster the claims that only oil company lackeys disagree with AGW?

You have fun with that distraction. Imagine the laughter of those who get paid to misinform watch volunteers like you carry their water.

Yeah, I understand why you don't want to talk about Michael Mann and his Nobel Prize.

Let me know if you find some of those nasty tobacco/oil scientists who aren't ancient fucking history.

And why would the tobacco guys be "ancient history", Todd-O? Where did they go? Could you solve this mystery for us?

Because your link was about the 1950s and 1960s. DERP!

I understand that, thank you. I asked you why there are not scientists defending big tobacco these days, therefore making it hard to find scientists lying both about tobacco amd about climate change.

Where did they go, Toddster?