Have the Climate Cultists Considered These Facts?

[Confounding]

Only an ignoramus thinks AGW can be summed up in 12 minutes. You're trying to dispute the claims of people that have a much deeper understanding of these issues than you do. There is not an AGW conspiracy. The scientists are telling us what they actually believe based on all of the evidence they have observed. It takes an astounding amount of arrogance to say they're wrong when you know approximately dick compared to them.

You sound like one of those people who are very impressed by a degree...and think that because someone has one...or because a group of people have them, that they are infallible. I hate to burst your bubble, but a degree in climatology is not that impressive. Climatology is a soft science...it is a place for people who can't make it in the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, engineering and such.

And I am still waiting for a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...since you can't provide it, even if you are uneducated, you should at least possess enough critical thinking skills to wonder why,....and to ask yourself if they don't even have such basic evidence, exactly what is the consensus built upon.

But instead, like a true cultist, you rail against anyone who questions those whom you believe to be infallible...

I'm one of those people that thinks the opinions of most educated people should get the most consideration. They're not infallible, but they do know a hell of a lot more about it than either of us.

In science, especially a science involving an entity as imminently observable, and measurable as the atmosphere, and energy movement through it, an opinion means nothing...it is observed, measured evidence which carries weight...and you can't produce the first piece which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...all the opinion in the world on this topic without actual evidence is worthless...the fact that they express opinion rather than make their case with actual evidence should clue you in...but alas, it doesn't does it?

Their opinions are based on evidence. That's how science works. You think the evidence they base their opinions on isn't good enough. I think it's ridiculous for you to think that when you're not a scientist.

 

[Oddball]

Only an ignoramus thinks AGW can be summed up in 12 minutes. You're trying to dispute the claims of people that have a much deeper understanding of these issues than you do. There is not an AGW conspiracy. The scientists are telling us what they actually believe based on all of the evidence they have observed. It takes an astounding amount of arrogance to say they're wrong when you know approximately dick compared to them.

Horse shit...The "scientists" have created a pseudo-scientific hoax, that has become so vast that it has become impossible to reel it back in.

As has been noted on numerous other threads on the subject, the hypothesis (there's not even enough proven physical evidence to call it a theory) of anthropogenic g̶l̶o̶b̶a̶l̶ ̶w̶a̶r̶m̶i̶n̶g̶ c̶l̶i̶m̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶n̶g̶e̶ "extreme weather events" is entirely missing:

• Physical reproducibility in context
• Quantifiablility
• Falsifiablility
  
• A static control
• Any notion of what an "optimal" baseline temperature should be

IOW, there's no real science in climate science.

 

[Confounding]

IOW, there's no real science in climate science.

Hopeless. It's not a coincidence that almost all conservatives happen to not trust scientists. A science issue has been turned into a partisan issue and that's a fucking problem.

 

[Oddball]

IOW, there's no real science in climate science.

Hopeless. It's not a coincidence that almost all conservatives happen to not trust scientists. A science issue has been turned into a partisan issue and that's a fucking problem.

Ad hominem attack...I'm not a "conservative" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore)....I automatically mistrust people who use endlessly qualifying weasel words like "could" "may" and "might" to describe things that are supposedly a certainty.

Moreover, I just listed for you all the elements of science that are entirely missing from Goebbels warming hypothesis, and you just ignored it in order to attack me politically.

So who's the fucking problem now, Corky?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Arctic ice free... check (once we adjust the data to fit the foregone conclusion)

Guam tipped over...check (ditto)

Snow a thing of the past...check (ditto)

 

[Confounding]

IOW, there's no real science in climate science.

Hopeless. It's not a coincidence that almost all conservatives happen to not trust scientists. A science issue has been turned into a partisan issue and that's a fucking problem.

Ad hominem attack...I'm not a "conservative" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore)....I automatically mistrust people who use endlessly qualifying weasel words like "could" "may" and "might" to describe things that are supposedly a certainty.

Moreover, I just listed for you all the elements of science that are entirely missing from Goebbels warming hypothesis, and you just ignored it in order to attack me politically.

So who's the fucking problem now, Corky?

There's not much for me to do but call you a clown for declaring the scientists wrong from a position of complete ignorance. You will never understand how much you don't understand because you're impossibly arrogant.

 

[Oddball]

IOW, there's no real science in climate science.

Hopeless. It's not a coincidence that almost all conservatives happen to not trust scientists. A science issue has been turned into a partisan issue and that's a fucking problem.

Ad hominem attack...I'm not a "conservative" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore)....I automatically mistrust people who use endlessly qualifying weasel words like "could" "may" and "might" to describe things that are supposedly a certainty.

Moreover, I just listed for you all the elements of science that are entirely missing from Goebbels warming hypothesis, and you just ignored it in order to attack me politically.

So who's the fucking problem now, Corky?

There's not much for me to do but call you a clown for declaring the scientists wrong from a position of complete ignorance.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

You're really ripping them out today, Chumlee.

 

[Confounding]

Appeal to authority fallacy.

You're really ripping them out today, Chumlee.

They are the authority because they know more than anybody. I'm not saying they can't be wrong. I'm saying nobody is better equipped to have an opinion based on our current understanding of things. For you to say they are flat out wrong or lying is fucking ridiculous. Can you really not see that?

 

[Oddball]

Appeal to authority fallacy.

You're really ripping them out today, Chumlee.

They are the authority because they know more than anybody. I'm not saying they can't be wrong. I'm saying nobody is better equipped to have an opinion based on our current understanding of things. For you to say they are flat out wrong or lying is fucking ridiculous. Can you really not see that?

Again, I just gave you a list of items that are the ages-old acid tests of actual proven science, which are absent in AGW "science" and you have once again ignored it in order to continue your invocation of logical fallacies.

Moreover, I'm an expert in semantics and linguistics....I know bullshitters when I hear them...The IPCC is a gigantic global cabal of bullshitters.

 

[Crick]

You're an expert on bullshitters yet you reject AGW?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The "scientists" have created a pseudo-scientific hoax

Listen to yourself. You actually believe that virtually every scientist in a wide range of fields is lying about climate theories supported by virtually all the published science. And,somehow, you have figured this out, despite knowing fuck all about any of it. What the hell is wrong with your brain?

 

[SSDD]

Hopeless. It's not a coincidence that almost all conservatives happen to not trust scientists. A science issue has been turned into a partisan issue and that's a fucking problem.

So you are actually making a quasi religious argument....we should shut up and have faith that they have our best interests at heart, and know what is best for us. Is that the argument that you are making?

 

[SSDD]

IOW, there's no real science in climate science.

Hopeless. It's not a coincidence that almost all conservatives happen to not trust scientists. A science issue has been turned into a partisan issue and that's a fucking problem.

Ad hominem attack...I'm not a "conservative" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore)....I automatically mistrust people who use endlessly qualifying weasel words like "could" "may" and "might" to describe things that are supposedly a certainty.

Moreover, I just listed for you all the elements of science that are entirely missing from Goebbels warming hypothesis, and you just ignored it in order to attack me politically.

So who's the fucking problem now, Corky?

There's not much for me to do but call you a clown for declaring the scientists wrong from a position of complete ignorance. You will never understand how much you don't understand because you're impossibly arrogant.

Clearly, you don't know whether he is right or wrong...or whether the scientists are right or wrong...you have a quasi religious faith in what they say and simply trust them...and feel the need to attack anyone who questions their authority.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Moreover, I'm an expert in semantics and linguistics....I know bullshitters when I hear them...The IPCC is a gigantic global cabal of bullshitters.

Hahahaha...wow you are a moron.

 

[Confounding]

So you are actually making a quasi religious argument....we should shut up and have faith that they have our best interests at heart, and know what is best for us. Is that the argument that you are making?

You're ignorant if you think the scientists are deceiving us. They may not be right all the time, but they're not lying about what they believe. The most qualified people on Earth believe something similar. Not because they're in on some globalist conspiracy to take over the world (LOL), but because that's actually what they believe based on their findings. There really isn't a more polite way to say it.

Yes, when it comes to matters of science you should sit down and shut the hell up in the presence of people that have spent more time studying and working with it than anybody.

 

[skookerasbil]

So you are actually making a quasi religious argument....we should shut up and have faith that they have our best interests at heart, and know what is best for us. Is that the argument that you are making?

You're ignorant if you think the scientists are deceiving us. They may not be right all the time, but they're not lying about what they believe. The most qualified people on Earth believe something similar. Not because they're in on some globalist conspiracy to take over the world (LOL), but because that's actually what they believe based on their findings. There really isn't a more polite way to say it.

Yes, when it comes to matters of science you should sit down and shut the hell up in the presence of people that have spent more time studying and working with it than anybody.

Where do people get this idea that scientists are this group of hyper-altruistic professionals with no allegiance to any special interests? I mean.....c'mon now! Should I go out and start ingesting HGH to reverse some of the aging process because some experts in the medical field have some research to back it up?

On THE DICTATORSHIP OF SCIENCE ( not for matrix dwellers)

 

[Confounding]

So you are actually making a quasi religious argument....we should shut up and have faith that they have our best interests at heart, and know what is best for us. Is that the argument that you are making?

You're ignorant if you think the scientists are deceiving us. They may not be right all the time, but they're not lying about what they believe. The most qualified people on Earth believe something similar. Not because they're in on some globalist conspiracy to take over the world (LOL), but because that's actually what they believe based on their findings. There really isn't a more polite way to say it.

Yes, when it comes to matters of science you should sit down and shut the hell up in the presence of people that have spent more time studying and working with it than anybody.

Where do people get this idea that scientists are this group of hyper-altruistic professionals with no allegiance to any special interests? I mean.....c'mon now! Should I go out and start ingesting HGH to reverse some of the aging process because some experts in the medical field have some research to back it up?

On THE DICTATORSHIP OF SCIENCE ( not for matrix dwellers)

It seems like a conspiracy to mislead would be a lot easier to do with a minority of scientists than it would be with the vast majority. You really believe there is so little integrity in science that so many could be implicated in a worldwide conspiracy?

 

[SSDD]

You're ignorant if you think the scientists are deceiving us.

I asked you a question...what's the matter? Embarrassed to answer. I asked you if you were making a quasi religious argument... that we should shut up and have faith that they have our best interests at heart, and know what is best for us. Is that the argument that you are making?

Answer the question...

They may not be right all the time, but they're not lying about what they believe.

So now it isn't about what they have evidence for, or even about science, but about what they "believe"?

Yes, when it comes to matters of science you should sit down and shut the hell up in the presence of people that have spent more time studying and working with it than anybody.

Exactly what do you know about my education? The answer to that is nothing. Maybe you are so uneducated that the science is so far out of your reach that you believe scientists must all be geniuses... I am educated and their degrees do not impress me...nor does the fact that they are climate scientists...I am asking for evidence because that is what science does...finds evidence....The evidence I am asking for is of a very basic nature....simple observed, measured evidence that demonstrates that the climate we are experiencing is different from natural variability...

That is where climate science should start....they say the climate is changing...OK.. the climate is changing...the FIRST order of business is to determine whether or not the changes we are seeing are due to natural factors...is the climate we are seeing within the bounds of natural variability or outside the bounds of natural variability...if it is outside the bounds of natural variability, then we start asking what might cause this....if its within the bounds of natural variability, then we don't start proclaiming dooms day and demanding that whole systems of living be altered.....

So again....I would like to see one single piece of observed, measured evidence which demonstrates that the climate we are experiencing is outside the boundaries of what is natural for the climate on planet earth...not proof...not mountains of evidence...not anything but a single piece of actual evidence which shows that the present climate is not behaving as the climate has always behaved...

Is that to much to ask for? Really?

 

[Confounding]

Exactly what do you know about my education?

Are you a climate scientist? If not your opinion carries a lot less weight than those that are. There isn't a cabal.

 

[SSDD]

Exactly what do you know about my education?

Are you a climate scientist? If not your opinion carries a lot less weight than those that are. There isn't a cabal.

Again...my education, and my profession are irrelevant...either the very fundamental evidence I am asking for exists or it doesn't... again...fundamental evidence is where climate science should start....they say the climate is changing...OK.. the climate is changing...the FIRST order of business is to determine whether or not the changes we are seeing are due to natural factors...is the climate we are seeing within the bounds of natural variability or outside the bounds of natural variability...if it is outside the bounds of natural variability, then we start asking what might cause this....if its within the bounds of natural variability, then we don't start proclaiming dooms day and demanding that whole systems of living be altered.....

So again....I would like to see one single piece of observed, measured evidence which demonstrates that the climate we are experiencing is outside the boundaries of what is natural for the climate on planet earth...not proof...not mountains of evidence...not anything but a single piece of actual evidence which shows that the present climate is not behaving as the climate has always behaved...

Is that to much to ask for? Really?