How to Explain Climate Change to Neanderthals

[daws101]

The only "crap" in the system is from the IPCC. You are a propagandist for them.. That much is clear. Do they pay you or are you merely a useful idiot?

Please explain how "crap" has convinced 97% of the world's climate scientists of its validity?

It hasn't...but crap has convinced you that 97% of the world's scientists are on board.

Bullshit !
The 97% consensus on global warming
Can't wait for the rationalizing!

BWAHAAaaaaaaaaaaa ...... You think John Cook is reliable when his works was shown fraudulent and he misrepresented himself by using false names.credentials and reviewing his own work? Your Funny!!!

Far more reliable than the denier dicks .

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Since the present proclamation of Faith from the AGW Faith Based Ministries is not based on science, they tend to get upset when folks use actual science to dispute their proclamations.

They can't very well cry out "blasphemy!" since that would too obviously tip their own hands.

So they make the false claim that their claims "are" based on science. This is why they then refer to their opponents as "deniers."

They are such tools (I mean just look at Old Socks and Creaky) they seem to believe that repeating "deniers" often enough will somehow win them a debating point.

Newsflash. It is perfectly proper to deny a false claim.

 

[Crick]

Let's see some science supporting your position

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let's see some science supporting your position

That's what we've been asking you for a decade and a half and all we get back are models and....

Settled Science
Science Settled

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Let's see some science supporting your position

You first; you being the proponent, after all.

"Models" aside, please show us all some non-theoretical science that conclusively establishes your contentions. Try for something that is repeatable.

 

[jc456]

How To Explain Climate Change To A Neanderthal


There...a severely DUMBED down explanation for the slower folks who just can't seem to grasp the concept

You clearly made the choice to swill that kool aid.

However, speaking of dumb, it is appropriate to talk about you.

• What scientific evidence most profoundly convinced you that humans have ever had even the slightest ability to so dramatically impact global climate "change?"
• Based on the most exacting, and rigorous scientific data, how much of the CO2 which humans have put into the atmosphere "caused" or is now causing this global climate change?
• Are you personally of the opinion that it is properly called "global climate CHANGE?" Or do you prefer the less ambiguous "global climate WARMING?" Which is it? How did you come to that conclusion?
• Precisely speaking, how much should humans reduce in terms of carbon emissions in order to slow and then stop and then, maybe, reverse the change humans caused to the world's climate? I mean, humans do have the ability to CAUSE climate change, right? And we do have the ability to change it or reverse it, right? And the scientific evidence for those human capabilities is -- what?
  
• Let's place modeling on a back burner for a moment. Instead, please refer all the dumb deniers to the actual scientific data that establishes the correlation between the carbon which humans have dumped into the world's ecosystem and the "change" in planetary climate.

I look forward to you talking down some more to all those who don't immediately accept all your well founded assertions and presuppositions.

Easy.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

American Institute of Physics

This post is Neanderthal and would only prove Herr Koch's experiment again and again.

 

[jc456]

Let's see some science supporting your position

I agree, when will you do that? It's your claim to scientifically prove. In the history of the forum still science evidence on your side has never been posted

 

[jc456]

The only "crap" in the system is from the IPCC. You are a propagandist for them.. That much is clear. Do they pay you or are you merely a useful idiot?

Please explain how "crap" has convinced 97% of the world's climate scientists of its validity?

It hasn't...but crap has convinced you that 97% of the world's scientists are on board.

Bullshit !
The 97% consensus on global warming
Can't wait for the rationalizing!

BWAHAAaaaaaaaaaaa ...... You think John Cook is reliable when his works was shown fraudulent and he misrepresented himself by using false names.credentials and reviewing his own work? Your Funny!!!

Far more reliable than the denier dicks .

I believe that was premature Neanderthal.

 

[bripat9643]

But when the predictions fail, as they all have,

The predictions -- the real predictions, as opposed to the big lies deniers try to pass off as predictions -- have been very good. And all the scientists know that. Hence, all scientists also know that deniers are lying their asses off and faking everything, which is why deniers are simply ignored now.

Remember, you deniers aren't ignored by the whole world because of a socialist conspiracy. You're ignored because you're dishonest cultists. You can rave on message boards that the whole world is part of a cult and you're the only normal people, but the world still correctly thinks of you as pathologically dishonest frauds. So, I suggest you learn to enjoy your status as world laughingstocks, losers. After all, you've all worked so hard to earn it.

claimd NYC would flood on a regular basis
claimed cat-5 hurricanes would be common
arctic ice would be gone (ok, that was gore, but no one corrected him)
polar bears extinct, more now than ever
horrible storms
desertification
blah blah blah

throw out 1000 predictions and get 10 right is not spiking the ball, it's getting lucky

The big list of failed climate predictions

 

[9aces]

As a public service, let me help explain to the dimwit denier cult dimwits what "the science is settled" means.

Think of science as putting together a jigsaw puzzle from the middle outwards.

You build on the puzzle by adding pieces to the periphery.

Gradually, piece by piece, the center grows. That's the settled science.

Sometimes you think a new piece on the periphery might fit. Then you find it doesn't. That in know way changes that the pieces in the middle are locked together. Again, that's the settled science.

Until you find out what you thought was the middle, was really a small section way out on the fringe.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The only "crap" in the system is from the IPCC. You are a propagandist for them.. That much is clear. Do they pay you or are you merely a useful idiot?

Please explain how "crap" has convinced 97% of the world's climate scientists of its validity?

It hasn't...but crap has convinced you that 97% of the world's scientists are on board.

Bullshit !
The 97% consensus on global warming
Can't wait for the rationalizing!

BWAHAAaaaaaaaaaaa ...... You think John Cook is reliable when his works was shown fraudulent and he misrepresented himself by using false names.credentials and reviewing his own work? Your Funny!!!

Far more reliable than the denier dicks .

SO throwing out over 98% of the published papers, then giving full weight to just 77 papers where just three dissented is doing credible science?

Sounds to me like you think Cook's dick is a baby bottle..

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Old Rocks]

Please explain how "crap" has convinced 97% of the world's climate scientists of its validity?

It hasn't...but crap has convinced you that 97% of the world's scientists are on board.

Bullshit !
The 97% consensus on global warming
Can't wait for the rationalizing!

BWAHAAaaaaaaaaaaa ...... You think John Cook is reliable when his works was shown fraudulent and he misrepresented himself by using false names.credentials and reviewing his own work? Your Funny!!!

Far more reliable than the denier dicks .

SO throwing out over 98% of the published papers, then giving full weight to just 77 papers where just three dissented is doing credible science?

Sounds to me like you think Cook's dick is a baby bottle..

Now Silly Billy, we all know how you ignorant knownothings work. So the paper gives observations of glacial regression in a mountain range, with areal photos dating back to the '30's, with measurements of ice depths back to the '50's, but never mentions the words global warming. Therefore, the paper has nothing to do with global warming, and does not present any evidence for it. Even when they compare the percentage of glacial regression in that range with the worldwide glacial regression.

No, no one but you assholes are throwing out scientific papers. Or lying about them. Sorry that all the science in the world does not agree with your politics, but that is reality. A reality represented in the Treaty just signed by 194 nations.

 

[Billy_Bob]

It hasn't...but crap has convinced you that 97% of the world's scientists are on board.

Bullshit !
The 97% consensus on global warming
Can't wait for the rationalizing!

BWAHAAaaaaaaaaaaa ...... You think John Cook is reliable when his works was shown fraudulent and he misrepresented himself by using false names.credentials and reviewing his own work? Your Funny!!!

Far more reliable than the denier dicks .

SO throwing out over 98% of the published papers, then giving full weight to just 77 papers where just three dissented is doing credible science?

Sounds to me like you think Cook's dick is a baby bottle..

Now Silly Billy, we all know how you ignorant knownothings work. So the paper gives observations of glacial regression in a mountain range, with areal photos dating back to the '30's, with measurements of ice depths back to the '50's, but never mentions the words global warming. Therefore, the paper has nothing to do with global warming, and does not present any evidence for it. Even when they compare the percentage of glacial regression in that range with the worldwide glacial regression.

No, no one but you assholes are throwing out scientific papers. Or lying about them. Sorry that all the science in the world does not agree with your politics, but that is reality. A reality represented in the Treaty just signed by 194 nations.

Says the moron who thinks cherry picking the things you like to make up the shit you want is credible sconce.. All while lying about the thoughts and beliefs of others..

 

[Wuwei]

Says the moron who thinks cherry picking the things you like to make up the shit you want is credible sconce.. All while lying about the thoughts and beliefs of others..

Aw Billy Bob, quit whining. You are one of the neanderthals that needs to hear climate explaining.

 

[bripat9643]

Says the moron who thinks cherry picking the things you like to make up the shit you want is credible sconce.. All while lying about the thoughts and beliefs of others..

Aw Billy Bob, quit whining. You are one of the neanderthals that needs to hear climate explaining.

"Explaining" is a euphemism meaning "propaganda."

 

[Andylusion]

The only "crap" in the system is from the IPCC. You are a propagandist for them.. That much is clear. Do they pay you or are you merely a useful idiot?

Please explain how "crap" has convinced 97% of the world's climate scientists of its validity?

It hasn't...but crap has convinced you that 97% of the world's scientists are on board.

Bullshit !
The 97% consensus on global warming
Can't wait for the rationalizing!

BWAHAAaaaaaaaaaaa ...... You think John Cook is reliable when his works was shown fraudulent and he misrepresented himself by using false names.credentials and reviewing his own work? Your Funny!!!

Far more reliable than the denier dicks .

See you claim to be about science, and the 'facts', then you cite crazy people..... and when we point out the glaring errors and problems with the information.... "Far more reliable than the denier dicks" That's your answer? Do you not realize what you are telling all of us, about yourself? We can't trust you. When faced with huge factual problems with your source of data, your answer is equal to

"Yeah... ok the data is screwed up, and it's questionable source, and yeah there are glaring problems but..... but it's better than you!"

So much for the "science" right? Why should anyone listen to anything you have to say now?

 

[Crick]

SO throwing out over 98% of the published papers, then giving full weight to just 77 papers where just three dissented is doing credible science?

Sounds to me like you think Cook's dick is a baby bottle..

What the fuck is wrong with you? Cook did not use 77 papers, he used 4,014 out of an initial selection of 12,744.

The 77 papers that you dumbfucks keeping trying to throw in there was in the survey by Doran and Zimmerman. They sent inquiries to 10,257 Earth scientists, got responses from 3,146 and found 79 of those in which the authors "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change". That you all think that's such crap is just another de facto piece of evidence that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about on statistics or just about anything else. The results from the full 3,146 respondents had 90% agreement that global warming was taking place and 82% that human activity was a significant factor in that warming. So, if you've been comforting yourself with the fantasy that a majority of all scientists would side with you, forget it. No matter how broad the group, you're still fringe whackjobs who don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[Dot Com]

Thank you for clearing the intentionally muddied denier water as it were Crick

Sent from my VS415PP using Tapatalk

 

[jc456]

SO throwing out over 98% of the published papers, then giving full weight to just 77 papers where just three dissented is doing credible science?

Sounds to me like you think Cook's dick is a baby bottle..

What the fuck is wrong with you? Cook did not use 77 papers, he used 4,014 out of an initial selection of 12,744.

The 77 papers that you dumbfucks keeping trying to throw in there was in the survey by Doran and Zimmerman. They sent inquiries to 10,257 Earth scientists, got responses from 3,146 and found 79 of those in which the authors "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change". That you all think that's such crap is just another de facto piece of evidence that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about on statistics or just about anything else. The results from the full 3,146 respondents had 90% agreement that global warming was taking place and 82% that human activity was a significant factor in that warming. So, if you've been comforting yourself with the fantasy that a majority of all scientists would side with you, forget it. No matter how broad the group, you're still fringe whackjobs who don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

AS always, you are incorrect.

Here from a piece in WattsUpWithThat, Link:

Cooks '97% consensus' disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors

Excerpt:
"The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it."

And:
"Dr William Briggs, “Statistician to the Stars”, said: “In any survey such as Cook’s, it is essential to define the survey question very clearly. Yet Cook used three distinct definitions of climate consensus interchangeably. Also, he arbitrarily excluded about 8000 of the 12,000 papers in his sample on the unacceptable ground that they had expressed no opinion on the climate consensus. These artifices let him reach the unjustifiable conclusion that there was a 97.1% consensus when there was not."

Which Cook agrees with in his Skepitcal Science site:

Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature

Excerpt:

"Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming.

We found that about two-thirds of papers didn't express a position on the subject in the abstract, which confirms that we were conservative in our initial abstract ratings. This result isn't surprising for two reasons: 1) most journals have strict word limits for their abstracts, and 2) frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious. For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?"

Cook agrees that two thirds of the documents were not part of the position he was interested in to find his 97%.

Funny shit don't you think?