Is it "Climate Change" Consensus or "Global Warming" Consensus

[Old Rocks]

LOL And several college courses in Physics. Which you obviously do not. LOL

 

[SSDD]

IF and that is a very large if, you have ever been to college, you clearly didn't get much from them...as evidenced by the fact that your argument consists entirely on one logical fallacy after another...a person who is actually educated rarely finds himself in the position of resorting to logical fallacies...

 

[Cellblock2429]

For the past year or so I have heard the WH and the MSM say that a consensus or 97% of scientists agree that it is man that is causing either global warming or climate change. My question is which one is it (climate change or global warming) and how do we arrive at this consensus? My research into this comes up with no particular study that is irrefutable. Yet I hear that the science is proven....

It was a flawed survey. Debunked years ago but it's all libtards have to rely on.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The claim that those accepting AGW are looking for "big unlimited government" is an unsupportable lie. What they are looking for is an informed populace that will accept mainstream science and make long term commitments to deal with the threat that AGW creates.

PS, you, SSDD, are the absolute paragon of uncritical thinking.

Do you accept the emails that exposed the GW scam and manipulated findings? Will do you punk?

 

[SSDD]

Hell he couldn't even accept direct quotes from well known climate scientists speaking about manipulating and making up data as evidence that they were, in fact, manipulating, and making up data..he "interpreted" their words into some meaning that was acceptable to him as if they weren't intelligent enough to say, in fact, what they were doing. If it runs against his dogma...he simply can't accept it...he has to much invested...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Hell he couldn't even accept direct quotes from well known climate scientists speaking about manipulating and making up data as evidence that they were, in fact, manipulating, and making up data..he "interpreted" their words into some meaning that was acceptable to him as if they weren't intelligent enough to say, in fact, what they were doing. If it runs against his dogma...he simply can't accept it...he has to much invested...

Judge: Michael Mann's [perhaps best known for helping develop the famous “hockey stick” graph used to illustrate global warming.] Defamation Lawsuit Against Right-Wing Bloggers Will Proceed

“Tarnishing the personal integrity and reputation of a scientist important to one side may be a tactic to gain advantage in a no-holds-barred debate over global warming,” wrote Senior Judge Vanessa Ruiz in the court’s opinion. “That the challenged statements were made as part of such debate provides important context and requires careful parsing in light of constitutional standards. But if the statements assert or imply false facts that defame the individual, they do not find shelter under the First Amendment simply because they are embedded in a larger policy debate.” This distinction has been pointed out by other climate scientists following the case as well. In a series of tweets on Thursday, NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt called the ruling “nuanced” and “well argued.”



Big Win for Climate Scientist

 

[SSDD]

Hell he couldn't even accept direct quotes from well known climate scientists speaking about manipulating and making up data as evidence that they were, in fact, manipulating, and making up data..he "interpreted" their words into some meaning that was acceptable to him as if they weren't intelligent enough to say, in fact, what they were doing. If it runs against his dogma...he simply can't accept it...he has to much invested...

Judge: Michael Mann's [perhaps best known for helping develop the famous “hockey stick” graph used to illustrate global warming.] Defamation Lawsuit Against Right-Wing Bloggers Will Proceed

“Tarnishing the personal integrity and reputation of a scientist important to one side may be a tactic to gain advantage in a no-holds-barred debate over global warming,” wrote Senior Judge Vanessa Ruiz in the court’s opinion. “That the challenged statements were made as part of such debate provides important context and requires careful parsing in light of constitutional standards. But if the statements assert or imply false facts that defame the individual, they do not find shelter under the First Amendment simply because they are embedded in a larger policy debate.” This distinction has been pointed out by other climate scientists following the case as well. In a series of tweets on Thursday, NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt called the ruling “nuanced” and “well argued.”



Big Win for Climate Scientist

Not sure how you think that is a big win....he is still on the hook for discovery and he has been trying to avoid it for years...his plan was to ruin Stein financially in the court and call himself a winner...didn't happen...he is being supported by a lot of people who want to see what mann has been trying to hide for all these years...

Aside from that, I am not sure what that has to do with my statement....I provided direct quotes from well known climate scientists stating that they were fabricating data...and crick...and apparently you can't accept it...

This from Geoff Jenkins to Phil Jones20 nov 1996.....
“Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with early release of information (via Oz), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc? I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.” “We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (Executive Director of UNEP) (who has had this in the past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville Nicholls

Phil Jones said:

"For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there isvery little ship data there."

You want to try and defend those statements t as something other than inventing data?

 

[Crick]

This from Geoff Jenkins to Phil Jones20 nov 1996.....
“Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with early release of information (via Oz), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc? I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.” “We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (Executive Director of UNEP) (who has had this in the past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville Nicholls

Phil Jones said:

"For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there isvery little ship data there."

You want to try and defend those statements t as something other than inventing data?

Apparently, SID does not understand the term "silly season".




The actual court opinion re Mann v Steyn & Simberg

http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/14-CV-101_14-CV-126.pdf

 

[SSDD]

This from Geoff Jenkins to Phil Jones20 nov 1996.....
“Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with early release of information (via Oz), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc? I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.” “We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (Executive Director of UNEP) (who has had this in the past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville Nicholls

Phil Jones said:

"For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there isvery little ship data there."

You want to try and defend those statements t as something other than inventing data?

Apparently, SID does not understand the term "silly season".




The actual court opinion re Mann v Steyn & Simberg

http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/14-CV-101_14-CV-126.pdf

Defend the indefensible skid mark....it is so damned entertaining.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Semantics. Really?

 

[SSDD]

Semantics. Really?

Says the liberal who lives and dies by semantics.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Semantics. Really?

Says the liberal who lives and dies by semantics.

That's a poor defense as you don't know me. But nice try tho.

 

[SSDD]

Semantics. Really?

Says the liberal who lives and dies by semantics.

That's a poor defense as you don't know me. But nice try tho.

Hypocrisy speaks for itself...if you are different from the persona you put up here, then you are a liar.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Semantics. Really?

Says the liberal who lives and dies by semantics.

That's a poor defense as you don't know me. But nice try tho.

Hypocrisy speaks for itself...if you are different from the persona you put up here, then you are a liar.

Again, asserting something doesn't make it true and since you don't know me what you think about me doesn't matter. But personal attacks is the sin you have nothing more

 

[SSDD]

Semantics. Really?

Says the liberal who lives and dies by semantics.

That's a poor defense as you don't know me. But nice try tho.

Hypocrisy speaks for itself...if you are different from the persona you put up here, then you are a liar.

Again, asserting something doesn't make it true and since you don't know me what you think about me doesn't matter. But personal attacks is the sin you have nothing more

Not to quick are you...you present a persona here....which is based on equivocation and semantics....if that is not who you actually are, then your persona here is a lie, which makes you a liar...it is a straight forward logic problem...either you are who you present yourself be or you are not.

 

[Crick]

Jesus you're a waste of electrons.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Semantics. Really?

Says the liberal who lives and dies by semantics.

That's a poor defense as you don't know me. But nice try tho.

Hypocrisy speaks for itself...if you are different from the persona you put up here, then you are a liar.

Again, asserting something doesn't make it true and since you don't know me what you think about me doesn't matter. But personal attacks is the sin you have nothing more

Not to quick are you...you present a persona here....which is based on equivocation and semantics....if that is not who you actually are, then your persona here is a lie, which makes you a liar...it is a straight forward logic problem...either you are who you present yourself be or you are not.

Dude, you seem to think that whatever you assert is true. Maybe I should attempt to defend myself from every lame accusation you can make up...but you can make up anything all the time. So the better use of my time would be to recognize you have nothing to present on the topic and making up shit about me is the only response you have.

If you think something about me, that's your problem. Not mine. See?

 

[SSDD]

Dude, you seem to think that whatever you assert is true. Maybe I should attempt to defend myself from every lame accusation you can make up...but you can make up anything all the time. So the better use of my time would be to recognize you have nothing to present on the topic and making up shit about me is the only response you have.

If you think something about me, that's your problem. Not mine. See?

Since you got your panties in a twist...if you look back over this thread...you will see that I had far more to contribute than you...best you could do was a one liner....which had nothing whatsoever to do with the op...

 

[ClosedCaption]

Dude, you seem to think that whatever you assert is true. Maybe I should attempt to defend myself from every lame accusation you can make up...but you can make up anything all the time. So the better use of my time would be to recognize you have nothing to present on the topic and making up shit about me is the only response you have.

If you think something about me, that's your problem. Not mine. See?

Since you got your panties in a twist...if you look back over this thread...you will see that I had far more to contribute than you...best you could do was a one liner....which had nothing whatsoever to do with the op...

Right, so far your contributions have been to pretend to know what others think. That's a contribution but it doesn't count towards contributing to the topic.

Topic is Trump charities and all you can do is pretend it's OK because you say liberals were OK with it at one time. But that doesn't explain why you have a sudden reversal on the topic. I know it's because Daddy told you it's OK now.

 

[SSDD]

Right, so far your contributions have been to pretend to know what others think. That's a contribution but it doesn't count towards contributing to the topic.

Topic is Trump charities and all you can do is pretend it's OK because you say liberals were OK with it at one time. But that doesn't explain why you have a sudden reversal on the topic. I know it's because Daddy told you it's OK now.

The topic is the consensus...or not on climate change...but I would have been surprised had you known that based on your total contribution to the thread...