LA Times bans letters from climate skeptics

[ClosedCaption]

No you resorted in saying because a model was wrong ALL of it is wrong. How? You dont know, you have just determined that's the case.

THEN SAID Ok even if its true it COULD BE GOOD. Since posiblities work both ways it COULD BE BAD ALSO. But you cant fathom that because you only see it two ways bringing up another logical fallacy

And saying hey if it happens it could be good uses another:

Don't like these pics? Stop emulating them.

If we were just discussing models you might have a point, but AGW people are discussing MASSIVE changes to our way of life BASED ON these models. At that point it sure as hell does matter if they are working or not.

If this were a debate at a Climate scientist function it would be one thing, however they and thier ilk are asking us to change our way of life based on thier theories.

.

Whether they are discussing changes or not. I'm talking about the SCIENCE! The SCIENCE can be proven. If Skeptics want their bullshit published go start a newpaper but dont think that you deserve to be printed in the paper just because you WANT it.

Jesus dude, you're just wrong so you change the subject.

THAT is where I want undeniable proof that 1) its happening and 2) we 100% will not be able to withstand it without those massive socialistic changes

 

[JRK]

Science is not a democracy, and certainly not a debate club. You can debate facts, but you cannot debate the science. You can only publish results. If those results are opposed to some other result, then you must convince other scientists to line up in support of your result. And that is not an easy proposition because scientists are actually conservative about what they support. It takes sound science and consistently reproducible results conducted by reputable scientists, properly certified in their respective fields. The rants of an ex- DJ and a massage therapist (two of the prime movers of the AGW denier circuit) don't amount to a hill of beans, and never will.

Beginning in February 2012, the group of scientists calling themselves The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) team received presentations by scientists representing all sides of the climate change debate and embarked on an in-depth review of a number of climate studies.

Employing a disciplined approach of problem identification and root cause analysis honed from decades of dealing with life threatening safety issues in successfully sending astronauts up through Earth's atmosphere and returning them safely home, the TRCS team concluded that no imminent threat exists from man-made CO2.

TRCS team is comprised of renowned space scientists with formal educational and decades career involvement in engineering, physics, chemistry, astrophysics, geophysics, geology and meteorology. Many of these scientists have Ph.Ds. All TRCS team members are unpaid volunteers who began the project after becoming dismayed with NASA's increasing advocacy for alarmist man-made climate change theories.

H. Leighton Steward, chairman of CO2isGreen.org as well as the educational non-profit, PlantsNeedCO2.org, makes the following comments regarding the TRCS posting, which can be found at The Right Climate Stuff - NASA scientists review climate change data

1. The science of what is causing global climate change or warming is clearly not settled and never has been.

2. There is no convincing physical evidence to support the man-made climate change hypothesis. The standard test of a hypothesis is whether it is supported by real observations, which seems to have been ignored by climate alarmists.

3. Claims made by proponents of catastrophic man-made warming are dominantly supported by non-validated computer models and the output of these models should not be relied upon by policy-makers. Some TRCS team members have been making critical decisions using complex computer models for decades.

4. There is no immediate threat of catastrophic global warming even if some warming occurs. The sea level is not going to suddenly begin a steep acceleration of its 18,000-year rate of rise. Global sea level rise is not currently accelerating despite what climate change alarmists claim.

5. The U.S. Government has overreacted to a possible catastrophic warming. The probable negative impacts to the economy, jobs and an increased cost of food, transportation and utilities will be severe and hurt the poor and middle class the most. Real experiments show that Earth's habitats and ecosystems could be damaged if CO2 levels are actually reduced. Environmentalists have been grossly misled to believe CO2 is a pollutant.

6. Empirical evidence shows that Earth is currently "greening" significantly due to additional CO2 and a modest warming.

7. Money saved by abandoning a premature rush to lower CO2 emissions could be better spent by continuing research on alternative energies that are not currently competitive or reliable.
Former NASA Scientists Conclude: No Evidence of Catastrophic Global Warming


That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not! - Forbes
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not

Might want to do some DD next time before you make claims of an EX DJ and who ever as being the people who dis agree with you

That group did no research at all.

Climate Denier at CPAC: Trust Me, I'm an Astronaut | Mother Jones

hmmmm
As Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute points out, “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).” And yes, I truly do hold both Joe Bast and Heartland in high esteem.

Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

and as far as "astronauts" maybe Mother Jones needs to do some DD also

TRCS team is comprised of renowned space scientists with formal educational and decades career involvement in engineering, physics, chemistry, astrophysics, geophysics, geology and meteorology. Many of these scientists have Ph.Ds. All TRCS team members are unpaid volunteers who began the project after becoming dismayed with NASA's increasing advocacy for alarmist man-made climate change theories.

what is there agenda?
no grant here

 

[BlindBoo]

That group did no research at all.

Climate Denier at CPAC: Trust Me, I'm an Astronaut | Mother Jones

Ohhh, a hit piece at the radical left Mother Jones - dayum, I'm convinced - sporky....

You fucking cultists are a hoot.

They wrote a review on what other have done and presented their so called findings to CPAC.

Hit piece?

Yore the hoot.

 

[martybegan]

No you resorted in saying because a model was wrong ALL of it is wrong. How? You dont know, you have just determined that's the case.

THEN SAID Ok even if its true it COULD BE GOOD. Since posiblities work both ways it COULD BE BAD ALSO. But you cant fathom that because you only see it two ways bringing up another logical fallacy

And saying hey if it happens it could be good uses another:

Don't like these pics? Stop emulating them.

If we were just discussing models you might have a point, but AGW people are discussing MASSIVE changes to our way of life BASED ON these models. At that point it sure as hell does matter if they are working or not.

If this were a debate at a Climate scientist function it would be one thing, however they and thier ilk are asking us to change our way of life based on thier theories.

.

Whether they are discussing changes or not. I'm talking about the SCIENCE! The SCIENCE can be proven. If Skeptics want their bullshit published go start a newpaper but dont think that you deserve to be printed in the paper just because you WANT it.

Jesus dude, you're just wrong so you change the subject.

THAT is where I want undeniable proof that 1) its happening and 2) we 100% will not be able to withstand it without those massive socialistic changes

You are ignoring the fact that this "science" is being used to push an agenda, an agenda to increase government size and control. Since you are OK with that, its not an issue to you.

Evidently you like having people tell you how to live your life. Others like me dont see it that way.

 

[Uncensored2008]

They wrote a review on what other have done and presented their so called findings to CPAC.

No, they wrote an attack on scientists who dared question the sacred dogma that they follow.

Notice the MJ is a radical left POLITICAL journal, with no scientific expertise, and that the attack was a political hatchet job.

AGW has a lot more to do with politics than it does with science - ergo the radical leftists are the front line, rather than researchers or data.

Hit piece?

Yore the hoot.

That right, cletus?

 

[ClosedCaption]

You are ignoring the fact that this "science" is being used to push an agenda, an agenda to increase government size and control. Since you are OK with that, its not an issue to you.

Pushing an agenda has nothing to do with printing half truths from climate wack jobs. Once you realize you're start to understand. Example: The devil is used to influence behavior but that doesn't mean I want to see articles on the Devil in the newspaper

Evidently you like having people tell you how to live your life. Others like me dont see it that way.

Oh god stop with that pussy shit. Put your emotions down and pick up your brain

 

[martybegan]

You are ignoring the fact that this "science" is being used to push an agenda, an agenda to increase government size and control. Since you are OK with that, its not an issue to you.

Pushing an agenda has nothing to do with printing half truths from climate wack jobs. Once you realize you're start to understand. Example: The devil is used to influence behavior but that doesn't mean I want to see articles on the Devil in the newspaper

Evidently you like having people tell you how to live your life. Others like me dont see it that way.

Oh god stop with that pussy shit. Put your emotions down and pick up your brain

How about you concentrate on my reasons for my positions, and not others? I can go pointing out the AGW supporters who claim every heat wave is a sign of warming and we are all going to die.

The pussy shit, as you call it, is concern that AGW is being used by people who always want to increase government power, to GASP increase government power. Evidently the only solution to AGW according to your side are taxes, regulations, and stopping me from using an incandescent lightbulb.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You are ignoring the fact that this "science" is being used to push an agenda, an agenda to increase government size and control. Since you are OK with that, its not an issue to you.

Pushing an agenda has nothing to do with printing half truths from climate wack jobs. Once you realize you're start to understand. Example: The devil is used to influence behavior but that doesn't mean I want to see articles on the Devil in the newspaper

Evidently you like having people tell you how to live your life. Others like me dont see it that way.

Oh god stop with that pussy shit. Put your emotions down and pick up your brain

How about you concentrate on my reasons for my positions, and not others? I can go pointing out the AGW supporters who claim every heat wave is a sign of warming and we are all going to die.

No you couldn't for one simple reason. Nothing happens 100% of the time so you wont find supporters who claim EVERY anything.

The pussy shit, as you call it, is concern that AGW is being used by people who always want to increase government power, to GASP increase government power. Evidently the only solution to AGW according to your side are taxes, regulations, and stopping me from using an incandescent lightbulb.

Use the lightbulbs then man. Shit. Just be sure to wipe your tears before handling it. Holee shit

 

[orogenicman]

LOL. Its not about science anymore. Its about more control over people's lives, more government regulation, and lessening peoples quality of life over a phenomenon that progressives like you treat like a religion, complete with heresy and heretics.

Any time a person invokes the great global socialist conspiracy, you know you're reading the words of a sputtering 'tard.

Non-'tards don't need to manufacture 'tard conspiracy theories. 'Tards do. Because they're 'tards, so 'tard conspiracy theories are all they have.

Then why is the solution to AGW always more government control of people, industry and commerce?

Answer that one, dippy.

AGW didn't happen in a vacuum, and it certainly isn't going to be solved by voluntary measures. Oh, and by the way, perhaps you should review Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

 

[BlindBoo]

They wrote a review on what other have done and presented their so called findings to CPAC.

No, they wrote an attack on scientists who dared question the sacred dogma that they follow.

Notice the MJ is a radical left POLITICAL journal, with no scientific expertise, and that the attack was a political hatchet job.

AGW has a lot more to do with politics than it does with science - ergo the radical leftists are the front line, rather than researchers or data.

Hit piece?

Yore the hoot.

That right, cletus?

MJ exposed "The Right Climate Stuff"er's as another right wing pseudo climate science group who have done nothing to prove or disprove anything.

 

[martybegan]

Any time a person invokes the great global socialist conspiracy, you know you're reading the words of a sputtering 'tard.

Non-'tards don't need to manufacture 'tard conspiracy theories. 'Tards do. Because they're 'tards, so 'tard conspiracy theories are all they have.

Then why is the solution to AGW always more government control of people, industry and commerce?

Answer that one, dippy.

AGW didn't happen in a vacuum, and it certainly isn't going to be solved by voluntary measures. Oh, and by the way, perhaps you should review Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Indian tribes cause global warming? Who knew?

 

[orogenicman]

Why do opposing views scare you libs so bad?
BTW suppose to be in the 20s here by Friday
20 degress below normal for the low

Opposing views aren't the issue. When so-called skeptics create false controversies and more importantly, create their own "facts", then we tend to have a problem. It's like creationists arguments to "teach the controversy". There is no more controversy in evolution than there is in climate change. By the way, you do know the difference between climate and WEATHER, right?

Do the people who call out every slightly stronger hurricane, or any typical flood that occurs from time to time and support AGW know the difference as well?

Evidently they don't, from some of the posts we get here.

Straw man argument. Name one climate scientist who is "call(ing) out every slightly stronger hurricane, or any typical flood that occurs from time to time and support AGW" (your grammar).

 

[martybegan]

Opposing views aren't the issue. When so-called skeptics create false controversies and more importantly, create their own "facts", then we tend to have a problem. It's like creationists arguments to "teach the controversy". There is no more controversy in evolution than there is in climate change. By the way, you do know the difference between climate and WEATHER, right?

Do the people who call out every slightly stronger hurricane, or any typical flood that occurs from time to time and support AGW know the difference as well?

Evidently they don't, from some of the posts we get here.

Straw man argument. Name one climate scientist who is "call(ing) out every slightly stronger hurricane, or any typical flood that occurs from time to time and support AGW" (your grammar).

Why are you limiting it to climate scientists? You own your own wackadoodles if you want us to own up to ours.

 

[orogenicman]

It makes 100% sense
the easiest way to win an argument is tp pretend there is only your side
that is what you and the times is doing
ignore what other experts are stating and only pay attention to your experts
we spend 3.5 trillion dollars a year, we bring in 2.5 and you do not see that as an issue
same thing

Science is not a democracy, and certainly not a debate club. You can debate facts, but you cannot debate the science. You can only publish results. If those results are opposed to some other result, then you must convince other scientists to line up in support of your result. And that is not an easy proposition because scientists are actually conservative about what they support. It takes sound science and consistently reproducible results conducted by reputable scientists, properly certified in their respective fields. The rants of an ex- DJ and a massage therapist (two of the prime movers of the AGW denier circuit) don't amount to a hill of beans, and never will.

Beginning in February 2012, the group of scientists calling themselves The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) team received presentations by scientists representing all sides of the climate change debate and embarked on an in-depth review of a number of climate studies.

<snip>

TRCS is promoted by the heartland Institute as a group that is committed to getting to the bottom of climate change. The problem is that none of those former NASA employees are climate scientists nor have they ever conducted any climate science research. Oh, and by the way, that group is headed by H. Leighton Steward, a 77-year-old former oil and gas executive. No bias there.

And their stated goal is to try to stop NASA from conducting earth science research, particularly climate research. How stupid is that!

 

[JRK]

World Is Spending $1 Billion Per Day To Tackle Global Warming | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
how many starving people would this money feed a day?

 

[Uncensored2008]

MJ exposed "The Right Climate Stuff"er's as another right wing pseudo climate science group who have done nothing to prove or disprove anything.

Exposed?

ROFL

They threw red meat to their drooling followers. It's not like you folk are critical thinkers....

 

[orogenicman]

Do the people who call out every slightly stronger hurricane, or any typical flood that occurs from time to time and support AGW know the difference as well?

Evidently they don't, from some of the posts we get here.

Straw man argument. Name one climate scientist who is "call(ing) out every slightly stronger hurricane, or any typical flood that occurs from time to time and support AGW" (your grammar).

Why are you limiting it to climate scientists? You own your own wackadoodles if you want us to own up to ours.

The problem with your argument is that you seem to forget that "wackadoodles" is essentially all your side has. Why AREN'T you limiting your debate to climate scientists? Oh right, because the best you guys can do is an ex-DJ and a massage therapist.

 

[JRK]

Science is not a democracy, and certainly not a debate club. You can debate facts, but you cannot debate the science. You can only publish results. If those results are opposed to some other result, then you must convince other scientists to line up in support of your result. And that is not an easy proposition because scientists are actually conservative about what they support. It takes sound science and consistently reproducible results conducted by reputable scientists, properly certified in their respective fields. The rants of an ex- DJ and a massage therapist (two of the prime movers of the AGW denier circuit) don't amount to a hill of beans, and never will.

Beginning in February 2012, the group of scientists calling themselves The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) team received presentations by scientists representing all sides of the climate change debate and embarked on an in-depth review of a number of climate studies.

<snip>

TRCS is promoted by the heartland Institute as a group that is committed to getting to the bottom of climate change. The problem is that none of those former NASA employees are climate scientists nor have they ever conducted any climate science research. Oh, and by the way, that group is headed by H. Leighton Steward, a 77-year-old former oil and gas executive. No bias there.

And their stated goal is to try to stop NASA from conducting earth science research, particularly climate research. How stupid is that!

hmmmm
As Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute points out, “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).” And yes, I truly do hold both Joe Bast and Heartland in high esteem.

Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

and as far as "astronauts" maybe Mother Jones needs to do some DD also

TRCS team is comprised of renowned space scientists with formal educational and decades career involvement in engineering, physics, chemistry, astrophysics, geophysics, geology and meteorology. Many of these scientists have Ph.Ds. All TRCS team members are unpaid volunteers who began the project after becoming dismayed with NASA's increasing advocacy for alarmist man-made climate change theories.

what is there agenda?
no grant here

 

[ClosedCaption]

Science is not a democracy, and certainly not a debate club. You can debate facts, but you cannot debate the science. You can only publish results. If those results are opposed to some other result, then you must convince other scientists to line up in support of your result. And that is not an easy proposition because scientists are actually conservative about what they support. It takes sound science and consistently reproducible results conducted by reputable scientists, properly certified in their respective fields. The rants of an ex- DJ and a massage therapist (two of the prime movers of the AGW denier circuit) don't amount to a hill of beans, and never will.

Beginning in February 2012, the group of scientists calling themselves The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) team received presentations by scientists representing all sides of the climate change debate and embarked on an in-depth review of a number of climate studies.

<snip>

TRCS is promoted by the heartland Institute as a group that is committed to getting to the bottom of climate change. The problem is that none of those former NASA employees are climate scientists nor have they ever conducted any climate science research. Oh, and by the way, that group is headed by H. Leighton Steward, a 77-year-old former oil and gas executive. No bias there.

And their stated goal is to try to stop NASA from conducting earth science research, particularly climate research. How stupid is that!

See this is why no one believes the Cons even when they could be right.

They pull so much of this "cry wolf" bullshit that when something happens foreal, no one believes them. Of course the evidence against AGW would be from the janitors or secretaries at NASA its too much to find actual scientists to speak about science so they find anyone and present them as NASA employees. Next they'll post the thoughts of the lunch lady

 

[orogenicman]

World Is Spending $1 Billion Per Day To Tackle Global Warming | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
how many starving people would this money feed a day?

In a 71 trillion dollar world economy, 1 billion dollars per day is trifling. Moreover, it is an investment in the future, an investment that will pay dividends in the future.