Liberals Continue Their Assault On Anything That Casts Doubt on Climate Change

[jc456]

That doesn't mean it's not 90% correct

And it doesn't mean it is 90% correct now is it?

Me personally, I don't understand why warmers are afraid of data that may help explain the climate. What's it to you? you have no solution so what is it your fearful of? Are you really that susceptible to someone stating doom and gloom on something that isn't even validated? Really? Wow.

Now, which is worse, saying something that is 90% correct, or shouting that everything is wrong because it's not 100% correct. How correct is someone who says it's all wrong and we should not do anything to solve the problem, because it's only 90% correct?

what is worse is someone that doesn't know for sure to disregard data that may be important and might influence further studies. I don't care what the percentage is. Or are you saying that scientists can't be wrong? LOL

I can say everyday of my life that rain is possible with some percentage. You know why? Because weather isn't settled. because the earth is unpredictable.

No, it doesn't. I was giving an example, and used a figure.

You think I'm afraid of data? Why would you think that? You don't know me.

I want to understand the TRUTH. I've looked at lots of things and I've seen that there is a change in the climate. I also believe we should be going through a global cooling phase right now, though on that I'm never going to be certain.

But the biggest thing for me is that when humans start messing around with things, we find we're unable to stop them, and this causes massive problems.

I want to understand the TRUTH
It's all I want. It's a sad that people think they already know it. Now that is the problem. The science is not settled. AR5 states it. your IPCC not mine.

I've seen that there is a change in the climate.
what change in climate have you seen? how many years you been watching climate?

No, the science isn't settled. However on the one hand you have people looking for the truth, on the other people with agendas. Those with agendas might be on both sides of the debate, but lumping people with agendas with those looking for the truth is simply not fair, but happens too often.

Well, even within my own life time I've seen things get warmer. When I was a kid we used to have lots of snow, my father would have to dig out the roads in order to attempt to get to work. Now the only chance of getting stuck is when there is flooding.

But that's besides the point. This is science, this is far to complicated to see with the human experience. We're talking GLOBAL WARMING. Not localized warming.

and global warming can't be found because there aren't enough stations around the globe to make that call. Unless of course you think there are and I would merely claim BS. But, convection and pressure systems moves heat around. Do you deny that? So the heat in Texas is moved to the north, do you agree with that? If not, there are very many Meteorologists that you are calling liars. And if you do agree, how do you find the actual local temperature if heat is moved, same for cold?

What do you need to know the world is warming up? Readings from a station every two meters? No, you don't.

You can draw conclusions from less data. Perhaps that data won't be perfect, but it will tell you something.

Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature? - Carbon Brief

"To get a complete picture of Earth’s temperature, scientists combine measurements from the air above land and the ocean surface collected by ships, buoys and sometimes satellites, too."

Here are the four groups who are studying the weather. The Japanese have lower global temperatures than others. Nasa has the highest. However they're pretty similar.

"The answer to this lies in how the different datasets deal with having little or no data in remote parts of the world, measurement errors, changes in instrumentation over time and other factors that make capturing global temperature a less-than-straightforward task."

"Data coverage has, perhaps, the biggest influence. NASA GISTEMP has the most comprehensive coverage, with measurements over 99 per cent of the globe. By contrast, JMA covers just 85 per cent of the globe, with particularly poor data in the poles, Africa and Asia."

"Nasa’s GISTEMP uses statistical methods to fill in gaps using surrounding measurements. How much each measurement influences the final value depends on how close it is geographically to the missing point. NOAA follows a similar process for the MLOST dataset."

"HadCRUT4 is the only dataset to leave regions with missing data blank, rather than try to fill them in. This effectively assumes temperatures there are in line with the global average."

So, the British don't fill in the blanks. Nasa fills in the blanks with statistical probabilities. What's the difference? The British have a lower set of data. If the Arctic is warming faster and the British aren't making statistical probabilities and perhaps have less data from the Arctic, then they get lower temperatures than they otherwise would.

"Indeed, updates to an old version of the temperature record (HadCRUT3) to include better Arctic data saw northern hemisphere temperatures rise by 0.1 degrees Celsius."

"The NASA GISTEMP record is the most detailed of the four datasets, with grid boxes two degrees longitude by two degrees latitude."

"The other three have grid boxes measuring five by five degrees. They also differ in how many land stations they have around the world, too. HadCRUT4 has about 5,500, GISTEMP takes middle place with about 6,300, but MLOST has the most of all, with about 7,000 land stations."

So, Nasa has the most accurate in terms of size of the area used to measure this data. NOAA has the most land stations.

"But scientists can use lower troposphere measurements as a further evidence of a changing climate. Several different groups now keep track of tropospheric temperatures and all four show a warming trend in the last 30 years."

So, basically, there are four groups collecting this data, they have a variety of ways of collecting, a variety of coverage, they're not perfect, but they give us a reading shows us, more or less, what is happening.

Now, you're denying because it's not 100% perfect, which is kind of ridiculous.

If we take localized statistics, in most cases we're going to see a rise in temperatures.

Central England.

USA

Australian sea surface temperatures.

We're seeing a rise EVERYWHERE more or less. There are a few places which aren't.

All the data is point in one direction. And then you're looking at the data and saying it's not 100% perfect, so let's forget EVERYTHING it's saying.

Why?

No it doesn't. Just in one area. Can be five degree differences. Sorry that all is crap

 

[RollingThunder]

Sorry that all is crap

Sorry that all your denier cult delusions are utter crap, JustCrazy, but that is just the way it is. You're nuts!

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, it doesn't. I was giving an example, and used a figure.

You think I'm afraid of data? Why would you think that? You don't know me.

I want to understand the TRUTH. I've looked at lots of things and I've seen that there is a change in the climate. I also believe we should be going through a global cooling phase right now, though on that I'm never going to be certain.

But the biggest thing for me is that when humans start messing around with things, we find we're unable to stop them, and this causes massive problems.

I want to understand the TRUTH
It's all I want. It's a sad that people think they already know it. Now that is the problem. The science is not settled. AR5 states it. your IPCC not mine.

I've seen that there is a change in the climate.
what change in climate have you seen? how many years you been watching climate?

No, the science isn't settled. However on the one hand you have people looking for the truth, on the other people with agendas. Those with agendas might be on both sides of the debate, but lumping people with agendas with those looking for the truth is simply not fair, but happens too often.

Well, even within my own life time I've seen things get warmer. When I was a kid we used to have lots of snow, my father would have to dig out the roads in order to attempt to get to work. Now the only chance of getting stuck is when there is flooding.

But that's besides the point. This is science, this is far to complicated to see with the human experience. We're talking GLOBAL WARMING. Not localized warming.

and global warming can't be found because there aren't enough stations around the globe to make that call. Unless of course you think there are and I would merely claim BS. But, convection and pressure systems moves heat around. Do you deny that? So the heat in Texas is moved to the north, do you agree with that? If not, there are very many Meteorologists that you are calling liars. And if you do agree, how do you find the actual local temperature if heat is moved, same for cold?

What do you need to know the world is warming up? Readings from a station every two meters? No, you don't.

You can draw conclusions from less data. Perhaps that data won't be perfect, but it will tell you something.

Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature? - Carbon Brief

"To get a complete picture of Earth’s temperature, scientists combine measurements from the air above land and the ocean surface collected by ships, buoys and sometimes satellites, too."

Here are the four groups who are studying the weather. The Japanese have lower global temperatures than others. Nasa has the highest. However they're pretty similar.

"The answer to this lies in how the different datasets deal with having little or no data in remote parts of the world, measurement errors, changes in instrumentation over time and other factors that make capturing global temperature a less-than-straightforward task."

"Data coverage has, perhaps, the biggest influence. NASA GISTEMP has the most comprehensive coverage, with measurements over 99 per cent of the globe. By contrast, JMA covers just 85 per cent of the globe, with particularly poor data in the poles, Africa and Asia."

"Nasa’s GISTEMP uses statistical methods to fill in gaps using surrounding measurements. How much each measurement influences the final value depends on how close it is geographically to the missing point. NOAA follows a similar process for the MLOST dataset."

"HadCRUT4 is the only dataset to leave regions with missing data blank, rather than try to fill them in. This effectively assumes temperatures there are in line with the global average."

So, the British don't fill in the blanks. Nasa fills in the blanks with statistical probabilities. What's the difference? The British have a lower set of data. If the Arctic is warming faster and the British aren't making statistical probabilities and perhaps have less data from the Arctic, then they get lower temperatures than they otherwise would.

"Indeed, updates to an old version of the temperature record (HadCRUT3) to include better Arctic data saw northern hemisphere temperatures rise by 0.1 degrees Celsius."

"The NASA GISTEMP record is the most detailed of the four datasets, with grid boxes two degrees longitude by two degrees latitude."

"The other three have grid boxes measuring five by five degrees. They also differ in how many land stations they have around the world, too. HadCRUT4 has about 5,500, GISTEMP takes middle place with about 6,300, but MLOST has the most of all, with about 7,000 land stations."

So, Nasa has the most accurate in terms of size of the area used to measure this data. NOAA has the most land stations.

"But scientists can use lower troposphere measurements as a further evidence of a changing climate. Several different groups now keep track of tropospheric temperatures and all four show a warming trend in the last 30 years."

So, basically, there are four groups collecting this data, they have a variety of ways of collecting, a variety of coverage, they're not perfect, but they give us a reading shows us, more or less, what is happening.

Now, you're denying because it's not 100% perfect, which is kind of ridiculous.

If we take localized statistics, in most cases we're going to see a rise in temperatures.

Central England.

USA

Australian sea surface temperatures.

We're seeing a rise EVERYWHERE more or less. There are a few places which aren't.

All the data is point in one direction. And then you're looking at the data and saying it's not 100% perfect, so let's forget EVERYTHING it's saying.

Why?

No it doesn't. Just in one area. Can be five degree differences. Sorry that all is crap

What do you mean there can be a five degree difference? Evidence?

 

[jc456]

Sorry that all is crap

Sorry that all your denier cult delusions are utter crap, JustCrazy, but that is just the way it is. You're nuts!

Well it's obvious you never watch weather reports. LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

"Sorry, I am not a believer..." Yes, that is a sorry state of your mind.

But you are...since you can't produce any observed, measured, quantified evidence to support what you believe.

Yes we all know you are not a believer in science. We know you don't believe scientists of the last 100 years. You believe in smart photons. Go ahead and stay in your cave of shadows.

Of course I am...what you believe in is not science....we are talking about the climate...the atmosphere...and yet, you can't produce any observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting your claim that adding X amount of CO2 to the atmosphere will result in Y warming....If I ask a chemist if I add X amount of A to Y amount of B what will happen...he will then tell me precisely what will happen and if we then add X amount of A to Y amount of B precisely that will happen...not so with climate pseudoscience...it is all alarmism...dire warnings...unsupported claims...and great herds of believers spewing their belief apparently unaware that there is no actual evidence out there to support their beliefs...and when confronted with that fact...rather than ask yourself why there is no evidence, you either A) claim it is there while at the same time not being able to provide it.. B) claim that the non evidence you can find is what I am asking for or C) claim that it is established science and such evidence is not necessary....

So there you are...you are a believer whether you know it or not..

If you weren't such a stupid ass, and so willfully ignorant, you would have seen from the fact that the CO2 level was 20 ppm higher than today, and the sea level was about 20 ft higher. That alone establishes the fact that more CO2 means a warmer atmosphere and ocean.

 

[Old Rocks]

So are claims of CAGW when there is not the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the A in AGW...but that doesn't stop any of you..does it? You are, by definition, a believer because you have been shown no real evidence to support what you believe. Sorry, I am not a believer...science, especially science concerning observable, measurable, quantifiable entities such as the atmosphere and climate requires observed, measured, quantified evidence that man is altering it and alas...none exists.

"Sorry, I am not a believer..." Yes, that is a sorry state of your mind.
Yes we all know you are not a believer in science. We know you don't believe scientists of the last 100 years. You believe in smart photons. Go ahead and stay in your cave of shadows.

Check this Scientist out Dr Hans Jelbring, Peer reviewed paper in 2003.

DOH! I guess not every scientist.

Hans Jelbring: The Greenhouse Effect as a function of atmospheric Mass

"PREFACE by Hans Jelbring 2-1- 2012
My 2003 E&E article (peer reviewed) was strictly applying 1st principle physics relating to a model atmosphere. Very strong conclusions can be made about such a model atmosphere and less strong ones about our real atmosphere. This was not discussed for reaching a maximum of simplicity and clarity approaching an educated but laymen audience. However, an investigating professional climate scientists should just reach one of three results; a) my logic is wrong, b) the major part of the Greenhouse Effect is always at hand in any (dense) atmosphere and c) any of the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics or the ideal gas law is invalid. It turned out that there was a fourth option: My article could be ignored by the establishment which it has been during 8 years. This seems to be a significant result relating to the moral of leading climate scientists in western countries. If my conclusions are correct it would have had far reaching impact on climate science and climate politics in 2003. It might still have for a number of reasons.

THE “GREENHOUSE EFFECT”
AS A FUNCTION OF ATMOSPHERIC MASS
Hans Jelbring 2003

ABSTRACT
The main reason for claiming a scientific basis for “Anthropogenic Greenhouse
Warming (AGW )” is related to the use of “radiative energy flux models” as a
major tool for describing vertical energy fluxes within the atmosphere. Such
models prescribe that the temperature difference between a planetary surface and
the planetary average black body radiation temperature (commonly called the
Greenhouse Effect, GE) is caused almost exclusively by the so called greenhouse
gases. Here, using a different approach, it is shown that GE can be explained as
mainly being a consequence of known physical laws describing the behaviour of
ideal gases in a gravity field. A simplified model of Earth, along with a formal
proof concerning the model atmosphere and evidence from real planetary
atmospheres will help in reaching conclusions. The distinguishing premise is that
the bulk part of a planetary GE depends on its atmospheric surface mass density.
Thus the GE can be exactly calculated for an ideal planetary model atmosphere. In
a real atmosphere some important restrictions have to be met if the gravity induced
GE is to be well developed. It will always be partially developed on atmosphere
bearing planets. A noteworthy implication is that the calculated values of AGW,
accepted by many contemporary climate scientists, are thus irrelevant and
probably quite insignificant (not detectable) in relation to natural processes
causing climate change."

The journal Energy and Environment is a peer-reviewed social science journal published by Multi-Science. The journal's editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull in England and climate skeptic. Co-editor is Benny Peiser[1]

Energy and Environment is carried in the ISI and SCOPUS listing of peer-reviewed journals, but its peer review process has been criticized for allowing the publication of substandard papers.[2][3] Numerous climate skeptics and contrarians have published in the journal and these studies have later been quoted by Republican critics of global warming science such as Senator James Inhofe and Congressman Joe Barton.[2]

Climate change skeptics who have been published in this journal include Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Ian Castles, Roger Pielke Jr., Willie Soon, Madhav Khandekar, Craig Loehle, Steve McIntyre, and Indur Goklany.

The current editor of Energy and Environment Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen admits in an article published online that "the journal I edit has tried to keep this debate [climate scepticism] alive"[4] She also states elsewhere I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway," ... "But isn't that the right of the editor?"[5]

Energy and Environment - SourceWatch

More political than scientific.

 

[Old Rocks]

RT, I know the climate changes, in some places 4 times a year. You can 'yell' all you want, but when the news reports liberal school administrators ban books offering different views than global warming and a liberal administration considers prosecuting those who disagree with them, there is nothing 'right wing intolerant' going on. The intolerance is owned by liberals.

As I said earlier, 'evil' / the left TEACHES tolerance until it has the power / control to begin silencing their opposition / good. We are seeing that in action now.

Do you realize what a fucking idiot you sound like? The Attorney General of Virginia tried to bring charges against Micheal Mann for publishing a paper concerning the warming of the climate, later labeled the Hockey Stick. As for not presenting the denialists views in a science class, that is not done for the same reasons we don't present the views of the creationists in a biology class. No science behind either view, in fact, a denial of science and evidence in both cases.

 

[bripat9643]

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you deniers are such gullible morons....

Translated from denier cult bullshit-speak, that comes out as....

Rational Realists continue their assault on any fraudulent propaganda churned out by the fossil fuel industry to deliberately deceive people about the reality and dangers of the visible and measurable and completely scientific confirmed human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes and disruptions that severely threaten the future of the human race, our civilizations and agricultural systems, and all the rest of the Earth's lifeforms.

You crazy denier cult dingbats are like the tobacco company propaganda pushers back decades ago, protesting against the ban on tobacco advertising and claiming that your bogus bullshit claiming that smoking is good for you should be given equal time with the medical evidence showing that smoking tobacco causes a host of health problems and was killing close to half a million people every year.

You anti-science retards don't actually HAVE anything that "casts doubt on [human caused] climate change".

There is no doubt about the scientific conclusions about AGW/CC based on the observable evidence as well as the laws of physics.

The world IS getting hotter, the ice IS melting, the seal levels ARE rising....and it all happening at accelerating rates as humans continue to pump tens of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere every year......and you denier cult retards and fossil fuel industry stooges and trolls are just crazy!

View attachment 75498

So.....you are so fucking insane, Ejakulatra, that you equate scientists with Nazis......get professional help, dingbat.

BTW, Godwin's Law - YOU LOSE!!!

When they want to criminalize and criticism of their abracadabra, they are Nazis.

 

[Crick]

For how long have you and yours, Paddie, been insisting on the existence of a conspiracy lying to the world public.? That would be a criminal enterprise were it not a complete fantasy. For how long have and your, Paddie, been insisting that AGW is a scheme of socialists seeking to gain power and destroy capitalism through fraud and deception? That would be a criminal enterprise.

 

[bripat9643]

For how long have you and yours, Paddie, been insisting on the existence of a conspiracy lying to the world public.? That would be a criminal enterprise were it not a complete fantasy. For how long have and your, Paddie, been insisting that AGW is a scheme of socialists seeking to gain power and destroy capitalism through fraud and deception? That would be a criminal enterprise.

The climategate files proved that the leading figures in the sphere of "climate science" were all conspiring to keep skeptics from getting published. It's not a theory. It's a fact. Aside from that, the self interest of all climate scientists depends on the AGW theory being true. If it turns out to be false, then there goes all their funding, their positions, their fancy office, their impressive titles, their graduate assistance and their high salaries

 

[easyt65]

RT, I know the climate changes, in some places 4 times a year. You can 'yell' all you want, but when the news reports liberal school administrators ban books offering different views than global warming and a liberal administration considers prosecuting those who disagree with them, there is nothing 'right wing intolerant' going on. The intolerance is owned by liberals.

As I said earlier, 'evil' / the left TEACHES tolerance until it has the power / control to begin silencing their opposition / good. We are seeing that in action now.

Do you realize what a fucking idiot you sound like? The Attorney General of Virginia tried to bring charges against Micheal Mann for publishing a paper concerning the warming of the climate, later labeled the Hockey Stick. As for not presenting the denialists views in a science class, that is not done for the same reasons we don't present the views of the creationists in a biology class. No science behind either view, in fact, a denial of science and evidence in both cases.

The 'Hockey Stick' theory / science turned out to be a total scam, false manipulation of scientific data.

 

[Crick]

Really? Would you care to show us where that was done?

 

[IanC]

crick never believes any evidence against his side. if you give it he runs away or changes the subject.

let's go with an easy example. one of the IPCC reports said that Himalayan glaciers were going to melt by 2035. on the face of it, it sounds like a mistake right? an Indian official said it was a mistake. what was the IPCC response? to scream 'DENIER!!!!!'.

when the official said I have a report on the glaciers sitting on my desk which covers the last 150 years of data, and it says as long as there are monsoons there will be glaciers. what was the IPCC response? to call it 'voodoo science', attack it as not peer reviewed, and to claim that the IPCC only used peer reviewed papers in its reports.


what were the conclusions after the dust had settled? the claim of disappearing glaciers was rescinded. the claim of only using peer reviewed papers was proven false when the source of the story about disappearing glaciers was found out to be from an environmentalist scare report with no scientific evidence associated with it at all.


crick will now make a claim that the whole IPCC report wasnt refuted by finding one mistake. of course it wasnt but that one claim was refuted. not only that but the attack on the person who brought it to world attention was unfounded as well. I have brought many mistakes and exaggerations to crick's attention and he reacts in the same fashion as the IPCC did to the Indian official. crick screams insults and denies that there could have been mistakes. if the mistake or exaggeration is too obvious to ignore, then he says it doesnt matter.

how many mistakes and exaggerations does it take before you start being 'skeptical' of the authenticity of other claims made by the IPCC? are mistakes and exaggerations considered lies? there were thousands of citations in IPCC reports that were not from peer reviewed papers, something like 30% in AR4. the claim of 2500 climate scientists that directly helped to write the report was also found to be false. does any of this give pause to crick in his belief of all things global warming? of course not.

 

[easyt65]

Really? Would you care to show us where that was done?

It's WIDELY known and was heavily reported. It was one, if not THE, initial case where Global Warming was debunked, showing there were hotter times in the past, forcing many to abandon the phrase 'Global Warming' for the term 'Climate Change'.

Learn to use google and PERSONALLY seek the truth; otherwise, you will never believe.

 

[Crick]

I have sought the truth for a great long while and what I have found is that anthropogenic global warming is almost universally accepted among climate scientists, has never been debunked and that deniers such as yourself are commonly both ignorant and dishonest about it. You've made the claim, it's YOUR responsibility to provide the supporting evidence.

 

[easyt65]

Crick, I know the truth because I have seen it. I have played this game with other liberals, and I am not doing it now. I have revealed it to you now, which should make you want to verify it. If I presented it to you, you would deny it, would claim the source was bogus, etc...as did those before you. That's why it has to be you.

I am also content with knowing the truth...and with your ignorance. It is not my job to educate you, and I do not care if you believe or not. Trying to make EVERYONE else believe exactly as you do is NEARLY impossible, only slightly / temprarily achieved by those such as Hitler and ISIS, through violence, oppression, and genocide.

Today Liberals seem to be in the early stages of beginning to go down this road for themselves. Their growing intolerance, bitterness, anger, and desire to control is evidence of that.

 

[jc456]

Crick, I know the truth because I have seen it. I have played this game with other liberals, and I am not doing it now. I have revealed it to you now, which should make you want to verify it. If I presented it to you, you would deny it, would claim the source was bogus, etc...as did those before you. That's why it has to be you.

I am also content with knowing the truth...and with your ignorance. It is not my job to educate you, and I do not care if you believe or not. Trying to make EVERYONE else believe exactly as you do is NEARLY impossible, only slightly / temprarily achieved by those such as Hitler and ISIS, through violence, oppression, and genocide.

Today Liberals seem to be in the early stages of beginning to go down this road for themselves. Their growing intolerance, bitterness, anger, and desire to control is evidence of that.

Liberal=my way and only my way or die

 

[bripat9643]

Really? Would you care to show us where that was done?

Hockey Stick Studies

 

[Papageorgio]

Remember when liberals were all about debate and questioning? Against banning, always open to new ideas. Now they are intolerant to other views or ideas. No questioning just following what the dear leaders say. This is the Regressive Left.

 

[Crick]

Crick, I know the truth because I have seen it.

Where? When? From whom? I have seen the five assessment reports of the IPCC and some of the thousands and thousands of peer reviewed studies on which they are based. The overwhelming tendency of the evidence supports the validity of AGW.

I have played this game with other liberals, and I am not doing it now.

I am playing no game and what you are doing is bullshitting. You have made a claim and now you refuse to present evidence to support it.

I have revealed it to you now, which should make you want to verify it. If I presented it to you, you would deny it, would claim the source was bogus, etc...as did those before you. That's why it has to be you.

Here is my evidence http//www.ipcc.ch

Where is yours?

I am also content with knowing the truth.

By describing a theory in the natural sciences, repeatedly, as "the truth", the only thing you've done is demonstrate to all of us that you have virtually no knowledge of the natural sciences and your contentment only shows us that you have no interest in determining what might be closer to the truth. You are content with ignorance.

..and with your ignorance.

If you want to demonstrate my ignorance, I suggest you produce evidence refuting some of the elements of my position: the world has been getting warmer and the primary cause is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions.

It is not my job to educate you

That's good because you would fail. It IS your job, on this board, to bring forth arguments in support of your contentions. If you do not or can not, you have no reason to be here.

and I do not care if you believe or not.

You have responded to my disbelief, therefore you do care and you lie about it.

Trying to make EVERYONE else believe exactly as you do is NEARLY impossible, only slightly / temprarily achieved by those such as Hitler and ISIS, through violence, oppression, and genocide.

On your second post you accuse me of being like Hitler and ISIS. That may be a new record. The rest of your point is meaningless nonsense. We are talking about the validity of a very well-researched and well-studied theory; I say it is extremely likely to be an accurate description of the behavior of our climate while you say it is "a total scam, false manipulation of scientific data." and that it has been debunked. I ask you when, where and by whom it was debunked but you refuse to answer.

Today Liberals seem to be in the early stages of beginning to go down this road for themselves. Their growing intolerance, bitterness, anger, and desire to control is evidence of that.

I find your ignorance a threat to my children and theirs. I intend to correct you and everyone else who spouts the dangerous bullshit you do. Get used to it. And if all you've got is to call me a Nazi, be prepared to lose and to lose badly.