Meteorologists Rip Into Anti Science Bill Nye Again

[RollingThunder]

Back in the real world....

Don’t Need a Weatherman. But on the Other Hand, it Wouldn’t Hurt.
Peter Sinclair
April 16, 2015
(excerpts)


Washington Post:
More than 90 percent of 464 broadcast meteorologists who responded to a 2015 survey agree climate change is happening and, of those, 74 percent believe human activity is at least half responsible, states “A National Survey of Broadcast Meteorologists About Climate Change: Initial Findings”, from the George Mason University (GMU) Center for Climate Change Communication. These numbers represent about a 10 percent increase from survey results published by GMU in 2011 when 82 percent of respondents agreed global warming was happening and, of those, about 65 percent felt human activity was at least half to blame. “The current findings do suggest a higher level of engagement in climate change among members of the broadcast meteorology community,” said Ed Maibach, lead author of the report.
–

Daily Kos:
The meteorologist problem culminated in December 2013, when Heartland sent out a press release that misrepresented an American Meteorological Society survey and distorted valid results to portray meteorologists as confused on climate change. Heartland went to great lengths to trick those who received the email, even using an AMS-looking email (“[email protected]”) and an AMS logo for disguise, instead of a Heartland address or logo. The press release only ever mentions Heartland in the fine print. In response, the AMS issued a statement condemning the deceptive release.

Keith Seitter, Executive Director, American Meteorological Society:
Earlier this week, the Heartland Institute appears to have sent an extensive e-mail blast with what is more or less a press release for a paper that will appear in an upcoming issue of BAMS entitled “Meteorologists’ Views about Global Warming: A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members” (in full disclosure, I am a coauthor on this paper). A disturbing aspect of this e-mail is that it seems some effort was placed in making it appear to have been sent by AMS. It was sent from an e-mail account with AMS in the name (though not from the “ametsoc.org” domain) and featured the AMS logo prominently (used without permission from AMS). Only in the fine print at the bottom was it clear that this apparently came from the Heartland Institute. The text of the e-mail reports results from the study far differently than I would, leaving an impression that is at odds with how I would characterize those results.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Also, extreme weather like tornadoes and floods has a lot to do with the meteorological set-up of the jet-stream. One year is going to be calmer then the other...This is the way it works. Just how often a decent set-up can do a lot more damage or go outside the means is what Nye is talking about.

Hilarious. First global warming has the ocean risen 150 feet and covered islands now it causes tornados in May in the Midwest.

Yep. The left are anti science.

yes before fossil fuels there was no such thing

as spring time tornadoes in the Midwest

--LOL

 

[skookerasbil]

Back in the real world....

Don’t Need a Weatherman. But on the Other Hand, it Wouldn’t Hurt.
Peter Sinclair
April 16, 2015
(excerpts)


Washington Post:
More than 90 percent of 464 broadcast meteorologists who responded to a 2015 survey agree climate change is happening and, of those, 74 percent believe human activity is at least half responsible, states “A National Survey of Broadcast Meteorologists About Climate Change: Initial Findings”, from the George Mason University (GMU) Center for Climate Change Communication. These numbers represent about a 10 percent increase from survey results published by GMU in 2011 when 82 percent of respondents agreed global warming was happening and, of those, about 65 percent felt human activity was at least half to blame. “The current findings do suggest a higher level of engagement in climate change among members of the broadcast meteorology community,” said Ed Maibach, lead author of the report.
–

Daily Kos:
The meteorologist problem culminated in December 2013, when Heartland sent out a press release that misrepresented an American Meteorological Society survey and distorted valid results to portray meteorologists as confused on climate change. Heartland went to great lengths to trick those who received the email, even using an AMS-looking email (“[email protected]”) and an AMS logo for disguise, instead of a Heartland address or logo. The press release only ever mentions Heartland in the fine print. In response, the AMS issued a statement condemning the deceptive release.

Keith Seitter, Executive Director, American Meteorological Society:
Earlier this week, the Heartland Institute appears to have sent an extensive e-mail blast with what is more or less a press release for a paper that will appear in an upcoming issue of BAMS entitled “Meteorologists’ Views about Global Warming: A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members” (in full disclosure, I am a coauthor on this paper). A disturbing aspect of this e-mail is that it seems some effort was placed in making it appear to have been sent by AMS. It was sent from an e-mail account with AMS in the name (though not from the “ametsoc.org” domain) and featured the AMS logo prominently (used without permission from AMS). Only in the fine print at the bottom was it clear that this apparently came from the Heartland Institute. The text of the e-mail reports results from the study far differently than I would, leaving an impression that is at odds with how I would characterize those results.

Might as well be leading a group navel contemplation session s0n..........but do take a bow on your pidgeon shitting on a chessboard post!!

Here is the real world s0n >>>>

[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/pew-priorities.jpg.html'][/URL]




[URL='http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/solarfail.png.html][IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/solarfail.png[/IMG][/URL]'][URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/solarfail.png.html'][/URL]










[URL='http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/oops.gif.html][IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/oops.gif[/IMG][/URL]'][URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/oops.gif.html'][/URL]





Makes all your "real world" shit moot!!![/URL][/URL]

 

[jc456]

Strong and Violent Tornado Climatology

5. DISCUSSION
This work is part of a larger effort to estimate and describe the threat of a variety of weather hazards in the US and, eventually, make estimates of those threats around the world. We would like to emphasize several points that are particularly important.

First, any efforts to make climatological estimates require careful consideration of the nature of the problem at hand and available datasets. One of the most challenging aspects of dealling with convective storm reports is gathering a sufficiently large sample to have confidence in the meaning of the results, but to avoid the problems of large changes in the reporting database over time. Clearly, using the overall reports of severe weather back until 1950 will cause significant difficulties unless the temporal changes in the reports are accounted for (Schaefer and Brooks, 2000). Blindly analyzing data without regard for the ways in which the data were collected can lead to serious problems. In this case, we have attempted to use as homogeneous of a dataset as possible, but using G93. It is not a perfect representation of what occurred, but we believe it to be as consistent of a dataset as there is. We have enhanced its consistency even further by considering our 'event' to be a tornado day.

As far as results of the study are concerned, the primary area of the US in which significant tornadoes occur most often is in a L-shaped region from Iowa to Oklahoma to Mississippi, with the highest threat in Oklahoma. It is important to remember that this is based solely upon the reports in G93. It is possible that low population densities and the accompanying small number of structures (Rasmussen and Crosbie 1996), particularly west of 100� W longitude, may lead to an underreporting of events. This problem is likely to be most severe for the violent tornadoes, since the sample size is much smaller for them. With these caveats in mind, we believe the overall general pattern is reasonable.

The movement of the peak in tornado threat during the year is consistent with changes in the annual cycle of meteorological variables. As moisture from the Gulf of Mexico is advected northward and westward over the Great Plains during the spring and early summer, the timing of the maximum in the annual cycle moves with it. The threat at southern locations weakens in summer as the jet stream retreats northward.

We can find no evidence for a long-term increase or decrease in the threat from significant tornadoes. The evidence of variability between different subperiods in the record indicates that changes in the frequency of significant tornado days on the order of 25% have occurred in this century. Detecting any changes related to climate change may be very difficult, given the apparently high natural variability.

The maximum frequency for having strong tornadoes come close to any location, in our case approximately 25 miles, is roughly once every two to three years. It is, obviously much less outside of the peak region and, if a smaller area of concern is defined, the return time between events is even longer. If we limit our concern to violent tornadoes, such as the 3 May 1999 Oklahoma City tornado, they occur near a location on one day once every 20 years or longer. As a result, people experience these events very rarely and it is a difficult challenge to keep people prepared for these events. Education in the schools appears to be an excellent way to increase knowledge of how to respond to tornadoes and it may have played a major role in the fact that there were no fatalities between the ages of 4 and 24 in the Oklahoma City tornado.

Insurance companies could increase the tornado-resistant properties of buildings by giving advantageous rates to structures that are built to be survivable. While individual residents may not be in a particular house long enough to experience a tornado in their vicinity, it is much more likely that, over the longer lifetime of the house, a violent tornado will occur relatively close to the house. Tying the preferred rates to the property and not to the individual who makes the improvements would increase the use of such structures. Similarly, development and enforcement of building codes designed to enhance tornado survival could be useful in high-risk regions.

The conjunction of high frequency of strong and violent tornadoes and the relative consistency of the season from year to year from north Texas up into western Iowa is a natural, objective way to define "Tornado Alley". The concept of Tornado Alley may be very important for the emergency management community. It is relatively easy to keep awareness up in a region where events happen frequently and where the threat is confined to a relatively short period of time. In addition, it is typically easier to recruit volunteer storm spotters in such an area and to maintain their enthusiasm. For instance, public awareness was extremely high in the 3 May 1999 Oklahoma City tornado. Despite damaging almost 8000 structures, fewer than 40 direct fatalities occurred. In contrast, heightening awareness in an area where tornadoes rarely occur or occur over a broader season of the year is much more difficult.

We believe that the problem of public awareness in regions where the climatological threat of a tornado on any particular day is low is one reason for many of the high death toll events over the last 20 years. During that period of time, only two of the 22 tornadoes in the US that have caused at least 8 fatalities (representing the highest 10% of death tolls) in what we have defined objectively as "Tornado Alley" with this dataset (26 April 1991-Andover, Kansas, and 3 May 1999-Oklahoma City). One of those had its fatalities in a trailer park and the other was the (inflation-adjusted) biggest property damage tornado in US history. Almost one-fourth of all significant tornadoes occur in this objective Tornado Alley, but only 9% of the major killers have. Thus, the vast majority of high fatality tornadoes in recent years have occurred in areas where tornadoes are an especially rare event on any given day. Eliminating those events will be extremely difficult, given the challenge of getting people to respond when their basic state of awareness is very low. As the recent Salt Lake City tornado reminded people, tornadoes can occur almost anywhere in the US and there is no reason to believe that if the atmosphere is capable of producing a tornado somewhere, it is also capable of producing a strong tornado. Rare events do occur. Preparing the public to be ready for them is a difficult task, but recognizing the nature of the threat has long-term potential rewards for emergency management and response and insurance interests.

dude, look up the word estimate and then look up the word observed. You need some learnen.

 

[westwall]

Also, extreme weather like tornadoes and floods has a lot to do with the meteorological set-up of the jet-stream. One year is going to be calmer then the other...This is the way it works. Just how often a decent set-up can do a lot more damage or go outside the means is what Nye is talking about.

Hilarious. First global warming has the ocean risen 150 feet and covered islands now it causes tornados in May in the Midwest.

Yep. The left are anti science.

No, but you are a liar. No one has suggested the ocean has risen 150 feet (at least in the last few centuries). And global warming has and will increase the incidence and the intensity of weather extremes.

It hasn't yet. Where it is warm like along the equator the reality is that storms are mild. Uniform warmth equals mild weather. To get bad storms you need the meeting of cold and warm air masses. Yet another example of how climatologists abandoned science for political hackery.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The likes of Nye who cant tell the difference between 'what our models say' and real world 'observations show'.

Then we have idiots here who cant tell the difference between "our estimations are" and "the observations show"

In short none of them have a clue about what is real and what is fantasy.. Nye shows he is totally devoid of any real world scientific knowledge on the subject, just as many here report from idiot's like the Daily KOS, a far left wing site that has no credibility.... AT ALL...

Had any of the left-tards even looked at the real data provided in the OP they would know that Nye was over the cliff... But no.. defending that which is indefensible..

 

[Crick]

There's no need to defend Nye when his attackers consist of folks like you.

 

[RollingThunder]

Back in the real world....

Don’t Need a Weatherman. But on the Other Hand, it Wouldn’t Hurt.
Peter Sinclair
April 16, 2015
(excerpts)
Washington Post:
More than 90 percent of 464 broadcast meteorologists who responded to a 2015 survey agree climate change is happening and, of those, 74 percent believe human activity is at least half responsible, states “A National Survey of Broadcast Meteorologists About Climate Change: Initial Findings”, from the George Mason University (GMU) Center for Climate Change Communication.
--
Daily Kos:
The meteorologist problem culminated in December 2013, when Heartland sent out a press release that misrepresented an American Meteorological Society survey and distorted valid results to portray meteorologists as confused on climate change. Heartland went to great lengths to trick those who received the email, even using an AMS-looking email (“[email protected]”) and an AMS logo for disguise, instead of a Heartland address or logo. The press release only ever mentions Heartland in the fine print. In response, the AMS issued a statement condemning the deceptive release.

Keith Seitter, Executive Director, American Meteorological Society:
Earlier this week, the Heartland Institute appears to have sent an extensive e-mail blast with what is more or less a press release for a paper that will appear in an upcoming issue of BAMS entitled “Meteorologists’ Views about Global Warming: A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members” (in full disclosure, I am a coauthor on this paper). A disturbing aspect of this e-mail is that it seems some effort was placed in making it appear to have been sent by AMS. It was sent from an e-mail account with AMS in the name (though not from the “ametsoc.org” domain) and featured the AMS logo prominently (used without permission from AMS). Only in the fine print at the bottom was it clear that this apparently came from the Heartland Institute. The text of the e-mail reports results from the study far differently than I would, leaving an impression that is at odds with how I would characterize those results.

Broadcast meterologists?

BROADCAST METEROLOGISTS??

BROADCAST METEROLOGISTS????

Dear Lord, you morons get more comically unscientific every day.

You retarded loon....your fraudulent and bullshit-filled OP claimed that "meteorologists" objected to Bill Nye's point about the fact that the world is seeing more severe weather events being linked to global warming and its consequent climate changes and disruptions.

In fact, the large majority of professional meteorologists have now been persuaded by the scientific evidence and currently also affirm, along with the rest of the world scientific community, that human caused global warming is quite real and is responsible for the changes in normal weather patterns that they have witnessed.

I just posted some short excerpts from two different sources discussing two different surveys, one done by George Mason University, and one done by The American Meteorology Society. You idiotically only bothered to glance at the first one, and ignored the second one, which is a survey of the American Meteorological Society Professional Members, including all of the research meteorologists who write papers for scientific journals.

The team of scientists at the AMS who authored the paper “Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members” responded to the lies told by a dickhead denier lawyer named James Taylor, working for the fossil fuel industry sponsored Heartland Institute by issuing a statement:
"James Taylor’s interpretation of our study is wrong. We found high levels of expert consensus on human-caused climate change."

They went on to say....

"In our paper, we assessed whether or not AMS members are convinced that global warming is occurring, and if so, what they feel is the cause. Among all the respondents, about 7 out of 10 (73%) said human activities have contributed to global warming. To then assess how this perception varied among respondents with different levels of expertise, we sub-divided respondents based on their self-assessed area of expertise – climate science vs. meteorology and atmospheric science – and whether or not they have published peer-reviewed research in the previous five years, and if so, on what topic. Our premise was that AMS members who are actively conducting and publishing climate science research have greater expertise on climate science than AMS members who have other areas of expertise."

"We found that more than 9 out of 10 climate science experts (93%) who publish mostly on climate change, and the same proportion (93%) of climate experts who publish mostly on other topics, were convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. We also found that about 8 out of 10 meteorologists and atmospheric scientists who publish on climate (79%) or other topics (78%) were convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Lastly, we found that the group least likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming was AMS members who do not publish research in the peer-reviewed scientific literature; only six out of 10 AMS members in this group (62%) were convinced."

"Contrasting with Mr. Taylor’s caricature of the results, in the paper we concluded that: “These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change.” We continue to stand by this conclusion, and would urge readers not to be misled by selective reporting of our results. Moreover, in the paper we explained that our findings are likely a conservative estimate of AMS member agreement that human-caused climate change is occurring. Some of our survey respondents told us that had we asked about the warming in the past 50 years – rather than the warming in the past 150 years – more respondents would have answered affirmatively (i.e., indicating that human-caused climate change is occurring). Their point was that the science more clearly indicates human causation of climate change over past 50 years than over the past 150 years."
(excerpts from article: "Taylor distorts poll of meteorologists on climate change to reach opposite conclusion of study authors"

 

[skookerasbil]

Back in the real world....

Don’t Need a Weatherman. But on the Other Hand, it Wouldn’t Hurt.
Peter Sinclair
April 16, 2015
(excerpts)
Washington Post:
More than 90 percent of 464 broadcast meteorologists who responded to a 2015 survey agree climate change is happening and, of those, 74 percent believe human activity is at least half responsible, states “A National Survey of Broadcast Meteorologists About Climate Change: Initial Findings”, from the George Mason University (GMU) Center for Climate Change Communication.
--
Daily Kos:
The meteorologist problem culminated in December 2013, when Heartland sent out a press release that misrepresented an American Meteorological Society survey and distorted valid results to portray meteorologists as confused on climate change. Heartland went to great lengths to trick those who received the email, even using an AMS-looking email (“[email protected]”) and an AMS logo for disguise, instead of a Heartland address or logo. The press release only ever mentions Heartland in the fine print. In response, the AMS issued a statement condemning the deceptive release.

Keith Seitter, Executive Director, American Meteorological Society:
Earlier this week, the Heartland Institute appears to have sent an extensive e-mail blast with what is more or less a press release for a paper that will appear in an upcoming issue of BAMS entitled “Meteorologists’ Views about Global Warming: A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members” (in full disclosure, I am a coauthor on this paper). A disturbing aspect of this e-mail is that it seems some effort was placed in making it appear to have been sent by AMS. It was sent from an e-mail account with AMS in the name (though not from the “ametsoc.org” domain) and featured the AMS logo prominently (used without permission from AMS). Only in the fine print at the bottom was it clear that this apparently came from the Heartland Institute. The text of the e-mail reports results from the study far differently than I would, leaving an impression that is at odds with how I would characterize those results.

Broadcast meterologists?

BROADCAST METEROLOGISTS??

BROADCAST METEROLOGISTS????

Dear Lord, you morons get more comically unscientific every day.

You retarded loon....your fraudulent and bullshit-filled OP claimed that "meteorologists" objected to Bill Nye's point about the fact that the world is seeing more severe weather events being linked to global warming and its consequent climate changes and disruptions.

In fact, the large majority of professional meteorologists have now been persuaded by the scientific evidence and currently also affirm, along with the rest of the world scientific community, that human caused global warming is quite real and is responsible for the changes in normal weather patterns that they have witnessed.

I just posted some short excerpts from two different sources discussing two different surveys, one done by George Mason University, and one done by The American Meteorology Society. You idiotically only bothered to glance at the first one, and ignored the second one, which is a survey of the American Meteorological Society Professional Members, including all of the research meteorologists who write papers for scientific journals.

The team of scientists at the AMS who authored the paper “Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members” responded to the lies told by a dickhead denier lawyer named James Taylor, working for the fossil fuel industry sponsored Heartland Institute by issuing a statement:
"James Taylor’s interpretation of our study is wrong. We found high levels of expert consensus on human-caused climate change."

They went on to say....

"In our paper, we assessed whether or not AMS members are convinced that global warming is occurring, and if so, what they feel is the cause. Among all the respondents, about 7 out of 10 (73%) said human activities have contributed to global warming. To then assess how this perception varied among respondents with different levels of expertise, we sub-divided respondents based on their self-assessed area of expertise – climate science vs. meteorology and atmospheric science – and whether or not they have published peer-reviewed research in the previous five years, and if so, on what topic. Our premise was that AMS members who are actively conducting and publishing climate science research have greater expertise on climate science than AMS members who have other areas of expertise."

"We found that more than 9 out of 10 climate science experts (93%) who publish mostly on climate change, and the same proportion (93%) of climate experts who publish mostly on other topics, were convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. We also found that about 8 out of 10 meteorologists and atmospheric scientists who publish on climate (79%) or other topics (78%) were convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Lastly, we found that the group least likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming was AMS members who do not publish research in the peer-reviewed scientific literature; only six out of 10 AMS members in this group (62%) were convinced."

"Contrasting with Mr. Taylor’s caricature of the results, in the paper we concluded that: “These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change.” We continue to stand by this conclusion, and would urge readers not to be misled by selective reporting of our results. Moreover, in the paper we explained that our findings are likely a conservative estimate of AMS member agreement that human-caused climate change is occurring. Some of our survey respondents told us that had we asked about the warming in the past 50 years – rather than the warming in the past 150 years – more respondents would have answered affirmatively (i.e., indicating that human-caused climate change is occurring). Their point was that the science more clearly indicates human causation of climate change over past 50 years than over the past 150 years."
(excerpts from article: "Taylor distorts poll of meteorologists on climate change to reach opposite conclusion of study authors"

s0n........you've been pwned in post #23 above. Check it out.........made you look like a jackass!!

No answer to that one s0n!!!

You can make your font 100X bigger..............still losing!! The real world sucks balls for the religion.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The left simply hate science.
View attachment 74507
View attachment 74508
View attachment 74509

source ?

3 guesses, first 2 don't count.

Ah Yes... The lefts answer to inconvenient facts...

Delete them..

Just as Nye did from his twitter account...

 

[RollingThunder]

And there go two more meaningless posts from the anti-science, reality denying, lunatic fringe wackos.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And there go two more meaningless posts from the anti-science, reality denying, lunatic fringe wackos.

Your the lunatic fringe wacko.. Your having problems projecting your own failures on others again... ??

Sorry that the facts in the OP shattered your fantasy world.... SO sad that you refuse to pull your head from your ass long enough to see the real world.

 

[RollingThunder]

And there go two more meaningless posts from the anti-science, reality denying, lunatic fringe wackos.

Sorry that the facts in the OP shattered your fantasy world....

Sorry that you are so brainwashed and stupid that you imagine that there were any facts in that fraudulent denier cult OP.

 

[skookerasbil]

And there go two more meaningless posts from the anti-science, reality denying, lunatic fringe wackos.

Cant respond to post #23 s0n.........just the typical angry miserable rant. That's what k00k progressives do..........when they get their clocks cleaned, their heads explode.

1) Renewable energy is still a joke. ( and will be for decades )

AND

2) Nobody cares about global warming ( proven by the reality of #1 )

lOsInG

 

[RollingThunder]

And there go two more meaningless posts from the anti-science, reality denying, lunatic fringe wackos.

Cant respond to post #23 s0n.........just the typical angry miserable rant. That's what k00k progressives do..........when they get their clocks cleaned, their heads explode.

1) Renewable energy is still a joke. ( and will be for decades )

AND

2) Nobody cares about global warming ( proven by the reality of #1 )

lOsInG

And the insanely delusional troll, Kookles, pops back up with more meaningless twaddle. As usual.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And there go two more meaningless posts from the anti-science, reality denying, lunatic fringe wackos.

Sorry that the facts in the OP shattered your fantasy world....

Sorry that you are so brainwashed and stupid that you imagine that there were any facts in that fraudulent denier cult OP.

And there go two more meaningless posts from the anti-science, reality denying, lunatic fringe wackos.

Cant respond to post #23 s0n.........just the typical angry miserable rant. That's what k00k progressives do..........when they get their clocks cleaned, their heads explode.

1) Renewable energy is still a joke. ( and will be for decades )

AND

2) Nobody cares about global warming ( proven by the reality of #1 )

lOsInG

And the insanely delusional troll, Kookles, pops back up with more meaningless twaddle. As usual.

 

[whitehall]

You gotta wonder about the left. They relied on the comedy channel for political analysis and a stand up comic who did cheap tricks for kids for scientific insight.

 

[IanC]

Nye was willing to present a fabricated experiment with Al Gore's telethon a few years back. There is nothing worse than knowingly presenting a hoax as science. The damage done by the exaggerations and falsehoods in the name of climate science may take decades to repair. Once they stop exaggerating and lying, of course.

 

[RollingThunder]

Nye was willing to present a fabricated experiment with Al Gore's telethon a few years back. There is nothing worse than knowingly presenting a hoax as science. The damage done by the exaggerations and falsehoods in the name of climate science may take decades to repair. Once they stop exaggerating and lying, of course.

Your retarded conspiracy theory twaddle is completely insane. It is you anti-science denier cult imbeciles who have knowingly spread falsehoods and lies and deliberately confused people about the scientific facts.

 

[IanC]

Nye was willing to present a fabricated experiment with Al Gore's telethon a few years back. There is nothing worse than knowingly presenting a hoax as science. The damage done by the exaggerations and falsehoods in the name of climate science may take decades to repair. Once they stop exaggerating and lying, of course.

Your retarded conspiracy theory twaddle is completely insane. It is you anti-science denier cult imbeciles who have knowingly spread falsehoods and lies and deliberately confused people about the scientific facts.

I have you on ignore but I did look at this post for some reason. Retarded, insane, imbecile are insults that I just laugh at. Calling me an anti science denier is a different thing all together.

It is because I am pro science, and am capable of understanding the misdirections, evasions and sometimes outright mistakes that climate science presents as certain facts, that I am here at all.

I would challenge you to pick a well known peer reviewed climate science paper to discuss but I am unwilling to remove you and your giant font cut&pastes from my ignore list.