MTP: Climate Change Discussion - no Deniers

[Billy_Bob]

What's funny is you can't even point to a single experiment to support your silly claims

Of course I can. Any child with Google can. Haha, you just repeated the stupid lie that scientists managed to come to overwhelming consensus without evidence. And that is why you morons are here, crying on each others' shoulders, instead of producing science or being invited to any serious discussion about the science.

LOL

Google is an aggregator.. All it can do is show you products.. NOw be a good lad and get some facts that you understand and can articulate... Stop the OOOH AHA Aha and monkey finger pointing..

 

[danielpalos]

New Cities in more optimal locations!

 

[Sunsettommy]

You make a common mistake Billy Boy. The IPCC conducts NO research. It assesses research conducted by others. The tropospheric hotspot was not the creation of the IPCC. And I have to wonder why you choose to argue with model outputs presented in the First Assessment Report, when the Fifth was released over four years ago and the Sixth is in production.

Another mendacious post from you the standard bearer of dishonest claims, no one here says the IPCC conducts research, NO ONE!

The IPCC reports have undue influence on many people because they use the METANALYSIS way to create a case for the AGW propaganda. Since their reports are based on published material peer reviewed or not, it is indeed credible to say that the IPCC does advocate the "hot spot" projection by SHOWING IT in their report, as shown recently by Billy Bob:

I showed you the actual sections of the IPCC report before that was specifically projecting a "hot spot" to show up, they showed that it was GREENHOUSE GASES that makes the "hot spot", don't continue your stupid attempt to whitewash the IPCC's role in this since they are the ones PROJECTING THE IDEA TO THE PUBLIC!!!

At post 557, which you didn't challenge, showed that Satellite data does not support the concept as played out in the 2007 IPCC report, it is a miserable failure which is why you are now playing your stupid IPCC didn't say it rationalization. No one here will be impressed at your childish attempt to sweep that inconvenience away.

They still project a "hot spot" up there BECAUSE they have no choice, as it is a central plank of the AGW conjecture for the never seen Positive Feedback Loop to show up from, it is a MILLSTONE around you warmists necks who has to live this epic fail down. Without it there wouldn't be a basis for the Positive Feedback Loop at all since that is where it was supposed to start from.

 

[skookerasbil]

God bless the clueless

 

[skookerasbil]

Soothing? No...we're laughing at you clowns.

Yes, and that is how you idiots soothe each other. You huddle together on anonymous internet sites and point and cackle from the safety of your little bubble. Because, as we both know, you would all be laughed out of the room in the company of serious, educated people.

So, here you are...soothing each other. Where you belong. There are no longer any seats at the table for you people, sorry.

Lol....we'll see when we get finished playing Cowboys and Lefties s0n!!

In the meantime, we'll take the stupid/denier tag all day. Only matters who's winning!

 

[SSDD]

So the deniers are all still stuck here , on an anonymous message board, soothing each other. Good. This where you belong.

Geeky Definition of Appeal to Authority Fallacy: The Appeal to Authority Fallacy is an error in reasoning which occurs when someone adopts a position because that position is affirmed by a person they believe to be an authority.
What Is Appeal to Authority Fallacy? (Cognitive Fallacy)


Have you any facts to share or are you being obtuse and continuing in your fantasy world where distention is not allowed?

Of course I can find the facts to share. The global scientific community did not come to an overwhelming consensus without a compelling mountain of mutually supportive evidence. Your implications to the contrary are embarrassingly stupid.

And yet...you can't bring a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...nor can you bring forward a single published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses...not a single one...

And yet, you are bleating about all the evidence which supposedly created the consensus...where are they hiding it? And don't give me any crap about you just not wanting to bring it here...there is nothing you guys would love more than to shove the evidence I keep asking for right down my throat to shut me up...

 

[boedicca]

So the deniers are all still stuck here , on an anonymous message board, soothing each other. Good. This where you belong.

Geeky Definition of Appeal to Authority Fallacy: The Appeal to Authority Fallacy is an error in reasoning which occurs when someone adopts a position because that position is affirmed by a person they believe to be an authority.
What Is Appeal to Authority Fallacy? (Cognitive Fallacy)


Have you any facts to share or are you being obtuse and continuing in your fantasy world where distention is not allowed?

Of course I can find the facts to share. The global scientific community did not come to an overwhelming consensus without a compelling mountain of mutually supportive evidence. Your implications to the contrary are embarrassingly stupid.

And yet...you can't bring a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...nor can you bring forward a single published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses...not a single one...

And yet, you are bleating about all the evidence which supposedly created the consensus...where are they hiding it? And don't give me any crap about you just not wanting to bring it here...there is nothing you guys would love more than to shove the evidence I keep asking for right down my throat to shut me up...

If the Proggies were actually honest about their views on separation of church and state, AGW would be recognized as a secular religion.

 

[SSDD]

What's funny is you can't even point to a single experiment to support your silly claims

Of course I can. Any child with Google can. Haha, you just repeated the stupid lie that scientists managed to come to overwhelming consensus without evidence. And that is why you morons are here, crying on each others' shoulders, instead of producing science or being invited to any serious discussion about the science.

And yet, you don't...and why? Because your claims that you can are nothing but bullshit...empty, impotent claims that you can't back up because no evidence exists with which to back them up...

At least you are bright enough to not show us what passes for evidence in that weak little mind of yours...the humiliation would be great...

 

[SSDD]

So the deniers are all still stuck here , on an anonymous message board, soothing each other. Good. This where you belong.

Geeky Definition of Appeal to Authority Fallacy: The Appeal to Authority Fallacy is an error in reasoning which occurs when someone adopts a position because that position is affirmed by a person they believe to be an authority.
What Is Appeal to Authority Fallacy? (Cognitive Fallacy)


Have you any facts to share or are you being obtuse and continuing in your fantasy world where distention is not allowed?

Of course I can find the facts to share. The global scientific community did not come to an overwhelming consensus without a compelling mountain of mutually supportive evidence. Your implications to the contrary are embarrassingly stupid.

And yet...you can't bring a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...nor can you bring forward a single published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses...not a single one...

And yet, you are bleating about all the evidence which supposedly created the consensus...where are they hiding it? And don't give me any crap about you just not wanting to bring it here...there is nothing you guys would love more than to shove the evidence I keep asking for right down my throat to shut me up...

If the Proggies were actually honest about their views on separation of church and state, AGW would be recognized as a secular religion.

It has already been called a religion in a court of law...some twerp was weeping over people making fun of his belief in AGW so he took it to court and the court agreed with him that it was a religion...

 

[Crick]

Link if you please, because unless you've got something pretty damned convincing, I've got to call BULLSHIT on this one.

 

[SSDD]

Link if you please, because unless you've got something pretty damned convincing, I've got to call BULLSHIT on this one.

Unlike you skid mark...I don't make claims that I can't back up...

https://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/...assessment_of_non_u.s._climate_litigation.pdf

The only UK case addressing climate change rights was an employment law case in which the court found that belief in climate change is a legally protected right. In Grainger v. Nicholson, Mr. Nicholson filed an employment discrimination claim alleging that he was terminated from Grainger PLC, a British-based residential property business, due to his belief in catastrophic climate change.101 The plaintiff argued that his belief in climate change was covered under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations of 2003 because his belief affected most aspects of his life, including how he traveled, what he bought and ate, and how he disposed of his waste.102

Beliefs on climate like religion, court rules

Mr Nicholson successfully argued that his moral values about the environment should be recognised under the same laws that protect religious beliefs.

In the landmark ruling, Justice Michael Burton said that a belief in man-made climate change is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the religion and belief regulations.

 

[Crick]

RE believe in AGW is a religion

From link #1

"A United Kingdom (UK) employment tribunal found that that belief in climate change is a legally protected right.11 The employment tribunal found that an employee’s belief in climate change was covered under the employment regulations, reasoning that a belief is not excluded from coverage just because it is political or based on science rather than religion."

This states citizens have a legally protected right to a belief even if it is based on politics or science, not just religion. This clearly (to those who can read simple text) that belief in AGW is NOT a religion. Nowhere in this text file does it suggest otherwise.

The second link is simply a MSM article covering the same court case. The poster seems to have allowed himself to be fooled because the right under discussion was one for "religion and belief". He assumes, I suppose, that they are one and the same.

A belief in AGW and a concern about global warming has not been declared by any court on the planet to be a religious belief. As usual, SSDD is full of shit.

 

[westwall]

What's funny is you can't even point to a single experiment to support your silly claims

Of course I can. Any child with Google can. Haha, you just repeated the stupid lie that scientists managed to come to overwhelming consensus without evidence. And that is why you morons are here, crying on each others' shoulders, instead of producing science or being invited to any serious discussion about the science.

Then do it, child.

 

[Crick]

What's funny is you can't even point to a single experiment to support your silly claims

Of course I can. Any child with Google can. Haha, you just repeated the stupid lie that scientists managed to come to overwhelming consensus without evidence. And that is why you morons are here, crying on each others' shoulders, instead of producing science or being invited to any serious discussion about the science.

Then do it, child.

www.ipcc.ch

The Physical Science Basis

 

[westwall]

What's funny is you can't even point to a single experiment to support your silly claims

Of course I can. Any child with Google can. Haha, you just repeated the stupid lie that scientists managed to come to overwhelming consensus without evidence. And that is why you morons are here, crying on each others' shoulders, instead of producing science or being invited to any serious discussion about the science.

Then do it, child.

www.ipcc.ch

The Physical Science Basis

That is called opinion, junior. Here's a thought. Learn the difference between opinion and scientific studies and get back to us when you actually know something.

 

[Crick]

www.ipcc.ch

The Physical Science Basis

That is called opinion, junior. Here's a thought. Learn the difference between opinion and scientific studies and get back to us when you actually know something.

I've posted a list of the published scientific studies on which TWO of "The Physical Science Basis"s 15 chapters are based and was corrected by the moderators here for posting too much quoted material. If you actually want to insist it is not based on scientific studies then you appear to have no qualm demonstrably lying to our faces. Is that the case Mr Westwall?

 

[westwall]

www.ipcc.ch

The Physical Science Basis

That is called opinion, junior. Here's a thought. Learn the difference between opinion and scientific studies and get back to us when you actually know something.

I've posted a list of the published scientific studies on which TWO of "The Physical Science Basis"s 15 chapters are based and was corrected by the moderators here for posting too much quoted material. If you actually want to insist it is not based on scientific studies then you appear to have no qualm demonstrably lying to our faces. Is that the case Mr Westwall?

No, you posted studies that were based on MODELS! Models aren't data, fool. Once again, learn what data is!

 

[flacaltenn]

Watching Meet the Press. They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change. They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled. Now it is time to discuss solutions.

A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change

I applaud Meet the Press. Time to push deniers and their pseudo science to the curb or back into closet. Choose your metaphor. They are just standing in the way and are no more than obstructionists.

We need to discuss only solutions and adaptations.

A SCIENCE discussion that EXCLUDES dissent? Do realize what a snowflake concept that is?

And fuck the poll unless you produce the EXACT QUESTION asked. Global warming can not be resolved or defined down to JUST ONE QUESTION. There's at least dozens of them. If the question is ---

"Is the planet warming and does man-made CO2 play a role in that warming"? There will be a fairly large consensus.. But that gives NO CLUE what the predicted MAGNITUDE of the problem will be.. Or whether the modeling is even GOOD ENOUGH to make those predictions..

In fact, fuck Repubs and Dems. In the most EXHAUSTIVE polling OF climate scientists and BY climate scientists (Bray and von Storch 2012 thru 2017) -- the VAST MAJORITY thought the media and political leadership was poorly representing the actual science. And only 21% had strong agreement that the modeling that predictions depend on accurately depict the climate..

THERE"S what REAL climate scientists think about MSNBC and their "safe space" for producing a public narrative based on "consensus"..

Open it up to debate, and you'll see a much more accurate and GREATLY less hysterical version of what the science ACTUALLY Says TODAY.. Not the catastrophic predictions from the 80s and 90s that now in disrepute.

 

[cnm]

s0n.....hate to break it to you but clearly, a majority of the public are deniers!!

The American public, possibly. They're not the brightest, given.

 

[cnm]

Your map doesn't jibe with literally hundreds of studies that found the MWP to have been both warmer than the present, and global in nature.

I look forward to your links.