MTP: Climate Change Discussion - no Deniers

[cnm]

It was truth back in 2012, and its still truth today.

Bullshit. It is debunked denier propaganda by a denier mouthpiece. I'm not trawling through your other links to make your specious argument for you. Excerpt the relevant bits if you think them applicable.

 

[cnm]

Oops, there goes the neighbourhood. I'm out of here.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Already provided them....Post # 550...and I explained exactly how the map works.

Visit the map...every red ballon represents a study that found the MWP to have been warmer than the present...every blue balloon finds that it was slightly cooler than the present during the MWP..click on the balloon and you will get the basics of the study and a link to the entire study..

There are links to over 1000 studies there...as you can see, the MWP was both warmer than the present and global in nature...

Which part of clicking on a balloon to get information regarding the study is confusing you? Here is the link again...

Medieval Warm Period - Google My Maps

 

[SSDD]

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.

Classic crick...ignore what the judge said, and go with your interpretation....

Judge rules activist's beliefs on climate change akin to religion

"A belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral imperatives, is capable if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations."

Climate change belief given same legal status as religion

"a belief in man-made climate change ... is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations".

And on and on and on...Tell me skid mark....what is it like to have me constantly handing you your ass?

 

[SSDD]

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.

Back to his inability to differentiate between data and evidence...he believes that if you hang an assumption on enough data, that somehow it magically becomes evidence.

 

[skookerasbil]

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.

Oy

N
O
B
O
D
Y

C
A
R
E
S



Lol...on social media, Tinder receives more attention than climate change!

No One Cares About Climate Change - Social Media Engagement Study

I nearly split my sides laughing seeing the graph in the link.

 

[Ame®icano]

It was truth back in 2012, and its still truth today.

Bullshit. It is debunked denier propaganda by a denier mouthpiece. I'm not trawling through your other links to make your specious argument for you. Excerpt the relevant bits if you think them applicable.

Look who's denier now...

 

[SSDD]

It was truth back in 2012, and its still truth today.

Bullshit. It is debunked denier propaganda by a denier mouthpiece. I'm not trawling through your other links to make your specious argument for you. Excerpt the relevant bits if you think them applicable.

Look who's denier now...

They can't be exposing themselves to anything that might challenge their faith...they don't think on their own...someone gives them their opinions...if they see information that challenges their faith, they don't have the slightest idea of how to evaluate it...if it isn't part of the opinion that was given to them...they are lost..

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

I've asked a half dozen times before WHAT IS THE QUESTION that there is consensus on -- and you can't walk that path. Because in reality, you only get "consensus" ONE SPECIFIC question at a time. And like any complex, multi-disciplinary science -- CChange needs a couple DOZEN questions and consensus to be settled science. THAT -- has never happened..

 

[flacaltenn]

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?

15 chapter huh? What was the prediction for GMASTemp in 2100? OR the sea level anomaly? Those wild ass projections have ALL been whittled down to fractions of what they once were. Caused the world to shit its britches all over primitive modeling and "wishful thinking"...

How come we're not getting UPDATES on the latest "projections"? How come the IPCC has all but shut down? How come the "critical fudge factor" Climate Sensitivity continues to decline.

You THINK -- the science is static. It has NOT been static. And all the atrociously irresponsible "signaling of doom" have DISAPPEARED for almost an entire decade.. But YOU -- are still aboard the crazy train as it WAS about 10 or 20 years ago... Move on...

 

[flacaltenn]

Can't have EVERY thread de-railed because one member doesn't understand the difference between heat transfer and radiative transfer. From now on -- it's a thread diversion unless that's the title. And warnings go out to whomever brings it up..

If you have no idea what I just said -- You're in a better place.. Just enjoy the peace..

 

[danielpalos]

New Cities in more optimal locations. We can command as many jobs be created as we need.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And yet...you can't bring a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

Of course I can. Any child with Google can. See, saying ridiculous shit like this is why deniers are just not allowed at the table anymore. The deniers embarrass themselves and waste the time of educated people. So, the deniers are now left to start their own fringe websites that are just laughed off for their craziness.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I've asked a half dozen times before WHAT IS THE QUESTION that there is consensus on -- and you can't walk that path

Of course I can, and i have answered it many times. Any child with Google can answer that question. There is literally a periodic convention of the global scientific community that , among other things, determines the very answer to that question and makes it public. If you don't know the answer, that is your fault and nobody else's. And this nonsense is precisely why deniers are not taken seriously and are no longer invited to the table with serious, educated people.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And yet...you can't bring a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

Of course I can. Any child with Google can. See, saying ridiculous shit like this is why deniers are just not allowed at the table anymore. The deniers embarrass yourselves and waste the time of educate people. So, the deniers are now left to start their own fringe websites that are just laughed off for their craziness.

Correct.

It’s the same as not having ‘creationism’ on a site dedicated to science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Correct.

It’s the same as not having ‘creationism’ on a site dedicated to science.

Exactly. And we don't invite flat earthers to speak geology conventions, either. But the deniers are free to go have their own little meetings. They can invite creationists and flat earthers, to boost attendance. Maybe feature some anti vaxxers and anti fluoriders as well.

 

[skookerasbil]

Correct.

It’s the same as not having ‘creationism’ on a site dedicated to science.

Exactly. And we don't invite flat earthers to speak geology conventions, either. But the deniers are free to go have their own little meetings. They can invite creationists and flat earthers, to boost attendance. Maybe feature some anti vaxxers and anti fluoriders as well.

My God.....is this guy not the pre imminent matrix sucker on the whole board? If it's the official narrative, he's all in. Ghey.

I could understand it but when the level of lOsE is so profound, it becomes fascinating on some level. Just zero curiosity in the thinking.....ever......

The term "flat earthers" historically was associated with indisputable fact. In 2019, it is associated to a social dogma only. Amazing shit.....

How do we know?

The social dogma is rooted in words only.....no behavior. All the flat eather/denier rants for the past 20 years has led to how much climate action?

ZERO

EGG

ZILCH

FAIL

 

[skookerasbil]

@www.whosnotwinning.com

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The term "flat earthers" historically was associated with indisputable fact. In 2019, it is associated to a social dogma only.

Wromg. There really are people who think the earth is flat. Just as there really are fools who deny evolution and clinate theories. And none of them are invited to serious discussions abou these tolocs any longer. Which is great.

 

[flacaltenn]

I've asked a half dozen times before WHAT IS THE QUESTION that there is consensus on -- and you can't walk that path

Of course I can, and i have answered it many times. Any child with Google can answer that question. There is literally a periodic convention of the global scientific community that , among other things, determines the very answer to that question and makes it public. If you don't know the answer, that is your fault and nobody else's. And this nonsense is precisely why deniers are not taken seriously and are no longer invited to the table with serious, educated people.

Sure Wiz.. Just spit it out. What "every climate scientist agrees on".. As THO, they are as Borg-like droidal beings as rabid party partisans..

We're all breathlessly awaiting "the Enlightenment" here. Make it quick..