MTP: Climate Change Discussion - no Deniers

[skookerasbil]

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.

Hmmmm

Hey I'll take the flat earther label all day

But so far, the entire world has responded to climate science as theory only.....which is evidenced by the continued utter domination of fossil fuels on the energy landscape. Meanwhile, renewables are laughable and fringe......still. Because the science isnt mattering for dick.

Theory is ghey

AGW bozos are like the guys here on Long Island rolling around in their shiny $125,000 GTR's and pull into their driveways in front of a 2 bedroom bungalow on a 10th of an acre of property and that looks like a crack house!

 

[skookerasbil]

Bah Bah Booey.......

Inconvenient energy fact: It takes 79 solar workers to produce same amount of electric power as one coal worker - AEI

 

[skookerasbil]

Who exactly are the "flat earthers"??

4 in 5 Consumers Think Eco-Friendly Products Cost More "Green"

Lol.....nobody wants to buy green shit!!

 

[SSDD]

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.

Of course you can't...all you can do is make impotent claims rather than step up to the plate and do it...you offer up one logical fallacy after another and call it a defense of your position...what a laugh...

 

[SSDD]

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.

Oh..look...another impotent spewer of logical fallacy...another mouthpiece who has no informed opinion of his own...another dupe who only has the opinion someone with a political agenda gave to him...

Hang around not producing the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support your beliefs...it makes us skeptics look good..we keep asking for evidence, you wack job puppets keep not delivering and spewing impotent insults....and piss poor analogies...I love it...

 

[SSDD]

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..

Don't hold your breath...he has no idea, but whoever gave him his opinion, told him that all scientists agree...that is as far as his knowledge goes.

 

[westwall]

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.

If you could you wouldn't be fleeing behind the "just google it" canard. Here's a suggestion, YOU google it and present what you find.

GO!

 

[SSDD]

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.

If you could you wouldn't be fleeing behind the "just google it" canard. Here's a suggestion, YOU google it and present what you find.

GO!

He wouldn't even know where to start...by his own admission, the entire topic is out of his intellectual grasp...he just comes here to express the opinion someone with a political agenda gave him...nothing more.

 

[jc456]

So you applaud bias and non diversity. Got it.

One side debating facts, and another farting or making otherwise vulgar, ignorant noises, is not diversity, and excluding the farters isn't "bias". It's just common sense, and a necessary precondition for a real debate.

How can you have a real debate when the other side said "Global Warming science is settled, end of debate". That right there nullified any bullshit from the liberalleftards.

The Dangers Of 'Settled Science' | PSI Intl

Read, understand, then post.

They are not debating the reality of AGW, that is long since settled. They are debating possible solutions to the problem.

not at all, but don't let facts blind your dumb ass.

 

[jc456]

One side debating facts, and another farting or making otherwise vulgar, ignorant noises, is not diversity, and excluding the farters isn't "bias". It's just common sense, and a necessary precondition for a real debate.

How can you have a real debate when the other side said "Global Warming science is settled, end of debate". That right there nullified any bullshit from the liberalleftards.

The Dangers Of 'Settled Science' | PSI Intl

Read, understand, then post.

They are not debating the reality of AGW, that is long since settled. They are debating possible solutions to the problem.

such as?
stop driving cars?

I don't have all the answers, but fuel economy standards such as the ones tRump is trying to fuck up are definitely part of it.

you still have Millions of cars all over the world
that's a drop in the bucket
if the climate has changed, it's too late to do anything--it's changed

if it has? I still haven't seen surfers in the Arctic. why not?

 

[mamooth]

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..

Flat-earthers and scientologists use the same "no, you're the cultists!" and "Ha, you have to debunk my propaganda for the thousandth time again, or I win!" schtick that you deniers here use so often. That's why everyone laughs at them as well.

You and your pals here get all the science wrong, hence reality defines you as the cultists. The actual science has spun dirt in your face and then moved on down the road, and you're not even visible in the rear-view mirror. You're only interesting in a political and psychological way. If it gives you all emotional comfort to believe otherwise, fine, but it doesn't affect the science.

 

[westwall]

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..

Flat-earthers and scientologists use the same "no, you're the cultists!" and "Ha, you have to debunk my propaganda for the thousandth time again, or I win!" schtick that you deniers here use so often. That's why everyone laughs at them as well.

You and your pals here get all the science wrong, hence reality defines you as the cultists. The actual science has spun dirt in your face and then moved on down the road, and you're not even visible in the rear-view mirror. You're only interesting in a political and psychological way. If it gives you all emotional comfort to believe otherwise, fine, but it doesn't affect the science.

Wrong, we actually follow the scientific method which demands that if YOU make an extraordinary claim, it is up to YOU to present evidence to support your claim. Computer model generated "studies" are not support. They are fiction because they are not data. An ignorant anti science religious nut job, like you though, chooses to ignore those facts.

 

[flacaltenn]

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..

Flat-earthers and scientologists use the same "no, you're the cultists!" and "Ha, you have to debunk my propaganda for the thousandth time again, or I win!" schtick that you deniers here use so often. That's why everyone laughs at them as well.

You and your pals here get all the science wrong, hence reality defines you as the cultists. The actual science has spun dirt in your face and then moved on down the road, and you're not even visible in the rear-view mirror. You're only interesting in a political and psychological way. If it gives you all emotional comfort to believe otherwise, fine, but it doesn't affect the science.

Please tell us all what QUESTION is this scientific "consensus" is on.. And how many questions YOU think need answered before you play on the fears of the public.

Oh wait !! you can't. All you can do is flame?? Well, bless your little heart (and your tiny brain)...

 

[mamooth]

Please tell us all what QUESTION is this scientific "consensus" is on..

Whether the earth is warming, the degree of it, and whether humans are the cause. That's all quite settled. Come on, this isn't rocket science. So why the tapdancing?

And no, you don't get to move the goalposts now, though you will try, as a desperation tactic.

And how many questions YOU think need answered before you play on the fears of the public

I'm not the one pushing stories of socialist conspiracy, so you're plainly projecting your own penchant for trying to induce hysteria.

Oh wait !! you can't. All you can do is flame??

Says the guy who does nothing but flame. I understand why. It's not like you're capable of discussing the issues.

 

[mamooth]

Wrong, we actually follow the scientific method which demands that if YOU make an extraordinary claim, it is up to YOU to present evidence to support your claim.

But our claim isn't extraordinary, and it is backed up by all the evidence.

In contrast, your extraordinary claim about a secret socialist global plot to fake the data is backed up by nothing. We have the hard science, and you have conspiracy theories.

Computer model generated "studies" are not support.

That's nice, but irrelevant, as all the directly observed hard data supports AGW theory. The stunning success of the models is just icing on the cake.

They are fiction because they are not data. An ignorant anti science religious nut job, like you though, chooses to ignore those facts.

Our side has been right about nearly everything for over 40 years running. Your side has failed spectacularly at everything over the same period. The rational side has credibility because they've earned it. Your side has no credibility because you always fail. You can't change that by complaining about how unfair the scientific method is, and then invoking a conspiracy theory. The only way you can change it is to start doing science that doesn't fail.

 

[westwall]

Wrong, we actually follow the scientific method which demands that if YOU make an extraordinary claim, it is up to YOU to present evidence to support your claim.

But our claim isn't extraordinary, and it is backed up by all the evidence.

In contrast, your extraordinary claim about a secret socialist global plot to fake the data is backed up by nothing. We have the hard science, and you have conspiracy theories.

Computer model generated "studies" are not support.

That's nice, but irrelevant, as all the directly observed hard data supports AGW theory. The stunning success of the models is just icing on the cake.

They are fiction because they are not data. An ignorant anti science religious nut job, like you though, chooses to ignore those facts.

Our side has been right about nearly everything for over 40 years running. Your side has failed spectacularly at everything over the same period. The rational side has credibility because they've earned it. Your side has no credibility because you always fail. You can't change that by complaining about how unfair the scientific method is, and then invoking a conspiracy theory. The only way you can change it is to start doing science that doesn't fail.

Your claim that mankinds contribution of less than 5% to the global CO2 budget is responsible for controlling the temperature of the plane is indeed an extraordinary claim. And it is not born out by observation, nor by legit scientific studies that track the paleo climate that the globe has enjoyed. In every case, when real observed DATA is compared vs your computer generated fiction, your fiction ALWAYS loses.

That is called a fact. You are a propagandist and nothing more.

 

[JLW]

Wrong, we actually follow the scientific method which demands that if YOU make an extraordinary claim, it is up to YOU to present evidence to support your claim.

But our claim isn't extraordinary, and it is backed up by all the evidence.

In contrast, your extraordinary claim about a secret socialist global plot to fake the data is backed up by nothing. We have the hard science, and you have conspiracy theories.

Computer model generated "studies" are not support.

That's nice, but irrelevant, as all the directly observed hard data supports AGW theory. The stunning success of the models is just icing on the cake.

They are fiction because they are not data. An ignorant anti science religious nut job, like you though, chooses to ignore those facts.

Our side has been right about nearly everything for over 40 years running. Your side has failed spectacularly at everything over the same period. The rational side has credibility because they've earned it. Your side has no credibility because you always fail. You can't change that by complaining about how unfair the scientific method is, and then invoking a conspiracy theory. The only way you can change it is to start doing science that doesn't fail.

Right in every respect.

 

[mamooth]

Your claim that mankinds contribution of less than 5% to the global CO2 budget is responsible for controlling the temperature of the plane is indeed an extraordinary claim.

Being that you fail completely at understanding how an equilibrium system works, let me help you out.

If I make $1000 a week and spend $1000 a week, my bank account of $5000 is constant.

If I make $1050 a week and spend $1000, it's only a change of 5% in income, but my bank account rises $2600 that year, a 52% increase.

According to your very peculiar logic, it's an "extraordinary claim" to attribute that 52% rise in my bank account to a mere 5% rise in income. And that's why you shouldn't be bothering the grownups. You always fail at the most basic logic.

And it is not born out by observation, nor by legit scientific studies that track the paleo climate that the globe has enjoyed.

It's impossible to explain paleoclimate without AGW theory. In contrast, your crank pseudoscience can't explain it. If you disagree, then explain, without invoking greenhouse gases, how earth came out of the snowball earth period.

In every case, when real observed DATA is compared vs your computer generated fiction, your fiction ALWAYS loses.

Being how I'm familiar with the real science, I know with 100% certainty that you're lying, in exactly the same way I know with 100% certainty that flat-earthers and creationists are lying. You can fool the other authoritarian-followers in your cult, but you can't fool intelligent and informed people.

 

[westwall]

Your claim that mankinds contribution of less than 5% to the global CO2 budget is responsible for controlling the temperature of the plane is indeed an extraordinary claim.

Being that you fail completely at understanding how an equilibrium system works, let me help you out.

If I make $1000 a week and spend $1000 a week, my bank account of $5000 is constant.

If I make $1050 a week and spend $1000, it's only a change of 5% in income, but my bank account rises $2600 that year, a 52% increase.

According to your very peculiar logic, it's an "extraordinary claim" to attribute that 52% rise in my bank account to a mere 5% rise in income. And that's why you shouldn't be bothering the grownups. You always fail at the most basic logic.

And it is not born out by observation, nor by legit scientific studies that track the paleo climate that the globe has enjoyed.

It's impossible to explain paleoclimate without AGW theory. In contrast, your crank pseudoscience can't explain it. If you disagree, then explain, without invoking greenhouse gases, how earth came out of the snowball earth period.

In every case, when real observed DATA is compared vs your computer generated fiction, your fiction ALWAYS loses.

Being how I'm familiar with the real science, I know with 100% certainty that you're lying, in exactly the same way I know with 100% certainty that flat-earthers and creationists are lying. You can fool the other authoritarian-followers in your cult, but you can't fool intelligent and informed people.

The RT of CO2 is less than 15 years. Your claim is hogwash.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Go for it.

When you come to "push" you better bring some muscle.