Should we allow the alarmists to alarm us as to climate?

[Dagosa]

So far, not one time have you stated you are a researcher that is paid to investigate climate and that you are peer reviewed and proved you are a true authority.

Why brag ? You bullshit artists brag enough about your made up shit to fill an entire thread. Nope. I go to all the climate related institutions for climate info. They all agree on it. Let them speak.

 

[Dagosa]

There is evidence of some warming but it is not an immediate emergency. All the climate predictions of doom from the past turned out to be false alarms.

Tucker would be proud. He’s “ learned” you well.

 

[Dagosa]

You deny climate is naturally happening.

A typical ignorant statement that reinforces everything I say about deniers. The climate is cyclic and there is a warming trend. But the rate of change has accelerated faster during man‘s industrial revolution than at anytime modern man has been here. Now, go a few more posts, then keep repeating your delusional, uninformed opinion on what AGW is really not about in your mind….ACCELERATION or increase in the rate of change Of the warming trend….it then affects us a species and our survival.

 

[Robert W]

Anybody who chooses a particular 'scientific group' as the ONLY authority is being completely unscientific in their choice of who to believe.

Choosing one scientific theory or doctrine to the exclusion of all others is to be completely unscientific.

To be gullible enough to think that those who do 'science' for fun and profit are somehow more authoritative than those who use science to gain knowledge and hopefully get closer to the truth is always going to be unscientific.

Is the IPCC and similar government ordered/funded groups necessarily wrong? No. But the IPCC's 'Summary for Policy Makers' is generally not prepared by scientists but is prepared by government operatives who take this and that from the IPCC studies and is used to promote government initiatives.

I don't have the knowledge or ability to do the research myself but I have the intellect and ability to read the differing opinions on the subject. And I have learned from bitter experience that those who embrace pretty much ANYTHING as the only point of view that is scientific will generally arrive at flawed conclusions, many times harmfully or dangerously flawed conclusions.

And I still say that given:
--the climate models so far have not been able to predict anything accurately. . .
--far too many promoting the models are being paid to agree with the AGW theory. . .
--it is unscientific to dismiss or disallow participations with those who question or disagree with the AGW theory. . .
--Neither scientists nor politicians claiming that climate change is the worst threat to humankind that exists are living their personal lives as if it is a problem. . .

I have to say I don't KNOW with certainty what the actual truth is. But I sure am confident that we don't have it yet.

Is the IPCC and similar government ordered/funded groups necessarily wrong? No. But the IPCC's 'Summary for Policy Makers' is generally not prepared by scientists but is prepared by government operatives who take this and that from the IPCC studies and is used to promote government initiatives.

Earth has long had a load of gloom and doomers. Those predicting the end of earth are not in short supply. We tend to call those types religionists.
Also why aren't our doomers on the forum bragging what they do to save the planet?

 

[Robert W]

A typical ignorant statement that reinforces everything I say about deniers. The climate is cyclic and there is a warming trend. But the rate of change has accelerated faster during man‘s industrial revolution than at anytime modern man has been here. Now, go a few more posts, then keep repeating your delusional, uninformed opinion on what AGW is really not about in your mind….ACCELERATION or increase in the rate of change Of the warming trend….it then affects us a species and our survival.

Describe for the forum what you have done to back yourself up? Is your car an ICE? Do you fly on airplanes that use the ICE? Jets are internal combustion as you ought to understand. Do you lecture your close friends all the time as you do here on the forum. If you don't you are a fraud.

 

[Robert W]

I'm pretty darn sure he isn't one or he wouldn't be posting the really silly stuff he posts. I doubt he passed any science classes actually or at least with higher than a D minus.

So far he has refused to disclose his credentials. When we post presentations by true experts, they immediately want to dismiss said expert as a shill or in the pocket of big oil. So that is how they think. It makes me think they are the ones profiting off of their bullshit.

 

[Robert W]

D minus? That's pretty specific. Could you identify some of his "really silly stuff" that allows you to make that precise a judgement? Can you identify any of it at all?

I will help her on this comment. I have posted scads of videos by honest to god actual climatoligists. And for my trouble, they get trashed by him and by Crick. But wait, since I have posted on this topic for at least 28 years on forums, it has to make me an expert. So hah.
But more, other posters such as@Chemengineer has posted along with me. So has Sunsettommy
But never mind me, I have relied on true scientists. The bs that 97 percent put the blame on man is pure BS.

 

[Robert W]

A typical ignorant statement that reinforces everything I say about deniers. The climate is cyclic and there is a warming trend. But the rate of change has accelerated faster during man‘s industrial revolution than at anytime modern man has been here. Now, go a few more posts, then keep repeating your delusional, uninformed opinion on what AGW is really not about in your mind….ACCELERATION or increase in the rate of change Of the warming trend….it then affects us a species and our survival.

You are trying to label extremely tiny changes and rates of change as huge. They are to be seen using a good microscope. You are selling fear to those you believer are gullible.

 

[Robert W]

Why brag ? You bullshit artists brag enough about your made up shit to fill an entire thread. Nope. I go to all the climate related institutions for climate info. They all agree on it. Let them speak.

I have posted material from actual working climatologists and they got attacked by you and Crick. But hold on, you are not the only two who attack honest to god excellent climatologists. Meanwhile you rely on politicians.

 

[Foxfyre]

So far he has refused to disclose his credentials. When we post presentations by true experts, they immediately want to dismiss said expert as a shill or in the pocket of big oil. So that is how they think. It makes me think they are the ones profiting off of their bullshit.

One doesn't need 'credentials' to have an opinion on a subject. We all have our own areas of expertise and disciplines but those don't exclude other things that interest us.

I have been fascinated with science with a particular interest in weather, environment, Earth phenomena for honestly as long as I can remember. Certainly since I was in grade school.

I didn't choose that as a vocation as my heart (and circumstances) took me in a different direction, but all my life I have read extensively on volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, mega storms and their over all affect short term and long term. And in recent decades I read a lot about climate, especially paleontological climate trends and the current 'climate change' issues.

Does that make me an expert or a scientist? Not by any stretch of the imagination. But because I am not a climate change 'religionist' pushing one scientific theory to the exclusion of all others--I call that 'religion' and not science--and also because I recognize when money is most likely a primary driving force behind a so-called 'scientific' trend, I also am not ignorant on the subject either.

So when I am trolled by somebody who is a climate 'religionist' unwilling to even think about anything other than AGW as the primary force in current climate change, most especially one who debates via ad hominem and personal insults, I don't have any respect for that person's position and feel pretty reinforced in mine.

 

[Robert W]

You can’t even answer my comments back legibly. No bubba, you don’t need to be certified, but you need to use accredited sources which you don’t. You don’t even recognize them.

One more time ? Would you go to JHU and other accredited sources for information on cancer treatments ?

No and that is why my sources are honest to god accredited scientists who work in the field and are published climatologists. And you trash them. So do not tell me to respect politicians who you really use over actual climatologists. The reports by the IPCC are political in nature.

 

[Dagosa]

No and that is why my sources are honest to god accredited scientists who work in the field and are published climatologists. And you trash them. So do not tell me to respect politicians who you really use over actual climatologists. The reports by the IPCC are political in nature.

Accredited sources are all the INSTITUTIONS WITH thousands of scientist in general agreement. It’s not one or two bubba. Lost again.
So, would you. Insult Johns Hopkins for reliable information on cancer treatments ?

Politicians ? Thats why we are here. Trump is a fking loser.

 

[Robert W]

One doesn't need 'credentials' to have an opinion on a subject. We all have our own areas of expertise and disciplines that most interest us. I have been fascinated with science with a particular interest in weather, environment, Earth phenomena for honestly as long as I can remember. Certainly since I was in grade school.

I didn't choose that as a vocation as my heart (and circumstances) took me in a different direction, but all my life I have read extensively on volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, mega storms and their over all affect short term and long term. And in recent decades I read a lot about climate, especially paleontological climate trends and the current 'climate change' issues.

Does that make me an expert or a scientist? Not by any stretch of the imagination. But because I am not a climate change 'religionist' pushing one scientific theory to the exclusion of all others, and also because I recognize when money is most likely a primary driving force behind a so-called 'scientific' trend, I also am not ignorant on the subject either.

So when I am trolled by somebody who is a climate 'religionist' unwilling to even think about anything other than AGW as the primary force in current climate change, most especially one who debates via ad hominem and personal insults, I don't have any respect for that person's position and feel pretty reinforced in mine.

As you just did, and I see how honest you truly are, even though they attack you, you put on the best pair of shoes and being kind to them, kick their asses.
I did not read an article one day and say, no way are they right. When they predicted the end of the planet, at least we inhabitants, sure it is alarming. That is why they do it. They trade in alarmism. When I have posted video upon video by climatologists who call BS on their claims, they attack said scientists. They do not even argue the points made by the scientists, they attack the scientist and then me and of course you as well.

Crick is less inclined to attack me and you. But he does not address the things said in videos by my experts. And they are true climatologists. I do not speak voodoo. I speak science.

Dr. Richard Lindzen is by far the best climatologist we have. And others in his field are very very close to being as good. We post those videos and what does Crick do? He puts labels on them. And this nut using the photo of a famous baseball pitcher does himself no good since that photo is supposed to mean this clown is an expert because Dennis Eckersley is an expert pitcher.

I do not think this bozo is Dennis. I think were it Dennis, by now I would have heard from Dennis himself. He knows he and I share a common friend. And yet I get no word from Dennis he approves the use of his photo by some clown poster.

 

[Dagosa]

And you trash them.

None has receiver general agreement for their propaganda. Read my lips, NONE.

 

[Dagosa]

One doesn't need 'credentials' to have an opinion on a subject.

Of course, but it doesn’t mean shit.

 

[Robert W]

Accredited sources are all the INSTITUTIONS WITH thousands of scientist in general agreement. It’s not one or two bubba. Lost again.
So, would you. Insult Johns Hopkins for reliable information on cancer treatments ?

You want to change topics. Let me tell you a short story about cancer treatments. One cancer that is virtually fatal when detected can actually be detected in time to get the patient treated. And no it was not a doctor or a person in a equipped lab that solved the problem, it was a kid in high school in his basement to keep the smells of chemicals down there. So the science was settled by thousands of scientists. You would not detect Pancreatic cancer using the so called best tests available. They find the cancer but when they do, the patient is on death's doorstep. So would I trust John Hopkins? Well one of their scientists did trust this kid and allowed him to use their laboratory. Still to pass muster, the testing is in process and hopefully will be made generally available all over. So when the scientists dismissed the boy, would you have dismissed him?

 

[Robert W]

None has receiver general agreement for their propaganda. Read my lips, NONE.

WRONG. You have kept your blinders on to promote your personal agenda.

 

[Foxfyre]

As you just did, and I see how honest you truly are, even though they attack you, you put on the best pair of shoes and being kind to them, kick their asses.
I did not read an article one day and say, no way are they right. When they predicted the end of the planet, at least we inhabitants, sure it is alarming. That is why they do it. They trade in alarmism. When I have posted video upon video by climatologists who call BS on their claims, they attack said scientists. They do not even argue the points made by the scientists, they attack the scientist and then me and of course you as well.

Crick is less inclined to attack me and you. But he does not address the things said in videos by my experts. And they are true climatologists. I do not speak voodoo. I speak science.

Dr. Richard Lindzen is by far the best climatologist we have. And others in his field are very very close to being as good. We post those videos and what does Crick do? He puts labels on them. And this nut using the photo of a famous baseball pitcher does himself no good since that photo is supposed to mean this clown is an expert because Dennis Eckersley is an expert pitcher.

I do not think this bozo is Dennis. I think were it Dennis, by now I would have heard from Dennis himself. He knows he and I share a common friend. And yet I get no word from Dennis he approves the use of his photo by some clown poster.

The climate religionists refuse to look at anything that is not the doctrine they demand is the ONLY truth. (And you don't get any more unscientific than that. )

 

[Robert W]

Accredited sources are all the INSTITUTIONS WITH thousands of scientist in general agreement. It’s not one or two bubba. Lost again.
So, would you. Insult Johns Hopkins for reliable information on cancer treatments ?

Politicians ? Thats why we are here. Trump is a fking loser.

Why is your prime source not as devoted to this as you are? The IPCC reports do not predict earth is crashing and you are Earth's savior!!!

 

[Dagosa]

WRONG. You have kept your blinders on to promote your personal agenda.

Prove it. Do the research. They DID NOT. THEY HAVE PUBLISHED NO TRIALS. They have only criticized the trials that were done, inaccurately. Where are their trials ? You will find noe and THEU have received no support from any of institutions in CLIMATE SCIENCE. None, nothing nada.