Stupid idiot actor Leonardo DiCaprio mistakes local weather condition for "global warming"

[Ame®icano]

You realize all I have to do to counter your argument is >>RELINK << the same thing I've already linked right? Here, I'll do it again:

IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

This was just finalized in 2014. They are still saying the same thing... Also, in case you don't have any clue about the scientific process, it generally takes a lot of time (especially considering international collaboration) to generate the data and finalize it...this isn't some sort of thing that can or will come out annually.

You're saying that Fourth Assessment Report from 2007 I was talking about is confirmed in Fifth Assessment Report. And if 4th was proven false (with emails that confirmed that data is cooked), how 5th can say the same thing? It seems you don't understand, or refuse to accept the fact, that legitimacy of the IPCC's Assessment Report process to speak for some sort of scientific consensus has been repeatedly undermined in the years preceding that last report. For instance, climategate scandal (i think it was in 2009) presented incriminating evidence against those you called "HUNDREDS of experts" whose work feeds into IPCC and some of those are lead authors of Assessment Reports. They didn't just cooked the data, but they actually did break the law by illegally withholding the information.

Climatologists found guilty in hiding data - The Guardian

Those types of "scientists" are self serving assholes and the only way they can keep their jobs and get paid top money for it is to keep feeding politicians with lies and false predictions.

I am still waiting for your answer to my question from previous post.

Did you even read that story you linked...it has to do with a guy and his study from 1990. Now, I don't know a lot of that issue and I'm not going to defend him. In fact, I'll even agree with you here and say that this guy produced a misleading study based on falsified or erroneous data.

Now, what, exactly, does that have to do with the IPCC and the consensus of hundreds (maybe thousands) of scientists? Are you saying that if one guy from 2 decades ago were to try and prove the theory of gravity, and let's say he's lazy, an idiot, or just plain immoral and he generates false data...does the fact that one guy did that 2 decades ago prove that the theory of gravity is false even though there are hundreds of others that both support the theory and have generated reliable data supporting that fact?

As for your question on how do you disprove a religion. I'm not sure. When I convince you, who are holding onto a conspiracy based belief that ignores modern facts and scientific data, I'll tell you how I've effectively disproven your religion.

I could have posted wrong link. I was talking about Phil Jones and others. There are plenty of links, google it.

Climate Catastrophe: A Superstorm for Global Warming Research - Spiegel
Climatologist Says He Deleted E-mails, But Not at Mann's Behest - Science
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate - Forbes

About consensus you're talking about. It's based on falsified data.

OK, let me get crayons and paint the picture, just for you.

Lets say I have a lot of money and I earned it. I put some in various accounts, some in investments, some under the mattress. Government wants to get that money, but I already paid my fair share. Then government hire you and hundreds of other experts to prove that I stole that money by robbing a bank. You work on fabricating data, altering videos, photo shopping images and other tricks that put me in proximity of the bank. You convince the public that I stole the money and here we go, government knock on my door and charge me with armed robbery so I have to defend myself. But there are people who see the holes in your data, see the flicks in your video, errors in images and expose you and your experts and prove that you're liars. The government and their shills still wants my money, so they change the story to... I didn't actually stole the money, however I did some mistakes on my tax return.
The question is, since you and your experts were caught in your lies with the tools you used to fabricate those lies, do I still have to proof I didn't rob the bank?

 

[Never3ndr]

I could have posted wrong link. I was talking about Phil Jones and others. There are plenty of links, google it.

Climate Catastrophe: A Superstorm for Global Warming Research - Spiegel
Climatologist Says He Deleted E-mails, But Not at Mann's Behest - Science
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate - Forbes

About consensus you're talking about. It's based on falsified data.

OK, let me get crayons and paint the picture, just for you.

Lets say I have a lot of money and I earned it. I put some in various accounts, some in investments, some under the mattress. Government wants to get that money, but I already paid my fair share. Then government hire you and hundreds of other experts to prove that I stole that money by robbing a bank. You work on fabricating data, altering videos, photo shopping images and other tricks that put me in proximity of the bank. You convince the public that I stole the money and here we go, government knock on my door and charge me with armed robbery so I have to defend myself. But there are people who see the holes in your data, see the flicks in your video, errors in images and expose you and your experts and prove that you're liars. The government and their shills still wants my money, so they change the story to... I didn't actually stole the money, however I did some mistakes on my tax return.
The question is, since you and your experts were caught in your lies with the tools you used to fabricate those lies, do I still have to proof I didn't rob the bank?

You keep posting things about emails and skepticism about climate change. You must not have ever worked in a scientific field (I'm assuming you are at least college educated...didn't you at least do some undergrad work?). Let me clue you in, the scientific process is based around debate and skepticism. In fact, one of the best ways to describe it would be that, when considering the scientific process, you always consider yourself wrong until proven otherwise. With that mindset, there are a lot of intense debates that wage on everything as controversial as genetics to something we would consider "proven" such as Newton's laws. So, when there is a "consensus" the understanding is that not everybody agrees...but that the majority does (and in the case of climate change, a vast majority). What is my point? My point is that you pointing to disagreements in the community doesn't do ANYTHING to disprove the fact that there is consensus. All you are really doing is revealing that the scientific process is ongoing and that the consensus that is being published has to go against some entrenched opposition and scrutiny...which is a great thing.

Your next point about falsified data...has actually zero bearing on supporting your point. There are two reasons for this. First of all, let us say that the research that has been published was bought research. Let us say that they had a bias in that research. Okay. That actually does nothing to disprove their findings. For example, let's say that we are back in the time when antibiotics were first developed. Let's say I have the patent for an antibiotic and, to get it approved, I paid for the trial. The trial comes back with positive results. Does that mean that the trial generated false data? No. It may or may not have, but you would have to actually publish research countering the findings or discussing the fallacies used to generate the data as to why. Does that mean that the drug doesn't work? No. Even if you have a sham trial to get your antibiotic approved, it doesn't mean your antibiotic doesn't work. Bringing it back to climate change, whether or not the government benefits monetarily from climate change research (and they don't...accounting for climate changes actually costs billions of dollars which is why it is fought so ardently against by corporations), that does nothing to disprove the published research.

Now, that we have laid bare the fact that you still have yet to point to published, peer-reviewed research that actually shows that the published research is falsified we come to the second point. The fact that your claim has zero support (or at least that you have, thus far, provided zero support). Let us assume you "knock the wind" out of me and I say, "okay, let us assume that all the data out there supporting climate change is falsified." That leaves us in this state: we don't know if man-made climate change is real. It does NOT leave us under the assumption that man-made climate change isn't real...because there is no evidence for that. All we now know (in this hypothetical) is that we know nothing.

However, let us be honest, that hypothetical isn't even needed. The fact is that the research that has been published, has been verified, and there has been no major conflicting studies to prove otherwise. Now, unless you can do better than run around and yell, "conspiracy" as loud as you can, you will have to at least come up with some actual supporting evidence for your claim. Because you have squat so far.

 

[Never3ndr]

I'm pretty mindful that I have lengthy responses, let me give you a TLDR:

You need to link to a peer-reviewed, scientific study backed by hundreds of well-respected scientists in fields that deal with aspects of climate change that extensively reviews the subject of climate change, without bias, and comes to the same conclusion that you have...which is that man-made climate change is a falsehood. Until you can generate the data to support your claim, you literally sound like a crackpot screaming "THE END IS NEAR" with a sandwich board sign.

I have done no less for you, linking you to multiple sources of scientific consensus, peer-reviewed, published under the authority of hundreds of experts with international backgrounds (reducing or flat out eliminating this "government" conspiracy you keep pulling out of thin air). Please, do me the same courtesy I have extended you by proving your claims are grounded upon some actual studies (evidence) rather than you googling whatever happens to agree with your currently held opinion (your fears / beliefs).

 

[Old Rocks]

Why some climate advocates cringed at Leo's Oscar speech

This is really embarassing, not only to Leo, but to the entire "global warming" crowd.e

Absolutely- Leo is 'stupid' for believing the consensus scientific worldwide opinion- unlike you who believe that global warming is a vast conspiracy theory....designed to destory America......

LOL

I don't think science will ever again be guided by anything other than business and/or politics.

By the way, scientific consensus is a great tool to shut the opposition. Like "swine flu" consensus from seventies, or "second hand smoke" consensus in recent years. Consensus today is not based on hard data, but on opinions and cooking of data to satisfy the government's policies.

You say this, but you are using a computer and the internet. You know that our knowledge base has been derived from scientific consensus right? Our understanding of everything from gravity to what water is made up of to what happens when somebody gets different bacterial infections relies upon scientific consensus.

Now, is scientific consensus always right? Nope. Nobody said that it was either. However, is relying on the opinions of professionals who have, literally, dedicated their lives to thinking about and refining certain areas of human knowledge a good idea? Yes.

Now, if you are yourself an educated man with a Ph.D. in a field that has direct expertise lending to an insight on climate change and whether or not it is a reality, then go out there and, to your peers who know as much about the subject as you do, go argue your point. Then, after you convince your colleagues of the veracity of your claims, you can come to the public with your new understandings of climate change. However, until that happens, you'd be a literal idiot to not trust scientific consensus as their process has experts who know more than you could ever want to (or perhaps comprehend) battling out their opinions until the best ones prevail. That's how progress is made.

I stand by what I said.

"Global warming consensus" was policy science. It was based on falsified data to satisfy the political elite. If that consensus was correct, it would be still valid today. Once exposed, they quickly changed the rhetoric to "climate change" as new consensus.

There are many PhDs who were not convinced in global warming and cooked data, all labeled as deniers even when consensus was exposed as lies. Now we're told that we are in "climate change" cycle. I don't think we need science to prove that climate is changing since earth begun.

At the end, you know very well I am not talking about all scientific consensuses, but about those I mentioned in very first sentence of my previous post. Crooked scientist and crooked politician are perfect match that explains it all.

When and where has the consensus on the warming of the globe by the use of fossil fuels been exposed as a lie? Come on now, you surely can give us the Scientific Journal in which the articles were published.

2014 was one of the hottest years on record. 2015 was the hottest on record so far. 2016 looks like it will exceed 2015 for heat. The North Polar ice is at a record low for this time of year, and February was the hottest month on record by far. Our alpine glaciers are melting, and the ice caps are doing the same.

All of this is being observed by scientists from all the nations in the world. So, if this is a hoax as some suggest, it involves fraud on the part of tens of thousands of scientists from every nation and political system in the world. And all the Scientific Societies in the world, all of the National Academies of Science, and all of the major Universities.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why some climate advocates cringed at Leo's Oscar speech

This is really embarassing, not only to Leo, but to the entire "global warming" crowd.e

Absolutely- Leo is 'stupid' for believing the consensus scientific worldwide opinion- unlike you who believe that global warming is a vast conspiracy theory....designed to destory America......

LOL

I don't think science will ever again be guided by anything other than business and/or politics.

By the way, scientific consensus is a great tool to shut the opposition. Like "swine flu" consensus from seventies, or "second hand smoke" consensus in recent years. Consensus today is not based on hard data, but on opinions and cooking of data to satisfy the government's policies.

You say this, but you are using a computer and the internet. You know that our knowledge base has been derived from scientific consensus right? Our understanding of everything from gravity to what water is made up of to what happens when somebody gets different bacterial infections relies upon scientific consensus.

Now, is scientific consensus always right? Nope. Nobody said that it was either. However, is relying on the opinions of professionals who have, literally, dedicated their lives to thinking about and refining certain areas of human knowledge a good idea? Yes.

Now, if you are yourself an educated man with a Ph.D. in a field that has direct expertise lending to an insight on climate change and whether or not it is a reality, then go out there and, to your peers who know as much about the subject as you do, go argue your point. Then, after you convince your colleagues of the veracity of your claims, you can come to the public with your new understandings of climate change. However, until that happens, you'd be a literal idiot to not trust scientific consensus as their process has experts who know more than you could ever want to (or perhaps comprehend) battling out their opinions until the best ones prevail. That's how progress is made.

I stand by what I said.

"Global warming consensus" was policy science. It was based on falsified data to satisfy the political elite. If that consensus was correct, it would be still valid today. Once exposed, they quickly changed the rhetoric to "climate change" as new consensus.

There are many PhDs who were not convinced in global warming and cooked data, all labeled as deniers even when consensus was exposed as lies. Now we're told that we are in "climate change" cycle. I don't think we need science to prove that climate is changing since earth begun.

At the end, you know very well I am not talking about all scientific consensuses, but about those I mentioned in very first sentence of my previous post. Crooked scientist and crooked politician are perfect match that explains it all.

Global cooling, global warming and climate change are all about control… Nothing to do with Saving or not saving the planet. LOL

It never was, and is not, about 'saving the planet'. It is about creating some very hostile conditions for our present civilization. The planet will take care of itself. However, we may find it very difficult, if not impossible, to have a high standard of living under the conditions we are creating. Just feeding 7 billion + people will be a challenge if the weather gets real dicey, signs of which we are already seing.

 

[Old Rocks]

I stand by what I said.

"Global warming consensus" was policy science. It was based on falsified data to satisfy the political elite. If that consensus was correct, it would be still valid today. Once exposed, they quickly changed the rhetoric to "climate change" as new consensus.

There are many PhDs who were not convinced in global warming and cooked data, all labeled as deniers even when consensus was exposed as lies. Now we're told that we are in "climate change" cycle. I don't think we need science to prove that climate is changing since earth begun.

At the end, you know very well I am not talking about all scientific consensuses, but about those I mentioned in very first sentence of my previous post. Crooked scientist and crooked politician are perfect match that explains it all.

Okay, well perhaps I am uneducated on this subject. The IPCC, which I have originally linked to, is an international body of scientists composing of hundreds (maybe thousands at this point) of collaborations to really discover if man made climate change is real and, if so, how much has occurred. Their consensus is that climate change is real. Additionally, internationally, scientific bodies have delivered co-signed statements attesting to the reality of climate change:

http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/climatechangestatement.pdf

Now. Maybe I have been misled since you seem to think otherwise. I now ask you to convince me. I'd like to see the counterargument co-signed by multiple international scientific bodies (who have no real vested interest in politics, and US centric politics especially). I'd love to review the 500+ page peer reviewed document attesting to the claims that climate change is a falsehood based, not on belief, but on verifiable fact by HUNDREDS of experts. I look forward to being pointed towards this work that you so obviously know of.

Again, you're referring to IPCC's "body of scientists" that back in 2007 claimed that "global warming is unequivocal and irreversible". If that "scientific consensus" was correct, why they're not telling/bitching about it anymore? Maybe because one third of Florida is not under water as they scientifically proved will be.

Second, since their claims are false, because they're based on falsified data and wrong computer models, or in other words they're based on lies, why do I need to provide anything to prove otherwise?

And last (for now), the IPCC assessment report from 2007 was treated by lefties and media with the same reverence that would've been reserved in bygone era for the Holly Bible and there are many similarities between religious dogma of old times and environmental dogma of today. The IPCC assessment was repeatedly and consistently referred to as climate Bible by that self-same media, and also it represents the ideology in which the "original sin of our carbon production" can only be atoned for by buying carbon indulgences from the carbon priesthood.

The false data can be disproved by correct data. The question for you is, how do you disprove the religion?

State what false data is there. And also state what the correct data is. And where one can see that data, and by whom it was generated.

 

[Rustic]

It's all about control...

 

[IsaacNewton]

Carbon emissions highest in 66 million years, since dinosaur age

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Rustic]

Why some climate advocates cringed at Leo's Oscar speech

This is really embarassing, not only to Leo, but to the entire "global warming" crowd.

It turns out that there is a weather condition called a chinook that Leo Dumbass thought was "global warming"

The 41-year-old actor again highlighted his experience of a sudden change in temperature and loss of snow while filming The Revenant in southern Alberta as evidence of a warming globe.

"Our production needed to move to the southern tip of this planet just to be able to find snow," DiCaprio said during his acceptance speech.

The incident DiCaprio described was widely believed to be a chinook — a weather phenomenon that occurs when warm air is forced downward at the point where mountains meet prairies. The effect, which is not a direct effect of climate change, is particularly pronounced in southern Alberta and frequently brings sudden bouts of summer-like conditions in the dead of winter.

While he didn't disagree with DiCaprio's fundamental point, Alberta-based author Chris Turner described the actor's insistence on using a chinook as a case in point for climate change as less than helpful.

Here's the thing:

If man-made global warming was real, they wouldn't have had to change the name to "climate change" and they wouldn't need movie actors to push for it during Oscar awards.

And if man-made global warming was real, they wouldn't have to demand that global warming deniers be given the death penalty:

Google

 

[JimBowie1958]

His mom kept warning him and his face finally got stuck like that.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Isn't the phrase 'idiot actor' a bit redundant?

 

[Ame®icano]

However, let us be honest, that hypothetical isn't even needed. The fact is that the research that has been published, has been verified, and there has been no major conflicting studies to prove otherwise. Now, unless you can do better than run around and yell, "conspiracy" as loud as you can, you will have to at least come up with some actual supporting evidence for your claim. Because you have squat so far.

Research you're talking about has been falsified and based on cooked/false data.

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare
IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth”

 

[2aguy]

Don't worry....he will travel the world in his private jet, and his private yaht, saving the world from global warming.....a jet load of fossil fuel at a time.....

 

[Blackrook]

Why some climate advocates cringed at Leo's Oscar speech

This is really embarassing, not only to Leo, but to the entire "global warming" crowd.e

Absolutely- Leo is 'stupid' for believing the consensus scientific worldwide opinion- unlike you who believe that global warming is a vast conspiracy theory....designed to destory America......

LOL

That is exactly what it is. Thanks for your refreshing honesty.

 

[2aguy]

Why some climate advocates cringed at Leo's Oscar speech

This is really embarassing, not only to Leo, but to the entire "global warming" crowd.e

Absolutely- Leo is 'stupid' for believing the consensus scientific worldwide opinion- unlike you who believe that global warming is a vast conspiracy theory....designed to destory America......

LOL

I don't think science will ever again be guided by anything other than business and/or politics.

By the way, scientific consensus is a great tool to shut the opposition. Like "swine flu" consensus from seventies, or "second hand smoke" consensus in recent years. Consensus today is not based on hard data, but on opinions and cooking of data to satisfy the government's policies.

You say this, but you are using a computer and the internet. You know that our knowledge base has been derived from scientific consensus right? Our understanding of everything from gravity to what water is made up of to what happens when somebody gets different bacterial infections relies upon scientific consensus.

Now, is scientific consensus always right? Nope. Nobody said that it was either. However, is relying on the opinions of professionals who have, literally, dedicated their lives to thinking about and refining certain areas of human knowledge a good idea? Yes.

Now, if you are yourself an educated man with a Ph.D. in a field that has direct expertise lending to an insight on climate change and whether or not it is a reality, then go out there and, to your peers who know as much about the subject as you do, go argue your point. Then, after you convince your colleagues of the veracity of your claims, you can come to the public with your new understandings of climate change. However, until that happens, you'd be a literal idiot to not trust scientific consensus as their process has experts who know more than you could ever want to (or perhaps comprehend) battling out their opinions until the best ones prevail. That's how progress is made.

The only consensus is on the cover pages of the report from politically motivated, government welfare climate scientists.......

 

[Blackrook]

I want Leonardo to give away all his luxury cars, private jet, and giant carbon-footprint home, and live in a tent, and then maybe I'll listen to him.

 

[Never3ndr]

However, let us be honest, that hypothetical isn't even needed. The fact is that the research that has been published, has been verified, and there has been no major conflicting studies to prove otherwise. Now, unless you can do better than run around and yell, "conspiracy" as loud as you can, you will have to at least come up with some actual supporting evidence for your claim. Because you have squat so far.

Research you're talking about has been falsified and based on cooked/false data.

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare
IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth”

You are more than welcome to provide actual proof behind that. Linking a couple articles from the internet and NOT from a scientific authority backed by hundreds or thousands of scientists doesn't disprove scientific work...it only proves that you can use google to find articles from obscure sources that agree with your belief but have no actual scientific weight in this discussion.

 

[Ame®icano]

You are more than welcome to provide actual proof behind that. Linking a couple articles from the internet and NOT from a scientific authority backed by hundreds or thousands of scientists doesn't disprove scientific work...it only proves that you can use google to find articles from obscure sources that agree with your belief but have no actual scientific weight in this discussion.

What more proof do you want?

Scientific work? Their work is based on their own false theories. According to their scientific work, the Antarctica should've been ice free in summer of 2009, then in 2011, then again in 2014, only to discover that pack ice did not disappeared as predicted by their computer models, but is actually rather increased.

Well, let me tell you, some of us who are actually not scientists think that after all those false predictions, the problem might be in the theory itself and the only reason for anyone to believe in those "theories" is if they have skin in the game.