To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[anotherlife]

How is it paranoid to be an AGW denier? For example, during Roman times, the temperatures were much higher than now, yet there was no industrial CO2. This current CO2 curve and temperature rise may then be just somewhat coincidental, but not necessarily interlinked.

Temperatures were not "much higher during Roman times". That is a fraudulent denier cult myth that contradicts the actual evidence.

CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas and the well established scientific causal connection between rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures is very well supported by the evidence, data and the laws of physics.

You denier cult dupes of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign to deceive people about the reality and dangers of human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes in an attempt to preserve their profits and stock prices, just absolutely HAVE to ignore the testimony of the world scientific community that strongly affirms the reality of AGW/CC so you have turned to extremely ridiculous paranoid conspiracy theories to explain why all of the scientists say that your denial of reality is completely insane. That's how you are paranoid, you poor confused retard.

You should follow the money. Whoever pays the scientist has the truth. This is not an experimental science. Also, your religious belief in AGW is counteracted by the fact, that even those Alpine paths that the warrior Hannibal took with his army against Rome are now still blocked by huge glaciers. That is a fact.

 

[mamooth]

You should follow the money. Whoever pays the scientist has the truth.

And almost all the money is on the denier side. Scientists take a pay cult to do their work, as they could double their salary lying for the deniers, hence the money issue gives the scientists added credibility.

This is not an experimental science.

In some ways it is, and in some it isn't. Same as, for example, astronomy.

Also, your religious belief in AGW is counteracted by the fact, that even those Alpine paths that the warrior Hannibal took with his army against Rome are now still blocked by huge glaciers. That is a fact.

No, that's something you made up. While Hannibal's exact route over the Alps is an unsolved historical question, there are presently many routes across those Alps now that have no glaciers blocking them.

 

[anotherlife]

You should follow the money. Whoever pays the scientist has the truth.

And almost all the money is on the denier side. Scientists take a pay cult to do their work, as they could double their salary lying for the deniers, hence the money issue gives the scientists added credibility.

This is not an experimental science.

In some ways it is, and in some it isn't. Same as, for example, astronomy.

Also, your religious belief in AGW is counteracted by the fact, that even those Alpine paths that the warrior Hannibal took with his army against Rome are now still blocked by huge glaciers. That is a fact.

No, that's something you made up. While Hannibal's exact route over the Alps is an unsolved historical question, there are presently many routes across those Alps now that have no glaciers blocking them.

Scientists are well known to make up whatever, for banks and governments, especially when it is about issuing new tax backed bonds. Scientists just don't have the dexterity to cash in on it for themselves. Astronomy is not as statistical as environmental science. Whilst they may see some level of correlation between CO2 and temperature, and may run simulations, throwing parameters at things to invent explanations is a game, not science. You last statement is a good example of a religious deflection on known facts. But even forgetting that, try to keep any army fightworthy in today's England with only Roman red towels and no shirts and pants. Obvious, that climate is still colder. And then, the normal temperature of Earth has always been ~25C, several degrees higher than the current glaciation age.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You should follow the money. Whoever pays the scientist has the truth.

And almost all the money is on the denier side. Scientists take a pay cult to do their work, as they could double their salary lying for the deniers, hence the money issue gives the scientists added credibility.

This is not an experimental science.

In some ways it is, and in some it isn't. Same as, for example, astronomy.

Also, your religious belief in AGW is counteracted by the fact, that even those Alpine paths that the warrior Hannibal took with his army against Rome are now still blocked by huge glaciers. That is a fact.

No, that's something you made up. While Hannibal's exact route over the Alps is an unsolved historical question, there are presently many routes across those Alps now that have no glaciers blocking them.

Again no links to back up your claim?
I know you will say $85 million dollars on the last election alone by the AGW cult is peanuts, correct?

Environmental groups are spending an unprecedented $85 million in the 2014 elections

 

[Dot Com]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

Sadly, this will only embolden them in their fantasy supported by 4% of scientists.

 

[jc456]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

Sadly, this will only embolden them in their fantasy supported by 4% of scientists.

Hey Dot, it would have much more value with experimental evidence, and raw data reports vs, biased manipulated data reports. It would, but we all know your side has no integrity and fudging things is a norm for you all.

 

[SSDD]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

Sadly, this will only embolden them in their fantasy supported by 4% of scientists.

The problem on your side for the argument is that, to date, you don't have one iota of empirical evidence that raising CO2 levels in the atmosphere will result in rising temperatures....everything you claim is evidence comes from models. What sort of idiot would not be skeptical of such claims when literally trillions of dollars and massive amounts of political control are all that is at stake? Reductions in CO2 which will bring economies to their knees won't make any measurable difference in temperatures....what other reason could there possibly be for the whole scam other than money and political power?

 

[flacaltenn]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

There's no "conspiracy" Bullwinky.. It's right out there in the open. Your HOLY UN climate cops DO have an agenda. All of those COP meetings are beggars and whiners looking for YOUR wallet.

Poor countries walk out of UN climate talks as compensation row rumbles on

Poor countries walk out of UN climate talks as compensation row rumbles on
Bloc of 132 countries exit Warsaw conference after rich nations refuse to discuss climate change recompense until after 2015

Representatives of most of the world's poor countries have walked out of increasingly fractious climate negotiations after the EU, Australia, the US and other developed countries insisted that the question of who should pay compensation for extreme climate events be discussed only after 2015.

Harjeet Singh, ActionAid Internatonal's spokesman on disaster risk, said: "The US, EU, Australia and Norway remain blind to the climate reality that's hitting us all, and poor people and countries much harder. They continue to derail negotiations in Warsaw that can create a new system to deal with new types of loss and damage such as sea-level rise, loss of territory, biodiversity and other non-economic losses more systematically."

"Other non-economic losses" eh? Sounds like "pain and suffering" in a civil trial. THERE is the reason the UN Science reports are written. And THERE is the reason why they suffer from GIGANTIC amounts of bias.

 

[PredFan]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

So we, the ones who are't worried that we are destroying the earth, are the paranoid ones? That's pretty fucking stupid dude.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I'll go with them getting caught fudging the data...that's no conspiracy, that's a fact.

Who do you believe has been "fudging the data" and what is your evidence?

You are kidding right ?

You make the OP like you have it locked up and others have their heads in the sand and you say this ?

 

[anotherlife]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

No, we just don't want to pay your stupid carbon tax to let you issue your new bonds and cash in on our pockets, AGW crooks.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

There's no "conspiracy" Bullwinky.. It's right out there in the open. Your HOLY UN climate cops DO have an agenda. All of those COP meetings are beggars and whiners looking for YOUR wallet.

Poor countries walk out of UN climate talks as compensation row rumbles on

Poor countries walk out of UN climate talks as compensation row rumbles on
Bloc of 132 countries exit Warsaw conference after rich nations refuse to discuss climate change recompense until after 2015

Representatives of most of the world's poor countries have walked out of increasingly fractious climate negotiations after the EU, Australia, the US and other developed countries insisted that the question of who should pay compensation for extreme climate events be discussed only after 2015.

Harjeet Singh, ActionAid Internatonal's spokesman on disaster risk, said: "The US, EU, Australia and Norway remain blind to the climate reality that's hitting us all, and poor people and countries much harder. They continue to derail negotiations in Warsaw that can create a new system to deal with new types of loss and damage such as sea-level rise, loss of territory, biodiversity and other non-economic losses more systematically."

"Other non-economic losses" eh? Sounds like "pain and suffering" in a civil trial. THERE is the reason the UN Science reports are written. And THERE is the reason why they suffer from GIGANTIC amounts of bias.

Yeah, but there is no agenda.....

The AGW purists would never lie.....

ROTFLMAO

 

[Crick]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

No, we just don't want to pay your stupid carbon tax to let you issue your new bonds and cash in on our pockets, AGW crooks.

Then you must think it will be cheaper to do nothing - or you don't give a fuck what happens to the world around you.

Don't try to deny it. The unstated premise to that argument is that global warming isn't going to do us any harm. And the premise to that argument is that the scientists who say it will are lying. And we're right back to the Giant Global Conspiracy.

 

[Muhammed]

The hockey stick was proven to be bogus a decade ago,and yet these idiots still dry hump it every day until their genitals are full of splinters.

 

[SSDD]

I'll go with them getting caught fudging the data...that's no conspiracy, that's a fact.

Who do you believe has been "fudging the data" and what is your evidence?

Which data are you claiming hasn't been adjusted? You are never going to escape the fact that the adjustments big climate is doing on the data shows a warming trend in the US while the CRN network....pristinely placed...double redundant...and requiring no adjustment is showing a cooling trend. There is no reason to believe that if that network were worldwide the same trend would not be evident. If the adjustments are showing the wrong trend in the US, they are probably showing the wrong trend everywhere as they are clearly based on flawed methodology.

 

[SSDD]

[

Then you must think it will be cheaper to do nothing - or you don't give a fuck what happens to the world around you.

How much change do you think cutting CO2 emissions drastically will cause?...and can you provide both proof that cutting the CO2 will result in a change and a cost analysis that proves that it is worth the money? If you can't why on earth should anyone be listening to you?

 

[jc456]

[

Then you must think it will be cheaper to do nothing - or you don't give a fuck what happens to the world around you.

How much change do you think cutting CO2 emissions drastically will cause?...and can you provide both proof that cutting the CO2 will result in a change and a cost analysis that proves that it is worth the money? If you can't why on earth should anyone be listening to you?

you know he can't prove it. he can't prove that there is any issue at all because of an increase in CO2. mumbo jumbo posts on an internet message board that has no validity in them at all. And he's proud of it.

he uses the word AGW denier, yet he denies the earth observed temperatures. he and his have to make up temperatures. how fun is that. he must call Bob and ask, so what do you think the temps outside are today in let's say London; Bob says flip a coin; heads 2 degrees up tails 3 degrees up.

Then come on a message board and spout hottest summer eva!!!! I laugh at him and his leftist worms.

BTW, even after all that, they don't even have a solution to the make believe they choose to make.

 

[mamooth]

Scientists are well known to make up whatever, for banks and governments, especially when it is about issuing new tax backed bonds. Scientists just don't have the dexterity to cash in on it for themselves.

That's grade-A conspiracy nuttery, unsupported by any actual evidence.

Astronomy is not as statistical as environmental science.

It's quite similar. You can't run lab experiments with stars or dark matter, for example, but you can collect statistics on it, theorize on it, and run models for it. Yet nobody claims astronomy is a socialist plot. Go fig.

Whilst they may see some level of correlation between CO2 and temperature, and may run simulations, throwing parameters at things to invent explanations is a game, not science.

You're ignoring all the direct evidence for global warming, like stratospheric cooling, increasing backradiation and decreasing OLR in the GHG bands. Those are all smoking guns for human-caused global warming, and they don't use any models. No "natural cycles" theory explains such evidence, hence those "natural cycles" theories are wrong.

You didn't even know that evidence existed, because your cult didn't bother to inform you. There's no conspiracy. You're just poorly informed on the science.

You last statement is a good example of a religious deflection on known facts. But even forgetting that, try to keep any army fightworthy in today's England with only Roman red towels and no shirts and pants. Obvious, that climate is still colder. And then, the normal temperature of Earth has always been ~25C, several degrees higher than the current glaciation age.

Looks like somebody has been watching "300" too often, and thinks that Roman soldiers were like the Greeks in that movie, dressed only in red capes and speedos. Back in reality, the Romans, not being morons, were quite capable of dressing for colder weather.

 

[jc456]

Scientists are well known to make up whatever, for banks and governments, especially when it is about issuing new tax backed bonds. Scientists just don't have the dexterity to cash in on it for themselves.

That's grade-A conspiracy nuttery, unsupported by any actual evidence.

Astronomy is not as statistical as environmental science.

It's quite similar. You can't run lab experiments with stars or dark matter, for example, but you can collect statistics on it, theorize on it, and run models for it. Yet nobody claims astronomy is a socialist plot. Go fig.

Whilst they may see some level of correlation between CO2 and temperature, and may run simulations, throwing parameters at things to invent explanations is a game, not science.

You're ignoring all the direct evidence for global warming, like stratospheric cooling, increasing backradiation and decreasing OLR in the GHG bands. Those are all smoking guns for human-caused global warming, and they don't use any models. No "natural cycles" theory explains such evidence, hence those "natural cycles" theories are wrong.

You didn't even know that evidence existed, because your cult didn't bother to inform you. There's no conspiracy. You're just poorly informed on the science.

You last statement is a good example of a religious deflection on known facts. But even forgetting that, try to keep any army fightworthy in today's England with only Roman red towels and no shirts and pants. Obvious, that climate is still colder. And then, the normal temperature of Earth has always been ~25C, several degrees higher than the current glaciation age.

Looks like somebody has been watching "300" too often, and thinks that Roman soldiers were like the Greeks in that movie, dressed only in red capes and speedos. Back in reality, the Romans, not being morons, were quite capable of dressing for colder weather.

He's spot on, bTW. What's funny is you know it. So do scientist bias temperature sets or not? Please, let's see your response to that question.

Can you say PARANOID?

 

[jc456]

Okay, I'll keep saying you're paranoid. You keep raving about a global conspiracy, with no evidence to back it up. You're obviously putting your paranoia on open display.

The facts just aren't on your side for that statement. Sorry, I know you hate it when I'm right. You hate it.

The facts are that the definition of Paranoid fits your wardrobe far better than anything on my side. So, ewwwwwwwwwww paranoia