Why we should listen to the 97%

[PMZ]

Could any denialists tell us what could falsify their theory?

That's how we know denialism is kook conspiracy pseudoscience, because it's unfalsifiable. Temperatures keep rising? Just say "Natural cycles!". Radiative balance positive? Yell about cosmic rays and clouds. Whole world disagrees with them? Call it a socialist conspiracy! And so on. No matter what data supports AGW, denialists simply wave their hands around and make up a reason why it doesn't matter.

You and your fellow cult members are the ones with a theory, dipstick. I am not required to disprove the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming any more than I'm required to disprove the existence of big foot. There is no such thing as a Bigfoot "denialist." There are simply people who howl with laughter whenever some deluded rube starts telling people about BigFoot - the same way we laugh whenever you start your slavish devotion to the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

In contrast, AGW science is real science, hence it is falsifiable. Lowering global temps (the whole globe, including the oceans) would falsify it. A negative radiative balance would falsify it. Many things would falsify it.

It that's the case then it's already been falsified. Temperatures have been flat or declining for the last 15 years.

Take a hint, denialists, as to what real science looks like. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to state the things that would falsify denialism. Be both specific and realistic. But I doubt that will happen, as denialists know they won't be able to move the goalposts later if they make a specific prediction now.

Done.

If you kept up with IPCC science instead of conservative politics you'd know what's behind all of the data. Or at least be exposed to the truth. However, because the truth is still inconvenient for you, you would continue to deny it.

 

[PMZ]

Could any denialists tell us what could falsify their theory?

That's how we know denialism is kook conspiracy pseudoscience, because it's unfalsifiable. Temperatures keep rising? Just say "Natural cycles!". Radiative balance positive? Yell about cosmic rays and clouds. Whole world disagrees with them? Call it a socialist conspiracy! And so on. No matter what data supports AGW, denialists simply wave their hands around and make up a reason why it doesn't matter.

You and your fellow cult members are the ones with a theory, dipstick. I am not required to disprove the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming any more than I'm required to disprove the existence of big foot. There is no such thing as a Bigfoot "denialist." There are simply people who howl with laughter whenever some deluded rube starts telling people about BigFoot - the same way we laugh whenever you start your slavish devotion to the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

In contrast, AGW science is real science, hence it is falsifiable. Lowering global temps (the whole globe, including the oceans) would falsify it. A negative radiative balance would falsify it. Many things would falsify it.

It that's the case then it's already been falsified. Temperatures have been flat or declining for the last 15 years.

Take a hint, denialists, as to what real science looks like. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to state the things that would falsify denialism. Be both specific and realistic. But I doubt that will happen, as denialists know they won't be able to move the goalposts later if they make a specific prediction now.

Done.

Where?

 

[flacaltenn]

Could any denialists tell us what could falsify their theory?

That's how we know denialism is kook conspiracy pseudoscience, because it's unfalsifiable. Temperatures keep rising? Just say "Natural cycles!". Radiative balance positive? Yell about cosmic rays and clouds. Whole world disagrees with them? Call it a socialist conspiracy! And so on. No matter what data supports AGW, denialists simply wave their hands around and make up a reason why it doesn't matter.

In contrast, AGW science is real science, hence it is falsifiable. Lowering global temps (the whole globe, including the oceans) would falsify it. A negative radiative balance would falsify it. Many things would falsify it.

Take a hint, denialists, as to what real science looks like. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to state the things that would falsify denialism. Be both specific and realistic. But I doubt that will happen, as denialists know they won't be able to move the goalposts later if they make a specific prediction now.

It's not my job to make climate predictions.. And I don't hold my breath to see climate predictions revealed.. Because, they are NOT infallible.

As far as "stating the things that falsify denialism".. that's not required.
I'm not required to explain "personal auras" if I believe they are not altered by exposure to spiritual crystals.

Can't create the proper science to fill the gap if it doesn't yet exist.. BUT -- I can be more humble about what the EXPECTATION should be for "models, predictions, and theories"..

Humble and humility aint' in the Warmer lexicon.. When the cameras turn off, and the hype dies down, MAYBE we'll get some REAL science for the Climate discipline..

 

[PMZ]

From an EPA email to me. I will try to be there.


"CONTACT:
[email protected]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 17, 2013

TOMORROW: EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz to Testify Before House Energy & Commerce Committee on Climate Change

WASHINGTON – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Ernest Moniz will testify before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Energy and Power tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. EDT at a hearing to discuss President Obama’s climate change policies.

Hearing details:

WHO:
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy
DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz

WHAT: Testimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Energy and Power

WHEN: 10:00 a.m. EDT, Wednesday, September 18, 2013

WHERE: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

More information on climate change: Home | Climate Change | US EPA and Climate Change | Department of Energy

R153 '

Lemme save you some time.. 40 minutes of opening grandstanding by politicians. 30 minutes of prepared lying and distortion, 40 minutes of contentuous back-biting ---

ZERO information or science..

Why would you care? Everyone there is a statist moron trying to look important..

Sounds like Fox News.

 

[flacaltenn]

From an EPA email to me. I will try to be there.


"CONTACT:
[email protected]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 17, 2013

TOMORROW: EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz to Testify Before House Energy & Commerce Committee on Climate Change

WASHINGTON – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Ernest Moniz will testify before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Energy and Power tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. EDT at a hearing to discuss President Obama’s climate change policies.

Hearing details:

WHO:
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy
DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz

WHAT: Testimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Energy and Power

WHEN: 10:00 a.m. EDT, Wednesday, September 18, 2013

WHERE: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

More information on climate change: Home | Climate Change | US EPA and Climate Change | Department of Energy

R153 '

Lemme save you some time.. 40 minutes of opening grandstanding by politicians. 30 minutes of prepared lying and distortion, 40 minutes of contentuous back-biting ---

ZERO information or science..

Why would you care? Everyone there is a statist moron trying to look important..

Sounds like Fox News.

Or a content analysis of YOUR typical post..

Fox does play to one side of the arguments. BUT --- doesn't mean they are not informative or 1/2 correct..

OTHand --- your typical post.......................................

 

[PMZ]

Multiple surveys of scientists and their peer reviewed publications indicates they overwhelmingly believe AGW to be valid and agree with the IPCC's position on climate change.

Deniers do not have an alternative causation that can explain the climate's behavior for the last 150 years.

Reducing GHG emissions and moving away from fossil fuels have significant benefits aside from minimizing dramatic climate warming.

We should listen to the 97% and work to cut down GHGs.

We should listen to the 97% and work to cut down GHGs.

More nukes, yes.
More windmills, no.
More solar, only if you use your own money.

See Todd.. I know for a fact that Abraham already pretty much agrees with all that from previous conversations with him.. He can't really contend that YOU and I are standing in the way of fixing any of this --- because we ALL AGREE on what COULD be done to nullify the ficticious Global Warming "disaster"..

He really doesn't have a charge against us.. YET -- he STILL insists that we capitulate to his "consensus" that exists only in his head.

Why don't we all work to refocus a REAL energy policy? Because the dupes on the left want to call all the shots and COULDN'T get approval from their base for a Nuclear energy Revival in this country.. They are mentally strapped into 60 year old technology and some bad 70 year old policy decisions...

The fact that you can't get around the Fox News of a ''ficticious Global Warming "disaster"''puts you very much at odds with science and very much aligned with those heavily profiting from the status quo.

In other words bought and paid for.

Sucker.

 

[westwall]

Could any denialists tell us what could falsify their theory?

That's how we know denialism is kook conspiracy pseudoscience, because it's unfalsifiable. Temperatures keep rising? Just say "Natural cycles!". Radiative balance positive? Yell about cosmic rays and clouds. Whole world disagrees with them? Call it a socialist conspiracy! And so on. No matter what data supports AGW, denialists simply wave their hands around and make up a reason why it doesn't matter.

In contrast, AGW science is real science, hence it is falsifiable. Lowering global temps (the whole globe, including the oceans) would falsify it. A negative radiative balance would falsify it. Many things would falsify it.

Take a hint, denialists, as to what real science looks like. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to state the things that would falsify denialism. Be both specific and realistic. But I doubt that will happen, as denialists know they won't be able to move the goalposts later if they make a specific prediction now.

We don't have a theory silly person. We have 4.5 billion years of history and at least 3,000 years of written history OBSERVING the world around man. It is YOU who have promulgated a theory....a theory that has failed every metric so in the finest traditions of the pseudo-scientific nutbags you no longer give measurable metrics.

Sylvia Brown has a better track record than you clowns, and she is a well known charlatan.

 

[PMZ]

Multiple surveys of scientists and their peer reviewed publications indicates they overwhelmingly believe AGW to be valid and agree with the IPCC's position on climate change.

Deniers do not have an alternative causation that can explain the climate's behavior for the last 150 years.

Reducing GHG emissions and moving away from fossil fuels have significant benefits aside from minimizing dramatic climate warming.

We should listen to the 97% and work to cut down GHGs.

We should listen to the 97% and work to cut down GHGs.

More nukes, yes.
More windmills, no.
More solar, only if you use your own money.

See Todd.. I know for a fact that Abraham already pretty much agrees with all that from previous conversations with him.. He can't really contend that YOU and I are standing in the way of fixing any of this --- because we ALL AGREE on what COULD be done to nullify the ficticious Global Warming "disaster"..

He really doesn't have a charge against us.. YET -- he STILL insists that we capitulate to his "consensus" that exists only in his head.

Why don't we all work to refocus a REAL energy policy? Because the dupes on the left want to call all the shots and COULDN'T get approval from their base for a Nuclear energy Revival in this country.. They are mentally strapped into 60 year old technology and some bad 70 year old policy decisions...

Policy leaders around the world are focused on a '' REAL energy policy''. They have the IPCC doing the science to base it on now. It will probably be quite different than yours based on what you wish was true.

 

[westwall]

We should listen to the 97% and work to cut down GHGs.

More nukes, yes.
More windmills, no.
More solar, only if you use your own money.

See Todd.. I know for a fact that Abraham already pretty much agrees with all that from previous conversations with him.. He can't really contend that YOU and I are standing in the way of fixing any of this --- because we ALL AGREE on what COULD be done to nullify the ficticious Global Warming "disaster"..

He really doesn't have a charge against us.. YET -- he STILL insists that we capitulate to his "consensus" that exists only in his head.

Why don't we all work to refocus a REAL energy policy? Because the dupes on the left want to call all the shots and COULDN'T get approval from their base for a Nuclear energy Revival in this country.. They are mentally strapped into 60 year old technology and some bad 70 year old policy decisions...

Policy leaders around the world are focused on a '' REAL energy policy''. They have the IPCC doing the science to base it on now. It will probably be quite different than yours based on what you wish was true.

You mean these idiots?


IPCC In Crisis As Climate Predictions Fail

"To those of us who have been following the climate debate for decades, the next few years will be electrifying. There is a high probability we will witness the crackup of one of the most influential scientific paradigms of the 20th century, and the implications for policy and global politics could be staggering. --Ross McKitrick,"




IPCC In Crisis As Predictions Fail

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We should listen to the 97% and work to cut down GHGs.

More nukes, yes.
More windmills, no.
More solar, only if you use your own money.

See Todd.. I know for a fact that Abraham already pretty much agrees with all that from previous conversations with him.. He can't really contend that YOU and I are standing in the way of fixing any of this --- because we ALL AGREE on what COULD be done to nullify the ficticious Global Warming "disaster"..

He really doesn't have a charge against us.. YET -- he STILL insists that we capitulate to his "consensus" that exists only in his head.

Why don't we all work to refocus a REAL energy policy? Because the dupes on the left want to call all the shots and COULDN'T get approval from their base for a Nuclear energy Revival in this country.. They are mentally strapped into 60 year old technology and some bad 70 year old policy decisions...

Policy leaders around the world are focused on a '' REAL energy policy''. They have the IPCC doing the science to base it on now. It will probably be quite different than yours based on what you wish was true.

Policy leaders around the world are focused on a '' REAL energy policy''.

What do we need? Solyndra!
When do we need it? NOW!

Great energy policy you have there. LOL!

 

[bripat9643]

We should listen to the 97% and work to cut down GHGs.

More nukes, yes.
More windmills, no.
More solar, only if you use your own money.

See Todd.. I know for a fact that Abraham already pretty much agrees with all that from previous conversations with him.. He can't really contend that YOU and I are standing in the way of fixing any of this --- because we ALL AGREE on what COULD be done to nullify the ficticious Global Warming "disaster"..

He really doesn't have a charge against us.. YET -- he STILL insists that we capitulate to his "consensus" that exists only in his head.

Why don't we all work to refocus a REAL energy policy? Because the dupes on the left want to call all the shots and COULDN'T get approval from their base for a Nuclear energy Revival in this country.. They are mentally strapped into 60 year old technology and some bad 70 year old policy decisions...

Policy leaders around the world are focused on a '' REAL energy policy''. They have the IPCC doing the science to base it on now. It will probably be quite different than yours based on what you wish was true.

"REAL energy policy" is obviously the kind that transfers trillions of dollars from the people who earned it into the hands of useless parasites and government bureaucrats. What they have the IPCC doing is laying the groundwork for a colossal con. They depend on suckers like you to propagate the misinformation.

 

[Snookie]

I have a solution to solve the energy problems.

Pig Shit1

Am I a genius, or am I a genius?

Master Blaster!

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80B9srKQnI0"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80B9srKQnI0[/ame]

 

[PMZ]

Could any denialists tell us what could falsify their theory?

That's how we know denialism is kook conspiracy pseudoscience, because it's unfalsifiable. Temperatures keep rising? Just say "Natural cycles!". Radiative balance positive? Yell about cosmic rays and clouds. Whole world disagrees with them? Call it a socialist conspiracy! And so on. No matter what data supports AGW, denialists simply wave their hands around and make up a reason why it doesn't matter.

In contrast, AGW science is real science, hence it is falsifiable. Lowering global temps (the whole globe, including the oceans) would falsify it. A negative radiative balance would falsify it. Many things would falsify it.

Take a hint, denialists, as to what real science looks like. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to state the things that would falsify denialism. Be both specific and realistic. But I doubt that will happen, as denialists know they won't be able to move the goalposts later if they make a specific prediction now.

It's not my job to make climate predictions.. And I don't hold my breath to see climate predictions revealed.. Because, they are NOT infallible.

As far as "stating the things that falsify denialism".. that's not required.
I'm not required to explain "personal auras" if I believe they are not altered by exposure to spiritual crystals.

Can't create the proper science to fill the gap if it doesn't yet exist.. BUT -- I can be more humble about what the EXPECTATION should be for "models, predictions, and theories"..

Humble and humility aint' in the Warmer lexicon.. When the cameras turn off, and the hype dies down, MAYBE we'll get some REAL science for the Climate discipline..

The fact that you obviously don't have a very deep understanding of any science, much less climate science, presently the one expanding the fastest, has absolutely nothing to do with the science. There's no scientific principle or theory or data or experiment that requires anything from you. Certainly not your agreement or advice.

The fact that you feel entitled to be in the middle of it without any of the investment and work as those qualified to practice it is a huge insult to their profession.

The fact that your ego would like you to be educated is simply not sufficient. You have to do the work. And you have a long, long way to go.

 

[PMZ]

Could any denialists tell us what could falsify their theory?

That's how we know denialism is kook conspiracy pseudoscience, because it's unfalsifiable. Temperatures keep rising? Just say "Natural cycles!". Radiative balance positive? Yell about cosmic rays and clouds. Whole world disagrees with them? Call it a socialist conspiracy! And so on. No matter what data supports AGW, denialists simply wave their hands around and make up a reason why it doesn't matter.

In contrast, AGW science is real science, hence it is falsifiable. Lowering global temps (the whole globe, including the oceans) would falsify it. A negative radiative balance would falsify it. Many things would falsify it.

Take a hint, denialists, as to what real science looks like. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to state the things that would falsify denialism. Be both specific and realistic. But I doubt that will happen, as denialists know they won't be able to move the goalposts later if they make a specific prediction now.

We don't have a theory silly person. We have 4.5 billion years of history and at least 3,000 years of written history OBSERVING the world around man. It is YOU who have promulgated a theory....a theory that has failed every metric so in the finest traditions of the pseudo-scientific nutbags you no longer give measurable metrics.

Sylvia Brown has a better track record than you clowns, and she is a well known charlatan.

How many years from earth's past had 7B energy guzzling humans on earth. The hardest lesson for conservatives is that we've never been here before. So their worship of what was is useless to everyone.

 

[PMZ]

Could any denialists tell us what could falsify their theory?

That's how we know denialism is kook conspiracy pseudoscience, because it's unfalsifiable. Temperatures keep rising? Just say "Natural cycles!". Radiative balance positive? Yell about cosmic rays and clouds. Whole world disagrees with them? Call it a socialist conspiracy! And so on. No matter what data supports AGW, denialists simply wave their hands around and make up a reason why it doesn't matter.

In contrast, AGW science is real science, hence it is falsifiable. Lowering global temps (the whole globe, including the oceans) would falsify it. A negative radiative balance would falsify it. Many things would falsify it.

Take a hint, denialists, as to what real science looks like. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to state the things that would falsify denialism. Be both specific and realistic. But I doubt that will happen, as denialists know they won't be able to move the goalposts later if they make a specific prediction now.

We don't have a theory silly person. We have 4.5 billion years of history and at least 3,000 years of written history OBSERVING the world around man. It is YOU who have promulgated a theory....a theory that has failed every metric so in the finest traditions of the pseudo-scientific nutbags you no longer give measurable metrics.

Sylvia Brown has a better track record than you clowns, and she is a well known charlatan.

How many years from earth's past had 7B energy guzzling humans on earth. The hardest lesson for conservatives is that we've never been here before. So their worship of what was is useless to everyone.

Here's the deal. Nobody bringing about our energy future is listening to you because you're so easily misled. Perhaps somebody told you in the past that you needed to develop critical thinking skills. That doesn't mean whining more.

 

[PMZ]

See Todd.. I know for a fact that Abraham already pretty much agrees with all that from previous conversations with him.. He can't really contend that YOU and I are standing in the way of fixing any of this --- because we ALL AGREE on what COULD be done to nullify the ficticious Global Warming "disaster"..

He really doesn't have a charge against us.. YET -- he STILL insists that we capitulate to his "consensus" that exists only in his head.

Why don't we all work to refocus a REAL energy policy? Because the dupes on the left want to call all the shots and COULDN'T get approval from their base for a Nuclear energy Revival in this country.. They are mentally strapped into 60 year old technology and some bad 70 year old policy decisions...

Policy leaders around the world are focused on a '' REAL energy policy''. They have the IPCC doing the science to base it on now. It will probably be quite different than yours based on what you wish was true.

"REAL energy policy" is obviously the kind that transfers trillions of dollars from the people who earned it into the hands of useless parasites and government bureaucrats. What they have the IPCC doing is laying the groundwork for a colossal con. They depend on suckers like you to propagate the misinformation.

REAL energy policy is one based on science. Not one based on what big oil pays the Fox boobs and boobies to sell to you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We don't have a theory silly person. We have 4.5 billion years of history and at least 3,000 years of written history OBSERVING the world around man. It is YOU who have promulgated a theory....a theory that has failed every metric so in the finest traditions of the pseudo-scientific nutbags you no longer give measurable metrics.

Sylvia Brown has a better track record than you clowns, and she is a well known charlatan.

How many years from earth's past had 7B energy guzzling humans on earth. The hardest lesson for conservatives is that we've never been here before. So their worship of what was is useless to everyone.

Here's the deal. Nobody bringing about our energy future is listening to you because you're so easily misled. Perhaps somebody told you in the past that you needed to develop critical thinking skills. That doesn't mean whining more.

Here's the deal. Nobody bringing about our energy future is listening to you because you're so easily misled.

PMZ said, to himself.

 

[westwall]

Could any denialists tell us what could falsify their theory?

That's how we know denialism is kook conspiracy pseudoscience, because it's unfalsifiable. Temperatures keep rising? Just say "Natural cycles!". Radiative balance positive? Yell about cosmic rays and clouds. Whole world disagrees with them? Call it a socialist conspiracy! And so on. No matter what data supports AGW, denialists simply wave their hands around and make up a reason why it doesn't matter.

In contrast, AGW science is real science, hence it is falsifiable. Lowering global temps (the whole globe, including the oceans) would falsify it. A negative radiative balance would falsify it. Many things would falsify it.

Take a hint, denialists, as to what real science looks like. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to state the things that would falsify denialism. Be both specific and realistic. But I doubt that will happen, as denialists know they won't be able to move the goalposts later if they make a specific prediction now.

We don't have a theory silly person. We have 4.5 billion years of history and at least 3,000 years of written history OBSERVING the world around man. It is YOU who have promulgated a theory....a theory that has failed every metric so in the finest traditions of the pseudo-scientific nutbags you no longer give measurable metrics.

Sylvia Brown has a better track record than you clowns, and she is a well known charlatan.

How many years from earth's past had 7B energy guzzling humans on earth. The hardest lesson for conservatives is that we've never been here before. So their worship of what was is useless to everyone.

Who cares. We KNOW that the temperature of the Earth was much warmer for 75% of its existence. What caused that? Whale farts? Al Gore's Tennessee house?

No dumbass, we know you want to murder billions of people..... that much is very clear...but the environment is no longer a legitimate excuse for you to murder people. You're just going to have to kill them and hope you outlive your war crimes trial...

 

[westwall]

Policy leaders around the world are focused on a '' REAL energy policy''. They have the IPCC doing the science to base it on now. It will probably be quite different than yours based on what you wish was true.

"REAL energy policy" is obviously the kind that transfers trillions of dollars from the people who earned it into the hands of useless parasites and government bureaucrats. What they have the IPCC doing is laying the groundwork for a colossal con. They depend on suckers like you to propagate the misinformation.

REAL energy policy is one based on science. Not one based on what big oil pays the Fox boobs and boobies to sell to you.

Good! Tell Big Oil to stop pumping money into your green energy BS.

 

[mamooth]

It's not my job to make climate predictions.

Yes it is, if you don't want to be considered merely a pseudoscience-embracing crank.

The AGW side has decades of successful predictions behind it. That's why they have such credibility. You won't make any prediction at all, much less a successful one. And that's why your side is correctly considered to be a political cult.

So, I still can't get a single denialist to tell me what would disprove their theory. Hence, it's unfalsifiable, obviously making it pseudoscience. Astrologists, dowsers, homeopaths, antivaxxers, 9/11 truthers and birthers all have more scientific grounding behind them than denialists do.