P
pixelsmith
Guest
Tyger we would all love to discuss this more with you but you keep insisting 2 + 2 = 5
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
How Silly is Climate Change Denial?
- Thread starter Angel of Ioren
- Start date
Free episodes:
Thats not the case here Pixelsmith
when the response to this
We can ignore it until it bites us on the arse........ or act and survive
Is answered with your a drama queen, its that poster whos unable to mount a proper counter argument.
No counter argument citing credible reasons why we could or should sit on our arses and do nothing, just attack the person not the data point.
At this point weve left the debate behind and devolved to name calling, The ignore list is the approriate place for such limited responders.
If thats the only counter they can give, discourse is a waste of time
Yep nailed it.
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Last edited:
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Now there's a novel idea!
Last sentence - tell me about it! 
But.......it has it's uses......
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Yep! Well said. Kudzu has done immense damage......
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
OMiGosh! It is raining! Hallelujah! Boy do we ever need it. Everyone is hoping for a rainy Thanksgiving. But I fear it will be just a few sprinkles.
Anyway, my nightly foray onto this thread. Some really interesting posts. Last night I decided to just post what I am reading over on Skeptical Science. Anyone is free to mount any rebuttal, though they do a pretty good job of getting in the pro-and-con dialog themselves. It's all there. It is a superlative example of open scientific debate, try as the smear campaign might to over-turn the general regard for what Cook is doing.
The very spamming on this thread has led me to look at the deniers claims, and it's been an interesting foray. That said, I offer this little bit from Skeptical Science, posted today as it happens. It is a discussion of 'scientific consensus' and is a valuable piece of self-reflection, because Skeptical Science is the source of the 97% figure. In it Cook states: "What did surprise me were criticisms from scientists who accept the science on climate change. They weren’t arguing against the existence of a consensus, but whether we should be communicating the consensus.[...] One objection against consensus messaging is that scientists should be talking about evidence, rather than consensus. After all, our understanding of climate change is based on empirical measurements, not a show of hands." Read on to hear the self-reflection and consider that there is no one right answer - it's an on-going dialog, with continual shifts and adjustments.
Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change
Posted on 20 November 2014 by John Cook
LINK: Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined
TEXT: "An interesting sequence of events followed the publication of a scientific paper the Skeptical Science team published in May last year. The paper found a 97% consensus that humans were causing global warming in relevant scientific papers. Finding an overwhelming consensus was nothing new. Studies in 2009 and 2010 also found 97% agreement among climate scientists on human-caused global warming. Nevertheless, the paper attracted much media attention, including tweets from Elon Musk and President Obama.
"We expected our work would be attacked from those who reject climate science. We weren’t disappointed. Since publication, hundreds of blog posts, reports, videos, papers and op-eds have been published attacking our paper. A year and a half later, there is no sign of slowing. But this is just the latest chapter in over two decades of manufactured doubt on the scientific consensus about climate change.
"What did surprise me were criticisms from scientists who accept the science on climate change. They weren’t arguing against the existence of a consensus, but whether we should be communicating the consensus. This surprised me, as our approach to climate communication was evidence-based, drawing on social science research. So in response, I along with co-author Peter Jacobs have published a scholarly paper summarising all the evidence and research underscoring the importance of consensus messaging.
"One objection against consensus messaging is that scientists should be talking about evidence, rather than consensus. After all, our understanding of climate change is based on empirical measurements, not a show of hands. But this objection misunderstands the point of consensus messaging. [This is where Cook explains his view - and Cook is a scientist.] It’s not about “proving” human-caused global warming. It’s about expressing the state of scientific understanding of climate change, which is built on a growing body of evidence.
"Consensus messaging recognises the fact that people rely on expert opinion when it comes to complex scientific issues. Studies in 2011 and 2013 found that perception of scientific consensus is a gateway belief that has a flow-on effect to a number of other beliefs and attitudes. When people are aware of the high level of scientific agreement on human-caused global warming, they’re more likely to accept that climate change is happening, that humans are causing it and support policies to reduce carbon pollution.
"Another argument against consensus messaging is that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on from fundamental issues such as the consensus. The evidence says otherwise. Public surveys have found that the public are deeply unaware of the consensus. On average, the public think there’s a 50:50 debate. There are several contributors to this “consensus gap”, including mainstream media’s tendency to give contrarian voices equal weight with the climate science community.
"Funnily enough, a third objection to consensus messaging argues that we shouldn’t communicate consensus because public views have not moved on. In other words, the fact that public opinion about consensus hasn’t shifted over the last decade implies that consensus messaging is ineffective.
"Dan Kahan argues that consensus is a polarizing message. Liberals are predisposed to respond positively to consensus messaging. Meanwhile, conservatives are more likely to reject the scientific consensus.
"Political ideology certainly does influence people’s attitudes towards climate change. The following graph [within the link] shows data I’ve collected from a representative sample of Americans, asking them how many climate scientists agreed about human-caused global warming. The horizontal access in this graph represents political ideology (specifically, support for an unregulated free market, free of interference from government)."
LINK: Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change | John Cook | Environment | The Guardian
Again, what is fascinating are the comments, where real dialog ensues. Some comments follow -
at 02:45 AM on 21 November, 2014
topal - "Nobody rejects science when it's real science??? Please tell that to climate deniers who say that CO2 isn't being increased by anthropogenic activity, that it has no effect on temperatures, that it's all some unknown long term cycle, that it's cosmic rays, that all of the science is a malicous plot by the Illuminati, etc. etc. etc. Because those are people documentably rejecting real science.
"Scientific consensus on complex issues is notable because we (the public) use it to evaluate those issues. And like tobacco research, climate science and consensus is under constant attack by those who wish to disuade any action on the subject. Which is both a rejection of science, and a campaign of disinformation intended to prevent public policy changes, by a very small segment of the population."
at 02:46 AM on 21 November, 2014
"topal: No, John Cook is correct. The majority of people attacking Cook et al 2013 are people who reject climate science. If you really think "[n]obody rejects science when it is real science" then I am sorry to say you are, at best, extraordinarily misinformed."
And so it continues with some excellent critiques of Cook's views "et al". Go into the link and read the comments.
I like this comment very much -
at 13:42 PM on 21 November, 2014
" "scientists should be talking about evidence, rather than consensus." That's valid... for Scientists. But the debate in the media and public venues is not a Scientific debate, it's a Policy debate. This is what the general public should debate, not the Science, for which they are naturally ill-informed. Indeed, as any denier can tell (as every denier has told you), a single Scientist (a Galileo, if you will?) can with evidence win the Scientific debate. But policy, as every Galileo will tell you, is made through consensus.
"Doubly strange, many deniers will pledge fealty to the concept of 'meritocracy', and in the very next sentence, unaware of the irony, will tell you 'those Scientists' don't know their Science.
"If Cook et al are casting about for another project, it would be fun to determine through abstracts just how long this overwhelming consensus has existed. I'm guessing, since around 1980."
Anyway, my nightly foray onto this thread. Some really interesting posts. Last night I decided to just post what I am reading over on Skeptical Science. Anyone is free to mount any rebuttal, though they do a pretty good job of getting in the pro-and-con dialog themselves. It's all there. It is a superlative example of open scientific debate, try as the smear campaign might to over-turn the general regard for what Cook is doing.
The very spamming on this thread has led me to look at the deniers claims, and it's been an interesting foray. That said, I offer this little bit from Skeptical Science, posted today as it happens. It is a discussion of 'scientific consensus' and is a valuable piece of self-reflection, because Skeptical Science is the source of the 97% figure. In it Cook states: "What did surprise me were criticisms from scientists who accept the science on climate change. They weren’t arguing against the existence of a consensus, but whether we should be communicating the consensus.[...] One objection against consensus messaging is that scientists should be talking about evidence, rather than consensus. After all, our understanding of climate change is based on empirical measurements, not a show of hands." Read on to hear the self-reflection and consider that there is no one right answer - it's an on-going dialog, with continual shifts and adjustments.
Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change
Posted on 20 November 2014 by John Cook
LINK: Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined
TEXT: "An interesting sequence of events followed the publication of a scientific paper the Skeptical Science team published in May last year. The paper found a 97% consensus that humans were causing global warming in relevant scientific papers. Finding an overwhelming consensus was nothing new. Studies in 2009 and 2010 also found 97% agreement among climate scientists on human-caused global warming. Nevertheless, the paper attracted much media attention, including tweets from Elon Musk and President Obama.
"We expected our work would be attacked from those who reject climate science. We weren’t disappointed. Since publication, hundreds of blog posts, reports, videos, papers and op-eds have been published attacking our paper. A year and a half later, there is no sign of slowing. But this is just the latest chapter in over two decades of manufactured doubt on the scientific consensus about climate change.
"What did surprise me were criticisms from scientists who accept the science on climate change. They weren’t arguing against the existence of a consensus, but whether we should be communicating the consensus. This surprised me, as our approach to climate communication was evidence-based, drawing on social science research. So in response, I along with co-author Peter Jacobs have published a scholarly paper summarising all the evidence and research underscoring the importance of consensus messaging.
"One objection against consensus messaging is that scientists should be talking about evidence, rather than consensus. After all, our understanding of climate change is based on empirical measurements, not a show of hands. But this objection misunderstands the point of consensus messaging. [This is where Cook explains his view - and Cook is a scientist.] It’s not about “proving” human-caused global warming. It’s about expressing the state of scientific understanding of climate change, which is built on a growing body of evidence.
"Consensus messaging recognises the fact that people rely on expert opinion when it comes to complex scientific issues. Studies in 2011 and 2013 found that perception of scientific consensus is a gateway belief that has a flow-on effect to a number of other beliefs and attitudes. When people are aware of the high level of scientific agreement on human-caused global warming, they’re more likely to accept that climate change is happening, that humans are causing it and support policies to reduce carbon pollution.
"Another argument against consensus messaging is that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on from fundamental issues such as the consensus. The evidence says otherwise. Public surveys have found that the public are deeply unaware of the consensus. On average, the public think there’s a 50:50 debate. There are several contributors to this “consensus gap”, including mainstream media’s tendency to give contrarian voices equal weight with the climate science community.
"Funnily enough, a third objection to consensus messaging argues that we shouldn’t communicate consensus because public views have not moved on. In other words, the fact that public opinion about consensus hasn’t shifted over the last decade implies that consensus messaging is ineffective.
"Dan Kahan argues that consensus is a polarizing message. Liberals are predisposed to respond positively to consensus messaging. Meanwhile, conservatives are more likely to reject the scientific consensus.
"Political ideology certainly does influence people’s attitudes towards climate change. The following graph [within the link] shows data I’ve collected from a representative sample of Americans, asking them how many climate scientists agreed about human-caused global warming. The horizontal access in this graph represents political ideology (specifically, support for an unregulated free market, free of interference from government)."
LINK: Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change | John Cook | Environment | The Guardian
Again, what is fascinating are the comments, where real dialog ensues. Some comments follow -
at 02:45 AM on 21 November, 2014
topal - "Nobody rejects science when it's real science??? Please tell that to climate deniers who say that CO2 isn't being increased by anthropogenic activity, that it has no effect on temperatures, that it's all some unknown long term cycle, that it's cosmic rays, that all of the science is a malicous plot by the Illuminati, etc. etc. etc. Because those are people documentably rejecting real science.
"Scientific consensus on complex issues is notable because we (the public) use it to evaluate those issues. And like tobacco research, climate science and consensus is under constant attack by those who wish to disuade any action on the subject. Which is both a rejection of science, and a campaign of disinformation intended to prevent public policy changes, by a very small segment of the population."
at 02:46 AM on 21 November, 2014
"topal: No, John Cook is correct. The majority of people attacking Cook et al 2013 are people who reject climate science. If you really think "[n]obody rejects science when it is real science" then I am sorry to say you are, at best, extraordinarily misinformed."
And so it continues with some excellent critiques of Cook's views "et al". Go into the link and read the comments.
I like this comment very much -
at 13:42 PM on 21 November, 2014
" "scientists should be talking about evidence, rather than consensus." That's valid... for Scientists. But the debate in the media and public venues is not a Scientific debate, it's a Policy debate. This is what the general public should debate, not the Science, for which they are naturally ill-informed. Indeed, as any denier can tell (as every denier has told you), a single Scientist (a Galileo, if you will?) can with evidence win the Scientific debate. But policy, as every Galileo will tell you, is made through consensus.
"Doubly strange, many deniers will pledge fealty to the concept of 'meritocracy', and in the very next sentence, unaware of the irony, will tell you 'those Scientists' don't know their Science.
"If Cook et al are casting about for another project, it would be fun to determine through abstracts just how long this overwhelming consensus has existed. I'm guessing, since around 1980."
P
pixelsmith
Guest
You look really f'ing stupid using them as your research.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
P
pixelsmith
Guest
They control, edit and delete comments and have been busted many times doing so. John Cook is a POS and so is his website. Everybody knows that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Another comment I like - from wayyyyy back in 2008, no less. Yet it still applies.
at 01:04 AM on 1 November, 2008
" "Denialism" is stupid when the thing you are denying is the evidence and its implications.
"After all it was pretty stupid to deny the evidence that smoking is a major causal factor in cancer and heart and respiratory disease. Many, many people paid for that stupidity with their health and lives (and continue to do so). It was pretty stupid to deny the evidence in the early 1980's that aspirin-taking was a causal factor in developing Reyes disease in children. Unfortunately many people were fooled by the stupid deniers of the time and suffered as a result. It was pretty stupid to deny the evidence that industrial chlorofluorocarbons result in catalytic destruction of high altitude ozone. Happily, in this case informed opinion and mature policymakers generally ignored the deniers, and so the latter didn't cause too many problems.
"Denialists don't deny "facts" of course. They deny the evidence by attempted misrepresentation. Some of the denialists of the phenomena in my previous paragraph are now denialists on behalf of those with agendas to mispreresent the science on global warming. So we'd be pretty stupid to take account of the obvious misrepresentations in the denialst nonsense. [...]
"Happily, while there is a well-funded agenda of denialism on this topic (plus ca change!), there are now far many more mature and honest individuals with intact skeptical faculties who are able to see the "denialism" for what it is. The question is why some people are so stupid as to take obvious misrepresentations seriously. I wonder what they consider they are achieving in participating in this sort of chicanery? I have a horrible feeling that they consier that "believing" and propagating blatant untruths is a valid form of "politics"!"
at 01:04 AM on 1 November, 2008
" "Denialism" is stupid when the thing you are denying is the evidence and its implications.
"After all it was pretty stupid to deny the evidence that smoking is a major causal factor in cancer and heart and respiratory disease. Many, many people paid for that stupidity with their health and lives (and continue to do so). It was pretty stupid to deny the evidence in the early 1980's that aspirin-taking was a causal factor in developing Reyes disease in children. Unfortunately many people were fooled by the stupid deniers of the time and suffered as a result. It was pretty stupid to deny the evidence that industrial chlorofluorocarbons result in catalytic destruction of high altitude ozone. Happily, in this case informed opinion and mature policymakers generally ignored the deniers, and so the latter didn't cause too many problems.
"Denialists don't deny "facts" of course. They deny the evidence by attempted misrepresentation. Some of the denialists of the phenomena in my previous paragraph are now denialists on behalf of those with agendas to mispreresent the science on global warming. So we'd be pretty stupid to take account of the obvious misrepresentations in the denialst nonsense. [...]
"Happily, while there is a well-funded agenda of denialism on this topic (plus ca change!), there are now far many more mature and honest individuals with intact skeptical faculties who are able to see the "denialism" for what it is. The question is why some people are so stupid as to take obvious misrepresentations seriously. I wonder what they consider they are achieving in participating in this sort of chicanery? I have a horrible feeling that they consier that "believing" and propagating blatant untruths is a valid form of "politics"!"
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Last post regarding the 1970's 'Ice Age', The comments within this link are gems - and point to the issue of social history - what was happening in the media versus what was really happening.
Study debunks ‘global cooling’ concern of ’70s
Posted by William M. Connolley on February 21, 2008
LINK: Study debunks ‘global cooling’ concern of ’70s – Stoat
Comment: "I can’t wait to see this paper. I think I mildly disagree with it. It is absolutely true that there was not a consensus that we were about to plunge into the ice age, and it is true that Global Warming Deniers are wrong to say that science could never make up its mind (and the insidious though technically correct use of the term “climate change” instead of “global warming” is exactly the political crap you presumably claim it is) and so on.
"But cooling was in fact a concern. I was there, and I remember it. Most reasonable models strongly suggested warming was more of a concern than cooling. There is one area of literature and research that clearly documents the global cooling concern. After I’ve seen your paper, I’ll be very excited to write about this!
"[Thanks for your comment. It nice to meet a reasonned skeptic (in the right sense of the word) for once. If you can't find the paper, I can send you a copy. Meanwhile, which is your "one area"? -W]"
Comment: "It sounds like the argument is not that there was no concern, only that the concern was fueled by the media and immediate observations of the general public, despite the majority of scientific opinion running in opposition."
Study debunks ‘global cooling’ concern of ’70s
Posted by William M. Connolley on February 21, 2008
LINK: Study debunks ‘global cooling’ concern of ’70s – Stoat
Comment: "I can’t wait to see this paper. I think I mildly disagree with it. It is absolutely true that there was not a consensus that we were about to plunge into the ice age, and it is true that Global Warming Deniers are wrong to say that science could never make up its mind (and the insidious though technically correct use of the term “climate change” instead of “global warming” is exactly the political crap you presumably claim it is) and so on.
"But cooling was in fact a concern. I was there, and I remember it. Most reasonable models strongly suggested warming was more of a concern than cooling. There is one area of literature and research that clearly documents the global cooling concern. After I’ve seen your paper, I’ll be very excited to write about this!
"[Thanks for your comment. It nice to meet a reasonned skeptic (in the right sense of the word) for once. If you can't find the paper, I can send you a copy. Meanwhile, which is your "one area"? -W]"
Comment: "It sounds like the argument is not that there was no concern, only that the concern was fueled by the media and immediate observations of the general public, despite the majority of scientific opinion running in opposition."
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Tyger is exactly like that Billy Meier freak we had here. All evidence proves him wrong yet he struggles forward posting tons of pure crap as if the more he posts the more credible it will be. Pathetic.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Tyger get your head out of your methane hole. Our own science czar John holdren warned us of a looming ice age. Were you even alive then? I was and it's what got me interested in climate.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Any other subject about which you care, 2 email exerts like the below, from the 2 top players in the game, you would be enraged if your proponent carried on claiming black was white.
You disappoint me greatly, and you've blown any chance you had of getting a Christmas card now..
“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,”Jones writes in another newly released email.
Michael Mann
“I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
Wheres the warming in the original data Constance, why can YOU not get the original data with a freedom of information request Constance ?.
Its obvious why Constance is it not.
I'm not British, but i consume their media.
This is a fair example of how catastrophic climate change is viewed by the British media.
They aren't fed the horse-shit you are, and your imaginary scientific consensus.
UN global warming data skewed by heat from planes and buildings - Telegraph
This is what the British public feel about wind power being forced on them by the green lobby, outraged.
Communities are still powerless to stop wind farms - Telegraph
...................
FRAUD.
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate - Forbes
Exactly 3yrs ago.
A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.
....................
“The IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.
“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,”Jones writes in another newly released email.
“I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?” Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”
The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.
“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.
There are sackful's of these kind of email discussions Leaked by insiders now, 1000s, the politically motivated FRAUD is there to be found quite easily, some people are just willfully blind, when i point out the fact that they are mainly Americans that makes me an American 'hater'.
Its clear as day an American based FRAUD, all the main payers are either American or funded by American departments, the whole scam is American, if that offends then tough.
ps
the debate yall keep trying to avoid is about CATASTROPHIC climate change, due to global warming caused by Mann made co2 emissions.
This says it all in a picture, even the slightest burp effects this planet dramatically.
If the Sun was a goldfish bowl and the Earth a marble, the Earth would fit inside the Sun 1.3 million times.
So we are a stone’s throw away from a heat source that is 1.3 million times the size of us but somehow we are expected to believe that “warming” is nothing to do with the Sun but man-made?
If you take the whole solar system, the Sun accounts for 99.86% of all the mass.
So that means the rest of the planets and asteroids only weigh 0.14%.
Of the remaining 0.14%, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune account for 99% of the 0.14%
Who do you believe, politicians like Gore who has profited by $500 million + from his green investments, with a billion more to come atleast, or bogus government-funded “catastrophic climate change” scientists Mann, Jones, et al, or your own eyes.
And pps Mike get a grip of yourself ffs, i admire your bullheaded stubbornness, when you believe your right, and if you dont want to be labelled a drama queen, dont act like one, how much more drama can you insert in a post.
We can ignore it until it bites us on the arse........ or act and survive
Last edited:
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Sadly, Constance and Tyger probably have us on ignore rather than actually trying to learn something.
I have said it before but I used to be EXACTLY like them.. maybe worse, I handed out 100 of Al Gores Inconvenient Truth DVDs... then I bothered to check the actual data after hearing about his carbon credit trading company and hearing him before Congress saying "The debate is over"... I knew in science the debate is NEVER over. Then he bought property over looking the "rapidly rising seas" and was paying huge amounts of utility bills for electricity that could power a small village and started flying all over the world becoming the first Carbon Billionaire over this scam.. and all along he would NOT debate anyone on the subject.
The alarmists here should be ashamed of themselves for perpetuating this global scam and transfer of wealth that only greens the pockets of the elite and does NOTHING to help green the planet.
I would think these (mostly well meaning) alarmists would be rejoicing for the lack of ANYTHING that has been predicated. No warming, no sea level rise, no disappearing glaciers, no increased hurricanes or droughts, Arctic ice recovering and record Antarctic ice, deserts are greening, crop yields increasing, etc etc etc... BUT they continue to wet their pants over all this good news and insist that barely measurable human CO2 concentrations are having some catastrophic effect on the planet. Amazing..
I have said it before but I used to be EXACTLY like them.. maybe worse, I handed out 100 of Al Gores Inconvenient Truth DVDs... then I bothered to check the actual data after hearing about his carbon credit trading company and hearing him before Congress saying "The debate is over"... I knew in science the debate is NEVER over. Then he bought property over looking the "rapidly rising seas" and was paying huge amounts of utility bills for electricity that could power a small village and started flying all over the world becoming the first Carbon Billionaire over this scam.. and all along he would NOT debate anyone on the subject.
The alarmists here should be ashamed of themselves for perpetuating this global scam and transfer of wealth that only greens the pockets of the elite and does NOTHING to help green the planet.
I would think these (mostly well meaning) alarmists would be rejoicing for the lack of ANYTHING that has been predicated. No warming, no sea level rise, no disappearing glaciers, no increased hurricanes or droughts, Arctic ice recovering and record Antarctic ice, deserts are greening, crop yields increasing, etc etc etc... BUT they continue to wet their pants over all this good news and insist that barely measurable human CO2 concentrations are having some catastrophic effect on the planet. Amazing..
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Manxman are you saying that BIGASS fireball in the sky actually warms the planet? Are you sure it couldn't be the barely measurable CO2 from humans?!?!? LMAO! These alarmists should think about that a little.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
I bet none of the alarmists here have downloaded either releases of Climategate emails and data. If they did they could read confessions and bragging of manipulating the peer review process, avoiding FOIA requests and bragging about it, the bragging of misappropriation of funds, the wishing harm on their adversaries, the admissions of keeping data from other researchers, the admissions of fudging data for models in order to get a warming signal, the leaving out of the little ice age and mediaeval warm period in order to show a warming trend, etc etc etc... The bought and paid for scientists ADMIT the corruption yet our forum alarmists ignore it all. Amazing.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Imagine Tyger talking to Mann and Mann says I faked it all for a paycheck... Tyger would say NO YOU DIDN'T!!!
P
pixelsmith
Guest
With the Climategate emails above clearly showing corrupt scientists what do Tyger, Constance, Burnt, Muadib and other alarmists have to say about it? Are you ALL going to just run away and ignore the FACTS?!? In my opinion that is a very childish way to participate in this discussion and tends to give you all very very little credibility in other areas of this forum.