97% of Scientists agree..........Al Gore knows what he is talking about

[Cuyo]

You never answered the question as to what Occam would do if he discovered people distorting data, making up data out of thin air, destroying contrary data, blacklisitng contrary views, fabricating polls with outlandish results.

Occam's razor indeed.

I can't believe the depth to which this has to be explained to you, but let's continue. You've shown zero proof that any of those things happened. If you bothered to watch Time's video, it provides excellent audio-visual insight into how the e-mails have been warped to say what you want them to say. So please, one at a time or all at once, I need proof that data has been distorted, made up, destroyed, or fabricated.

[Hint: There is none.]

The best you can find will require jumps Evil Knievel couldn't make. But I do understand there are holocaust deniers as well, and those who swear the moon landing was faked; No amount of proof will convince these people otherwise, as no amount of proof will convince you climate change is real; that is, until you have to take a fucking air-conditioned canoe to work, at which point you'll still swear it's all natural.

What I don't understand and refuse to accept, is that moon landing deniers and holocaust deniers are not granted equal consideration every time their respective topics are discussed; essentially because they're fringe loon-jobs. So how this consideration is granted global warming deniers, who are equally loony and willfully ignorant; That's something I just don't understand.

 

[Oddball]

There's lots of proof in the links-inside-links to the various sources I've cited on this very thread....From the mouths of the very people who are perpetrating the hoax and pogrom of dissenters, no less.

Assuming that you've bothered to check the sources --a huuuuuuge stretch on my part-- what evidence would you accept?

P.S....Speaking of holocaust denial, it is the IPCC warmist cartel that is using the tactics of the holocaust denier: Source one another in the echo chamber, while excluding and ignoring the reams of evidence to the contrary.

 

[Cuyo]

There's lots of proof in the links-inside-links to the various sources I've cited on this very thread....From the mouths of the very people who are perpetrating the hoax and pogrom of dissenters, no less.

Assuming that you've bothered to check the sources --a huuuuuuge stretch on my part-- what evidence would you accept?

P.S....Speaking of holocaust denial, it is the IPCC warmist cartel that is using the tactics of the holocaust denier: Source one another in the echo chamber, while excluding and ignoring the reams of evidence to the contrary.

That's hard to answer. Given that there is nearly total consensus in the global scientific community- I just don't know that anything you could offer would overcome that. You'll have to give me what you've got.

I'd need a motive and proof of an act. I first learned about global warming 20 years ago. It's been in and out of the news, coming to a head only recently. Your assertion is, that for all that time it's been a conspiracy... So far reaching that it's breached public schools, universities, thousands of scientists are involved... World leaders, professors, textbook producers... What is the goal in all of this? Is it "Global Wealth Redistribution" as your contemporary DTMB claims? Ya know I heard those exact same words before, on a different (non-political) board... Chimed in with me then too... "Global Wealth Redistrubution?" Who is broadcasting this noise?

It's very much like the moon landing hoaxers. For all the people who had to be involved, all the falsified data, thousands of people marching to the same drum beat, millions of facets that would have to be synchronized - For all the trouble it would have caused, we could have built a rocket and went to the moon.

So for the billions of dollars in "Fake" research, millions of complacent participants, none of which has provided a smoking gun in all these decades we've been studying this phenomenon - You think it more likely that it's a conspiracy than that it's actually real? And again - To what end?

Seriously, this is some X-Files smoking man stuff.

I'm not re-reading the whole thread. Re-post the most incriminating, most blatant smoking-gun you've got and we'll take it from there.

 

[Oddball]

It's hard to answer because you've never given a moment's thought that the global warm...er...climate change cartel could be wrong.

And unless you come up with something definitive as to what you'd accept, then all your asking anyone to do is to give you permission to continue rejecting them....Something I'm not going to fall for.

In the meantime: IPCC Insider Admits Climate Consensus Claim Was a Lie | The Beacon

If the "consensus" is a lie, then there needs to be a lot of people getting together and promulgating that lie for such a "consensus" to exist; i.e. a conspiracy.

 

[Political Junky]

97% sounds right. The other 3% work for right wing think tanks.

 

[Cuyo]

It's hard to answer because you've never given a moment's thought that the global warm...er...climate change cartel could be wrong.

And unless you come up with something definitive as to what you'd accept, then all your asking anyone to do is to give you permission to continue rejecting them....Something I'm not going to fall for.

In the meantime: IPCC Insider Admits Climate Consensus Claim Was a Lie | The Beacon

If the "consensus" is a lie, then there needs to be a lot of people getting together and promulgating that lie for such a "consensus" to exist; i.e. a conspiracy.

Like I said, I don't know exactly what I would accept, but I'm fairly certain you lack both the credentials and resources to override of the underlying evidence (Consensus among the entire world, except right-wing Americans).

But I will read your article, and what's more I'll read the source document (until I feel comfortable I've got the gist of it). I expect I will find that A.) This man did make a statement similar to "Claiming consensus was a lie", but that B.) It doesn't demand the conclusion you've come to; It has been exaggerated, taken out of context, or both, and C.) If he is truly an expert, he himself is not a global warming denier.

I'll check back, let me know if I'm wrong.

 

[Big Fitz]

Ok prove they are suppressing ideas and don't even start with those climategate e-mails everyone takes out of context.

There's no taking "...even if we have to redefine what peer review literature is" out of context.

There's also no taking “Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels, PhD needs re-assessing?” ...out of context.

I've posted enough links in this thread alone to show anyone who can bothered to take a dispassionate view that the IPCC warmist cartel is now simply going to rig the whole process in their favor.

Your closed mind on the subject is your problem.

Oh bullshit, you can take anything out of context,

Now go on and prove there's a big massive conspiracy. It seems to be the only way people can rationalize lots of scientists disagreeing with them.

When Dr. Phil Jones admits that he made the software deliberately create the "hockey stick" as he has done already and confessed to the fraud.... there is no context other than "I committed fraud."

This is like Bernie Madoff going to the cops and bragging "oh I robbed their asses blind!"

and idiots like you are still out there going "Say it ain't so, Jones!"

Sooner or later, you're going to have to resolve the fact that you've been lied to and it's time to move on with your lives and find some other bogey man to freak out about.

 

[JWBooth]

97% of Scientists agree..........Al Gore knows what he is talking about

Absurd assertions, Parthian shots, a priori principles, addresses, admissions, affidavits, affirmances, affirmations, allegations, announcements, annunciations, answers, apostrophes, apriorisms, asseverations, assumed positions, assumptions, attests, attestations, averments, avouchments, avowals, axioms, basiss, categorical propositions, comments, compurgations, conclusions, confirmations, contentions, cracks, creeds, data, declarations, depositions, dictums, disclosures, enunciations, exclamations, expressions, first principles, foundations, greetings, grounds, hypothesis, hypothesis ad hoc, insistences, instruments in proof, interjections, ipse dixit, legal evidence, lemma, major premises, manifestos, mentions, minor premises, notes, observations, philosopheme, philosophical propositions, phrases, positions, position papers, positive declarations, postulate, postulations, postulatum, predicates, predications, premises, presuppositions, proclamations, professions, pronouncements, propositions, propositional functions, protests, protestations, questions, reflections, remarks, representations, say-sos, say, sayings, sentences, stances, stands, statements, subjoinders, sumptions, supposals, sworn evidences, sworn statements, sworn testimony, testimonials, testimonium, testimony, theorem, thesis, thoughts, truth-functions, truth-values, truth tables, utterances, vouch, witness, & words
Next room.
<----------------

 

[Cuyo]

Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism. Claims such as &#8216;2,500 of the world&#8217;s leading
11
scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate&#8217; are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.

There's your quote, page 10 into page 11. Do you interpret that quote as proof that global warming is a hoax?

It's an interesting piece. Believe I'll keep reading it. But is this quote from your post describing this article...

IPCC Insider Admits Climate Consensus Claim Was a Lie | The Beacon

a fair cross-section of this paper? Not by a long shot. Or maybe you think it is? Tell me, did you read the source paper for the article you linked me to? Did you realize that quote I just posted is actually what the fellow said? If not, has reading it in context changed your conclusion at all?

 

[Oddball]

It's hard to answer because you've never given a moment's thought that the global warm...er...climate change cartel could be wrong.

And unless you come up with something definitive as to what you'd accept, then all your asking anyone to do is to give you permission to continue rejecting them....Something I'm not going to fall for.

In the meantime: IPCC Insider Admits Climate Consensus Claim Was a Lie | The Beacon

If the "consensus" is a lie, then there needs to be a lot of people getting together and promulgating that lie for such a "consensus" to exist; i.e. a conspiracy.

Like I said, I don't know exactly what I would accept, but I'm fairly certain you lack both the credentials and resources to override of the underlying evidence (Consensus among the entire world, except right-wing Americans).

But I will read your article, and what's more I'll read the source document (until I feel comfortable I've got the gist of it). I expect I will find that A.) This man did make a statement similar to "Claiming consensus was a lie", but that B.) It doesn't demand the conclusion you've come to; It has been exaggerated, taken out of context, or both, and C.) If he is truly an expert, he himself is not a global warming denier.

I'll check back, let me know if I'm wrong.

IOW, you're prejudiced and there's no evidence that you would accept.

Just coming out and saying so would be a real time saver for everyone involved.

 

[Cuyo]

It's hard to answer because you've never given a moment's thought that the global warm...er...climate change cartel could be wrong.

And unless you come up with something definitive as to what you'd accept, then all your asking anyone to do is to give you permission to continue rejecting them....Something I'm not going to fall for.

In the meantime: IPCC Insider Admits Climate Consensus Claim Was a Lie | The Beacon

If the "consensus" is a lie, then there needs to be a lot of people getting together and promulgating that lie for such a "consensus" to exist; i.e. a conspiracy.

Like I said, I don't know exactly what I would accept, but I'm fairly certain you lack both the credentials and resources to override of the underlying evidence (Consensus among the entire world, except right-wing Americans).

But I will read your article, and what's more I'll read the source document (until I feel comfortable I've got the gist of it). I expect I will find that A.) This man did make a statement similar to "Claiming consensus was a lie", but that B.) It doesn't demand the conclusion you've come to; It has been exaggerated, taken out of context, or both, and C.) If he is truly an expert, he himself is not a global warming denier.

I'll check back, let me know if I'm wrong.

IOW, you're prejudiced and there's no evidence that you would accept.

Just coming out and saying so would be a real time saver for everyone involved.

Dude, I could turn that exact same statement on you, word for word. The difference is, the evidence in this dispute is overwhelmingly on my side, until you can show me otherwise. I'd like a response to my last post. (post 109)

[edit] I'm gonna be waiting for awhile, ain't I?

 

[Oddball]

The difference is that I believed the warmists back in the late '80s....Then I decided to have an independent thought in my head and do my own research.

After doing said research, I concluded that both the content and structure of the international warmist cartel resembles a twisted amalgamation of Malthusian declinism, Luddism, with a healthy smattering of quasi-religious Medieval flat-Earth "inner circle" orthodoxy. My opinion viz. the similarities between the warmist cabal is reminiscent of a religious cult was a few years in advance of Michael Crichton's exact observation.

That's what happens when you suspend disbelief long enough to dispassionately consider other information.

 

[Cuyo]

The difference is that I believed the warmists back in the late '80s....Then I decided to have an independent thought in my head and do my own research.

After doing said research, I concluded that both the content and structure of the international warmist cartel resembles a twisted amalgamation of Malthusian declinism, Luddism, with a healthy smattering of quasi-religious Medieval flat-Earth "inner circle" orthodoxy. My opinion viz. the similarities between the warmist cabal is reminiscent of a religious cult was a few years in advance of Michael Crichton's exact observation.

But for GODS SAKE, LEAD ME TO YOUR RESEARCH! I'm not blacklisting anything you have to offer, you just haven't offered me anything. I asked for the best piece of evidence you have, and you handed me an article titled "IPCC Insider Admits Climate Consensus Claim was a Lie," but in reality, he said it was disingenuous for IPCC not to clarify that not all participants in the consensus were climatologists, and the man himself is not a denyer!

Do you not see why I'm unimpressed? Give me something solid and I'll consider it. Or please, if you think I'm out of line and that link you gave me was a smoking gun, just say so!

 

[Oddball]

Right now, the evidence is becoming glaringly evident.

Take this thread, about a poll with results that are patently ridiculous, and subsequent links to sources debunking that sham of a poll, starting with post #2.

If you can't find 97% a laughable result, then you've given up on all pretense of objectively considering anything else.

 

[Father Time]

There's no taking "...even if we have to redefine what peer review literature is" out of context.

There's also no taking “Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels, PhD needs re-assessing?” ...out of context.

I've posted enough links in this thread alone to show anyone who can bothered to take a dispassionate view that the IPCC warmist cartel is now simply going to rig the whole process in their favor.

Your closed mind on the subject is your problem.

Oh bullshit, you can take anything out of context,

Now go on and prove there's a big massive conspiracy. It seems to be the only way people can rationalize lots of scientists disagreeing with them.

When Dr. Phil Jones admits that he made the software deliberately create the "hockey stick" as he has done already and confessed to the fraud

Give me a link, I can't find an article where he admits to any fraud.

 

[Cuyo]

Right now, the evidence is becoming glaringly evident.

Take this thread, about a poll with results that are patently ridiculous, and subsequent links to sources debunking that sham of a poll, starting with post #2.

If you can't find 97% a laughable result, then you've given up on all pretense of objectively considering anything else.

So it would then be safe to say, that your take on the matter is "There's a chance that the poll is flawed, therefore global warming is a giant conspiracy."

And that skewed link you gave in 104 is the best evidence you have thereof.

Is that right?

 

[Big Fitz]

American Thinker: Climategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

Your proof. Of course if this isn't good enough, nothing probably is.

 

[Big Fitz]

American Thinker: Climategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

Your proof. Of course if this isn't good enough, nothing probably is.

 

[Oddball]

So it would then be safe to say, that your take on the matter is "There's a chance that the poll is flawed, therefore global warming is a giant conspiracy."

And that skewed link you gave in 104 is the best evidence you have thereof.

Is that right?

No...It's beyond obvious that the poll is flawed. This would lead anyone thinking independently to believe that someone thinks that they can brazenly peddle the patently ridiculous....And where there's such billowing clouds of smoke, it only logically follows there's an awful big fire burning somewhere.

Couple that with this list of gaffes, blunders and outright fabrications (for starters), and the conclusion that there's some treachery going on behind the scenes is no stretch of the imagination at all.

 

[Cuyo]

American Thinker: Climategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

Your proof. Of course if this isn't good enough, nothing probably is.

Context, Fitz. From the interview your "American Thinker" uses as it's source:

E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.