An overwhelming body of data and still we have climate deniers

[SSDD]

I notified the site of your pulling rank and falsely accusing me of Trolling. The post clearly presents data specific to the topic at hand and also directly addresses the subject of our latest few posts

So you are a crybaby and a tattletale as well?...not surprising. Of course, you are trolling....the OP of this post is a claim of an "overwhelming" body of data supporting the AGW hypothesis. Both Westwall and myself are asking for some of it....not all of it...not even a lot of it...just a piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting the hypothesis...You then go on ad nauseum with some psychobabble that you are clearly cutting and pasting from the internet...but aren't delivering on the requests which relate directly to the OP...that is called trolling.

If you don't have the courage to face your own ignorance and openly discuss the issues at hand then thats fine, you are not required to participate in the discussion. However, acting like a five year old who can't have his way is hardly the way to fairly moderate a topic.

The issue at hand is your inability to provide us skeptics with the data we are asking for. If it exists...then show it to us and convince us that the AGW hypothesis has merit....That is as far from the syndrome you claim we suffer from as possible....far from claiming that I have all the answers and can learn nothing...I am asking for real world data to convince me...you can't deliver because it doesn't exist.

I don't do warnings, threaten me one time and I'm off to the owners. You are an ignorant and simply can't grasp the concepts involved.

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that you can't provide the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data to support the AGW hypothesis.

 

[westwall]

This is now an official warning. This post is called "TROLLING". It has nothing to do with the OP. I asked you for a specific thing that DOES pertain to the OP. Now hop to it.

Trolls troll....its what they do. He needs to do it in order to be able to tell himself how superior he is to us skeptics. We all know that he will never be able to provide the requested data...you may as well ask him to deliver the data on a flying pig.

It really wasn't going anywhere interesting...I doubt that he understood much of the psychobabble he was posting....I do love to watch them squirm though...and very much like to see what passes for actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in their minds.

You guys are desperate to bail. Its OK most cognitive dissonant people will eventually react poorly when confronted with overwhelming evidence that threatens their preferred view.

The fact is that there is only ONE thing thats changed in the last few hundred years that can account for the sudden increase in temps. Burning of fossil fuels ;--)

Time to grow up people

Climate shift is very real and the cause is obvious

OK. You really ARE so stupid you don't understand. This is not empirical evidence dipshit. This is merely a graph. A graph that attempts to prove causation by correlation. What is the 2nd axiom of science? CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION! Now. Try again. Present me a study (do you know what those are) that uses no computer modelling, that shows a human influence. It's really that simple. Now. Hop to it junior.

The remedial science lessons to you are over. Time for you to grow up and learn how to do the basics and not spew propaganda.

 

[westwall]

That is what is known as a non sequitur silly boy. Soooooo...once again. Please provide us with some empirical evidence to support your bullshit. It's really that simple. I think you're just too stupid to even come up with a basic one.

LOL, another perfect example

Lets review

Quote
a patient suffering of lateral neglect won't "see" one side of the world, won't draw it, and won't touch it. When asked why, the patient will answer that it was not important or that there was no reason to consider it; never that he or she couldn't perceive it. Anosognosia is what inspired Dunning and Kruger for the effect that takes their name: the "Dunning-Kruger Syndrome". It affects people who grossly overestimate their abilities or their knowledge. But Dunning and Kruger have been often misinterpreted by defining their effect as "stupid people don't realize that they are stupid". No, it is a much wider effect and it hits intelligent people in particular. It is typical of very intelligent people to be unable to realize their limits.


This kind of anosognosia is especially bad with science, in particular climate science. The Web is infested with people who suffer of a form of climate science neglect syndrome. They are not stupid; on the contrary, some of them they can display considerable creativity and inventive to support the idea that climate is not changing, or that change is not caused by human activity, or that everything is an evil plot to enslave humankind. Their problem is that they completely fail to perceive the complexity of the subject. They can't see that climate science is not about whether grapes were cultivated in England during the Middle Ages or about the letters that some scientists wrote to each other more than 10 years ago. You just can't convince them that their vision of the world is limited. The same is true with a variety of conspiracy theories based on failing to understand the complexity of the subject: chemtrails, cold fusion, abiotic oil, and many more.


Anosognosia is easily recognizable in such extreme forms. But, in milder forms, it affects all of us. It is such an easy mistake to believe that we know something well enough to act on it and then suddenly discovering that we don't. I have my horror stories about myself to tell you on this point; I am sure you have yours. And those are cases where we understood that we were making a mistake. What's scary about anosognosia is when you don't even realize that there is a problem. Think that, most likely, there is something out there, something we can't even imagine, that's going to affect us deeply. But what? How can we perceive something that we cannot perceive? How do we manage "unknown unknowns"?


Still, as long as our brain is not physically damaged, we have at least a fighting chance to understand our mistakes and to be prepared for the unexpected that may crash upon us all of a sudden. But there is a much larger problem that has to do with society as a whole: it seems to be suffering of a bad case of cognitive neglect syndrome. Read "Monoculture" by F. S. Michaels and you'll see what I mean.

End Quote

So lets try showing you that again ;--)

So in answer to SSDO, what could the cause of this radical departure of from the norm be ???? its either you start dreaming up all kinds of mythical monsters or you accept that the departure is directly attributable to fossil fuels.

So now whats your excuse ;--)

PS
Love all the groovy little graphs that don't have the resolution to accurately depict either the rate or the effect of todays alterations in the atmospheric chemistry

You blabber a LOT. I am still waiting for some empirical evidence. I hear you were provided with a definition of what that means. Hop to it junior.

LOL you are a perfect example of lateral neglect syndrome

Quote

Anosognosia is easily recognizable in such extreme forms. But, in milder forms, it affects all of us. It is such an easy mistake to believe that we know something well enough to act on it and then suddenly discovering that we don't. I have my horror stories about myself to tell you on this point; I am sure you have yours. And those are cases where we understood that we were making a mistake. What's scary about anosognosia is when you don't even realize that there is a problem. Think that, most likely, there is something out there, something we can't even imagine, that's going to affect us deeply. But what? How can we perceive something that we cannot perceive? How do we manage "unknown unknowns"?


Still, as long as our brain is not physically damaged, we have at least a fighting chance to understand our mistakes and to be prepared for the unexpected that may crash upon us all of a sudden. But there is a much larger problem that has to do with society as a whole: it seems to be suffering of a bad case of cognitive neglect syndrome. Read "Monoculture" by F. S. Michaels and you'll see what I mean.


More and more, our culture seems to confine itself within narrow limits that don't include entities such as climate change, peak oil, ecosystem collapse, and much more. All that is relegated to the category of unknown unknowns, totally outside the bounds of perception; even outside the bounds of the imaginable. As it is not perceived, it is not understood, it is not discussed, it is not acted upon. And, whatever is going to crash on us all of a sudden, we are totally unprepared for it.


Unfortunately, one of the things I learned from my daughter is that there is no cure for this syndrome.

End Quote

This is now an official warning. This post is called "TROLLING". It has nothing to do with the OP. I asked you for a specific thing that DOES pertain to the OP. Now hop to it.

I notified the site of your pulling rank and falsely accusing me of Trolling. The post clearly presents data specific to the topic at hand and also directly addresses the subject of our latest few posts

If you don't have the courage to face your own ignorance and openly discuss the issues at hand then thats fine, you are not required to participate in the discussion. However, acting like a five year old who can't have his way is hardly the way to fairly moderate a topic.

You should be banned from moderating any science based discussion since you are a science denier yourself. Hardly sheds a positive light on the forum to have a climate denier in charge of anything.

PS
I don't do warnings, threaten me one time and I'm off to the owners. You are an ignorant and simply can't grasp the concepts involved.

So you start in with the threats.

real adult of ypou but it does prove one thing

Your argument can't stand an informed debate

Big whoop. You are obviously trolling. Psychology has nothing to do with the subject as any ten year old knows. It is you that can't handle debate dumbshit., I have asked you for the very simplest level of support for your claims and all you can do is trot out propaganda and psycho babble. That is not discussing anything but your gross stupidity.

 

[Boston1]

Psychology has everything to do with denial

For instance, you've clearly been given empirical evidence in the form of multiple studies which all agreed with one another about whats happening to temp, yet some members, after having demanded empirical evidence are unable to even acknowledge that the information has been provided. This represents more of a psychological break from reality than it does a scientific argument to the contrary. Most of the deniers are basically just having psychological problems.

Which directly relates to the OP and the topic tittle. Overwhelming evidence supporting climate change science and yet we still have deniers.

Hell we still have people who believe the earth is flat too but yeah. Its a psychological problem. The science is in kids ;--)

 

[SSDD]

Gass lighting again eh

Maybe you don't know what gas lighting is...Here, let me help

gas lighting - to cause (a person) to doubt his or her sanity through the use of psychological manipulation

How do you suppose I am psychologically manipulating you?

You showed this graph and I responded to this graph. Its just one data set was the answer and what it is falsely trying to compare is arguable localized weather events with established global climate

Far be it from me to use only one source......and I asked you to name a region on earth...entirely up to you...and I would provide you with at a peer reviewed study showing that the signature of the warming was found there as well...far from being a localized weather event...those warming periods were global in nature...as evidenced by their fingerprint being worldwide...

Temperature of Planet Earth - Gerg's Net

Man you are desperate to find flaw aren't you ?

Of course not...you exposed it with your first post...which is why I asked for the very thing that you would never be able to produce because it simply doesn't exist....and since this thread isn't about psychological weaknesses, I am not going to go into any sort of description...suffice it to say that by asking for that which you can't deliver...you have been being played like a cheap accordion since this exchange began.

Now about that observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that you believe exists....lets see it.

 

[Boston1]

LOL, another perfect example

Lets review

Quote
a patient suffering of lateral neglect won't "see" one side of the world, won't draw it, and won't touch it. When asked why, the patient will answer that it was not important or that there was no reason to consider it; never that he or she couldn't perceive it. Anosognosia is what inspired Dunning and Kruger for the effect that takes their name: the "Dunning-Kruger Syndrome". It affects people who grossly overestimate their abilities or their knowledge. But Dunning and Kruger have been often misinterpreted by defining their effect as "stupid people don't realize that they are stupid". No, it is a much wider effect and it hits intelligent people in particular. It is typical of very intelligent people to be unable to realize their limits.


This kind of anosognosia is especially bad with science, in particular climate science. The Web is infested with people who suffer of a form of climate science neglect syndrome. They are not stupid; on the contrary, some of them they can display considerable creativity and inventive to support the idea that climate is not changing, or that change is not caused by human activity, or that everything is an evil plot to enslave humankind. Their problem is that they completely fail to perceive the complexity of the subject. They can't see that climate science is not about whether grapes were cultivated in England during the Middle Ages or about the letters that some scientists wrote to each other more than 10 years ago. You just can't convince them that their vision of the world is limited. The same is true with a variety of conspiracy theories based on failing to understand the complexity of the subject: chemtrails, cold fusion, abiotic oil, and many more.


Anosognosia is easily recognizable in such extreme forms. But, in milder forms, it affects all of us. It is such an easy mistake to believe that we know something well enough to act on it and then suddenly discovering that we don't. I have my horror stories about myself to tell you on this point; I am sure you have yours. And those are cases where we understood that we were making a mistake. What's scary about anosognosia is when you don't even realize that there is a problem. Think that, most likely, there is something out there, something we can't even imagine, that's going to affect us deeply. But what? How can we perceive something that we cannot perceive? How do we manage "unknown unknowns"?


Still, as long as our brain is not physically damaged, we have at least a fighting chance to understand our mistakes and to be prepared for the unexpected that may crash upon us all of a sudden. But there is a much larger problem that has to do with society as a whole: it seems to be suffering of a bad case of cognitive neglect syndrome. Read "Monoculture" by F. S. Michaels and you'll see what I mean.

End Quote

So lets try showing you that again ;--)

So in answer to SSDO, what could the cause of this radical departure of from the norm be ???? its either you start dreaming up all kinds of mythical monsters or you accept that the departure is directly attributable to fossil fuels.

So now whats your excuse ;--)

PS
Love all the groovy little graphs that don't have the resolution to accurately depict either the rate or the effect of todays alterations in the atmospheric chemistry

You blabber a LOT. I am still waiting for some empirical evidence. I hear you were provided with a definition of what that means. Hop to it junior.

LOL you are a perfect example of lateral neglect syndrome

Quote

Anosognosia is easily recognizable in such extreme forms. But, in milder forms, it affects all of us. It is such an easy mistake to believe that we know something well enough to act on it and then suddenly discovering that we don't. I have my horror stories about myself to tell you on this point; I am sure you have yours. And those are cases where we understood that we were making a mistake. What's scary about anosognosia is when you don't even realize that there is a problem. Think that, most likely, there is something out there, something we can't even imagine, that's going to affect us deeply. But what? How can we perceive something that we cannot perceive? How do we manage "unknown unknowns"?


Still, as long as our brain is not physically damaged, we have at least a fighting chance to understand our mistakes and to be prepared for the unexpected that may crash upon us all of a sudden. But there is a much larger problem that has to do with society as a whole: it seems to be suffering of a bad case of cognitive neglect syndrome. Read "Monoculture" by F. S. Michaels and you'll see what I mean.


More and more, our culture seems to confine itself within narrow limits that don't include entities such as climate change, peak oil, ecosystem collapse, and much more. All that is relegated to the category of unknown unknowns, totally outside the bounds of perception; even outside the bounds of the imaginable. As it is not perceived, it is not understood, it is not discussed, it is not acted upon. And, whatever is going to crash on us all of a sudden, we are totally unprepared for it.


Unfortunately, one of the things I learned from my daughter is that there is no cure for this syndrome.

End Quote

This is now an official warning. This post is called "TROLLING". It has nothing to do with the OP. I asked you for a specific thing that DOES pertain to the OP. Now hop to it.

I notified the site of your pulling rank and falsely accusing me of Trolling. The post clearly presents data specific to the topic at hand and also directly addresses the subject of our latest few posts

If you don't have the courage to face your own ignorance and openly discuss the issues at hand then thats fine, you are not required to participate in the discussion. However, acting like a five year old who can't have his way is hardly the way to fairly moderate a topic.

You should be banned from moderating any science based discussion since you are a science denier yourself. Hardly sheds a positive light on the forum to have a climate denier in charge of anything.

PS
I don't do warnings, threaten me one time and I'm off to the owners. You are an ignorant and simply can't grasp the concepts involved.

So you start in with the threats.

real adult of ypou but it does prove one thing

Your argument can't stand an informed debate

Big whoop. You are obviously trolling. Psychology has nothing to do with the subject as any ten year old knows. It is you that can't handle debate dumbshit., I have asked you for the very simplest level of support for your claims and all you can do is trot out propaganda and psycho babble. That is not discussing anything but your gross stupidity.

Yeah I reported your post

Insulting a poster is hardly the act of impartial moderation.

Also falsely accusing someone of breaking the rules isn't going to fly either. Oh it might just be that the sites owners aren't all that impartial themselves but I figure your hopeless and going over your head is my best bet.

The fact is that a guy who has no clue of science shouldn't be in charge of a science thread

The chart provided is all the empirical evidence you need ;--) to show that multiple major university studies all show the same result ;--)

Four major studies all showing the same thing

And we know exactly whats causing it ;--)

 

[Boston1]

Gass lighting again eh

Maybe you don't know what gas lighting is...Here, let me help

gas lighting - to cause (a person) to doubt his or her sanity through the use of psychological manipulation

How do you suppose I am psychologically manipulating you?

You showed this graph and I responded to this graph. Its just one data set was the answer and what it is falsely trying to compare is arguable localized weather events with established global climate

Far be it from me to use only one source......and I asked you to name a region on earth...entirely up to you...and I would provide you with at a peer reviewed study showing that the signature of the warming was found there as well...far from being a localized weather event...those warming periods were global in nature...as evidenced by their fingerprint being worldwide...

Temperature of Planet Earth - Gerg's Net

Man you are desperate to find flaw aren't you ?

Of course not...you exposed it with your first post...which is why I asked for the very thing that you would never be able to produce because it simply doesn't exist....and since this thread isn't about psychological weaknesses, I am not going to go into any sort of description...suffice it to say that by asking for that which you can't deliver...you have been being played like a cheap accordion since this exchange began.

Now about that observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that you believe exists....lets see it.

See post 264

 

[SSDD]

You guys are desperate to bail. Its OK most cognitive dissonant people will eventually react poorly when confronted with overwhelming evidence that threatens their preferred view.

Far from it....I can ask for data that you can't deliver all day.

The fact is that there is only ONE thing thats changed in the last few hundred years that can account for the sudden increase in temps. Burning of fossil fuels ;--)

Really? So you are claiming that climate science knows all of the factors that affect the climate...and to what degree they effect the climate...and to what degree they effect and alter the degree to which they themselves affect the climate?....is that what you are claiming? If it is, then you really are out there.

Time to grow up people

Climate shift is very real and the cause is obvious

I can only guess that you believe that CO2 rising to a whopping 390ppm or so is responsible for the warming we have seen...your graph represents a correlation, but not a causation...you should learn the difference....one is real...the other is not.

Aside from that, lets resist a graph I already posted...again not even warmers argue that this graph is anything other than representative of our best knowledge of the past earth climate. See the black line...it represents atmospheric CO2 concentrations...Note that CO2 was close to 1000ppm, 600ppm higher than the present level when the earth's climate started slipping into the ice age that continues to this day.

 

[IanC]

I can't believe that no one has called out B1 on the Moon Hoax paper.

I know it's not climate science per se, but it is meant to slur skeptics and support consensus.

It certainly had all the familiar themes of climate science. Fraudulent data collection, insane data mining for absurd results, failure to release the data publicly or its collection methodology, plus other frauds in funding and privacy concerns.

And when it was properly retracted , Lewandowsky claimed it was because of threats, so he wrote another paper doubling down on his idiocy.

 

[westwall]

You blabber a LOT. I am still waiting for some empirical evidence. I hear you were provided with a definition of what that means. Hop to it junior.

LOL you are a perfect example of lateral neglect syndrome

Quote

Anosognosia is easily recognizable in such extreme forms. But, in milder forms, it affects all of us. It is such an easy mistake to believe that we know something well enough to act on it and then suddenly discovering that we don't. I have my horror stories about myself to tell you on this point; I am sure you have yours. And those are cases where we understood that we were making a mistake. What's scary about anosognosia is when you don't even realize that there is a problem. Think that, most likely, there is something out there, something we can't even imagine, that's going to affect us deeply. But what? How can we perceive something that we cannot perceive? How do we manage "unknown unknowns"?


Still, as long as our brain is not physically damaged, we have at least a fighting chance to understand our mistakes and to be prepared for the unexpected that may crash upon us all of a sudden. But there is a much larger problem that has to do with society as a whole: it seems to be suffering of a bad case of cognitive neglect syndrome. Read "Monoculture" by F. S. Michaels and you'll see what I mean.


More and more, our culture seems to confine itself within narrow limits that don't include entities such as climate change, peak oil, ecosystem collapse, and much more. All that is relegated to the category of unknown unknowns, totally outside the bounds of perception; even outside the bounds of the imaginable. As it is not perceived, it is not understood, it is not discussed, it is not acted upon. And, whatever is going to crash on us all of a sudden, we are totally unprepared for it.


Unfortunately, one of the things I learned from my daughter is that there is no cure for this syndrome.

End Quote

This is now an official warning. This post is called "TROLLING". It has nothing to do with the OP. I asked you for a specific thing that DOES pertain to the OP. Now hop to it.

I notified the site of your pulling rank and falsely accusing me of Trolling. The post clearly presents data specific to the topic at hand and also directly addresses the subject of our latest few posts

If you don't have the courage to face your own ignorance and openly discuss the issues at hand then thats fine, you are not required to participate in the discussion. However, acting like a five year old who can't have his way is hardly the way to fairly moderate a topic.

You should be banned from moderating any science based discussion since you are a science denier yourself. Hardly sheds a positive light on the forum to have a climate denier in charge of anything.

PS
I don't do warnings, threaten me one time and I'm off to the owners. You are an ignorant and simply can't grasp the concepts involved.

So you start in with the threats.

real adult of ypou but it does prove one thing

Your argument can't stand an informed debate

Big whoop. You are obviously trolling. Psychology has nothing to do with the subject as any ten year old knows. It is you that can't handle debate dumbshit., I have asked you for the very simplest level of support for your claims and all you can do is trot out propaganda and psycho babble. That is not discussing anything but your gross stupidity.

Yeah I reported your post

Insulting a poster is hardly the act of impartial moderation.

Also falsely accusing someone of breaking the rules isn't going to fly either. Oh it might just be that the sites owners aren't all that impartial themselves but I figure your hopeless and going over your head is my best bet.

The fact is that a guy who has no clue of science shouldn't be in charge of a science thread

The chart provided is all the empirical evidence you need ;--) to show that multiple major university studies all show the same result ;--)

Four major studies all showing the same thing

And we know exactly whats causing it ;--)

When I am partaking in a thread I am nothing more than a member just like you. Your continued douchebaggery is duly noted. Now. Are you ever going to provide a study or are you only going to flap your gums and snivel?

 

[hjmick]

An overwhelming body of data and still we have climate deniers

I know of no one, I repeat, NO ONE, who denies climate.

 

[SSDD]

Psychology has everything to do with denial

For instance, you've clearly been given empirical evidence in the form of multiple studies which all agreed with one another about whats happening to temp, yet some members, after having demanded empirical evidence are unable to even acknowledge that the information has been provided. This represents more of a psychological break from reality than it does a scientific argument to the contrary. Most of the deniers are basically just having psychological problems.

Which directly relates to the OP and the topic tittle. Overwhelming evidence supporting climate change science and yet we still have deniers.

Hell we still have people who believe the earth is flat too but yeah. Its a psychological problem. The science is in kids ;--)

In case you haven't noticed, throughout this entire exchange...it is you who is denying...you deny everything presented to you...graphs that represent the gold standard of ice core temperature reconstructions which no one in climate science argues with..you deny...temperature reconstructions from GERGS net...
Australian snow, snow weather and hydrology.. you deny....is there any data from any source which contradicts what you believe that you will not deny? You are right that psychology has a great deal to do with denial...what you don't realize is that in this conversation, you are the denier. We are asking for observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the AGW hypothesis...and the best you can do is show some graphs which show a weak correlation between CO2 and temperature and proclaim your OPINION that the only factor that could account for the present temperature is CO2...

Here is a graph with sufficient resolution to see the correlation of increasing CO2 to temperature...it doesn't look to impressive to me.

 

[SSDD]

You blabber a LOT. I am still waiting for some empirical evidence. I hear you were provided with a definition of what that means. Hop to it junior.

LOL you are a perfect example of lateral neglect syndrome

Quote

Anosognosia is easily recognizable in such extreme forms. But, in milder forms, it affects all of us. It is such an easy mistake to believe that we know something well enough to act on it and then suddenly discovering that we don't. I have my horror stories about myself to tell you on this point; I am sure you have yours. And those are cases where we understood that we were making a mistake. What's scary about anosognosia is when you don't even realize that there is a problem. Think that, most likely, there is something out there, something we can't even imagine, that's going to affect us deeply. But what? How can we perceive something that we cannot perceive? How do we manage "unknown unknowns"?


Still, as long as our brain is not physically damaged, we have at least a fighting chance to understand our mistakes and to be prepared for the unexpected that may crash upon us all of a sudden. But there is a much larger problem that has to do with society as a whole: it seems to be suffering of a bad case of cognitive neglect syndrome. Read "Monoculture" by F. S. Michaels and you'll see what I mean.


More and more, our culture seems to confine itself within narrow limits that don't include entities such as climate change, peak oil, ecosystem collapse, and much more. All that is relegated to the category of unknown unknowns, totally outside the bounds of perception; even outside the bounds of the imaginable. As it is not perceived, it is not understood, it is not discussed, it is not acted upon. And, whatever is going to crash on us all of a sudden, we are totally unprepared for it.


Unfortunately, one of the things I learned from my daughter is that there is no cure for this syndrome.

End Quote

This is now an official warning. This post is called "TROLLING". It has nothing to do with the OP. I asked you for a specific thing that DOES pertain to the OP. Now hop to it.

I notified the site of your pulling rank and falsely accusing me of Trolling. The post clearly presents data specific to the topic at hand and also directly addresses the subject of our latest few posts

If you don't have the courage to face your own ignorance and openly discuss the issues at hand then thats fine, you are not required to participate in the discussion. However, acting like a five year old who can't have his way is hardly the way to fairly moderate a topic.

You should be banned from moderating any science based discussion since you are a science denier yourself. Hardly sheds a positive light on the forum to have a climate denier in charge of anything.

PS
I don't do warnings, threaten me one time and I'm off to the owners. You are an ignorant and simply can't grasp the concepts involved.

So you start in with the threats.

real adult of ypou but it does prove one thing

Your argument can't stand an informed debate

Big whoop. You are obviously trolling. Psychology has nothing to do with the subject as any ten year old knows. It is you that can't handle debate dumbshit., I have asked you for the very simplest level of support for your claims and all you can do is trot out propaganda and psycho babble. That is not discussing anything but your gross stupidity.

Yeah I reported your post

Insulting a poster is hardly the act of impartial moderation.

Also falsely accusing someone of breaking the rules isn't going to fly either. Oh it might just be that the sites owners aren't all that impartial themselves but I figure your hopeless and going over your head is my best bet.

The fact is that a guy who has no clue of science shouldn't be in charge of a science thread

The chart provided is all the empirical evidence you need ;--) to show that multiple major university studies all show the same result ;--)

Four major studies all showing the same thing

And we know exactly whats causing it ;--)

So lets see the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the correlation.

 

[SSDD]

When I am partaking in a thread I am nothing more than a member just like you. Your continued douchebaggery is duly noted. Now. Are you ever going to provide a study or are you only going to flap your gums and snivel?

He is going to slap his gums and snivel...and now he will play the part of the poor abused victim of authority to his utmost ability.

 

[SSDD]

See post 264

Re post 264...

You said

For instance, you've clearly been given empirical evidence in the form of multiple studies which all agreed with one another about whats happening to temp, yet some members, after having demanded empirical evidence are unable to even acknowledge that the information has been provided. This represents more of a psychological break from reality than it does a scientific argument to the contrary. Most of the deniers are basically just having psychological problems.

Which directly relates to the OP and the topic tittle. Overwhelming evidence supporting climate change science and yet we still have deniers.

Hell we still have people who believe the earth is flat too but yeah. Its a psychological problem. The science is in kids ;--)

You gave me empirical evidence that the temperature is increasing. That was never at issue...the graphs I showed you also indicated that the temperature was increasing. I never claimed otherwise. But then you go on to say that evidence that the temperature is increasing is evidence that man is causing the increase...that simply is not true...you then went on to say that there could be only one cause for the temperature increase which implies that climate science knows every factor which influences the climate...the degree to which each factor influences the climate, and even the degree to which each factor influences the other factors...such a claim couldn't be further from the truth. Climate science, in recent years, has been much more willing to admit that they are just beginning to understand what factors influence the climate and that they have much to learn.

So unless you can provide observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the claim that CO2 is increasing the global temperature, I am afraid that you have failed...corelation is not causation...nor will it ever be....that isn't science.....that is pseudoscience.

And your last claim..."the science is in" brings the entire issue to a fine point...if the science is in, then lets see it...show me the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that increased so called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are responsible for the warming.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How do they make a thermometer ?

They calibrate it against a standard ;--)

Thats not fudging, thats calibrating, same goes for tape measures ;--)

What thermometer did they use in...oh say 320 AD? LOL They've been caught fudging data and numbers, save your BS loon

Um, no, no ones been caught fudging data, actually they have a process called peer review to ensure that the data is accurate.

What your suggesting is basically the worlds biggest conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists over hundreds of years LOL. Its simply impossible.

Why would you think its all just fudged data ? Most scientists are still eating cold pizza and drinking warm bear, trying to figure this stuff out. If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Oh and its not so hard to figure out the temp hundreds and even thousands of years ago. Multiple techniques are used each having been calibrated just like that tape measure or any newer thermometer and compared against existing data. Its really not that tricky of a process.

If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Is that what happened to Nobel Prize winning scientist, Michael Mann?

Mann ( who I've spoken to on several occasions ) didn't misreport anything, he simple didn't include his calculations in his original, and took his time releasing them, which as I recall he eventually did.

Mann, actually has done a great job and been a real mover in the field of climate science. He won that Nobel for a reason, he's good.

One of us is th-th-th-that's all folks looney tunes and I sure hope it's you. From what I know, Michael Mann did not receive a Noble Prize. He falsely claimed he did but had to retract his claim when his scam was discovered.

“Disgraced Penn State University (PSU) climatologist, Michael Mann, concedes defeat in his bogus claims to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Mann’s employer this weekend began the shameful task of divesting itself of all inflated claims on university websites and official documentation that Mann was ever a Peace Prize recipient with Al Gore and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

Michael Mann Retracts False Nobel Prize Claims in Humiliating Climbdown

I suggest that anyone who would lie about receiving a Noble Prize to bolster his credibility would lie about other things as well to achieve his agenda.

I will comment on the false science in another post. I just wanted to set the record straight regarding "Noble Prize winner" Michael Mann.

AND.....that poster is probably a Red Sox fan, too!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

LOL, another perfect example

Lets review

Quote
a patient suffering of lateral neglect won't "see" one side of the world, won't draw it, and won't touch it. When asked why, the patient will answer that it was not important or that there was no reason to consider it; never that he or she couldn't perceive it. Anosognosia is what inspired Dunning and Kruger for the effect that takes their name: the "Dunning-Kruger Syndrome". It affects people who grossly overestimate their abilities or their knowledge. But Dunning and Kruger have been often misinterpreted by defining their effect as "stupid people don't realize that they are stupid". No, it is a much wider effect and it hits intelligent people in particular. It is typical of very intelligent people to be unable to realize their limits.


This kind of anosognosia is especially bad with science, in particular climate science. The Web is infested with people who suffer of a form of climate science neglect syndrome. They are not stupid; on the contrary, some of them they can display considerable creativity and inventive to support the idea that climate is not changing, or that change is not caused by human activity, or that everything is an evil plot to enslave humankind. Their problem is that they completely fail to perceive the complexity of the subject. They can't see that climate science is not about whether grapes were cultivated in England during the Middle Ages or about the letters that some scientists wrote to each other more than 10 years ago. You just can't convince them that their vision of the world is limited. The same is true with a variety of conspiracy theories based on failing to understand the complexity of the subject: chemtrails, cold fusion, abiotic oil, and many more.


Anosognosia is easily recognizable in such extreme forms. But, in milder forms, it affects all of us. It is such an easy mistake to believe that we know something well enough to act on it and then suddenly discovering that we don't. I have my horror stories about myself to tell you on this point; I am sure you have yours. And those are cases where we understood that we were making a mistake. What's scary about anosognosia is when you don't even realize that there is a problem. Think that, most likely, there is something out there, something we can't even imagine, that's going to affect us deeply. But what? How can we perceive something that we cannot perceive? How do we manage "unknown unknowns"?


Still, as long as our brain is not physically damaged, we have at least a fighting chance to understand our mistakes and to be prepared for the unexpected that may crash upon us all of a sudden. But there is a much larger problem that has to do with society as a whole: it seems to be suffering of a bad case of cognitive neglect syndrome. Read "Monoculture" by F. S. Michaels and you'll see what I mean.

End Quote

So lets try showing you that again ;--)

So in answer to SSDO, what could the cause of this radical departure of from the norm be ???? its either you start dreaming up all kinds of mythical monsters or you accept that the departure is directly attributable to fossil fuels.

So now whats your excuse ;--)

PS
Love all the groovy little graphs that don't have the resolution to accurately depict either the rate or the effect of todays alterations in the atmospheric chemistry

You blabber a LOT. I am still waiting for some empirical evidence. I hear you were provided with a definition of what that means. Hop to it junior.

LOL you are a perfect example of lateral neglect syndrome

Quote

Anosognosia is easily recognizable in such extreme forms. But, in milder forms, it affects all of us. It is such an easy mistake to believe that we know something well enough to act on it and then suddenly discovering that we don't. I have my horror stories about myself to tell you on this point; I am sure you have yours. And those are cases where we understood that we were making a mistake. What's scary about anosognosia is when you don't even realize that there is a problem. Think that, most likely, there is something out there, something we can't even imagine, that's going to affect us deeply. But what? How can we perceive something that we cannot perceive? How do we manage "unknown unknowns"?


Still, as long as our brain is not physically damaged, we have at least a fighting chance to understand our mistakes and to be prepared for the unexpected that may crash upon us all of a sudden. But there is a much larger problem that has to do with society as a whole: it seems to be suffering of a bad case of cognitive neglect syndrome. Read "Monoculture" by F. S. Michaels and you'll see what I mean.


More and more, our culture seems to confine itself within narrow limits that don't include entities such as climate change, peak oil, ecosystem collapse, and much more. All that is relegated to the category of unknown unknowns, totally outside the bounds of perception; even outside the bounds of the imaginable. As it is not perceived, it is not understood, it is not discussed, it is not acted upon. And, whatever is going to crash on us all of a sudden, we are totally unprepared for it.


Unfortunately, one of the things I learned from my daughter is that there is no cure for this syndrome.

End Quote

This is now an official warning. This post is called "TROLLING". It has nothing to do with the OP. I asked you for a specific thing that DOES pertain to the OP. Now hop to it.

I notified the site of your pulling rank and falsely accusing me of Trolling. The post clearly presents data specific to the topic at hand and also directly addresses the subject of our latest few posts

If you don't have the courage to face your own ignorance and openly discuss the issues at hand then thats fine, you are not required to participate in the discussion. However, acting like a five year old who can't have his way is hardly the way to fairly moderate a topic.

You should be banned from moderating any science based discussion since you are a science denier yourself. Hardly sheds a positive light on the forum to have a climate denier in charge of anything.

PS
I don't do warnings, threaten me one time and I'm off to the owners. You are an ignorant and simply can't grasp the concepts involved.

So you start in with the threats.

real adult of ypou but it does prove one thing

Your argument can't stand an informed debate

Big whoop. You are obviously trolling. Psychology has nothing to do with the subject as any ten year old knows. It is you that can't handle debate dumbshit., I have asked you for the very simplest level of support for your claims and all you can do is trot out propaganda and psycho babble. That is not discussing anything but your gross stupidity.

His game is demonetization and attaching shameful tags to those with whom he disagrees. Standard Alyinsky tactics and democrat ploy to silence those who can prove him wrong.

He has not yet learned that some of us don't give a shit about his political hack bull shit and will call him a liar and deceiver.

But I digress, you cant fix stupid.

The earths systems are cyclical and predictable.. CO2 can not be a fixed to any changes in our climate by empirical evidence.. No cause and effect has been proven. And to date, no one has produced any empirical evidence that is capable of linking them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You blabber a LOT. I am still waiting for some empirical evidence. I hear you were provided with a definition of what that means. Hop to it junior.

LOL you are a perfect example of lateral neglect syndrome

Quote

Anosognosia is easily recognizable in such extreme forms. But, in milder forms, it affects all of us. It is such an easy mistake to believe that we know something well enough to act on it and then suddenly discovering that we don't. I have my horror stories about myself to tell you on this point; I am sure you have yours. And those are cases where we understood that we were making a mistake. What's scary about anosognosia is when you don't even realize that there is a problem. Think that, most likely, there is something out there, something we can't even imagine, that's going to affect us deeply. But what? How can we perceive something that we cannot perceive? How do we manage "unknown unknowns"?


Still, as long as our brain is not physically damaged, we have at least a fighting chance to understand our mistakes and to be prepared for the unexpected that may crash upon us all of a sudden. But there is a much larger problem that has to do with society as a whole: it seems to be suffering of a bad case of cognitive neglect syndrome. Read "Monoculture" by F. S. Michaels and you'll see what I mean.


More and more, our culture seems to confine itself within narrow limits that don't include entities such as climate change, peak oil, ecosystem collapse, and much more. All that is relegated to the category of unknown unknowns, totally outside the bounds of perception; even outside the bounds of the imaginable. As it is not perceived, it is not understood, it is not discussed, it is not acted upon. And, whatever is going to crash on us all of a sudden, we are totally unprepared for it.


Unfortunately, one of the things I learned from my daughter is that there is no cure for this syndrome.

End Quote

This is now an official warning. This post is called "TROLLING". It has nothing to do with the OP. I asked you for a specific thing that DOES pertain to the OP. Now hop to it.

I notified the site of your pulling rank and falsely accusing me of Trolling. The post clearly presents data specific to the topic at hand and also directly addresses the subject of our latest few posts

If you don't have the courage to face your own ignorance and openly discuss the issues at hand then thats fine, you are not required to participate in the discussion. However, acting like a five year old who can't have his way is hardly the way to fairly moderate a topic.

You should be banned from moderating any science based discussion since you are a science denier yourself. Hardly sheds a positive light on the forum to have a climate denier in charge of anything.

PS
I don't do warnings, threaten me one time and I'm off to the owners. You are an ignorant and simply can't grasp the concepts involved.

So you start in with the threats.

real adult of ypou but it does prove one thing

Your argument can't stand an informed debate

Big whoop. You are obviously trolling. Psychology has nothing to do with the subject as any ten year old knows. It is you that can't handle debate dumbshit., I have asked you for the very simplest level of support for your claims and all you can do is trot out propaganda and psycho babble. That is not discussing anything but your gross stupidity.

His game is demonetization and attaching shameful tags to those with whom he disagrees. Standard Alyinsky tactics and democrat ploy to silence those who can prove him wrong.

He has not yet learned that some of us don't give a shit about his political hack bull shit and will call him a liar and deceiver.

But I digress, you cant fix stupid.

The earths systems are cyclical and predictable.. CO2 can not be a fixed to any changes in our climate by empirical evidence.. No cause and effect has been proven. And to date, no one has produced any empirical evidence that is capable of linking them.

One would have expected the entire scam to collapse in on itself after the exposure of the East Anglia emails.

Yet...just as the Japanese soldier Hiroo Onoda continued to fight the war 30 years after his emperor surrendered......they shoulder on for a lost cause.

 

[IanC]

I keep expecting someone in authority for the climate science field to break ranks and point out that climate alarmism is nothing more than an extreme case of the precautionary principle gone amuck.

Perhaps it will take someone from outside the field. Where are the new Feynmans?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I keep expecting someone in authority for the climate science field to break ranks and point out that climate alarmism is nothing more than an extreme case of the precautionary principle gone amuck.

Perhaps it will take someone from outside the field. Where are the new Feynmans?

That would be like committing suicide on national TV.. He would be stripped of all credibility by his political enemies very quickly. This is why most wait until they retire, collect their pensions and then go rouge by telling the truth.. Thirty or so folks from NASA did exactly this.