"Best" climate change denial argument EVER....by Mark Levin

[skookerasbil]

First of all..........the whole CO2 causation is theory only. Lets just get that out of the way.........


But beyond that, It only matters what is happening in the real world.....not what is being said on internet messagi boards whatever the science content on either side. Only matters who is winning s0ns!!!

If Levin is so off his rocker, why does the public not give a shit about climate change in 2017? ( shit, even in this forum, there are only 4 or 5 regular posters embracing the alarmist view........AFTER ALMOST 10 YEARS!! )

If Levin is so wrong, why has congress not done dick about climate change in the last 10 years?

If Levin's vid info can be so easily dismissed, why is Cap and Trade in the shitter? How is it the EPA is being methodically dismantled by the current administration?

Its about the winning s0ns........Paris is dead as a doornail. Renewable energy after 20+ years of alarmist k00k bomb throwing is still a joke.

Levin is presenting an inconvenient truth for all the alarmist bozo's who still have not made their case after 25 years........if they had, I kinda think climate change would be a topic in a presidential debate but 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016........nope..........not a single discussion.



So s0ns.........we have many in here falling all over themselves posting "science" crap we have already been hearing for decades. But nobody is caring in the real world.



Who's not winning?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWdXNHMNA7I

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Where did I call them liars? Can you show me the post # because the only person using that word is you.

I am using your words. You are at best calling them all incompetent, at worst all liars. And you are definitely calling them thieves. there's no way around it... the climate theories enjoy overwhelming consensus among the scientific community. You deny this consensus. You are left with two choices: they are all mistaken (thus all grossly incompetent), or they are all lying.

You are the one who chose your untenable, indefensible position. If you had thought it through, you would have realized how absurd your claims are right out of the gate. Normally, i would have just argued against the points you tried to make, but you had to go include your little shield, "#10", while doing exactly what you propose removes people's credibility. you are stepping in your own shit, brother. You are losing, by your own rules.

Post #'s please.

The implication is inherent in your denial. Right out of the gate. Assumed in your denial is that they are all mistaken (incompetent) or all liars. This is a simple concept.

This is what I said in the first post you replied to:

It's called an interglacial cycle. It's been going on for over 20,000 years.

And from that you got that I called them liars?

"It's called an interglacial cycle. It's been going on for over 20,000 years.

And from that you got that I called them liars?"

Yes, or you are calling them incompetent, or abjectly ignorant of their own work..

You imply that they ("They" being the people who taught you and everyone else anything and everything they know about 'interglacial cycles') are either ALL mistaken (which would be gross incompetence), or they are all lying, or they are laboring under the ignorance of their own discoveries (even worse incompetence, and a bizarre suggestion). Whatever. Pick your poison; any of those choices are absurd. But these are the choices you have left yourself with. So, choose.

 

[Old Rocks]

First of all..........the whole CO2 causation is theory only. Lets just get that out of the way.........


But beyond that, It only matters what is happening in the real world.....not what is being said on internet messagi boards whatever the science content on either side. Only matters who is winning s0ns!!!

If Levin is so off his rocker, why does the public not give a shit about climate change in 2017? ( shit, even in this forum, there are only 4 or 5 regular posters embracing the alarmist view........AFTER ALMOST 10 YEARS!! )

If Levin is so wrong, why has congress not done dick about climate change in the last 10 years?

If Levin's vid info can be so easily dismissed, why is Cap and Trade in the shitter? How is it the EPA is being methodically dismantled by the current administration?

Its about the winning s0ns........Paris is dead as a doornail. Renewable energy after 20+ years of alarmist k00k bomb throwing is still a joke.

Levin is presenting an inconvenient truth for all the alarmist bozo's who still have not made their case after 25 years........if they had, I kinda think climate change would be a topic in a presidential debate but 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016........nope..........not a single discussion.



So s0ns.........we have many in here falling all over themselves posting "science" crap we have already been hearing for decades. But nobody is caring in the real world.



Who's not winning?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWdXNHMNA7I

The absorption spectra of CO2 is not theory. Has been measured many times in the last 150+ years.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You are blaming hurricane Harvey on climate change and Levin is the moron?

YES, fuckhead.......(Are you related to "Archie-Meedez?")

Do you know how many "500 year floods" that Houston has had in the last 3 years???
THREE of them.

So what asshole.

Means nothing.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Isaac Newton never mentioned right wing radio shows. Therefore, they do not exist.

Glad we agree on that.

It's unfortunate you can't get help for that brain damage.

 

[edthecynic]

It's called an interglacial cycle. It's been going on for over 20,000 years.

If by 20,000 years you mean 11,700 years you would be correct.

 

[edthecynic]

Geezzzzzz, this debunked lie again.

 

[Aletheia4u]

Geezzzzzz, this debunked lie again.

Quit debunking, and let the professionals do the debunking..

 

[edthecynic]

Geezzzzzz, this debunked lie again.

Quit debunking, and let the professionals do the debunking..

Since you insist:
Factcheck: Mail on Sunday’s climate data scandal falls apart under scrutiny - Energydesk
The Mail’s scoop was based on evidence from ex-NOAA scientist John Bates. The only problem?

They totally misrepresent what he said.

“The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data,” he said the day after the Mail story was published.

In fact, talking to the Associated Press, Bates stressed that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.”

 

[Aletheia4u]

Geezzzzzz, this debunked lie again.

Quit debunking, and let the professionals do the debunking..

Since you insist:
Factcheck: Mail on Sunday’s climate data scandal falls apart under scrutiny - Energydesk
The Mail’s scoop was based on evidence from ex-NOAA scientist John Bates. The only problem?

They totally misrepresent what he said.

“The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data,” he said the day after the Mail story was published.

In fact, talking to the Associated Press, Bates stressed that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.”

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

First of all..........the whole CO2 causation is theory only. Lets just get that out of the way.........


But beyond that, It only matters what is happening in the real world.....not what is being said on internet messagi boards whatever the science content on either side. Only matters who is winning s0ns!!!

If Levin is so off his rocker, why does the public not give a shit about climate change in 2017? ( shit, even in this forum, there are only 4 or 5 regular posters embracing the alarmist view........AFTER ALMOST 10 YEARS!! )

If Levin is so wrong, why has congress not done dick about climate change in the last 10 years?

If Levin's vid info can be so easily dismissed, why is Cap and Trade in the shitter? How is it the EPA is being methodically dismantled by the current administration?

Its about the winning s0ns........Paris is dead as a doornail. Renewable energy after 20+ years of alarmist k00k bomb throwing is still a joke.

Levin is presenting an inconvenient truth for all the alarmist bozo's who still have not made their case after 25 years........if they had, I kinda think climate change would be a topic in a presidential debate but 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016........nope..........not a single discussion.



So s0ns.........we have many in here falling all over themselves posting "science" crap we have already been hearing for decades. But nobody is caring in the real world.



Who's not winning?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWdXNHMNA7I

Anyone who says "just a theory" when referring to a scientific theory is immediately disqualified from any discussion of science and is not entitled to an opinion on it.

 

[Old Rocks]

You are blaming hurricane Harvey on climate change and Levin is the moron?

YES, fuckhead.......(Are you related to "Archie-Meedez?")

Do you know how many "500 year floods" that Houston has had in the last 3 years???
THREE of them.

So what asshole.

Means nothing.

So says another really dumb ass that has not the slightest notion of statistics.

 

[Pop23]

You are blaming hurricane Harvey on climate change and Levin is the moron?

YES, fuckhead.......(Are you related to "Archie-Meedez?")

Do you know how many "500 year floods" that Houston has had in the last 3 years???
THREE of them.

So what asshole.

Means nothing.

So says another really dumb ass that has not the slightest notion of statistics.

Statistics, like the kind gathered by equal placement and number of weather gathering stations throughout the last 100, 200 and 300 years ? You mean those that are not or were not in place so we can have an accurate historical temperature baseline to prove your theory?

Without it, it is just that, a theory. Without it, working backwards could show anything the researcher wants it to show. Suspect at best.

Statistics? Of what exactly?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Thread summary:

Deniers have just been badly embarrassed by the failure of their crank pseudoscience, and the catastrophe of their political ideology, so they're lashing out blindly.

Harvey. What made it worse?

Higher water temperatures, due to global warming, make a stronger hurricane.

Higher air temperatures, due to global warming, meant the atmosphere can hold more water.

Higher ocean levels, due to global warming, make it harder for water to drain away.

Stalling patterns, due to global warming, hold the storm in one place longer.

If you don't think global warming made Harvey worse, you are a paste-eating moron, a human being who is to 'effin stupid to be wasting the time of the grownups. Have a juicebox and go back to the kiddie table with you fellow 'tard cultists, because nobody is buying your weepy cult babbling.

Translation~ mamooth once again proves she is a moron., What made it worse? Too much concrete no where for the water to go.



.

You are a fucking idiot. You put down 30" to 56" of rain in less than six days over an area big as some of our medium sized states, and you are going to see flooding even if there is not a single piece of pavement in the area.

The precipitation event that is Harvey is a direct result of global warming. The stalled weather system that created the near stationary hurricane has other similar systems creating floods in Asia, and a prolonged heat wave in Europe called Lucifer. A warmer ocean and a warmer atmosphere means more evaporation, which means more precipitation per event.

And once again bear513 is correct and old rocks spouts nonsense

Even fucking NOVA agrees with me.

 

[basquebromance]

"don't fucking tell me there's no difference between the two parties. One party DOES NOT BELIEVE IN SCIENCE." - Michael Ian Black

 

[Pop23]

"don't fucking tell me there's no difference between the two parties. One party DOES NOT BELIEVE IN SCIENCE." - Michael Ian Black

And one doesn't believe in the most basic math equations.

So again I wall ask for the location of each and every reporting weather station on the planet for the past 300 years and the name and qualification of the individual that calibrated each.

Without it you can't get a base line number. Warmer than what?

Oops, there wasn't a static number?

Well, then all you have is a suspect theory. That's not science, it's mumble jumble