Climate Change Deniers Are Lying

[Crick]

Basically.

 

[jc456]

Basically.

Which one?

 

[Crick]

Do you know NOTHING about cap and trade? Both.

Here, just read the intro section.

Emissions trading - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And while we're here, where's the quote you claim to have seen of me admitting I get paid to post here?

 

[Davey T]

Cap and trade has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism. It is the sale and control, out of whole cloth, of a ubiquitous molecule that is a requirement for life on earth. You may as well sell oxygen to those who need it and call that capitalism. In your own words it "creates" a "legal" marketplace. This means laws to create more taxation and spending only on an international scale. What could go wrong there. Not since Chaucer the Pardoner selling papal indulgences has something so ludicrous been foisted on a populace. With regard to climate change, here are some indisputable facts:
1. In the past, earth temperatures have been much warmer and much cooler. This is nothing new;
2. In the past, CO2 atmospheric concentrations have been much higher and much lower. This is nothing new;
3. Regardless of how much true believers wish it so, there is no body of evidence proving a correlative or causative connection between the two. And if you find the first, it doesn't prove the second and calling people names like a spoiled child doesn't make it so;
4. If you cannot find in your theories a reason for the pause in the warming over the last 17 years that witnessed a concomitant increase in CO2, you have to come up with a new theory.
5. The IPCC is not a disinterested third party to tell us what the science says. If there is no AGW, there is no reason for the IPCC. They were chartered to be the policy makers with the "assumption" that it was true. No AGW, no IPCC. That is when they decided to arrogate to themselves the job of "checking the facts".

These are the facts. They are indisputable.

This thread started with calling the "deniers" "liars" when, in fact, there is empirical evidence that the true believers lied, not the other way around. From Climategate, to the hockey stick, true believers have treated this subject more like a religion than science. From a pope (Al Gore) to dealing with non-believers (deniers, liars) and apostates (Bjorn Lomborg), sins and indulgences (cap and trade), prophesies and salvation (the end is nigh, give me money and I'll fix it), the true believers have acted like scorned prophets when in fact, they are scorned profits.

 

[Crick]

Your "facts" are not facts.

Cap and trade has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism.

It requires a free market to operate. It has as much to do with capitalism as any other form of competition.

It is the sale and control, out of whole cloth, of a ubiquitous molecule that is a requirement for life on earth.

No, it is not. It is the sale of government-mandated permits to emit that molecule into the planet's shared atmosphere.

You may as well sell oxygen to those who need it and call that capitalism.

Your misunderstanding is profound. No one is selling CO2.

In your own words it "creates" a "legal" marketplace.

Yes, the heart of any capitalist system.

This means laws to create more taxation and spending only on an international scale.

Cap and Trade requires NO taxation and the only government spending required is a pittance for administration. It might cause the cost of energy to rise in the near term, but not a fraction as much as the cost of NOT restricting emissions. Look at all the safety items added to your car. They all caused its price to go up. Did it destroy the auto industry? Did it prevent Joe and Jane Average from owning a car? No and No. Did it make it safer to drive a car? Yes.

What could go wrong there. Not since Chaucer the Pardoner selling papal indulgences has something so ludicrous been foisted on a populace.

Chaucer the Pardoner? Chaucer wrote a story about a Pardoner, but he wasn't one himself.

There is nothing ludicrous about cap and trade. It may not be the best method for restricting emissions and it may not be the system that we will have fifty years from now, but it's something. That, of course, is your problem. You wante NOTHING in the way of you and the burning of your master's fuel.

With regard to climate change, here are some indisputable facts:
1. In the past, earth temperatures have been much warmer and much cooler. This is nothing new;

It IS new in the history of human civilization. And the RATE at which it is changing is VERY novel.

2. In the past, CO2 atmospheric concentrations have been much higher and much lower. This is nothing new;

It is the highest in tens of millions of years. And the rate at which it is rising is the highest since the Chicxulub Impact.

3. Regardless of how much true believers wish it so, there is no body of evidence proving a correlative or causative connection between the two.

There is most assuredly a "body of evidence" - a massive one. However, there never will be proof because we're talking about the natural sciences where "proof" simply does not exist. There IS, however, a MOUNTAIN of evidence which has been enough to convince an almost unanimous majority of the world's experts.

And if you find the first, it doesn't prove the second and calling people names like a spoiled child doesn't make it so;

Like "scientific illiterate"? Why? It's accurate. It's descriptive. It might convince someone who needs it to improve their education even the first thing doing so will accomplish will be to show them how wrong they've been.

4. If you cannot find in your theories a reason for the pause in the warming over the last 17 years that witnessed a concomitant increase in CO2, you have to come up with a new theory.

Are you not up with the latest research? There's been no pause.

5. The IPCC is not a disinterested third party to tell us what the science says. If there is no AGW, there is no reason for the IPCC. They were chartered to be the policy makers with the "assumption" that it was true. No AGW, no IPCC. That is when they decided to arrogate to themselves the job of "checking the facts".

So I guess crime is a fantasy of the world's police forces. Fires are set by firemen. And if it weren't for the word's educational systems, there'd be no ignorance.

These are the facts. They are indisputable.

Wow... that's pathetic.

This thread started with calling the "deniers" "liars"

A charge you've supported here with several falsehoods.

when, in fact, there is empirical evidence that the true believers lied

What empirical evidence would that be? You've certainly presented none. Telling us it exists is not quite the same as presenting it to us. And if you're thinking you can turn that around on me, go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change if you'd like to see the mountains of empirical evidence on which my opinions (and those of the world's experts) are based.

not the other way around.

There you go with another falsehood.

From Climategate, to the hockey stick, true believers have treated this subject more like a religion than science.

No more than the world's literate treat relativity, the germ theory of disease or the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. This religion charge is one of the more nonsensical idea your fossil fuel overlords have come up with. Does it examine any of the evidence? No. Does it examine any of the science? No. What does it do? It let's deniers pretend they know better without forcing them to make the unpleasant effort of actually demonstrating anything at all.

From a pope (Al Gore) to dealing with non-believers (deniers, liars) and apostates (Bjorn Lomborg), sins and indulgences (cap and trade), prophesies and salvation (the end is nigh, give me money and I'll fix it), the true believers have acted like scorned prophets when in fact, they are scorned profits.

The world is getting warmer. The seas are rising. The ice is melting. No one is making any significant progress on reducing CO2 emissions. But you just keep on denying it. When the truth - that we could have done something but because of our fears, our inertia, our inability to commit (none of which we will want to remember) and the tempting whine of people like you (who we will) whispering false comforts in our ears; assuring us we can safely ignore reality; telling us what you only want to believe as if it were cold hard facts, we did nothing and we will watch our children and their children and their children beyond suffer for YOUR ignorance - well, I wouldn't want to be one of you.

 

[jc456]

Your "facts" are not facts.

Cap and trade has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism.

It requires a free market to operate. It has as much to do with capitalism as any other form of competition.

It is the sale and control, out of whole cloth, of a ubiquitous molecule that is a requirement for life on earth.

No, it is not. It is the sale of government-mandated permits to emit that molecule into the planet's shared atmosphere.

You may as well sell oxygen to those who need it and call that capitalism.

Your misunderstanding is profound. No one is selling CO2.

In your own words it "creates" a "legal" marketplace.

Yes, the heart of any capitalist system.

This means laws to create more taxation and spending only on an international scale.

Cap and Trade requires NO taxation and the only government spending required is a pittance for administration. It might cause the cost of energy to rise in the near term, but not a fraction as much as the cost of NOT restricting emissions. Look at all the safety items added to your car. They all caused its price to go up. Did it destroy the auto industry? Did it prevent Joe and Jane Average from owning a car? No and No. Did it make it safer to drive a car? Yes.

What could go wrong there. Not since Chaucer the Pardoner selling papal indulgences has something so ludicrous been foisted on a populace.

Chaucer the Pardoner? Chaucer wrote a story about a Pardoner, but he wasn't one himself.

There is nothing ludicrous about cap and trade. It may not be the best method for restricting emissions and it may not be the system that we will have fifty years from now, but it's something. That, of course, is your problem. You wante NOTHING in the way of you and the burning of your master's fuel.

With regard to climate change, here are some indisputable facts:
1. In the past, earth temperatures have been much warmer and much cooler. This is nothing new;

It IS new in the history of human civilization. And the RATE at which it is changing is VERY novel.

2. In the past, CO2 atmospheric concentrations have been much higher and much lower. This is nothing new;

It is the highest in tens of millions of years. And the rate at which it is rising is the highest since the Chicxulub Impact.

3. Regardless of how much true believers wish it so, there is no body of evidence proving a correlative or causative connection between the two.

There is most assuredly a "body of evidence" - a massive one. However, there never will be proof because we're talking about the natural sciences where "proof" simply does not exist. There IS, however, a MOUNTAIN of evidence which has been enough to convince an almost unanimous majority of the world's experts.

And if you find the first, it doesn't prove the second and calling people names like a spoiled child doesn't make it so;

Like "scientific illiterate"? Why? It's accurate. It's descriptive. It might convince someone who needs it to improve their education even the first thing doing so will accomplish will be to show them how wrong they've been.

4. If you cannot find in your theories a reason for the pause in the warming over the last 17 years that witnessed a concomitant increase in CO2, you have to come up with a new theory.

Are you not up with the latest research? There's been no pause.

5. The IPCC is not a disinterested third party to tell us what the science says. If there is no AGW, there is no reason for the IPCC. They were chartered to be the policy makers with the "assumption" that it was true. No AGW, no IPCC. That is when they decided to arrogate to themselves the job of "checking the facts".

So I guess crime is a fantasy of the world's police forces. Fires are set by firemen. And if it weren't for the word's educational systems, there'd be no ignorance.

These are the facts. They are indisputable.

Wow... that's pathetic.

This thread started with calling the "deniers" "liars"

A charge you've supported here with several falsehoods.

when, in fact, there is empirical evidence that the true believers lied

What empirical evidence would that be? You've certainly presented none. Telling us it exists is not quite the same as presenting it to us. And if you're thinking you can turn that around on me, go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change if you'd like to see the mountains of empirical evidence on which my opinions (and those of the world's experts) are based.

not the other way around.

There you go with another falsehood.

From Climategate, to the hockey stick, true believers have treated this subject more like a religion than science.

No more than the world's literate treat relativity, the germ theory of disease or the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. This religion charge is one of the more nonsensical idea your fossil fuel overlords have come up with. Does it examine any of the evidence? No. Does it examine any of the science? No. What does it do? It let's deniers pretend they know better without forcing them to make the unpleasant effort of actually demonstrating anything at all.

From a pope (Al Gore) to dealing with non-believers (deniers, liars) and apostates (Bjorn Lomborg), sins and indulgences (cap and trade), prophesies and salvation (the end is nigh, give me money and I'll fix it), the true believers have acted like scorned prophets when in fact, they are scorned profits.

The world is getting warmer. The seas are rising. The ice is melting. No one is making any significant progress on reducing CO2 emissions. But you just keep on denying it. When the truth - that we could have done something but because of our fears, our inertia, our inability to commit (none of which we will want to remember) and the tempting whine of people like you (who we will) whispering false comforts in our ears; assuring us we can safely ignore reality; telling us what you only want to believe as if it were cold hard facts, we did nothing and we will watch our children and their children and their children beyond suffer for YOUR ignorance - well, I wouldn't want to be one of you.

Hey do you think your facts are facts? Hahahaha

 

[Crick]

If I put something out as a fact, I can guaran-goddamn-tee you it's more likely to BE a fact than the nonsense we get from the lot of you.

The incessant demand for "proof" and the mislabeling of opinions as "facts" are two most obvious clues that a lot of folks here have a very low level of science literacy (or logic, for that matter).

Poster Davey T, like a lot of folks here, claims to have proof of his opinions. He then does a lot of spouting on the topic, but even a cursory examination will show that he gave no proof of anything and that most of his claims are easily falsified.

There are a few facts in this argument - things that can be demonstrated in a lab and are mandated by known physical laws: CO2 absorbs infrared and (though it's hard to believe anyone would argue this, you have) absorbing infrared causes matter's temperature to increase. The relationship between pressure, temperature and volume (or density) for an ideal gas is a fact. That pushing energy into a closed system will raise its equilibrium temperature is a fact. Of course, the trouble is we have neither ideal gases nor a closed system anywhere near equilibrium. So, figuring out what it's done in the past, what it's doing now and what it's going to do in the future is going to require shitloads of evidence and the application of informed thinking. So far, the result of the evidence scientists have gathered and the informed thinking they've done is that the primary cause of the warming experienced over the last 150 years has been the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation. On that I base my views.

 

[Davey T]

If I put something out as a fact, I can guaran-goddamn-tee you it's more likely to BE a fact than the nonsense we get from the lot of you.

The incessant demand for "proof" and the mislabeling of opinions as "facts" are two most obvious clues that a lot of folks here have a very low level of science literacy (or logic, for that matter).

Poster Davey T, like a lot of folks here, claims to have proof of his opinions. He then does a lot of spouting on the topic, but even a cursory examination will show that he gave no proof of anything and that most of his claims are easily falsified.

There are a few facts in this argument - things that can be demonstrated in a lab and are mandated by known physical laws: CO2 absorbs infrared and (though it's hard to believe anyone would argue this, you have) absorbing infrared causes matter's temperature to increase. The relationship between pressure, temperature and volume (or density) for an ideal gas is a fact. That pushing energy into a closed system will raise its equilibrium temperature is a fact. Of course, the trouble is we have neither ideal gases nor a closed system anywhere near equilibrium. So, figuring out what it's done in the past, what it's doing now and what it's going to do in the future is going to require shitloads of evidence and the application of informed thinking. So far, the result of the evidence scientists have gathered and the informed thinking they've done is that the primary cause of the warming experienced over the last 150 years has been the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation. On that I base my views.

This is so tedious but I'll give it one more try.

Restating physics 101 does nothing for your argument. The believers must exclude water vapor, cloud cover and solar activity from their data to find the minuscule concentration of CO2 (.038%) to be controlling. This is stupid and no teacher would except this in a beginning science class. Further, I gave you the liars club award for Climategate and the hockey stick which everyone knows were loaded with lies even though you said I gave no examples of lies. Finally, you said that the newest research shows there was no hiatus or pause which is another lie. If you are talking about the Karl paper, he had to cherry pick the years and exclude the Argo array and satellite data to arrive at his conclusion. This conclusion from one thinly researched paper was immediately picked up and lied about, as you have done here, with all believers stating, in unison, "there was no pause". They finally hid the hiatus through trickery. I'm bored with this and done here.

 

[jc456]

If I put something out as a fact, I can guaran-goddamn-tee you it's more likely to BE a fact than the nonsense we get from the lot of you.

The incessant demand for "proof" and the mislabeling of opinions as "facts" are two most obvious clues that a lot of folks here have a very low level of science literacy (or logic, for that matter).

Poster Davey T, like a lot of folks here, claims to have proof of his opinions. He then does a lot of spouting on the topic, but even a cursory examination will show that he gave no proof of anything and that most of his claims are easily falsified.

There are a few facts in this argument - things that can be demonstrated in a lab and are mandated by known physical laws: CO2 absorbs infrared and (though it's hard to believe anyone would argue this, you have) absorbing infrared causes matter's temperature to increase. The relationship between pressure, temperature and volume (or density) for an ideal gas is a fact. That pushing energy into a closed system will raise its equilibrium temperature is a fact. Of course, the trouble is we have neither ideal gases nor a closed system anywhere near equilibrium. So, figuring out what it's done in the past, what it's doing now and what it's going to do in the future is going to require shitloads of evidence and the application of informed thinking. So far, the result of the evidence scientists have gathered and the informed thinking they've done is that the primary cause of the warming experienced over the last 150 years has been the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation. On that I base my views.

then where is your experiment with the evidence you claim that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to climate or temperatures? come on bubba, you been posting up the CO2 thing forever in here, and not just myself but several others have consistently requested your data. The material you have posted is not fact no matter how hard you wish to believe it. Herr Koch is the only experiment and that is fact. And it is I who pointed to it. so what is it, are you now blatantly going to lie on how you post on here? well, that's just a lie.