Climate Change Deniers Debunked

[Liminal]

Here are eight reasons why.

Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists BillMoyers.com

 

[Mr. H.]

This "massive body of scientific evidence" is not in itself proof that the earth is headed for certain doom nor does it support the need to spend hundreds of trillions of dollars, demolish entire industries, and put hundreds of millions out of a job.

And for what reason? To hopefully effect a .7 degree F temperature differential?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Moyers? Are you serious?

Left wing hack socialist..

The only thing debunked by Moyers is the possibility he has a brain or has any common sense..

 

[Mr. H.]

With only 6% of the scientific community allegedly being Republican, is it any wonder where this country is headed?

I think it's about control.

Control of lifestyle, control of society, and control of the economy. And I believe that Liberals are loving every bit of it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Boyers say's:

1. No, the Earth Hasn’t Stopped Warming Since 1998 (or 1996 or 1997)

The real data says:

Moyers 0
Reality 1

 

[Billy_Bob]

And that is not even the half of it.. Moyers failed at each one of his assertions.

Reality 8
Moyers 0

 

[Mr. H.]

Modern life on this planet would be literally impossible without massive amounts of hydrocarbons.

Obama's own EIA has "scientifically proven" that coal oil and natural gas will be the dominant fuel of choice for humans for decades to come.

Yet, our President's "all of the above" energy strategy has little to do with "anything below".

 

[cnm]

This "massive body of scientific evidence" is not in itself proof that the earth is headed for certain doom nor does it support the need to spend hundreds of trillions of dollars, demolish entire industries, and put hundreds of millions out of a job.

And for what reason? To hopefully effect a .7 degree F temperature differential?

Which climate scientist says that?

 

[cnm]

I've learnt to do about one post of data then leave the invincible deniers to it. Invincible ignorance is after all invincible.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf

Temperature data HadCRUT4

 

[Treeshepherd]

I've learnt to do about one post of data then leave the invincible deniers to it. Invincible ignorance is after all invincible.

View attachment 41549

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf

Temperature data HadCRUT4

You have a pretty graph there, from the University of East Anglia. How was the baseline established from which the anomalies diverge? Which atmospheric stations were used and why? Were some stations that are surrounded by asphalt today surrounded by grass and trees 50 years ago? How is UHI accounted for in the computer modelling? How are modern satellite datum meshed with mercury thermometer readings from amateur researchers on clipper ships in 1880? How many atmospheric buoys did we have in the southern Indian Ocean in 1890? How does the climate research unit at the College of East Anglia market itself to get the external funding it needs to survive and grow? Finally, how much of the warming during the 20th Century was due to natural non-human forcings, and how much was due to CO2- after all, we had radical warming during the Eemian period. Could Milancovich cycles, oceanic oscillations and solar activity be major culprits?

Hopefully, these are some of the questions you ask when you see a shiny graph.

 

[skookerasbil]

But nobody cares about the science!

Its only on the radar of the hard core climate k00ks >> Climate Change Not a Top Worry in U.S.


Only thing that matters is that the science isn't mattering in the real world. 20 years of bomb throwing has yielded almost nothing for the global warming k00k community Because people have real responsibilities in life and real worries.

Let face it..........short of an Alaskan heat wave of 70 degree's for 3 weeks in mid-January with pictures of bikini clad babes waterskiing on a lake, nobody is caring about global warming.

 

[skookerasbil]

The AGW crowd are losers.......because they cant help themselves from getting hysterical!!!

Global Warming Hysteria How to Lose Public Support in Just Four Short Years Wesley J. Smith First Things


LOL.....and this article ^^ was written 5 years ago and things have gotten far worse for these bozo's in the court of public opinion. If the public thinks your conclusions are stoopid......you lose.

 

[Mr. H.]

This "massive body of scientific evidence" is not in itself proof that the earth is headed for certain doom nor does it support the need to spend hundreds of trillions of dollars, demolish entire industries, and put hundreds of millions out of a job.

And for what reason? To hopefully effect a .7 degree F temperature differential?

Which climate scientist says that?

I can count at least five... here, let me demonstrate...

 

[skookerasbil]

LMAO.......and the AGW k00ks wonder why they are not winning???

Temps in the 20's all over the northeast. Now.....your typical climate nut points to points elsewhere as if the bitter cold in almost JUne werent happening to people in the northeast!!!

Late-Season Freeze to Threaten Northeast Friday Night


fAiLiNg


Ummm..............time to change the gameplan assholes!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

I've learnt to do about one post of data then leave the invincible deniers to it. Invincible ignorance is after all invincible.

View attachment 41549

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf

Temperature data HadCRUT4

Yes we see the adjusted temperature set by the EAU. tell me why there is such a divergence in the RAW data to the shiny adjusted data.( a full 3 deg C upward adjustment) What are their reasons for the homogenization of areas not covered by actual station data and how they came to the conclusion to infill almost a full degree warmer than the surrounding areas of these vast regions?

Without justification all your adjusted graph becomes is a nice shiny turd...

 

[Liminal]

And that is not even the half of it.. Moyers failed at each one of his assertions.

Reality 8
Moyers 0

Climate change deniers prefer sources like these.....
Meet The Climate Denial Machine Blog Media Matters for America

 

[SSDD]

And that is not even the half of it.. Moyers failed at each one of his assertions.

Reality 8
Moyers 0

Climate change deniers prefer sources like these.....
Meet The Climate Denial Machine Blog Media Matters for America

You warmer wackos are stuck in logical fallacy....the source is meaningless. If the data is wrong, then prove it is wrong. Do you think the wacko warmist web sites are any less bias? Skeptical science for instance is a regular link from you guys and they are the most manipulative and dishonest bunch of seamstress out there. They get debunked on a regular basis not by simply complaining about them as a source, but by providing actual data that proves them wrong. How about climate progress....350.org, and the list could continue ad nauseum....do you really think they are not biased? Till you get past being stuck in logical fallacy mode, you really don't have a chance...of course, being on the wrong side of the argument won't help even if you ever come up with an argument that isn't fallacious....the data and reality is waiting to shoot you down if you ever try an actual argument.

 

[Liminal]

And that is not even the half of it.. Moyers failed at each one of his assertions.

Reality 8
Moyers 0

Climate change deniers prefer sources like these.....
Meet The Climate Denial Machine Blog Media Matters for America

You warmer wackos are stuck in logical fallacy....the source is meaningless. If the data is wrong, then prove it is wrong. Do you think the wacko warmist web sites are any less bias? Skeptical science for instance is a regular link from you guys and they are the most manipulative and dishonest bunch of seamstress out there. They get debunked on a regular basis not by simply complaining about them as a source, but by providing actual data that proves them wrong. How about climate progress....350.org, and the list could continue ad nauseum....do you really think they are not biased? Till you get past being stuck in logical fallacy mode, you really don't have a chance...of course, being on the wrong side of the argument won't help even if you ever come up with an argument that isn't fallacious....the data and reality is waiting to shoot you down if you ever try an actual argument.

Let's have a closer look at the "experts" and "scientists" who claim to dispute the facts of global climate change.
Global Warming Deniers Database

 

[jc456]

And that is not even the half of it.. Moyers failed at each one of his assertions.

Reality 8
Moyers 0

Climate change deniers prefer sources like these.....
Meet The Climate Denial Machine Blog Media Matters for America

You warmer wackos are stuck in logical fallacy....the source is meaningless. If the data is wrong, then prove it is wrong. Do you think the wacko warmist web sites are any less bias? Skeptical science for instance is a regular link from you guys and they are the most manipulative and dishonest bunch of seamstress out there. They get debunked on a regular basis not by simply complaining about them as a source, but by providing actual data that proves them wrong. How about climate progress....350.org, and the list could continue ad nauseum....do you really think they are not biased? Till you get past being stuck in logical fallacy mode, you really don't have a chance...of course, being on the wrong side of the argument won't help even if you ever come up with an argument that isn't fallacious....the data and reality is waiting to shoot you down if you ever try an actual argument.

Let's have a closer look at the "experts" and "scientists" who claim to dispute the facts of global climate change.
Global Warming Deniers Database

point?

 

[Liminal]

And that is not even the half of it.. Moyers failed at each one of his assertions.

Reality 8
Moyers 0

Climate change deniers prefer sources like these.....
Meet The Climate Denial Machine Blog Media Matters for America

You warmer wackos are stuck in logical fallacy....the source is meaningless. If the data is wrong, then prove it is wrong. Do you think the wacko warmist web sites are any less bias? Skeptical science for instance is a regular link from you guys and they are the most manipulative and dishonest bunch of seamstress out there. They get debunked on a regular basis not by simply complaining about them as a source, but by providing actual data that proves them wrong. How about climate progress....350.org, and the list could continue ad nauseum....do you really think they are not biased? Till you get past being stuck in logical fallacy mode, you really don't have a chance...of course, being on the wrong side of the argument won't help even if you ever come up with an argument that isn't fallacious....the data and reality is waiting to shoot you down if you ever try an actual argument.

Let's have a closer look at the "experts" and "scientists" who claim to dispute the facts of global climate change.
Global Warming Deniers Database

point?

Speaks for itself.