Climate Change Deniers Have No Credibility

[Ernie S.]

I am a denier, I'm proud to say it. But let's be certain what we are talking about here. I'm not denying that the planet may be warming, I am denying that man has anything to do with it.

The planet may or may not be warming, it depends on who's cherry picked data you want to believe, but there is as of yet no real evidence that man is the cause. It's simply a lie to say otherwise.

I'm about the same, though I do believe man has some effect; maybe on the order of .0001% due to waste heat from vehicles, manufacturing, heating and air conditioning etc.

 

[jc456]

Jesus Christ? Are you praying for me think like you, so I can understand your thoroughly considered and well thought out positions?

Wow, ok well that explains why you are an AGW believer doesn't it.

he just thinks he's pee wee herman. you know the old 'i know you are what am I' routine?

Excellent rebuttal. Who could possibly argue with that kind of eloquence.

rebuttal? I guess you don't know the definition.

No, I guess I don't. Please feel free to define it for me.

isn't worth my time.

 

[jc456]

I am a denier, I'm proud to say it. But let's be certain what we are talking about here. I'm not denying that the planet may be warming, I am denying that man has anything to do with it.

The planet may or may not be warming, it depends on who's cherry picked data you want to believe, but there is as of yet no real evidence that man is the cause. It's simply a lie to say otherwise.

I'm about the same, though I do believe man has some effect; maybe on the order of .0001% due to waste heat from vehicles, manufacturing, heating and air conditioning etc.

how do you go there when you have no evidence to suggest any such thing? Ask all the sky walkers and they have no evidence of anything. Even the new satellites can't provide it. So they now say the hell with them they aren't calibrated well. It's flippin hilarious daily on here.

oh, and ask them if the data is reconstructed and they'll tell you it is. Again, hilarious.You don't like the results, change the datasets.

by the way, that is FACT

 

[Liminal]

Wow, ok well that explains why you are an AGW believer doesn't it.

he just thinks he's pee wee herman. you know the old 'i know you are what am I' routine?

Excellent rebuttal. Who could possibly argue with that kind of eloquence.

rebuttal? I guess you don't know the definition.

No, I guess I don't. Please feel free to define it for me.

isn't worth my time.

The fact that you people have to personalize all your arguments indicates your lack of actual argument.

 

[Ernie S.]

I am a denier, I'm proud to say it. But let's be certain what we are talking about here. I'm not denying that the planet may be warming, I am denying that man has anything to do with it.

The planet may or may not be warming, it depends on who's cherry picked data you want to believe, but there is as of yet no real evidence that man is the cause. It's simply a lie to say otherwise.

I'm about the same, though I do believe man has some effect; maybe on the order of .0001% due to waste heat from vehicles, manufacturing, heating and air conditioning etc.

how do you go there when you have no evidence to suggest any such thing? Ask all the sky walkers and they have no evidence of anything. Even the new satellites can't provide it. So they now say the hell with them they aren't calibrated well. It's flippin hilarious daily on here.

oh, and ask them if the data is reconstructed and they'll tell you it is. Again, hilarious.You don't like the results, change the datasets.

by the way, that is FACT

I took a quick look at total heat gain from greenhouse gases, solar radiation received by the earth and heat emitted naturally by the earth.
Total heat gain from GHG is on the order of 1 Terra-watt. Emitted energy about 44 TW and solar energy received is 174,000 TW.
If I look again, I think I overestimated GHG contributions by a factor of 10.

 

[jc456]

he just thinks he's pee wee herman. you know the old 'i know you are what am I' routine?

Excellent rebuttal. Who could possibly argue with that kind of eloquence.

rebuttal? I guess you don't know the definition.

No, I guess I don't. Please feel free to define it for me.

isn't worth my time.

The fact that you people have to personalize all your arguments indicates your lack of actual argument.

you post crap about peer review, it's been explained in this forum repeatedly our view on this. What data do you have to argue with that changes any of our thoughts on the subject. Peer reviewers review their own work. Dude how stupid is that? how can that be debated, it's a fact and you repeatedly pointing to it like it is some glorified bible group is just hilarious. Peer review should be the rule, but the way it is built today is bullshit. How many threads would you like me to repeat that in?

 

[mamooth]

Ask all the sky walkers and they have no evidence of anything.

So how do the sky walkers communicate with you? Telepathically?

Please, tell everyone more about your sky walker friends. What do they look like? Where do they come from? Why are they here?

 

[jc456]

Ask all the sky walkers and they have no evidence of anything.

So how do the sky walkers communicate with you? Telepathically?

Please, tell everyone more about your sky walker friends. What do they look like? Where do they come from? Why are they here?

you are on here daily. I'd prefer you left and take the other sky walkers with you, but hey, you have a right I supposed. some day you may actually find evidence that supports your claim, until then you walk the sky.

 

[mamooth]

Oh, I'm a sky walker? So what powers do I supposedly have? Plainly, I must be able to fly to walk the sky. When I walk the sky, am I visible or invisible?

Oh, understand that namecalling is not prohibited. Content-free posting is, which would mean nearly all of your posts.

I read WUWT, and saw Watts calling for his followers to mob wikipedia with their own propaganda. It didn't work out, as Wikipedia just set the anti-vandalizing screens. Another WUWT poster there now says to start flooding everyone possible with FOI requests and legal harrassment. Deniers certainly are getting more thuglike and desperate. The plan of "do some science" never occurs to them. I think that's further evidence of their failure.

 

[Liminal]

Excellent rebuttal. Who could possibly argue with that kind of eloquence.

rebuttal? I guess you don't know the definition.

No, I guess I don't. Please feel free to define it for me.

isn't worth my time.

The fact that you people have to personalize all your arguments indicates your lack of actual argument.

you post crap about peer review, it's been explained in this forum repeatedly our view on this. What data do you have to argue with that changes any of our thoughts on the subject. Peer reviewers review their own work. Dude how stupid is that? how can that be debated, it's a fact and you repeatedly pointing to it like it is some glorified bible group is just hilarious. Peer review should be the rule, but the way it is built today is bullshit. How many threads would you like me to repeat that in?

Our view? Are you the representative for some organization?

 

[jc456]

Oh, I'm a sky walker? So what powers do I supposedly have? Plainly, I must be able to fly to walk the sky. When I walk the sky, am I visible or invisible?

Oh, understand that namecalling is not prohibited. Content-free posting is, which would mean nearly all of your posts.

I read WUWT, and saw Watts calling for his followers to mob wikipedia with their own propaganda. It didn't work out, as Wikipedia just set the anti-vandalizing screens. Another WUWT poster there now says to start flooding everyone possible with FOI requests and legal harrassment. Deniers certainly are getting more thuglike and desperate. The plan of "do some science" never occurs to them. I think that's further evidence of their failure.

have you found the hot spot up there? That's the real question. let's get the priorities set. Hot spots? Any? nope!!! but keeping looking around up there.

 

[jc456]

rebuttal? I guess you don't know the definition.

No, I guess I don't. Please feel free to define it for me.

isn't worth my time.

The fact that you people have to personalize all your arguments indicates your lack of actual argument.

you post crap about peer review, it's been explained in this forum repeatedly our view on this. What data do you have to argue with that changes any of our thoughts on the subject. Peer reviewers review their own work. Dude how stupid is that? how can that be debated, it's a fact and you repeatedly pointing to it like it is some glorified bible group is just hilarious. Peer review should be the rule, but the way it is built today is bullshit. How many threads would you like me to repeat that in?

Our view? Are you the representative for some organization?

I'm the one that still hasn't seen any evidence that supports AGW. Anytime you'd like to present it, I'd be happy to look at it and debate you on it. but everyone else has failed to date. So good luck with that.

 

[jc456]

Oh, I'm a sky walker? So what powers do I supposedly have? Plainly, I must be able to fly to walk the sky. When I walk the sky, am I visible or invisible?

Oh, understand that namecalling is not prohibited. Content-free posting is, which would mean nearly all of your posts.

I read WUWT, and saw Watts calling for his followers to mob wikipedia with their own propaganda. It didn't work out, as Wikipedia just set the anti-vandalizing screens. Another WUWT poster there now says to start flooding everyone possible with FOI requests and legal harrassment. Deniers certainly are getting more thuglike and desperate. The plan of "do some science" never occurs to them. I think that's further evidence of their failure.

BTW, anytime you have some resemblance of evidence, you post that stuff right up here for a discussion.

 

[Liminal]

No, I guess I don't. Please feel free to define it for me.

isn't worth my time.

The fact that you people have to personalize all your arguments indicates your lack of actual argument.

you post crap about peer review, it's been explained in this forum repeatedly our view on this. What data do you have to argue with that changes any of our thoughts on the subject. Peer reviewers review their own work. Dude how stupid is that? how can that be debated, it's a fact and you repeatedly pointing to it like it is some glorified bible group is just hilarious. Peer review should be the rule, but the way it is built today is bullshit. How many threads would you like me to repeat that in?

Our view? Are you the representative for some organization?

I'm the one that still hasn't seen any evidence that supports AGW. Anytime you'd like to present it, I'd be happy to look at it and debate you on it. but everyone else has failed to date. So good luck with that.

So who's "we" again? Who are the people of "our" view?

 

[mamooth]

jc, of course the hot spot is there. That's been known for years. Only conspiracy cultists still claim it isn't. The honest people can all just point right to the science that shows it very clearly to be there, while the dishonest people will go into contortions to claim ... wait for it ... that it's all a conspiracy.

Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data IUKv2 - Abstract - Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience

Now, your turn. Why don't you show everyone your brilliance and willingness to talk about the science by telling us about the hot spot. After all, you can hardly claim the theory is wrong if you don't know what the theory is. Start by telling us exactly where we are supposed to find the hotspot, and how hot it's supposed to be.

 

[Liminal]

jc, of course the hot spot is there. That's been known for years. Only conspiracy cultists still claim it isn't. The honest people can all just point right to the science that shows it very clearly to be there, while the dishonest people will go into contortions to claim ... wait for it ... that it's all a conspiracy.

Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data IUKv2 - Abstract - Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience

Now, your turn. Why don't you show everyone your brilliance and willingness to talk about the science by telling us about the hot spot. After all, you can hardly claim the theory is wrong if you don't know what the theory is. Start by telling us exactly where we are supposed to find the hotspot, and how hot it's supposed to be.

Shouldn't climate change denial theories be posted under conspiracies?

 

[jc456]

jc, of course the hot spot is there. That's been known for years. Only conspiracy cultists still claim it isn't. The honest people can all just point right to the science that shows it very clearly to be there, while the dishonest people will go into contortions to claim ... wait for it ... that it's all a conspiracy.

Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data IUKv2 - Abstract - Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience

Now, your turn. Why don't you show everyone your brilliance and willingness to talk about the science by telling us about the hot spot. After all, you can hardly claim the theory is wrong if you don't know what the theory is. Start by telling us exactly where we are supposed to find the hotspot, and how hot it's supposed to be.

dude/ dudette as always, the material you provide is adjusted. WOW, what's new?

abstract from your link:
"
Letter

We present an updated version of the radiosonde dataset homogenized by Iterative Universal Kriging (IUKv2), now extended through February 2013, following the method used in the original version (Sherwood et al 2008 Robust tropospheric warming revealed by iteratively homogenized radiosonde data J. Clim. 21 5336–52). This method, in effect, performs a multiple linear regression of the data onto a structural model that includes both natural variability, trends"

Note the big word homogenized And a model and not real datasets. it's non stop on here with you cultists.

So still no evidence. hear that pac man noise?

 

[mamooth]

So, as expected, you auto-declared everything was a conspiracy, even though you have no evidence to support such a delusional claim. You just have ... faith.

Also as expected, you failed to tell us what the hotspot theory was. You have no idea what the theory is, yet you're still absolutely positive it's wrong.

Conclusion: You're a cultist, and your faith in your cult is unshakable. Hence, there's no reason to take anything you say seriously, as it's all just the rambling of a cultist.

 

[jc456]

So, as expected, you auto-declared everything was a conspiracy, even though you have no evidence to support such a delusional claim. You just have ... faith.

Also as expected, you failed to tell us what the hotspot theory was. You have no idea what the theory is, yet you're still absolutely positive it's wrong.

Conclusion: You're a cultist, and your faith in your cult is unshakable. Hence, there's no reason to take anything you say seriously, as it's all just the rambling of a cultist.

you have failed yet again to show any evidence. Provide something of fact. Again I have shown you for a fraud and just someone prancing around the internet looking to call people names. Now, please provide your factual evidence and let's move on shall we?

 

[Liminal]

So, as expected, you auto-declared everything was a conspiracy, even though you have no evidence to support such a delusional claim. You just have ... faith.

Also as expected, you failed to tell us what the hotspot theory was. You have no idea what the theory is, yet you're still absolutely positive it's wrong.

Conclusion: You're a cultist, and your faith in your cult is unshakable. Hence, there's no reason to take anything you say seriously, as it's all just the rambling of a cultist.

you have failed yet again to show any evidence. Provide something of fact. Again I have shown you for a fraud and just someone prancing around the internet looking to call people names. Now, please provide your factual evidence and let's move on shall we?

I guess it's just unfortunate that your alleged arguments never include even attempting to substantiate climate change denial conspiracy theories. I would love for someone to explain exactly how this global conspiracy of governments and scientists actually works. How did they all get together and agree in the first place? You don't see that many nations agreeing on anything.