Have the Climate Cultists Considered These Facts?

[Confounding]

my education, and my profession are irrelevant

They're really not when you're suggesting you understand something about the climate that the climate scientists don't.

 

[Oddball]

You're an expert on bullshitters yet you reject AGW?

I reject AGW because I'm an expert on the language of bullshitters, AND that none of their hoaxery has any of the aforementioned established acid tests of scientific method.

 

[Oddball]

my education, and my profession are irrelevant

They're really not when you're suggesting you understand something about the climate that the climate scientists don't.

The "climate scientists" are a band of bullshitters.

 

[Oddball]

The "scientists" have created a pseudo-scientific hoax

Listen to yourself. You actually believe that virtually every scientist in a wide range of fields is lying about climate theories supported by virtually all the published science. And,somehow, you have figured this out, despite knowing fuck all about any of it. What the hell is wrong with your brain?

They produce nothing that others want to willingly buy....They live off of grants and other handouts....What's in it for them to come out tomorrow and say "our bad....nothing to worry about here"?

Hell, at least career doomsayers Paul Ehrlich and John Kenneth Galbraith bothered themselves to write books about their doomsaying, to at least try to earn an honest buck.

 

[Oddball]

Moreover, I'm an expert in semantics and linguistics....I know bullshitters when I hear them...The IPCC is a gigantic global cabal of bullshitters.

Hahahaha...wow you are a moron.

And you're a peckerhead.

 

[SSDD]

my education, and my profession are irrelevant

They're really not when you're suggesting you understand something about the climate that the climate scientists don't.

You seem to be adverse to actually discussing the topic...you seem to want to make the whole thing about me as if that were important...I am asking for evidence...the evidence I want to see...very basic evidence that would support the case for man made climate change does not exist...

Rather than address that fact, you want to make a religious argument that we should just trust....sorry guy...I am not wired like that and I have more than enough education to asses the state of climate science...the issue is the lack of evidence to make the case for man made climate change...either you can address that, or you can't...if you can't, then just say so...

 

[Confounding]

You seem to be adverse to actually discussing the topic

Unlike some people I don't feel comfortable running my mouth about things I'm ignorant about.

 

[SSDD]

You seem to be adverse to actually discussing the topic

Unlike some people I don't feel comfortable running my mouth about things I'm ignorant about.

Ok...so you are ignorant.....I am not. You do feel comfortable assuming that other people are as ignorant as you though, and talking about that...a topic you are equally ignorant about since you don't know the first thing about who I am or what I do or what my education is...guess you are generally ignorant, but selectively uncomfortable about speaking on things you know nothing about...

Some interesting psychology at work there...ever thing of being analyzed?

 

[Confounding]

I am not.

I'm sure you really believe that.

 

[SSDD]

I am not.

I'm sure you really believe that.

Yes I do....and you are still ignorant...speaking to topics that you know absolutely nothing about as if you actually had some knowledge....you know far more about climate science than you do about me and yet, you somehow think that you can asses what I know on the topic. Is this more faith based thinking? Anyone who would question climate science must be a heretic and therefore couldn't possibly know anything about the subject? Is that how your mind works?

If find your sort of thinking very fascinating...how you can admit complete ignorance on one topic, and yet pretend intimate knowledge on another topic upon which we both know that you don't have the first bit of first hand knowledge. How do you rationalize that sort of thinking in your mind? The same way that religious zealots do when confronted by non believers who challenge their belief? They tend to take on the same sort of holier than thou ignorance as some sort of defense mechanism. They believe what they believe and instinctively distrust, and make up an internal story line about anyone who doesn't believe what they believe..

 

[Confounding]

you somehow think that you can asses what I know on the topic.

You have demonstrated what you know. You think I haven't seen your regurgitated talking points 100 times on those conspiracy blogs skeptics call sources? I am all about skepticism among scientists, but I am quite convinced that you are not a climate scientist.

 

[SSDD]

You have demonstrated what you know. You think I haven't seen your regurgitated talking points 100 times on those conspiracy blogs skeptics call sources? I am all about skepticism among scientists, but I am quite convinced that you are not a climate scientist.

Do point out a "conspiracy" blog which suggests my "talking points". Which one might I go to in order to find my arguments suggested?

My bet is that you won't be pointing me towards any of those either because your whole argument is just a talking point...you say this sort of thing to anyone who challenges you.

But by all means, prove that you aren't dishonest and tell me which blog I might find my argument on...

 

[Confounding]

But by all means, prove that you aren't dishonest and tell me which blog I might find my argument on...

Your position is just repackaged bullshit. A variation of the same thing partisan "skeptics" have been saying for years. There isn't a conspiracy among climate scientists.

 

[SSDD]

But by all means, prove that you aren't dishonest and tell me which blog I might find my argument on...

Your argument is just repackaged bullshit. A variation of the same thing partisan "skeptics" have been saying for years.

So you can't point to any particular blog where my argument might be found. Nor can you really point to any skeptic that has been making the same argument as me. That's what I figured. Just more of the story you tell yourself because you can't actually discuss the topic.

So the bottom line is that you don't know anything about climate science...or enough about science itself to realize that any physical scientific knowledge is enough to grasp climate science, which isn't that tough....and you have apparently infinite faith in the integrity, and intellectual capacity of those who call themselves climate scientists....and you believe whatever they tell you, and your faith is such that you feel that you need to hurl insults at anyone who dares question that which you believe in so fervently.

Does that about describe where you stand?

 

[Confounding]

So you can't point to any particular blog where my argument might be found. Nor can you really point to any skeptic that has been making the same argument as me. That's what I figured. Just more of the story you tell yourself because you can't actually discuss the topic.

Do you really think you're original in making a wordy argument about how you don't think there's enough evidence for the conclusions scientists have come to based on the data they have collected?

Does that about describe where you stand?

This is where I stand and have stood since this conversation started...

You think you know more about it than the climate scientists do.

You're an arrogant fool.

I would pay money to watch you debate a climate scientist just so I could laugh at your abject ignorance.

 

[SSDD]

Do you really think you're original in making a wordy argument about how you don't think there's enough evidence for the conclusions scientists have come to based on the data they have collected?

I don't know? I don't really visit blogs...Like I said...I look at the actual literature. For example...are you aware that in 2018 alone, there were more than 500 peer reviewed published papers which are skeptical of the consensus position on man made climate change...more than 500 in 2018 alone...these papers are produced by climate scientists...do you accept them or do you only accept papers by climate scientists who voice the "consensus" opinion?

And I am not saying anything about how much evidence is out there....you seem to be having trouble understanding what I am saying....I am saying that there is not one single piece of observed measured evidence which suggests that the climate we are experiencing is anything other than natural... That is a problem for a branch of natural science which is making the claim that mankind is causing the climate we are experiencing...

This is where I stand and have stood since this conversation started...

Ok...so you hold a quasi religious position....one of faith.....and you are not open to anything that calls your faith into question.

You think you know more about it than the climate scientists do.

I am asking for evidence...very straight forward evidence that demonstrates that the climate we are experiencing is in some way different from the natural variation of climate. The evidence is not forthcoming...

You're an arrogant fool.[;quote]

Because I am asking to see some evidence that the climate we are experiencing is somehow different from the natural variation of climate? Isn't that the sort of question that thinking people should be asking when someone tells you that we are changing the climate and that we need to spend 93 trillion dollars to correct the situation? You think it is prudent to cough up 93 trillion dollars without asking some very pointed questions?

I would pay money to watch you debate a climate scientist just so I could laugh at your abject ignorance.

Wouldn't be much to see. I would ask for some observed, measured evidence that demonstrates that the present climate is some how different than the normal natural variation in climate. He couldn't provide the evidence either. The rest would be ever more complicated excuses for why he couldn't produce the evidence I requested...boring if you ask me...and sad...

 

[Oddball]

You seem to be adverse to actually discussing the topic

Unlike some people I don't feel comfortable running my mouth about things I'm ignorant about.

Yet here you are, running you mouth about things that you're ignorant about.

 

[Confounding]

I am asking for evidence...very straight forward evidence that demonstrates that the climate we are experiencing is in some way different from the natural variation of climate. The evidence is not forthcoming...

What we are currently capable of observing, proving and understanding is enough to convince the vast majority of climate scientists that humans are contributing to the warming of the Earth.

Either they're doing science wrong or you are.

Hmm...

 

[Confounding]

Yet here you are, running you mouth about things that you're ignorant about.

I'm not the one disputing the claims of scientists from a position of ignorance.

 

[Oddball]

Yet here you are, running you mouth about things that you're ignorant about.

I'm not the one disputing the claims of scientists from a position of ignorance.

I haven't appealed to ignorance....I've listed the centuries-old and accepted elements of scientific method that are absent from any AGW garbage, and pointed out the deceitful language used by the warmers.

All you've done is repeat your appeals to authority over and over and over again...Argumentum ad nauseum isn't an argument either.