Have the Climate Cultists Considered These Facts?

[Crick]

Argumentum ad nauseum isn't an argument at all.

An appeal to authority is perfectly valid if the authority is actually an expert in the field under question. In all the arguing around here I have found it exceedingly likely that the folks on my side of the argument are experts and the folks on your side of the argument are unqualified, dishonest and/or biased politically or financially.

 

[Hale]

Only an ignoramus thinks AGW can be summed up in 12 minutes. You're trying to dispute the claims of people that have a much deeper understanding of these issues than you do. There is not an AGW conspiracy. The scientists are telling us what they actually believe based on all of the evidence they have observed. It takes an astounding amount of arrogance to say they're wrong when you know approximately dick compared to them.

I have to admire your admission that you have blind faith in "scientists", but it takes, as you say, "an astounding amount of arrogance" for you to suggest that everyone follow you in that path.

 

[Crick]

No it doesn't. Assuming that the opinions of large majorities of scientists on scientific topics are the most likely to be correct is the most reasonable and rational of strategies.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They produce nothing that others want to willingly buy...

Nothing you are willing to buy, because you are an ignorant moron. ON the other hand, their aggregation of the work of the global scientific community is very valuable to scientists and policymakers.

What's in it for them to come out tomorrow and say "our bad....nothing to worry about here"?

Damn that is stupid. they can't make the data from mountains of studies across every field of science say what they want it to say. When you say stuff like this, it proves that you should never, not ever, open your mealy little mouth about science ever again. Any of it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I have to admire your admission that you have blind faith in "scientists"

No , it's not faith. It's trust, based on evidence. Faith is what you have in zombie kings, silly voodoo, and magical spells. Trust is what intelligent people have in scientists. Let's be crystal clear on that.

 

[Oddball]

They produce nothing that others want to willingly buy...

Nothing you are willing to buy, because you are an ignorant moron. ON the other hand, their aggregation of the work of the global scientific community is very valuable to scientists and policymakers.

Name calling isn't an argument....Nor is failing to address the fact that the climate "scientists" produce nothing and 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"?

Damn that is stupid. they can't make the data from mountains of studies across every field of science say what they want it to say. When you say stuff like this, it proves that you should never, not ever, open your mealy little mouth about science ever again. Any of it.

There you go again, failing to address the point made...Fact is that the climate "scientists" have no other way to earn a living...They are committed to their hoaxing just to be able to continue eating and liveing indoors.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nor is failing to address the fact that the climate "scientists" produce nothing and live off of grants and other handouts.

Which means nothing at all. Geologists and climate scientists would still be doing geology and climate science. So you have made no argument of any kind. You have just hinted at an implication that you are too embarrassed to state, because you now it wikll make you sound like a moron. I'll state it for you:

"The entire global scientific community is lying to me!"

That's freakish.

Fact is that the climate "scientists" have no other way to earn a living...

I already addressed that. Its not a point at all, especially when you then, out of the other side of your neck, say things like, 'The climate always changes", which climate scientists working from grants taught you in the first place. So you are embarrassing yourself.

 

[SandSquid]

Only an ignoramus thinks AGW can be summed up in 12 minutes. You're trying to dispute the claims of people that have a much deeper understanding of these issues than you do. There is not an AGW conspiracy. The scientists are telling us what they actually believe based on all of the evidence they have observed. It takes an astounding amount of arrogance to say they're wrong when you know approximately dick compared to them.

I have to admire your admission that you have blind faith in "scientists", but it takes, as you say, "an astounding amount of arrogance" for you to suggest that everyone follow you in that path.

Yes because they're educated on the subject.

It's why I will listen to a rocket scientist on how to get a spaceship to the Moon who works in NASA over some internet troll or some guys who release a report saying scientists are skeptical, when the scientists themselves have to come out and call that a complete scam and tell those people to stop using their names.

Why do all these climate deniers keep getting caught lying?

Climate "scientists" have been proven WRONG every time. If someone's always wrong, why do you keep listening to them?

Lol. The great "predictor" here. First it's global cooling. Then no, the warming is from too much ice, then CO2 isn't bad, then yes it is a green house gas...



This is the guy who actually was caught erasing data in his papers funded by big oil and coal. The memo for his payment specifically said it was " to combat global warming alarmists". The guy who went for a peer review and not one independent reviewer was able to replicate his numbers without changing them.

He was literally caught multiple times misquoting other scientists to back them up and unable to explain why when they called him out on it with proof.

The guy who claimed he had found "proof" that models were massively flawed by arguing that southern Greenland had shown very little warming...except this was actually in line with predictions, which he "forgot" to mention.

The guy who's top paper to start him off was paid for by big tobacco and in it he says second hand smoke is not bad for your lungs...

The guy who 20 years ago "bet" on a cooling trend in the 2000s when the coming "ice age" was a hot topic for conspiracists at the time... And now is trying that again.

That's who you want? The proven liar many times over? Well if lies are your thing... So be it.

 

[Hale]

Which means nothing at all. Geologists and climate scientists would still be doing geology and climate science. So you have made no argument of any kind. You have just hinted at an implication that you are too embarrassed to state, because you now it wikll make you sound like a moron. I'll state it for you:

"The entire global scientific community is lying to me!"

That's freakish.

You would benefit from some education in logic AND science. First, logic:
When someone delineates one type of something (climate scientist/monkey), this does not automatically apply to all categories (scientist/mammal). In terms you might better understand, not all scientists are climate scientists, and not all mammals are monkeys. This is the fatal flaw in your logic. Now the "science" part:

"Climate" scientists of the ilk you describe are a fairly recent phenomenon, and they exist solely to support the kind of studies in which you place your faith. It is literally how they make their money. The computer models used to predict global warming are their invention, they operate under their parameters, and they deliver expected results.

This does occur in other branches of science, and typically the greater the alarm that can be raised with the general public, the greater the dollars that can be generated. In this regard "climate science" is unprecedented, particularly since Al Gore. There's HUGE money in creating fear of an apocalypse.

Those of us who are chronologically old enough remember quite a few imminent Ice Ages and other ecological disasters that never came to fruition. And those who are mentally over 12 today are capable of research. So before you place your faith in Al Gore, CNN, and misc other for-profit sources I recommend you wise up. Here's a start:

"The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.”
Source: Associated Press, November 1922

And if you prefer a Leftist source (Snopes) for the same article, here you go:
Global Warming: 1922

 

[SandSquid]

There isn't a scientific institution on the planet that disputes AGW. The vast majority of climate scientists agree that AGW is happening. The scientists are not misleading us. That's actually what they believe based on what we know so far

NOBODY denies the planet is warming SLIGHTLY. They don't all agree on the degree Man is responsible. We are coming off an ice age (thank God). And the models are utter failures yet you cultists behave as if they are accurate.

Actually the models have been really close. People like that Michaels guy likes to write papers where he deletes most of the information to show they aren't.

And they don't all agree... Multiple studies and polls among climatologists have used the word "significant" vs "little or none" . And there are around 3% that choose the latter.

And what do you mean "utter failures". What failed with IPCC in 1990? Hanson in 1981 and 1988.

Sure ipcc in 1991 and 1995 have come out slightly below actual warming. Sawyer in 73 has been dead on. Broecker in 1975 was a tad high. But Sawyer predicted lower co2 levels and Broecker higher.

The crazy thing is how accurate their models are to reality based on where the expected co2 levels to be.

On average based on NASA temps the top funded and reviewed models of the past 30 years have been within 97% accurate vs today's temperatures. How's that a failure?

Oh wait. If you listen to Patrick Michael's, in his paper where he removed 3 of the 4 trend lines and left the least accurate on the hot side, then it shows they are way off (though adding in the other 3 lines puts it right in range).

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Which means nothing at all. Geologists and climate scientists would still be doing geology and climate science. So you have made no argument of any kind. You have just hinted at an implication that you are too embarrassed to state, because you now it wikll make you sound like a moron. I'll state it for you:

"The entire global scientific community is lying to me!"

That's freakish.

You would benefit from some education in logic AND science. First, logic:
When someone delineates one type of something (climate scientist/monkey), this does not automatically apply to all categories (scientist/mammal). In terms you might better understand, not all scientists are climate scientists, and not all mammals are monkeys. This is the fatal flaw in your logic. Now the "science" part:

"Climate" scientists of the ilk you describe are a fairly recent phenomenon, and they exist solely to support the kind of studies in which you place your faith. It is literally how they make their money. The computer models used to predict global warming are their invention, they operate under their parameters, and they deliver expected results.

This does occur in other branches of science, and typically the greater the alarm that can be raised with the general public, the greater the dollars that can be generated. In this regard "climate science" is unprecedented, particularly since Al Gore. There's HUGE money in creating fear of an apocalypse.

Those of us who are chronologically old enough remember quite a few imminent Ice Ages and other ecological disasters that never came to fruition. And those who are mentally over 12 today are capable of research. So before you place your faith in Al Gore, CNN, and misc other for-profit sources I recommend you wise up. Here's a start:

"The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.”
Source: Associated Press, November 1922

And if you prefer a Leftist source (Snopes) for the same article, here you go:
Global Warming: 1922

Thats all stupid and wrong. Climate change theories are not just the work of climate scientists,but also meteorologists, oceanographers, geologists, biologists, and more. So you sound a like a fool to point at literally every major scientific society on Earth and say, "they aren't climate scientists!"

To top that off, you then point at the climate scientists, and call them all liars. So the non climate scientists aren't qualified to endorse the accepted theories, and the people whoa are qualified are all liars.



You know fuck all about any of this and your pathetic argument is an anti intellectual, self contradicting mess.

 

[Hale]

Fort Fun Indiana - I've watched you shouting "YOU'RE WRONG" and name-calling on numerous threads now, with literally no valid arguments. You're hilarious. Democrat?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Fort Fun Indiana - I've watched you shouting "YOU'RE WRONG" and name-calling on numerous threads now, with literally no valid arguments. You're hilarious. Democrat?

He is a retarded Indy fag ...



.

 

[SandSquid]

Fort Fun Indiana - I've watched you shouting "YOU'RE WRONG" and name-calling on numerous threads now, with literally no valid arguments. You're hilarious. Democrat?

Wow .He calls out with fact and it sure sent you in a hissy fit. Guessing from your aversion to facts and data.... Republican? Lol

 

[SandSquid]

Fort Fun Indiana - I've watched you shouting "YOU'RE WRONG" and name-calling on numerous threads now, with literally no valid arguments. You're hilarious. Democrat?

He is a retarded Indy fag ...



.

And there's the homophobes right in time...

 

[Oddball]

"The entire global scientific community is lying to me!"

That's freakish.

No, just the warmer charlatans.

Fact is that the climate "scientists" have no other way to earn a living...

I already addressed that. Its not a point at all, especially when you then, out of the other side of your neck, say things like, 'The climate always changes", which climate scientists working from grants taught you in the first place. So you are embarrassing yourself.

You didn't address jack shit....You just reverted to your normal personal invective and dismissed the point out-of-hand.....Like the know-nothing dickweed that you are.

 

[Oddball]

Argumentum ad nauseum isn't an argument at all.

An appeal to authority is perfectly valid if the authority is actually an expert in the field under question. In all the arguing around here I have found it exceedingly likely that the folks on my side of the argument are experts and the folks on your side of the argument are unqualified, dishonest and/or biased politically or financially.

The folks on your side invoke every logical fallacy in the book, while ignoring the fact that time-tested acid tests of scientific method are nowhere to be found in your pseudo-scientific fairy tale.

 

[Crick]

Your NOW description bears no resemblance to what has actually been happening. You're not going to win the discussion here by lying.

 

[Oddball]

Your NOW description bears no resemblance to what has actually been happening. You're not going to win the discussion here by lying.

The only people doing the lying are you warmer freaks.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I've watched you shouting "YOU'RE WRONG"

And then you have completely ignored the reasons i stated why you are wrong. And this is because you are an anti intellectual fetishist who is denying robust, accepted scientific theories bases on your own superstitions and fetishes.