I'm curious. Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?

[CrusaderFrank]

No you lying sack of poo, those are the specific requests for climate research ONLY! Go ahead and actually do some work instead of riding others coat tails you lazy fuck, and go do the research yourself!

So you made a crazy claim, and now you're saying it's everyone else's responsiblity to prove it.

It's not our job to verify your cult's fables. It is the job of ethical people to point out how you willingly parrot your cult's crazy fables. I just did so.

yo dude/dudette.....ding, ding, ding, ding, I couldn't have said that any better. So now please provide the experiment that you claim exists on 120 PPM of CO2 affecting temperatures. woo hoo... finally you get it. I can't wait to see it. Frank, it finally gets it!

Not gonna happen, bro

Pooh-Flinging Monkey Mamooth will call us DENIERS!!!! and claim she already posted the lab work hundreds of times

 

[jc456]

No you lying sack of poo, those are the specific requests for climate research ONLY! Go ahead and actually do some work instead of riding others coat tails you lazy fuck, and go do the research yourself!

So you made a crazy claim, and now you're saying it's everyone else's responsiblity to prove it.

It's not our job to verify your cult's fables. It is the job of ethical people to point out how you willingly parrot your cult's crazy fables. I just did so.

yo dude/dudette.....ding, ding, ding, ding, I couldn't have said that any better. So now please provide the experiment that you claim exists on 120 PPM of CO2 affecting temperatures. woo hoo... finally you get it. I can't wait to see it. Frank, it finally gets it!

Not gonna happen, bro

Pooh-Flinging Monkey Mamooth will call us DENIERS!!!! and claim she already posted the lab work hundreds of times

well at least I had a moment. I guess it's back to the pot calling the kettle black from it.

 

[BULLDOG]

Do all the instant experts whose only education in climate science started with a report on fox and their entire course of study includes a few oil company funded web sites and talk radio have enough knowledge to discredit legitimate scientists?
What does cost have to do with whether something is real or not?

Show your work idiot. Idiot.

What does cost have to do with whether something is real or not?

Something can be real and not worth spending tens of trillions to "fix". Idiot.

You are absolutely right, but the claim was that it isn't real. Cost, and whether it is worthwhile can be discussed by reasonable people, but the discussion here is whether it is real. I suspect the people in opposition to scientists views are more concerned about the cost, but they are trying to pretend it isn't real so they don't have to discuss the cost.

but the discussion here is whether it is real.

You may have missed my questions.

How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of natural factors?
How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of AGW factors?
List the factors and how much of the warming they caused.

I suspect the people in opposition to scientists views are more concerned about the cost

And the people who believe in AGW aren't concerned about the cost. Got it.

I didn't miss those questions because they are immaterial to me. As I have said all along, I am not a climate scientist and wouldn't have any idea what that bit of information would mean in relationship to all the other data out there. You aren't a climate scientist either, even though you are adamantly opposed to what formally educated scientists say. I will not be convinced either way by someone whose goal seems to be more politically based than fact based. This whole discussion started with me asking a couple of simple questions about who is funding the supposed conspiracy to foist false climate information on the public, and why they are supposedly doing it. Nobody has even tried to answer those questions preferring to change the subject in widely different directions. My questions are still the same, and all the subterfuge from people who seem to be upset by my questions won't change the subject.

You aren't a climate scientist either, even though you are adamantly opposed to what formally educated scientists say.

If they say we should spend trillions on less reliable "green" energy and that we should shackle our economy because supposedly those actions would reduce the temperature in 2080 by some unknowable (and tiny) amount, damn right I'm opposed.

Now, if they would say we should massively expand the number of our nuclear reactors, because they emit no CO2, we'd be on the same page.

So where do you stand on nuclear power? Is it worse than AGW? Why won't greens support it, to save the ice caps?

All interesting subjects, but have nothing to do with my questions. The right claims some sort of conspiracy on the part of the vast majority of climate scientists to defraud the public. Who is in charge of this conspiracy, and why?

 

[jc456]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[jc456]

In honor of Bulldog:

Bulldog---what’s that?
Skeptic—dog poop?
Bulldog----look like dog poop to me too
Skeptic—pick up,
Bulldog walking.....
Skeptic----feel like dog poop?
Bulldog—yeah, feel like dog poop
Skeptic—smell
Bulldog—breathing in, ack--yeah, smell like dog poop
Skeptic---taste
Bulldog—munch, munch ackkkkkkk, yeah, taste like dog poop
Skeptic—good thing we not step in it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What does cost have to do with whether something is real or not?

Something can be real and not worth spending tens of trillions to "fix". Idiot.

You are absolutely right, but the claim was that it isn't real. Cost, and whether it is worthwhile can be discussed by reasonable people, but the discussion here is whether it is real. I suspect the people in opposition to scientists views are more concerned about the cost, but they are trying to pretend it isn't real so they don't have to discuss the cost.

but the discussion here is whether it is real.

You may have missed my questions.

How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of natural factors?
How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of AGW factors?
List the factors and how much of the warming they caused.

I suspect the people in opposition to scientists views are more concerned about the cost

And the people who believe in AGW aren't concerned about the cost. Got it.

I didn't miss those questions because they are immaterial to me. As I have said all along, I am not a climate scientist and wouldn't have any idea what that bit of information would mean in relationship to all the other data out there. You aren't a climate scientist either, even though you are adamantly opposed to what formally educated scientists say. I will not be convinced either way by someone whose goal seems to be more politically based than fact based. This whole discussion started with me asking a couple of simple questions about who is funding the supposed conspiracy to foist false climate information on the public, and why they are supposedly doing it. Nobody has even tried to answer those questions preferring to change the subject in widely different directions. My questions are still the same, and all the subterfuge from people who seem to be upset by my questions won't change the subject.

You aren't a climate scientist either, even though you are adamantly opposed to what formally educated scientists say.

If they say we should spend trillions on less reliable "green" energy and that we should shackle our economy because supposedly those actions would reduce the temperature in 2080 by some unknowable (and tiny) amount, damn right I'm opposed.

Now, if they would say we should massively expand the number of our nuclear reactors, because they emit no CO2, we'd be on the same page.

So where do you stand on nuclear power? Is it worse than AGW? Why won't greens support it, to save the ice caps?

All interesting subjects, but have nothing to do with my questions. The right claims some sort of conspiracy on the part of the vast majority of climate scientists to defraud the public. Who is in charge of this conspiracy, and why?

The right claims some sort of conspiracy on the part of the vast majority of climate scientists to defraud the public.

How much do the climate scientists say we should waste on "green" energy?
How much do they say our investment in more expensive, less reliable energy will reduce global temps in 2080?

 

[Kosh]

What does cost have to do with whether something is real or not?

Something can be real and not worth spending tens of trillions to "fix". Idiot.

You are absolutely right, but the claim was that it isn't real. Cost, and whether it is worthwhile can be discussed by reasonable people, but the discussion here is whether it is real. I suspect the people in opposition to scientists views are more concerned about the cost, but they are trying to pretend it isn't real so they don't have to discuss the cost.

but the discussion here is whether it is real.

You may have missed my questions.

How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of natural factors?
How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of AGW factors?
List the factors and how much of the warming they caused.

I suspect the people in opposition to scientists views are more concerned about the cost

And the people who believe in AGW aren't concerned about the cost. Got it.

I didn't miss those questions because they are immaterial to me. As I have said all along, I am not a climate scientist and wouldn't have any idea what that bit of information would mean in relationship to all the other data out there. You aren't a climate scientist either, even though you are adamantly opposed to what formally educated scientists say. I will not be convinced either way by someone whose goal seems to be more politically based than fact based. This whole discussion started with me asking a couple of simple questions about who is funding the supposed conspiracy to foist false climate information on the public, and why they are supposedly doing it. Nobody has even tried to answer those questions preferring to change the subject in widely different directions. My questions are still the same, and all the subterfuge from people who seem to be upset by my questions won't change the subject.

You aren't a climate scientist either, even though you are adamantly opposed to what formally educated scientists say.

If they say we should spend trillions on less reliable "green" energy and that we should shackle our economy because supposedly those actions would reduce the temperature in 2080 by some unknowable (and tiny) amount, damn right I'm opposed.

Now, if they would say we should massively expand the number of our nuclear reactors, because they emit no CO2, we'd be on the same page.

So where do you stand on nuclear power? Is it worse than AGW? Why won't greens support it, to save the ice caps?

All interesting subjects, but have nothing to do with my questions. The right claims some sort of conspiracy on the part of the vast majority of climate scientists to defraud the public. Who is in charge of this conspiracy, and why?

The far left!

So they can subjugate everyone under government rule.

If all those European nations that funneled trillions into AGW believed in it, then they would not dismantle alternative energy source in favor of their over bloated social programs..

But then it would require a far left drone to see beyond their programming and as ha been demonstrated time and time again, they can not..

 

[jasonnfree]

You are absolutely right, but the claim was that it isn't real. Cost, and whether it is worthwhile can be discussed by reasonable people, but the discussion here is whether it is real. I suspect the people in opposition to scientists views are more concerned about the cost, but they are trying to pretend it isn't real so they don't have to discuss the cost.

but the discussion here is whether it is real.

You may have missed my questions.

How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of natural factors?
How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of AGW factors?
List the factors and how much of the warming they caused.

I suspect the people in opposition to scientists views are more concerned about the cost

And the people who believe in AGW aren't concerned about the cost. Got it.

I didn't miss those questions because they are immaterial to me. As I have said all along, I am not a climate scientist and wouldn't have any idea what that bit of information would mean in relationship to all the other data out there. You aren't a climate scientist either, even though you are adamantly opposed to what formally educated scientists say. I will not be convinced either way by someone whose goal seems to be more politically based than fact based. This whole discussion started with me asking a couple of simple questions about who is funding the supposed conspiracy to foist false climate information on the public, and why they are supposedly doing it. Nobody has even tried to answer those questions preferring to change the subject in widely different directions. My questions are still the same, and all the subterfuge from people who seem to be upset by my questions won't change the subject.

You aren't a climate scientist either, even though you are adamantly opposed to what formally educated scientists say.

If they say we should spend trillions on less reliable "green" energy and that we should shackle our economy because supposedly those actions would reduce the temperature in 2080 by some unknowable (and tiny) amount, damn right I'm opposed.

Now, if they would say we should massively expand the number of our nuclear reactors, because they emit no CO2, we'd be on the same page.

So where do you stand on nuclear power? Is it worse than AGW? Why won't greens support it, to save the ice caps?

All interesting subjects, but have nothing to do with my questions. The right claims some sort of conspiracy on the part of the vast majority of climate scientists to defraud the public. Who is in charge of this conspiracy, and why?

The far left!

So they can subjugate everyone under government rule.

If all those European nations that funneled trillions into AGW believed in it, then they would not dismantle alternative energy source in favor of their over bloated social programs..

But then it would require a far left drone to see beyond their programming and as ha been demonstrated time and time again, they can not..

You're the one who uses far left in just about every post. Routine never changes. I think maybe you're the drone.

 

[gipper]

The OP is screwy...most R pols love AGW. Just like the Ds , they want wealth and power over all things. AGW and big unlimited gov go together like...you know.

 

[jasonnfree]

You are absolutely right, but the claim was that it isn't real. Cost, and whether it is worthwhile can be discussed by reasonable people, but the discussion here is whether it is real. I suspect the people in opposition to scientists views are more concerned about the cost, but they are trying to pretend it isn't real so they don't have to discuss the cost.

but the discussion here is whether it is real.

You may have missed my questions.

How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of natural factors?
How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of AGW factors?
List the factors and how much of the warming they caused.

I suspect the people in opposition to scientists views are more concerned about the cost

And the people who believe in AGW aren't concerned about the cost. Got it.

I didn't miss those questions because they are immaterial to me. As I have said all along, I am not a climate scientist and wouldn't have any idea what that bit of information would mean in relationship to all the other data out there. You aren't a climate scientist either, even though you are adamantly opposed to what formally educated scientists say. I will not be convinced either way by someone whose goal seems to be more politically based than fact based. This whole discussion started with me asking a couple of simple questions about who is funding the supposed conspiracy to foist false climate information on the public, and why they are supposedly doing it. Nobody has even tried to answer those questions preferring to change the subject in widely different directions. My questions are still the same, and all the subterfuge from people who seem to be upset by my questions won't change the subject.

You aren't a climate scientist either, even though you are adamantly opposed to what formally educated scientists say.

If they say we should spend trillions on less reliable "green" energy and that we should shackle our economy because supposedly those actions would reduce the temperature in 2080 by some unknowable (and tiny) amount, damn right I'm opposed.

Now, if they would say we should massively expand the number of our nuclear reactors, because they emit no CO2, we'd be on the same page.

So where do you stand on nuclear power? Is it worse than AGW? Why won't greens support it, to save the ice caps?

All interesting subjects, but have nothing to do with my questions. The right claims some sort of conspiracy on the part of the vast majority of climate scientists to defraud the public. Who is in charge of this conspiracy, and why?

The far left!

So they can subjugate everyone under government rule.

If all those European nations that funneled trillions into AGW believed in it, then they would not dismantle alternative energy source in favor of their over bloated social programs..

But then it would require a far left drone to see beyond their programming and as ha been demonstrated time and time again, they can not..

Without far left policies like social security, fox news and hate radio wouldn't have such a large audience of old white seniors. They'd be out there in the great free market trying to scratch out a living in their old age instead.

 

[mamooth]

Final thread summary:

The answer is a definite "yes".

That is, as they've so proudly kept proclaiming here, deniers do tend to believe in their religion solely because their political masters told them to believe.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Final thread summary:

The answer is a definite "yes".

That is, as they've so proudly kept proclaiming here, deniers do tend to believe in their religion solely because their political masters told them to believe.

^ No experiment, hides the decline, altered the data, flawed models, 800,000 year data set shows CO2 lags temperature, Human artifacts under ice in Greenland means Climate change is recent and natural, IPCC admits Climate Change Science is EnviroMarxism, but still they trudge on like a WWII soldier lost in Guam these past 65 years who believes he's still fighting WWII for the Emperor

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, you've already proven you're a bitter cult nutter. No need to keep beating on that point.

To review:

No experiments, hides the decline, altered the data, flawed models, 800,000 year data set shows CO2 lags temperature, Human artifacts under ice in Greenland means Climate change is recent and natural, IPCC admits Climate Change Science is EnviroMarxism, but still they trudge on like a WWII soldier lost in Guam these past 65 years who believes he's still fighting WWII for the Emperor

 

[westwall]

Final thread summary:

The answer is a definite "yes".

That is, as they've so proudly kept proclaiming here, deniers do tend to believe in their religion solely because their political masters told them to believe.

Yes, the AGW cultists do indeed follow the directives of their masters and high priests. They have no empirical data to support their now failed theory so they resort to obfuscation, falsification, and propaganda in a vain attempt to prop up the fraud.

Thanks for making that so very obvious!

 

[elektra]

Final thread summary:

The answer is a definite "yes".

That is, as they've so proudly kept proclaiming here, deniers do tend to believe in their religion solely because their political masters told them to believe.

I believe the Climate is changing, that is what weather does.

mamoot believes we can stop the changing weather, a Government controlled Temperature?

mamoot, what speed should the government dictate the wind speed?

mamoot, how many clouds should we dictate?

mamoot, could I have fair weather at the end of next month, its my birthday at the end of the month.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The increase is because fox stirred up the nutbags. They all have that one magical chart that disproves all the work that legitimate climate scientists have produced over the last several years. At least they think they do.

Nope... Its called empirical evidence not failed models..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now wait... this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

Good old Earth has shown the left wing nutbags liars..

And when did you become such an advanced expert on climatology? About the time fox started to whine about it?

Well, a lowly statistician destroyed the last major climatology paper in a couple of days, so he is clearly a better expert on climatology than they are....

That's still not an answer to the question I asked BillyBob.

No, it demonstrates that your question to Billy Bob was as pointless as you are.

I have found that personal attacks by morons who haven't the faintest clue what the IPCC and EPA have lied about over the years. They now come in screaming fire, while being devoid of facts, tells me they have no interest in why their position is wrong. You will notice, he did not even address the empirical evidence I supplied him yet went right into the "appeal to authority mode" by asking me what my credentials were.

The fool cant even address the empirical evidence. Just like Mamfool. Old Crock, and others, he asks for things they are unwilling to provide themselves while ignoring the facts presented. All they have is personal attacks.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Final thread summary:

The answer is a definite "yes".

That is, as they've so proudly kept proclaiming here, deniers do tend to believe in their religion solely because their political masters told them to believe.

I believe the Climate is changing, that is what weather does.

mamoot believes we can stop the changing weather, a Government controlled Temperature?

mamoot, what speed should the government dictate the wind speed?

mamoot, how many clouds should we dictate?

mamoot, could I have fair weather at the end of next month, its my birthday at the end of the month.

I am still waiting for them to show me how they stopped natural variation..

 

[Wyld Kard]

I mean aside from skewed, non-peer-reviewed studies funded by oil companies, republicans are really the only ones saying it is a scam. The rest of the world laughs at them. I don't understand why they dont realize that. Republicans are either willfully ignorant on this issue or they are protecting the interests of big business. Why do you people listen to these corrupt douche bags?

RWs like to cite small studies that conflict with the findings of the 97% global consensus on this issue, but what they fail to realize is that they really don't understand how science works. Most of the studies that conflict with AGW are small in scope and not verified by independent researchers. Without independent verification, it is easy to skew the results of the studies and draw a fallacious conclusion.

republicans are really the only ones saying it is a scam.

Really? The ONLY ones, huh? That's a load of bullshit!

Someone doesn't have to be a RW to know and understand that AGW is a scam, dumbass.

those lefty liberals hate....HATE conservatives, they wish we would all die. Ask them! they hate having to deal with us. Reasons why? We represent an opposing view to which they feel no one is allowed. Ask them.

It's not just the conservatives they hate. It's basically anyone at all who doesn't agree with them and their delusions.

Liberals expect everyone else to see things from ONLY their point-of-view.

 

[Wyld Kard]

Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?

How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of natural factors?
How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of AGW factors?
List the factors and how much of the warming they caused.
Show your work.
How much will your solution cost (in terms of $ and GDP)?
How much will that cost reduce the particular AGW factor?
How much will that factor reduce temperatures in 2080?
Show your work.

Do all the instant experts whose only education in climate science started with a report on fox and their entire course of study includes a few oil company funded web sites and talk radio have enough knowledge to discredit legitimate scientists?
What does cost have to do with whether something is real or not?

Show your work idiot. Idiot.

What does cost have to do with whether something is real or not?

Something can be real and not worth spending tens of trillions to "fix". Idiot.

You are absolutely right, but the claim was that it isn't real. Cost, and whether it is worthwhile can be discussed by reasonable people, but the discussion here is whether it is real. I suspect the people in opposition to scientists views are more concerned about the cost, but they are trying to pretend it isn't real so they don't have to discuss the cost.

but the discussion here is whether it is real.

You may have missed my questions.

How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of natural factors?
How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of AGW factors?
List the factors and how much of the warming they caused.

I suspect the people in opposition to scientists views are more concerned about the cost

And the people who believe in AGW aren't concerned about the cost. Got it.

I didn't miss those questions because they are immaterial to me. As I have said all along, I am not a climate scientist and wouldn't have any idea what that bit of information would mean in relationship to all the other data out there. You aren't a climate scientist either, even though you are adamantly opposed to what formally educated scientists say. I will not be convinced either way by someone whose goal seems to be more politically based than fact based. This whole discussion started with me asking a couple of simple questions about who is funding the supposed conspiracy to foist false climate information on the public, and why they are supposedly doing it. Nobody has even tried to answer those questions preferring to change the subject in widely different directions. My questions are still the same, and all the subterfuge from people who seem to be upset by my questions won't change the subject.

I will not be convinced either way by someone whose goal seems to be more politically based than fact based.

And yet you seem to accept that AGW is legit, which actually is more politically based and a whole lot less fact based, dumbass!

 

[mamooth]

The poor deniers has a sad.

Nearly the entire population of planet earth considers deniers to be dishonest cultists.

The world is correct.

Go on deniers. Scream. Pout. Rage. Stomp your feet, shake you fists at the sky. After you're done with the tantrums, the world will still correctly classify you as dishonest cultists.

So, sucks to be you, deniers. However, since you've all freely chosen the path of pathological dishonesty, nobody will feel especially sorry for you. Remember, you can end the constant humiliation you receive by simply walking away from your cult. Or you can grow old, always bitter and ostracized, and then die that way. Make a choice.