NOBEL Prize Winners Say NO to AGW........

[CrusaderFrank]

You have to be a better scientist to be make it as a climatologist. You have rise from understanding one discipline to understanding multiple disciplines, you have to know statistics cold, and above all, you have to understand the scientific method. That's where deniers fail the hardest. They all seem to think that they can prove their case by waving their hands around widly and snarling at people, instead of by making testable predictions, which the climate scientists have been doing successfully for decades now.

Anyone who has advanced into the climatology field could easily teach, say, any geology class with just a bit of prep. In contrast, your average geologist would be utterly helpless when faced with a climatology topic, as some geologists have so clearly demonstrated. Not surprising, as climatology is generally a post-doc specialty that only the brightest go into after they start out in the hardest of the hard sciences.

If Giaver is so brilliant, you deniers need to explain what was it he said that was so brilliant. And back it up. Get crackin'. Do some science, instead of argument-from-authority fallacies.

LOLZ

Yeah Climate science (No experiments, DENIER!!! we have Consensus) is a hard science

 

[IlarMeilyr]

And when you have CONSENSUS, you have just about everything.

Well, consensus and "regularity."

THEN you have just about everything.

 

[westwall]

A scientist argues the science. A politician tries to destroy the messenger. Were you not a total dickhead you could understand that.

here you fk face moron...this is the Heartland Institute that pays your Giever...notice the Science and the lack of ad hominem ...arrogant fool

You try and paint the scientist as a fraud by pointing out he is a Heartland advisor. You ignore the mans qualifications and resort ot exactly what you claim you aren't.

Try again stupid. This qualifies as an epic fail.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

But you're not. You're a propagandist who doesn't give a shit about facts.

and you are a blow hard Right wing fk face who thinks that 97 percent of scientist who work with climate are in a huge conspiracy to make trillions of dollars...can you document that shit for brains???

no you cannot all you can do is blow hard and pretend you are scientific ..

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

You try and paint the scientist as a fraud by pointing out he is a Heartland advisor.

Try again stupid. This qualifies as an epic fail.

If I look up "epic fail" you are there...you just accused 97 percent of climate scientist of being in a conspiracy to make money...do you have a link a source or any documentation that supports your horse shit right wing dump?

 

[koshergrl]

hahahhahahaha

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Tough choice

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

So come on objective scientist dude "Westwall" come on with links showing its all a big 97 percent of scientist in a conspiracy

 

[mamooth]

You ignore the mans qualifications

Argument from authority fallacies don't really interest us. We're more interested in debunking his crazy pseudoscientific arguments.

It's not difficult. After it, it only takes a middle school level of science understanding to kid to debunk most denier arguments.

 

[westwall]

You try and paint the scientist as a fraud by pointing out he is a Heartland advisor.

Try again stupid. This qualifies as an epic fail.

If I look up "epic fail" you are there...you just accused 97 percent of climate scientist of being in a conspiracy to make money...do you have a link a source or any documentation that supports your horse shit right wing dump?

The meme that 97% of scientists support AGW is a lie. It has been proven a lie. The fact that you still attempt to reference it shows how weak a debater you are. I notice you still haven't addressed the TRILLIONS of dollars to be made if the fraud succeeds.

Why not?

 

[westwall]

You ignore the mans qualifications

Argument from authority fallacies don't really interest us. We're more interested in debunking his crazy pseudoscientific arguments.

It's not difficult. After it, it only takes a middle school level of science understanding to kid to debunk most denier arguments.

Almost the entirety of arguments supporting AGW are Appeals to Authority! Truly mammy, you're too funny.

EPIC FAIL.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And when you have CONSENSUS, you have just about everything.

Well, consensus and "regularity."

THEN you have just about everything.

I have peer reviewed this post and find it 100% Awesome

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You ignore the mans qualifications

Argument from authority fallacies don't really interest us. We're more interested in debunking his crazy pseudoscientific arguments.

It's not difficult. After it, it only takes a middle school level of science understanding to kid to debunk most denier arguments.

LOL!!!

From the "97% Consensus!" crowd

LOL

Are you trying to be funny, because it's hilarious!

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The meme that 97% of scientists support AGW is a lie.

Why not?

prove its a lie right now ...prove it....you are just another drooler prove that scientist are on your side of this issue asshole

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change– and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused(Oreskes 2004).

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Almost the entirety of arguments supporting AGW are Appeals to Authority! Truly mammy, you're too funny.

EPIC FAIL.

All the arguments of the "Climate Truthers" are based on Exxon Heartland Koch brothers ....the real objective scientist waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaa

what a fking moron.,,..

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Hey look Westwall why don't you put up something from Lord Monckton the Viscount himself LOL...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Look Westwall to what happened when someone challenged this

not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused(Oreskes 2004).

Benny Peiser's rebuttal
Benny Peiser repeated Oreskes survey and claimed to have found 34 peer reviewed studies rejecting the consensus. However, an inspection of each of the 34 studies reveals most of them don't reject the consensus at all. The remaining articles in Peiser's list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies. Peiser has since retracted his criticism of Oreskes survey:

"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique. [snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."

 

[jc456]

But you're not. You're a propagandist who doesn't give a shit about facts.

and you are a blow hard Right wing fk face who thinks that 97 percent of scientist who work with climate are in a huge conspiracy to make trillions of dollars...can you document that shit for brains???

no you cannot all you can do is blow hard and pretend you are scientific ..

I wish folks like you knew what the questions were for that 97%. Do you have them?

 

[jc456]

Hey look Westwall why don't you put up something from Lord Monckton the Viscount himself LOL...

hey, why don't you put up your solutions to your problem? What are they btw?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

I wish folks like you knew what the questions were for that 97%. Do you have them?

sure just as soon as you put up something anything that supports only Exxon affiliated scientist are true scientist the rest are money grubbers