Science denialism: The problem that just won’t go away

[IanC]

Orogenic, old rocks.

Geologist, student of geology.

Never heard from at the same time.

Very interesting. Hahahaha.

Did I mention the same phrasing, overlap of links...

 

[Mr. H.]

Why do Liberals deny the science of abortion, the science of the Keystone XL, the science of ethanol and the RFS mandate?

Could you be a little more specific?

For you?

 

[orogenicman]

There was one article about global cooling a decade ago and it was debunked.

http://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-rewind-debunking-global-cooling-252326

And there were some laughed at opinion pieces.

Right wingers have been clinging to those ever since. That's the extent of their data. "Debunked".

We see this so many times. If there is a very newsworthy disclosure people will remember it for a long time. However if that disclosure is debunked, it is not front page headlines, and people will gloss over it and remain ignorant.

Absolutely correct. How often have we seen a press release come out for a new climate science paper which makes unsupported claims that are debunked in short order but the revised versions never get reported. Gergis2012, Marcott's recantation, and Steig's various Antacrtic papers come to mind.

Marcott's recantation? Wow, you really have drunk deeply from the kool aid pitcher.

RealClimate Response by Marcott et al.

 

[orogenicman]

And can't admit he isn't science knowledgeable. None of them. yet they can insult your knowledge, it is who they are, scared rabbits dropping terds on a message board stinking it up with their bullshit.

What knowledge, where?

are you a scientist? no you said so in a previous time and date. You are a geologist if I remember correctly. So how is it you're smarter than a scientist?

He happens to have the exact same credentials as Old Rocks

Quite on the contrary. Orogenicman is a published Geologist. I am but a millwright, and a student of geology. But both of us link to articles from peer reviewed journals, articles written by men who have spent decades studying this discipline. Whereas you people link to fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen. And take your spiels from an obese junkie on the AM radio.

We choose not to follow the AGW fools off the cliff.. If the fools are geologist or not make no difference.. I dont follow fools.

You can't prove it by your posts.

 

[orogenicman]

Orogenic, old rocks.

Geologist, student of geology.

Never heard from at the same time.

Very interesting. Hahahaha.

Did I mention the same phrasing, overlap of links...

WTF? You people see Delvian vipers at every turn, don't you? Take yer meds, Ian.

 

[asterism]

Orogenic, old rocks.

Geologist, student of geology.

Never heard from at the same time.

Very interesting. Hahahaha.

Did I mention the same phrasing, overlap of links...

I've never heard Old Rocks talk about astronomy at all and Orogenicman posted an album of astrophotography images.

 

[Old Rocks]

Orogenic, old rocks.

Geologist, student of geology.

Never heard from at the same time.

Very interesting. Hahahaha.

Did I mention the same phrasing, overlap of links...

I've never heard Old Rocks talk about astronomy at all and Orogenicman posted an album of astrophotography images.

A good observation. Now, for Ian, as for your observation that we Orogenicman and I use the same phrasing. When talking of geology or science, that might be so. However, much of my posts and attitude show the 50 years I have spent in sawmills, construction, and steel mills.

So, Ian, instead of using the damnable tobacco industry strategy of trying to create doubt of other peoples data, why don't you present some data that shows that the GHGs don't have the affects that the physicists state that they do. And why don't you show us icecaps and a high percentage of existing glaciers that are gaining mass? Because the way you are presently argueing your case against AGW is just pissing in the wind. Little differant than Billy Boob or Just Crazy.

 

[jc456]

how do you know? That's a flippin bold ass statement to make. You don't know who he is, again, you're just a terd on a message board stinking up the place with bullshit.

It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that someone who claims to be a scientist and yet doesn't understand the first think about science is not telling the truth. You for instance...

dude, I've never ever once made a claim of being a scientist. I've even stated that my knowledge is slim. But, I am a thought producing individual and I look at reality as a person who has knowledge of other things and I can interpret data since I do it for a living. So, not sure why one needs to be a scientist to understand data. Please provide me some context into why that is a requirement? I also absorb others data and use logic. And logic says to me, if you don't know where life begins, how can you claim finality of how it is? Please explain that?

How can a person like you ever sit on a jury? Without seeing the person commit murder with your own eyes, how will you decide? By looking at the mountains of evidence that all suggests evolution is real. In fact its pretty much a fact. Even the pope believes. Why dont you?

ever hear of evidence? I'd be more scared to see you on a jury, you couldn't move along with the arguments, you'd choose a position and no matter the data or testimony by others, you'd berate them and call them all liars because they didn't agree with the position you take. Funny thing reality when shown in full bloom. You are a parrott, puppet and what ever other names are out there for someone too stupid to think for themselves and look at the actual evidence or lack of it. Nope I'd be more liked. I was once a foreman and found the defendant not guilty. Not enough evidence. I am consistent as hell brother.

What data or testimony are you using to come to your conclusion?

most all of the data is faked. And no one can produce an experiment that shows that adding 120 PPM of CO2 drives a temperature. No one!!! See in my logic, one needs to prove a point and if a point is not proven, then I find the point irrelevant. Sea Rise, where, still no one has produced an area. Arctic ice, nope. See all of the warmers statements are all unjustified without evidence. And funny, the links and evidence that has been produced is all faked and phoney. Mann for instance, the dataset was used and showed the exact same results, well dah, if you use the same data, bad data, one would end up with the same results. Doesn't take a rocket science major to know that. Let's look at the unaltered data sets. Give us that Mann. nope, even took him to court and he wouldn't produce it. It is my position based on lack of fact. And I'm still not sure what money has to do with saving a planet anyway if it all were true. Even though it isn't.

So do you have evidence that supports that 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures?

 

[jc456]

Wtf? Pregnant? It's PRED not Preg, you illiterate fuck. It is because of my knowledge of science and history, that I deny AGW.

In your ignorance, you cannot distinguish between Climate Change, AGW, and Global Warming. I doubt you have the knowledge and intelligence to even be discussing the subject. All you can do is cut and paste and repeat the lie that if you don't believe in AGW then you must hate science.

And can't admit he isn't science knowledgeable. None of them. yet they can insult your knowledge, it is who they are, scared rabbits dropping terds on a message board stinking it up with their bullshit.

What knowledge, where?

are you a scientist? no you said so in a previous time and date. You are a geologist if I remember correctly. So how is it you're smarter than a scientist?

He happens to have the exact same credentials as Old Rocks

Quite on the contrary. Orogenicman is a published Geologist. I am but a millwright, and a student of geology. But both of us link to articles from peer reviewed journals, articles written by men who have spent decades studying this discipline. Whereas you people link to fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen. And take your spiels from an obese junkie on the AM radio.

huh? what qualifies the peer review folks again? Who are they again?

 

[jc456]

Orogenic, old rocks.

Geologist, student of geology.

Never heard from at the same time.

Very interesting. Hahahaha.

Did I mention the same phrasing, overlap of links...

I've never heard Old Rocks talk about astronomy at all and Orogenicman posted an album of astrophotography images.

A good observation. Now, for Ian, as for your observation that we Orogenicman and I use the same phrasing. When talking of geology or science, that might be so. However, much of my posts and attitude show the 50 years I have spent in sawmills, construction, and steel mills.

So, Ian, instead of using the damnable tobacco industry strategy of trying to create doubt of other peoples data, why don't you present some data that shows that the GHGs don't have the affects that the physicists state that they do. And why don't you show us icecaps and a high percentage of existing glaciers that are gaining mass? Because the way you are presently argueing your case against AGW is just pissing in the wind. Little differant than Billy Boob or Just Crazy.

socks, why not post an experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures. Let's call a spade a spade shall we. You want to post this kind of strawman garbage then post up the experiment or stfu.

 

[orogenicman]

It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that someone who claims to be a scientist and yet doesn't understand the first think about science is not telling the truth. You for instance...

dude, I've never ever once made a claim of being a scientist. I've even stated that my knowledge is slim. But, I am a thought producing individual and I look at reality as a person who has knowledge of other things and I can interpret data since I do it for a living. So, not sure why one needs to be a scientist to understand data. Please provide me some context into why that is a requirement? I also absorb others data and use logic. And logic says to me, if you don't know where life begins, how can you claim finality of how it is? Please explain that?

How can a person like you ever sit on a jury? Without seeing the person commit murder with your own eyes, how will you decide? By looking at the mountains of evidence that all suggests evolution is real. In fact its pretty much a fact. Even the pope believes. Why dont you?

ever hear of evidence? I'd be more scared to see you on a jury, you couldn't move along with the arguments, you'd choose a position and no matter the data or testimony by others, you'd berate them and call them all liars because they didn't agree with the position you take. Funny thing reality when shown in full bloom. You are a parrott, puppet and what ever other names are out there for someone too stupid to think for themselves and look at the actual evidence or lack of it. Nope I'd be more liked. I was once a foreman and found the defendant not guilty. Not enough evidence. I am consistent as hell brother.

What data or testimony are you using to come to your conclusion?

most all of the data is faked. And no one can produce an experiment that shows that adding 120 PPM of CO2 drives a temperature. No one!!! See in my logic, one needs to prove a point and if a point is not proven, then I find the point irrelevant. Sea Rise, where, still no one has produced an area. Arctic ice, nope. See all of the warmers statements are all unjustified without evidence. And funny, the links and evidence that has been produced is all faked and phoney. Mann for instance, the dataset was used and showed the exact same results, well dah, if you use the same data, bad data, one would end up with the same results. Doesn't take a rocket science major to know that. Let's look at the unaltered data sets. Give us that Mann. nope, even took him to court and he wouldn't produce it. It is my position based on lack of fact. And I'm still not sure what money has to do with saving a planet anyway if it all were true. Even though it isn't.

So do you have evidence that supports that 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures?

 

[orogenicman]

And can't admit he isn't science knowledgeable. None of them. yet they can insult your knowledge, it is who they are, scared rabbits dropping terds on a message board stinking it up with their bullshit.

What knowledge, where?

are you a scientist? no you said so in a previous time and date. You are a geologist if I remember correctly. So how is it you're smarter than a scientist?

He happens to have the exact same credentials as Old Rocks

Quite on the contrary. Orogenicman is a published Geologist. I am but a millwright, and a student of geology. But both of us link to articles from peer reviewed journals, articles written by men who have spent decades studying this discipline. Whereas you people link to fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen. And take your spiels from an obese junkie on the AM radio.

huh? what qualifies the peer review folks again? Who are they again?

Real scientists, unlike you, JC (just crazy).

 

[Wuwei]

socks, why not post an experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures. Let's call a spade a spade shall we. You want to post this kind of strawman garbage then post up the experiment or stfu.

This was beat to death in another thread. You know this can't be done in a laboratory. What you can do in a lab is show that GHGs have a "blanketing" effect and demonstrate GHG backscatter is viable.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

socks, why not post an experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures. Let's call a spade a spade shall we. You want to post this kind of strawman garbage then post up the experiment or stfu.

This was beat to death in another thread. You know this can't be done in a laboratory. What you can do in a lab is show that GHGs have a "blanketing" effect and demonstrate GHG backscatter is viable.

why can't it be done in a laboratory?

Why can't you show us the increase in temperature cause by an additional 120PPM of CO2

And we're being EXTREMELY generous with you, because we're asking for an INSTANTANEOUS addition of 120PPM in a CLOSED SYSTEM and you still can't show any "warming"

 

[jc456]

dude, I've never ever once made a claim of being a scientist. I've even stated that my knowledge is slim. But, I am a thought producing individual and I look at reality as a person who has knowledge of other things and I can interpret data since I do it for a living. So, not sure why one needs to be a scientist to understand data. Please provide me some context into why that is a requirement? I also absorb others data and use logic. And logic says to me, if you don't know where life begins, how can you claim finality of how it is? Please explain that?

How can a person like you ever sit on a jury? Without seeing the person commit murder with your own eyes, how will you decide? By looking at the mountains of evidence that all suggests evolution is real. In fact its pretty much a fact. Even the pope believes. Why dont you?

ever hear of evidence? I'd be more scared to see you on a jury, you couldn't move along with the arguments, you'd choose a position and no matter the data or testimony by others, you'd berate them and call them all liars because they didn't agree with the position you take. Funny thing reality when shown in full bloom. You are a parrott, puppet and what ever other names are out there for someone too stupid to think for themselves and look at the actual evidence or lack of it. Nope I'd be more liked. I was once a foreman and found the defendant not guilty. Not enough evidence. I am consistent as hell brother.

What data or testimony are you using to come to your conclusion?

most all of the data is faked. And no one can produce an experiment that shows that adding 120 PPM of CO2 drives a temperature. No one!!! See in my logic, one needs to prove a point and if a point is not proven, then I find the point irrelevant. Sea Rise, where, still no one has produced an area. Arctic ice, nope. See all of the warmers statements are all unjustified without evidence. And funny, the links and evidence that has been produced is all faked and phoney. Mann for instance, the dataset was used and showed the exact same results, well dah, if you use the same data, bad data, one would end up with the same results. Doesn't take a rocket science major to know that. Let's look at the unaltered data sets. Give us that Mann. nope, even took him to court and he wouldn't produce it. It is my position based on lack of fact. And I'm still not sure what money has to do with saving a planet anyway if it all were true. Even though it isn't.

So do you have evidence that supports that 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures?

hmmmmm, kitten?

 

[jc456]

What knowledge, where?

are you a scientist? no you said so in a previous time and date. You are a geologist if I remember correctly. So how is it you're smarter than a scientist?

He happens to have the exact same credentials as Old Rocks

Quite on the contrary. Orogenicman is a published Geologist. I am but a millwright, and a student of geology. But both of us link to articles from peer reviewed journals, articles written by men who have spent decades studying this discipline. Whereas you people link to fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen. And take your spiels from an obese junkie on the AM radio.

huh? what qualifies the peer review folks again? Who are they again?

Real scientists, unlike you, JC (just crazy).

who fake data to make money. your point?

 

[jc456]

socks, why not post an experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures. Let's call a spade a spade shall we. You want to post this kind of strawman garbage then post up the experiment or stfu.

This was beat to death in another thread. You know this can't be done in a laboratory. What you can do in a lab is show that GHGs have a "blanketing" effect and demonstrate GHG backscatter is viable.

if you completely fill a chamber with the gas? uh, no. let's put things in perspective, if you say it can't be done in a lab, so be it, make the statement and move on. I have stated that many, many times on the forum, do you know no one else but you has made that statement. Why? What are they afraid of? Oh yeah, making a claim they can't confirm in a lab experiment. So, where do we go, we say oh, money will fix the problem? If it wasn't for that, there may be more credibility, but to say someone has to pay money, What the F is that about?

So what you're saying is that there is no evidence to show that adding 120 PPM of CO2 to the atmosphere creates anymore global warming than naturally observed. So how is it mans fault? Oh and the beat goes on. Nope my logical senses tell me the shit is all made up.

 

[jc456]

socks, why not post an experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures. Let's call a spade a spade shall we. You want to post this kind of strawman garbage then post up the experiment or stfu.

This was beat to death in another thread. You know this can't be done in a laboratory. What you can do in a lab is show that GHGs have a "blanketing" effect and demonstrate GHG backscatter is viable.

why can't it be done in a laboratory?

Why can't you show us the increase in temperature cause by an additional 120PPM of CO2

And we're being EXTREMELY generous with you, because we're asking for an INSTANTANEOUS addition of 120PPM in a CLOSED SYSTEM and you still can't show any "warming"

Frank, I take it he's saying they can't and in that vein, there is zero evidence to support any of the claim. So we're correct in our logical conclusions. Fake, fake, fake, fake.

 

[jc456]

socks, why not post an experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures. Let's call a spade a spade shall we. You want to post this kind of strawman garbage then post up the experiment or stfu.

This was beat to death in another thread. You know this can't be done in a laboratory. What you can do in a lab is show that GHGs have a "blanketing" effect and demonstrate GHG backscatter is viable.

oh and the beat to death comment, is unjustified. It was a request that has/was never produced. So beat to death is inaccurate, not proven is what it is. just so we're clear. Oh and if there were that much CO2 in the atmosphere we'd be dead due to having no oxygen.

 

[orogenicman]

are you a scientist? no you said so in a previous time and date. You are a geologist if I remember correctly. So how is it you're smarter than a scientist?

He happens to have the exact same credentials as Old Rocks

Quite on the contrary. Orogenicman is a published Geologist. I am but a millwright, and a student of geology. But both of us link to articles from peer reviewed journals, articles written by men who have spent decades studying this discipline. Whereas you people link to fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen. And take your spiels from an obese junkie on the AM radio.

huh? what qualifies the peer review folks again? Who are they again?

Real scientists, unlike you, JC (just crazy).

who fake data to make money. your point?

Yeah, because climatology will make you a gazillion dollars, more even than those poor destitute Koch brothers.

At ease with the conspiracy theories, just crazy.