The Envirowhackos are Melting!

[fncceo]

Why is it this particular topic generates so much personal vitriol from both sides?
The bitching back and forth becomes tedious and convinces nobody of anything.
Meanwhile we all dance on the deck of the Titanic.

If you assume we're on the deck of the Titanic, that's a leap of faith.

There is absolutely no hard evidence of an existential threat to mankind.

 

[Sunsettommy]

That must be why I've posted "www.ipcc.ch" about 200 times while my right wing opponents continuously lie about its contents, accuse the world's scientists of being in a grand and completely unbelievable conspiracy to lie to the public so that they might grow rich somehow on research grants. That would be why the Trump Administration, in a bid to please his base, has destroyed the scientific credentials and cast aside the objective scientific inputs to the White House, the EPA, the FDA, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior and everywhere else they find objective science interfering with the process of the rich growing richer.

Explain this fella,

Then they go on to make a number of pseudoscience predictions/projections in report after report that are failing or failed.

No "Hotspot" is their number one failure.

Give it up, it isn't happening the way YOU think.

 

[Sunsettommy]

So, do you deny it then?

Can you offer any empirical evidence that AGW exists? Anything at all that would demonstrate that what is happening in the climate now is somehow different from anything that has happened in the past? Anything at all?

A new post with a bunch of new science papers showing no visible change in the hydrological cycle

New Science: A Main Tenet Of Anthropogenic Global Warming Has Been Falsified By Observations

"Climate models postulate that increasing CO2 concentrations will intensify the Earth’s water cycle. This intensification is believed to eventually result in dangerous (3°C and up) global warming. Observational evidence has thus far falsified these IPCC-endorsed claims."

The Positive warming Feedback Loop hasn't showed up.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why is it this particular topic generates so much personal vitriol from both sides?
The bitching back and forth becomes tedious and convinces nobody of anything.
Meanwhile we all dance on the deck of the Titanic.

Only fools who think their position is without flaw dance.. Some of us look carefully at the facts and determine where it is safe to go and stay. AGW is a fact-less fantasy that will crash and sink because it has holes in the hull.. Just like your unsinkable Titanic..

 

[Crick]

On what basis do you reject the opinion of more than 97% of the world's climate scientists?

 

[SSDD]

That must be why I've posted "www.ipcc.ch" about 200 times while my right wing opponents continuously lie about its contents, accuse the world's scientists of being in a grand and completely unbelievable conspiracy to lie to the public so that they might grow rich somehow on research grants. That would be why the Trump Administration, in a bid to please his base, has destroyed the scientific credentials and cast aside the objective scientific inputs to the White House, the EPA, the FDA, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior and everywhere else they find objective science interfering with the process of the rich growing richer.

And you can't seem to pull a single piece of observed measured evidence out of it that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability

or a single piece of observed measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere

Or a single published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by our production of so called greenhouse gasses has been empirically measured quantified, and ascribed to said so called greenhouse gasses...

All you managed to do was acknowledge that the information in there was good enough to fool you...

 

[SSDD]

On what basis do you reject the opinion of more than 97% of the world's climate scientists?

On the same basis I take most opinions with a very large grain of salt...opinions are, by definition a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce certainty.

Glad that you finally admit that AGW is an opinion held by climate science and not an evidence based position.

 

[Crick]

I haven't seen you correcting the many, many people here - primarily on your side of the argument - demanding proof for issues of natural science. As to evidence, you know precisely where to go: "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch.

You are a stupid, lying, troll.

 

[SSDD]

I haven't seen you correcting the many, many people here - primarily on your side of the argument - demanding proof for issues of natural science. As to evidence, you know precisely where to go: "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch.

Been there... There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..... not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere....and not a single published paper in which the hypothetical warming due to our so called greenhouse gasses has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to said so called greenhouse gasses.

You are a stupid, lying, troll.

By definition, it is you who is trolling.

 

[SweetSue92]

● Shot: ‘Climate grief’: The growing emotional toll of climate change — Extreme weather and dire climate reports are intensifying the mental health effects of global warming: depression and resignation about the future.

—Headline and subhead, NBC News, Christmas Eve.

● Chaser: Chuck Todd Bans ‘Climate Deniers’ from Climate Change Special:

Chuck Todd gave a stunning example of the phenomenon this morning in his introduction of a Meet the Press special edition on climate change. Todd quite literally announced that dissent would not be tolerated. Here was Todd:

“Just as important as what we are going to do this hour is what we’re not going to do. We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The Earth is getting hotter, and human activity is a major cause. Period. We’re not going to give time to climate deniers. The science is settled, even if political opinion is not.”

* * * * * * * *

“The epithet ‘climate denier,’ intended to invoke Holocaust denial, has always been tasteless and inapt . . . But climate activists delighted in defining their opposition this way.”

—NewsBusters, today.

‘Denier’ is a political term, not a scientific term.

Do you deny that AGW is real and a real problem?

So in science it’s acceptable to pick a side and suppress all alternatives?

You Leftards hate science.

Especially the science of human biology, like a unique human life is created at conception. They can't understand this basic science at all, and are forever muddying it up with sperm somehow counting for life on its own.

How they can chide us about dubious climate "science" when they would have failed basic 6th grade reproduction is beyond me, but there it is.

 

[SweetSue92]

Why is it this particular topic generates so much personal vitriol from both sides?
The bitching back and forth becomes tedious and convinces nobody of anything.
Meanwhile we all dance on the deck of the Titanic.

If you assume we're on the deck of the Titanic, that's a leap of faith.

There is absolutely no hard evidence of an existential threat to mankind.

You're missing one key element there, like you said. I'll let George sing it for us

 

[SSDD]

Especially the science of human biology, like a unique human life is created at conception. They can't understand this basic science at all, and are forever muddying it up with sperm somehow counting for life on its own.

who exactly, is saying that a sperm is a human life?

 

[SSDD]

Why is it this particular topic generates so much personal vitriol from both sides?
The bitching back and forth becomes tedious and convinces nobody of anything.
Meanwhile we all dance on the deck of the Titanic.

If you assume we're on the deck of the Titanic, that's a leap of faith.

There is absolutely no hard evidence of an existential threat to mankind.

You're missing one key element there, like you said. I'll let George sing it for us

If an uneducated singer says it in a song, it must be true? That passes for rational thinking in your little part of the world?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why is it this particular topic generates so much personal vitriol from both sides?
The bitching back and forth becomes tedious and convinces nobody of anything.
Meanwhile we all dance on the deck of the Titanic.

If you assume we're on the deck of the Titanic, that's a leap of faith.

There is absolutely no hard evidence of an existential threat to mankind.

You're missing one key element there, like you said. I'll let George sing it for us

If an uneducated singer says it in a song, it must be true? That passes for rational thinking in your little part of the world?

But that is who they trust.. Actors who are popular and they refuse to do the work necessary to be, themselves, informed.

TO damn lazy to do the work... They are just happy to be told what to think and what to do... This is why the US as a country is doomed to fall into servitude.

 

[westwall]

● Shot: ‘Climate grief’: The growing emotional toll of climate change — Extreme weather and dire climate reports are intensifying the mental health effects of global warming: depression and resignation about the future.

—Headline and subhead, NBC News, Christmas Eve.

● Chaser: Chuck Todd Bans ‘Climate Deniers’ from Climate Change Special:

Chuck Todd gave a stunning example of the phenomenon this morning in his introduction of a Meet the Press special edition on climate change. Todd quite literally announced that dissent would not be tolerated. Here was Todd:

“Just as important as what we are going to do this hour is what we’re not going to do. We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The Earth is getting hotter, and human activity is a major cause. Period. We’re not going to give time to climate deniers. The science is settled, even if political opinion is not.”

* * * * * * * *

“The epithet ‘climate denier,’ intended to invoke Holocaust denial, has always been tasteless and inapt . . . But climate activists delighted in defining their opposition this way.”

—NewsBusters, today.

‘Denier’ is a political term, not a scientific term.

Poor little uneducated science deniers

Yes, you ARE. Try reading some some day jillian. May I suggest you research the term SCIENTIFIC METHOD and then acquaint yourself with how the climatologists violate it all of the time. That's not science jillian, that is called pseudo science. Learn the difference.

 

[SweetSue92]

Especially the science of human biology, like a unique human life is created at conception. They can't understand this basic science at all, and are forever muddying it up with sperm somehow counting for life on its own.

who exactly, is saying that a sperm is a human life?

Oh it's all over the abortion threads. The question that comes up again and again is: if it's a sin to abort an embryo why is it not a sin to spill your seed on the ground?

They do not grasp the basic "Sperm + Egg = unique human life" Or they pretend to be so dumb. Sometimes it's hard to tell.

 

[SweetSue92]

Why is it this particular topic generates so much personal vitriol from both sides?
The bitching back and forth becomes tedious and convinces nobody of anything.
Meanwhile we all dance on the deck of the Titanic.

If you assume we're on the deck of the Titanic, that's a leap of faith.

There is absolutely no hard evidence of an existential threat to mankind.

You're missing one key element there, like you said. I'll let George sing it for us

If an uneducated singer says it in a song, it must be true? That passes for rational thinking in your little part of the world?

Was your sense of humor surgically removed or were you born that way? WOW

 

[SSDD]

Oh it's all over the abortion threads. The question that comes up again and again is: if it's a sin to abort an embryo why is it not a sin to spill your seed on the ground?

That sounds more like a religious argument than a scientific one and has nothing whatsoever to do with killing a living human being. It is hard to get people to change their religious beliefs...as evidenced here on the environment forum...people who believe in man made climate change believe with religious fervor...they have to believe because there is precious little empirical evidence to actually create informed certainty. You can point out the failures of the hypothesis, ask for observed, measured data that they can't produce over and over again, point out the obvious flaws in the models, etc. etc. etc...and they continue to believe...

Belief in something that can't be demonstrated with observations and measurements simply is not rational...I of course it isn't proper to say that such beliefs are wrong...especially in spiritual matters where faith and belief are really all there is...even atheists "believe" in something that they can no more prove than religious zealots...in matters of science, however, and arguments on scientific topics, faith and belief simply are not rational..if you can't provide observed, measured evidence in sufficient quantity to back up your belief, then you really don't hold a scientifically valid position

 

[SSDD]

Why is it this particular topic generates so much personal vitriol from both sides?
The bitching back and forth becomes tedious and convinces nobody of anything.
Meanwhile we all dance on the deck of the Titanic.

If you assume we're on the deck of the Titanic, that's a leap of faith.

There is absolutely no hard evidence of an existential threat to mankind.

You're missing one key element there, like you said. I'll let George sing it for us

If an uneducated singer says it in a song, it must be true? That passes for rational thinking in your little part of the world?

Was your sense of humor surgically removed or were you born that way? WOW

I have a great sense of humor...alas, far to much of the world believes that "if it is in a song, it must be true?" Anything that brings that sort of thinking to mind only reminds me of the abject failure of our educational system...hardly a joking matter.

 

[SweetSue92]

Oh it's all over the abortion threads. The question that comes up again and again is: if it's a sin to abort an embryo why is it not a sin to spill your seed on the ground?

That sounds more like a religious argument than a scientific one and has nothing whatsoever to do with killing a living human being. It is hard to get people to change their religious beliefs...as evidenced here on the environment forum...people who believe in man made climate change believe with religious fervor...they have to believe because there is precious little empirical evidence to actually create informed certainty. You can point out the failures of the hypothesis, ask for observed, measured data that they can't produce over and over again, point out the obvious flaws in the models, etc. etc. etc...and they continue to believe...

Belief in something that can't be demonstrated with observations and measurements simply is not rational...I of course it isn't proper to say that such beliefs are wrong...especially in spiritual matters where faith and belief are really all there is...even atheists "believe" in something that they can no more prove than religious zealots...in matters of science, however, and arguments on scientific topics, faith and belief simply are not rational..if you can't provide observed, measured evidence in sufficient quantity to back up your belief, then you really don't hold a scientifically valid position

Human development is a matter of science, not of faith.