tRump W.H. to create climate denier group.

[Darkwind]

So, they oppose people who are a skeptic of and have valid arguments against climate change, being given a voice.

Typical nazi nonsense.

Actually it is a requirement for the Trump administrations Climate Science Report and the NCA report to meet in public, subject to public records requests and them being forced to include a representative membership.

All these including the requirement for a representative voice have been removed. This is literally the one excluding.

I agree... It's the typical Nazi nonsense where if you don't like what the representative group is, you just create your own propoganda study to come up with your own belief system instead.

With little exception -- climate science isn't one of them -- an issue rarely has one single right answer and a healthy society debates the correct course of action. The AWG fanatics provide questionable science and then use gestapo tactics to silence any opposition. If they were confident in their science, they'd not need to do anything but present the information (uncorrected) and allow the people to determine the validity of the conclusion.

But the idiots can't even get a mean temperature correct, have misidentified the greenhouse gas that may or may not be responsible for warming, and to top it all off, they cannot assure anyone that the current change in climate is anything BUT natural.

These and about a thousand other questions and issues MUST be discussed openly BY ALL SIDES, before we even consider allowing anyone to destroy a significant portion of the economy, just on their say so.

 

[Darkwind]

America IS our forum.

Then stop whining like a little baby about being denied a forum.

I'm not. The thread is about Trump creating a forum for those who question the climate change cult.

IT is YOU who is doing the whining.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

With little exception -- climate science isn't one of them -- an issue rarely has one single right answer and a healthy society debates the correct course of action.

Stop trying to change the subject, you charlatan. Now you switch to "only one right answer to combat climate change", a horseshit claim nobody has made.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The thread is about Trump creating a forum for those who question the climate change cult.

And you whining about people correctly calling it an embarrassing sham.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Senate was republican controlled so it makes no difference.

So Dems could have voted to damage our economy without worrying it would pass.

So how many Dem votes did it get? 40? 30? Couple of dozen, at least?

Look it up. My name's not Google.

The answer was zero.....moron.

Well post it up, back up your assertions .

Post it up yourself.

You made the claim kid, since you can't back it up I'm gonna assume you just pulled it outta yer ass.

Oh no, you're going to remain ignorant.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

W.H. to create climate denier group.

Liar!!

Nope, he's spot on.

who denies the climate changes?



I will wait as you scratch your ass to come up with a reply

"Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee - I'm in Los Angeles and it's freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!"

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive"

"This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice"

"NBC News just called it the great freeze - coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX?"

"The weather has been so cold for so long that the global warming HOAXSTERS were forced to change the name to climate change to keep $ flow!"


Literally the guy putting together this climate change review because he didn't like the two his own departments gave to him

Green Is for Bluebloods

And then you go and use the strawman fallacy to promote the "If A is illogical, then B must be logical" false-choice fallacy. At the same time you have been suckered into a false-flag fallacy, because the uninhibited development of nature has always been the chief source of class mobility, which terrifies the hereditary plutocracy which you pretend to yourself that you are attacking.

Ummm no. Not even close. And I'll tell you you can quit your raving rant before you get into the illuminati mind control portion.



I' But no mushy mouth "hereditary plutocracy" manifesto changes that.

.

The Real Road to Serfdumb


Go back to the crumbling castles of Europe where you belong. Futilely feudal, you can lick the dust off the guillotined skulls of the charismatic rich kids you absolve from all responsibility for the suffocating false messages their Daddies put them in the position to inundate us with.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope, he's spot on.

who denies the climate changes?



I will wait as you scratch your ass to come up with a reply

"Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee - I'm in Los Angeles and it's freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!"

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive"

"This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice"

"NBC News just called it the great freeze - coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX?"

"The weather has been so cold for so long that the global warming HOAXSTERS were forced to change the name to climate change to keep $ flow!"


Literally the guy putting together this climate change review because he didn't like the two his own departments gave to him

Green Is for Bluebloods

And then you go and use the strawman fallacy to promote the "If A is illogical, then B must be logical" false-choice fallacy. At the same time you have been suckered into a false-flag fallacy, because the uninhibited development of nature has always been the chief source of class mobility, which terrifies the hereditary plutocracy which you pretend to yourself that you are attacking.

Ummm no. Not even close. And I'll tell you you can quit your raving rant before you get into the illuminati mind control portion.



I' But no mushy mouth "hereditary plutocracy" manifesto changes that.

.

The Real Road to Serfdumb


Go back to the crumbling castles of Europe where you belong. Futilely feudal, you can lick the dust off the guillotined skulls of the charismatic rich kids you absolve from all responsibility for the suffocating false messages their Daddies put them in the position to inundate us with.

Show me on this doll where the rich kid touched you........

 

[SandSquid]

who denies the climate changes?



I will wait as you scratch your ass to come up with a reply

"Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee - I'm in Los Angeles and it's freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!"

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive"

"This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice"

"NBC News just called it the great freeze - coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX?"

"The weather has been so cold for so long that the global warming HOAXSTERS were forced to change the name to climate change to keep $ flow!"


Literally the guy putting together this climate change review because he didn't like the two his own departments gave to him

Green Is for Bluebloods

And then you go and use the strawman fallacy to promote the "If A is illogical, then B must be logical" false-choice fallacy. At the same time you have been suckered into a false-flag fallacy, because the uninhibited development of nature has always been the chief source of class mobility, which terrifies the hereditary plutocracy which you pretend to yourself that you are attacking.

Ummm no. Not even close. And I'll tell you you can quit your raving rant before you get into the illuminati mind control portion.



I' But no mushy mouth "hereditary plutocracy" manifesto changes that.

.

The Real Road to Serfdumb


Go back to the crumbling castles of Europe where you belong. Futilely feudal, you can lick the dust off the guillotined skulls of the charismatic rich kids you absolve from all responsibility for the suffocating false messages their Daddies put them in the position to inundate us with.

Show me on this doll where the rich kid touched you........

It's always funny when someone is so triggered by facts they have to resort to name calling. Got it, you can have your safe space now. lol

 

[SSDD]

Valid arguments? Hilarity!

Guess you are unaware that there were more than 500 papers peer reviewed and published in 2018 alone which were skeptical of the consensus opinion on climate science...

 

[SandSquid]

Valid arguments? Hilarity!

Guess you are unaware that there were more than 500 papers peer reviewed and published in 2018 alone which were skeptical of the consensus opinion on climate science...

When Dennis Avery and Fred Singer made that claim they intentionally ignored entire parts of the studies. For example a study on the sun increasing temperatures, which also said that man made global warming still was the primary cause of global warming, they left out the second part and said that paper was skeptical of global warming.

Scientists have been railing at them being intentionally misrepresented that way in this fake report.


For example:

"I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite.”

Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh

"I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.”

Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University

"I don't believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article.”

Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford

"Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!”

Dr. Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University


"I'm outraged that they've included me as an “author” of this report. I do not share the views expressed in the summary.”

Dr. John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University

These are the scientists refuting global warming???????




So when you use that report, are you intentionally trying to mislead with lies? Or were you just uninformed that it has been debunked by the scientists actually writing those reports?

I think if you had real evidence you wouldn't be stuck trying to defend a scientist saying "I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced." is skepticism of man made global warming.

Next time you want to try to pass off a lie as fact, just stop. Attempting to dumb people down to your level doesn't work.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Scientists say that the proof climate is changing is that it's getting warmer

Trump says that's a hoax.

Trump is denying the climate is changing.

Were you always this dumb or do you have an excuse for it like a major brain injury. Maybe you should retake 4th grade science.

Scientists say that the proof climate is changing is that it's getting warmer

Is it getting warmer for real?
Is that why they keep changing the historical data?

Well that other guy was looking for the morons who deny climate change... There is another.

So you are asking why when switching temp recording times in an area they adjust for time of day? Or when moving a reading location, they adjust for the temp difference? Or when a temp location which was rural ends up in the city they adjust for the local temp change?

Making more accurate temperature readings without bias is what you fear? Seems odd? Why do you want the less accurate data?

If you want the raw data, there you go. Shows... Global warming.





View attachment 249174





Stations have moved to different locations over the past 150 years, most more than once. They have changed instruments from mercury thermometers to electronic sensors, and have changed the time they take temperature measurements from afternoon to morning. Cities have grown up around stations, and some weather stations are not ideally located. All of these issues introduce inconsistencies into the temperature record.


The funny thing is even without these adjustments to remove bias, all it shows is global warming.

And of course NOT ONE of the conspiracy theories related to the temp adjustments has been able to prove global warming doesn't exist, now that any adjustment was made with any reason other than improving accuracy.


So sorry. Just because scientists adjusted Earth's orbit, earths circumference and Earth's temps in the past to be more accurate, it doesn't mean the sun revolves around the earth, that the Earth is flat, or that the Earth isn't warming.

So you are asking why when switching temp recording times in an area they adjust for time of day?

If they looked at a thermometer at 3 pm and recorded that data point, how can they now, decades later,
decide what the temperature was at noon, or whenever, to "adjust" the actual data?

Seems dishonest, if that's what they are doing.

Making more accurate temperature readings without bias is what you fear?

I fear changing actual readings into estimated readings to make them "more accurate".

You bet your ass.

Without bias? That's funny.

Why do you want the less accurate data?

I just want the data. What was actually recorded.

If you want the raw data, there you go.

Unless the warmers deleted it, eh?
Shows... Global warming.

You guys are winning, right?
So why do you keep cheating? Seems odd.​

Now you are asking questions.. glad to see you want to inform yourself finally. How do they know?

Well they put out 140 temp sensors reading temps all day every 2 seconds for over a decade to come to those conclusions. Then run them through a statistical comparison. And what they've found is they are even closer to those "pristine" sensors they placed away from urban settings... So again, what about accuracy scares you?



And yes without bias. Every change they've made has been public. Which adjustment are you saying was biased for warmth? Remember without those adjustments global warming is actually MORE pronounced.

So if you want. Go with the raw data. Global warming exists. Go with other countries. Global warming proven (even those who are not our allies). Go with ocean data. Yup... Global warming.

Well they put out 140 temp sensors reading temps all day every 2 seconds for over a decade to come to those conclusions.

Well, if that's all it takes to "adjust" the mercury thermometer readings from the 19th Century......LOL!

That poster has to be 12 years old... He thinks a decade worth of readings from a planet 4.5 billions years old means anything.

 

[Crick]

You've used a lot less data than that to claim a 150 year warming trend had ended.

Besides, we have no reason to be concerned about what the planet was doing 4.5 billion years ago. Or, as far as climate studies go, even 0.01 billion years ago

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee - I'm in Los Angeles and it's freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!"

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive"

"This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice"

"NBC News just called it the great freeze - coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX?"

"The weather has been so cold for so long that the global warming HOAXSTERS were forced to change the name to climate change to keep $ flow!"


Literally the guy putting together this climate change review because he didn't like the two his own departments gave to him

Green Is for Bluebloods

And then you go and use the strawman fallacy to promote the "If A is illogical, then B must be logical" false-choice fallacy. At the same time you have been suckered into a false-flag fallacy, because the uninhibited development of nature has always been the chief source of class mobility, which terrifies the hereditary plutocracy which you pretend to yourself that you are attacking.

Ummm no. Not even close. And I'll tell you you can quit your raving rant before you get into the illuminati mind control portion.



I' But no mushy mouth "hereditary plutocracy" manifesto changes that.

.

The Real Road to Serfdumb


Go back to the crumbling castles of Europe where you belong. Futilely feudal, you can lick the dust off the guillotined skulls of the charismatic rich kids you absolve from all responsibility for the suffocating false messages their Daddies put them in the position to inundate us with.

Show me on this doll where the rich kid touched you........

It's always funny when someone is so triggered by facts they have to resort to name calling. Got it, you can have your safe space now. lol

What are you mumbling about now?

 

[SandSquid]

Scientists say that the proof climate is changing is that it's getting warmer

Is it getting warmer for real?
Is that why they keep changing the historical data?

Well that other guy was looking for the morons who deny climate change... There is another.

So you are asking why when switching temp recording times in an area they adjust for time of day? Or when moving a reading location, they adjust for the temp difference? Or when a temp location which was rural ends up in the city they adjust for the local temp change?

Making more accurate temperature readings without bias is what you fear? Seems odd? Why do you want the less accurate data?

If you want the raw data, there you go. Shows... Global warming.





View attachment 249174





Stations have moved to different locations over the past 150 years, most more than once. They have changed instruments from mercury thermometers to electronic sensors, and have changed the time they take temperature measurements from afternoon to morning. Cities have grown up around stations, and some weather stations are not ideally located. All of these issues introduce inconsistencies into the temperature record.


The funny thing is even without these adjustments to remove bias, all it shows is global warming.

And of course NOT ONE of the conspiracy theories related to the temp adjustments has been able to prove global warming doesn't exist, now that any adjustment was made with any reason other than improving accuracy.


So sorry. Just because scientists adjusted Earth's orbit, earths circumference and Earth's temps in the past to be more accurate, it doesn't mean the sun revolves around the earth, that the Earth is flat, or that the Earth isn't warming.

So you are asking why when switching temp recording times in an area they adjust for time of day?

If they looked at a thermometer at 3 pm and recorded that data point, how can they now, decades later,
decide what the temperature was at noon, or whenever, to "adjust" the actual data?

Seems dishonest, if that's what they are doing.

Making more accurate temperature readings without bias is what you fear?

I fear changing actual readings into estimated readings to make them "more accurate".

You bet your ass.

Without bias? That's funny.

Why do you want the less accurate data?

I just want the data. What was actually recorded.

If you want the raw data, there you go.

Unless the warmers deleted it, eh?
Shows... Global warming.

You guys are winning, right?
So why do you keep cheating? Seems odd.​

Now you are asking questions.. glad to see you want to inform yourself finally. How do they know?

Well they put out 140 temp sensors reading temps all day every 2 seconds for over a decade to come to those conclusions. Then run them through a statistical comparison. And what they've found is they are even closer to those "pristine" sensors they placed away from urban settings... So again, what about accuracy scares you?



And yes without bias. Every change they've made has been public. Which adjustment are you saying was biased for warmth? Remember without those adjustments global warming is actually MORE pronounced.

So if you want. Go with the raw data. Global warming exists. Go with other countries. Global warming proven (even those who are not our allies). Go with ocean data. Yup... Global warming.

Well they put out 140 temp sensors reading temps all day every 2 seconds for over a decade to come to those conclusions.

Well, if that's all it takes to "adjust" the mercury thermometer readings from the 19th Century......LOL!

That poster has to be 12 years old... He thinks a decade worth of readings from a planet 4.5 billions years old means anything.

So the data was based on 22,075,200,000 time points for the move. The statistical model was done by a lot better statisticians by myself the model looks good, and the results have been exactly where expected.

But please, feel free to contradict that point with actual facts instead of "I'm to dumb to actually speak out against anything done, too uninformed to know what happened, and so ignorant I believe I am better than the top scientists at NOAA at temperature correlation"

Or rant incoherently about something you know nothing about. That works too kiddo.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He thinks a decade worth of readings from a planet 4.5 billions years old means anything.

Oop, sorry son. You don't get to both enjoy the fruits of the labor of the global scientific community, while also calling them all incompetent liars.

And who taught you that, anyway? Was it.... geologists?

Here they are, endorsing the climate theories: https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/~/media/...Change Statement final new format.pdf?la=en

And here:

Climate Change - GSA Position Statement 10

So, either they are incompetent liars, or they aren't. Which is it, professor?

 

[Wyatt earp]

You've used a lot less data than that to claim a 150 year warming trend had ended.

Besides, we have no reason to be concerned about what the planet was doing 4.5 billion years ago. Or, as far as climate studies go, even 0.01 billion years ago

of course we do asshat, its called statistics...............

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

its called statistics

Haha, look at the trumpkin, using big words. Okay then, show us, statistically, why he is wrong.

 

[SandSquid]

its called statistics

Haha, look at the trumpkin, using big words. Okay then, show us, statistically, why he is wrong.

That would be nice. What about the data are you saying is not correct?

Or are you just saying based your ignorance you don't like the results?

 

[Wyatt earp]

its called statistics

Haha, look at the trumpkin, using big words. Okay then, show us, statistically, why he is wrong.

what kind of fucking retort is that I already did ......

 

[Wyatt earp]

its called statistics

Haha, look at the trumpkin, using big words. Okay then, show us, statistically, why he is wrong.

That would be nice. What about the data are you saying is not correct?

Or are you just saying based your ignorance you don't like the results?

what results that the earth is not a 100 years old?