Why do liberals have to make up climate change?

That "assessment" of what Curry said is from the pond scum cartoonists at Skeptical Science.

Some fine Cook Derangement Syndrome.

As it was used in this case, CDS is usually invoked to avoid talking about the issues. The issue was Curry's bad science, so CDS was invoked here to avoid the topic.

Cook fabricated his 97% consensus by LYING about the positions of other scientists and their works. When you have some one who blatantly commits research fraud to promote a political agenda, the person is no longer trusted. Research fraud and deception are John Cooks credentials. And the left thrives on lies and deceit.

The only ones with Cook Derangement Syndrome are those who spew his lies and fraud over and over again expecting others to believe them, despite them being shown fraud over and over again.. For some reason they expect a different outcome after they repeat the lies... I think I just posted the definition of insanity..
 
Last edited:
Why do liberals have to make up climate change?

Money....power.
If they were really worried about CO2, they'd support building 100 new nuke plants.

-- because when you're generating energy, there's just nothing like having a good waste product that's going to sit around and be lethal for a period longer than humans have existed. What could possibly go wrong.... :rolleyes:

There's tons of radioactive materials lying all around in nature, numskull.

Just lying around? Willy nilly? Well, that might explain how you managed to effortlessly fry your own brain.
Hmmm . . . yes, they dig uranium out of the ground. Even school children know that.

Who's brain is fried?

None of it is reactor grade. You didn't know this? Huh.

The waste products from nuclear power plants are also not "reactor grade."
 
-- because when you're generating energy, there's just nothing like having a good waste product that's going to sit around and be lethal for a period longer than humans have existed. What could possibly go wrong.... :rolleyes:

There's tons of radioactive materials lying all around in nature, numskull.

Just lying around? Willy nilly? Well, that might explain how you managed to effortlessly fry your own brain.
Hmmm . . . yes, they dig uranium out of the ground. Even school children know that.

Who's brain is fried?

None of it is reactor grade. You didn't know this? Huh.

The waste products from nuclear power plants are also not "reactor grade."

You cannot argue that natural uranium ore is a deadly as radioactive waste from a nuclear power plant, so don't bother trying.
 
LOL. I am quite sure that Little Twink, Billy Boob, and Just Crazy are quite willing to argue the point, no matter how many posts that show the radioactivity level of the nuclear waste that is posted. After all, their primary premise is that all scientists are liars.
 
The fact that such papers are being written by scientists who take themselves seriously and are being published implies to me that scientists have done a poor job of explaining and making the case for warming of the planet by gases such as CO2. Its easy to roll our eyes and mutter “cranks” when we see something crazy such as the sophistry in the little pamphlets put out by various anti-AGW advocacy groups. But these arguments refuting atmospheric warming by CO2 are being made by scientists that take themselves seriously on this issue.

Guess who?
 
The fact that such papers are being written by scientists who take themselves seriously and are being published implies to me that scientists have done a poor job of explaining and making the case for warming of the planet by gases such as CO2. Its easy to roll our eyes and mutter “cranks” when we see something crazy such as the sophistry in the little pamphlets put out by various anti-AGW advocacy groups. But these arguments refuting atmospheric warming by CO2 are being made by scientists that take themselves seriously on this issue.

Guess who?
Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, said: 'We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”
 
The oceans hold nine times as much heat energy as do the Earth's atmosphere and surface. Care to explain how "the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped" but still produced the trend shown below? Where'd the 15e22 Joules since 1998 come from?


20140121-ohc-4q-2013_0-2000m.png
 
The oceans hold nine times as much heat energy as do the Earth's atmosphere and surface. Care to explain how "the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped" but still produced the trend shown below? Where'd the 15e22 Joules since 1998 come from?


20140121-ohc-4q-2013_0-2000m.png

dear you don't keep up, most scientists agree that there was/is a 15-20 years cooling period and now they are publishing papers saying it was within the range of variability and global warming is back on.

They have been dead wrong about hurricanes increasing in frequency and severity for sure which makes you think they don't understand weather at all. The record is so poor we are not likely to switch to solar and wind and kill about 1 billion people in the process.
 
The oceans hold nine times as much heat energy as do the Earth's atmosphere and surface. Care to explain how "the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped" but still produced the trend shown below? Where'd the 15e22 Joules since 1998 come from?


20140121-ohc-4q-2013_0-2000m.png

That looks serious! So that was the ocean rising from what temperature all the way up to what temperature?
 
The oceans hold nine times as much heat energy as do the Earth's atmosphere and surface. Care to explain how "the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped" but still produced the trend shown below? Where'd the 15e22 Joules since 1998 come from?


20140121-ohc-4q-2013_0-2000m.png

That looks serious! So that was the ocean rising from what temperature all the way up to what temperature?

well if true its been about 1/00th of a degree a year! Hardly seems worth killing 1 billion people over by switching them to solar and wind that they cant afford especially when that tiny amount of warming, if its real, has much positive in it. Warming temperatures means less heating in winter and less Co2 pollution and less warming.
 
dear you don't keep up, most scientists agree

That's pure fantasy on your part. Only a few fringe cranks claim it's been cooling, because it's such a crazy claim.

that there was/is a 15-20 years cooling period and now they are publishing papers saying it was within the range of variability and global warming is back on.

No, everyone is pointing out the strong warming trend. Because there's been a strong warming trend.

They have been dead wrong about hurricanes increasing in frequency

They never predicted that.

and severity

And that looks to be correct.

for sure which makes you think they don't understand weather at all. The record is so poor we are not likely to switch to solar and wind and kill about 1 billion people in the process.

Their record is great. Yours is terrible.
 
Cook fabricated his 97% consensus by LYING about the positions of other scientists and their works. When you have some one who blatantly commits research fraud to promote a political agenda, the person is no longer trusted. Research fraud and deception are John Cooks credentials. And the left thrives on lies and deceit.

The only ones with Cook Derangement Syndrome are those who spew his lies and fraud over and over again expecting others to believe them, despite them being shown fraud over and over again.. For some reason they expect a different outcome after they repeat the lies... I think I just posted the definition of insanity..

Cook et al reported the team's assessment of 11,944 published climate studies. How many of the 29,083 authors of those papers could Anthony Watts dig up who thought Cook et al had erred classifying their work? Three. (~0.01%) Then Cook et al surveyed 1200 study authors as to their opinions on AGW and found 98.4% in agreement with the IPCC - a higher value. How many of the qualifying1,189 scientists felt that Cook et al had mischaracterized their opinion on AGW or reported falsely or dishonestly? ZERO.

So WHERE THE FUCK do you get off calling Cook a fraud and a liar?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top