You don't say...lol

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grow up, the premise of the thread is they were caught supplying false data and they did.

Even if that's true it doesn't change anything about what the most qualified people believe based on the evidence we have.

What evidence is that? I constantly ask for a single piece of observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..and no such evidence is ever forthcoming because no such evidence exists...

I ask for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...again..no such evidence will ever be forthcoming because no such evidnence exists...

And I point out that there has never been a paper published in which the claimed warming, due to our production of greenhouse gasses has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on those greenhouse gasses. Not a single paper...Lacking such fundamental evidence, what sort of evidence do you believe exists that supports the hypothesis over natural variably?

You think the vast majority of scientists all over the world have come to a similar conclusion based on no significant evidence?

So lets see the "significant" evidence...if it existed, it would be inescapable..it would be on billboards...you guys would have it bookmarked so that you could pile it on skeptics...and if it actually existed, there would be far fewer skeptics...if there were significant evidence that favors the AGW hypothesis over natural variabity, then I would not be a skeptic...the fact is that there is no significant evidence...climate science is built almost entirely on models that have shown themselves to be failures...

And I question the "vast majority" of scientists bullshit...that claim is based on papers that have been demonstrated to be terribly flawed...
 
If your job and financial security depended on your agreement with the mainstream hypothesis...do you suppose that there is anything that anyone could provide for you that would make you go against that hypothesis? The instinct for self preservation is pretty strong...and science has shown us over and over how difficult it is to move past a consensus position and accept a new paradigm..that is one of the reasons science often stagnates for so long even when it is evident to anyone who looks the the present consensus is wrong...

You think the vast majority all over the world are misleading the public because they're scared of losing funding? Climate science is not going to lose its funding either way. What you're suggesting is ridiculous. These people don't even make a lot of money.
 
So lets see the "significant" evidence

Just say yes or no you snake. Stop squirming and speak openly. Do you believe that or not? Are scientists the world over coming to conclusions based on no significant evidence?
 
How many would you like...paper after paper has been published calling climate models into question when their output is compared to reality...

Stop twisting the conversation. I am asking for the specifics of the opinions of the scientists that made the correction this thread is focused on. The correction is being used to criticize AGW scientists. It's dishonest though because it was also AGW scientists that made that correction.


So send them an email...I have found that most scientists are very approachable...I correspond with quite a number of them on a regular basis including such top shelf scientists as Will Happer...They are just people and are more than willing to talk..
 
And I question the "vast majority" of scientists bullshit...that claim is based on papers that have been demonstrated to be terribly flawed...

I have clarified it for you and in front of you at least half a dozen times. You have even seen me correct ignorant leftists on how it really is. Stop bullshitting me.
 
So send them an email...I have found that most scientists are very approachable...I correspond with quite a number of them on a regular basis including such top shelf scientists as Will Happer...They are just people and are more than willing to talk..

You know they agree that AGW is happening. Don't lie to me.
 
So lets see the "significant" evidence

Just say yes or no you snake. Stop squirming and speak openly. Do you believe that or not? Are scientists the world over coming to conclusions based on no significant evidence?


No...I don't...If there were significant evidence, as much as I have searched, I would have found it...and as many times and in as many places as I have asked, someone else would have provided at least a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and you can bet your ass that there wold be at least one published paper in which the warming that we are supposed to be causing would have been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses...and yet, there isn't a single one...so what significant evidence are you talking about? What significant evidence do you believe exists? What significant evidence have you seen? Where is it?
 
And I question the "vast majority" of scientists bullshit...that claim is based on papers that have been demonstrated to be terribly flawed...

I have clarified it for you and in front of you at least half a dozen times. You have even seen me correct ignorant leftists on how it really is. Stop bullshitting me.

I am not bull shitting you...I don't believe that the vast majority of scientists are on board with the CAGW hypothesis...Many believe that we have some effect on climate...including me...Land use can certainly have an effect on a local climate...that is not a global effect however...and if you bother to look at regional climate histories, it becomes evident that there is no global climate anything...a few places show some bit of warming...many places show cooling trends, and most of the earth is showing no discernible trend at all...
 
So send them an email...I have found that most scientists are very approachable...I correspond with quite a number of them on a regular basis including such top shelf scientists as Will Happer...They are just people and are more than willing to talk..

You know they agree that AGW is happening. Don't lie to me.

I know no such thing...and I don't lie... The claim that 97% of even climate scientists believe the CAGW hypothesis is bullshit.
 
Shoot out a headline...then try and cover your tracks.

Greenland’s ‘Record Temperature’ denied – the data was wrong

From the “But, but, wait! Our algorithms can adjust for that!” department comes this tale of alarmist woe. Greenland’s all-time record temperature wasn’t a record at all, and it never got above freezing there.

Greenland’s ‘Record Temperature’ denied – the data was wrong

Are their glaciers growing?

The ones I was trampling on in Alaska weren't. Blue ice is kinda scenic btw.

Sounds like Greenland's are growing though?
Did you go to Glacier Bay? I think not.
 
So send them an email...I have found that most scientists are very approachable...I correspond with quite a number of them on a regular basis including such top shelf scientists as Will Happer...They are just people and are more than willing to talk..

You know they agree that AGW is happening. Don't lie to me.

I know no such thing...and I don't lie... The claim that 97% of even climate scientists believe the CAGW hypothesis is bullshit.
97% agree after you remove 80% of those who don’t from the data.
 
Grow up, the premise of the thread is they were caught supplying false data and they did.

Even if that's true it doesn't change anything about what the most qualified people believe based on the evidence we have. The people that made the correction are scientists that believe it's happening. It's just like I told you earlier. You fail to understand that the only reason you even find out about this stuff is because science is transparent and self-correcting. These mistakes are uncovered by scientists that also believe in the thing you're calling a hoax perpetuated by frauds. How can you not see how ridiculous and illogical your position is?
If climate science is self-correcting, why does it rely on falsified data?
 
How many would you like...paper after paper has been published calling climate models into question when their output is compared to reality...

Stop twisting the conversation. I am asking for the specifics of the opinions of the scientists that made the correction this thread is focused on. The correction is being used to criticize AGW scientists. It's dishonest though because it was also AGW scientists that made that correction.
Goal posts move
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top