Carl Sagan in 1985, addressing the UN on anthropogenic climate change

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do yourselves a favor and pay no mind to ding and his red herrings, falsehoods, and misrepresentations. Your first clue would be his implied assertion that the very scientists who discovered everything ding is regurgitating (but does not understand) are now laboring under the ignorance of their own,, life's work. That they are all incompetent, liars, or both.

Your second clue is when ding implies and outright makes these claims, just seconds after citing their life's work as fact. The same people. Embarrassing, childish, dishonest behavior, on parade.

But deniers like ding don't ever make it this far, in their internal dialogue. Having themselves been willingly fooled by things they don't understand and by flowery presentation, they only have these tools at their disposal and so think they are valid and effective. Surely any thinking person understands that the scientists who discovered and compiled all the data that ding is collecting would both laugh him out of the room and scold him for misrepresenting their life's work.

 

[ding]

Do yourselves a favor and pay no mind to ding and his red herrings, falsehoods, and misrepresentations. Your first clue would be his implied assertion that the very scientists who discovered everything ding is regurgitating (but does not understand) are now laboring under the ignorance of their own,, life's work. That they are all incompetent, liars, or both.

Your second clue is when ding implies and outright makes these claims, just seconds after citing their life's work as fact. The same people. Embarrassing, childish, dishonest behavior, on parade.

But deniers like ding don't ever make it this far. Having themselves been willingly fooled by things they don't understand and by flowery presentation, they only have these tools at their disposal and somehow think they are valid and effective. Surely any thinking g person understands rhat rhe scientists who discovered and compiled all the data that ding is collecting would both laugh himout of the room and scold him for misrepresenting their life's work.

Imagine if someone told the world that ding's lifelong obsession with God is actually a path to evil and makes him an evil person, and that ding, himself, actually has no idea what is in the Bible and has instead warped his own life's effort into a campaign of lies and immorality. That ding is incompetent and a liar and understands God and the Bible as much as a dog understands calculus.. ding would immediately cry from his wherever and give birth to a live chicken. But ding is too shallow and rabid to realize this is what he is doing to scientists.

Climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty are hall marks of our bipolar glaciated world. You have falsely attributed climate fluctuation with CO2.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your third -- and strongest -- clue is when embarrasisng deniers spend their time on message boards trying to score points by stumping nonscientists. But despite being provided the email contact information for actual climatologists, they never work up the stones to compile and send their argument in an email to the climatologists and post the responses here.

We all know why this is. Incuding the deniers. They understand that they actually know very little about this topic and are merely regurgitating blogger talking points. They know the embarrassment they would face, if they tried their material out on a climatologist.

So until ding does this, it is totally fair to regard his embarrassing display as a dog and pony show meant for his own entertainment.

 

[ding]

Do yourselves a favor and pay no mind to ding and his red herrings, falsehoods, and misrepresentations. Your first clue would be his implied assertion that the very scientists who discovered everything ding is regurgitating (but does not understand) are now laboring under the ignorance of their own,, life's work. That they are all incompetent, liars, or both.

Your second clue is when ding implies and outright makes these claims, just seconds after citing their life's work as fact. The same people. Embarrassing, childish, dishonest behavior, on parade.

But deniers like ding don't ever make it this far, in their internal dialogue. Having themselves been willingly fooled by things they don't understand and by flowery presentation, they only have these tools at their disposal and so think they are valid and effective. Surely any thinking person understands that the scientists who discovered and compiled all the data that ding is collecting would both laugh him out of the room and scold him for misrepresenting their life's work.

Imagine if someone told the world that ding's lifelong obsession with God is actually a path to evil and makes him an evil person, and that ding, himself, actually has no idea what is in the Bible and has instead warped his own life's effort into a campaign of lies and immorality. That ding is incompetent and a liar and understands God and the Bible as much as a dog understands calculus.. ding would immediately cry from his wherever and give birth to a live chicken. But ding is too shallow and rabid to realize this is what he is doing to scientists. Times 100.

When one has truth on his side, he argues facts. When one has logic on his side, he argues reason. When one has neither, he does what you just did.

 

[ding]

You third -- and strongest clue -- is when embarrasisng deniers spend their time on message boards trying to score points by stumping nonscientists. But despite being provided the email contact information for actual climatologists, the never work up the stones to compile and send their argument in an email to the climatologists and post the responses here.

We all know why this is. Incuding the deniers. They understand that they actually know very little about this topic and are merely regurgitating blogger talking points. They know the embarrassment they woild face, if they tried their material out on a climatologist.

Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress. We hope that the analysis in this paper will encourage and stimulate further analysis and discussion. In the meantime, the debate is ongoing.

ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[ding]

Here's the solar output datsaset that the IPCC is using in their climate models for their upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports.

And here's the solar output dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites.

As you can plainly see from the two datasets using the low variability dataset instead of the high variability dataset will minimize the impact the role the sun plays in earth's climate.

ShieldSquare Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

 

[ding]

Your third -- and strongest -- clue is when embarrasisng deniers spend their time on message boards trying to score points by stumping nonscientists.

I do hope you will stick around.

 

[daveman]

I would say you have shown us your ceiling in the science section, with this post.

I'm curious why you believe you're entitled to any effort. You're never going to stop bitterly clinging to your cult's dogma.

 

[daveman]

I would say he was showing you his humor.

Empirical data shows the earth is warming. The OP assumes it is because atmospheric CO2 is increasing which is caused by increasing CO2 emissions. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The OP is ignoring the natural climate variability as a cause.

Willie Soon, at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES), who also has been researching sun/climate relationships at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (U.S.A.) since 1991: “We know that the Sun is the primary source of energy for the Earth’s atmosphere. So, it always was an obvious potential contributor to recent climate change. My own research over the last 31 years into the behavior of stars that are similar to our Sun, shows that solar variability is the norm, not the exception. For this reason, the Sun’s role in recent climate change should never have been as systematically undermined as it was by the IPCC’s reports. Hopefully, this systematic review of the many unresolved and ongoing challenges and complexities of Sun/climate relationships can help the scientific community return to a more comprehensive and realistic approach to understanding climate change.”

Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator in charge of NASA’s ACRIM series of Sun-monitoring Total Solar Irradiance satellite experiments (U.S.A.):
“Contrary to the findings of the IPCC, scientific observations in recent decades have demonstrated that there is no ‘climate change crisis’. The concept that’s devolved into the failed CO2 anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis is based on the flawed predictions of imprecise 1980’s vintage global circulation models that have failed to match observational data both since and prior to their fabrication. The Earth’s climate is determined primarily by the radiation it receives from the Sun. The amount of solar radiation the Earth receives has natural variabilities caused by both variations in the intrinsic amount of radiation emitted by the Sun and by variations in the Earth-Sun geometry caused by planetary rotational and orbital variations. Together these natural variations cause the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at the Earth to vary cyclically on a number of known periodicities that are synchronized with known past climatic changes.”


Hong Yan (晏宏), Professor of Geology and Paleoclimatology at the Institute of Earth Environment and Vice Director of the State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology in Xi’an, China: “Paleoclimate evidence has long been informing us of the large natural variations of local, regional and hemispheric climate on decadal, multidecadal to centennial timescales. This paper will be a great scientific guide on how we can study the broad topic of natural climatic changes from the unique perspective of external forcings by the Sun’s multi-scale and multi-wavelength impacts and responses.”

Connolly​

Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics

www.raa-journal.org

"For this reason, the Sun’s role in recent climate change should never have been as systematically undermined as it was by the IPCC’s reports."

But you can't tax the sun.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When one has truth on his side, he argues facts.

Oh, then you will email your argument to the climatologist with great confidence and post the response here. Until you do, we can safely assume this is just episode #3,876,690 in the series of you soothing yourself out loud on USMB.

Do you need me to re-post her email address?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm curious why you believe you're entitled to any effort.

Well that certainly is a bizarre little fantasy you invented. Do you think I care if you remain an ignorant, uneducated slob? I don't.

 

[daveman]

Your third -- and strongest -- clue is when embarrasisng deniers spend their time on message boards trying to score points by stumping nonscientists. But despite being provided the email contact information for actual climatologists, they never work up the stones to compile and send their argument in an email to the climatologists and post the responses here.

We all know why this is. Incuding the deniers. They understand that they actually know very little about this topic and are merely regurgitating blogger talking points. They know the embarrassment they would face, if they tried their material out on a climatologist.

So until ding does this, it is totally fair to regard his embarrassing display as a dog and pony show meant for his own entertainment.

Man, you get pissed that people don't slavishly accept your cult.

Too bad.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There are posters here that will waste ther time arguing the truth of ACC Theory with you. (Wuwei comes to mind.) But I am not one of them. Also, not a single poster here is as knowledgeable about this science as a first year climatology grad student. Debates on the truth of scientific theories are the purview of scientists and experts.

I will talk about what the scientists state and recommend, and about their findings and determinations.

But if any of you want to put on your big girl panties and step up to the plate to challenge the scientists with your rhetoric, I will provide you with the contact information of a climatologist.

We would all enjoy reading the responses you get.

 

[ding]

Oh, then you will email your argument to the climatologist with great confidence and post the response here. Until you do, we can safely assume this is just episode #3,876,690 in the series of you soothing yourself out loud on USMB.

Do you need me to re-post her email address?

How do you know I haven't already?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How do you know I haven't already?

A safe assumption.

 

[ding]

There are posters here that will waste ther time arguing the truth of ACC Theory with you. (Wuwei comes to mind.) But I am not one of them. Also, not a single poster here is as knowledgeable about this science as a first year climatology grad student. Debates on the truth of scientific theories are the purview of scientists and experts.

I will talk about what the scientists state and recommend, and about their findings and determinations.

But if any of you want to put on your big girl panties and step up to the plate to challenge the scientists with your rhetoric, I will provide you with the contact information of a climatologist.

We would all enjoy reading the responses you get.

You won't even state your academic credentials and you are expecting others to post emails?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

ding
You should be fairly warned.

Scientists are going to have even less tolerance for your vagueness and weasel words and slipperiness than I do. If you do decide to waste their time, at least give them the courtesy of making one, concise argument from start to finish in your first email. Clearly state your argument's conclusion(s) at the beginning and end of your email, with a clear and direct argument in between. Scientists aren't going to waste their time being interrogated by some uneducated slob and are not even going to read your email to the end, if it resembles your postings here.

 

[ding]

A safe assumption.

Tell you what, why don't you email her and invite her to debate me in the bull ring. That way you can see it first hand.

You seem scared. You are like the little billy goat gruff who wants someone else to fight for them.

 

[ding]

ding
You should be fairly warned.

Scientists are going to have even less tolerance for your vagueness and weasel words and slipperiness than I do. If you do decide to waste their time, at least give them the courtesy of making one, concise argument from start to finish in your first email. Clearly state your argument's conclusion(s) at the beginning and end of your email, with a clear and direct argument in between. Scientists aren't going to waste their time being interrogated by some uneducated slob and are not even going to read your email to the end, if it resembles your postings here.

I suspect it would be a refreshing conversation compared to a conversation with you.

 

[daveman]

Well that certainly is a bizarre little fantasy you invented. Do you think I care if you remain an ignorant, uneducated slob? I don't.

Uh huh. You get angry that people are allowed to disagree with you.

Remember, you cultists have called for "deniers" to be prosecuted and executed for Thoughtcrime.

Chilling: Play titled ‘Kill Climate Deniers’ launches theatrical run​

Commentary: Prosecute climate deniers? Yes, hold those who mislead accountable​

Professor Calls for Death Penalty for Climate Change 'Deniers'​

These are not the views of calm, rational people with science on their side.

These are the views of cultists.

Your acknowledgement is neither sought nor required.