Climate Change Deniers Are Lying

[Billy_Bob]

Here's a good example of a well known liar and climate change science denier.
The People Have Spoken This Is The Most Brazen Lie Of 2014 ThinkProgress

LOL

A think progress piece of propaganda.. Note that did not provide any basis for their assumptions. just a fly over dropping adhom bombs... Their projection of others lying when it is themselves is funny as hell. And yes the average citizen can see through their lies.. One day soon they will find out they no longer have any credibility..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Gore made a prediction. It failed to materialize. He made that prediction on the world stage in front of the UN who agreed with him. They are all in the same boat sinking. And you want to ignore the holes in the bottom of the boat.... Classic!

Gore made a prediction. You know it was a prediction and most other people know it was a prediction. You also know he didn't say it would happen but that it could happen. It's not hard to make predictions of what could happen. People do it all the time. Using "could" suggested that it also might not happen. It's why he used those words.

So, it didn't happen.

The UN agreed with him that it was possible that this could happen? Okay, and... what? They agreed that something could happen, but it didn't happen. Wow.

The problem here seems to be that you take such a prediction of a possible as fixed, and then use it as proof there isn't man made climate change or something weird like that.

Just like any one of the 139 models that fail with 100 percent certainty Gore and his lies did as well...

IF you cant predict a dam thing correctly how do you know that CAGW is real?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Interesting Facebook page.
Climate Change LIES Facebook

SKS and Hotwhooper...... Any more slimy web sites you wana use for proof? And not one shred of evidence that is reproducible science.. just fly over adhom bombs...

When are you fools going to get some decent material.. The projection of lies is astounding coming from the left.

 

[Liminal]

Interesting Facebook page.
Climate Change LIES Facebook

SKS and Hotwhooper...... Any more slimy web sites you wana use for proof? And not one shred of evidence that is reproducible science.. just fly over adhom bombs...

When are you fools going to get some decent material.. The projection of lies is astounding coming from the left.

Shows how good you pay attention. That Facebook page is for deniers and liars, maybe you should log on.

 

[Gen0]

I believe corporations are behind the confusion. the public is fed lies through media,government and in data to keep things the way they are - under control.Confusing the general public through deceitful information, wasted time in pointing occurs and nothing gets done.

If i see animals going extinct every single year does that raise a red flag? if i notice the polar ice caps melting does that raise a red flag? If i notice coral reef dieing off or wild salmon dieing off, should i say it? does this make sense to deny any of this is happening? We are killing our home, earth. Why do we keep insisting its bob or Joe or whoever is responsible?

The time we realize as a whole society to use our common sense, we - humans will continue being greedy, seeking profits over life.

 

[jc456]

I believe corporations are behind the confusion. the public is fed lies through media,government and data in order to keep things the way they under - under control. By confusing the general public through deceitful data, wasted time pointing fingers is wasted instead of focusing on what makes sense.

If i see animals going extinct every single year does that raise a red flag? if i notice the polar ice caps melting does that raise a red flag? If i notice coral reef dieing off or wild salmon dieing off, should i say it? does this make sense to deny any of this is happening? We are killing our home, earth. Why do we keep insisting its bob or Joe or whoever is responsible?

The time we realize as a whole society to use our common sense, we - humans will continue being greedy, seeking profits over life.

All of that and you have no evidence to support any of what you claim, because you don't know if that's an expected outcome of nature or not. do you have something that you can compare against to prove anything?

 

[Gen0]

Evidence for corporate control/influence goes all the way back when federal reserve was created back in 1913. The goal of banks is for power by giving out loans, loans are a form of debt which enslaves the one whose taking out the loan into replaying that dept. OH! and lets not forget interest in which the government creates the money out of nothing, but we must repay the banks back with an additional price tag.

Let me ask you a question, do you understand how money is created?

 

[cnm]

No I request experiments that provide evidence to prove the hypothesis. Unless you have one, then the hypothesis has not been proven and a model is not an experiment!

You are mangling terms. Science does not do proof. I don't know how many times I've told you that and you still can't get it.

I responded to bripart's post in bripart's words. bripart's post was in general terms.

You're the only one to connect models with experiments.

If you wish to insist that CO₂ does not absorb more energy from infra red than from visible light that is your privilege. You might find it hard to achieve a consensus on that one.

 

[cnm]

Still today?

I agree with what Judith Curry says here about the scientific consensus, which idea of scientists agreeing she uses when she wishes. She seems to disagree with you about the property of CO₂ and whether a hypothesis has been 'proven'.

So, what do climate scientists agree on? Scientists agree that

• Surface temperatures have increased since 1880
• Humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere
• Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet

NARUC Panel Discussion on Climate Change Climate Etc.​

 

[cnm]

So he said it "could", not that it "will" or "would"?

So he didn't say it "would be free of ice" then?

Let's not pretend words have meaning...

 

[cnm]

Anyway, you didn't say with what part of Hansen's comments you disagreed. Are you going to?

Both Hansen and Mann falsified their work.. Game Over!

This seems to be an approved thing is alarmist science.. John cook and many others falsifying or lying about others works to support their lies.

So you won't address Hansen's comments either. I'm shocked, shocked.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Anyway, you didn't say with what part of Hansen's comments you disagreed. Are you going to?

Both Hansen and Mann falsified their work.. Game Over!

This seems to be an approved thing is alarmist science.. John cook and many others falsifying or lying about others works to support their lies.

So you won't address Hansen's comments either. I'm shocked, shocked.

Hansen is a proven liar. All of his work is questionable. Hansen's comments are based on his work. Which means his comments mean squat!

 

[flacaltenn]

This is just a reading comprehension problem on your part. He quoted a study stating the seven year projection. THE LATEST AND GREATEST study yet to be released. AND he REPEATED the seven year figure.

I guess if you're desperate enough and cant cope with the cognitive dissonance this causes your tiny little feline brain to ache, You WOULD drag out the Clinton Thesaurus and Word Parser and attempt to correct the record as it clearly stands.

I parsed no words. Stop being so dishonest. You got caught making a very bad mistake. Take it like a grownup, instead of flinging dishonest accusations.

And you in particular --- seem pretty damn desperate..

You repeated a faked quote that changed Gore's meaning. That's your fault, not mine.

Here's a thought. Grow up and take responsibility for repeating a faked quote. Ask yourself why you were so eager to be fooled. Then ask yourself why you're blaming me for pointing out you were duped, instead of blaming Rose for feeding you the big lie. Stockholm Syndrome, perhaps?

People will judge the evidence for themselves. He brought up the Seven year study. Presented it at his Prize acceptance speech.. THat;s all true.. I don't need to club you about it.. Like you do to me. As tho your bluster matters a whit.. RIGHT NOW -- you are almost "out-denying" me..

So, he said something about 7 years, you've twisted it but kept the "seven years" part and are now passing it off as something else.

Well done.

Exactly what was twisted?? He quoted some 22 year projections, then launched in the BRAND NEW STUDY that projected seven years. And for EMPHASIS -- He dramatically repeated seven years..

Are you that biased that you can't fathom the facts??

P.S. We should probably be a bit ashamed of whatever Navy Research Agency that issued that 7 yr prediction came. And leave Al Gore to choke on all his "carbon credit" investment schemes.

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's a good example of a well known liar and climate change science denier.
The People Have Spoken This Is The Most Brazen Lie Of 2014 ThinkProgress

So we're off off scientists and doing politicians now? Make up your mind...
And you're really getting to bottom of calling millions of science oriented folk like me liars if you're scouring FaceBook for material..

I got some doozies from the Prez...

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is just a reading comprehension problem on your part. He quoted a study stating the seven year projection. THE LATEST AND GREATEST study yet to be released. AND he REPEATED the seven year figure.

I guess if you're desperate enough and cant cope with the cognitive dissonance this causes your tiny little feline brain to ache, You WOULD drag out the Clinton Thesaurus and Word Parser and attempt to correct the record as it clearly stands.

I parsed no words. Stop being so dishonest. You got caught making a very bad mistake. Take it like a grownup, instead of flinging dishonest accusations.

And you in particular --- seem pretty damn desperate..

You repeated a faked quote that changed Gore's meaning. That's your fault, not mine.

Here's a thought. Grow up and take responsibility for repeating a faked quote. Ask yourself why you were so eager to be fooled. Then ask yourself why you're blaming me for pointing out you were duped, instead of blaming Rose for feeding you the big lie. Stockholm Syndrome, perhaps?

People will judge the evidence for themselves. He brought up the Seven year study. Presented it at his Prize acceptance speech.. THat;s all true.. I don't need to club you about it.. Like you do to me. As tho your bluster matters a whit.. RIGHT NOW -- you are almost "out-denying" me..

So, he said something about 7 years, you've twisted it but kept the "seven years" part and are now passing it off as something else.

Well done.

No, no he didn't he stated what was said by Al gore in his speech he said 22 years and he said seven years now which part of that is your contention? By the way the speech was to alert the masses that extreme conditions were present so using words like Might and could or whatever insinuates that as his basic belief is they are. just by his mere speech it's perceived as it will! Perceived ever hear of it?

Seriously you need to use punctuation. I don't understand your point.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Exactly what was twisted?? He quoted some 22 year projections, then launched in the BRAND NEW STUDY that projected seven years. And for EMPHASIS -- He dramatically repeated seven years..

Are you that biased that you can't fathom the facts??

P.S. We should probably be a bit ashamed of whatever Navy Research Agency that issued that 7 yr prediction came. And leave Al Gore to choke on all his "carbon credit" investment schemes.

Again, he said it MIGHT.

If I make a prediction and say "Tomorrow it will rain", and it doesn't rain, I am wrong.
If I make a prediction and say "Tomorrow it might rain", and it doesn't rain, then what? Sure, my prediction was wrong, however I also expressed that there was doubt about what I said. I suggested that it might not rain.

This is simple English.

If you pretend he said "will" when he did not say "will" then you are twisting.

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/222/ait.pdf

"The main scientific argument presented in the movie is for the most part consistent with the weight of scientific evidence, but with some of the main points needing updating, correction, or qualification."

"Most of the major elements of the scientific argument presented in AIT are consistent, in whole or in part, with the existing scientific consensus."

But this is science. We don't really understand perfectly the impact of global warming, either natural or man made. Man made is difficult in that it's not happened before.
So, Al Gore used scientific data, presented a POSSIBILITY of the immediate future. So, many people who deny that man is causing major problems, generally because they believe the advertising of the oil companies and others who have an interest in ignoring man made climate change.

What we knew back in 2005=2007 has changed. More data is available.

What is weird is that even though the Earth is warming up........

The US is warming up. Many people suggest that dips in warming are proof that warming isn't happening, but you have dips and you have rises. ANd the overall trend is a rise as you can see. However many people take US warming or cooling as evidence of GLOBAL cooling. But the US never has been the whole world.

Here are the global temperatures

We can see there is a rise in temperatures.


What is weird is that even though the world is warming up....... ice caps aren't melting as was previously predicted.

We just don't understand what they're doing. So predictions are made which are generally quite simplistic.

This doesn't mean there isn't a problem with man made global warming. It means it's worse. It means we can't predict what will happen with man made global warming, we know it's not going to be very nice though.

 

[Liminal]

Here's a good example of a well known liar and climate change science denier.
The People Have Spoken This Is The Most Brazen Lie Of 2014 ThinkProgress

So we're off off scientists and doing politicians now? Make up your mind...
And you're really getting to bottom of calling millions of science oriented folk like me liars if you're scouring FaceBook for material..

I got some doozies from the Prez...

Make up my mind? Politics or science? You go first.

 

[flacaltenn]

Exactly what was twisted?? He quoted some 22 year projections, then launched in the BRAND NEW STUDY that projected seven years. And for EMPHASIS -- He dramatically repeated seven years..

Are you that biased that you can't fathom the facts??

P.S. We should probably be a bit ashamed of whatever Navy Research Agency that issued that 7 yr prediction came. And leave Al Gore to choke on all his "carbon credit" investment schemes.

Again, he said it MIGHT.

If I make a prediction and say "Tomorrow it will rain", and it doesn't rain, I am wrong.
If I make a prediction and say "Tomorrow it might rain", and it doesn't rain, then what? Sure, my prediction was wrong, however I also expressed that there was doubt about what I said. I suggested that it might not rain.

This is simple English.

If you pretend he said "will" when he did not say "will" then you are twisting.

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/222/ait.pdf

"The main scientific argument presented in the movie is for the most part consistent with the weight of scientific evidence, but with some of the main points needing updating, correction, or qualification."

"Most of the major elements of the scientific argument presented in AIT are consistent, in whole or in part, with the existing scientific consensus."

But this is science. We don't really understand perfectly the impact of global warming, either natural or man made. Man made is difficult in that it's not happened before.
So, Al Gore used scientific data, presented a POSSIBILITY of the immediate future. So, many people who deny that man is causing major problems, generally because they believe the advertising of the oil companies and others who have an interest in ignoring man made climate change.

What we knew back in 2005=2007 has changed. More data is available.

What is weird is that even though the Earth is warming up........

The US is warming up. Many people suggest that dips in warming are proof that warming isn't happening, but you have dips and you have rises. ANd the overall trend is a rise as you can see. However many people take US warming or cooling as evidence of GLOBAL cooling. But the US never has been the whole world.

Here are the global temperatures

We can see there is a rise in temperatures.


What is weird is that even though the world is warming up....... ice caps aren't melting as was previously predicted.

We just don't understand what they're doing. So predictions are made which are generally quite simplistic.

This doesn't mean there isn't a problem with man made global warming. It means it's worse. It means we can't predict what will happen with man made global warming, we know it's not going to be very nice though.

None of those graphs you posted are scary enough to warrant panic. THe PANIC is because of all the MIGHT's, COULD's that have been stated by "climate science".. That gives politicians and the media cover to MISINTERPRET those MIGHTS and COULDS into a catastrophic vision of the future. NO agenda is going to happen because of the warming that we have seen. ALL of the urgency is based on MIGHTS and COULDS..

MIGHTS and COULDs are not legally or scientifically valid --- but they are basis for the socio-economic movement we know as Global Warming or Climate Change.

He DID IT.. Just as he did when he got his Academy Award. He has a famous speech against his political enemy the Repubs where he says --- "THEY PLAYED ON YOUR FEARS".. That's the same projection and tactic that this thread is all about..

Biggest deniers on the planet are folks that can't hold leaders responsible for spooking the herd..

 

[frigidweirdo]

None of those graphs you posted are scary enough to warrant panic. THe PANIC is because of all the MIGHT's, COULD's that have been stated by "climate science".. That gives politicians and the media cover to MISINTERPRET those MIGHTS and COULDS into a catastrophic vision of the future. NO agenda is going to happen because of the warming that we have seen. ALL of that is based on MIGHTS and COULDS..

MIGHTS and COULDs are not legally or scientifically valid --- but they are basis for the socio-economic movement we know as Global Warming or Climate Change.

He DID IT.. Just as he did when he got his Academy Award. He has a famous speech against his political enemy the Repubs where he says --- "THEY PLAYED ON YOUR FEARS".. That's the same projection and tactic that this thread is all about..

Biggest deniers on the planet are folks that can't hold leaders responsible for spooking the herd..

I'm sorry if you wanted a horror story. I'm also sorry that you'll take everything out of context to avoid seeing the bigger picture.

If people understood what "might" means, then there wouldn't have been any panic. Was there any panic? No. So..... what?

We're dealing with the future and we're dealing with unknowns. Does this mean we don't prepare for the future?

You take an exam, you don't know what the question will be. Does this mean you don't study for the exam?

We know a lot. What we do know is that the world is warming up. We know that CO2 levels are going through the roof. We know that the ice caps are melting. We also know there are fluctuations. That one year the ice cap might cover more of a space than the previous year. We also know that historically temperatures work on fluctuations. That even with global cooling some years will be hotter than before, and with global warming some years will be cooler than before.

He's playing on fears which are well founded. The Earth's temperatures are changing. They're not just changing in a natural way either. They're changing in a manner which suggests that man is having an impact on these.

 

[flacaltenn]

Frigid -- You said..

If I make a prediction and say "Tomorrow it will rain", and it doesn't rain, I am wrong.
If I make a prediction and say "Tomorrow it might rain", and it doesn't rain, then what? Sure, my prediction was wrong, however I also expressed that there was doubt about what I said. I suggested that it might not rain.

So Frigid -- If the science is truly settled, --- how is it that the :"consensus" that you fanatics keep quoting is nothing BUT MIGHTs and COULDs????

Find me a RECENT projection of what the temperature anomaly in 2050 will be --- according to this "settled science"...

Your comment is CORRECT -- these CChange projections are full of doubt and coated with a hefty dose of BullShit. How do you get 97% consensus on doubt???