jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 158,277
- 38,943
- 2,180
no it doesn't. It is just a list of names. What is the importance to the list other than there are scientist that deny global warming? So what?
Climate Change Deniers Debunked
- Thread starter Liminal
- Start date
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,117
- 86,537
- 2,645
Reminder: Denier is a AGWCult secret handshake work, it's how they identify each other. Further, no real scientist ever calls skeptics a denier, nor do they ever claim to have Consensus as a means to make you stop questioning them
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,117
- 86,537
- 2,645
Thermometer from 1950, not accurate to even .5 degrees but used by the AGWCult to claim "warming"
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
There is no point in your post. You used adhom and circular logic in an effort to deceive.
Please justify their adjustments upward and their infilling of all areas without data point stations by data which is 1 deg C warmer than the surrounding area. What kind of deception do think will happen to global temperatures if you do this kind of crap?
But then we have Global Satellite coverage which tells us your lies are simply that... LIES and deception..
Even the satellite based data shows you a liar..
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
In Pal review qualifications means that the person is paid to say what they say.. Qualifications mean shit! Evidence of what they do, how they do it and if it is repeatable and honest science is what has meaning. The alarmists do nothing of the sort. They hide their data, methods, and then scream that they are the authority. They show themselves frauds by not practicing real science, thus their qualifications mean shit nothing.
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
DESMOG??? Seriously??? You used a lying piece of shit blog that has been shown a fraud and intentionally deceitful, currently being sued for libel by multiple real scientists, as a source.. Really?
The blog is funded by Think Progress a George Soros front group to spread lies and deceit..
You really should check your facts before presenting them... you just might end up in a libel suit if you are not careful.
Last edited:
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 158,277
- 38,943
- 2,180
no it doesn't
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
The only point he is exposing is the one on top of his head. Its been a while since I have seen a total left wit drone post all this kind of crap. His last 'deniers list' has desmog in court in five states.. The case in Wyoming has been lost and is now entering the punitive stage.. There has to be a butt load of money behind the lies remaining for them to not retract their lies. The final court order to retract is coming and they are fighting it as a free speech right but we all know that libel is not free speech.
Treeshepherd
Wood Member
"My university has only one permanent university-funded scientist, and that's me. I have about a dozen research workers with PhDs who are working in the climate research unit and they're all funded by so-called soft money. Their existence requires external support." - Tom Wigley, College of East Anglia
[ "I was warned when I wrote my first paper which discussed a difference between the climate models and some numbers I was looking at for the tropics alone that it would be very difficult and that my funds would probably be cut. In fact, they have been cut"
"Did you expect that?"
"No, I thought that the system was so straight forward and honest that bringing in a new idea and a new perspective into the whole thing would be considered to be a positive thing and that people would like to look at both sides of the argument and then to have a debate." ] -interview with Reginald Newell, M.I.T.
It's not a wacked-out conspiracy theory to simply identify the fact that there's a financial incentive in climate science to err on the side of the disaster scenario. Without the threat of man-made catastrophic warming, there is no $millions in funding for research. To be a researcher at most universities and to minimize the effects of CO2 on climate would be like a fireman publicly stating that station 7 is redundant and its closure would not significantly impact public safety. That guy is going to become an instant pariah within his vocational community.
At the same time you've got 'researchers' who are paid big money by the oil industry. So, instead of a healthy scientific debate where tough questions are asked, we've got a WWI trench warfare situation in climate science.
[ "I was warned when I wrote my first paper which discussed a difference between the climate models and some numbers I was looking at for the tropics alone that it would be very difficult and that my funds would probably be cut. In fact, they have been cut"
"Did you expect that?"
"No, I thought that the system was so straight forward and honest that bringing in a new idea and a new perspective into the whole thing would be considered to be a positive thing and that people would like to look at both sides of the argument and then to have a debate." ] -interview with Reginald Newell, M.I.T.
It's not a wacked-out conspiracy theory to simply identify the fact that there's a financial incentive in climate science to err on the side of the disaster scenario. Without the threat of man-made catastrophic warming, there is no $millions in funding for research. To be a researcher at most universities and to minimize the effects of CO2 on climate would be like a fireman publicly stating that station 7 is redundant and its closure would not significantly impact public safety. That guy is going to become an instant pariah within his vocational community.
At the same time you've got 'researchers' who are paid big money by the oil industry. So, instead of a healthy scientific debate where tough questions are asked, we've got a WWI trench warfare situation in climate science.
mamooth
Diamond Member
Why don't you do your own research? Of course, I suggest you stay far away from denier blogs, being denier blogs will just give you fraud and hoaxes.
After adjustments, the UHI-affected stations actually show less of a warming trend, so it's likely they've been overcorrected a bit. So why do you think deniers lie and declare UHI is raising current temperature averages?
With great difficulty. That old data had to be revised upwards, making the current warming look smaller. How does that fit in with the conspiracy theory? The adjustments scientists have made have made the warming look smaller. Almost all deniers say the exact opposite. Why do you think deniers revise reality like that?
Hopefully, you'll start questioning why deniers are always making stuff up.
mamooth
Diamond Member
"Everyone lies for the money!" just shows how you think, not how the world works.
Any of those climate scientists could instantly double their salary by going to work for the deniers. But they don't. Those scientists take a pay cut because they won't lie for money. That gives them added credibility.
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
Thats right.....they'll be making it up in the northeast this Memorial Day weekend when they have to go out at night with winter parka's to enjoy happy hour!!! Clearly!!! The topic of discussion will clearly be about how uncomfortable everybody is in this global warming weather!!!
Except fort he AGW k00ks, the wntire population is out reacting to their environment. Howmany people will be sitting home tonight doing internet searches about satellite temperature readings? One in 5,000???
Maybe?Only progressive OCD's with nothing meaningful in thier lives think people care about global warming. Every poll shows that its not on anybodys radar........lol.....people are far more worried about ISIS. LMAO
Im laughing......people should be worrying about neither.
Last edited:
Liminal
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #36
Rather than imposing my own interpretation, I believe it would be far more instructive for people to read the link and draw their own conclusions.
DESMOG??? Seriously??? You used a lying piece of shit blog that has been shown a fraud and intentionally deceitful, currently being sued for libel by multiple real scientists, as a source.. Really?
The blog is funded by Think Progress a George Soros front group to spread lies and deceit..
You really should check your facts before presenting them... you just might end up in a libel suit if you are not careful.
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
Ummm.......if "deniers" are making stuff up....."hoaxes"..............and have zero media coverage of their side of the story, why is it sweetie that every poll displays a totally apathetic attitude towards global warming from the American public
?Fing duh!!!!!!
Would yuo like me topost up one of many sobering polls? Pew? Gallup? Rasmusen? Take youpick honey!!
Treeshepherd
Wood Member
Hopefully, you'll start questioning why deniers are always making stuff up.[/QUOTE]
I have done my own researchers. It confounds me how AGW apologists can reduce the entire problem to CO2 and ignore all other factors. 'Climate science' has widely come to mean "the effects of CO2 on climate". Even other anthropogenic factors like 1.5 million sq. miles of concrete and asphalt are ignored. I can't be that simplistic.
While there are problems with using ice core samples to pinpoint annual or decadenal fluctuations in prehistoric climate, they give us a fairly dependable big picture perspective on how the climate fluctuated during the late Pleistocene era, going back 400,000 years or so. What we see are long periods of snowball earth, punctuated by brief warming spikes (interglacial periods). The interglacial periods, like the one we're in now, have come along fairly consistently every 100,000 years or so. This particular one, the Holocene Era, is amazingly consistent with past warming periods. The climate has been warming on and off for the last 17,000 years, give or take. We can expect the climate to continue to warm, CO2 or no CO2, until we enter the next pre-glacial period. If we compare this interglacial period with the Eemian, we shouldn't be surprised to see another 2 degrees Celcius of warming over the next few thousand years, and 20+ more feet of sea level rise. But, what we need to realize is that we're living in the good times. The climate is not 'broken'. The alternative is an Ice Age, for which we're due.
"Well, this warming spike is unprecedented", say the AGW apologists. That's not a fact. If you think that's a fact, you don't know the difference between a fact and speculation.
If I were a published scientist, I would actually be included within the 97% 'consensus', which isn't actually a consensus. I do believe that carbon emissions have some effect on climate, and that's all that's required to get you included in John Cook's 97% consensus survey, which is the source of the 97% statistic that everyone quotes. It's just that I think the effect of CO2 is minimal when compared to the effects of Milankovich cycles, periodic migrations of oceanic heat pumps, solar activity and chaos theory. The planet is going to do what it's going to do, and I can list a dozen reasons to break our oil addiction that (to me) are more compelling than 400 ppm CO2.
mamooth
Diamond Member
Does this look like other factors have been ignored? It looks to me like they've all been carefully measured.
No. The climate stopped warming 8,000 years ago. The climate has been steadily cooling for the past 5,000 years, and would have kept steadily cooling until the next ice age. Instead, the slow cooling suddenly turned into a fast warming, completely contrary to the natural cycle or any natural forcing.
Your gut feeling is contradicted by the actual data.
Treeshepherd
Wood Member
I said that the climate has been warming off and on since the last Ice Age. Obviously, it's warmer today than during the last Ice Age. As you suggest, the climate was warmer 6,000 years ago than it is today. So, we had a very steep spike in temperature back then without CO2 forcing.
NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data
In the meantime, we had the Roman Warming Period, followed by cooling, and then a Medieval Warming Period, followed by a mini Ice Age, and back to warming for the last 400 years or so. The data, therefore, suggests a lot of natural non-anthro variation in climate.
Your graph provides no link to a source. My guess is that it depends on amplifiers which triple the effect of CO2 if it's like other graphs I've investigated.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Trump kicks Tucker Carlson out of MAGA [Tuckiyya Qatarlson / America last]- Started by Pastelli
- Replies: 5
-
Who was actually being psychologically tested?- Started by DennisPTate
- Replies: 6
-
