Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on globa

[CrusaderFrank]

No sane person, and no real scientist ever claimed that the "Science is settled"

Nor am I. Please pay attention, you are embarrassing yourself.

Anyone and everyone is invited to conduct research and present the results. That includes you. But the research we have shows exactly zero published research that contradicts the current consensus. That's why it is the consensus. The evidence doesn't result from the consensus, ya moron. Stop implying such an idiotic thing.

Again, "Consensus" is a Cult word.

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." ... Ottmar Edenhofer, a recent co-chair of the U.N.s IPCC

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No sane person, and no real scientist ever claimed that the "Science is settled"

Nor am I. Please pay attention, you are embarrassing yourself.

Anyone and everyone is invited to conduct research and present the results. That includes you. But the research we have shows exactly zero published research that contradicts the current consensus. That's why it is the consensus. The evidence doesn't result from the consensus, ya moron. Stop implying such an idiotic thing.

Again, "Consensus" is a Cult word.

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." ... Ottmar Edenhofer, a recent co-chair of the U.N.s IPCC

Okay, parrot.

 

[SSDD]

I'd like to see your evidence of climate change ...

Then you are a fool. If you wanted to learn about a cutting edge cancer treatment, would you find a nonscientists on an anonymous message board to learn about it? No. The politicization of this topic has warped your brain, causing bizarre behavior.

Dodge and weave, duck and cover, run and hide...same old response...run, change the topic, engage in some impotent name calling...

let’s see the evidence that convinced you...or are to embarrassed to show just how easily you were fooled?

 

[SSDD]

You do know science doesn't work by consensus, right?

I didn't imply that it does. I said this unpublished paper that failed peer review is deviant from the consensus and the evidence, which produced the consensus. Try to follow.

So let’s see a published paper, based on empirical evidence that convinces you...or as I suspect, have you never actually looked at a published paper.

 

[SSDD]

You do know science doesn't work by consensus, right?

I didn't imply that it does. I said this unpublished paper that failed peer review is deviant from the consensus and the evidence, which produced the consensus. Try to follow.

Oh, your problem is I've followed this hoax for a long time now. Climate "science" isn't science, it's a tool for political and economic change. Always has been.

And you fell for it. Sucker!

The emotional cackling of uneducated slobs is not compelling.

The 7 month old paper that was spoon-fed to you? It never even went to peer review, as it was so thoroughly and immediately eviscerated.

You should take a moment to try to act like a rational adult and wonder why this is all you have, compared to the mountains of evidence which stand against your silly denial.

what isn’t compelling is the hysterical hyperventilating handwringing you dupes who can’t even post up the evidence that convinced you engage in.

 

[SSDD]

Consensus is a Cult word that has no place in science.

100% wrong and idiotic, obviously. When overwhelming consensus exists, it is indicative of the overwhelming preponderance of evidence. While the strength of a scientific theory is not, itself, decided by consensus, it is a good "symptom" that helps point you in the right direction and should give you pause when claims that deviate from the consensus arise.

Let’s see some the empirical evidence this consensus is based on.

 

[SSDD]

You do know science doesn't work by consensus, right?

I didn't imply that it does. I said this unpublished paper that failed peer review is deviant from the consensus and the evidence, which produced the consensus. Try to follow.

Can you provide any peer reviewed published material based on empirical evidence published by the consensus which challenges the content of the paper? No. Then upon what do you base your claim that the consensus says otherwise?

 

[Billy_Bob]

You do know science doesn't work by consensus, right?

I didn't imply that it does. I said this unpublished paper that failed peer review is deviant from the consensus and the evidence, which produced the consensus. Try to follow.

Can you provide any peer reviewed published material based on empirical evidence published by the consensus which challenges the content of the paper? No. Then upon what do you base your claim that the consensus says otherwise?

"Can you provide any peer reviewed published material based on empirical evidence published by the consensus which challenges the content of the paper? No."

And that sir is the whole premise in a nut shell. Not one of these people can show that man has caused anything, while showing that natural variation is ruled out. Most people are ignorant of the facts and the range of natural variation over millennia. The dumbing down of our children is leaving them vulnerable to being attacked and placed as slaves..

I've said it many times, mans impact can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system. The science has not been done and modeling fails 100% of the time to predict anything. A model that is incapable of having long term correlations with observed empirical data means that it is failed and that the model is useless for any purpose.

Modeling failure is the only 'consensus' I can see.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And that sir is the whole premise in a nut shell.

To a moron. Nobody has to disprove the claims of others.

But, if you denier morons were paying attention, all the published research contradicts this paper, which was immediately and completely eviscerated within a day by the scientific community. That's why it didn't even go to peer review.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And that sir is the whole premise in a nut shell.

To a moron. Nobody has to disprove the claims of others.

But, if you denier morons were paying attention, all the published research contradicts this paper, which was immediately and completely eviscerated within a day by the scientific community. That's why it didn't even go to peer review.

Way to go MORON!

You made claims that man was responsible for all the changes we are seeing...

PUT UP OR SHUT UP! The onus is on you to produce the science showing natural variation is not the cause.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You made claims that man was responsible for all the changes we are seeing...

False. You made that up, because you are a mental midget that needs to create low hanging fruit for himself

In reality, I defer to the consensus reached by the experts at IPCC.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You made claims that man was responsible for all the changes we are seeing...

False. You made that up, because you are a mental midget that needs to create low hanging fruit for himself

In reality, I defer to the consensus reached by the experts at IPCC.

You are hilarious!!!

From your answer, you are not a scientist with any knowledge of science.

All you can do is SQUAK.......Consensus....... SQUAK........ Your a damn parrot..

The IPCC admitted it was fake and that the whole thing was a premise to get control over the US.. Its a wealth redistribution scam... Globalist scum... and a useful idiot is what you are... Even the IPCC said they could not rule out natural variation.... How did you do it? Inquiring minds want to know...

 

[SSDD]

And that sir is the whole premise in a nut shell.

To a moron. Nobody has to disprove the claims of others.

But, if you denier morons were paying attention, all the published research contradicts this paper, which was immediately and completely eviscerated within a day by the scientific community. That's why it didn't even go to peer review.

in case you haven’t noticed, genius, us skeptics are reading the peer reviewed, published literature and we skeptics are the only ones providing peer reviewed literature to support our position.

if you wack jobs were reading the actual science, you probably would be skeptics as well.

let’s see some peer reviewed research based on empirical evidence that challenges the paper.

I predict that no such posting will be forthcoming...

 

[SSDD]

You made claims that man was responsible for all the changes we are seeing...

False. You made that up, because you are a mental midget that needs to create low hanging fruit for himself

In reality, I defer to the consensus reached by the experts at IPCC.

You are hilarious!!!

From your answer, you are not a scientist with any knowledge of science.

All you can do is SQUAK.......Consensus....... SQUAK........ Your a damn parrot..

The IPCC admitted it was fake and that the whole thing was a premise to get control over the US.. Its a wealth redistribution scam... Globalist scum... and a useful idiot is what you are... Even the IPCC said they could not rule out natural variation.... How did you do it? Inquiring minds want to know...

he admits to knowing nothing...he chose his side based entirely on his political persuasion.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

From your answer, you are not a scientist with any knowledge of science.

No, that is an embarrassingly display of poor logic on your part. My answer could stand regardless of whether or not I am, personally, a scientist.

This is just too easy. You deniers are incapable morons.

 

[Billy_Bob]

From your answer, you are not a scientist with any knowledge of science.

No, that is an embarrassingly display of poor logic on your part. My answer could stand regardless of whether or not I am, personally, a scientist.

This is just too easy. You deniers are incapable morons.

Your a legend in your own mind.... But that's all...

 

[SSDD]

From your answer, you are not a scientist with any knowledge of science.

No, that is an embarrassingly display of poor logic on your part. My answer could stand regardless of whether or not I am, personally, a scientist.

This is just too easy. You deniers are incapable morons.

Only if you can provide some actual science to support your position. Otherwise your answer is nothing more than the hyperventilating handwaving of a useful idiot expressing what he IMAGINES to be the truth.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

From your answer, you are not a scientist with any knowledge of science.

No, that is an embarrassingly display of poor logic on your part. My answer could stand regardless of whether or not I am, personally, a scientist.

This is just too easy. You deniers are incapable morons.

Your a legend in your own mind.... But that's all...

Yes, to your "Alamo" of your little tantrums you go ... it's where you deniers belong...

 

[Billy_Bob]

From your answer, you are not a scientist with any knowledge of science.

No, that is an embarrassingly display of poor logic on your part. My answer could stand regardless of whether or not I am, personally, a scientist.

This is just too easy. You deniers are incapable morons.

Your a legend in your own mind.... But that's all...

Yes, to your "Alamo" of your little tantrums you go ... it's where you deniers belong...

All you have is adhominem attacks and squawking like a damn parrot.

Come on boy! Grow up and debate with facts... Time to get off the bottle... Does mommy still change your diaper too?

Still waiting for you to produce some facts and real science..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

All you have is adhominem attacks and squawking like a damn parrot.

Hmm, no, that's embarrassingly stupid. I also have the consensus and all the evidence that produced the consensus on my side. You have zero published research, a propaganda industry, and your embarrassingly emotional tantrums on your side.