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

[mamooth]

I was being sarcastic...

No, you weren't. You were just making crazy stuff up. To qualify as sarcasm, something has to be close to reality. Fantasies are not sarcasm.

You are in the climate kook club supporting bizarre far into the future climate modeling scenarios,

See? Nobody ever said a climate model could predict daily weather. You just made that up. Your story is isn't attached to reality. Did you make up such a dumb story because you were clueless, or was it deliberate dishonesty?

They are the following, untestable, unverifiable and pseudoscience junk

No, that's denialism, and it's trivially easy to prove.

Name some realistic hard data that could falsify your denier beliefs. Do it right here.

<crickets>

I've asked this question many times. No denier ever answers. They can't, because there is literally no data that could falsify their beliefs. That places their beliefs firmly in the category of pseudoscience or religion.

You are a confirmed hater of The Scientific Method paradigm.

In stark contrast to you goofy cult religious beliefs, AGW theory is falsifiable in many ways, putting it in the category of hard science. I suspect that's why you hate it so much. You type hates the age of reason, and seeks to drag us back to the dark ages.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Book, chapter and verse please ... you've never read the latest IPCC report ... sir

Of course, you don't have to read the entire IPCC report to read the summary, which you might know, if you stepped outside the wingnut bubble for some fresh air once in a while.

Scientists are bending over backwards to put their findings in terms laymen can understand. But you're too busy soothing your self with blogs from paid liars to know it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

DEATH TO THOUGHTCRIMINALS

^^

Peak crybaby

Posted a discredited, non-published scientific article, got embarrassed, now it's everyone else's fault....waaaaaahhhhh.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And you missed the NUANCE and HUMOR in his statement...

Hmm, no, that goober means it honestly.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You mean you you say what your High Priests tell you to say.

^^

What morons call "the global scientific community".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"I've looked at clouds from both sides now..."

Mods, please move to conspiracy theory section or the rubber room.

I think the members all did a FINE job of handling this.. Not for moderation staff to be "truth checkers".. That's YOUR job...

ANd by that I mean independent thinking, not just looking for crappy critiques on your browser...

Nah, you're providing over. On any other scientific topic about which such a ridiculous, deviant thread was started, it would have been moved immediately. But, I guess I get it. It's a political message board.

Go find me examples of science threads that got moved to Conspiracy theory that weren't sourced from InfoWars or "EndTimes" websites.. And then PM me to prove your point here...

A thoroughly discredited, non-published research paper is not better a source. So you already made my point for me, thanks.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You're not the first cultist to say non-believers should be killed.

Which, of course, I nevber said, you embarrassing crybaby.

Man, I would think you would be used to embarrassing yourself by no... but, nope, it's a Grade A tantrum, every time....

 

[ReinyDays]

Book, chapter and verse please ... you've never read the latest IPCC report ... sir

Of course, you don't have to read the entire IPCC report to read the summary, which you might know, if you stepped outside the wingnut bubble for some fresh air once in a while.
Scientists are bending over backwards to put their findings in terms laymen can understand. But you're too busy soothing your self with blogs from paid liars to know it.

Okay ... Book of Summaries ... now chapter and verse? ...

I've read the summaries, and you haven't ... they're written for the average laymen, so you wouldn't understand them even if you tried to read them ...

 

[daveman]

I'm getting real tired of your fucking lies, you fucking liar. I have never wished death upon warmers. NEVER.

And we've never wished death on you. So why do you think it's okay for you to lie about that, and not okay for me to mock you for lying?

Either present proof I have, or apologize and then shut the fuck up.

How do you justify it to yourself, your constant lying about us supposedly wishing death on people? Do you tell yourself that it's for the greater good, and that God endorses your lying? I've got news for you. God would never tell you to lie.The voice that you're obeying belongs to the other guy.

My goodness, you can't help but lie, can you?

Climate “Deniers” Must Be Jailed or Killed

Professor: Global Warming “Deniers” Should be Executed

NYT suggests 'deniers' should be stabbed through the heart – like vampires

Oh, look. Warmers suggesting deniers should be killed. Exactly as I claimed, and exactly as you claimed never happens.

Shut the fuck up, you liar.

 

[daveman]

DEATH TO THOUGHTCRIMINALS

^^

Peak crybaby

Posted a discredited, non-published scientific article, got embarrassed, now it's everyone else's fault....waaaaaahhhhh.

I'm sure that fantasy makes you feel better. You believe in a lot of fantasies.

Sad, really.

 

[daveman]

You mean you you say what your High Priests tell you to say.

^^

What morons call "the global scientific community".

You probably believe that 97% horseshit, too, don't you? Exactly as you were told.

 

[daveman]

You're not the first cultist to say non-believers should be killed.

Which, of course, I nevber said, you embarrassing crybaby.

Man, I would think you would be used to embarrassing yourself by no... but, nope, it's a Grade A tantrum, every time....

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

What happened to the people in the Alamo?

Hint: They were all killed. For believing the wrong thing.

Leftists can't convince rational people to agree with them, so they want to kill them instead.

 

[SSDD]

[

The "natural magic" theory could get some credibility if it explained the current stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation and decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands, which all have no natural explanation. AGW theory does explain all of the observed data, and it is the simplest theory to do so. Mr. Occam has something to say there about how the simplest theory which explains all of the data is most likely to be correct.

Sorry hairball...there is no back radiation, and outgoing LW is increasing...you lose every time on that lie because observations say you are wrong.

You need to stop depending on 90's science and start looking at the new research...literally thousands of published papers rejecting the terribly flawed consensus of the 90's since then...and based on empirical evidence....not flawed, failing models.

 

[SSDD]

Leaps to CONCLUSIONS are a HALLMARK of GW/CC papers... Like the leap to the conclusion that Mann et al "likely" proved there was close to ZERO variability in climates of the past and THIS 80 year current minor blip in temperature rise is therefore UNPRECEDENTED in magnitude and rate for the near past future of the Earth..

You will not let go of that nonsense, right? We are not in an 80 year blip. We are in a blip of thousands, if not tens of thousands of years, for that is how long it is going to take to absorb the carbon we've pumped, and are going to pump, into the atmosphere, for the increased temperatures to go back to pre-industrial levels, to reduce the sea levels to prior levels, and whatever other attendant consequences there are for weather patterns, fauna or flora, or are going to be.

And that means, yes, what we are inflicting on earth is unprecedented, and if anything like it happened before during the last tens of thousands of years, it would have shown up in even a record of 500-years intervals. But it doesn't. Is there any chance you are going to understand that? Really...

I can produce multiple peer reviewed published papers saying that our contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 is quite small...can you produce any peer reviewed, published papers based on empirical evidence which say the opposite? I kinda doubt it, but by all means, if you can, lets see them. Most of you warmers have a very skewed vision of the amount of CO2 we produce vs the amount produced by nature.

 

[SSDD]

Why is the premise not presented in a holistic model..

Because the climate is chaotic and can not be modeled accurately, ever! We're smart enough to understand that...

What I find hilarious is the earths cyclical patterns are well known and yet you AGW nutters want to believe a model that can not replicate reality... Yet the activity seen is well within natural variation bounds.... GO figure...

Hmmm...a model need not be definitively predictive. It's just a tool. I know the climate is chaotic..after all, whole fields of mathematics have been invented just to study it. still, enough time and you can get a baseline--draw a few conclusions.

You seem so caught up in the political kerfuffle..that you don't think to believe your senses. There is observable evidence that things are getting warmer. Heat=energy--thus more powerful storms and extremes in temp. The why of it..except to you guys that like to brangle, is irrelevant..things are changing..so it's time to adapt to the change. Human exacerbated or no.

I doubt that I'm any kind of 'nutter'....unless pragmatism is a mental defect.

You, on the other hand....

All your examples are nothing more than business as usual on planet earth...records have been being set in one place or another on a daily basis since we started keeping records. Name anything in todays climate that even begins to approach the boundaries of natural variability..anything at all...or better yet, provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. Good luck producing that bit of non existent evidence.

 

[SSDD]

I'm getting real tired of your fucking lies, you fucking liar. I have never wished death upon warmers. NEVER.

And we've never wished death on you. So why do you think it's okay for you to lie about that, and not okay for me to mock you for lying?

Either present proof I have, or apologize and then shut the fuck up.

How do you justify it to yourself, your constant lying about us supposedly wishing death on people? Do you tell yourself that it's for the greater good, and that God endorses your lying? I've got news for you. God would never tell you to lie.The voice that you're obeying belongs to the other guy.

Check my sig line...crick certainly thinks it would be more expedient to simply kill off skeptics and there are numerous news stories around of you cultist wanting to imprison and kill skeptics...you can't win the debate so your answer is to start killing....typical socialist solution to all those who don't see the emperor's beautiful new clothes...

 

[SSDD]

Book, chapter and verse please ... you've never read the latest IPCC report ... sir

Of course, you don't have to read the entire IPCC report to read the summary, which you might know, if you stepped outside the wingnut bubble for some fresh air once in a while.

Scientists are bending over backwards to put their findings in terms laymen can understand. But you're too busy soothing your self with blogs from paid liars to know it.

Would that be the scientific summary or the summary for policy makers...they say very different things.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We still don't fully understand how gravity works, but the AGW Cult is telling us that their 'science' is settled

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Why is the premise not presented in a holistic model..

Because the climate is chaotic and can not be modeled accurately, ever! We're smart enough to understand that...

What I find hilarious is the earths cyclical patterns are well known and yet you AGW nutters want to believe a model that can not replicate reality... Yet the activity seen is well within natural variation bounds.... GO figure...

Hmmm...a model need not be definitively predictive. It's just a tool. I know the climate is chaotic..after all, whole fields of mathematics have been invented just to study it. still, enough time and you can get a baseline--draw a few conclusions.

You seem so caught up in the political kerfuffle..that you don't think to believe your senses. There is observable evidence that things are getting warmer. Heat=energy--thus more powerful storms and extremes in temp. The why of it..except to you guys that like to brangle, is irrelevant..things are changing..so it's time to adapt to the change. Human exacerbated or no.

I doubt that I'm any kind of 'nutter'....unless pragmatism is a mental defect.

You, on the other hand....

All your examples are nothing more than business as usual on planet earth...records have been being set in one place or another on a daily basis since we started keeping records. Name anything in todays climate that even begins to approach the boundaries of natural variability..anything at all...or better yet, provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. Good luck producing that bit of non existent evidence.

I was not aware i provided any 'examples'. You might note that i did not take the AGW stance..nor did I take the natural variability stance either. My point, again, is that for whatever reason..things are changing and that we need to adapt to those changes.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Why is the premise not presented in a holistic model..

Because the climate is chaotic and can not be modeled accurately, ever! We're smart enough to understand that...

What I find hilarious is the earths cyclical patterns are well known and yet you AGW nutters want to believe a model that can not replicate reality... Yet the activity seen is well within natural variation bounds.... GO figure...

Hmmm...a model need not be definitively predictive. It's just a tool. I know the climate is chaotic..after all, whole fields of mathematics have been invented just to study it. still, enough time and you can get a baseline--draw a few conclusions.

You seem so caught up in the political kerfuffle..that you don't think to believe your senses. There is observable evidence that things are getting warmer. Heat=energy--thus more powerful storms and extremes in temp. The why of it..except to you guys that like to brangle, is irrelevant..things are changing..so it's time to adapt to the change. Human exacerbated or no.

I doubt that I'm any kind of 'nutter'....unless pragmatism is a mental defect.

You, on the other hand....

All your examples are nothing more than business as usual on planet earth...records have been being set in one place or another on a daily basis since we started keeping records. Name anything in todays climate that even begins to approach the boundaries of natural variability..anything at all...or better yet, provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. Good luck producing that bit of non existent evidence.

I was not aware i provided any 'examples'. You might note that i did not take the AGW stance..nor did I take the natural variability stance either. My point, again, is that for whatever reason..things are changing and that we need to adapt to those changes.

I live in one of the HOTTEST places in the Pacific Northwest, yet never felt the need to adapt at all, after all being .50C warmer doesn't mean shit to me, or the biology/Botany of the region. The Trees grows just the same, the animals are still there in good numbers, and the fish are just as common in the Columbia River and Yakima River as it has been.

There has been ZERO indication that Climate Change is bad or a danger to the region.