Climate Hustle do not miss this film

[jc456]

Except the only issue here is getting you to believe it. Science is there fto present facts. You call the facts something other than facts and demand.....FACTS! Lol...it's a cute little game where you demand something until it's given then you dismiss those findings as if your dismissal means the facts never happened.

So at the end of the day what you're saying is that CO2 has no effect on anything. LOL...that's funny

and what's even funnier, is you all claim it is nasty shit and can't prove that. We on the other hand have the AR5 report which in it states no warming in fifteen years. Well that blows your fking claim completely out of the water, exactly where they then claim all the heat went. Too funny gene too funny. yep, you got shit and you can't prove shit. You got......................................nothing. We have the AR5 report.

 

[jc456]

Except the only issue here is getting you to believe it. Science is there fto present facts. You call the facts something other than facts and demand.....FACTS! Lol...it's a cute little game where you demand something until it's given then you dismiss those findings as if your dismissal means the facts never happened.

So at the end of the day what you're saying is that CO2 has no effect on anything. LOL...that's funny

Wake up...I started a whole thread asking for nothing more than to be deluged with the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the real observable, measurable, quantifiable world that supports the A in AGW.... and thus far, not one bit of actual evidence in support of that all important A has been posted...certainly observed, measured evidence of some things...but not the A in AGW....you believe evidence exists...there is a whole thread whose sole purpose is for you to slap me down and make me your ***** with it...you got evidence go to the thread titled "In support of the A in AGW" and give it your best shot...

I predict, however, that you won't show and if you do, you won't have anything like actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...

And sure, CO2 has an effect on things....it makes plants grow great...It can put out an electrical fire or chemical fire safely...it even serves a purpose in your body...but altering the global climate?...not a chance in hell.

It also is what makes pop and beer.

 

[jc456]

Wake up...I started a whole thread asking for nothing more than to be deluged with the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the real observable, measurable, quantifiable world that supports the A in AGW....

And you were given it, in spades, and in response you went into a meltdown of denial. It's why you're called a denier. And why that thread is now only useful as an illustration of the personality disorders displayed by hard core cultists.

Oh, once more, here's the link to the hundreds of lab experiments documenting the IR spectral absorption properties of all atmospheric gases, put together by those pinkos at the Air Force. Deniers will scream "That doesn't count!" because ... because ... well, they don't say. They just sulk about how the last century of physics is a conspiracy. It's the same "Because I say so!" standard they use in every aspect of their "science".

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/Updated/ref-table.pdf

Anyways, you deniers all make sure you throw some money at self-admitted paid propagandist Morano. The cult wants you to, and that's all the motivation you should need.

so why is it necessary to change observed temperature data sets?

 

[SSDD]

Wake up...I started a whole thread asking for nothing more than to be deluged with the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the real observable, measurable, quantifiable world that supports the A in AGW....

And you were given it, in spades, and in response you went into a meltdown of denial. It's why you're called a denier. And why that thread is now only useful as an illustration of the personality disorders displayed by hard core cultists.

Oh, once more, here's the link to the hundreds of lab experiments documenting the IR spectral absorption properties of all atmospheric gases, put together by those pinkos at the Air Force. Deniers will scream "That doesn't count!" because ... because ... well, they don't say. They just sulk about how the last century of physics is a conspiracy. It's the same "Because I say so!" standard they use in every aspect of their "science".

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/Updated/ref-table.pdf

Anyways, you deniers all make sure you throw some money at self-admitted paid propagandist Morano. The cult wants you to, and that's all the motivation you should need.

Poor hairball...which one of those papers you referenced do you believe provides actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that absorption and emission equals warming....there never has been an argument that certain gasses absorb and emit IR...that fact, however does not prove, or even support the claim that absorption and emission cause warming...and warming being an observable, measurable, quantifiable phenomenon, there damned well should be observed, measured quantified evidence that absorption and emission equals warming.....where is it...bring it here if it exists.

 

[SSDD]

Wake up...I started a whole thread asking for nothing more than to be deluged with the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the real observable, measurable, quantifiable world that supports the A in AGW....

And you were given it, in spades, and in response you went into a meltdown of denial. It's why you're called a denier. And why that thread is now only useful as an illustration of the personality disorders displayed by hard core cultists.

Oh, once more, here's the link to the hundreds of lab experiments documenting the IR spectral absorption properties of all atmospheric gases, put together by those pinkos at the Air Force. Deniers will scream "That doesn't count!" because ... because ... well, they don't say. They just sulk about how the last century of physics is a conspiracy. It's the same "Because I say so!" standard they use in every aspect of their "science".

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/Updated/ref-table.pdf

Anyways, you deniers all make sure you throw some money at self-admitted paid propagandist Morano. The cult wants you to, and that's all the motivation you should need.

There is not one study in that whole database that shows CO2 increases the temperature of the earth. Not one. Point one out, link and quote, otherwise your link is another MOOT point.

Just endless distractions from the fact that they can't produce the first bit of real evidence in support of the A in AGW...

 

[mamooth]

SSDD, you're the guy on internet corner with a sandwich board, screaming "the end is near!". You're not ignored because of your brilliance. You're ignored because you're plainly crazy.

So, back to the topic. Anyone going to the Climate Hustle film on May 2? Tell you what. If somebody buys me a ticket, I'll go.

The usual suspects are doing some preemptive whining to explain why nobody wants to see it. It's because the mean ol' media is attacking it!

Press Declares War on 'Climate Hustle' Documentary

 

[SSDD]

SSDD, you're the guy on internet corner with a sandwich board, screaming "the end is near!". You're not ignored because of your brilliance. You're ignored because you're plainly crazy.

So, back to the topic. Anyone going to the Climate Hustle film on May 2? Tell you what. If somebody buys me a ticket, I'll go.

The usual suspects are doing some preemptive whining to explain why nobody wants to see it. It's because the mean ol' media is attacking it!

Press Declares War on 'Climate Hustle' Documentary

And still not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the A in AGW....not the first f'ing shred....tell me, in the absence of any actual evidence, what is the so called consensus based upon if not money?

 

[Billy_Bob]

SSDD, you're the guy on internet corner with a sandwich board, screaming "the end is near!". You're not ignored because of your brilliance. You're ignored because you're plainly crazy.

So, back to the topic. Anyone going to the Climate Hustle film on May 2? Tell you what. If somebody buys me a ticket, I'll go.

The usual suspects are doing some preemptive whining to explain why nobody wants to see it. It's because the mean ol' media is attacking it!

Press Declares War on 'Climate Hustle' Documentary

And the media is using the same worthless tactic that you use... Appeal to authority. adhom and denigration... never once addressing the real facts..

 

[Wyatt earp]

As we hate to see the mentally handicapped taken advantage of, we at least attempt to keep deniers from sending any money to the various fraudsters who run their cult. But if they're dead set on funding shysters like Morano, we can't stop them.

 

[Old Rocks]

Paying people to say "CONSENSUS!!!" is not science

Of course it isnt...but science is science

yeah.

Can you point to even one single lab experiment linking 200PPM of CO2 to any discernible increase in temperature?

No?

Didn't think so

Now Frankie Boy, we understand that any science beyond the third grade level is beyond your comprehension, but the experiment has already been done. During the Eemian, the CO2 level was 20 ppm above the normal interglacial, at 300 ppm. The sea level rose by twenty feet, and the forests line extended much further north than at present. In other words, the inertia of the system is such that the ocean and atmospheric temperatures have not even fully responded to the first 20 ppm of CO2 that we have put into the atmosphere.

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Paying people to say "CONSENSUS!!!" is not science

Of course it isnt...but science is science

yeah.

Can you point to even one single lab experiment linking 200PPM of CO2 to any discernible increase in temperature?

No?

Didn't think so

Now Frankie Boy, we understand that any science beyond the third grade level is beyond your comprehension, but the experiment has already been done. During the Eemian, the CO2 level was 20 ppm above the normal interglacial, at 300 ppm. The sea level rose by twenty feet, and the forests line extended much further north than at present. In other words, the inertia of the system is such that the ocean and atmospheric temperatures have not even fully responded to the first 20 ppm of CO2 that we have put into the atmosphere.

If you've eliminated all variable save for a tiny change in an atmospheric trace element, why is the lab so so so cruel to your "theory"?

CO2 is up 20PPM why hast the sea risen by 20 feet?

Do you just throw out random facts and think that somehow, magically, it becomes "evidence" of your insane theory?

 

[Crick]

[
And the media is using the same worthless tactic that you use... Appeal to authority. adhom and denigration... never once addressing the real facts..

From Wikipedia: Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) also appeal to authority, is a common argument form which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise, when the authority cited is not a true expert or if the cited authority is stating a contentious or controversial position.[1]

Note the use of the word "can" (emphasis mine) followed by three qualifying phrases.

An appeal to authority is false IF

1) The authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise
2) The authority is not a true expert
3) The authority is stating a contentious or controversial opinion.

None of these are true in the case of the overwhelming consensus position of the world's climate scientists. The appeal to authority in this instance is VALID.

 

[Crick]

From Wikipedia

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[3]

Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy,[4][5][6] more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance

Mamooth is not attempting to refute SSDD's arguments with an ad hominem attack. He is explaining why so many on this board ignore SSDD's posts. That someone might conclude from SSDD's posts that he is crazy is virtually inarguable.

 

[skookerasbil]

[
And the media is using the same worthless tactic that you use... Appeal to authority. adhom and denigration... never once addressing the real facts..

From Wikipedia: Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) also appeal to authority, is a common argument form which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise, when the authority cited is not a true expert or if the cited authority is stating a contentious or controversial position.[1]

Note the use of the word "can" (emphasis mine) followed by three qualifying phrases.

An appeal to authority is false IF

1) The authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise
2) The authority is not a true expert
3) The authority is stating a contentious or controversial opinion.

None of these are true in the case of the overwhelming consensus position of the world's climate scientists. The appeal to authority in this instance is VALID.

LOL....been hearing this narrative for 2 1/2 decades!!!

Experts? Are you that much of a sucker to think that attaching the word "experts" = an absolute truth?

As it applies to climate science, the "experts" have achieved exactly what? A consensus amongst themselves and the religious followers? Well........so what? Outside their own little sphere of influence, there has been zero impact on the real world!!!

In other words..........for all intents and purposes, its a hobby s0n!!!

Take a bow!!

 

[Crick]

Where did I ever even suggest that "experts = absolute truth"?

 

[mamooth]

So, the one-night showing of the film went off, with the expected whimper. If you read the reviews on WUWT, they mention how the audience was mostly old people.

On the same night, about a hundred times as many people watched Jimmy Kimmel's takedown of the movie and its TrueBelievers.

At this point, the score is 35-3, and the game is about running out the clock, waiting for the deniers to die off. Science advances one funeral at a time.

 

[skookerasbil]

So, the one-night showing of the film went off, with the expected whimper. If you read the reviews on WUWT, they mention how the audience was mostly old people.

On the same night, about a hundred times as many people watched Jimmy Kimmel's takedown of the movie and its TrueBelievers.

At this point, the score is 35-3, and the game is about running out the clock, waiting for the deniers to die off. Science advances one funeral at a time.

But if nobody cares, it doesn't matter s0n!!

Yesterday, Democrat voters in Indiana were polled on the issues that affected their votes the most. The lowest issues cited was "Terrorism" at 7%.

Climate change?

Not on the list!!!

Exit poll: Indiana GOP voters pick Trump, but party divided | www.statesman.com

The science marches.........but only for itself Which also means the deniers are winning!!

 

[skookerasbil]

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Trump.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[jc456]

Paying people to say "CONSENSUS!!!" is not science

Of course it isnt...but science is science

yeah.

Can you point to even one single lab experiment linking 200PPM of CO2 to any discernible increase in temperature?

No?

Didn't think so

Now Frankie Boy, we understand that any science beyond the third grade level is beyond your comprehension, but the experiment has already been done. During the Eemian, the CO2 level was 20 ppm above the normal interglacial, at 300 ppm. The sea level rose by twenty feet, and the forests line extended much further north than at present. In other words, the inertia of the system is such that the ocean and atmospheric temperatures have not even fully responded to the first 20 ppm of CO2 that we have put into the atmosphere.

so you're saying that the CO2 parts per million went up by 20 and there was then twenty feet of water added to the ocean? Where did this happen, i have not seen any news on this? BTW, that wouldn't be an experiment BTW.