Climate research too "woke" for Trump!

[22lcidw]

A dumb talking point, as sea level rise is slow.

The deep state-controlled by outside elites have at least several decades to refine their tactics. We have had made official names for every type of storm and weather pattern like vortex. As they are expanding the uses of these words to incorporate more and more as a climate change affect.

 

[Dekster]

Trump administration moves to dissolve national climate research lab in Colorado

The Trump administration is moving to dissolve the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.

apnews.com

Not that Trump or his Republican members give a rats ass, but their efforts to destroy as much of the planet as they can will impact their grand kids much more than themselves. It's just amazing how these morons oppose anything that benefits people, because they consider it backed by Democrats.

History, that they cannot change, will not be kind to these fools!

Bigly!!!

They could have ab=voided this if they had just renamed it The Donald Trump Center For Alchemy

 

[Crepitus]

if you're concerned about pollution condemn the biggest polluters on the planet .. the lefts dear ally the CCP..

YOu mean the oil companies.

 

[elektra]

For you to try to say that a majority of scientists were never asked..

You are arguing from your ignorant view point.
This topic has been debated and discussed here.

For you to try to state the majority of scientist were asked shows you have zero education on what you believe. Zero.

You lose when you make claims of a consensus. You also show me that you are unwillingly to allow yourself to learn.

There never ever was a consensus. Feel free to link to Cook, James, Dynasty, or Dreskes. That is the basis of your opinion, even if you are ignorant of this.

 

[elektra]

There is no consensus, but yet, you won't go on popular scientific forums because what? If there is no conensus, then why would scientific forums disagree with you? You can post there, get a response that agrees with you, and then come back here and post that they agree with you?

Your imagination is great. You think you can build a strawman argument to deflect from you are wrong. Show us, right now the link to the scientific forums you are speaking of.

Link to the forum where you see this discussion. You made everything up.

Great strawman argument, you claiming you are right with zero proof, based on your strawman argument of a discussion on your imaginary, "scientific forum."

You dud not link to said forums, you have never read a scientific forum. All make believe on your part.

Now scramble to Google, search for scientific forums, post the link so you can continue to pretend you are not making this up as you post. Remember, if you cant show you have an active account, that is further proof you are lying.

 

[elektra]

No, that's embarrassingly stupid. And i gotta say, you definitely make the dumbest posts of anyone on this board.

No, I am nit embarrassed at all, there Beverly ever was a consensus, never. No scientis were asked. The consensus was one man's opinion, supported by a small group of like minded activists, who stated what others thought based on the titles of research papers we are not allowed to see.

What will be embarrassing is if you are dumb enough to link to the Cook, "study." Mantly have beat you to it, users like crick and old crock.

Prove there is a consensus, you cant, you are pathetic. But feel free to try and save face, hahaha, you cant.

Prove the consensus

 

[RedrickTheCoat]

You are arguing from your ignorant view point.
This topic has been debated and discussed here.

For you to try to state the majority of scientist were asked shows you have zero education on what you believe. Zero.

You lose when you make claims of a consensus. You also show me that you are unwillingly to allow yourself to learn.

There never ever was a consensus. Feel free to link to Cook, James, Dynasty, or Dreskes. That is the basis of your opinion, even if you are ignorant of this.

From my ignorant viewpoint?

If you want to make a website, who will you go to? People that are educated in making websites? If you want to get good at tennis, who will you go to? People that are educated in Tennis? If you are sick, who will you go to? People educated in medicine? If you want to know if anthropogenic climate change is real, who will you go to?

My man, I did not link you Cook, James, Dynasty or Dreskes, because I know that you are a retard. I linked you Lynas, which I know is a study that links all their data publically. I'm having to make changes to what I give you retards because I know you are so dumb you won't accept certain things. In your mind, every single study that is done on consensus is flawed in some way, and they are wrong. They are wrong yet you can't provide any actual evidence why they are wrong.

Yet, to believe there is an arugment against the scientific consensus you have what as evidence? Post it, don't be a *****. What are your great sources of science that suggest anthropenic climate change is not real. Is it NASA?

 

[elektra]

From my ignorant viewpoint?

Yes, your ignorance, link to where you go on s ientific forums. You did not, cause you are making all this up. There is discussion when you ignorantly parrot what you heard.

You built a strawman argument, by that argument, by your rules, you fail. Now quit being a hypocrite and prove anything you state.

Start with, Cook. You at least have to acknowledge what you believe comes directly from Cook

 

[elektra]

Thread 'A poll re the value of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming'

Dec 4, 2015

That a large consensus exists among climate scientists supporting the validity of the theory of anthropogenic global warming is an established fact: The Earth has experienced warming over the last 150 years and the primary causes of that warming are human activities, particularly CO2 emissions and deforestation. Numerous polls, surveys and studies have found support among climate scientists to range from the 85 to very close to 100% and that support to be increasing over time.

The question here is: Do you believe that consensus increases the odds that the theory of AGW...

• Crick
• anthropogenic consensus validity warrming
• Replies: 68
• Forum: Environment

Ignorance is rampant, like I said, and old topic which failed the scrutiny of the researchers on USMB

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

if you're concerned about pollution condemn the biggest polluters on the planet .. the lefts dear ally the CCP..

Which would do nothing for pollution or climate change.

Typical right wing nonsolution.

 

[elektra]

Thread 'Where is the Consensus survey'

Nov 24, 2023

Where is the consensus survey/study of the 99% scientists in aggreement? It is that simple. Lots of people here make the claim, nobody posts the survey. We can see the abstract, but not the survey/study.

Abstracts, may not reflect anything in the survey or study.

I want to see the whole thing. But it is not available.

So here is the challenge, post the survey, the study, of the consensus of scientists so we can see for ourselves.

While we wait, here is my partial reply

https://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/environment.84/post-thread

Finally, we show that the rating method...

• elektra
• Replies: 74
• Forum: Environment

• 
• 
• 

Like I said, the research proves there was never anything remotely that asked "climate" scientists if the believe in AGW, dangerous climate change.

Done, been there done that. Now the low iq democrat parrots must be put in their place, again

 

[elektra]

Which would do nothing for pollution or climate change.

Typical right wing nonsolution.

What you propose is a toxic polluting never ending manufacturing of solar and wind power which is the oil and coal industries, product.

 

[RedrickTheCoat]

Yes, your ignorance, link to where you go on s ientific forums. You did not, cause you are making all this up. There is discussion when you ignorantly parrot what you heard.

You built a strawman argument, by that argument, by your rules, you fail. Now quit being a hypocrite and prove anything you state.

Start with, Cook. You at least have to acknowledge what you believe comes directly from Cook

What??
Forums:

Physics Stack Exchange

Q&A for active researchers, academics and students of physics

physics.stackexchange.com

physicsforums.com

Loading…

forum.cosmoquest.org

Ask on any of them if what you say is true.

Notice, how you have not given a single shred of evidence to argue your point. Notice how all you have if you try to argue are oil funded scientists.

Notice how multiple indepedent studies done on the consensus of climate change is not enough for you, yet what is your evidence for the contrary?

I can give you Lynas, and then you respond with what? Something about Cook?

Here is NASA on climate change:

Climate Change - NASA Science

NASA is a global leader in studying Earth’s changing climate.

science.nasa.gov

You think your dumbass knows more than NASA? Or you got evidence that NASA is corrupt? So I have to give evidence that all these independent studies including Lynas that your dumbass didn't even look at, is correct, but then you can say that NASA and all of NASA is corrupt without any evidence?

Climate change: evidence and causes | Royal Society

Supplementary information for the project 'Climate Change: Evidence and causes'.

royalsociety.org

I've given you so much, and you've given me nothing. And yet you believe that you are entitled to give nothing, but receive so much? The reason you give nothing is because you have nothing.

 

[RedrickTheCoat]

No, I am nit embarrassed at all, there Beverly ever was a consensus, never. No scientis were asked. The consensus was one man's opinion, supported by a small group of like minded activists, who stated what others thought based on the titles of research papers we are not allowed to see.

What will be embarrassing is if you are dumb enough to link to the Cook, "study." Mantly have beat you to it, users like crick and old crock.

Prove there is a consensus, you cant, you are pathetic. But feel free to try and save face, hahaha, you cant.

Prove the consensus

Post your best sources that show anthropogenic change is not happening.

 

[elektra]

What??
Forums:

Physics Stack Exchange

Q&A for active researchers, academics and students of physics

physics.stackexchange.com

physicsforums.com

Loading…

forum.cosmoquest.org

Ask on any of them if what you say is true.

Notice, how you have not given a single shred of evidence to argue your point. Notice how all you have if you try to argue are oil funded scientists.

Notice how multiple indepedent studies done on the consensus of climate change is not enough for you, yet what is your evidence for the contrary?

I can give you Lynas, and then you respond with what? Something about Cook?

Here is NASA on climate change:

Climate Change - NASA Science

NASA is a global leader in studying Earth’s changing climate.

science.nasa.gov

You think your dumbass knows more than NASA? Or you got evidence that NASA is corrupt? So I have to give evidence that all these independent studies including Lynas that your dumbass didn't even look at, is correct, but then you can say that NASA and all of NASA is corrupt without any evidence?

Climate change: evidence and causes | Royal Society

Supplementary information for the project 'Climate Change: Evidence and causes'.

royalsociety.org

I've given you so much, and you've given me nothing. And yet you believe that you are entitled to give nothing, but receive so much? The reason you give nothing is because you have nothing.

Like I said, you had to go to google and find a forum you never read. Quit making things up. You lost as soon as you built your strawman argument.

 

[RedrickTheCoat]

Like I said, you had to go to google and find a forum you never read. Quit making things up. You lost as soon as you built your strawman argument.

hahahah. OK dude. You are a joke, and you know you can't defend your point.

 

[elektra]

I've given you so much, and you've given me nothing. And yet you believe that you are entitled to give nothing, but receive so much? The reason you give nothing is because you have nothing.

You have given nothing but your opinion. There is no consensus despite you ranting there is.

You want proof, that means you must prove what you assert, because you made your assertion first..

Now prove there is a consensus. Prove it. You already ignored hours of research I have posted and linked to.

Your rule, proof, start proving, just cause you said so, that ain't proof.

Start with Cook, oh, I forgot you already ignored my reply that included cook

 

[elektra]

hahahah. OK dude. You are a joke, and you know you can't defend your point.

I came here and challenged you to prove your point, you have not. You state you want facts yet you refuse to post any fact

I challenged you to prove what you stated. You built a strawman and nothing more

 

[elektra]

Notice, how you have not given a single shred of evidence to argue your point. Notice how all you have if you try to argue are oil funded scientists.

Notice how multiple indepedent studies done on the consensus of climate change is not enough for you, yet what is your evidence for the contrary?

I can give you Lynas, and then you respond with what? Something about Cook?

Notice how you are a hypocrite, asking for what you are still refusing to do yourself.

Cook and Lynas are two peas in a pod, Cook came first, hence why not start with what is first.

I am not surprised that I am the one telling you what studies you are referring to, you had no idea. Now you should you know nothing by questioning what relevance is Cook?

I know exactly what you are speaking of, I linked twice to the discussions here on usmb. which you are igniring.

 

[elektra]

What??
Forums:

Physics Stack Exchange

Q&A for active researchers, academics and students of physics

physics.stackexchange.com

physicsforums.com

Loading…

forum.cosmoquest.org

Ask on any of them if what you say is true.

Notice, how you have not given a single shred of evidence to argue your point. Notice how all you have if you try to argue are oil funded scientists.

Notice how multiple indepedent studies done on the consensus of climate change is not enough for you, yet what is your evidence for the contrary?

I can give you Lynas, and then you respond with what? Something about Cook?

Here is NASA on climate change:

Climate Change - NASA Science

NASA is a global leader in studying Earth’s changing climate.

science.nasa.gov

You think your dumbass knows more than NASA? Or you got evidence that NASA is corrupt? So I have to give evidence that all these independent studies including Lynas that your dumbass didn't even look at, is correct, but then you can say that NASA and all of NASA is corrupt without any evidence?

NASA? Hahaha, you are making stuff up again. Go ahead and quote NNASA.YOU LINK BUT YOU CANT QUOTE!!!

You are going to google to try and make what you believe is true.

At least admit that you are educating yourself as you go. You cant quote nothing from your links. You think it is intelligent to copy and paste google links? You are showing you dont know anything.