Fake climate science

[SSDD]

Prove me wrong....That is all.

Crick proved you wrong. You pretended it didn't happen, as you are doing now. Invincible ignorance is called that for a reason.

The only thing the skid mark ever proved is that he is a moron and a bald faced liar..

 

[justoffal]

What ever you want to call it, the human eye can observe that we are having more extreme weather all over the country.is that not worth looking into?

I realize that the article is lengthy. However the author did present the actual facts on extreme weather. Over the last several decades powerful hurricanes have decreased notably as has the occurance of both F4 and F5 tornadoes.

You will notice that neither of those items is ever dealt with by the actual climatologists.
It's always the psuedo-scientific sleuths that try to add the ....AHA!.... moment to a hurricane or a ferocious tornado.

Why do you think that in a court of law that eyewitness testimony is considered to be the least reliable?

Jo

 

[justoffal]

Far to long, did not read.

That says it all...

Nobody has time to read your thousand word screed on why reality isn't real. I may not have read it but I know what it says. I'm sure it contains phrases like "healthy skepticism" and "consensus isn't scientific" and a few excerpts from junk science done by bought and paid for oil company shills about how co2 doesn't cause warming and surely mentions the predictions from the 70s about ice ages. As long as it is I'm sure there are many more of the standard denier lies in it as well but I bet that hits the high points.

There was one line in there you surely would have benefitted from. Real scientists never use the word Denier to describe an opposing view. That type of extreme vocabulry is only for those who seek to shut down debate...a very non-scientific habit.

Jo

 

[Crepitus]

Far to long, did not read.

That says it all...

Nobody has time to read your thousand word screed on why reality isn't real. I may not have read it but I know what it says. I'm sure it contains phrases like "healthy skepticism" and "consensus isn't scientific" and a few excerpts from junk science done by bought and paid for oil company shills about how co2 doesn't cause warming and surely mentions the predictions from the 70s about ice ages. As long as it is I'm sure there are many more of the standard denier lies in it as well but I bet that hits the high points.

Yeah, we know you didn't read it because the truth would collapse your 'Climate Change' house of cards.

There is no truth in there.

 

[Crepitus]

Far to long, did not read.

That says it all...

Nobody has time to read your thousand word screed on why reality isn't real. I may not have read it but I know what it says. I'm sure it contains phrases like "healthy skepticism" and "consensus isn't scientific" and a few excerpts from junk science done by bought and paid for oil company shills about how co2 doesn't cause warming and surely mentions the predictions from the 70s about ice ages. As long as it is I'm sure there are many more of the standard denier lies in it as well but I bet that hits the high points.

There was one line in there you surely would have benefitted from. Real scientists never use the word Denier to describe an opposing view. That type of extreme vocabulry is only for those who seek to shut down debate...a very non-scientific habit.

Jo

I'm not a scientist.

You are a denier.

 

[justoffal]

Far to long, did not read.

That says it all...

Nobody has time to read your thousand word screed on why reality isn't real. I may not have read it but I know what it says. I'm sure it contains phrases like "healthy skepticism" and "consensus isn't scientific" and a few excerpts from junk science done by bought and paid for oil company shills about how co2 doesn't cause warming and surely mentions the predictions from the 70s about ice ages. As long as it is I'm sure there are many more of the standard denier lies in it as well but I bet that hits the high points.

There was one line in there you surely would have benefitted from. Real scientists never use the word Denier to describe an opposing view. That type of extreme vocabulry is only for those who seek to shut down debate...a very non-scientific habit.

Jo

I'm not a scientist.

You are a denier.

Nor are you even remotely scientific.
The Term climate snob fits though.

Jo

 

[Crepitus]

Far to long, did not read.

That says it all...

Nobody has time to read your thousand word screed on why reality isn't real. I may not have read it but I know what it says. I'm sure it contains phrases like "healthy skepticism" and "consensus isn't scientific" and a few excerpts from junk science done by bought and paid for oil company shills about how co2 doesn't cause warming and surely mentions the predictions from the 70s about ice ages. As long as it is I'm sure there are many more of the standard denier lies in it as well but I bet that hits the high points.

There was one line in there you surely would have benefitted from. Real scientists never use the word Denier to describe an opposing view. That type of extreme vocabulry is only for those who seek to shut down debate...a very non-scientific habit.

Jo

I'm not a scientist.

You are a denier.

Nor are you even remotely scientific.
The Term climate snob fits though.

Jo

And you're still a denier.

 

[Leo123]

Far to long, did not read.

That says it all...

Nobody has time to read your thousand word screed on why reality isn't real. I may not have read it but I know what it says. I'm sure it contains phrases like "healthy skepticism" and "consensus isn't scientific" and a few excerpts from junk science done by bought and paid for oil company shills about how co2 doesn't cause warming and surely mentions the predictions from the 70s about ice ages. As long as it is I'm sure there are many more of the standard denier lies in it as well but I bet that hits the high points.

Yeah, we know you didn't read it because the truth would collapse your 'Climate Change' house of cards.

There is no truth in there.

Yes there is.

 

[Crepitus]

Far to long, did not read.

That says it all...

Nobody has time to read your thousand word screed on why reality isn't real. I may not have read it but I know what it says. I'm sure it contains phrases like "healthy skepticism" and "consensus isn't scientific" and a few excerpts from junk science done by bought and paid for oil company shills about how co2 doesn't cause warming and surely mentions the predictions from the 70s about ice ages. As long as it is I'm sure there are many more of the standard denier lies in it as well but I bet that hits the high points.

Yeah, we know you didn't read it because the truth would collapse your 'Climate Change' house of cards.

There is no truth in there.

Yes there is.

Cliff note it for me.

 

[Leo123]

Cliff note it for me.

How about you back up your assertion? Anyone can troll.

 

[justoffal]

That says it all...

Nobody has time to read your thousand word screed on why reality isn't real. I may not have read it but I know what it says. I'm sure it contains phrases like "healthy skepticism" and "consensus isn't scientific" and a few excerpts from junk science done by bought and paid for oil company shills about how co2 doesn't cause warming and surely mentions the predictions from the 70s about ice ages. As long as it is I'm sure there are many more of the standard denier lies in it as well but I bet that hits the high points.

There was one line in there you surely would have benefitted from. Real scientists never use the word Denier to describe an opposing view. That type of extreme vocabulry is only for those who seek to shut down debate...a very non-scientific habit.

Jo

I'm not a scientist.

You are a denier.

Nor are you even remotely scientific.
The Term climate snob fits though.

Jo

And you're still a denier.

And there you have it. You sun yourself in the light of ignorance. Right above is a well reasoned prose that identifies this very
Condition. Your choice is tribalism over science .. once chosen the position is damn near immovable.... ERGO:

One convinced against his will
Is of the same opinion still.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

Cliff note it for me.

How about you back up your assertion? Anyone can troll.

What you are witnessing is absolute penetration of Tribalism. These fellows have abandoned debate and have characterized it as the demon instead of the guide whereas real science holds the mechanism of the debate sacrosacnt above all.

Their identity badge is the braggadocious
misconception and feral abuse of the word consensus. Indeed it has become the
hooded priest of Gaia in its religious abstention from curiousity and research; carefully forbidding and assiduously condemning any betrayal of the faith. If you listen closely you can hear the ominous and hypnotic hum of a myriad borg-like beings offering out a composition of white noise in surreal unison. They feel saftey in numbers even as they drift ever closer to the total blackness of eternal ignorance.

Jo

 

[Leo123]

Cliff note it for me.

How about you back up your assertion? Anyone can troll.

What you are witnessing is absolute penetration of Tribalism. These fellows have abandoned debate and have characterized it as the demon instead of the guide whereas real science holds the mechanism of the debate sacrosacnt above all.

Their identity badge is the braggadocious
misconception and feral abuse of the word consensus. Indeed it has become the
Hooded priest of Gaia in it's religious abstention from curiousity and research; carefully forbidding and assiduously condemning any betrayal of the faith.
If you listen closely you can hear the ominous and hypnotic hum of a myriad
Borg like beings offering out white noise
In a surreal unison. They feel safe even as they drift towards the total blackness of
Total ignorance.

Jo

Very eloquently put but, probably lost on he TDS crowd.

 

[westwall]

What ever you want to call it, the human eye can observe that we are having more extreme weather all over the country.is that not worth looking into?

Provably false. I dare you to look into the frequency and severity of storms from the past.

 

[justoffal]

Jesus. What a load. Lucky for us tobacco lobby scientists are around.

And the wait continues for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....got any?

Didn't think so.

The claim that we have accelerated effects that coincide with the industrial revolution is what they always fall back on.

But there is no proxy study which has resolution sufficient to make any such claim for a period of less than a few hundred years. The proxy studies with the highest resolution are those derived from ice cores taken above the arctic and antarctic circle...they show periods of climate change in which temperatures rose and fell at a far faster rate than anything we have experienced and those changes were far greater than anything we have seen.

Of course believers point out that those studies only reflect the arctic...but then, climate science has been telling us for decades that the arctic and antarctic regions are the canaries in the coal mine and what happens in those regions follows to the rest of the globe...and proxy studies from all over the globe have in large part shown those ice core studies to have been precursors for global changes.

However volcanologists are just now coming to the conclusion that a greater period of previously undetected volcanic activity also spans that stretch of years. So once again it's a matter for investigation...not academic snobbery.

Jo

They are also coming to learn that volcanoes are putting out orders of magnitude more CO2 than was previously thought. The old numbers regarding volcanic CO2 output were only looking at about 6 to 8 volcanoes known to be active. They are learning now that there are literally hundreds of thousands of active undersea volcanoes which for the most part have been completely ignored. As the study progresses, I will not be in the least surprised to find that mankind's CO2 production is a mere fraction of the amount of CO2 being produced by volcanoes alone...never mind such sources as termites for example which produce more than twice the amount of CO2 that we do.

Of course as study progresses, the climate sensitivity to CO2 keeps moving towards zero..2 decades ago, climate sensitivity was thought to be 6 degrees or more...then a decade ago it was reduced by half...now studies are pushing hard to rationally claim even 1 degree of climate sensitivity to CO2...in another decade that number will be indistinguishable from zero.

Outstanding!

Jo

 

[justoffal]

Cliff note it for me.

How about you back up your assertion? Anyone can troll.

What you are witnessing is absolute penetration of Tribalism. These fellows have abandoned debate and have characterized it as the demon instead of the guide whereas real science holds the mechanism of the debate sacrosacnt above all.

Their identity badge is the braggadocious
misconception and feral abuse of the word consensus. Indeed it has become the
Hooded priest of Gaia in it's religious abstention from curiousity and research; carefully forbidding and assiduously condemning any betrayal of the faith.
If you listen closely you can hear the ominous and hypnotic hum of a myriad
Borg like beings offering out white noise
In a surreal unison. They feel safe even as they drift towards the total blackness of
Total ignorance.

Jo

Very eloquently put but, probably lost on he TDS crowd.

Yep.... and that is another angle I have seen used repeatedly as if politics and climate science have anything to do with each other.
A person who wants to debate is tagged name DENIER which also happens to coincide with the use of numerous derogatories relating to political alignment.

That should be a dead giveaway
to anyone in search of validations for the AGW arguments... But no....much like the blind suicide bombers of radical religious origins they run at the opposing argument and ignite the explosives hoping for maximum carnage instead of maximum interchange.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

What ever you want to call it, the human eye can observe that we are having more extreme weather all over the country.is that not worth looking into?

Provably false. I dare you to look into the frequency and severity of storms from the past.

You know damn well he won't.

Jo

 

[Billy_Bob]

The vast majority of American know it's a hoax and a scam to grow government and redistribute wealth and income. Most people have it way down on their list of concerns to the point where it has become a non issue except for the ultra far left progressives.

The UN made this point very clear...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Far to long, did not read.

That says it all...

Nobody has time to read your thousand word screed on why reality isn't real. I may not have read it but I know what it says. I'm sure it contains phrases like "healthy skepticism" and "consensus isn't scientific" and a few excerpts from junk science done by bought and paid for oil company shills about how co2 doesn't cause warming and surely mentions the predictions from the 70s about ice ages. As long as it is I'm sure there are many more of the standard denier lies in it as well but I bet that hits the high points.

There was one line in there you surely would have benefitted from. Real scientists never use the word Denier to describe an opposing view. That type of extreme vocabulry is only for those who seek to shut down debate...a very non-scientific habit.

Jo

I'm not a scientist.

You are a denier.

As soon as someone tries to block the debate by claiming they resemble a holocaust denier the one using the term is outed as a political hack. They do not exist to debate they just want to call names in the hope they can keep their political agenda on track.. They have no science or physical evidence proof. They simply exist to kill real scientific debate and conversations.

 

[SSDD]

Far to long, did not read.

That says it all...

Nobody has time to read your thousand word screed on why reality isn't real. I may not have read it but I know what it says. I'm sure it contains phrases like "healthy skepticism" and "consensus isn't scientific" and a few excerpts from junk science done by bought and paid for oil company shills about how co2 doesn't cause warming and surely mentions the predictions from the 70s about ice ages. As long as it is I'm sure there are many more of the standard denier lies in it as well but I bet that hits the high points.

Yeah, we know you didn't read it because the truth would collapse your 'Climate Change' house of cards.

There is no truth in there.

And you know this because gaia told you? By your own admission, you didn't read it, so exactly how do you know what is in there...and by your own admission, you don't possess enough knowledge to determine whether any particular statement about climate is true or not, so exactly how do you know? The answer is that you don't. You are speaking from the bias of ignorance...