Fake climate science

[ralfy]

Yep...that is why I call them the sect of GAIA..... it's really that sick.

JO

It's not so much a sect as common sense, and based on the point that continuous economic growth (which leads to increasing pollution and ecological damage) cannot take place on a planet with physical limits. At some point economic output will drop due to diminishing returns and the effects of ecological damage.

 

[Pilot1]

We have greatly reduced "pollution" both air and water over the last fifty years. CO2 and "carbon" is NOT pollution. It is a natural occurring molecule, and element necessary for our existence.

If "we" refers to the U.S., then that's probably because the pollution has been outsourced to other countries.

And that doesn't simply mean CO2 or even "carbon."

While that may be partially true we have greatly reduced the poisonous content of emissions both air and water through regulation in the U.S. That's a fact.

 

[justoffal]

Yep...that is why I call them the sect of GAIA..... it's really that sick.

JO

It's not so much a sect as common sense, and based on the point that continuous economic growth (which leads to increasing pollution and ecological damage) cannot take place on a planet with physical limits. At some point economic output will drop due to diminishing returns and the effects of ecological damage.

Perhaps. But I submit to you that fusion technologies are closer and bigger than you think.

 

[Sunsettommy]

CNM and Crepitus awesome dead on arrival, non argument replies to the interesting First Post,

Post 2: Jesus. What a load. Lucky for us tobacco lobby scientists are around.

Post 11: Far to long, did not read.

Climate change is real, the fakes are on the side of the deniers. One more retarded denier article doesn't change facts.

Post 15: 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.

Post 16: Crick proved you wrong. You pretended it didn't happen, as you are doing now. Invincible ignorance is called that for a reason.

Post 24: There is no truth in there.

Post 25: I'm not a scientist.

You are a denier.

Post 27: And you're still a denier.

Post 29: Cliff note it for me.

Post 54: So, you're a denier as well.

Post ……..?

There you have it from the two warmists goofballs, who couldn't provide a cogent reply to the First Post or to anyone else in the thread. It is a clear case of ZERO, they have ZERO arguments to make, all the way ZERO!!!

Heck a prime example that Crepitus has ZERO argument to bring up to this at post 53, from Flacaltenn

"What do you suppose he's denying? Climate science doesn't HAVE just one question to answer. And in science, any form of consensus approval has ONE SPECIFIC DETAILED question as the basis...

Is the Earth Warming?
Is man causing it?
What percentage of the 1degC change in Global temp can be attributed to man's emissions.
What's the temperature GONNA be in 2100?
How accurate are the models PREDICTING that projected temperature?
What emissions scenario are those models based on?
What is the STATISTICAL CONFIDENCE range of those projections for temperature and SLevel rise 50 or 100 years out?
How do we know that this 1 degC in our lifetimes has never been approached since the last ice age?
With what evidence and confidence can we attribute CURRENT extreme weather events to this minor 1degC change in Global mean temperatures in our lifetimes?


I could go on for an hour here.. It's NOT as simple as being a denier or WORSE buying everything you've HEARD about GW whole hog without sweating some PERSONAL research.. Calling each other deniers or climate snobs doesn't begin to get the job done of UNDERSTANDING the science behind the politics and the fear mongering...

There IS an issue with man's emissions. It's NOT a crisis of any proportion worth $10 trillion.. The science has been BADLY abused and misinterpreted by the media and the UN money grubbers and political forces..

Most of the original "pants wetting" projections of 2100 temps and slRise numbers from the 80's have been revised WAAAY the hell down.. But like everything else that's no longer real or accurate, this shit lives on forever on the internet."

Crepitus awesome dead on arrival reply, post 54:

"So, you're a denier as well."

Absolutely Nothing.

CNM & Crepitus score card,

Name calling- check
Ad homs- check
No facts- check
No data- check
No source link
No counter replies- check
No debate- check

Perfect score!

Absolutely NOTHING!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

The Danger in the Tribal aspects of the AGW cult is their complete isolation from all other fields of science.
Even the consensus claim is a lie....if one were to interview each individual mind that contributes to the so called consensus we would quickly find many differences of opinion as the the causes, severity and contributory components of the Earth's climate variations. So several hundred leading scientists were interviewed and they all came up with an agreement that the Earth is subject to climate variability?????...hmmm...seems to me we learned this stuff in high school fifty years ago and back then the fear was Global Freezing not Global Warming.

Amen bro... For a series of polls on "OPINION" of real climate scientists DONE by climate scientists, asking over 100 questions about what they ACTUALLY believe -- see Bray and von Storch... I'll get you a link to these extensive surveys -- but here is an example of what THEY THINK about the way press, and political leadership and reportage has MISREPRESENTED the actual science done so far... If you wanna talk consensus on the MANY QUESTIONS that have be answered for GW -- you gotta read their surveys...

Question #66 of about 128...

For those of you who can't read graphs and stat charts, the "consensus" on that question is that GW science HAS BEEN distorted and misrepresented by politics and the media. Less than about 25% "dont think so"...

I do not say that we should abandon a search for better and cleaner forms of mass power generation. IMO....
we will eventually end up with a system based on fusion technologies which produce nearly a million times the output per unit of fuel that the combustion technologies produce and without the CO2. It's coming....

Other great engineering solution is to use solar and wind OFF THE GRID at facilities dedicated to making hydrogen fuel... Doesn't matter if the sun don't shine or the wind don't blow reliably as long as you can STORE a valuable fuel as a result...

 

[ralfy]

We have greatly reduced "pollution" both air and water over the last fifty years. CO2 and "carbon" is NOT pollution. It is a natural occurring molecule, and element necessary for our existence.

If "we" refers to the U.S., then that's probably because the pollution has been outsourced to other countries.

And that doesn't simply mean CO2 or even "carbon."

While that may be partially true we have greatly reduced the poisonous content of emissions both air and water through regulation in the U.S. That's a fact.

But both climate change and ecosystem damage are global issues.

 

[ralfy]

Perhaps. But I submit to you that fusion technologies are closer and bigger than you think.

The catch is that they should have been implemented at least two decades ago.

And then there's the problem of diminishing returns for material resources.

 

[Pilot1]

We have greatly reduced "pollution" both air and water over the last fifty years. CO2 and "carbon" is NOT pollution. It is a natural occurring molecule, and element necessary for our existence.

If "we" refers to the U.S., then that's probably because the pollution has been outsourced to other countries.

And that doesn't simply mean CO2 or even "carbon."

While that may be partially true we have greatly reduced the poisonous content of emissions both air and water through regulation in the U.S. That's a fact.

But both climate change and ecosystem damage are global issues.

True. And Climate Change occurs naturally, and we can only deal with ecosystem damage in U.S. territory and we largely have, as we have with emissions reductions.

 

[ralfy]

True. And Climate Change occurs naturally, and we can only deal with ecosystem damage in U.S. territory and we largely have, as we have with emissions reductions.

Yes, and when it naturally occurs, CO2 ppm peaks at 300. It's way beyond that now.

Of course, countries can only deal with the damage locally. The cause, though, is global.

 

[SSDD]

True. And Climate Change occurs naturally, and we can only deal with ecosystem damage in U.S. territory and we largely have, as we have with emissions reductions.

Yes, and when it naturally occurs, CO2 ppm peaks at 300. It's way beyond that now.

Of course, countries can only deal with the damage locally. The cause, though, is global.

Guess you don't realize that when the present ice age began, atmospheric CO2 was about 1000ppm...and for the vast bulk of earth's history CO2 has been at or above 1000ppm...Atmospheric CO2 only drops below that level during ice ages...the earth is in the process of clawing its way out of one and CO2 would be expected to raise as oceans warm and out gas CO2.

 

[denmark]

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

Now at least with tobacco...you have multiple scientific concurrment. It's not just the medical doctors, but coroners, biologists and general medical researchers.

Climate snobs who believe that their input is the only thing that drives the climate are demonstrably insane.

You appear to respect science, so why don’t you respect the international group of climate science specialists who work together to produce detailed status reports? Are they “fake” researchers in your mind?

“Through the IPCC, thousands of experts from around the world synthesize the most recent developments in climate science, adaptation, vulnerability, and mitigation every five to seven years.”

The IPCC: Who Are They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter?

 

[SSDD]

You appear to respect science, so why don’t you respect the international group of climate science specialists who work together to produce detailed status reports? Are they “fake” researchers in your mind?

Perhaps it is because they haver been caught red handed tampering with the data...and have admitted openly that the IPCC isn't about science, it is about redistributing the wealth of industrialized nations. And maybe it could have something to do with the fact that there are two reports...one for science, and one for policy makers in which the massive uncertainty in climate science is never mentioned...

 

[jc456]

True. And Climate Change occurs naturally, and we can only deal with ecosystem damage in U.S. territory and we largely have, as we have with emissions reductions.

Yes, and when it naturally occurs, CO2 ppm peaks at 300. It's way beyond that now.

Of course, countries can only deal with the damage locally. The cause, though, is global.

who has the details that makes that statement correct BTW?

 

[denmark]

You appear to respect science, so why don’t you respect the international group of climate science specialists who work together to produce detailed status reports? Are they “fake” researchers in your mind?

Perhaps it is because they haver been caught red handed tampering with the data...and have admitted openly that the IPCC isn't about science, it is about redistributing the wealth of industrialized nations. And maybe it could have something to do with the fact that there are two reports...one for science, and one for policy makers in which the massive uncertainty in climate science is never mentioned...

You appear to contradict yourself. You believe the IPCC isn’t about science, yet you know the IPCC has a science report that is the basis for policy.
Perhaps you don’t agree with the policy statements, but do you also not respect the science reports in the latest IPCC?

 

[SSDD]

You appear to respect science, so why don’t you respect the international group of climate science specialists who work together to produce detailed status reports? Are they “fake” researchers in your mind?

Perhaps it is because they haver been caught red handed tampering with the data...and have admitted openly that the IPCC isn't about science, it is about redistributing the wealth of industrialized nations. And maybe it could have something to do with the fact that there are two reports...one for science, and one for policy makers in which the massive uncertainty in climate science is never mentioned...

You appear to contradict yourself. You believe the IPCC isn’t about science, yet you know the IPCC has a science report that is the basis for policy.
Perhaps you don’t agree with the policy statements, but do you also not respect the science reports in the latest IPCC?

Sorry...the IPCC has a policy report which makes no mention of the great uncertainly in their science report...

Nothing the IPCC does warrants respect...

 

[jc456]

True. And Climate Change occurs naturally, and we can only deal with ecosystem damage in U.S. territory and we largely have, as we have with emissions reductions.

Yes, and when it naturally occurs, CO2 ppm peaks at 300. It's way beyond that now.

Of course, countries can only deal with the damage locally. The cause, though, is global.

who has the details that makes that statement correct BTW?

ralfy what happened to you? why didn't you provide the ask?