If you still believe in deadly climate change, this will help you sleep.

[catatomic]

He has no clout.

It's says I'm not gullible.

It's a leftist issue, and most people are very one-sided. That is the only reason many of these scientists are left.

 

[catatomic]

View attachment 1096922

You keep denying it they keep needing to do it better.

 

[ReinyDays]

I live in a small apartment. I walk, take the bus or car pool almost everywhere. My TV has a bill of $6/yr if I have it on for 6 hrs a day, which I don't nearly do. I have this handy laptop and that's about it.

Belching CO2 ... that's hypocritical ... I do all those things too, but my claim is I'm saving money ... I can walk to get my food and beer, but how does my food and beer get here from California? ... carbon polluting semi-trucks is how ...

I advocate conservation ... less profits going to Hamas and the like ...

Mathing ... 6 hrs a day comes to 4¢/kW-hr ... I don't believe you ... no one pays that little for electricity ...

 

[catatomic]

Belching CO2 ... that's hypocritical ... I do all those things too, but my claim is I'm saving money ... I can walk to get my food and beer, but how does my food and beer get here from California? ... carbon polluting semi-trucks is how ...

I advocate conservation ... less profits going to Hamas and the like ...

Mathing ... 6 hrs a day comes to 4¢/kW-hr ... I don't believe you ... no one pays that little for electricity ...

Well good for you. And the bottom line is its about consumption and less consumption always saves money!

Oh and I don't live too far from California.

 

[mamooth]

Incorrect. If the interglacial period ended 6000 to 8000 years ago the planet would have abruptly plunged into a glacial period like it always does, dummy.

No, that's not how global climate works. The "ice ages" end with a relatively fast warmup, and then there's a long slow cooldown into the next one.

The earth was in the long slow cooldown period. The earth still had at least 20,000 years of slow cooling ahead.

This is basic stuff, and you always fail at it.

 

[mamooth]

By the way Gore was in the early days one of your warmist/alarmist gods

More projection than a 12-screen cineplex there. We never worshipped Gore. You're lying like a rug about that.

Your side does religion. Ours doesn't. Nobody on our side ever used an "but Al Gore said!" said argument. You claims about that are pathetic revisionist history from a dying hate-cult.

What do we talk about? Science. Because we can. You can't, so you rave about politicians. The cult has given you orders, so what choice do you have?

 

[mamooth]

Bla bla bla, you have been saying this lie over and over and over, no one is falling for that worn out bullshit as it has been addressed many times.

How's life in the denier SafeSpace going?

It's a pity that you and your fellow cultists can't ever leave it. I understand. The laughter hurts you.

So when will flat-eatherism become another mandatory belief of your cult, along with denialism, antivaxxism, supply side economics, and other various crank beliefs?

 

[daveman]

You keep denying it they keep needing to do it better.

It's not real science if the conclusion is predetermined.

 

[daveman]

It's a leftist issue, and most people are very one-sided. That is the only reason many of these scientists are left.

There is far more money available on the pro-AGW side than there ever has been on the anti side.

 

[mamooth]

It's not real science if the conclusion is predetermined.

And that's why we know denialism is crank pseudoscience.

I've often asked deniers what hard evidence could disprove their beliefs.

Not a single one has ever answered. Not one. That's because there is no hard evidence that could disprove their beliefs. Denialism is a religion, and religions can't be disproved in the eyes of the faithful.

In contrast, I've listed many ways that AGW theory could be disproved. It's real science, so it can be disproved with evidence.

 

[mamooth]

There is far more money available on the pro-AGW side than there ever has been on the anti side.

The opposite of reality, of course. Follow the money. All of the corrupting bribe money flows to the deniers.

Any ethical scientist could triple their salary by choosing to lie for the deniers. They don't. They effectively take a pay cut by refusing denier bribes, which gives them even more credibility.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The opposite of reality, of course. Follow the money. All of the corrupting bribe money flows to the deniers.

Any ethical scientist could triple their salary by choosing to lie for the deniers. They don't. They effectively take a pay cut by refusing denier bribes, which gives them even more credibility.

PROVE IT!

LOL

 

[ReinyDays]

Well good for you. And the bottom line is its about consumption and less consumption always saves money!

Oh and I don't live too far from California.

Go look at your electricity bill and tell me how much you pay for it ... SDG&E has some of the highest electric costs in the nation ...

But if you live in Idaho, I'll apologize ...

 

[ding]

I was quoting someone else. The Internet is good.

I don't care what you say when your first graph doesn't even show the huge swift spike this time around.

You don't care about the empirical climate evidence of the geologic record? You do realize the ice age began ~3 million years ago, right?

 

[ding]

I live in a small apartment. I walk, take the bus or car pool almost everywhere. My TV has a bill of $6/yr if I have it on for 6 hrs a day, which I don't nearly do. I have this handy laptop and that's about it.

So you are the average American with the average American carbon footprint.

 

[ding]

No, that's not how global climate works. The "ice ages" end with a relatively fast warmup, and then there's a long slow cooldown into the next one.

The earth was in the long slow cooldown period. The earth still had at least 20,000 years of slow cooling ahead.

This is basic stuff, and you always fail at it.

Dummy. Look at the data.

 

[mamooth]

Dummy. Look at the data.

The data says you're wrong, so you're wrong.

It doesn't matter how fanatical your beliefs about it are, since this is science, not religion.

 

[ding]

The data says you're wrong, so you're wrong.

It doesn't matter how fanatical your beliefs about it are, since this is science, not religion.

I just showed you the data, dummy. Your denial of the empirical climate evidence from the geologic record makes you the fanatic. Here's some more empirical climate evidence you can deny; D-O events which show rapid deglaciation and rapid glaciation from the last glacial period which occurred over periods of several decades and prove the ocean is responsible for abrupt climate changes, not the atmosphere.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The data says you're wrong, so you're wrong.

It doesn't matter how fanatical your beliefs about it are, since this is science, not religion.

Look who is talking here you didn't answer my request for evidence to support your post #351 but you hypocritically castigate Ding for showing data you didn't address.



Still waiting.......

 

[mamooth]

Look who is talking here you didn't answer my request for evidence to support your post #351 but you hypocritically castigate Ding for showing data you didn't address.

You poor thing. Would it help if I said I'm sorry for humiliating you for so many years?

Oh, Ding's data never supports the loony claims he makes. That's one reason why he and you look like such babbling imbeciles.

Anyways, good luck with raving in a SafeSpace. I'm sure that will overturn the last century of science. Really it will.