Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Crick]

The climate can warm. Or it can get colder or it can change. I deny none of any part of those things.

What I deny (up to a point) is the notion that scientists can validly deduce that human-kind plays much of a role in any of that. It’s the “A” in “AGW” that is suspect.

When the AGW FAITH BASED cadre speaks about anyone who deviates in any way from swallowing their orthodox beliefs, they falsely label them “Deniers.” The question is: Deniers of what?

I’m more of a skeptic. But I will accept the term “denier” for a little bit. Absent better evidence and non-fudged data, I’ll deny your claims about the role of a tiny bit more of a very trace amount of CO2 in our atmosphere as constituting a greenhouse gas caused catastrophe. Especially when it is conjoined with demands for some world wide socialist new order and one world government.

Do you have any idea HOW scientists have concluded that humans have played a role in the warming observed over the last 150 years? Before you decide whether or not they can actually do that, you need to learn what it is they're actually doing. It is most assuredly not based on "faith".

 

[BackAgain]

Do you have any idea HOW scientists have concluded that humans have played a role in the warming observed over the last 150 years? Before you decide whether or not they can actually do that, you need to learn what it is they're actually doing. It is most assuredly not based on "faith".

I have. And I sort of get (handicapped by being just a layman) how some scientists have come to that conclusion. But that is a far cry from the claims made by you AGW Faithers about how well supported “the” science is.

SIDE COMMENT:

The whole point of this thread, I believe, is to avoid just looping the same arguments. I am not clear, though, on what is considered “on topic” versus what qualifies as being “off topic.”

 

[Oddball]

Do you have any idea HOW scientists have concluded that humans have played a role in the warming observed over the last 150 years? Before you decide whether or not they can actually do that, you need to learn what it is they're actually doing. It is most assuredly not based on "faith".

It's based upon the closed political circle jerk of pal review....The same kind of self-licking ice cream cone that is used by holocaust deniers.

 

[Crick]

It's based upon the closed political circle jerk of pal review....The same kind of self-licking ice cream cone that is used by holocaust deniers.

One of the problems with "pal review" is that for the few "pals" doing the reviewing, their are a thousand readers capable of making the same checks. But, of course, each and every one of them has joined the decades old global conspiracy among climate scientists to lie to the public in order to get rich from research grants. Right? But the oil and coal industry are absolutely honest about the existential threat they're facing because unlike science, the only way to succeed in a business like that is complete and total honesty. Right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One of the problems with "pal review" is that for the few "pals" doing the reviewing, their are a thousand readers capable of making the same checks. But, of course, each and every one of them has joined the decades old global conspiracy among climate scientists to lie to the public in order to get rich from research grants. Right? But the oil and coal industry are absolutely honest about the existential threat they're facing because unlike science, the only way to succeed in a business like that is complete and total honesty. Right?

That's ridiculous!
That's why the warmers tried to stop anyone who disagrees from being published.

Because there isn't a conspiracy, the warmers are all awesome and totally honest and all the sciense in on their side.

 

[jc456]

I'm a carpenter by trade ... hammers are the same since Roman times ... girls might suffer, serves them right for evolving too fast ...

I'm in electronics. Back to 350 lb tvs I guess huh? What about glue?

 

[jc456]

Do you have any idea HOW scientists have concluded that humans have played a role in the warming observed over the last 150 years? Before you decide whether or not they can actually do that, you need to learn what it is they're actually doing. It is most assuredly not based on "faith".

no, can you provide what they base that on?

Son, you can't even say how warm 120 PPM of CO2 is. You want me to believe someone can tell what human's put into the atmosphere as CO2? Sure we put shit in the atmosphere. The thing you need to do is prove it makes the weather worse. And son, You get an FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

[Crick]

Crick said:
One of the problems with "pal review" is that for the few "pals" doing the reviewing, their are a thousand readers capable of making the same checks. But, of course, each and every one of them has joined the decades old global conspiracy among climate scientists to lie to the public in order to get rich from research grants. Right? But the oil and coal industry are absolutely honest about the existential threat they're facing because unlike science, the only way to succeed in a business like that is complete and total honesty. Right?

That's ridiculous!
That's why the warmers tried to stop anyone who disagrees from being published.

Because there isn't a conspiracy, the warmers are all awesome and totally honest and all the sciense in on their side.

You haven't addressed my point. Pal Review doesn't work because the audience has lots of folks in it just as good as the reviewers. And, you are correct, Todd, there is no conspiracy among climate scientists. They don't need it because, yes indeed, the science is on their side. It's too bad the same cannot be said for the fossil fuel industry, the folks motivated by the existential threat created by the knowledge that their product is fucking the world.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And, you are correct, Todd, there is no conspiracy among climate scientists. They don't need it because, yes indeed, the science is on their side.

Exactly!

That's why they alter historical temperature data and suppress skeptics.
Because what else would they do when the science is on their side?

It's too bad the same cannot be said for the fossil fuel industry, the folks motivated by the existential threat created by the knowledge that their product is fucking the world.

Yeah, it's awful! They should just immediately stop producing oil, coal and nat gas. That'd cause far fewer deaths than a tiny increase in temperature in the next 50 years.

Maybe you should find the real definition of "existential", yours is broken.

 

[jc456]

e. It's too bad the same cannot be said for the fossil fuel industry, the folks motivated by the existential threat

Why aren’t they installing solar panels around the globe for free?

 

[Crick]

Exactly!

That's why they alter historical temperature data and suppress skeptics.
Because what else would they do when the science is on their side?

It's too bad the same cannot be said for the fossil fuel industry, the folks motivated by the existential threat created by the knowledge that their product is fucking the world.

Yeah, it's awful! They should just immediately stop producing oil, coal and nat gas. That'd cause far fewer deaths than a tiny increase in temperature in the next 50 years.

Maybe you should find the real definition of "existential", yours is broken.

The term 'existential' is an accurate characterization of the threat global warming mitigation measures pose to the fossil fuel industries.

That is why it's so blitheringly ignorant of AGW deniers to ignore the possibility that elements within such industries might be spreading falsehoods about the science, particularly when the Number One attack point of the lot of you is the contention that the tens of thousands of scientists world wide are, to a man, lying to the public about global warming. You use that same nonsensical and achingly ironic premise here - and I know you're too smart to ever believe such claptrap. You just continue to put it out because you fear the embarrassment that would result were you to admit the mistakes you've made and stuck with all these years. If I can offer a single piece of advice, imagine how much credit you would accrue if you found the chutzpa to actually say "I was wrong". You'd be a king.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The term 'existential' is an accurate characterization of the threat global warming mitigation measures pose to the fossil fuel industries.

That is why it's so blitheringly ignorant of AGW deniers to ignore the possibility that elements within such industries might be spreading falsehoods about the science, particularly when the Number One attack point of the lot of you is the contention that the tens of thousands of scientists world wide are, to a man, lying to the public about global warming. You use that same nonsensical and achingly ironic premise here - and I know you're too smart to ever believe such claptrap. You just continue to put it out because you fear the embarrassment that would result were you to admit the mistakes you've made and stuck with all these years. If I can offer a single piece of advice, imagine how much credit you would accrue if you found the chutzpa to actually say "I was wrong". You'd be a king.

Green idiocy threatens far more than the fossil fuel industries.

the Number One attack point of the lot of you is the contention that the tens of thousands of scientists world wide are, to a man, lying to the public about global warming.

Ridiculous! Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann would never lie.

If I can offer a single piece of advice, imagine how much credit you would accrue if you found the chutzpa to actually say "I was wrong". You'd be a king.

I will, right after the most perfect human I'm aware of, Michael Mann, does the same.
Or after he pays the legal judgments against him. LOL!

 

[jc456]

The term 'existential' is an accurate characterization of the threat global warming mitigation measures pose to the fossil fuel industries

What threat? Still waiting scrub button

 

[Crick]

Green idiocy threatens far more than the fossil fuel industries.

the Number One attack point of the lot of you is the contention that the tens of thousands of scientists world wide are, to a man, lying to the public about global warming.

Ridiculous! Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann would never lie.

If I can offer a single piece of advice, imagine how much credit you would accrue if you found the chutzpa to actually say "I was wrong". You'd be a king.

I will, right after the most perfect human I'm aware of, Michael Mann, does the same.
Or after he pays the legal judgments against him. LOL!

Why are your choices not based on the science Todd?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why are your choices not based on the science Todd?

You're right, there is absolutely no reason to mistrust the science.

Or the idiots who want to use it as an excuse to waste tens of trillions of doallrs.

The Green New Deal will convert the decaying fossil fuel economy into a new, green economy that is environmentally sustainable, economically secure and socially just. The Green New Deal starts with transitioning to 100% green renewable energy (no nukes or natural gas) by 2030. It would immediately halt any investment in fossil fuels (including natural gas) and related infrastructure. The Green New Deal will guarantee full employment and generate up to 20 million new, living-wage jobs, as well as make the government the employer of last resort with a much-needed major public jobs program.

Green New Deal – Full Language

www.gp.org

What do you think, Crick?

Good idea? Doable?

Is cost no object?

 

[Crick]

You failed to tell us why your choices are not based on the science Todd.

Such obvious attempt to change/derail/detour the subject makes us think you don't have a good response. Show us to be wrong about that Todd.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You failed to tell us why your choices are not based on the science Todd.

I don't think a little warmer is the end of the world.

The Green New Deal will convert the decaying fossil fuel economy into a new, green economy that is environmentally sustainable, economically secure and socially just. The Green New Deal starts with transitioning to 100% green renewable energy (no nukes or natural gas) by 2030. It would immediately halt any investment in fossil fuels (including natural gas) and related infrastructure. The Green New Deal will guarantee full employment and generate up to 20 million new, living-wage jobs, as well as make the government the employer of last resort with a much-needed major public jobs program.

What do you say, Crick?

Good idea? Doable? Worth the expense?

 

[Crick]

You are STILL not telling us why your choices are not based on the science Todd. I'm not here to talk about AOC or the GND or anything else you want to throw up here for a detour. You claim that you believe in science, yet your choices say you don't. Please explain.

 

[ReinyDays]

You are STILL not telling us why your choices are not based on the science Todd. I'm not here to talk about AOC or the GND or anything else you want to throw up here for a detour. You claim that you believe in science, yet your choices say you don't. Please explain.

You wouldn't understand the science if we gave it to you ...

If carbon dioxide concentrations go up, and temperatures go down ... then we don't have correlation ... THAT's the science T'Patriot is using ... do you not understand basic science? ...

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

The term 'existential' is an accurate characterization of the threat global warming mitigation measures pose to the fossil fuel industries.

That is why it's so blitheringly ignorant of AGW deniers to ignore the possibility that elements within such industries might be spreading falsehoods about the science, particularly when the Number One attack point of the lot of you is the contention that the tens of thousands of scientists world wide are, to a man, lying to the public about global warming. You use that same nonsensical and achingly ironic premise here - and I know you're too smart to ever believe such claptrap. You just continue to put it out because you fear the embarrassment that would result were you to admit the mistakes you've made and stuck with all these years. If I can offer a single piece of advice, imagine how much credit you would accrue if you found the chutzpa to actually say "I was wrong". You'd be a king.

Except your argument has a glaring hole in it......
You forgot the most important question...."Who PAYS all these so called "scientists" ? (That's right, mostly government grants, a government run by Globalists. Gee....want to get paid and feed your family? Better be sure your "science" agrees with our agenda.)
And the secondary question.....
Who stands to benefit MOST from all these initiatives (it certainly is not the average human being).
Where are the solar panels produced? (7 of the top 10 manufacturers are in CHINA.) Wind turbines? Same.
Clearly there can be no argument that Communist countries currently benefit MOST from solar panel proliferation.

Do we even need science to understand that......
Solar and wind power both become useless in inclement weather. Solar production is cut by more than 50% in winter months in Northern climates. Do you really need someone else to explain that to you? If so then you have no place in this discussion.