People who don't believe in climate change, why don't you believe in it?

[asterism]

The IPCC reports are riddled with unscientific opinion pieces produced by NGO's who get their funding based on the government grants that these "reports" generate. The IPCC stopped being a credible source years ago.

The NAS confirms AGW:

America s Climate Choices Final Report Climate Change at the National Academies

So does an independent study funded by skeptics:

Bombshell Koch-Funded Study Finds Global Warming Is Real On The High End And Essentially All Due To Carbon Pollution ThinkProgress

No, they don't. The BEST study used the same Mann derived data that has been shown to be false. Further the statement that Muller was a sceptic who changed his mind is an outright lie. Muller has been an ardent AGW supporter for decades. In fact he is the owner of a "sustainability" company based in Berkely.

Anytime someone starts a news story with a provable lie you should be checking your wallet.

BEST used data from multiple sources:

Berkeley Earth

The BEST study used data that had already been manipulated.

None of the files used in the source files were raw untouched data. They are TMAX, TMIN, and TAVG. Garbage in, garbage out.

Any evidence you can provide of manipulation is helpful, as well as any peer-reviewed studies from multiple scientists on a scale equivalent to that of the NAS to counter AGW.

For now, skeptics have BEST.

Garbage in garbage out. It's why I am not convinced.

 

[jc456]

Actually Donald.....my bad......I posted up the wrong vid. I don't even know who the hell Wendy Wright is............

This is the vid I meant to post up...........

That's the video, and it's insane, LOL.

Its not the vid......what a fag.

The link just above is "The Grinding Down of America".......a man is the narrator, now a woman.

Still the usual psychotic denier non-sense.

just one. Post up just one piece of fact!!! just one please?

 

[jc456]

There is no pause. That's a kook denier invention. There was a slight decrease in the rate of air warming as the oceans absorbed more heat, but the overall rate of planetary warming hasn't slowed down a bit.

Does this look like a pause? If anyone sees a pause here, they're either too stupid or too crazy to be bothering the grownups.

There was a slight decrease in the rate of air warming as the oceans absorbed more heat

Sounds serious! What was the increase in ocean temperature? Was it measurable?

yep, it was 0.000001 with a 0.03% error.

 

[jc456]

The IPCC reports are riddled with unscientific opinion pieces produced by NGO's who get their funding based on the government grants that these "reports" generate. The IPCC stopped being a credible source years ago.

The NAS confirms AGW:

America s Climate Choices Final Report Climate Change at the National Academies

So does an independent study funded by skeptics:

Bombshell Koch-Funded Study Finds Global Warming Is Real On The High End And Essentially All Due To Carbon Pollution ThinkProgress

No, they don't. The BEST study used the same Mann derived data that has been shown to be false. Further the statement that Muller was a sceptic who changed his mind is an outright lie. Muller has been an ardent AGW supporter for decades. In fact he is the owner of a "sustainability" company based in Berkely.

Anytime someone starts a news story with a provable lie you should be checking your wallet.

BEST used data from multiple sources:

Berkeley Earth

The BEST study used data that had already been manipulated.

None of the files used in the source files were raw untouched data. They are TMAX, TMIN, and TAVG. Garbage in, garbage out.

Any evidence you can provide of manipulation is helpful, as well as any peer-reviewed studies from multiple scientists on a scale equivalent to that of the NAS to counter AGW.

For now, skeptics have BEST.

dude, there isn't any graph published without some sort of reconstruction. So show me one that isn't!!

 

[martybegan]

What additional government, what lessened freedoms do you believe leftists are suggesting here?

Oh lets see, more government rules regarding carbon usage, more taxes to cover the cost of all the bureaucracy needed to implement this stuff. And down the road all the modern tech we are going to have to limit/abandon in the name of "saving the planet"

 

[ralfy]

The NAS confirms AGW:

America s Climate Choices Final Report Climate Change at the National Academies

So does an independent study funded by skeptics:

Bombshell Koch-Funded Study Finds Global Warming Is Real On The High End And Essentially All Due To Carbon Pollution ThinkProgress

No, they don't. The BEST study used the same Mann derived data that has been shown to be false. Further the statement that Muller was a sceptic who changed his mind is an outright lie. Muller has been an ardent AGW supporter for decades. In fact he is the owner of a "sustainability" company based in Berkely.

Anytime someone starts a news story with a provable lie you should be checking your wallet.

BEST used data from multiple sources:

Berkeley Earth

The BEST study used data that had already been manipulated.

None of the files used in the source files were raw untouched data. They are TMAX, TMIN, and TAVG. Garbage in, garbage out.

Any evidence you can provide of manipulation is helpful, as well as any peer-reviewed studies from multiple scientists on a scale equivalent to that of the NAS to counter AGW.

For now, skeptics have BEST.

Garbage in garbage out. It's why I am not convinced.

Since you can't provide evidence or any peer-reviewed studies, then I'm putting you in my ignore list.

 

[Marxist]

Actually Donald.....my bad......I posted up the wrong vid. I don't even know who the hell Wendy Wright is............

This is the vid I meant to post up...........

That's the video, and it's insane, LOL.

Its not the vid......what a fag.

The link just above is "The Grinding Down of America".......a man is the narrator, now a woman.

Still the usual psychotic denier non-sense.

just one. Post up just one piece of fact!!! just one please?

NASA honey.

 

[jc456]

No, they don't. The BEST study used the same Mann derived data that has been shown to be false. Further the statement that Muller was a sceptic who changed his mind is an outright lie. Muller has been an ardent AGW supporter for decades. In fact he is the owner of a "sustainability" company based in Berkely.

Anytime someone starts a news story with a provable lie you should be checking your wallet.

BEST used data from multiple sources:

Berkeley Earth

The BEST study used data that had already been manipulated.

None of the files used in the source files were raw untouched data. They are TMAX, TMIN, and TAVG. Garbage in, garbage out.

Any evidence you can provide of manipulation is helpful, as well as any peer-reviewed studies from multiple scientists on a scale equivalent to that of the NAS to counter AGW.

For now, skeptics have BEST.

Garbage in garbage out. It's why I am not convinced.

Since you can't provide evidence or any peer-reviewed studies, then I'm putting you in my ignore list.

tell you what, why not just leave here.

 

[jc456]

Actually Donald.....my bad......I posted up the wrong vid. I don't even know who the hell Wendy Wright is............

This is the vid I meant to post up...........

That's the video, and it's insane, LOL.

Its not the vid......what a fag.

The link just above is "The Grinding Down of America".......a man is the narrator, now a woman.

Still the usual psychotic denier non-sense.

just one. Post up just one piece of fact!!! just one please?

NASA honey.

Huh? What Rockets?

 

[ralfy]

What additional government, what lessened freedoms do you believe leftists are suggesting here?

Oh lets see, more government rules regarding carbon usage, more taxes to cover the cost of all the bureaucracy needed to implement this stuff. And down the road all the modern tech we are going to have to limit/abandon in the name of "saving the planet"

The catch is that governments earn more tax revenues from the opposite, and that it's less a matter of technology being abandoned but unable to maintain continuous economic growth due to a combination of crises, including global warming and peak oil.

 

[jc456]

What additional government, what lessened freedoms do you believe leftists are suggesting here?

Oh lets see, more government rules regarding carbon usage, more taxes to cover the cost of all the bureaucracy needed to implement this stuff. And down the road all the modern tech we are going to have to limit/abandon in the name of "saving the planet"

The catch is that governments earn more tax revenues from the opposite, and that it's less a matter of technology being abandoned but unable to maintain continuous economic growth due to a combination of crises, including global warming and peak oil.

are you saying the government is losing money because they believe in global warming?

 

[asterism]

No, they don't. The BEST study used the same Mann derived data that has been shown to be false. Further the statement that Muller was a sceptic who changed his mind is an outright lie. Muller has been an ardent AGW supporter for decades. In fact he is the owner of a "sustainability" company based in Berkely.

Anytime someone starts a news story with a provable lie you should be checking your wallet.

BEST used data from multiple sources:

Berkeley Earth

The BEST study used data that had already been manipulated.

None of the files used in the source files were raw untouched data. They are TMAX, TMIN, and TAVG. Garbage in, garbage out.

Any evidence you can provide of manipulation is helpful, as well as any peer-reviewed studies from multiple scientists on a scale equivalent to that of the NAS to counter AGW.

For now, skeptics have BEST.

Garbage in garbage out. It's why I am not convinced.

Since you can't provide evidence or any peer-reviewed studies, then I'm putting you in my ignore list.

Oh how shall I live with myself?


This is funny. Demanding that any and all criticism of an opinion on climate change can only be done in peer-reviewed studies is just like demanding that any and all criticism of religion can only be done among Catholic Priests.

 

[asterism]

"peak oil'

hahahaha!

Peak Oil Debunked Again - WSJ
New Technology has Destroyed the Myth of Peak Oil - Thomas Miller - Page full
http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/pdf/table_5.pdf

 

[mamooth]

So asterism thinks oil is infinite? That's even dumber than his other cult beliefs. Since oil is finite, production must reach a peak somewhere. Odd, how something that simple can be beyond anyone.

But then, a lot of denier cultists are also abiotic oil cranks. Those who believe in one idiot conspiracy theory tend to believe in a whole bunch of idiot conspiracy theories. If you're dim enough to have fallen for denialism, you're an easy target for any conspiracy theory.

Oh, I see Whitehall is claiming a slightly different tax policy is socialist tyranny. Standard denier dumbassery

And there are the nutters claiming that no warming is happening. Even more denier dumbassery.

And there's skook. He's a walking example of how the mentally challenged get sucked into multiple conspiracy cults.

And then there are the kooks saying the temp records were manipulated. Given the overall adjustments have made the warming look _smaller_, it takes a special breed of stupid to claim that's a global conspiracy to make the warming look bigger.

Billy, asterism, were you just unaware that the adjustments have made the warming look smaller, since the cult didn't feed you that data along with that big glass of cult piss they have you chug every day? Or are you lying for the glory of the cult?

 

[asterism]

So asterism thinks oil is infinite? That's even dumber than his other cult beliefs. Since oil is finite, production must reach a peak somewhere. Odd, how something that simple can be beyond anyone.

But then, a lot of denier cultists are also abiotic oil cranks. Those who believe in one idiot conspiracy theory tend to believe in a whole bunch of idiot conspiracy theories. If you're dim enough to have fallen for denialism, you're an easy target for any conspiracy theory.

Oh, I see Whitehall is claiming a slightly different tax policy is socialist tyranny. Standard denier dumbassery

And there are the nutters claiming that no warming is happening. Even more denier dumbassery.

And there's skook. He's a walking example of how the mentally challenged get sucked into multiple conspiracy cults.

And then there are the kooks saying the temp records were manipulated. Given the overall adjustments have made the warming look _smaller_, it takes a special breed of stupid to claim that's a global conspiracy to make the warming look bigger.

Billy, asterism, were you just unaware that the adjustments have made the warming look smaller, since the cult didn't feed you that data along with that big glass of cult piss they have you chug every day? Or are you lying for the glory of the cult?

I never said oil is infinite. When you have to lie, you show that you cannot win an argument on the merits.

The issue with the data is not the "adjustment" you claim, it's the process, lack of transparency, and then the loss of original records preventing any objective review. This problem has been solved moving forward so it won't be an issue 100 years from now. The time period for which reliable global temperature records exist is too short to make a definite correlation, much less a causative relationship.

I find it odd that it takes some special credentials to opine on climatology but those same climatologists never had to have any formal training in programming and data management to write their flawed "models." This has also been successfully addressed moving forward but the early works on which most of the field is based are flawed.

Maybe when we discuss religion and I demand that the only criticism allowed has to come from ordained priests you'll understand.

 

[IanC]

BEST used data from multiple sources:

Berkeley Earth

The BEST study used data that had already been manipulated.

None of the files used in the source files were raw untouched data. They are TMAX, TMIN, and TAVG. Garbage in, garbage out.

Any evidence you can provide of manipulation is helpful, as well as any peer-reviewed studies from multiple scientists on a scale equivalent to that of the NAS to counter AGW.

For now, skeptics have BEST.

Garbage in garbage out. It's why I am not convinced.

Since you can't provide evidence or any peer-reviewed studies, then I'm putting you in my ignore list.

tell you what, why not just leave here.

Yup. I know that I get put on his ignore list regularly.




Or do I? He seems to respond to a lot of people on 'ignore'.

 

[Liminal]

Our President considers the problem as the most urgent one.
This is a curiosity question. I know there are plenty of individuals out there who do not believe in climate change, but I'm curious as to why you don't believe it regardless of all of the data and evidence science has provided.
So is climate change a real threat?

The only reason there is any imagined controversy at all is because of FOX News and other right wing media outlets. They've contrived their own false, preemptive, counter narrative, based on no actual science of any kind. They apparently want people to believe that their media generated opinions about science are somehow relevant to the discussion. Unless you are a scientist, your opinions about science don't matter.

 

[westwall]

Our President considers the problem as the most urgent one.
This is a curiosity question. I know there are plenty of individuals out there who do not believe in climate change, but I'm curious as to why you don't believe it regardless of all of the data and evidence science has provided.
So is climate change a real threat?

The only reason there is any imagined controversy at all is because of FOX News and other right wing media outlets. They've contrived their own false, preemptive, counter narrative, based on no actual science of any kind. They apparently want people to believe that their media generated opinions about science are somehow relevant to the discussion. Unless you are a scientist, your opinions about science don't matter.

No the reason why there is controversy is because the theory of AGW is dead and buried. A legitimate scientist would have abandoned it and moved on to the next theory. However, the perpetrators of this now fraudulent behavior, are looking at the trillions of dollars they hope to rake in so they have abandoned science and gone all out on the politics and pseudo-science route.

Now it's all about money and power.

 

[asterism]

Our President considers the problem as the most urgent one.
This is a curiosity question. I know there are plenty of individuals out there who do not believe in climate change, but I'm curious as to why you don't believe it regardless of all of the data and evidence science has provided.
So is climate change a real threat?

The only reason there is any imagined controversy at all is because of FOX News and other right wing media outlets. They've contrived their own false, preemptive, counter narrative, based on no actual science of any kind. They apparently want people to believe that their media generated opinions about science are somehow relevant to the discussion. Unless you are a scientist, your opinions about science don't matter.

No the reason why there is controversy is because the theory of AGW is dead and buried. A legitimate scientist would have abandoned it and moved on to the next theory. However, the perpetrators of this now fraudulent behavior, are looking at the trillions of dollars they hope to rake in so they have abandoned science and gone all out on the politics and pseudo-science route.

Now it's all about money and power.

Funny how decision science and computer science aren't considered valid fields while the primary criticisms of AGW stem from issues with the programming and data management.

I know some climate change researchers and there reason they agree with AGW isn't because they've looked at the data, it's because they've always been taught that the correlation is real. That's why I don't think the consensus view matters. So few people in the field had access to the original data and now it's gone.

 

[Liminal]

Our President considers the problem as the most urgent one.
This is a curiosity question. I know there are plenty of individuals out there who do not believe in climate change, but I'm curious as to why you don't believe it regardless of all of the data and evidence science has provided.
So is climate change a real threat?

The only reason there is any imagined controversy at all is because of FOX News and other right wing media outlets. They've contrived their own false, preemptive, counter narrative, based on no actual science of any kind. They apparently want people to believe that their media generated opinions about science are somehow relevant to the discussion. Unless you are a scientist, your opinions about science don't matter.

No the reason why there is controversy is because the theory of AGW is dead and buried. A legitimate scientist would have abandoned it and moved on to the next theory. However, the perpetrators of this now fraudulent behavior, are looking at the trillions of dollars they hope to rake in so they have abandoned science and gone all out on the politics and pseudo-science route.

Now it's all about money and power.

You are not a scientist, which means your opinions about science are completely meaningless.