The transparency of real science

[ding]

If laws should ever be passed that outright ban such equipment, I have full confidence that the police DO have the balls necessary to come take them from you...

And you don't see how this makes you look like a Nazi?

 

[ding]

I KNOW you would love to see that happen. Fanatics love using force to impose their will.

I think he really would love to see that.

 

[Flash]

If this stupid AGW scam was "real science" there would have been no need for the dishonest dumbshits to lie, create fraudulent data and make dire predictions over several decades that never materialize.

Climate change is natural for earth. However, man made climate change is a scam and anybody that believes it is real is an idiot.

 

[Crick]

If this stupid AGW scam was "real science" there would have been no need for the dishonest dumbshits to lie, create fraudulent data and make dire predictions over several decades that never materialize.

Climate change is natural for earth. However, man made climate change is a scam and anybody that believes it is real is an idiot.

Where is the evidence that ANY of your accusations are true?

Do you reject the greenhouse effect?

Do you reject that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Do you reject that CO2 levels have been increasing since the Industrial Revolution?

Do you reject that the source of the added CO2 has been the combustion of fossil fuels?

Do you reject the increase in global temperatures?

Do you reject the increase in ocean heat content?

Do you reject the rise of global sea level?

Do you reject the ice mass loss in Antarctica, Greenland and the world's glaciers?

Do you reject the shrinking of the Arctic ice cap?

Do you reject the satellite observations re LW radiation to space?

Do you reject the observations of LW backscatter from the atmosphere?

Do you reject the thousands of peer reviewed studies on which the IPCC's conclusions are based?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Where is the evidence that ANY of your accusations are true?

Do you reject the greenhouse effect?

Do you reject that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Do you reject that CO2 levels have been increasing since the Industrial Revolution?

Do you reject that the source of the added CO2 has been the combustion of fossil fuels?

Do you reject the increase in global temperatures?

Do you reject the increase in ocean heat content?

Do you reject the rise of global sea level?

Do you reject the ice mass loss in Antarctica, Greenland and the world's glaciers?

Do you reject the shrinking of the Arctic ice cap?

Do you reject the satellite observations re LW radiation to space?

Do you reject the observations of LW backscatter from the atmosphere?

Do you reject the thousands of peer reviewed studies on which the IPCC's conclusions are based?

If all that is good enough for Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann, it's good enough for me!

 

[Flash]

Where is the evidence that ANY of your accusations are true?

Do you reject the greenhouse effect?

Do you reject that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Do you reject that CO2 levels have been increasing since the Industrial Revolution?

Do you reject that the source of the added CO2 has been the combustion of fossil fuels?

Do you reject the increase in global temperatures?

Do you reject the increase in ocean heat content?

Do you reject the rise of global sea level?

Do you reject the ice mass loss in Antarctica, Greenland and the world's glaciers?

Do you reject the shrinking of the Arctic ice cap?

Do you reject the satellite observations re LW radiation to space?

Do you reject the observations of LW backscatter from the atmosphere?

Do you reject the thousands of peer reviewed studies on which the IPCC's conclusions are based?

The real tragedy of this AGW scam is the loss of scientific credibility when it comes to the climate.

We found out over 20 years ago that the Principle Scientists were not honest in their profession when the Climategate emails were exposed. After that time and time again we found out that the not only the scammer scientists were dishonest but also the government agencies were creating false data to support the scam. NASA, NOAA, UN Climate Commission were all exposed fabricating data.

We can't trust the sonofabitches to tell the truth about anything anymore. We know they use bad science and cherry picked data to make claims about historical climate and we know that they have lied about present data. Their computer models are worthless because the input data is dishonest.

The tragedy of the loss of scientific credibility was enhanced when the stupid Leftest turds used the AGW scam as a tool to further their destruction of capitalism and redistribution of wealth agenda.

The study of the climate is a very useful thing to do. Climate change is a natural part of Earth's evolution and has been going on for eons. However, there is no scientifically defensible proof that humans have altered the climate to any significant degree. There is no scientifically defensible proof that CO2 in the levels we see now has any greenhouse effect on the climate.

Lying about it and creating fraudulent data does not do any of us any good. In fact it can do a lot of harm by changing public policy that will have a detrimental effect of the economy like we are seeing with President Potatohead's disastrous Environmental Wacko agenda.

The climate scientific community needs to stop with this scamming and be honest for a change and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Crick]

The real tragedy of this AGW scam is the loss of scientific credibility when it comes to the climate.

If real science had lost any credibility, you would have been able to answer one or more of the thirteen questions I asked you. But you couldn't

We found out over 20 years ago that the Principle Scientists were not honest in their profession when the Climategate emails were exposed.

No, you did not. What we found out is that the people on YOUR side of this argument were dishonest.

After that time and time again we found out that the not only the scammer scientists were dishonest but also the government agencies were creating false data to support the scam.

If this were so, you could have answered my first question, which you did not.

NASA, NOAA, UN Climate Commission were all exposed fabricating data.

No, they were not.

We can't trust the sonofabitches to tell the truth about anything anymore.

It is YOU who have been shown over and over and over again to be spewing lies.

We know they use bad science and cherry picked data to make claims about historical climate and we know that they have lied about present data.

If that were so, then you could identify the bad science and the cherry picked data but despite numerous demands, you have NEVER done so.

Their computer models are worthless because the input data is dishonest.

You seem to be admitting that the models themselves are good. There's a step in the right direction.

The tragedy of the loss of scientific credibility was enhanced when the stupid Leftest turds used the AGW scam as a tool to further their destruction of capitalism and redistribution of wealth agenda.

When, what and how?

The study of the climate is a very useful thing to do. Climate change is a natural part of Earth's evolution and has been going on for eons. However, there is no scientifically defensible proof that humans have altered the climate to any significant degree. There is no scientifically defensible proof that CO2 in the levels we see now has any greenhouse effect on the climate.

And you can give us a link to a reputable scientific authority saying such things, right? Or are you asking us to reject the work of ten thousand PhDs based on YOUR blitheringly uninformed opinion?

Lying about it and creating fraudulent data does not do any of us any good.

The lie would be the fellow saying the data is fraudulent without ever identifying what data he might be talking about.

In fact it can do a lot of harm by changing public policy that will have a detrimental effect of the economy like we are seeing with President Potatohead's disastrous Environmental Wacko agenda.

It is you, whose ignorant and irresponsible lies are doing harm.

The climate scientific community needs to stop with this scamming and be honest for a change and let the chips fall where they may.

Fools like you need to stop spouting completely unevidenced lies at the behest of the fossil fuel industry's self-centered PR campaign in its effort to make the public distrust perfectly good science .

 

[Crick]

Where is the evidence that ANY of your accusations are true?

Do you reject the greenhouse effect?

Do you reject that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Do you reject that CO2 levels have been increasing since the Industrial Revolution?

Do you reject that the source of the added CO2 has been the combustion of fossil fuels?

Do you reject the increase in global temperatures?

Do you reject the increase in ocean heat content?

Do you reject the rise of global sea level?

Do you reject the ice mass loss in Antarctica, Greenland and the world's glaciers?

Do you reject the shrinking of the Arctic ice cap?

Do you reject the satellite observations re LW radiation to space?

Do you reject the observations of LW backscatter from the atmosphere?

Do you reject the thousands of peer reviewed studies on which the IPCC's conclusions are based?

That you are unable to answer a single one of these questions tells us that you are ignorant and dishonest.

 

[Flash]

If real science had lost any credibility, you would have been able to answer one or more of the thirteen questions I asked you. But you couldn't

No, you did not. What we found out is that the people on YOUR side of this argument were dishonest.

If this were so, you could have answered my first question, which you did not.

No, they were not.

It is YOU who have been shown over and over and over again to be spewing lies.

If that were so, then you could identify the bad science and the cherry picked data but despite numerous demands, you have NEVER done so.

You seem to be admitting that the models themselves are good. There's a step in the right direction.

When, what and how?

And you can give us a link to a reputable scientific authority saying such things, right? Or are you asking us to reject the work of ten thousand PhDs based on YOUR blitheringly uninformed opinion?

The lie would be the fellow saying the data is fraudulent without ever identifying what data he might be talking about.

It is you, whose ignorant and irresponsible lies are doing harm.

Fools like you need to stop spouting completely unevidenced lies at the behest of the fossil fuel industry's self-centered PR campaign in its effort to make the public distrust perfectly good science .

You Environmental Wacko scammers can be in denial until the cows come home but the undeniable truth is that the scammers have been caught outright lying, using cherry picked data, creating fraudulent data and using really bad indefensible science to further the scam. They have been doing it for over two decades now and have lost all their credibility.

Dishonesty in science never works out like the liars think it will. This AGW scam is a great case in point.

 

[Crick]

You Environmental Wacko scammers can be in denial until the cows come home but the undeniable truth is that the scammers have been caught outright lying, using cherry picked data, creating fraudulent data and using really bad indefensible science to further the scam. They have been doing it for over two decades now and have lost all their credibility.

Dishonesty in science never works out like the liars think it will. This AGW scam is a great case in point.

Poster Flash is unable to provide ANY references, sources or links supporting his claims, despite numerous requests that he do so.

Poster Flash is unable to answer ANY of the fundamental topic questions he's been posed, despite numerous requests that he do so.

Based on these facts, the obvious conclusion is that Poster Flash is an ignorant liar.

 

[fncceo]

So just to be clear, you don't have the faintest fuck of an idea what this thread is actually about.

Sure I do... it's an identical copy of all your other threads.

Oh my! Insert irrelevant figures and wild speculation. Oh noes!! Insert more speculation and doomsaying.

Insert condemnation and insults on anyone who asks a question and finish with the threat that if we all don't do as you say, armed government minions will do it for you.

Rinse, repeat... always repeat.

 

[Crick]

Sure I do... it's an identical copy of all your other threads.

Oh my! Insert irrelevant figures and wild speculation. Oh noes!! Insert more speculation and doomsaying.

Insert condemnation and insults on anyone who asks a question and finish with the threat that if we all don't do as you say, armed government minions will do it for you.

Rinse, repeat... always repeat.

It's not my fault the lot of you are so incredibly unteachable.

 

[fncceo]

It's not my fault the lot of you are so incredibly unteachable.

Perhaps I prefer teaching to sermonizing.

 

[Crick]

Perhaps I prefer teaching to sermonizing.

Any particular topics?

 

[ding]

It's not my fault the lot of you are so incredibly unteachable.

Right back at ya.

 

[ding]

Any particular topics?

Sure how about explaining the cause of D-O events? Rapid (5C) warming episodes, typically in a matter of decades, each followed by gradual cooling over a longer period.

 

[Crick]

Where is the evidence that ANY of your accusations are true?

Do you reject the greenhouse effect?

Do you reject that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Do you reject that CO2 levels have been increasing since the Industrial Revolution?

Do you reject that the source of the added CO2 has been the combustion of fossil fuels?

Do you reject the increase in global temperatures?

Do you reject the increase in ocean heat content?

Do you reject the rise of global sea level?

Do you reject the ice mass loss in Antarctica, Greenland and the world's glaciers?

Do you reject the shrinking of the Arctic ice cap?

Do you reject the satellite observations re LW radiation to space?

Do you reject the observations of LW backscatter from the atmosphere?

Do you reject the thousands of peer reviewed studies on which the IPCC's conclusions are based?

Still waiting for poster Flash to answer these questions. Any of these questions.