Thread to Talk Shit about Global Warming

[jc456]

NASA uses science. They even used scientific consensus to bet they could safely land on the Moon, get back to the ship from the Moon, and even make it back to earth safely. It had never been done before. The science was sound, and there was a consensus among the scientific community that NASA could succeed, but there was teh possibilities of failures.

Cool, name one of those scientists?

 

[Lastamender]

Sounds as if I triggered you. You're a paranoid fool.

If you are incapable of connecting the dots, you are the fool.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Leftist? Patrick Moore is about as leftist as Paul Gosar. He has zero expertise in climate science and has been nothing but a PR source for the mining, timber and nuclear energy. The points he attempts to make here are laughable and his opinion on this topic is absolutely worthless.

So you can show us in the 450,000 year long side by side temperature and CO2 dataset where CO2 drove climate even one year?

 

[abu afak]

So you can show us in the 450,000 year long side by side temperature and CO2 dataset where CO2 drove climate even one year?

Hey 12 IQ Kweationist DOPE!

No one is claiming CO2 drove Climate in the last 450,000 years, just the last 150.
(and that even "one year" challenge is your stupidity, because if it drove at all it would be longer, since the life of CO2 in the Atmo is 5-200 years.)
(You thought the one year COVID decrease in activity should dramatically lower CO2 and the Temp. LOFL)

"All we have" is the the Current Data Set.

Posted in your face HUNDREDS of times you Noxious a$$hole.
`

 

[ReinyDays]

... They even used scientific consensus to bet they could safely land on the Moon, get back to the ship from the Moon, and even make it back to earth safely ...

NASA uses Newton's Laws of Motion ... that's not consensus, it's THE LAW ... and we don't like law-breakers around here ...

The Moon Landings were a technological feat ... ten years ahead of George Lucas ... but the science is elementary, just Kepler's Laws ...

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Cool, name one of those scientists?

You need to stop pretending you're an educated human being

 

[abu afak]

You need to stop pretending you're an educated human being

You need to ignore jc456
He will last-word you with 3 words in perpetuity.
A high frequency/cover-your-post-in-30-seconds harassment troll.
He's never written a paragraph or posted a link on anything.
Just give him a 'fake news' and ignore his posts unless you want to bump a thread or Make a huge point using his idiocy.
`

 

[Dante Reawakened]

NASA uses Newton's Laws of Motion ... that's not consensus, it's THE LAW ... and we don't like law-breakers around here ...

The Moon Landings were a technological feat ... ten years ahead of George Lucas ... but the science is elementary, just Kepler's Laws ...

NASA when they sent the people to the Moon and brought them back, used far more than any laws of motion.

please try and keep up or go away - "Scientific consensus is the collective position scientists in a given field have taken, based on their interpretation of the available evidence."

They speak of consensus

here: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/..._analysis_final_report_24oct2022_tagged_0.pdf

 

[jc456]

You need to stop pretending you're an educated human being

https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2016/04/20/consensus_is_part_of_the_scientific_method_109606.html#:~:text=The%20scientific%20method%20produces%20consensus,The%20Structure%20of%20Scientific%20Revolutions.)

That's how science works. The scientific method produces consensus. But, if enough contradictory evidence arises, the consensus falls apart. Eventually, it crumbles completely and is replaced by a new consensus. (For more on this concept, read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.)

 

[Crick]

https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2016/04/20/consensus_is_part_of_the_scientific_method_109606.html#:~:text=The%20scientific%20method%20produces%20consensus,The%20Structure%20of%20Scientific%20Revolutions.)

That's how science works. The scientific method produces consensus. But, if enough contradictory evidence arises, the consensus falls apart. Eventually, it crumbles completely and is replaced by a new consensus. (For more on this concept, read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.)

Do you see some signs somewhere that the consensus on AGW is falling apart?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hey 12 IQ Kweationist DOPE!

No one is claiming CO2 drove Climate in the last 450,000 years, just the last 150.
(and that even "one year" challenge is your stupidity, because if it drove at all it would be longer, since the life of CO2 in the Atmo is 5-200 years.)
(You thought the one year COVID decrease in activity should dramatically lower CO2 and the Temp. LOFL)

"All we have" is the the Current Data Set.

Posted in your face HUNDREDS of times you Noxious a$$hole.
`

So you’re telling us CO2 mutated 150 years ago and evolved into a climate driving, ice cap melting monster? That’s amazing!

 

[abu afak]

So you’re telling us CO2 Mutated 150 years ago and Evolved into a Climate driving, ice cap melting monster? That’s amazing!

No YOU IDIOT.
Perhaps somewhere in your plugged-ear edu, (or Years here) you heard the term 'Greenhouse Gas.'
What do you suppose that means?
Tell us! (or STFU)
Who was it that raised CO2 50% in the last 150 years/the Industrial Revolution. ('all of a sudden')

You are SO KUFFING STUPID!
``

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No YOU IDIOT.
Perhaps somewhere in your plugged-ear edu, (or Years here) you heard the term 'Greenhouse Gas.'
What do you suppose that means?
Tell us! (or STFU)
Who was it that raised CO2 50% in the last 150 years/the Industrial Revolution. ('all of a sudden')

You are SO FUCCING STUPID!
``

Stop talking, you’re embarrassing yourself terribly. Not ever your fellow travelers are backing you up here

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

​

Patrick Moore (consultant) - Wikipedia​

Global climate change denial​

In 2006, [Moore] disagreed with the scientific consensus on climate change in a letter to the Royal Society, arguing there was "no scientific proof" that mankind was causing global climate change[60] and believes that it "has a much better correlation with changes in solar activity than CO2 levels".[61] He has Falsely claimed that there is No scientific evidence that Carbon Dioxide contributes to climate change.[62]....
[.....]
Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for, a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute.[58]
Moore's work as a lobbyist has prompted criticism from environmental activists, who have accused him of acting as an advocate for many of the industries that Greenpeace was founded to counter.[39][9]
His critics point out Moore's business relations with "polluters and clear-cutters" through his consultancy.[39] Monte Hummel, president of the World Wildlife Fund Canada, has claimed that Moore's book Pacific Spirit is a collection of "pseudoscience and dubious assumptions".

The writer and environmental activist George Monbiot has written critically of Moore's work with the Indonesian Logging firm Asia Pulp & Paper (APP)."..."
`

His critics point out Moore's business relations with "polluters and clear-cutters" through his consultancy.

Anyone who works for polluters is corrupted, but no one who works for
colleges or governments is corrupted? Convenient.

 

[Crick]

His critics point out Moore's business relations with "polluters and clear-cutters" through his consultancy.

Anyone who works for polluters is corrupted, but no one who works for
colleges or governments is corrupted? Convenient.

Moore has never been employed as any form of climate scientist and, in fact, has never worked as a research scientist at any point in his entire career. He has essentially made himself into an asset to be used to attack environmentalism on behalf of industries that they tend not to favor. On those grounds at least, his opinion regarding AGW is suspect at the least and willful, ignorant lies at the worst.

From my point of view, anyone who claims to believe that AGW is a hoax is either extraordinarily ignorant and lacking basic reasoning skills or is simply choosing to lie. I think the evidence is strong that Dr Patrick Moore sits firmly in the latter group.

 

[ReinyDays]

From my point of view, anyone who claims to believe that AGW is a hoax is either extraordinarily ignorant and lacking basic reasoning skills or is simply choosing to lie. I think the evidence is strong that Dr Patrick Moore sits firmly in the latter group.

My claim is against CCC ... where do you stand on these catastropic claims, like hypercanes and hockey sticks? ... or like sea level overtopping the Everglades Parkway ... ha ha ha .. that's rich ... anyone who has lived in South Florida will tell you how high that highway berm is ... 30 to 40 feet above current sea level? ...

 

[jc456]

Do you see some signs somewhere that the consensus on AGW is falling apart?

sure, there was a document that said that it wasn't real by 30,000 scientists. i've posted it in here before. I've provided you names on scientists who say why. And yet the nonsense continues from you all. hysterical.

And in that article, it stated that consensus was like an acronym for theory. No it isn't. Theory is a process and evidence is needed to confirm the theory, repeatable evidence at that.

 

[Crick]

My claim is against CCC ... where do you stand on these catastropic claims, like hypercanes and hockey sticks? ... or like sea level overtopping the Everglades Parkway ... ha ha ha .. that's rich ... anyone who has lived in South Florida will tell you how high that highway berm is ... 30 to 40 feet above current sea level? ...

Are these claims that you find in peer reviewed science?

 

[Crick]

sure, there was a document that said that it wasn't real by 30,000 scientists.

No, there wasn't.

i've posted it in here before. I've provided you names on scientists who say why. And yet the nonsense continues from you all. hysterical.

And why it's NOT the position of 30,000 scientists has been clearly and repeatedly explained to you.

And in that article, it stated that consensus was like an acronym for theory. No it isn't. Theory is a process and evidence is needed to confirm the theory, repeatable evidence at that.

First, look up 'acronym' because you got that wrong. There is an enormous amount of evidence supporting AGW theory. You've been told that over and over again and been shown substantial chunks of it. Yet you still claim it doesn exist. This is why some of us categorize you as a TROLL.

 

[jc456]

No, there wasn't.

What's this document than?

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdf