To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[jc456]

She sounds like you stupid usmb republicans Fox News host: Climate scientists 'fabricated' temperature data

and this was ruled PANTS ON FIRE!

dude, they admitted they manipulate the data. No good explanation

1 to 2 degrees hotter is not good. We know that.

2 degrees will change the world

Now you know.

and you can back that up?

It's a HufPo piece reprinted on Mother Jones. Short on evidence, high on rhetoric. Preaching to the choir I suppose.

Go to France and tell them GW is a hoax. They'll laugh at you.

Lets see if the GOP nominee will get up on stage and deny global warming. Bet they won't. And if they do, they'll lose the general election.

it isn't an issue. how many times must a libturd hear that? Why would any candidate say anything on climate, leaders from 196 couldn't even come to an agreement on it. So it died on the vine in Paris!!!! get it died on the vine???????

Are you a ******* caveman or what? Do you feel dumb being the last person to know?

6 takeaways from the Paris climate agreement

The private sector was more engaged in this process than ever before, with thousands of businesses, investors and trade coalitions involved over the past year. We have climate pledges from 5,000 diverse global companies representing virtually every industrial sector and over 90 countries. They include signatories to the American Business Act on Climate Pledge, the CDP/We Mean Business Coalition, the World Economic Form CEOs group, the B Team and many others. All together, companies pledging climate action represent combined annual revenue over $38 trillion — about half of global GDP — and the majority of the world’s market capitalization. Already, the global market for low-carbon goods and services is estimated at $5.5 trillion per year. The agreement should increase investor confidence and help the low-carbon share of the global economy grow.

At the U.N. climate talks, Unilever and other big businesses announced plans to stabilize forest cover by 2030 and restore forest cover to 1990 levels by 2050. Hundreds of major companies are committed to eliminating deforestation from their supply chains, including those conducting about 90 percent of the global palm oil trade. Their support helped cement a prominent place for forest conservation in the Paris Agreement.

oh, so what is the solution that came out of the meetings then? So no path forward. except to handle some cash. hmmmmmmm. I can make that type of agreement. And only us tax payers too. funny shit on something that isn't real.

 

[Wyatt earp]

1 to 2 degrees hotter is not good. We know that.

2 degrees will change the world

Now you know.

and you can back that up?

It's a HufPo piece reprinted on Mother Jones. Short on evidence, high on rhetoric. Preaching to the choir I suppose.

Go to France and tell them GW is a hoax. They'll laugh at you.

Lets see if the GOP nominee will get up on stage and deny global warming. Bet they won't. And if they do, they'll lose the general election.

it isn't an issue. how many times must a libturd hear that? Why would any candidate say anything on climate, leaders from 196 couldn't even come to an agreement on it. So it died on the vine in Paris!!!! get it died on the vine???????

Oh its an issue. Its one of the issues you guys don't win the White House.

New Wisconsin utility regulator says volcanos worse than cars for greenhouse gas

Look how many times you guys are wrong about climate change.

How many times we were wrong, lmao were not the ones that have been making the predictions over the past 40 years ya frickin moron.

 

[westwall]

1 to 2 degrees hotter is not good. We know that.

2 degrees will change the world

Now you know.

and you can back that up?

It's a HufPo piece reprinted on Mother Jones. Short on evidence, high on rhetoric. Preaching to the choir I suppose.

Go to France and tell them GW is a hoax. They'll laugh at you.

Lets see if the GOP nominee will get up on stage and deny global warming. Bet they won't. And if they do, they'll lose the general election.

it isn't an issue. how many times must a libturd hear that? Why would any candidate say anything on climate, leaders from 196 couldn't even come to an agreement on it. So it died on the vine in Paris!!!! get it died on the vine???????

Oh its an issue. Its one of the issues you guys don't win the White House.

New Wisconsin utility regulator says volcanos worse than cars for greenhouse gas

Look how many times you guys are wrong about climate change.

Actually it is your hero's who have been wrong. There's still ice at the North pole two years after it was claimed it would be gone. There's still snow almost a decade after it was claimed there would be no more. Every thing you are posting has been proven false on many occasions. Nice to see you are still incapable of arguing from an intellectually honest position.

 

[IanC]

No doubt human population growth is a major contributor to global warming, given that humans use fossil fuels to power their increasingly mechanized lifestyles. More people means more demand for oil, gas, coal and other fuels mined or drilled from below the Earth’s surface that, when burned, spew enough carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere to trap warm air inside like a greenhouse.

Does Population Growth Impact Climate Change?

Population growth is a major factor in Climate Change and quite a few other problems. It's not politically correct to work on the problems from that angle though.

CO2 is a necessary constituent of the Greenhouse Effect that keeps our world inhabitable. I'm not sure whether we know what the best levels are, or what the perfect temperature is.

1 to 2 degrees hotter is not good. We know that.

2 degrees will change the world

Now you know.

and you can back that up?

It's a HufPo piece reprinted on Mother Jones. Short on evidence, high on rhetoric. Preaching to the choir I suppose.

Go to France and tell them GW is a hoax. They'll laugh at you.

Lets see if the GOP nominee will get up on stage and deny global warming. Bet they won't. And if they do, they'll lose the general election.

I am only interested in the evidence. While CO2 may have a small warming influence, there precious little evidence to support the catastrophic claims made in Op-Eds like the one you posted.

Why should I worry about American politicians? Besides, didn't Cruz come out skeptical on CC?

 

[jc456]

and you can back that up?

It's a HufPo piece reprinted on Mother Jones. Short on evidence, high on rhetoric. Preaching to the choir I suppose.

Go to France and tell them GW is a hoax. They'll laugh at you.

Lets see if the GOP nominee will get up on stage and deny global warming. Bet they won't. And if they do, they'll lose the general election.

it isn't an issue. how many times must a libturd hear that? Why would any candidate say anything on climate, leaders from 196 couldn't even come to an agreement on it. So it died on the vine in Paris!!!! get it died on the vine???????

Oh its an issue. Its one of the issues you guys don't win the White House.

New Wisconsin utility regulator says volcanos worse than cars for greenhouse gas

Look how many times you guys are wrong about climate change.

Actually it is your hero's who have been wrong. There's still ice at the North pole two years after it was claimed it would be gone. There's still snow almost a decade after it was claimed there would be no more. Every thing you are posting has been proven false on many occasions. Nice to see you are still incapable of arguing from an intellectually honest position.

funny line eh?
Look how many times you guys are wrong about climate change
he's just a little ole libturd earning his wings. He had to post all of that, it's a requirement to get the wings. I believe he forgot a few, so he's failing at the moment.

 

[IanC]

She sounds like you stupid usmb republicans Fox News host: Climate scientists 'fabricated' temperature data

and this was ruled PANTS ON FIRE!

Define fabricated. More than a quarter of US data is estimated. The estimated data has a larger warming trend than actual measured data, although it has also usually be adjusted. Up.

 

[percysunshine]

No doubt human population growth is a major contributor to global warming, given that humans use fossil fuels to power their increasingly mechanized lifestyles. More people means more demand for oil, gas, coal and other fuels mined or drilled from below the Earth’s surface that, when burned, spew enough carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere to trap warm air inside like a greenhouse.

Does Population Growth Impact Climate Change?

Population growth is a major factor in Climate Change and quite a few other problems. It's not politically correct to work on the problems from that angle though.

CO2 is a necessary constituent of the Greenhouse Effect that keeps our world inhabitable. I'm not sure whether we know what the best levels are, or what the perfect temperature is.

1 to 2 degrees hotter is not good. We know that.

2 degrees will change the world

Now you know.

and you can back that up?

It's a HufPo piece reprinted on Mother Jones. Short on evidence, high on rhetoric. Preaching to the choir I suppose.

Go to France and tell them GW is a hoax. They'll laugh at you.
....

Having the French laugh at you is not a very strong counterpoint in a debate...just say'n...

.

 

[mamooth]

There's still ice at the North pole two years after it was claimed it would be gone.

You're lying about that being a prediction of AGW theory.

There's still snow almost a decade after it was claimed there would be no more.

You're lying about that being a prediction of AGW theory.

Every thing you are posting has been proven false on many occasions.

Everything that you are posting has been proven false on many occasions.

Nice to see you are still incapable of arguing from an intellectually honest position.

You can't discuss science, hence you have to create the dishonest strawmen.

 

[mamooth]

Define fabricated. More than a quarter of US data is estimated. The estimated data has a larger warming trend than actual measured data, although it has also usually be adjusted. Up.

The adjustments make the warming look smaller. The fundamentally denier conspiracy theory is pathologically dishonest, along with most of their other crap.

And scientists know that. Hence, they ignore deniers. And you can't do anything about it.

Denialism is now just an emotional support group, people on the internet trying to convince each other that they haven't been acting crazy.

 

[IanC]

Define what you mean when you say the adjustments make the warming smaller.

Absolute temp, or trend?

Define which adjustments. Land or oceans? Since, say 2000, or before?

The Pooh flinging monkey wants to take credit for adjustments made to ocean temps a long time ago. Pre Hockeystick, pre Hansen. And he wants to ignore the ever greater land adjustments since 2000.

The adjustments sort of balance out, but the downward ones are before 1950 and the upwards ones are after. Numerically close to equal but the trend has soared.

Everyone has seen the comparisons between global temp graphs from the 70s and 80s, and the ones from the 00s and 10s. The overlapping section shows cooling of the pre 1950 numbers and warming after. Which changes the shape of the graphs and increases the upward trend.

And to paraphrase Orwell, some adjustments are more equal than others. The urban heat island effect has no effect on most temp datasets, except for BEST which actually finds it has a cooling effect!!!. Amazing what the clever sillies can come up with when they want to show a counter intuitive result.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Define fabricated. More than a quarter of US data is estimated. The estimated data has a larger warming trend than actual measured data, although it has also usually be adjusted. Up.

The adjustments make the warming look smaller. The fundamentally denier conspiracy theory is pathologically dishonest, along with most of their other crap.

And scientists know that. Hence, they ignore deniers. And you can't do anything about it.

Denialism is now just an emotional support group, people on the internet trying to convince each other that they haven't been acting crazy.

Lmao, again you have that backwards we are just normal people drawn to you bat shit crazy liars who's only goal is not about real science, but fear mongering and social economic justice...

 

[westwall]

There's still ice at the North pole two years after it was claimed it would be gone.

You're lying about that being a prediction of AGW theory.

There's still snow almost a decade after it was claimed there would be no more.

You're lying about that being a prediction of AGW theory.

Every thing you are posting has been proven false on many occasions.

Everything that you are posting has been proven false on many occasions.

Nice to see you are still incapable of arguing from an intellectually honest position.

You can't discuss science, hence you have to create the dishonest strawmen.

Ahhhhh, the magic of the internet. mammy if you weren't so pathetically biased I would almost feel pity for your utter stupidity, but, you're such an obnoxious git I just can't allow myself to let your lying ways go... in other words.... it is YOU who's the liar!

Hello liar!

Kerry claims the Arctic will be ice-free by summer 2013

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

 

[Crick]

Again, what does the phrase "widely accepted theory" mean Mr Westwall? How does one discern what the dominant theory on any question is Mr Westwall? Why do you think mainstream science believes you and the rest of the deniers here are fringe whackjobs Mr Westwall?

CON-*******-SENSUS

From Wikipedia's article on "Scientific Theory"

The scientific method involves the proposal and testing of hypotheses, by deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, then performing those experiments to see whether the predictions are valid. This provides evidence either for or against the hypothesis. When enough experimental results have been gathered in a particular area of inquiry, scientists may propose an explanatory framework that accounts for as many of these as possible. This explanation is also tested, and if it fulfills the necessary criteria (see above), then the explanation becomes a theory. This can take many years, as it can be difficult or complicated to gather sufficient evidence.

Once all of the criteria have been met, it will be widely accepted by scientists (see scientific consensus) as the best available explanation of at least some phenomena. It will have made predictions of phenomena that previous theories could not explain or could not predict accurately, and it will have resisted attempts at falsification. The strength of the evidence is evaluated by the scientific community, and the most important experiments will have been replicated by multiple independent groups.

Consensus is a Cult word.

You're not addressing my post at all Frank

Speaking of experiment, you've never once show a single experiment linking trace amount of CO2 with increases in temperature. Why is that?

Why aren't you addressing my post Frank?

Why are there NO experiments that control for trace amounts of CO2?

There have been thousands of experiments but no matter what you are shown, you will simply deny the facts.

Why are you not addressing my posts Frank? A widely accepted theory is one for which the consensus of expert opinion finds the theory acceptable per the scientific method. The consensus of the experts tells us which is the dominant theory; which is the theory most likely to be correct.

I bet you're just going to pretend you never read these explanations and in two posts you'll be repeating all your ignorant bullshit once more. I'll bet money. God are you stupid.

 

[Old Rocks]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

Everyone in the world except American Republicans know man made climate change/global warming is real.

It'll be interesting to see if the Republican nominee denies it while debating hillary.

Link ?

Edit: 54% of Australians don't

54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming, 80% don’t donate to environment or vote for it « JoNova

Just as well quote from the Weekly Globe as Jo Nova. I think the Globe may be more accurate.

 

[Old Rocks]

Check this out


JAPANESE SPACE AGENCY AGREES WITH SKEPTICS ON CLIMATE CHANGE - Principia Scientific Intl


Japanese climate satellite data supports climate realist Professor Murry Salby in rejecting global warming theory; humans are not responsible for measured increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) affirm evidence in Report from Japanese Aerospace exploration agency (JAXA).The Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has revealed that its climate satellite IBUKI data shows that the growth in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is coming from third world under developed forested equatorial regions of Africa and South America.

Again a site that makes up lies continually

.JAXA | Measuring Greenhouse Gases from Space

The Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite (GOSAT) is designed to contribute to the prevention of global warming. Greenhouse gases effect, which cause global warming, consist of roughly 60 percent carbon dioxide and 20 percent methane. GOSAT will precisely and frequently observe the concentration distribution and its changes in these two types of greenhouse gases throughout the world. It will be launched in early 2009 with H-IIA launch vehicle.

Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite GOSAT

Over the last few years, global warming has become a serious concern around the world. Discussions on how to reduce the rate of global warming are taking place both domestically and internationally, and include such strategies as reducing the level of carbon dioxide emissions by half over the next 50 years.
To accomplish this goal, we must improve the accuracy of observations and long-term climate-change predictions. Up to now, global warming predictions have been performed by research organizations around the world through supercomputer simulations based on ground observation data. In Japan, the National Institute for Environmental Studies, the Meteorological Research Institute, and the University of Tokyo are participating in such global warming modeling.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summarizes research results from all over the world and is publicizing a report on climate change predictions for the next 100 years. There are only about 260 ground observation points at present, and they are not evenly distributed, so we can by no means say we are observing the entire globe. Thus, under the present circumstances, global warming predictions vary and may not be accurate.
By comparison, GOSAT will have 56,000 observation points on the Earth, and will be able to acquire data covering the entire globe every three days. We think this will improve the accuracy of global warming predictions

 

[Old Rocks]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

Everyone in the world except American Republicans know man made climate change/global warming is real.

It'll be interesting to see if the Republican nominee denies it while debating hillary.

Link ?

Edit: 54% of Australians don't

54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming, 80% don’t donate to environment or vote for it « JoNova

The world is meeting in Paris talking about going green.

We didn't send any Republicans and fox and rush aren't talking about it. It's why you need to ask for a link.

Do you need a link if I say evolution or the big bang are real?

Scientific consensus.

Why don't you Google it

Because consensus is the language of politics, not science, and those who are pushing the fraud directly benefit from it. What you are advocating is the same as a drug maker churning out "studies" that support their product, all the while knowing it is crap, like all those male supplements we get barraged with, but they churn them out because they make money on them.

Color me unsurprised you're not educated enough to understand that.

What the hell would know of science, you old fraud. You have lied continually here, and all who post know it.

The whole world is now in agreement that we have to address this problem, and assholes like you are no more than a footnote. Old, and in the way, for you, that is accurate.

 

[Old Rocks]

Prior to 1960 the "consensus" was that the Earth was contracting and that's how mountains were built. Then plate tectonics came along and blew that shit right out of the water. The scientific method has been around for centuries so you are just as ignorant of the history of science as you are its methodology and ethics.

So better evidence arrived, and the consensus changed.

The lesson we learn is that if you can show the better evidence, the consensus will change fairly quickly. That's how it was with global warming theory, or plate tectonics, or the bacterial cause of ulcers.

So, just show the better data.

We show data. You show computer derived fiction. See the difference? Nope. Didn't think you would.

Data like you predicting a cooling for the past 5 years, and we have had years that at least matched 1998 in 2010 and 2014. And 2015 will blow all these years right out of the water.

You and those like you have totally lost. It's over, you now have no influence, and those that continue to make your stupid arguements will soon be out of political power.

 

[sealybobo]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

Everyone in the world except American Republicans know man made climate change/global warming is real.

It'll be interesting to see if the Republican nominee denies it while debating hillary.

Link ?

Edit: 54% of Australians don't

54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming, 80% don’t donate to environment or vote for it « JoNova

The world is meeting in Paris talking about going green.

We didn't send any Republicans and fox and rush aren't talking about it. It's why you need to ask for a link.

Do you need a link if I say evolution or the big bang are real?

Scientific consensus.

Why don't you Google it

Because consensus is the language of politics, not science, and those who are pushing the fraud directly benefit from it. What you are advocating is the same as a drug maker churning out "studies" that support their product, all the while knowing it is crap, like all those male supplements we get barraged with, but they churn them out because they make money on them.

Color me unsurprised you're not educated enough to understand that.

What the hell would know of science, you old fraud. You have lied continually here, and all who post know it.

The whole world is now in agreement that we have to address this problem, and assholes like you are no more than a footnote. Old, and in the way, for you, that is accurate.

I can't even discuss it anymore.

And they call it a liberal media? Do you notice the media stays neutral on the issue. You would think there isn't a consensus. That's because 6 mega companies now own 90% of the media.

Anyways, its funny if you talk to foreigners you realize just how stupid white conservative middle class American men and women are. Manipulated by racism, religion and guns.

Also notice if the french criticized Obama conservatives would love the french like they love Putin now?

 

[Old Rocks]

Okay, you're officially on record as rejecting the modern scientific method. Good of you to stop pretending.

"Modern" Scientific Method? What the hell is that? The old scientific method went something like this: The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generallyy involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena ,experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. Climate science certainly isn't following the old scientific method...describe this "modern" scientific method.

Wow, I didn't even catch that one. Gives you an idea of how sick I am! What a crock of shit....

I bet you are sick, you senile old fool. The funds for our part in implementing the Treaty were passed in Congress, and the Treaty was effectively the whole world agreeing to address a problem affecting us all. You and yours are now just a footnote in history.

 

[Old Rocks]

and you can back that up?

It's a HufPo piece reprinted on Mother Jones. Short on evidence, high on rhetoric. Preaching to the choir I suppose.

Go to France and tell them GW is a hoax. They'll laugh at you.

Lets see if the GOP nominee will get up on stage and deny global warming. Bet they won't. And if they do, they'll lose the general election.

it isn't an issue. how many times must a libturd hear that? Why would any candidate say anything on climate, leaders from 196 couldn't even come to an agreement on it. So it died on the vine in Paris!!!! get it died on the vine???????

Oh its an issue. Its one of the issues you guys don't win the White House.

New Wisconsin utility regulator says volcanos worse than cars for greenhouse gas

Look how many times you guys are wrong about climate change.

How many times we were wrong, lmao were not the ones that have been making the predictions over the past 40 years ya frickin moron.

Like hell, you stupid ass. You asses were claiming right up to 2000 that there was no warming. Then you changed you claim that it was all natural cycles. And when it was shown that you could not show the cycles, you changed it to 'the warming is good for you'. Except many thousands of people in this nation have lost their homes to fires or floods created by the predicted weather extremes this year. Why don't you just give up on your lies.