Warmers are Neurotic Basket Cases

[DudleySmith]

NASA is also a major player in climate change analysis and has been for years.

It rakes in loads of cash to keep babbling about GW, and its employees get to sell lots of books to suckers; so of course it has a vested interest in selling the rubbish. As 'scientists' they are no different than the scientists that were paid by tobacco companies to tell us all smoking was safe; they were paid to do so and they did.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

As 'scientists' they are no different than the scientists that were paid by tobacco companies to tell us all smoking was safe; they were paid to do so and they did.

That's an interesting topic! S. Fred Singer was one of those scientists paid by Big Tobacco to call into question the science of smoking and cancer linkage.

Ironically enough S. Fred Singer was also a well known skeptic of climate change science. Even found a way to dishonestly represent the work of a recently deceased scientist!

 

[Sunsettommy]

That's an interesting topic! S. Fred Singer was one of those scientists paid by Big Tobacco to call into question the science of smoking and cancer linkage.

Ironically enough S. Fred Singer was also a well known skeptic of climate change science. Even found a way to dishonestly represent the work of a recently deceased scientist!

The lies flows easily now, this funding canard doesn't help you because you are too busy ignoring post one article.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

The lies flows easily now, this funding canard doesn't help you because you are too busy ignoring post one article.

 

[DudleySmith]

That's an interesting topic! S. Fred Singer was one of those scientists paid by Big Tobacco to call into question the science of smoking and cancer linkage.

Ironically enough S. Fred Singer was also a well known skeptic of climate change science. Even found a way to dishonestly represent the work of a recently deceased scientist!

Yes, he certainly knew all about how easy it is to find scientists who can be bought. Even today around 35% of scientific papers used fake data, according to some studies, so even 'peer review' has become a joke. So no, Singer is just pointing out the norm, nothing interesting.

 

[skookerasbil]

Again....the AGW contingent has yet to make their case. After 25 years btw....

Remarkably, they still think their definition of the "science" matters. Lol...it doesn't. Outside the climate scientist club, it resonates nowhere except on billboards...does not transcend to the real world.

Indeed, it's a hobby in the outer reaches of the internet nethersphere.

The energy policy-makers could not possibly be any less interested!!

Call me...."the bottom line guy".

 

[westwall]

Funny you should say that. Siberia has now been experiencing various massive sinkholes as the permafrost there melts. First time in thousands upon thousands of years. Sometimes EXPLOSIVELY.

You know what comes out? CH4 (that's methane)

Methane doesn't last as long in the atmosphere as CO2 but it is MANY TIMES MORE POWERFUL as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and has most of the world's experts on this topic a bit worried.

Enjoy!

Sooooo, thousands of years ago the same thing happened.

So we are supposed to worry about it now....why?

 

[westwall]

Well, the science makes sense and there's absolutely no reason to doubt it except unless one has a bias against what the science says.



As you wish.



As it is for you as well. I might note since YOU are not an expert on this topic either YOU are, by definition, appealing to authority.

Just look at your mischaracterization of what NASA covers. You clearly know next to nothing about this topic.



Not as "conservative" as you might think. But then you don't actually have any connections to NOAA.



Sensationalism is bad. I will agree with that. It puts the science back on its heels because the ONLY thing you non-scientists notice is stuff that is in the popular press, rather than the science. So it tends to overhype something that is actually still a serious concern.

That's why I always suggest people read the SCIENCE.

I have. The pseudo science of climatology is a farce. It is untestable, unmeasurable, and defies the scientific method.

Thus it is garbage.

The mentally deficient have adopted it as their new religion.

 

[westwall]

Both. The popular press tends to overhype things but AGW is a serious concern.



Collapse of agricultural infrastructure. Economic destabilization. Billions of dollars lost on coastal disasters which may get more and more common. The shutdown of the AMOC in the North Atlantic and attendant economic collapse of most of our major trading partners' economies in western Europe.

That enough?



Decarbonization. Changes in land usage.

So, you want to spend trillions to prevent the loss of billions.

That's your position is it.

Hmmmmmmmm

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

So, you want to spend trillions to prevent the loss of billions.

That's your position is it.

Hmmmmmmmm

Collapse of America's agricultural infrastructure and/or our entire economy only worth "billions" to you? Interesting view there.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I have. The pseudo science of climatology is a farce. It is untestable, unmeasurable, and defies the scientific method.

Yeah, science is a LOT more complex than your cartoon view, but if the last science class you had was back in Junior High School I can see how you might think you have some insight here.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Sooooo, thousands of years ago the same thing happened.

NOPE. A long time ago the climate changed due to natural forcings. This was long before humans showed up. That is how we know how NATURAL forcings work. We tried explaining the warming we are seeing now using those same natural forcings...and guess what? THEY CAN'T EXPLAIN THE WARMING.

You have to utilize human activities to explain the warming.

So we are supposed to worry about it now....why?

We need to decarbonize and change our land usage habits. WHy? Because we are responsible.

I know the biggest fear denialists have is "personal responsibility". I hope that isn't how you live your life IRL, but if you do expect bad results. Oh, and your morality fails.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Yes, he certainly knew all about how easy it is to find scientists who can be bought. Even today around 35% of scientific papers used fake data, according to some studies, so even 'peer review' has become a joke.

Have you been through peer review? Yeah, I thought not. You don't know what you are talking about.

So no, Singer is just pointing out the norm, nothing interesting.

Actually Singer came really close to outright FRAUD in misrepresenting the views of a DEADMAN. He basically hounded Roger Revelle for the last year of his life and when Roger (who was dying) finally DID die Singer published and made it sound like Revelle had completely changed his view of AGW.

This angered the folks at Scripps Oceanograph so much (including Walter Munk, THe so-called "Einstein of the Ocean") that Singer was frozen out of any of the events honoring Revelle's memory.

If you think "fraud" is the norm and you are OK with it so long as it supports YOUR side then you are lost.

 

[ding]

Have you been through peer review? Yeah, I thought not. You don't know what you are talking about.



Actually Singer came really close to outright FRAUD in misrepresenting the views of a DEADMAN. He basically hounded Roger Revelle for the last year of his life and when Roger (who was dying) finally DID die Singer published and made it sound like Revelle had completely changed his view of AGW.

This angered the folks at Scripps Oceanograph so much (including Walter Munk, THe so-called "Einstein of the Ocean") that Singer was frozen out of any of the events honoring Revelle's memory.

If you think "fraud" is the norm and you are OK with it so long as it supports YOUR side then you are lost.

Claire Parkinson, climatologist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center said, "many scientists who don’t buy into the “mainstream” position on climate change are reluctant to voice their opinions"

A Closer Look at Climate Change Skepticism​

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Claire Parkinson, climatologist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center said, "many scientists who don’t buy into the “mainstream” position on climate change are reluctant to voice their opinions"

A Closer Look at Climate Change Skepticism​

"Parkinson, who says she has never taken money from the fossil fuel industry, says she respects skeptical viewpoints but leans more toward the mainstream view. Given her analysis of the data, she concludes the Earth has, in general, warmed since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution and that greenhouse gas emissions are at least partly to blame. " (emphasis added)

(ibid)

 

[DudleySmith]

Have you been through peer review? Yeah, I thought not. You don't know what you are talking about.



Actually Singer came really close to outright FRAUD in misrepresenting the views of a DEADMAN. He basically hounded Roger Revelle for the last year of his life and when Roger (who was dying) finally DID die Singer published and made it sound like Revelle had completely changed his view of AGW.

This angered the folks at Scripps Oceanograph so much (including Walter Munk, THe so-called "Einstein of the Ocean") that Singer was frozen out of any of the events honoring Revelle's memory.

If you think "fraud" is the norm and you are OK with it so long as it supports YOUR side then you are lost.

I don't have a side, twitwad, I know bullshit when I see it. and I know fake numbers when I see them. Too bad your education never got past 3rd grade and you can't tell the difference between advancing and receding ice ages and 'global warming', nor are you willing to say anything your peer group doesn't parrot.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I don't have a side, twitwad

"Twitwad"? That's novel.

, I know bullshit when I see it.

That's doubtful.

and I know fake numbers when I see them.

LOL. Sorry it's unlikely.

Too bad your education never got past 3rd grade and you can't tell the difference between advancing and receding ice ages and 'global warming', nor are you willing to say anything your peer group doesn't parrot.

 

[DudleySmith]

"Twitwad"? That's novel.



That's doubtful.



LOL. Sorry it's unlikely.

Poor thing, has nothing left so now hopes 'Posting Last!!!!' is a substitute for being an idiot.

 

[ding]

"Parkinson, who says she has never taken money from the fossil fuel industry, says she respects skeptical viewpoints but leans more toward the mainstream view. Given her analysis of the data, she concludes the Earth has, in general, warmed since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution and that greenhouse gas emissions are at least partly to blame. " (emphasis added)

(ibid)

That makes her an even more credible witness to the ongoing bias and bullying going on in the climate science community.

 

[ding]

NOPE. A long time ago the climate changed due to natural forcings. This was long before humans showed up. That is how we know how NATURAL forcings work. We tried explaining the warming we are seeing now using those same natural forcings...and guess what? THEY CAN'T EXPLAIN THE WARMING.

Wow. That was the most vague and least scientific description of the evolution of earth's climate I have ever heard.