We will never convince the deniers.

[Carl in Michigan]

We will never convince the deniers. Giant world wide conspiracy theories are fun and exciting to think about. Slowly changing climates, where the action happens over years or even decades, just can't compete with that for entertainment value.
Then there is the feeling of belonging these socially handicapped tRumpkins get from high-fiving each other every time they think they've scored some sort of point. For instance the 2 dozen or so threads that were started about the polar vortex disruptions last week.

And finally there's the way these things are presented to them, as if they are some kinda privileged information that only a chosen few get to know. It makes them feel (falsely) superior to everyone else, even if only for a few minutes, and that can be a powerful thing if you suffer from low self esteem like the vast majority of these nut-bars do.

Your language is that of a RELIGIOUS ZEALOT. You're entitled to your FAITH. Science, however, doesn't back it up.

 

[Crepitus]

We will never convince the deniers. Giant world wide conspiracy theories are fun and exciting to think about. Slowly changing climates, where the action happens over years or even decades, just can't compete with that for entertainment value.
Then there is the feeling of belonging these socially handicapped tRumpkins get from high-fiving each other every time they think they've scored some sort of point. For instance the 2 dozen or so threads that were started about the polar vortex disruptions last week.

And finally there's the way these things are presented to them, as if they are some kinda privileged information that only a chosen few get to know. It makes them feel (falsely) superior to everyone else, even if only for a few minutes, and that can be a powerful thing if you suffer from low self esteem like the vast majority of these nut-bars do.

Your language is that of a RELIGIOUS ZEALOT. You're entitled to your FAITH. Science, however, doesn't back it up.

That's funny, tell us another one.

 

[Erinwltr]

Let’s test that. How much of the warming over the last 200 years is attributable to natural causes?

I've told you several times, that's not what this discussion is about. We are discussing the silly people who continue to deny AGW is real.

And you are one of them because you are denying natural causes as a driver to climate change.

Just like the other deniers, you are incurably stupid.

Have a nice day.

Dude I've read ding in other threads and he is one persistent knobhead.

Proof Perfect.

 

[bripat9643]

How many trillions do we need to waste...err...invest in windmills, to make sure the climate never ever changes?

A great deal less than we will pay moving hundreds of millions of people away from the coastlines.

Nope. Even the so-called "climate scientists'" worst prediction is that sea level will rise 18 inches in the next 100 years. That means we'll have to move the lifeguard stations at the beach about 10 feet inwards.

 

[ding]

^ dunning effect.

That’s odd, I’ve been a practicing engineer going on 35 years. I have probably forgotten more science than you ever knew.

What do you do for a living that makes you believe you understand science better than I do?

Did you have a nice day?

No. I blew it down the stretch and came in second in the golf tourney I was in.

I blame global warming.

Typical. Can't even follow simple instructions.

If there had been less CO2 in the atmosphere the tree I didn’t clear wouldn’t have been as tall and I would have won the tournament.

Did you ever say what you did for a living that would qualify you to be able to discuss scientific issues?

Minimum wage, right?

You kids wouldn't believe me if I told you.

Not a kid, bro. And you dodge like a minimum wager. So on what level do you think it makes sense that a practicing engineer of 35 years should take advice on scientific issues from a minininum wager who denies the natural causes of climate change?

 

[ding]

I've told you several times, that's not what this discussion is about. We are discussing the silly people who continue to deny AGW is real.

And you are one of them because you are denying natural causes as a driver to climate change.

Just like the other deniers, you are incurably stupid.

Have a nice day.

Dude I've read ding in other threads and he is one persistent knobhead.

Proof Perfect.

What? That you proved the dunning effect is real? Yes, I agree.

 

[bripat9643]

Did you have a nice day?

No. I blew it down the stretch and came in second in the golf tourney I was in.

I blame global warming.

Typical. Can't even follow simple instructions.

If there had been less CO2 in the atmosphere the tree I didn’t clear wouldn’t have been as tall and I would have won the tournament.

Did you ever say what you did for a living that would qualify you to be able to discuss scientific issues?

Minimum wage, right?

You kids wouldn't believe me if I told you.

Not a kid, bro. And you dodge like a minimum wager. So on what level do you think it makes sense that a practicing engineer of 35 years should take advice on scientific issues from a minininum wager who denies the natural causes of climate change?

Who's the source of the quote in your signature?

 

[ding]

No. I blew it down the stretch and came in second in the golf tourney I was in.

I blame global warming.

Typical. Can't even follow simple instructions.

If there had been less CO2 in the atmosphere the tree I didn’t clear wouldn’t have been as tall and I would have won the tournament.

Did you ever say what you did for a living that would qualify you to be able to discuss scientific issues?

Minimum wage, right?

You kids wouldn't believe me if I told you.

Not a kid, bro. And you dodge like a minimum wager. So on what level do you think it makes sense that a practicing engineer of 35 years should take advice on scientific issues from a minininum wager who denies the natural causes of climate change?

Who's the source of the quote in your signature?

Many sources but the most prominent is Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Igor Shafarevich. Shafarevich wrote the Socialist Phenomenon and Solzhenitsyn wrote the forward.

 

[Erinwltr]

And you are one of them because you are denying natural causes as a driver to climate change.

Just like the other deniers, you are incurably stupid.

Have a nice day.

Dude I've read ding in other threads and he is one persistent knobhead.

Proof Perfect.

What? That you proved the dunning effect is real? Yes, I agree.

Sure thing, Last Word Mary. Have at it.

 

[Crick]

Nope.

Discuss the topic, climate deniers and their gullibility, or go to one of the 15 or so thread started during the cold snap last week.

The only climate denier I see here is you. You deny natural causes for climate change.

Lol, please quote me denying the canned natural causes of climate change as well.

You can't, because I haven't.

You are the denier. You are a tool of the oil and coal industry, a patsy for every polluter who doesn't want to stop because it will affect his bottom line, and the murderer of your own children and grandchildren.

You and your kind are worse than useless, you are an actual drag on society, working to prevent actions necessary to save our planet.

Let’s test that. How much of the warming over the last 200 years is attributable to natural causes?

I've told you several times, that's not what this discussion is about. We are discussing the silly people who continue to deny AGW is real.

And you are one of them because you are denying natural causes as a driver to climate change.

Here is the most accurate approximation of what is causing global warming. You will note that it contains several "natural" causes.

 

[ding]

No. Those are their assumptions in their model.

 

[Crick]

I assume you realize that is the radiative forcing factors diagram from the IPCC's AR5. It contains all known factors affecting global temperatures. The net sum of all those factors is a strong warming and the largest factor is greenhouse warming from CO2. I was only making the point that the IPCC and mainstream science, who have concluded that CO2 is the dominant factor, have not been ignoring other forcing factors.

 

[ding]

I assume you realize that is the radiative forcing factors diagram from the IPCC's AR5. It contains all known factors affecting global temperatures. The net sum of all those factors is a strong warming and the largest factor is greenhouse warming from CO2. I was only making the point that the IPCC and mainstream science, who have concluded that CO2 is the dominant factor, have not been ignoring other forcing factors.

And yet models are not science in and of themselves as they are only as good as the assumptions they use. The reality is their performance hasn’t been very good. I suspect it is because of the feedback they have to add to get the results they want. Water vapor, which is the dominant green house effect is a wild card.

But putting all that aside the science tells us we are in an interglacial cycle and our present temperature is still below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles. So I don’t know how anyone can make the claim that we are outside of the norm.

Furthermore, the science and inspection tells us that atmospheric CO2 reinforces climate change, it does not cause climate change. We entered glacial cycles when atmospheric CO2 was similar to what it is today. So I don’t see how anyone can make the claim that atmospheric CO2 played the dominant role in transitioning to an icehouse world or take the position that it will lead to a transition to a greenhouse world. Especially since of CO2 sequestration of the ocean which is why CO2 has historically lagged temperatures.

But what I find most disturbing is the attempt to silence dissenting opinions and investigations. There is a bias in the climate science community which is disturbing to me. It is driven by money.

 

[Pete7469]

How many trillions do we need to waste...err...invest in windmills, to make sure the climate never ever changes?

A great deal less than we will pay moving hundreds of millions of people away from the coastlines.

So $50 trillion will make the climate static? $100 trillion?
How will we know when we can stop wasting...err...investing?

When bed wetters have completely bankrupted the country and the UN controls a global currency.


.

 

[Crepitus]

Did you have a nice day?

No. I blew it down the stretch and came in second in the golf tourney I was in.

I blame global warming.

Typical. Can't even follow simple instructions.

If there had been less CO2 in the atmosphere the tree I didn’t clear wouldn’t have been as tall and I would have won the tournament.

Did you ever say what you did for a living that would qualify you to be able to discuss scientific issues?

Minimum wage, right?

You kids wouldn't believe me if I told you.

Not a kid, bro. And you dodge like a minimum wager. So on what level do you think it makes sense that a practicing engineer of 35 years should take advice on scientific issues from a minininum wager who denies the natural causes of climate change?

Kid, nobody with any real education doubts AGW.

 

[Crepitus]

No. I blew it down the stretch and came in second in the golf tourney I was in.

I blame global warming.

Typical. Can't even follow simple instructions.

If there had been less CO2 in the atmosphere the tree I didn’t clear wouldn’t have been as tall and I would have won the tournament.

Did you ever say what you did for a living that would qualify you to be able to discuss scientific issues?

Minimum wage, right?

You kids wouldn't believe me if I told you.

Not a kid, bro. And you dodge like a minimum wager. So on what level do you think it makes sense that a practicing engineer of 35 years should take advice on scientific issues from a minininum wager who denies the natural causes of climate change?

Who's the source of the quote in your signature?

That's not a quote, it's a hypocritical rant.

 

[Crick]

Pete7469, are you familiar with the concept of paranoid fantasies? The rest of the world is working to reduce GHG emissions. How much sovereign power do you see transferred to the UN? How many nations have gone bankrupt from their efforts?

 

[mamooth]

And yet models are not science in and of themselves as they are only as good as the assumptions they use. The reality is their performance hasn’t been very good

Who fed you such nonsense, and why did you blindly believe them, without even thinking of fact-checking it yourself? The models have been excellent.

Climate model projections compared to observations

I suspect it is because of the feedback they have to add to get the results they want.

I suspect you're projecting your side's propensity for open fraud. Don't assume that the ethical people act like you do. We are not like you. We won't lie for money.

But putting all that aside the science tells us we are in an interglacial cycle and our present temperature is still below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles.

The stratospheric warming, increase in backradiation, and decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands all flatly contradict your "It's a natural cycle!" theory. Therefore, your theory is wrong. It really is as simple as that.

Furthermore, the science and inspection tells us that atmospheric CO2 reinforces climate change, it does not cause climate change. We entered glacial cycles when atmospheric CO2 was similar to what it is today.

That's a major logical fallacy on your part, your assumption that anyone is saying CO2 is the only driver of climate. You don't see any scientists making such a mistake.

But what I find most disturbing is the attempt to silence dissenting opinions and investigations.

Then tell your side to stop doing it. After all, your side is the only side doing it.

Silencing Climate Science - Sabin Center for Climate Change Law

There is a bias in the climate science community which is disturbing to me. It is driven by money.

If all the hard data didn't flatly contradict your bizarre claims, you wouldn't need to invoke conspiracy theories to explain away such a politically inconvenient reality. But it does, so you do.

 

[danielpalos]

Modernize underground cities for fun, practice, and profit!

 

[ding]

And yet models are not science in and of themselves as they are only as good as the assumptions they use. The reality is their performance hasn’t been very good

Who fed you such nonsense, and why did you blindly believe them, without even thinking of fact-checking it yourself? The models have been excellent.

Climate model projections compared to observations

I suspect it is because of the feedback they have to add to get the results they want.

I suspect you're projecting your side's propensity for open fraud. Don't assume that the ethical people act like you do. We are not like you. We won't lie for money.

But putting all that aside the science tells us we are in an interglacial cycle and our present temperature is still below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles.

The stratospheric warming, increase in backradiation, and decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands all flatly contradict your "It's a natural cycle!" theory. Therefore, your theory is wrong. It really is as simple as that.

Furthermore, the science and inspection tells us that atmospheric CO2 reinforces climate change, it does not cause climate change. We entered glacial cycles when atmospheric CO2 was similar to what it is today.

That's a major logical fallacy on your part, your assumption that anyone is saying CO2 is the only driver of climate. You don't see any scientists making such a mistake.

But what I find most disturbing is the attempt to silence dissenting opinions and investigations.

Then tell your side to stop doing it. After all, your side is the only side doing it.

Silencing Climate Science - Sabin Center for Climate Change Law

There is a bias in the climate science community which is disturbing to me. It is driven by money.

If all the hard data didn't flatly contradict your bizarre claims, you wouldn't need to invoke conspiracy theories to explain away such a politically inconvenient reality. But it does, so you do.

The models have not been excellent. They continually have revised them downward.

And all of the points I made are valid. So when you can respond to the entire argument let me know.