What, exactly, do deniers think warmists are asserting?

[gnarlylove]

Westwall, why do you care "denier" is pejorative, disparaging? You are consistent in one respect alone, and that is being disparaging towards opponents. Do you think using "cultist" is not disparaging? Either accept that your tactics will always be used against you or cease your overt double standard of logic. Since you will do neither, I wasted my time.

 

[westwall]

Westwall, why do you care "denier" is pejorative, disparaging? You are consistent in one respect alone, and that is being disparaging towards opponents. Do you think using "cultist" is not disparaging? Either accept that your tactics will always be used against you or cease your overt double standard of logic. Since you will do neither, I wasted my time.

To follow a religious (well ethical at least) norm, I treat people as they treat me. At least "cultist" is an accurate description of your behavior and beliefs.

 

[flacaltenn]

Abe's intent was clearly to mirror that other thread about what Warmers think that Deniers are denying.
But in the case of what I (we) think the AGW cult believes --- all that can clearly be stated. I've restated HIS position that the IPCC products are the Word of the Consensus and shalt not be mocked.

'bout sums it up.. Would you like me to get more specific?

However -- on the other thread --- not one of the rabid AGW supporters could truly explain what a "denier" really is.. We can settle both questions at once if you want. But if you run from the ORIGINAL question -- I (we) have no obligation to dance for you...

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I believe in global warming.

We used to have massive ice sheets more than half way down North America.

Then it got warmer. The ice sheets receded.

Musta gotten warmer.

I DO "deny" that humankind played ANY ******* role in that.

I further deny that there is the slightest scintilla of scientifically valid evidence that we have the tiniest little ability to control or alter the climate in any significant way -- to fix the warming or to cause such warming.

 

[Politico]

When one views "global warming" as a religion then the arguments against progress and energy independents become more understandable even though still ridiculous.

No one actually views it as a religion. That is only an ignorant and rather desperate bullshit argument being put forth by deniers. And there is no tendency among people who accept that AGW is real and a threat, to argue against progress and energy INDEPENDENCE. That would be just another ignorant and rather desperate bullshit argument being put forth by deniers. You really ought to try to stay away from ignorant and desperate bullshit arguments as they do not reflect well on you. Just think for a few seconds before parroting denier claims. It takes very little thought to realize how weak those arguments actually are.

Speaking of parroting. No one is denying the climate is changing.

 

[Abraham3]

Good for you! GOOD for you, you're making progress.

 

[skookerasbil]

Of course its a religion by the standard of anybody outside of the climate obsessed.

Ive posted up the PEW Poll many times which clearly indicates that a huge majority of Americans barely have global warming on their radar. On the list of "concerns" it is listed at a rank of 23 out of 24. What the **** does that tell you?

"Religion" speaks to the level of obsession in these people......of ******* course.

 

[gnarlylove]

Westwall, why do you care "denier" is pejorative, disparaging? You are consistent in one respect alone, and that is being disparaging towards opponents. Do you think using "cultist" is not disparaging? Either accept that your tactics will always be used against you or cease your overt double standard of logic. Since you will do neither, I wasted my time.

To follow a religious (well ethical at least) norm, I treat people as they treat me. At least "cultist" is an accurate description of your behavior and beliefs.

So despite the fact you "deny" the position of the overwhelming majority of scientists, denier is not an accurate description of your position. Odd. Maybe where you focus literally all your time avoiding the position you deny, you actually think scientists are in favor of your position. Reality check: they aren't.

Ever read a peer reviewed article? I doubt it because literally every single one says that climate change is a threat and is caused by human activity. I challenge you to whip out a peer reviewed article backing your position in any published periodical like "Science" "Nature" and dozens of others.


BTW, your ethics of "treat others how they treat me" is about the most selfish and anti-ethical statement on the planet. Jesus and many moral teachings say treat others as you wish to be treated." That makes a world of difference. It turns your entirely egotistical descriptive ethic of mistreating others because they mistreated you into a prescriptive ethic of being nice to others simply because they are a person just like you who makes mistakes. But you are far too gone to understand why someone would treat someone else with respect just because they're human...and yet you think you follow some religious standard. LOL Yeah, the religion of hating someone else because they hated you! You intolerance is through the roof! So yeah, you're de facto fundamentalist religious fan who won't tolerate opposition.

 

[HenryBHough]

Interesting how the most intellectual discussion all this Global Warming bumpf has inspired is the debate over the difference between a religion and a cult.

 

[westwall]

Westwall, why do you care "denier" is pejorative, disparaging? You are consistent in one respect alone, and that is being disparaging towards opponents. Do you think using "cultist" is not disparaging? Either accept that your tactics will always be used against you or cease your overt double standard of logic. Since you will do neither, I wasted my time.

To follow a religious (well ethical at least) norm, I treat people as they treat me. At least "cultist" is an accurate description of your behavior and beliefs.

So despite the fact you "deny" the position of the overwhelming majority of scientists, denier is not an accurate description of your position. Odd. Maybe where you focus literally all your time avoiding the position you deny, you actually think scientists are in favor of your position. Reality check: they aren't.

Ever read a peer reviewed article? I doubt it because literally every single one says that climate change is a threat and is caused by human activity. I challenge you to whip out a peer reviewed article backing your position in any published periodical like "Science" "Nature" and dozens of others.


BTW, your ethics of "treat others how they treat me" is about the most selfish and anti-ethical statement on the planet. Jesus and many moral teachings say treat others as you wish to be treated." That makes a world of difference. It turns your entirely egotistical descriptive ethic of mistreating others because they mistreated you into a prescriptive ethic of being nice to others simply because they are a person just like you who makes mistakes. But you are far too gone to understand why someone would treat someone else with respect just because they're human...and yet you think you follow some religious standard. LOL Yeah, the religion of hating someone else because they hated you! You intolerance is through the roof! So yeah, you're de facto fundamentalist religious fan who won't tolerate opposition.

Your statement is a lie. The "consensus" of scientists was 74 out of 79 CLIMATOLOGISTS. That is a FACT. Then, they doubled down and the newest assertion was torn apart by multiple scientists. But, if you wish to compare numbers, there are roughly 3500 scientists who have signed various petitions claiming that AGW is "real".

The number of scientists who have voiced their opinion that it is not "real' is over 30,000.
So, using your most fanciful numbers, there is still a TEN TO ONE majority of scientists saying that AGW is not "real".

And, for the record, I have WRITTEN more peer reviewed papers than you have ever read.

 

[mamooth]

What matters though are the warming fanatics pretending that facts are important and then hiding behind pseudo-science that has long been discredited

We know you spout those crazy stories because your cult commands it of you, and you don't dare disobey your cult.

But hey, maybe you could be right. Maybe the whole planet is wrong, and a bitter whiny fringe of kook-right crybabies who suck balls at the science and who have repeatedly been caught fabricating bullshit are really the correct ones.

Hey, it could happen. At least you'll keep telling yourself that. It will keep you from having to admit to yourself that you were sucked into a liars' cult and played for a UsefulIdiot by your masters.

 

[westwall]

What matters though are the warming fanatics pretending that facts are important and then hiding behind pseudo-science that has long been discredited

We know you spout those crazy stories because your cult commands it of you, and you don't dare disobey your cult.

But hey, maybe you could be right. Maybe the whole planet is wrong, and a bitter whiny fringe of kook-right crybabies who suck balls at the science and who have repeatedly been caught fabricating bullshit are really the correct ones.

Hey, it could happen. At least you'll keep telling yourself that. It will keep you from having to admit to yourself that you were sucked into a liars' cult and played for a UsefulIdiot by your masters.

Ahhhh, admiral, you just don't do sarcasm well. You have to be clever to use it effectively and you are far far from clever. It is amusing to watch you flail about though...really, it is!

 

[gnarlylove]

The "consensus" of scientists was 74 out of 79 CLIMATOLOGISTS. That is a FACT.

This is a totally unsupported assertion. Where is the source claiming this fact? I'm not just going to take your word for it.

Then, they doubled down and the newest assertion was torn apart by multiple scientists. But, if you wish to compare numbers, there are roughly 3500 scientists who have signed various petitions claiming that AGW is "real".

This too is a totally unsupported assertion. Where is the source claiming this fact? I'm not just going to take your word for it.

The number of scientists who have voiced their opinion that it is not "real' is over 30,000.

Why do I have to tell you this is not real? Because it's the only bit of evidence you know how to cling onto. No one takes it seriously. Why?

.1% of Signers Have a Background in Climatology

The Petition Project website offers a breakdown of the areas of expertise of those who have signed the petition.

In the realm of climate science it breaks it breaks down as such:

Atmospheric Science (113)

Climatology (39)

Meteorology (341)

Astronomy (59)

Astrophysics (26)

So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair, we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%.

So basically you are promoting hollow statistics as your strongest argument. And we know your using fallacious logic anyway. The truth of a claim does not depend on how popular it is. This is the precise reason I referred you to what peer review is saying over and over. It isn't just a bunch of hot air and ad hoc petitions, its genuine science.

And, for the record, I have WRITTEN more peer reviewed papers than you have ever read.

You so confidently assert you've written peer review papers. Am I suppose to believe that lie? Where's the abstracts? Can you at least name the magazined it was published in? I bet you can't because you were clear to say you had written not published. If those "written peer review papers" you speak of have any similarities with your personality on here, its clear why they weren't published.

 

[westwall]

So despite the fact you "deny" the position of the overwhelming majority of scientists, denier is not an accurate description of your position. Odd. Maybe where you focus literally all your time avoiding the position you deny, you actually think scientists are in favor of your position. Reality check: they aren't.

Ever read a peer reviewed article? I doubt it because literally every single one says that climate change is a threat and is caused by human activity. I challenge you to whip out a peer reviewed article backing your position in any published periodical like "Science" "Nature" and dozens of others.


BTW, your ethics of "treat others how they treat me" is about the most selfish and anti-ethical statement on the planet. Jesus and many moral teachings say treat others as you wish to be treated." That makes a world of difference. It turns your entirely egotistical descriptive ethic of mistreating others because they mistreated you into a prescriptive ethic of being nice to others simply because they are a person just like you who makes mistakes. But you are far too gone to understand why someone would treat someone else with respect just because they're human...and yet you think you follow some religious standard. LOL Yeah, the religion of hating someone else because they hated you! You intolerance is through the roof! So yeah, you're de facto fundamentalist religious fan who won't tolerate opposition.

Your statement is a lie. The "consensus" of scientists was 74 out of 79 CLIMATOLOGISTS. That is a FACT. Then, they doubled down and the newest assertion was torn apart by multiple scientists. But, if you wish to compare numbers, there are roughly 3500 scientists who have signed various petitions claiming that AGW is "real".

The number of scientists who have voiced their opinion that it is not "real' is over 30,000.
So, using your most fanciful numbers, there is still a TEN TO ONE majority of scientists saying that AGW is not "real".

And, for the record, I have WRITTEN more peer reviewed papers than you have ever read.

You didn't support any claim you made. Where did you get the 74/79 consensus? Consensus begins with the IPCC where thousands of scientists are not shy in declaring their findings. I can refer you to at least 100 articles from peer review. But you so confidently assert you've written peer review papers. Am I suppose to believe that lie? Where's the abstracts? Can you at least name whom it was published? I bet you can't because you were clear to say you had written not published. If those hundreds of written papers have any similarities between your personality on here, its clear why they weren't published.

It has been posted here many times. Go look it up. I have better things to do than waste my time doing your work for you.

But you can start here.....

The 97% ?Consensus? is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists? | The SPPI Blog

 

[JohnL.Burke]

What matters though are the warming fanatics pretending that facts are important and then hiding behind pseudo-science that has long been discredited

We know you spout those crazy stories because your cult commands it of you, and you don't dare disobey your cult.

But hey, maybe you could be right. Maybe the whole planet is wrong, and a bitter whiny fringe of kook-right crybabies who suck balls at the science and who have repeatedly been caught fabricating bullshit are really the correct ones.

Hey, it could happen. At least you'll keep telling yourself that. It will keep you from having to admit to yourself that you were sucked into a liars' cult and played for a UsefulIdiot by your masters.

Uhmmmmm.... what?

 

[gnarlylove]

It has been posted here many times. Go look it up. I have better things to do than waste my time doing your work for you.

But you can start here.....

The 97% ?Consensus? is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists? | The SPPI Blog

Nice cop-out. I won't hold it against you because whenever you're pushed you back down.

Regarding the much repeated 97% consensus, it did not come from 79 surveyed folks. It is from a much broader range of a multitude of studies. Yours happens to be funded by Big Corporate Money. If you want specific references to 97% consensus, click here.

Here is another scientific assessment of the literature, revealing 97.2%

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

BTW, did you notice your source's name was "HockeyStick." Not a credible peer reviewed blog. Don't you understand that information is a fabrication and I've just proven it with peer review publishing. Wake up you stubborn goober.

 

[skookerasbil]

What matters though are the warming fanatics pretending that facts are important and then hiding behind pseudo-science that has long been discredited

We know you spout those crazy stories because your cult commands it of you, and you don't dare disobey your cult.

But hey, maybe you could be right. Maybe the whole planet is wrong, and a bitter whiny fringe of kook-right crybabies who suck balls at the science and who have repeatedly been caught fabricating bullshit are really the correct ones.

Hey, it could happen. At least you'll keep telling yourself that. It will keep you from having to admit to yourself that you were sucked into a liars' cult and played for a UsefulIdiot by your masters.

69% Say It?s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research - Rasmussen Reports?



Vast majority "cult" FTMFW!!!!



So Mamooth......how many times have you given that cat a poke?

 

[jc456]

Inquiring minds need to know.

Complete BS

I assert nothing other than you have no proof. Zero, nadda, zippola! That's what I assert.

 

[westwall]

It has been posted here many times. Go look it up. I have better things to do than waste my time doing your work for you.

But you can start here.....

The 97% ?Consensus? is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists? | The SPPI Blog

Nice cop-out. I won't hold it against you because whenever you're pushed you back down.

Regarding the much repeated 97% consensus, it did not come from 79 surveyed folks. It is from a much broader range of a multitude of studies. Yours happens to be funded by Big Corporate Money. If you want specific references to 97% consensus, click here.

Here is another scientific assessment of the literature, revealing 97.2%

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

BTW, did you notice your source's name was "HockeyStick." Not a credible peer reviewed blog. Don't you understand that information is a fabrication and I've just proven it with peer review publishing. Wake up you stubborn goober.

BS junior. Pure un-adulterated BS. You're as kooky as GISMYS. Makes sense, you're both religious fanatics.

 

[jc456]

It has been posted here many times. Go look it up. I have better things to do than waste my time doing your work for you.

But you can start here.....

The 97% ?Consensus? is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists? | The SPPI Blog

Nice cop-out. I won't hold it against you because whenever you're pushed you back down.

Regarding the much repeated 97% consensus, it did not come from 79 surveyed folks. It is from a much broader range of a multitude of studies. Yours happens to be funded by Big Corporate Money. If you want specific references to 97% consensus, click here.

Here is another scientific assessment of the literature, revealing 97.2%

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

BTW, did you notice your source's name was "HockeyStick." Not a credible peer reviewed blog. Don't you understand that information is a fabrication and I've just proven it with peer review publishing. Wake up you stubborn goober.

Prove humans are doing anything to the climate. Prove it, it seems to me you suggest it's as simple as buttering a piece of bread. So let us see your evidence man. Let's see the photos, the videos of the actual events that are stated in the scientific consensus. The facts are you can't . ka-chink!