Yup....They're Still At It

[mamooth]

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... the most educated people in the field work dynamic forecasts ... it's all the idiots who can't handle a little extra math who default down to climatology ...

Just what are you babbling about, moron?

I have some idea. Some fellow paste-eating moron told you climatology was one undergrad class, and being that independent thought is beyond your paygrade, you just _believed_.

Back in this reality, which cult fanatics like you are not connected to in any way, climate science starts with a Ph.D. in something like atmospheric physics, and then moves into the Post Doc world.

But you're an imbecile, so you didn't know that, so you've been embarrassing yourself here.

Does it bother you, the way your masters always feed you crap? Given how eagerly you chow it down, apparently not.

 

[mamooth]

"CNN End of Snow: “Climate change is threatening winter sports’ very existence”

Summary:

No "end of snow" prediction was made. Instead, a well detailed article on how a lack of snow was hurting winter sports was written.

The author, Eric Worrell, lied openly about what CNN supposedly said, by adding his own fake headline and attributing it to CNN.

PC gleefully repeated the lie, and she has no regrets about doing so. She does what her masters and what Satan commands.

Most deniers here support the lie as well, because deniers tend to be fundamentally dishonest.

Enjoy Hell, PC. Given your allegiance to Satan, the Lord of Lies, I don't see how you can't avoid it. Unless you repent soon. That would require apologizing to all of the people you've lied about.

 

[Dick Foster]

Oh, this again. Yeah, there is a giant global conspiracy in science. A bunch of nobody rednecks that barely passed highschool have unraveled this plot created by some of the most educated people on Earth. Peer review has failed us, because apparently science doesn't work anymore. Thank you Cleetus, Clayton and Clide. The world owes you one.

Let me ask you a question. WTF do up you know about mathematical modeling about which most of this crap is about? What if any experience have you had with it? For example in electronics CAE is based on modeling and more often than not in my experience CAE designs fail.

 

[mamooth]

WTF do up you know about mathematical modeling about which most of this crap is about?

Where did you get that idea? AGW theory is well-proven with no models at all. The stunning success of the models is just icing on the cake.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"CNN End of Snow: “Climate change is threatening winter sports’ very existence”

Summary:

No "end of snow" prediction was made. Instead, a well detailed article on how a lack of snow was hurting winter sports was written.

The author, Eric Worrell, lied openly about what CNN supposedly said, by adding his own fake headline and attributing it to CNN.

PC gleefully repeated the lie, and she has no regrets about doing so. She does what her masters and what Satan commands.

Most deniers here support the lie as well, because deniers tend to be fundamentally dishonest.

Enjoy Hell, PC. Given your allegiance to Satan, the Lord of Lies, I don't see how you can't avoid it. Unless you repent soon. That would require apologizing to all of the people you've lied about.

"Enjoy Hell, PC. Given your allegiance to Satan, the Lord of Lies, I don't see how you can't avoid it. Unless you repent soon. That would require apologizing to all of the people you've lied about."


I'm not a Janissary of evil...I'm in upper management.

And I can’t go to hell…Satan has a restraining order against me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"CNN End of Snow: “Climate change is threatening winter sports’ very existence”

Summary:

No "end of snow" prediction was made. Instead, a well detailed article on how a lack of snow was hurting winter sports was written.

The author, Eric Worrell, lied openly about what CNN supposedly said, by adding his own fake headline and attributing it to CNN.

PC gleefully repeated the lie, and she has no regrets about doing so. She does what her masters and what Satan commands.

Most deniers here support the lie as well, because deniers tend to be fundamentally dishonest.

Enjoy Hell, PC. Given your allegiance to Satan, the Lord of Lies, I don't see how you can't avoid it. Unless you repent soon. That would require apologizing to all of the people you've lied about.

Summary???


Sure thing, you dunce:


For more than 50 years Climate Alarmists in the scientific community and environmental movement have not gotten even one prediction correct, but they do have a perfect record of getting 41 predictions wrong.

LIST OF DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS THE CLIMATE ALARMIST GOT WRONG

Here is the source for numbers 1-27. As you will see, the individual sources are not crackpots, but scientific studies and media reports on “expert” predictions. The sources for numbers 28-41 are linked individually.

1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000
4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070
7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
8. 1974: Another Ice Age?
9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life
10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes
12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend
13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015
27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 90s
33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000
34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020
35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010
36. 2006: Super Hurricanes!
37. 2005: Manhattan Underwater by 2015
38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
41. 1970s: Killer Bees!

Sorry, Experts… Sorry, Scientific Consensus… Only a fool comes running for the 42nd cry of wolf.
Mark Simone

 

[ReinyDays]

WTF do up you know about mathematical modeling about which most of this crap is about?

Where did you get that idea? AGW theory is well-proven with no models at all. The stunning success of the models is just icing on the cake.

You keep saying AGW theory is proven ... but when asked ... you never produce even one shred of evidence ... please, show me the math ... or this is all conjecture ...

 

[ReinyDays]

"CNN End of Snow: “Climate change is threatening winter sports’ very existence”

Summary:

No "end of snow" prediction was made. Instead, a well detailed article on how a lack of snow was hurting winter sports was written.

The author, Eric Worrell, lied openly about what CNN supposedly said, by adding his own fake headline and attributing it to CNN.

PC gleefully repeated the lie, and she has no regrets about doing so. She does what her masters and what Satan commands.

Most deniers here support the lie as well, because deniers tend to be fundamentally dishonest.

Enjoy Hell, PC. Given your allegiance to Satan, the Lord of Lies, I don't see how you can't avoid it. Unless you repent soon. That would require apologizing to all of the people you've lied about.

Summary???


Sure thing, you dunce:


For more than 50 years Climate Alarmists in the scientific community and environmental movement have not gotten even one prediction correct, but they do have a perfect record of getting 41 predictions wrong.

LIST OF DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS THE CLIMATE ALARMIST GOT WRONG

Here is the source for numbers 1-27. As you will see, the individual sources are not crackpots, but scientific studies and media reports on “expert” predictions. The sources for numbers 28-41 are linked individually.

1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000
4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070
7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
8. 1974: Another Ice Age?
9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life
10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes
12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend
13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015
27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 90s
33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000
34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020
35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010
36. 2006: Super Hurricanes!
37. 2005: Manhattan Underwater by 2015
38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
41. 1970s: Killer Bees!

Sorry, Experts… Sorry, Scientific Consensus… Only a fool comes running for the 42nd cry of wolf.
Mark Simone

Here is the source for numbers 1-27. As you will see, the individual sources are not crackpots, but scientific studies and media reports on “expert” predictions.

With all due respect ... not a single citation for numbers 1-27 is anything close to a "scientific study" ... Washington Post, The Guardian, AP are fine media companies, but they do regularly publish crackpotism ... you need to be looking in refereed journals and you're going to come up thin; CCC is political, not scientific ...

I did bother to look at #36 "Super Hurricanes" ... Breitbart is now a reliable science news outlet? ... shame on you PC, you know enough not to read Breitbart without handfuls of salt ... using them as a scientific citation for anything that has to do with global cooling global warming climate change is just wrong ...

 

[PoliticalChic]

"CNN End of Snow: “Climate change is threatening winter sports’ very existence”

Summary:

No "end of snow" prediction was made. Instead, a well detailed article on how a lack of snow was hurting winter sports was written.

The author, Eric Worrell, lied openly about what CNN supposedly said, by adding his own fake headline and attributing it to CNN.

PC gleefully repeated the lie, and she has no regrets about doing so. She does what her masters and what Satan commands.

Most deniers here support the lie as well, because deniers tend to be fundamentally dishonest.

Enjoy Hell, PC. Given your allegiance to Satan, the Lord of Lies, I don't see how you can't avoid it. Unless you repent soon. That would require apologizing to all of the people you've lied about.

Summary???


Sure thing, you dunce:


For more than 50 years Climate Alarmists in the scientific community and environmental movement have not gotten even one prediction correct, but they do have a perfect record of getting 41 predictions wrong.

LIST OF DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS THE CLIMATE ALARMIST GOT WRONG

Here is the source for numbers 1-27. As you will see, the individual sources are not crackpots, but scientific studies and media reports on “expert” predictions. The sources for numbers 28-41 are linked individually.

1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000
4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070
7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
8. 1974: Another Ice Age?
9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life
10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes
12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend
13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015
27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 90s
33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000
34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020
35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010
36. 2006: Super Hurricanes!
37. 2005: Manhattan Underwater by 2015
38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
41. 1970s: Killer Bees!

Sorry, Experts… Sorry, Scientific Consensus… Only a fool comes running for the 42nd cry of wolf.
Mark Simone

Here is the source for numbers 1-27. As you will see, the individual sources are not crackpots, but scientific studies and media reports on “expert” predictions.

With all due respect ... not a single citation for numbers 1-27 is anything close to a "scientific study" ... Washington Post, The Guardian, AP are fine media companies, but they do regularly publish crackpotism ... you need to be looking in refereed journals and you're going to come up thin; CCC is political, not scientific ...

I did bother to look at #36 "Super Hurricanes" ... Breitbart is now a reliable science news outlet? ... shame on you PC, you know enough not to read Breitbart without handfuls of salt ... using them as a scientific citation for anything that has to do with global cooling global warming climate change is just wrong ...

I've seen that dodge before.

Nothing wrong with Breitbart.....it is far more reliable than the NYTimes.


Short of outright banning free speech.....certainly on the Left's agenda.....there are several attempts their Janissaries use with metronomic regularity, to disqualify and delegitimize.



First step in their playbook of 'delegitimization' is to refuse to accept any statements of fact, or even strongly supported opinion, unless they come from a Leftist source....the NYTimes, HuffPost, the DNC, MSNBC or the like.




Frequently a post on the message board includes either a link, quote, or reference to Breitbart, World Net Daily, or Rupert Murdoch, or Ann Coulter, or some other right-thinker, and rather than admit that the item is dispositive for the thread or question under discussion, often the Leftist,totalitarians, with the alternate view:

a. refuse to address the issue, because the citation is on the opposite side.

b. resort to an emoticon of laughter, or some sort of sign of disrespect, or the use of ‘lol.’

c. feel that some sort of “there you go again” response, rather than an actual refutation.

d. Attack the referred item with an Ad Hominem jab, pointing to an imagined physical or mental defect, or alter the name in some absurd manner.

In short....anything but an actual response.

What we have here is the kind of defense against opposing ideas that is indolent at best, and intellectually cowardly at worst.


As an example, FrontPage, the online Internet magazine has received more than one billion ‘hits.’ It has interviewed leading intellectuals, politicians and human rights activists such as Bat Ye’or, Vladimir Bukovsky, Christopher Hitchens, Khaleel Mohammed, Daniel Pipes, Natan Sharanky and Andrew Sullivan. It has therefore had both left, liberal voices (Stanley Aronowitz, Susan Estrich, Michael Lerner) and right-wing voices (Tammy Bruce, Ann Coulter, James Woolsey).



To dismiss a source or author because they promulgate an alternative or even a hated perspective, without consideration of the truth of their premise lacks integrity.

 

[Sunsettommy]

"CNN End of Snow: “Climate change is threatening winter sports’ very existence”

Summary:

No "end of snow" prediction was made. Instead, a well detailed article on how a lack of snow was hurting winter sports was written.

The author, Eric Worrell, lied openly about what CNN supposedly said, by adding his own fake headline and attributing it to CNN.

PC gleefully repeated the lie, and she has no regrets about doing so. She does what her masters and what Satan commands.

Most deniers here support the lie as well, because deniers tend to be fundamentally dishonest.

Enjoy Hell, PC. Given your allegiance to Satan, the Lord of Lies, I don't see how you can't avoid it. Unless you repent soon. That would require apologizing to all of the people you've lied about.

Summary???


Sure thing, you dunce:


For more than 50 years Climate Alarmists in the scientific community and environmental movement have not gotten even one prediction correct, but they do have a perfect record of getting 41 predictions wrong.

LIST OF DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS THE CLIMATE ALARMIST GOT WRONG

Here is the source for numbers 1-27. As you will see, the individual sources are not crackpots, but scientific studies and media reports on “expert” predictions. The sources for numbers 28-41 are linked individually.

1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000
4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070
7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
8. 1974: Another Ice Age?
9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life
10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes
12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend
13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015
27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 90s
33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000
34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020
35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010
36. 2006: Super Hurricanes!
37. 2005: Manhattan Underwater by 2015
38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
41. 1970s: Killer Bees!

Sorry, Experts… Sorry, Scientific Consensus… Only a fool comes running for the 42nd cry of wolf.
Mark Simone

Here is the source for numbers 1-27. As you will see, the individual sources are not crackpots, but scientific studies and media reports on “expert” predictions.

With all due respect ... not a single citation for numbers 1-27 is anything close to a "scientific study" ... Washington Post, The Guardian, AP are fine media companies, but they do regularly publish crackpotism ... you need to be looking in refereed journals and you're going to come up thin; CCC is political, not scientific ...

I did bother to look at #36 "Super Hurricanes" ... Breitbart is now a reliable science news outlet? ... shame on you PC, you know enough not to read Breitbart without handfuls of salt ... using them as a scientific citation for anything that has to do with global cooling global warming climate change is just wrong ...

Now you are not being fair since the source headline is this (numbers 1-27):

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

The SUMMARY is this:

SUMMARY

Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today.

None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true.

What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and science.

More than merely spotlighting the failed predictions, this collection shows that the makers of failed apocalyptic predictions often are individuals holding respected positions in government and science.

While such predictions have been and continue to be enthusiastically reported by a media eager for sensational headlines, the failures are typically not revisited.

===========

it is about FAILED predictions, no need for science papers, when the newspapers and time was enough to show the obvious prediction failures. But there were actually a number of SCIENTIST's making specific prediction, that failed utterly. The newspapers QUOTED them, that you can't explain away.

#36 link does show a published science paper that wrongfully predicted increase of super hurricanes in the Atlantic, when there was an ongoing major hurricane land fall drought that was already years in the making, it eventually ended in 2017, a 11 year hiatus. That same link showed several sources to back it up, did you even read that initial #36 main link at all?

 

[ReinyDays]

I've seen that dodge before.

Nothing wrong with Breitbart.....it is far more reliable than the NYTimes.


Short of outright banning free speech.....certainly on the Left's agenda.....there are several attempts their Janissaries use with metronomic regularity, to disqualify and delegitimize.



First step in their playbook of 'delegitimization' is to refuse to accept any statements of fact, or even strongly supported opinion, unless they come from a Leftist source....the NYTimes, HuffPost, the DNC, MSNBC or the like.




Frequently a post on the message board includes either a link, quote, or reference to Breitbart, World Net Daily, or Rupert Murdoch, or Ann Coulter, or some other right-thinker, and rather than admit that the item is dispositive for the thread or question under discussion, often the Leftist,totalitarians, with the alternate view:

a. refuse to address the issue, because the citation is on the opposite side.

b. resort to an emoticon of laughter, or some sort of sign of disrespect, or the use of ‘lol.’

c. feel that some sort of “there you go again” response, rather than an actual refutation.

d. Attack the referred item with an Ad Hominem jab, pointing to an imagined physical or mental defect, or alter the name in some absurd manner.

In short....anything but an actual response.

What we have here is the kind of defense against opposing ideas that is indolent at best, and intellectually cowardly at worst.


As an example, FrontPage, the online Internet magazine has received more than one billion ‘hits.’ It has interviewed leading intellectuals, politicians and human rights activists such as Bat Ye’or, Vladimir Bukovsky, Christopher Hitchens, Khaleel Mohammed, Daniel Pipes, Natan Sharanky and Andrew Sullivan. It has therefore had both left, liberal voices (Stanley Aronowitz, Susan Estrich, Michael Lerner) and right-wing voices (Tammy Bruce, Ann Coulter, James Woolsey).



To dismiss a source or author because they promulgate an alternative or even a hated perspective, without consideration of the truth of their premise lacks integrity.

Yes ... I'm familiar with the dodge ... quoting commercial media and claiming it's a scientific study ... you're wrong ... it's the exact same error Alarmists make, and you're just as wrong as they are for that reason ... how dare you Greta, I doubt you'd know a scientific paper if it slapped you in the face ... let alone what to do with it ... obviously you don't even know how to cite a scientific paper ... thus all your citations are strictly commercial in nature, someone making money off you ...

I agree with the position Breitbart advocates in #36 ... actually ... in part because I understand the basics of the science, and I've come across actual scientific papers that confirm the scientific conclusions presented in the Breitbart article ...

But Breitbart is NOT a scientific reference in any way, shape or form ... any refereed scientific journal would refuse any submission that tried to include anything from Breitbart ... "ABC News reported faults off the California coast, therefore we can correctly and scientifically conclude LA will see a 500 foot tsunami within the the next 10 years, ABC News says so" ... like the Royal Society is going to publish that in their Proceedings ... that's the crock of shit you seem to be defending ... shame on you PC ...

 

[007]

Anything the DEMOCRATS see as another CASH COW and a way to get MORE CONTROL over... EVERYTHING... they're not going to give up on it. They're authoritarians, and they WON'T quit until they DO have TOTAL CONTROL... over... EVERYTHING, because that's who they are.

You're stupid, they're all smart, and mankind can't survive unless THEY... CONTROL... EVERYTHING.

That's why democrats should be DEFEATED and KICKED TO THE DAMN CURB, right with all the rest of the SHIT and NEEDLES and FILTH in the cities they run. That's what America would look like if they DID control EVERYTHING.

 

[ReinyDays]

#36 link does show a published science paper that wrongfully predicted increase of super hurricanes in the Atlantic, when there was an ongoing major hurricane land fall drought that was already years in the making, it eventually ended in 2017, a 11 year hiatus. That same link showed several sources to back it up, did you even read that initial #36 main link at all?

No it doesn't ...

I admit not reading the whole Breitbart article before I made my comment about it NOT being scientific in nature ... the first paragraph fully demonstrates that claim ... no statement of methodology ...

I can't find the link in the Breitbart article to a published scientific paper ... it cites MRC Newsbusters "America's Media Watchdog" ... who in turn cites AP, Wikipedia and USA Today ... there's three layers of commercial interpretations ... I'm not going down that rabbit hole, I've been down too many only to find the actual scientific paper NOT supporting the claims that sell newspapers ...

Besides, if the commercial article cites a scientific paper ... then post the goddam link to the paper instead ... or it's just lazy and without thought ...

 

[mamooth]

Summary???

You got busted for lying, and now you're vainly trying to deflect.

CNN made no "End of Snow" prediction or headline. You presented a post saying they did. You lied. That's not debatable. You may have lied unintentionally out of brainless stupidity, but intentional or not, it was still a lie.

So, do you regret lying, or as is always the case with you, do you only regret getting busted?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Summary???

You got busted for lying, and now you're vainly trying to deflect.

CNN made no "End of Snow" prediction or headline. You presented a post saying they did. You lied. That's not debatable. You may have lied unintentionally out of brainless stupidity, but intentional or not, it was still a lie.

So, do you regret lying, or as is always the case with you, do you only regret getting busted?

I never lie.....that's why you're back.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

WTF do up you know about mathematical modeling about which most of this crap is about?

Where did you get that idea? AGW theory is well-proven with no models at all. The stunning success of the models is just icing on the cake.

Bullshit.

The predictive capability of the models is shit.

Pure shit.

When flacaltenn isn't kicking your ass, someone else is.

 

[flacaltenn]

WTF do up you know about mathematical modeling about which most of this crap is about?

Where did you get that idea? AGW theory is well-proven with no models at all. The stunning success of the models is just icing on the cake.

Has that "STUNNING SUCCESS EVER created a temperature anomaly for 2100 that does has LESS than 2.5 to 1.0 uncertainty range??? I know you can read graphs and interpret better than CrickHam -- so his excuse is incompetence.. What's yours?

BTW -- What IS the latest modeling temp anomaly for 2100 (with RANGES) compared to the 2nd IPCC predictions???

Show us your "stunning ability" to discuss this...

 

[bluzman61]

WTF do up you know about mathematical modeling about which most of this crap is about?

Where did you get that idea? AGW theory is well-proven with no models at all. The stunning success of the models is just icing on the cake.

Has that "STUNNING SUCCESS EVER created a temperature anomaly for 2100 that does has LESS than 2.5 to 1.0 uncertainty range??? I know you can read graphs and interpret better than CrickHam -- so his excuse is incompetence.. What's yours?

BTW -- What IS the latest modeling temp anomaly for 2100 (with RANGES) compared to the 2nd IPCC predictions???

Show us your "stunning ability" to discuss this...

It's just a hunch, but I don't believe mamooth can or will reply to this.

 

[mamooth]

Has that "STUNNING SUCCESS EVER created a temperature anomaly for 2100 that does has LESS than 2.5 to 1.0 uncertainty range???

Well, yes

I know you can read graphs and interpret better than CrickHam -- so his excuse is incompetence.. What's yours?

Is it the graph reading that you fail at, or it is the uncertainty?

BTW -- What IS the latest modeling temp anomaly for 2100 (with RANGES) compared to the 2nd IPCC predictions???

Since you're the one going off on this weird rant, you tell us. We're not doing your homework for you. Make sure you show your links.

After that, do that one thing that we always do, and which you never do. State your point directly and clearly. Just why are you raving about uncertainty here, when the topic is how close to the mean the predictions are?

Show us your "stunning ability" to discuss this...

Once a homeless woman asked me for a cigarette, and then started screaming at me when I didn't have one. As she didn't seem attached to this reality, I couldn't hold a meaningful conversation with her. Likewise, I can't hold a meaningful conversation with you.