Climate Crisis Fraud -written by a man who shares the Nobel Prize with Al Gore

[ccodiane]

Lol.
Questions the people pushing this debate are refusing to answer:

1) Do you admit that accepting the opinions of commentators, no matter how brilliant they may be, is historically unwise when in disagreement with the CONSENSUS of scientific of scientifically published data? If not can you site a single historical reference to the contrary, will you at least admit this? (And don’t go with tectonic plates. Let’s try something relevant.)

2) If you’re still going to claim that science is not advanced enough to model climates could you please explain why you’re citing references that deceitfully misquote the facts pertaining to them? If you’re going deny this will you please address the example I previously gave?

3) Furthermore if you’re still going to claim that science is not advanced enough to model climates… would you please cite a scientific reference supporting this? (You’re scientifically minded right?)

4) May I see your best scientific study please?

Answer: Do your own goddamn research

5) You’re argument is reduced to saying that the scientists disagree, but when I point out the similarly weighted consensus on UFO’s, 6,000 y/o earth, 911 conspiracy, etc. You completely ignore it. Could you please respond?

6) I offered you 4 published and renowned climatological research centers. I said pick one, or pick any one you can find… you’re a scientifically minded person right??? And let’s perform a search and choose the first 3, 5, 7, returns and see what they say.

, still towenthelie, I see.

1- Last years hurricane season. How many did the experts predict? How about next weeks forecast? Write down the figures today, and check for accuracy next week.

2- Models are just that, models (almost always, no working parts!). How many model cars have you seen on the street. Oh, thats right, they're not real, they're models.

3- Refer to answer 1.

4- Why, towenthelie? So you can ask me 100 questions in response, without ever having read my post?

5- You've made my point for me. Where's the definitive proof? Millions, billions of cameras around the world and the best we've seen is some "fuzzy" shots of a ?....beachball? frisbee? Oh, and you say 6000 sightings a year on Earth, how many sightings on Mars?

6- That, my "friend", is the problem, and why none of your historical references are applicable. Worldwide access to media, biased MMGW proponents media, have made the brainwashing very easy. It seems, to me, people act before they think, if they ever think, and the invent of radio, television, internet, etc. etc. has only furthered this trend, act before you think. After all, you can let the "scientists" and the news anchors do all your thinking for you, and then you can act on their "consensus". After all, wasn't it only 1 or 2 short years ago the consensus was all for MMGW. It seems now, in America at least, the tide is beginning to shift.


Cirque de Solar Power: New York Conference Puts Lie to 'Consensus' - HUMAN EVENTS

 

[ccodiane]

This response is so typical of you, Med. Now, how about making an attempt at answering my questions? I mean, you guys believe in MAN MADE global warming and want to reverse it, right? Surely you folks have contemplated what those changes would mean for all of Mankind, no?

Vi

A basic macro economic cost/benefit analysis would suffice. Any private business in the world would have done one before acting on presumptions, but not the government. I guess it isn't in their purview?

 

[ccodiane]

There has not been a single scientific shred of evidence presented by anyone pushing this debate. I’ve seen a multitude of people repeatedly claim to be “scientifically-minded” but I have yet to see a single person pushing this debate behave like it.
Case in point:

My "argument against it", Global Warming

I defy anyone to find a single instance in which anyone pushing the validity of Global Warming has used the above… um… moronically retarded argument. And yet this dude sincerely believes he is making an argument against it… Lol.
It is amazing to me that the people who are clearly the most lacking in scientific education… the people coincidentally attempting to debunk GW… would have the hubris to openly analyze it.
I think without exception, everyone pushing this conspiracy theory has made absolutely brainless deductions similar to the one above. And correct me if I’m wrong but without exception every dimwitted deduction is accompanied with a statement to the affect: “Wow. This shit is really complex! How could anyone figure this out.” The case in point this time is “To think you can glean any useful information about climate change using 30 bits of information our of 4 billion bits of information is ridiculous.” Holy shit… I’m so embarrassed for these people.

I completely forgot to come back to this gem....... I was looking for the "over your head" smiley face, but I guess we don't have one yet. My argument, which you so kindly referred to, (the math bit), was an argument FOR global cooling, (we should stop capitalizing it, global anything, like it's the almighty), not against you precious Glo....global warming. The point is, I should be able to make an argument for global cooling using 1 years data, if you can make an argument for Glo....global warming, with 30 years data. The numbers are insignificant, infinitesimal, etc. etc. etc. Anyhoooo.....

 

[ViRedd]

Originally Posted by ViRedd
This response is so typical of you, Med. Now, how about making an attempt at answering my questions? I mean, you guys believe in MAN MADE global warming and want to reverse it, right? Surely you folks have contemplated what those changes would mean for all of Mankind, no?

Vi
A basic macro economic cost/benefit analysis would suffice. Any private business in the world would have done one before acting on presumptions, but not the government. I guess it isn't in their purview?

That's exactly right ... and exactly why they won't, or can't, answer the question. Well put, by the way.

Vi

 

[towlie]

I completely forgot to come back to this gem....... I was looking for the "over your head" smiley face, but I guess we don't have one yet. My argument, which you so kindly referred to, (the math bit), was an argument FOR global cooling.....

Yes. I already knew you initial answer. This is why I responded to it accordingly:

“I defy anyone to find a single instance in which anyone pushing the validity of Global Warming has used the above… um… moronically retarded argument.”

 

[towlie]

, still towenthelie, I see.

Oh ccodiane. Do you really want me to list my questions and your corresponding responses? You don't really think you answered them directly do you???

 

[towlie]

A simple yes or no would have sufficed. You confuse with too much doubletalk.

Lol. I thought the same thing when I read my statements back. The reason I get convoluted is we need to keep reminding people this is a conspiracy theory and there is no science behind what they are saying.

I am not a scientist so I have to go by what I read and see. I can see without any outside influences a trend in extreme weather patterns. Example: Tornados in January.

Oh. Don’t do that. You’re not a scientist. Global Warming is so easily proven with the available science. Attempting to analyze this immensely complex subject on a layperson level without at least a scientific compendium is useless. None of us are scientists. Let’s stop pretending like it.

 

[ccodiane]

Yes. I already knew you initial answer. This is why I responded to it accordingly:

“I defy anyone to find a single instance in which anyone pushing the validity of Global Warming has used the above… um… moronically retarded argument.”

Of course you wouldn't use, or acknowledge, this argument. It makes you look stupid.

 

[ccodiane]

Oh ccodiane. Do you really want me to list my questions and your corresponding responses? You don't really think you answered them directly do you???

What was the question?........................

 

[ccodiane]

Lol. I thought the same thing when I read my statements back. The reason I get convoluted is we need to keep reminding people this is a conspiracy theory and there is no science behind what they are saying.



Oh. Don’t do that. You’re not a scientist. Global Warming is so easily proven with the available science. Attempting to analyze this immensely complex subject on a layperson level without at least a scientific compendium is useless. None of us are scientists. Let’s stop pretending like it.

I'm a scientist.

 

[ccodiane]

Oh ccodiane. Do you really want me to list my questions and your corresponding responses? You don't really think you answered them directly do you???

Can you repeat the question, please?

 

[closet.cult]

It is amazing to me that the people who are clearly the most lacking in scientific education… the people coincidentally attempting to debunk GW… would have the hubris to openly analyze it.

And yet, that is what you continuously ask us to do. Over and over and over and over and over again....

You keep asking us to debate you by posting scientific studies and articles. We don’t have to, Towlie. Do your own research on BOTH SIDES of the discussion and make YOUR OWN conclusions.

If you want to debate science find one of the 19,000 American scientists who signed the Petition Project, created by Frederick Seitz, Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. and President Emeritus, Rockefeller University.

Home - Global Warming Petition Project

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
"Note: The Petition Project has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special financial interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private non-tax deductible donations by interested individuals."

There is even a peer reviewed science section. Can't believe it?!- you say? Maybe you don’t understand what is peer reviewed science. See, all the science the global warming advocates create is good, peer reviewed science. The problem is created when they MISINTERPRET the results. Their predictions don't match the actual conditions on the planet. THAT is where they fail. And each year they adjust the crisis one notch down, as new evidence disagrees with their flawed premis. They're good scientists who just got caught up in a bad theory. In another year or two, man-made global warming will be history.

 

[towlie]

And yet, that is what you continuously ask us to do. Over and over and over and over and over again....

Bullshit. I keep telling you that I don’t think any legitimate science exists, but I’ll admit it if I see it. I keep telling you over and over that I could find a 100 scientific studies in under 2-minutes, but none of them agree with what you’re saying. You keep saying over and over that there is legitimate science but have yet to back it. The fact that I have to explain this to you on post 372 only proves your absolute delusion.


Are you prepared to search the archives of any actively publishing research center of your choosing? Of course not. You’d rather post links to un-published, non-scientific spin sites founded by former oil exec’s who happen to have a physics degree. Dude he’s not even a relevant scientist… so keep telling me 19,000 scientist have signed a petition and I’ll keep reminding you that none of them are published. Someday you’ll read a book about science and realize this means something.

If you want to debate science find one of the 19,000 American scientists who signed the Petition Project, created by Frederick Seitz, Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. and President Emeritus, Rockefeller University.

I am already quite aware that you are unable to discuss science on even the most remedial posts. I’m just going to remind you every time you post.

There is even a peer reviewed science section. Can't believe it?!- you say?

No I cant. You’ve already posted indirect links to peer reviewed studies that you clearly lack the intellectual curiosity to read. Are you saying you’re prepared to do it now? Of course not! You’re not scientifically minded, and you’re clearly not interested in finding any truth in this debate.

 

[towlie]

Of course you wouldn't use, or acknowledge, this argument. It makes you look stupid.

“I defy anyone to find a single instance in which anyone pushing the validity of Global Warming has used the above… um… moronically retarded argument.”

What do you not get about this question? You have posted a moronic straw man to argue against. Prove me wrong. Site an instance where someone pushing GW has made this moronic argument. Why is it that the people pushing this conspiracy theory can’t even answer the easiest questions honestly?

 

[towlie]

Can you repeat the question, please?

Questions the people pushing this debate are refusing to answer:

1) Do you admit that accepting the opinions of commentators, no matter how brilliant they may be, is historically unwise when in disagreement with the CONSENSUS of scientific of scientifically published data? If not can you site a single historical reference to the contrary, will you at least admit this? (And don’t go with tectonic plates. Let’s try something relevant.)

2) If you’re still going to claim that science is not advanced enough to model climates could you please explain why you’re citing references that deceitfully misquote the facts pertaining to them? If you’re going deny this will you please address the example I previously gave?

3) Furthermore if you’re still going to claim that science is not advanced enough to model climates… would you please cite a scientific reference supporting this? (You’re scientifically minded right?)

4) May I see your best scientific study please?

Answer: Do your own goddamn research

5) You’re argument is reduced to saying that the scientists disagree, but when I point out the similarly weighted consensus on UFO’s, 6,000 y/o earth, 911 conspiracy, etc. You completely ignore it. Could you please respond?

6) I offered you 4 published and renowned climatological research centers. I said pick one, or pick any one you can find… you’re a scientifically minded person right??? And let’s perform a search and choose the first 3, 5, 7, returns and see what they say.

Hint: Answers shouldn’t end with a question mark, and should be relevant to the question.

 

[closet.cult]

Bullshit. I keep telling you that I don’t think any legitimate science exists, but I’ll admit it if I see it.

The legitimate science exists. It is the same data that your scientists use. The only difference is how they interpret it.

One more time Towlie: Man-made global warming is a FUTURE theory. Data supports warming, not man-made warming. You have to look to the future using climate models to try to prove the idea.

All the science on BOTH sides of the debate is valid. How each scientist INTERPRETS the science is the only important question.

You believe the scientists who proclaim "Crisis! Crisis!". I believe the more moderate scientists who see nearly all data of every 'scietific study' as being within the natural range of climate variability.

Don't get your panties in a bunch over it. The consensus you speak of is nothing more then a belief.

 

[medicineman]

[/color][/size][/font]

The legitimate science exists. It is the same data that your scientists use. The only difference is how they interpret it.

One more time Towlie: Man-made global warming is a FUTURE theory. Data supports warming, not man-made warming. You have to look to the future using climate models to try to prove the idea.

All the science on BOTH sides of the debate is valid. How each scientist INTERPRETS the science is the only important question.

You believe the scientists who proclaim "Crisis! Crisis!". I believe the more moderate scientists who see nearly all data of every 'scietific study' as being within the natural range of climate variability.

Don't get your panties in a bunch over it. The consensus you speak of is nothing more then a belief.

Rent, borrow, or buy the DVD, "The Planet" and get back to me. You may have an epiphany.

 

[closet.cult]

Rent, borrow, or buy the DVD, "The Planet" and get back to me. You may have an epiphany.

O.K. WILL DO.

 

[ccodiane]

“I defy anyone to find a single instance in which anyone pushing the validity of Global Warming has used the above… um… moronically retarded argument.”

What do you not get about this question? You have posted a moronic straw man to argue against. Prove me wrong. Site an instance where someone pushing GW has made this moronic argument. Why is it that the people pushing this conspiracy theory can’t even answer the easiest questions honestly?

My sources tell me the Earth is in a cooling phase. Prove me wrong however you determine would best satisfy your yearning to believe.

 

[ccodiane]

Questions the people pushing this debate are refusing to answer:

1) Do you admit that accepting the opinions of commentators, no matter how brilliant they may be, is historically unwise when in disagreement with the CONSENSUS of scientific of scientifically published data? If not can you site a single historical reference to the contrary, will you at least admit this? (And don’t go with tectonic plates. Let’s try something relevant.)

In 1988, the surgeon general, C. Everett Koop, proclaimed ice cream to a be public-health menace right up there with cigarettes. Alluding to his office’s famous 1964 report on the perils of smoking, Dr. Koop announced that the American diet was a problem of “comparable” magnitude, chiefly because of the high-fat foods that were causing coronary heart disease and other deadly ailments.

That was a ludicrous statement, as Gary Taubes demonstrates in his new book meticulously debunking diet myths, “Good Calories, Bad Calories” (Knopf, 2007). The notion that fatty foods shorten your life began as a hypothesis based on dubious assumptions and data; when scientists tried to confirm it they failed repeatedly. The evidence against Häagen-Dazs was nothing like the evidence against Marlboros.

It may seem bizarre that a surgeon general could go so wrong. After all, wasn’t it his job to express the scientific consensus? But that was the problem. Dr. Koop was expressing the consensus. He, like the architects of the federal “food pyramid” telling Americans what to eat, went wrong by listening to everyone else. He was caught in what social scientists call a cascade.

We like to think that people improve their judgment by putting their minds together, and sometimes they do. The studio audience at “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” usually votes for the right answer. But suppose, instead of the audience members voting silently in unison, they voted out loud one after another. And suppose the first person gets it wrong.

If the second person isn’t sure of the answer, he’s liable to go along with the first person’s guess. By then, even if the third person suspects another answer is right, she’s more liable to go along just because she assumes the first two together know more than she does. Thus begins an “informational cascade” as one person after another assumes that the rest can’t all be wrong.

Because of this effect, groups are surprisingly prone to reach mistaken conclusions even when most of the people started out knowing better, according to the economists Sushil Bikhchandani, David Hirshleifer and Ivo Welch. If, say, 60 percent of a group’s members have been given information pointing them to the right answer (while the rest have information pointing to the wrong answer), there is still about a one-in-three chance that the group will cascade to a mistaken consensus.

Cascades are especially common in medicine as doctors take their cues from others, leading them to overdiagnose some faddish ailments (called bandwagon diseases) and overprescribe certain treatments (like the tonsillectomies once popular for children). Unable to keep up with the volume of research, doctors look for guidance from an expert — or at least someone who sounds confident.

1, ahh ahh ahhh ahhh