Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Quote:I see you are being an expert again! Down with scientists! All we need is politicians and conspiracy theorists.Fed by big energy of course.
I don't get why you are so fanatical about it, it's like a religion. Id happily change my mind tomorrow if the scientists get further facts and decide something else is causing the changes rather than man made.
But who will change your mind? Scientists? No. Maybe Trump, he's rich and therefore an expert in everything.
How can you be arrogant about your blind ignorance?
Quote:How can you be arrogant about your blind ignorance?
We can't be experts in everything. Although we are on the internet...
I'm an expert in human nature therefore I'm both a skeptic and a cynic.
Quote:Now who's projecting? Just because the study found a subset of bozos who responded that way does not mean that everyone responds that way.
I posted that "propaganda diatribe" as you call it because it covers the similarities between climate science and religion better than I could, and there are a lot of them. The one it didn't mention that I observe is that science looks for evidence that a theory is wrong, religion looks for evidence that their dogma is right. If you look at the body of work of climate science, you'll see a lot of the latter and very little of the former.
I can draw my own conclusions. The data is out there, and the subject of climate is not that difficult. Don't take my word for it, but don't take the word of someone living off of taxpayer dollars which would go away if there were no implied problem either. Go look at the data.
We're talking about a one degree difference. That's typical of walking from one room in a house to another with a door in between. Severe weather is down, the science agrees with this. The rate of sea level rise has been constant for as long as there have been measurements, well over a hundred years. That is evident in the tide gauge data on NOAA.gov. It doesn't take a PhD in science to look at the data, so go look. Then be skeptical when the tax dollar leeches claim otherwise.
Warming at the current rate is not a disaster. Warmer is better. A lot more people retire to Florida than to North Dakota. Meanwhile, the CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere has increased the land area covered by vegetation (i.e. less desert), and that's a good thing in my book.
You posted propaganda and nothing more. It satisfies a bias you have and makes you feel better about yourself. It's as simple as that.
Yes, I am projecting the idea that deferring to experts on a subject is a prudent course of action. By all means draw your own conclusions be hunting out drivel written by people that live off fossil fuel money and shockingly agree with what you already want to be true based on what your political leanings dictate you must. Thinking you understand more than experts in a field because you think it's "not that difficult" is the height of arrogance and foolishness.
If an issue isn't getting the attention you think it needs, then lie/exaggerate until it does.
It's the weapon of the left.
BLM ("hands up don't shoot" lie), etc, etc...
Lie, lie, lie... scare people into compliance. People will die, elderly will starve on dog food...
Never ending lies to force compliance into the cult of leftthink.
Quote:If an issue isn't getting the attention you think it needs, then lie/exaggerate until it does.
It's the weapon of the left.
BLM ("hands up don't shoot" lie), etc, etc...
Lie, lie, lie... scare people into compliance. People will die, elderly will starve on dog food...
Never ending lies to force compliance into the cult of leftthink.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
We just elected one of the most blatant liars ever in politics. Better hurry up and call the other people liars. Teehee. We so clever.
This folks is what projection looks like.
Quote:Hows the climate in Imaginationland? Send us a post card.
Bull [BLEEP] levels are rising.
Quote:Bull [BAD WORD REMOVED] levels are rising.
"You're gonna need a bigger boat..."
Quote:You posted propaganda and nothing more. It satisfies a bias you have and makes you feel better about yourself. It's as simple as that.
Yes, I am projecting the idea that deferring to experts on a subject is a prudent course of action. By all means draw your own conclusions be hunting out drivel written by people that live off fossil fuel money and shockingly agree with what you already want to be true based on what your political leanings dictate you must. Thinking you understand more than experts in a field because you think it's "not that difficult" is the height of arrogance and foolishness.
Your so-called "propaganda" was an opinion piece from a retired engineering professor, who specialized in measurements and statistics.
His reason for opining on this subject was because he saw a misuse of science in the climate science field. His main thrust has been pointing out statistical abuse in epidemiology. He has not received a red cent of "fossil fuel money," nor have most of the skeptics. "Fossil fuel money" is a lie propagated by your far-left sources.
I base my opinion on science, and science alone. Any alignment with my political beliefs is coincidental. For example, I don't buy Intelligent Design as a viable hypothesis.
I do not claim to understand more than the experts, but I can look at the actual data and draw a conclusion that is not steeped in self-interest. The experts are living their lives off of tax money. Without it, most would be bagging groceries in Publix. They have to include the very unlikely (if not impossible) scary scenarios to keep the funds flowing. Kids need braces, mortgages have to be paid.
The 97% questions did not ask about future disaster (and considering the mild generality of the questions, I would be among the 97%), but the leftist politicians and their media are very willing to push the implication that 97% believe in catastrophic warming. Most scientists are not in the "catastrophic" camp, but are not willing to risk their careers to voice disagreement with the few who push that narrative.
If you only accept the statement of an expert in the field (whatever that means, and you don't know for sure that I'm not one, do you?) check out the "Professor and former Chair of the
School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
at the
Georgia Institute of Technology
and President (co-owner) of
Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN)
."
https://judithcurry.com/
Was a climate change sceptic politician trying to argue it was all nonsense against a British scientist on TV here. Was pretty embarassing to watch. Shame you don't hear from scientists more instead of idiot politicians.
Quote:Was a climate change sceptic politician trying to argue it was all nonsense against a British scientist on TV here. Was pretty embarassing to watch. Shame you don't hear from scientists more instead of idiot politicians.
Do you have a link to the video?
So you can debunk what an expert is saying?I don't want to feed you fanatics.
He made an interesting point about how an uninhabitable Middle East would lead to more migration too. Hadn't thought of that side, Im sure I can guess your views on taking more migrants though...
Quote:Your so-called "propaganda" was an opinion piece from a retired engineering professor, who specialized in measurements and statistics.
His reason for opining on this subject was because he saw a misuse of science in the climate science field. His main thrust has been pointing out statistical abuse in epidemiology. He has not received a red cent of "fossil fuel money," nor have most of the skeptics. "Fossil fuel money" is a lie propagated by your far-left sources.
I base my opinion on science, and science alone. Any alignment with my political beliefs is coincidental. For example, I don't buy Intelligent Design as a viable hypothesis.
I do not claim to understand more than the experts, but I can look at the actual data and draw a conclusion that is not steeped in self-interest. The experts are living their lives off of tax money. Without it, most would be bagging groceries in Publix. They have to include the very unlikely (if not impossible) scary scenarios to keep the funds flowing. Kids need braces, mortgages have to be paid.
The 97% questions did not ask about future disaster (and considering the mild generality of the questions, I would be among the 97%), but the leftist politicians and their media are very willing to push the implication that 97% believe in catastrophic warming. Most scientists are not in the "catastrophic" camp, but are not willing to risk their careers to voice disagreement with the few who push that narrative.
If you only accept the statement of an expert in the field (whatever that means, and you don't know for sure that I'm not one, do you?) check out the "Professor and former Chair of the
School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
at the
Georgia Institute of Technology
and President (co-owner) of
Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN)
."
https://judithcurry.com/
Oh good you found "one of the good ones". Let me know when the rest of the scientific community gets on board. Continue to interpret things all you want. That's the best part about science. Science doesn't care what you think.
Oil money is a lie created by the left?
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=oil+money+in+climate+denial
We get it. Everything you disagree with is fake and a lie. It's probably why the majority of the planet laughs at you but keep on fighting that fight.
Quote:Oh good you found "one of the good ones". Let me know when the rest of the scientific community gets on board. Continue to interpret things all you want. That's the best part about science. Science doesn't care what you think.
Oil money is a lie created by the left?
<a class="bbc_url" href='https://lmgtfy.com/?q=oil+money+in+climate+denial'>https://lmgtfy.com/?q=oil+money+in+climate+denial</a>
We get it. Everything you disagree with is fake and a lie. It's probably why the majority of the planet laughs at you but keep on fighting that fight.
Majority of the planet? Hyperbole much?
Quote:Oh good you found "one of the good ones". Let me know when the rest of the scientific community gets on board. Continue to interpret things all you want. That's the best part about science. Science doesn't care what you think.
Oil money is a lie created by the left?
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=oil+money+in+climate+denial
We get it. Everything you disagree with is fake and a lie. It's probably why the majority of the planet laughs at you but keep on fighting that fight.
You have just found a pile of conspiracy theories by using Google? Exxon contributes to politicians? Shocking!
I have a scientific basis for my viewpoint. You just keep claiming I'm wrong, when you don't even know my entire viewpoint and can't address a single statement I have made here. So who is it that refuses to consider the science? Here's a hint, it's not me.
Here's an interesting article by Scott (Dilbert) Adams. The comments section has discussions from both sides of the argument, so you can read through them and see whose logic makes more sense.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/15408241605...ge-science
Quote:You have just found a pile of conspiracy theories by using Google? Exxon contributes to politicians? Shocking!
I have a scientific basis for my viewpoint. You just keep claiming I'm wrong, when you don't even know my entire viewpoint and can't address a single statement I have made here. So who is it that refuses to consider the science? Here's a hint, it's not me.
Here's an interesting article by Scott (Dilbert) Adams. The comments section has discussions from both sides of the argument, so you can read through them and see whose logic makes more sense.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/15408241605...ge-science
I appreciate you proving my point that everything you disagree with is lies and/or fake. It's all a conspiracy even though it's not but it is to you because it has to be.
I know your entire viewpoint. This isn't the first thread you have laid it out in. Even if you hadn't I would know what it is because I follow right wing politics and you fall in line with it. The right wing has denied climate change in various (and ever evolving) ways for a long time and has spent time and money to try and prove they are right. If they had done so in a sufficient manner the majority of professionals and practitioners of the field or tertiary fields would concur or be more open to it. Since they don't, one can only assume that they are not on the correct path.
There is no point in debating with someone on this when neither of us really understand. You think you do which is fine however foolhardy it is to assume you know more than experts in a field. I, on the other hand can admit I do not fully understand it as it's not my area of expertise and defer to those experts. Should their opinion or results change on the matter so will mine.
I say experts have more weight in the so called debate and you think you know more and I find that laughable.
Quote:I appreciate you proving my point that everything you disagree with is lies and/or fake. It's all a conspiracy even though it's not but it is to you because it has to be.
I know your entire viewpoint. This isn't the first thread you have laid it out in. Even if you hadn't I would know what it is because I follow right wing politics and you fall in line with it. The right wing has denied climate change in various (and ever evolving) ways for a long time and has spent time and money to try and prove they are right. If they had done so in a sufficient manner the majority of professionals and practitioners of the field or tertiary fields would concur or be more open to it. Since they don't, one can only assume that they are not on the correct path.
There is no point in debating with someone on this when neither of us really understand. You think you do which is fine however foolhardy it is to assume you know more than experts in a field. I, on the other hand can admit I do not fully understand it as it's not my area of expertise and defer to those experts. Should their opinion or results change on the matter so will mine.
I say experts have more weight in the so called debate and you think you know more and I find that laughable.
As far as your Google search, my point was that one can find plenty of links from Google on just about anything. You could, for example, Google "9/11 was an inside job" or "aliens have landed" and come up with over a million results. The fact is that Big Oil has not and does not contribute directly to researchers or skeptic blogs. They do contribute to politicians (of both parties) and think tanks, some of which occasionally support a skeptic climate researcher, although the main thrust of conservative think tanks lately has been in health care. If you actually read any of those links rather than just post a Google search, you'd know that. Big Oil also contributes to warmist organizations in far bigger amounts. You really need to educate yourself on the claims you make here, rather than just parroting the lies that Daily Kos prints.
https://gcep.stanford.edu/about/exxonmobil.html
Once again, I never claimed to "know more," so that's a strawman.
OK, you are willing to defer to those you believe to be the experts. You have still not stated one scientific point where you think I disagree with the experts. You clearly have no clue as to what the experts believe. You are arguing a position without knowing what that position is.
95% of the greenhouse effect is water vapor. Of the remaining 5% we are only responsible for about a quartee, that's 1.25%. Only half is based on our technology, the other half is what we exhale. That brings us to .625% of the greenhouse effect.
That's catastrophic? Lol.
And even if the left got their 20% global reduction that would only eliminate .0125% of the greenhouse effect...
Lol.
Quote:95% of the greenhouse effect is water vapor. Of the remaining 5% we are only responsible for about a quartee, that's 1.25%. Only half is based on our technology, the other half is what we exhale. That brings us to .625% of the greenhouse effect.
That's catastrophic? Lol.
And even if the left got their 20% global reduction that would only eliminate .0125% of the greenhouse effect...
Lol.
Oh wow thanks. This is such good news.
<a class="bbc_url" href='https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming'>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming</a>
Please update the link with your findings. Be sure to document your sources. Thanks again
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10