MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Question has been asked and concisely answered multiple times. LOL @ "learned folk"
US college professor demands imprisonment for climate-change deniers
- Thread starter squarepush3r
- Start date
- Status
Wavels
Well-Known Member
These guys are simply amazing!
Doer
Well-Known Member
Answer the main question you just passed by, like science is just leap frog games..
SHOW ANY WARMING AT ALL that raises (pun) from the background of NORMAL.
You got shot down with that one, IPCC is failing you. Now you want to leapfrog with the word games.
First is was warming then, just change, First is was prove warming, Now, since there is no evidence at all, you gloss past that and pretend that step is done. No way is that proved
. Now you want to say, any change you prove is proof of man made.
So, the challenge to us, seems simple minded. You want us to give you ideas on how to prove man made climate change. HA Haaaa.
We say, if we see any change at all, it is normal climate cycles.
So, the question is base Sophistry, Mr Canndo.
No leapfrogs in Science. You don't have a foundation to use our ideas to help you goof about AGW.
You got no GW.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Yet again, no evidence is acceptable. If it is half a degree, it must be background noise. If it is two degrees it must be an anomaly, if it is two and a half, it must be natural cycles. You seem to have proven my point. Nothing at all simple minded about asking you what it would take to convince you.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you have a long and storied history of examining the raw data, studying the methodology of the folks interpreting it, and coming to the best possible conclusion.
after all, didn't romney win by like 14 or 18 points or something, just as you said?
Doer
Well-Known Member
Oh, no. I listed 5 things, I think. And none of it is simple minded. Even a few of them would convince me.
You have exactly nothing. You are squinting at the noise and seeing patterns. But, with agreeable models, and the few other things I listed, you would have an actual scientific consensus, not a political debate.
- sea rise?
- declining sea ice coverage?
- sub surface ocean warming?
....you don't have it.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
but the sea is rising, the sea ice is thinning, and the ocean is warming. all incontrovertible facts.
Wavels
Well-Known Member
Good luck clinging to your unswerving faith in junk science wrought for a political cause.
You have been previously warned that your make believe world is about to be shattered to smithereens by the encroachment of the most unfortunate true nature of reality.
I am trying to help you to protect yourself from the inevitable severe traumatic dislocation you will soon endure.
IPCC Scientists Knew Data and Science Inadequacies Contradicted Certainties Presented to Media, Public and Politicians, But Remained Silent
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/21/ipcc-scientists-knew-data-and-science-inadequacies-contradicted-certainties-presented-to-media-public-and-politicians-but-remained-silent/#more-105765
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
complains about junk science, cites wattsupwiththat.
the oceans are rising, the sea ice is thinning, and the ocean is warming. this is incontrovertible fact that your partisan and political blog can not hange.
you have been duped. human activities are indeed contributing to the rise in global temps, even skeptics and oil companies can't deny it.
only deluded partisan fuckwits like you even try.
the oceans are rising, the sea ice is thinning, and the ocean is warming. this is incontrovertible fact that your partisan and political blog can not hange.
you have been duped. human activities are indeed contributing to the rise in global temps, even skeptics and oil companies can't deny it.
only deluded partisan fuckwits like you even try.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
by the way, you article was written by timothy ball.
who is timothy ball?
Ball has worked with Friends of Science and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, organizations funded by the fossil-fuel industry which advocate against taking action to combat climate change.[SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP]
he is also a speaaker for the hearltand institute. you know, the same institute that used to say that smoking wasn't harmful because tobacco companies paid them to say so. now they say AGW is fake because oil companies pay them to say so.
you have been duped.
you are a stupid, stupid person with a thesaurus.
you cite junk science, you deny facts, you parrot creationist roy spencer and call me a NAZI for stating the incontrovertible fact that human activities contribute to the rise in global temps.
not only are you very stupid, but the whole parroting roy spencer thing makes you very, very unoriginal.
you are a sheep.
who is timothy ball?
Ball has worked with Friends of Science and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, organizations funded by the fossil-fuel industry which advocate against taking action to combat climate change.[SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP]
he is also a speaaker for the hearltand institute. you know, the same institute that used to say that smoking wasn't harmful because tobacco companies paid them to say so. now they say AGW is fake because oil companies pay them to say so.
you have been duped.
you are a stupid, stupid person with a thesaurus.
you cite junk science, you deny facts, you parrot creationist roy spencer and call me a NAZI for stating the incontrovertible fact that human activities contribute to the rise in global temps.
not only are you very stupid, but the whole parroting roy spencer thing makes you very, very unoriginal.
you are a sheep.
Wavels
Well-Known Member
Wow, you must be some kind of super duper speed reader. A veritable genius!!!!!!!!!!!!!complains about junk science, cites wattsupwiththat.
the oceans are rising, the sea ice is thinning, and the ocean is warming. this is incontrovertible fact that your partisan and political blog can not hange.
you have been duped. human activities are indeed contributing to the rise in global temps, even skeptics and oil companies can't deny it.
only deluded partisan fuckwits like you even try.
See, Ladies and Gentlemen how Uncle Buck does not even bother to read ONE word of link...he looks at source...presto magic, it no longer exists...he wins.
Simply a breathtaking and astonishing display of pure ignorance.
Dazzling brilliance!
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
why would i read one word from toimothy ball?
he is quite literally a paid schill for the oil companies and the heartland institute.
you still believe smoking isn't harmful?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
timothy ball, paid oil company schill.
come back when you have something besides JUNK SCIENCE, hitler.
i agree..the article is about computer climate models..not about status of sea, polar ice or ocean temperature.complains about junk science, cites wattsupwiththat.
the oceans are rising, the sea ice is thinning, and the ocean is warming. this is incontrovertible fact that your partisan and political blog can not hange.
you have been duped. human activities are indeed contributing to the rise in global temps, even skeptics and oil companies can't deny it.
only deluded partisan fuckwits like you even try.
bucky, why does the mean waffle man not even read his own citation?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
- “The public health community’s campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science.” — Joseph Bast, April 20, 2007
- “Anti-smoking groups with a collectivist political agenda, allied with ‘cancer industry’ organizations that rely on fear to enhance their considerable cash flow, have filled the media with claims about secondhand tobacco smoke that are questionable at best, and fraudulent at worst.” — Dennis Constant, October 22, 2005
- “So it's time to talk turkey about this secondhand smoke craze to my once-upon-a-time second city, and let you know just how bonkers you are and just how you began the greatest brainwashing of the 20th century.” Sidney Zion, November 29, 2002
- “People being paid to demonize tobacco products and their users may not be the best judges of whether the scientific debate is settled. Forgive me for believing that what General Carmona says is an accurate expression of the politics and passions of the moment, but not necessarily of the real science of the health effects of secondhand smoke.” Joseph Bast, July 6, 2006
- “No matter what the environmental issue—ozone depletion, acid rain, pesticides, etc.—any and all scientific opposition based on objective facts is blamed on an imagined involvement with tobacco companies. None of this is true, of course. Oreskes and Conway claim to be academic historians, yet they have consistently ignored factual information, have not bothered to consult primary sources, have never interviewed any of the scientists they try to smear, and generally have operated in a completely unprofessional way. The ultimate aim of these attacks has been to discredit skeptics of similarly unsupported global warming fears.” — S. Fred Singer, January 3, 2011
ladies and gentlemen, THIS^^^ is the hearltand institute.
junk science from paid schills.
timothy ball speaks for them.
smart people automatically disregard their junk science for what it is: JUNK.
but not waffles. he's way too smart (read: easily duped partisan idiot) for that.
Wavels
Well-Known Member
I read the entire piece and if you did the same you would conclude that these models are bogus at best!
ETA; if you read my posts in this thread, you will see that my primary objection to ACC is the abusive and fallacious nature and origin of the much relied upon models.
See easy!
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
do you want me to post the models again? because i can.
by the way, your blogger buddy anthony watts is funded by the heartland institute, i just found out. $90,000 in 2012 alone.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute#Leaked_documents
ah, what the heck. let's see some models.
- Status