Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science, claims leading meteorologist.

[UncleBuck]

Not really. I have a real life I tend to. This is purely "For Entertainment Purposes Only". Instead of watching the Kardashians I come here to fuck with you. You are my TV.

Go smoke another cigarette, loser.

in your head. all day long.

have a fucking meltdown about it.

 

[abandonconflict]

AC is just pissed that somebody clearly state their position without weasel words, and then defends it, w2hile he keeps his actual position carefully concealed behind a fog of Nebulism and Chompskyisms and distracts, retreats and repeats his slogans when challenged, or even asked for clarification.

it makes him look like he is hiding something

Pssst... he is hiding his Zapatismo which is a senseless mashup of stalinist authoritarianism, trotskyite perpetual revolution populism and maoist agrarian vangardism, and those 3 things are incompatible, hence zapatismo's popularity only among the stupidest of marxists.

Oh look, kkkynes had another meltdown.

 

[sheskunk]

in your head. all day long.

have a fucking meltdown about it.

Smoke another cigarette. As you come on here simply to address my posts. Pretty obvious you want meow.

 

[Steele_GreenMan]

The largest glacial calve (break off) ever caught on film just occurred recently.

A chunk the size of Rhode Island, broke off and disappeared into the sea.


The planet IS warming, and we're only accelerating it at a speed never seen before in earth's history.

Fast enough that animals don't have time to adapt in the polar regions, and will most likly cause extinction.

 

[Steele_GreenMan]

Open your eyes, it's not just the animals that willl suffer, we will too.

It's not about saving animals or ecosystems, it's about saving ourselves as an entire species, so our children have a future worth living in

 

[sheskunk]

Praise Jesus!!

 

[sheskunk]

Prepare Now! NASA 2015 Predictions Will Drop Your Jaw to the Floor When You Find Out What They Predicted and How It Could Bring Hundreds of Thousands of Deaths…

"Could another mini Ice Age be in our near future? NASA climatologist John L. Casey seems to think so despite Al Gore’s long held belief that the world is warming. It seems our brilliant scientists can’t seem make up their minds whether our earth is cooling or warming. Could it be that all of this nonsense is just a ploy in the great lie of the now dubbed “Climate Change?” I believe so."

http://beforeitsnews.com/weather/2014/11/prepare-now-nasa-2015-predictions-will-drop-your-jaw-to-the-floor-mini-ice-age-numerous-deaths-earthquakes-riots-what-so-much-for-global-warming-now-were-back-to-global-cooling-oh-excuse-2443922.html?utm_term=http://b4in.info/hhlo&utm_content=awesm-publisher&utm_medium=facebook-share&utm_campaign=&utm_source=http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fb4in.info%2Fhhlo&h=XAQGu_WPH&enc=AZNawhdYcjsmISU_7ayYAjd9LstvviP1zA5DwII0ZzHVExvDQcAYLCGSKt2IG4FUely41ldoIHZO938W7oDDnjho-5rCI_Q_ZLi1qmxhn7dD-dyB613QvKenOpSwWcFKbbJQIJqnsdsGO2XjQzSZ7Ui1nNcg5cTxT0cnRrPTfIxDDg&s=1

 

[heckler73]

Open your eyes, it's not just the animals that willl suffer, we will too.

It's not about saving animals or ecosystems, it's about saving ourselves as an entire species, so our children have a future worth living in

If that were true, then the issue of money should not be so involved.
And yet, that is the main driver of any policy being suggested. The bogeyman called climate change is akin to terrorism; it is an amorphous "enemy" which is used as an excuse for moving resources to places which would otherwise be deemed too inefficient for practical energy** budgets. And the masses--for the most part--are a sounding board for the purposes of propagating the message at such an amplitude as to drown out intelligent critique.

For example, when was the last time you tried to falsify a hypothesis? What sort of questions did you ask which led you to a contrary result, and what was the feedback from your "intelligent" peers/colleagues? Did you receive thoughtful questions meant to advance your work on a path to more robust error analysis, or was the bleating of "SCIENCE!!!11@!1" the best response offered? If one answers in the affirmative for the latter, I'd question the ulterior motives and rational depth of said colleagues. Emotional arguments in Science lead to bias, just like Politics, just like Religion.
I will concede it is admittedly difficult to always be rationally cold, but it is necessary if truth is the goal.

** - Energy in this instance means the economic (as opposed to strict accounting) costs associated with traditional capital, finance, and information

 

[Padawanbater2]

If that were true, then the issue of money should not be so involved.
And yet, that is the main driver of any policy being suggested. The bogeyman called climate change is akin to terrorism; it is an amorphous "enemy" which is used as an excuse for moving resources to places which would otherwise be deemed too inefficient for practical energy** budgets. And the masses--for the most part--are a sounding board for the purposes of propagating the message at such an amplitude as to drown out intelligent critique.

For example, when was the last time you tried to falsify a hypothesis? What sort of questions did you ask which led you to a contrary result, and what was the feedback from your "intelligent" peers/colleagues? Did you receive thoughtful questions meant to advance your work on a path to more robust error analysis, or was the bleating of "SCIENCE!!!11@!1" the best response offered? If one answers in the affirmative for the latter, I'd question the ulterior motives and rational depth of said colleagues. Emotional arguments in Science lead to bias, just like Politics, just like Religion.

I will concede it is admittedly difficult to always be rationally cold, but it is necessary if truth is the goal.

There is no "intelligent critique" to ACC. If there was, smarter people than you and me would have investigated it. The real problem is you don't believe or trust the scientists performing the experiments that conclude that it's real. That is an emotionally based argument with no evidence to back it up.

 

[abandonconflict]

If that were true, then the issue of money should not be so involved.
And yet, that is the main driver of any policy being suggested. The bogeyman called climate change is akin to terrorism; it is an amorphous "enemy" which is used as an excuse for moving resources to places which would otherwise be deemed too inefficient for practical energy** budgets. And the masses--for the most part--are a sounding board for the purposes of propagating the message at such an amplitude as to drown out intelligent critique.

For example, when was the last time you tried to falsify a hypothesis? What sort of questions did you ask which led you to a contrary result, and what was the feedback from your "intelligent" peers/colleagues? Did you receive thoughtful questions meant to advance your work on a path to more robust error analysis, or was the bleating of "SCIENCE!!!11@!1" the best response offered? If one answers in the affirmative for the latter, I'd question the ulterior motives and rational depth of said colleagues. Emotional arguments in Science lead to bias, just like Politics, just like Religion.
I will concede it is admittedly difficult to always be rationally cold, but it is necessary if truth is the goal.

** - Energy in this instance means the economic (as opposed to strict accounting) costs associated with traditional capital, finance, and information

So ACC is the symptom of fever for a lethal disease called capitalism.

 

[heckler73]

So ACC is the symptom of fever for a lethal disease called capitalism.

That's one angle, yes. It is not an exclusive disease, though. There are other reasons for believing such things; however, they may very well have some foundation in capitalism itself. I can say that my ultimate purpose is to figure out how I can use the knowledge of climate science for capitalist reasons. Whether it be through making or (mostly) saving money.

My political environment is (still) imbued with fiscal climate policy. Enviro fees, carbon taxes, fuel surcharges (for what? clawing back the subsidies granted to the resource sectors in the first place?), Air-quality taxes, recycling fees, etc. That's just a sample of the direct taxation applied to End of Line consumers, how many indirect taxes linger in the background of the production chain? You may not feel these kinds of pecuniary adjustments in your part of the world, but they are what result from taking this shit seriously. And that's precluding issues surrounding public services (like waste incinerators).

That is what the economist in me thinks about. The physicist in me looks at the question of prognostication in dynamic modelling, and the mechanisms of action, with a dubious eye. There are unanswered problems in both which need addressing if the debate on the subject is to be settled definitively. I may just not have found the particular answers I need to settle it with myself, but in my broader, personal inquiry with academia I have yet to meet anyone who could satisfy my queries which tells me the science is not comprehensively sound. To reiterate, I am not saying the answer (mostly to the CO2 vs Temp question) isn't out there, but I have failed in finding it or having it presented to me in such a way I can repeat the result, either by experiment or by scribbling 2-3 pages of tiny font equations. And when I labour down the path of finding that answer myself, I quickly come to significant theoretical roadblocks in the way of the "consensus".
And that leads me back to the question of motives...

...and Tesla valves

 

[heckler73]

There is no "intelligent critique" to ACC. If there was, smarter people than you and me would have investigated it. The real problem is you don't believe or trust the scientists performing the experiments that conclude that it's real. That is an emotionally based argument with no evidence to back it up.

By what rationale do you base that perception on? Who is doing the investigation in this assumption of yours? What does believing a scientist have to do with critiquing the science?
You should take your own advice more often, Jedi. Find a copy of a book on transcendental calculus (like Stewart's), and get started.

 

[Padawanbater2]

By what rationale do you base that perception on? Who is doing the investigation in this assumption of yours? What does believing a scientist have to do with critiquing the science?
You should take your own advice more often, Jedi. Find a copy of a book on transcendental calculus (like Stewart's), and get started.

You hold a belief that doesn't correspond to science, so no matter what scientific evidence is presented, you will dismiss it

 

[jahbrudda]

You hold a belief that doesn't correspond to science, so no matter what scientific evidence is presented, you will dismiss it

It's actually the other way around Paddy, your belief is with your eyes shut.
If science wasn't critiqued, it wouldn't be science.

 

[UncleBuck]

It's actually the other way around Paddy, your belief is with your eyes shut.

aren't you the guy who calls NASA a george soros funded liberal conspiracy while simultaneously citing holocaust deniers?

 

[Padawanbater2]

It's actually the other way around Paddy, your belief is with your eyes shut.
If science wasn't critiqued, it wouldn't be science.

You're an IDIOT. I agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus, just like every other rational human being. YOU believe in political bullshit republicans tell you so they can keep deep pockets with the fossil fuel industry.

 

[jahbrudda]

You're an IDIOT. I agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus, just like every other rational human being. YOU believe in political bullshit republicans tell you so they can keep deep pockets with the fossil fuel industry.

Wow, you resort to name calling, now your'e really driving your point home, good work Paddyt.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Wow, you resort to name calling, now your'e really driving your point home, good work Paddyt.

You say that like speaking to you rationally would change anything, dipshit

You're a retard when someone tries to say something without name calling, you deny deny deny, like usual, then pull the persecution card when someone calls you an idiot.

Nobody is fooled by your bullshit, beenthere

 

[UncleBuck]

Wow, you resort to name calling, now your'e really driving your point home, good work Paddyt.

calling you an idiot after you discount NASA as a "george soros funded liberal conspiracy" is not name calling, it is accurate application of the english language.

 

[jahbrudda]

You say that like speaking to you rationally would change anything, dipshit

You're a retard when someone tries to say something without name calling, you deny deny deny, like usual, then pull the persecution card when someone calls you an idiot.

Nobody is fooled by your bullshit, beenthere

So I'm a retard and an idiot because Iike millions of people, I believe the scientists that refute man is causing global warming and it's not the end of the world.

Enjoy your tantrum, I am.