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

sheskunk

sheskunk

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Aren't those both the same thing?
 
sheskunk

sheskunk

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
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
Click to expand...

Full ON.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
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 :lol:
Click to expand...
I'm just saying that ACC is a result of people treating the earth like property. Capitalism is not simply an economic system, it is a system that replaces ecology with economy.
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
I'm just saying that ACC is a result of people treating the earth like property. Capitalism is not simply an economic system, it is a system that replaces ecology with economy.
Click to expand...
I don't think it can be overtly stated that capitalism "replaces" ecology. It tries to quantize it using currency as a numeraire, but ecology still remains. A tree is still a tree with positive externalities (and maybe some negative ones for those who remember Reagan...the sap will choke us all !!!!**).

That leads me to think about something else; is it conceivable we don't see more vocal critique from the science communities' members due to apathy? That is, if one doesn't believe the issue is pressing, why would they investigate it when they have other interests deemed more valuable to their time? That's been my takeaway from asking scientists about the subject.

** -- Article from TIME Mar 28, 1985...Literally a freakin' paragraph :lol:
President Reagan got hoots when he once claimed that trees cause air pollution, but intrepid University of Florida researchers have now confirmed that the Gipper was onto something. A new study of terpenes, a component of the gooey resin in pine tree sap, shows that at least some trees actually do contribute to pollution by reacting with other pollutants and sunlight to produce ozone. While this is not yet cause for alarm, they add, the situation could get worse as temperatures rise because of the "greenhouse effect."
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
That leads me to think about something else; is it conceivable we don't see more vocal critique from the science communities' members due to apathy? That is, if one doesn't believe the issue is pressing, why would they investigate it when they have other interests deemed more valuable to their time? That's been my takeaway from asking scientists about the subject.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is because ACC is a theory yet to be disproved despite rigorous and tedious effort and the empirical measurements lead to the IPCC conclusion. All of the counter arguments have been shown to be flawed and or funded by the petroleum industry. If your takeaway from the scientists on the subject is anything else you're not paying attention to what the scientists say about the subject.
 
jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Actually, it is because ACC is a theory yet to be disproved despite rigorous and tedious effort and the empirical measurements lead to the IPCC conclusion. All of the counter arguments have been shown to be flawed and or funded by the petroleum industry. If your takeaway from the scientists on the subject is anything else you're not paying attention to what the scientists say about the subject.
Click to expand...
Straight BS
Show us where and who found that all the dissenting data was flawed.

Most all of the computers models were found to be flawed and countless AGW predictions fell flat on their face.
The 97% consensus was debunked and the earth has stopped warming for over 17 years.

Nice try.
 
jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
Still citing the garbage you find on Skeptical science I see.
This graph is from the guy who is not a scientist but a cartoonist and dresses up as a Nazi.

Major face palm. :lol:

The Truth about Skeptical Science


Source: Skeptical Science Forums
Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook (who apparently pretends to be a Nazi). It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored, while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site's oxymoronic name "Skeptical Science" is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions.

John Cook is now desperately trying to cover up his background that he was employed as a cartoonist for over a decade with no prior employment history in academia or climate science.

Thanks to the Wayback Machine we can reveal what his website originally said,

"I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist" - John Cook, Skeptical Science
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
jahbrudda said:
Still citing the garbage you find on Skeptical science I see.
This graph is from the guy who is not a scientist but a cartoonist and dresses up as a Nazi.

Major face palm. :lol:
Click to expand...
the graph came from james hansen of NASA.

NASA also agrees on the 97% consensus.

NASA also records temperatures which show that this decade was hotter than the last.

you;re a blithering fucktard, beenthere.

major face palm.
 
jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Actually, it is because ACC is a theory yet to be disproved despite rigorous and tedious effort and the empirical measurements lead to the IPCC conclusion. All of the counter arguments have been shown to be flawed and or funded by the petroleum industry. If your takeaway from the scientists on the subject is anything else you're not paying attention to what the scientists say about the subject.
Click to expand...
jahbrudda said:
Straight BS
Show us where and who found that all the dissenting data was flawed.
Click to expand...
Is this your proof?:clap:
abandonconflict said:
You're arguing with a sockpuppet who started a thread about the weather guy from KUSI NEWS channel 51 San Diego.
Click to expand...
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
jahbrudda said:
Is this your proof?
Click to expand...
You don't even know where you stand on the issue. That is what you have shown. You keep insisting that there is no warming but you cite papers and articles and the guy from KUSI NEWS San Diego and Milankovitch. As far as I can tell, your actual position regarding the issue is that no warming is occurring. You are aiming for basically anything that goes against ACC which is broad and vague while the IPCC position and the apparent scientific vast majority (noted that you also deny this) is a well defined position with arguments that have been deemed sound. You can't just bounce around from position to position if it suits your ideological adversaries. We're talking about science and research and looking for truth, so what is your actual position? Do you deny that warming is occurring? Do you admit it is but deny that humans are causing it? Are you just another sockpuppet and troll?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top