Canadian Climate Change Denier Gets Schooled


EagleSmack
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by LudlowView Post



No you are

Does Otto say?

LMAO


 
Ludlow
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Does Otto say?

LMAO


No Otto says Eagle crack is a dumbazz.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by LudlowView Post

No Otto says Eagle crack is a dumbazz.

It looks like LittleHo is having insecurity issues again.

Quote: Originally Posted by LudlowView Post

I was watching Frontier Alaska the other day. Otto was talking about the changes in the weather and how they would have to adjust to survive. I guess he was making it up though.

LMAO... Otto... he's referring to some guy named Otto from a Reality TV Show.
 
Cannuck
#34
Hehehehe
 
taxslave
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Science does work that way and settled just means the likelihood of a position contrary to what has been established is small because the weight of evidence greatly supports the status quo.

If the science is settled why are you still believing your cult leaders?

Quote: Originally Posted by Nick DangerView Post

Deniers are unmoved by facts. That's why they call them deniers.

The facts do not support the cultists claims.
 
Cannuck
+1
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

If the science is settled why are you still believing your cult leaders?



The facts do not support the cultists claims.

...Says the the guy who believe in naturopathy
 
mentalfloss
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

the 'quo' was created and the narrative was forced.

no 'science' there cuck.

....

Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

 
Ludlow
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

It looks like LittleHo is having insecurity issues again.



LMAO... Otto... he's referring to some guy named Otto from a Reality TV Show.

You say the same thing every time. I'll bet you're loads of fun at parties.
 
Nick Danger
+1
#39
It's all a matter of public perception, and the tide is flowing in favour of the alarmists at present. Deniers are widely seen as stuck-in-their-ways right wing retirees or shills of big oil. It doesn't really matter whose side the science is on, it matters who the majority is siding with because that's what drives the political engine, and more and more the general perception is that there is a problem. It's a PR war and the deniers are losing.
 
pgs
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by Nick DangerView Post

It's all a matter of public perception, and the tide is flowing in favour of the alarmists at present. Deniers are widely seen as stuck-in-their-ways right wing retirees or shills of big oil. It doesn't really matter whose side the science is on, it matters who the majority is siding with because that's what drives the political engine, and more and more the general perception is that there is a problem. It's a PR war and the deniers are losing.

Yet the denier Trump won the American election .
 
Nick Danger
#41
And Trudeau reigns in Canada. Who ya gonna call?
 
petros
+2
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by LudlowView Post

I was watching Frontier Alaska the other day. Otto was talking about the changes in the weather and how they would have to adjust to survive. I guess he was making it up though.

We'll that clinches it.

Good ol Otto lives 10 minutes from a city. Is 10 minutes outside of Wichita the frontier too?
 
Nick Danger
#43
Actually, the far north is an area that holds some of the most damning evidence in support of the warming trend. Changes in ice pack behavior are being observed within a single generation. These people are reading science books, they're watching what is happening in front of them and drawing conclusions from that.
 
petros
+1
#44
Yup it's warming....back to average.

160 years ago was the coldest "on record".
 
EagleSmack
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by LudlowView Post

You say the same thing every time. I'll bet you're loads of fun at parties.

Go OTTO!

What a depressed clown you are.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

We'll that clinches it.

Good ol Otto lives 10 minutes from a city. Is 10 minutes outside of Wichita the frontier too?

He went to the mat with that one.
 
petros
+1
#46
You can see a high end Anchorage neighbourhood across the inlet from Otto's. Frontier!!!
 
Durry
#47
As I have stated a few times on here before;

We are currently in an inter-glacial phase of an ice age that began about 37 million years ago. For most of the earth's history, it has been warmer and wetter than it is now. The principal engine affecting climate is the sun, not carbon dioxide. Other geological forces (rarely included in the computer models that catastrophists are so fond of quoting) include the changing shape of continents and of the sea floor, tectonic plate movement, the opening and closing of sea ways, changes in the Earth’s orbit, supernova eruptions, comet dust, impacts by comets and asteroids, volcanic activity, bacteria, soil formation, sedimentation, ocean currents and the chemistry of air, just to name a few. You could add in the immense, but unquantified, role of methane-producing insects like termites. Attributing climate change to carbon dioxide alone ignores all these planetary influences.«

.
youtu.be/BC1l4geSTP8 (external - login to view)
 
petros
#48
All long term. In the short term we are almost at average for the history of civilized man after climbing out of the coldest point on civilized man's history.

When they say "on record" It's subterfuge. The "record" goes back to only 120 years ago.
 
Decapoda
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post

Anytime anyone says; "the science is settled" you know the argument is lost, by them. Science doesn't work that way, very little science is "settled".

Correct. One of the most disturbing aspects of the Global warming/climate change mantra is that there are "scientists" out there that are making this claim that the debate is over, its all settled and everyone should just accept it. This is not science, it only serves to shut down opposing concepts to favour one's own preferred view. Scientific concepts should not be biased, and should in fact demand that opposing concepts be brought forward to challenge and improve it.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Science does work that way and settled just means the likelihood of a position contrary to what has been established is small because the weight of evidence greatly supports the status quo.

Gallileo was tried, convicted and jailed for heresy for putting forward the concept that the earth was not the center of the universe, that it actually orbited the sun with the other planets. Another powerful scientific research tool is the concept of learning from our past mistakes. You obviously don't subscribe to this concept.
 
Nick Danger
#50
Isn't it a concern though, that opposition to the thought that we are altering the state of our planet for the worse is delaying what might just prove to be essential action?
 
Jinentonix
+3
#51  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post




Yes, because scientists who do studies that have nothing to do with climate change should be included as well.

97% of 33% is 32. A whopping grand total of 33% of ALL scientists whose studies involve the climate in one or another capacity responded. Doing the math, something I know you have particular problems with, it works out to 32% of scientists involved in climate studies agree that humans are the primary driver of climate change.
The math is undeniable. No matter how many times you do the calculation, the answer will always be the same. However, to make the claim "the science is settled" when it comes to AGW is a dangerous claim indeed. Science is rarely settled. We are always learning new things that challenge what we thought we knew. Recent experiments (that have been repeated) at the Hadron supercollider are demonstrating that our understanding of physics and the models we use might very well be wrong. Which means everything we think we know about physics may need to be rethought. That would also include every single global warming model.
 
petros
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by Nick DangerView Post

Isn't it a concern though, that opposition to the thought that we are altering the state of our planet for the worse is delaying what might just prove to be essential action?

For 3 Billion a year we can set the temperature lower anything we choose. High altitude dispersement of SO2 from commercial airlines is enough to do the trick IF CO2 were an issue.

The reality is our atmosphere is at the mercy of the magnetosphere.

No magnetosphere means no atmosphere.

With the magnetosphere changing (diminishing, holes and moving) at a mind blowing pace it's no wonder there has been climate change.

It's Grade 6 Science.

Quote: Originally Posted by JinentonixView Post

97% of 33% is 32. A whopping grand total of 33% of ALL scientists whose studies involve the climate in one or another capacity responded. Doing the math, something I know you have particular problems with, it works out to 32% of scientists involved in climate studies agree that humans are the primary driver of climate change.
The math is undeniable. No matter how many times you do the calculation, the answer will always be the same. However, to make the claim "the science is settled" when it comes to AGW is a dangerous claim indeed. Science is rarely settled. We are always learning new things that challenge what we thought we knew. Recent experiments (that have been repeated) at the Hadron supercollider are demonstrating that our understanding of physics and the models we use might very well be wrong. Which means everything we think we know about physics may need to be rethought. That would also include every single global warming model.

How did they manage to lose 3%?

The earth's magnetic field impacts climate//Viewzone (external - login to view)

Forget global warming, worry about the Earth's MAGNETOSPHERE | Daily Mail Online
 
Decapoda
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by Nick DangerView Post

Isn't it a concern though, that opposition to the thought that we are altering the state of our planet for the worse is delaying what might just prove to be essential action?

It is concerning...if you buy into the hysteria. Misguided urgency is often the enemy of progress.
 
EagleSmack
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by JinentonixView Post

97% of 33% is 32. A whopping grand total of 33% of ALL scientists whose studies involve the climate in one or another capacity responded. Doing the math, something I know you have particular problems with, it works out to 32% of scientists involved in climate studies agree that humans are the primary driver of climate change.
The math is undeniable. No matter how many times you do the calculation, the answer will always be the same. However, to make the claim "the science is settled" when it comes to AGW is a dangerous claim indeed. Science is rarely settled. We are always learning new things that challenge what we thought we knew. Recent experiments (that have been repeated) at the Hadron supercollider are demonstrating that our understanding of physics and the models we use might very well be wrong. Which means everything we think we know about physics may need to be rethought. That would also include every single global warming model.

Yes... but this is Climate Change... it is more ideology now than science.
 
petros
#55
It's all a scam to get us to pay for Evil Corps O&G division selling cheap and super abundant NG globally.
 
bobnoorduyn
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by DecapodaView Post

It is concerning...if you buy into the hysteria. Misguided urgency is often the enemy of progress.



But often the ally, or even the love child of progressives.
 
no new posts