Tell the folks in Moscow that the weather is getting colder. They would appreciate such a refreshing message.
AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
I see... The message is that the science is sound if, and only if, Bar Sinister bestows a blessing on it. How quaint. You've appointed yourself grand-pooba.
What is the most interesting component of your tantrum is the notion that you deem all other opinion(s), perspective, scientific angles and research as "junk"... I won't go into attempting an explanation of why your statement is baseless as it will be an utter waste of my time, but I will summarize by saying this:
The "junk science" you refer too is supported by hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of years of support through the Earth's historical record.
You, on the other hand, throw your support behind multiple frauds and pretend otherwise.
That's what you better expect when you elect to call someone a "he/she or it".
Don't want that treatment, then don't dish it out you whiner.
See comment about hundreds of thousands of years of historical record.
Posting a rational argument?... You?... That has got to be the biggest joke you've posted so far.
Fact is, you have a preconceived view and you massage reality in order to accommodate it regardless of whatever is offered up in opposition. There is nothing that anyone could propose that will ever alter you view.
That said, remove yourself off of your soap-box spare me the sermon that even hints at you being rational, you and your ilk represent the antithesis of rationalality when it comes to this issue. What's worse is the reality that every single solitary one of you are hypocrites at the highest magnitude. Your lifestyle and every component of your existence breaks the very rules that you demand be imposed.
You make a hell of a show talking the talk but don't have the balls to walk the walk so with that, spare me the rhetoric.
The onus is on you you to prove your point. From my perspective, you're asking for me to prove a negative.
Last edited:
I have noted a certain trend in your posts. You begin by attempting to prove your point using what you think are "facts." When these facts are shredded by others you then resort to name-calling, no doubt thinking that somehow it will strengthen your arguments. It doesn't, and in this thread you lost the argument several posts ago when you were unable to back up any of your assertions with a single bit of scientific evidence. You have failed to score a single point not only against me, but against any of the others who have found issue with your posts. It really is quite sad that you believe that simply asserting something over and over again is in any way evidence; and that using pretend scientists to support your arguments gives them any credibility. I suggest you confine your posts to the Spirituality and Philosophy Forum where posts based on pure faith have a proper venue.
Wow... I don't know what to say.
You have blinded yourself to anything that challenges your position on this issue. I am highly skeptical as to the existence of AGW and pointed to highly generalized, factual ideals that relate to Earth's history and questioned how it is possible that the eco crowd can positively assess causation in the face of historical fluctuations, and more importantly, how anyone can claim mastery on this issue considering no one has any depth of understanding of the systems/mechanisms that drive climate. Apparently, these fundamental positions are deemed "junk" by your definition.
In the end, what you've posted is exactly what I feel abouyt how you have approached this issue and those that maintain an opposing view from yourself.
We've already been through both of these issues a few times with you, and then your amnesia/alzheimers kicks in and you somehow forget what just happened. I'm not sure what kind of serious mental deficiency you suffer from, but if it really helps, I can continue to post this general thread summary to help you remember:
1.) We've shown that despite entirely natural fluctuations in the climate that there has been a definite increase in warming. For instance, despite the El nino/La nina cycle, the temperature has still increased during La nina periods - periods when the climate should be cooler. Also, despite solar cycles, the temperature is still increasing even when we are on the low end of the solar cycle - during periods when the climate should be cooler.
We've shown this -- with peer reviewed material no less! -- yet you fail to come up with a successful rebuttal. And then your amnesia kicks in.
2.) Tonington has mentioned many times that regardless of the abundance of evidence to show the probability of AGW, no scientist affirms that it is a 100% certainty. We've argued this based on theories which reflect a high probability - not absolute certainty - and test these models to help affirm these theories accordingly.
Again, you fail to come up with a successful rebuttal - and then your amnesia kicks in.
So, unless you would like to move the conversation forward, please don't clutter the thread with idle banter. Come up with a convincing argument first, and then we'll talk.
Last edited:
Looks like you have run out of ideas, CM; a not surprising event considering how weak your defence of your position was in the first place. Unless you have anything further to add to the thread this is my last post on the issue.
Sure Bar, I have one last thing to add before you rush away.
What is your position on the issue and what kind of underlying proof do you found your ideas on? From what I recall, your role has been to critique, but I don't recall any actual position/proof.
You still didn't answer the question I asked Captain.
What has been the trend over the last 100 years?
One of cooling or warming?
One word answer will do.
My handlers?
What does that mean?
So journalists are okay to use as critics of AGW....okay...I'll remember that.
Other deniers as yourself brushed off jouranlists.
I don't think so....but a wonderful try.;-)
Yet something else you have failed to provide....these vast cases of fraud.
In fact you have yet to provide one single case of fraud.
I don't need to do better against you.
Nope...perhaps you should check to see how many times Ball has been caught lying about his education.:lol:
I suppose you'll tell me Monckton is a climatologist as well.:roll:
Have a good one.;-)
Both
It means that you are entirely content to swallow the pap that you are handed by those groups in which you have confidence despite their many retractions, frauds and agendas.
Yes, as these journalists like Morano are delivering the information that was gathered by the UN.
It is obvious that you need to admonish their info as it is not supportive of your position. In typical ecotard fashion, your only option is to dismiss the info based on who the messenger is as opposed to what the info represents. this isn't the first time I've seen this Avro, it's a very common practice among the green groups.
Funny, if it didn't throw a wrench in the (your) machine, why is it necessary for you to work so hard in deflecting the focus of the issue?
Keep your head in the sand Avro, but it's pretty futile in that you addressed them directly earlier and made all kinds of excuses.
Need to?... Hell, it's clear that you can't.
Gore is a businessman/politician
Suzuki is biologist/geneticist
the UN claimed support for their docs from MD's, engineers and zoologists.
I suppose that Monckton and ball are entitled as well. On that note, Ball is far more qualified than the clowns that teh IPCC has hung their hat on.
First of all anyone who seriously contemplates this whole issue will never use Gore or Suzuki as a proponent of the view. In fact, most AGW supporters look for data that is peer reviewed first before mentioning that author's credentials. So, yea, I would never push Gore or Suzuki, just as you should never push Monckton and even worse - Morano (who just made up global cooling since 1998.)
Secondly, Tim Ball is not qualified as a climatologist at all. The fact that you would say he is more qualified than the authors working for the IPCC is a bit ignorant. In fact, he is not even a geologist -- he taught geography at the Uni of Winnipeg.
In the already panned propaganda movie - The Great Global Warming Swindle - they misrepresented the guy as a climatologist.
In the film, Ball was misattributed as a professor in the Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg (the University of Winnipeg has never had a Department of Climatology and Ball retired more than ten years before the show aired).
Timothy F. Ball - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He has a PHD and MA in Geography. And then he has a B.A. studying who knows what.
---
Also, here's the official procedure for how all IPCC articles are approved for publication. They have to be reviewed by two different sets of independent scientific bodies including government approval before they can be brought forward..
And here's a lovely pdf that you can read through extensively which elaborates on the IPCC model. I emplore you to pick out any holes where you think the IPCC could possibly be committing fraud, or has any partisan principles. Please, do prove your point.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf
Last edited:
You're about as dumb as they come, aren't ya mentalfloss.
Everyone knows that your comments mean absolutely nothing unless you provide a link to a youtube video that proves your assertions.
Everyone knows that your comments mean absolutely nothing unless you provide a link to a youtube video that proves your assertions.
I'll ask yet again.
What has been the trend?
Am I now?
Still waiting for this massive list of retractions, frauds and agendas.
.....as the sceince and evidence continues to build for AGW.
Okay....then you'll enjoy this take down of one of your hero's by a journalist then.
Ecotard?
What does that mean?
Name calling?
I was just clarifying what you deem to be good information. No need to compare me to a mentally challenged individual.
It dosen't, just clarifying.
Still nothing....I'm so shocked.:lol:
I already have, you can't answer basic questions or provide any proof of your claims and you want me to kick it up a notch?
I see no reason to, you're losing at this level.
I asked for a climatologist and you give me Balls' name. The guy who had been caught lying about his own scientific background.
You won't see me using anything from Gore/douche
Or Suzuki/hypocrit and douche
Yet you cling to the few clowns out to make a name for themselves.
Sure they are entitled, dosen't make them right or experts.....do either one of them have any peer reviewed papers on anything....even outside of climate?
I don't think he's dumb at all.
You can't answer any of it Captain.
You can't refute any of it?
You have no peer reviewed papers to back up anything you have said or challenged.
Just pure basement science and empty accusations.:roll:
Last edited:
Hey! You're right. The global temperature did dip a few times and it did spike in 1998. But
Even with the dips, the average just seems to be climbing.
Actually she was asking you to prove that the "theory/science" behind climatology isn't solid. To date it's pretty solid. You refuse to accept that but you've failed to show where the science is not solid. That's not asking to prove a negative. That's asking you to prove that the science is baseless.
As far as geography goes, sure. Climatology is the topic, though.
These are climatologists:
Steven Esbensen
Robert L. Smith
Alan Mix
Tim Cowles
Michael Unsworth
Richard Vong
Amy Snover
Larry Mahrt
Kelly Faulkner
Dudley Chelton
Mark Abbot
John Barth
Sherm Bloomer
Nathan Mantua
Phillip Mote
James A Coakley Jr.
Roger M Samuelson
P. Ted Strub
Alan F. Hamlet
Michael Freilich
Dennis Hartmann
Michael Kosro
Ricardo Letelier
Eric Maloney
Kenneth Bowman
Sarah D. Brooks
Larry Carey
Ping Chang
Don Collins
Andrew Dessler
Robert Duce
Craig Epifanio
Rob Korty
Mark Lemmon
Don Lucas
Shaima L. Nasiri
John Nielsen-Gammon
Gerald North
Richard Orville
Lee Panetta
R. Saravanan
Gunnar W. Schade
Courtney Schumacher
Thomas Wilheit
Ping Yang
Fuqing Zhang
Renyi Zhang
etc.
That's not valid for two reasons, Av:
1. Trenberth's a climatololgist, not a geographer
2. It's from YouTube, therefore regardless of the facts, it is wrong.
I believe he asked you for trends from thirty years. You won't find a single trend under fifteen years in length that passes significance tests. That's because noise is greater than signal in our present climate for such short intervals. Thirty year trends are significant though, and they look like this:
“CO2 is Plant Food” – New Paper Further Refutes Sixth Grade Science
A paper published at about the same moment as I was uploading my latest video, (“The CO2 is Plant Food Crock“) further nails down the case.
A team from the University of Guelph has determined that Trees are soaking up less carbon than expected given the increase in atmospheric CO2. According to the press release, “Scientists and policy-makers hoping to use forests to naturally soak up increasing amounts of carbon dioxide may have overestimated the role of trees as carbon sink”.
“Contrary to expectations, tree growth has declined over the past century despite rising amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, said Madhur Anand, a professor in Guelph’s School of Environmental Sciences.”
Yes, a routinely hurled canard. Might be true...if CO2 were a limiting nutrient. It obviously is not. How many fertilizers do you see with a source of carbon in them? Phosphorous is far more limiting. Without phosphorous a plant can't turn photons into chemical energy, so the carbon dioxide the plant obtains from the atmosphere is useless.