AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
When someone is stumped and has ran out of intelligent answer it's always turns to insults.
That's too bad because I was really hoping to hear some honest answers on how this totalitarian system that is required to pull off saving the planet will unfold without bloodshed.
I've seen insults from numerous sources here. Debate can be made without insults, after all.
There is no straight answer to your loaded questions. Your questions assume something, without giving any validation for your assumption. Like I said earlier...
What is loaded about it? Do you feel people will willingly go along with what it TRULY takes to pull off geo-engineering an atmosphere?
The controversial assumption.
Have you stopped beating your wife? Can you give me a straight answer to that question, yes or no?
It's rhetoric. You started out from an assumption that scientists in this field (perhaps you think all scientists are part of some scam) are part of some conspiracy for global totalitarianism. That fails the sanity test, as scientists come from many varied backgrounds, and if you actually listen to them debate issues, they have vigorous arguments and disagreements. To suggest that they are all part of some totalitarian movement is ludicrous.
To stop something you have to start first. Nothing rhetoric about it.
Who suggested they were part of a totalitarian system? You're the only one so far. Is that what you think it is? You must have other ideas and possible conclusions of how this will all go down peacefully. What are they?
Watts Up With That?
You can't beat Anthony Watts' team at WUWT (either Watts Up With That or We Use Wishful Thinking, it's hard to tell) for the delicate selection and presentation of "evidence" to argue that climate isn't changing.
Here, for example, is a post that trumpets a Nature article on the climate effects of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. WUWT also credits the reputable German publication Der Spiegel as an intermediate source for this information and then posts the graph (left) as easy visual proof that what's happening in climate today is all part of a normal up and down.
But have a close look at that graph. First, it doesn't come from the Nature paper or from Der Spiegel. It was cobbled together on a denier site run by an engineer named Alan Cheetham. Second, the yellow lines showing a downward resumption on the right side are based on - well, actually, on no data points whatever. While Cheetham may have a crystal ball, a touching optimism or a cavalier disregard for objective presentation, he has no evidence at all.
But he has a fan in Anthony Watts. Watt does that tell you?
I noticed this while reading another post in which Watts insults John Cook from the excellent blog, Skeptical Science (there is a link, incorrectly attributing the material above to New Scientist). Watt's quotes this passage from Sourcewatch:
John Cook, on his website Skeptical Science, states that “the usual suspects in natural climate change – solar variations, volcanoes, Milankovitch cycles – are all conspicuous in their absence over the past three decades of warming.
... and then he goes on to provide three links (1, 2, 3) that purport counter Cook's position.
Well, the whole post is dumb. Cook isn't saying that there were NO ocean oscillations, volcano effects or Milankovitch cycles in the last 30 years. It seems clear that he was saying that global temperatures have been rising regardless that these influences have been absent, irrelevant or (in the case of volcanoes) acting to counteract warming.
Beyond being obtuse, Watts also has a little hissy about Cook using the "ugly word 'denier'" in reference to people who, uh, manipulate or misrepresent scientific information to suggest that climate change is not happening, is natural or is nothing to worry about.
Watts the deal, Tony? Got a guilty conscience?
You can't beat Anthony Watts' team at WUWT (either Watts Up With That or We Use Wishful Thinking, it's hard to tell) for the delicate selection and presentation of "evidence" to argue that climate isn't changing.
Here, for example, is a post that trumpets a Nature article on the climate effects of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. WUWT also credits the reputable German publication Der Spiegel as an intermediate source for this information and then posts the graph (left) as easy visual proof that what's happening in climate today is all part of a normal up and down.
But have a close look at that graph. First, it doesn't come from the Nature paper or from Der Spiegel. It was cobbled together on a denier site run by an engineer named Alan Cheetham. Second, the yellow lines showing a downward resumption on the right side are based on - well, actually, on no data points whatever. While Cheetham may have a crystal ball, a touching optimism or a cavalier disregard for objective presentation, he has no evidence at all.
But he has a fan in Anthony Watts. Watt does that tell you?
I noticed this while reading another post in which Watts insults John Cook from the excellent blog, Skeptical Science (there is a link, incorrectly attributing the material above to New Scientist). Watt's quotes this passage from Sourcewatch:
John Cook, on his website Skeptical Science, states that “the usual suspects in natural climate change – solar variations, volcanoes, Milankovitch cycles – are all conspicuous in their absence over the past three decades of warming.
... and then he goes on to provide three links (1, 2, 3) that purport counter Cook's position.
Well, the whole post is dumb. Cook isn't saying that there were NO ocean oscillations, volcano effects or Milankovitch cycles in the last 30 years. It seems clear that he was saying that global temperatures have been rising regardless that these influences have been absent, irrelevant or (in the case of volcanoes) acting to counteract warming.
Beyond being obtuse, Watts also has a little hissy about Cook using the "ugly word 'denier'" in reference to people who, uh, manipulate or misrepresent scientific information to suggest that climate change is not happening, is natural or is nothing to worry about.
Watts the deal, Tony? Got a guilty conscience?
Holy crap...it was sarcasm....maybe I should have put a smiley in there. Do you know what Poe's law is?
Poe's Law - RationalWiki
You wanna hug it out?
Anyway, what exactly are you proposing? And why don't you give specifics that back up what you are proposing? And make sure they are logically coherent and don't have holes. That would be a start.
Oh, and lastly, if you really wanna hug it out you can.
Anyway, what exactly are you proposing? And why don't you give specifics that back up what you are proposing? And make sure they are logically coherent and don't have holes. That would be a start.
Oh, and lastly, if you really wanna hug it out you can.
The proposal has always been straight forward. Getting nearly 7 billion people to follow a regimented restricted lifestyle willingly and democratically.
How do you clean up the planet, reduce population and create a global regimented social order and get them to all go along. How do you avoid the easy fix of mass slaughter?
How do you clean up the planet, reduce population and create a global regimented social order and get them to all go along. How do you avoid the easy fix of mass slaughter?
Shattering the Greenhouse Effect
Posted on September 29, 2010 by fgservices1947
Hans Jelbring omits to comment on the source of the measured down welling atmospheric IR that climate science assumes comes from radiating gases in the atmosphere – it doesn’t –it’s produced by the atmospheric electric currents that are continually passing through the atmosphere. However mainstream science remains locked into Victorian Era gaslight physics in which electricity is not considered a significant force in the atmosphere, or anywhere else in their disruptive universe.
Posted on September 29, 2010 by fgservices1947
Hans Jelbring omits to comment on the source of the measured down welling atmospheric IR that climate science assumes comes from radiating gases in the atmosphere – it doesn’t –it’s produced by the atmospheric electric currents that are continually passing through the atmosphere. However mainstream science remains locked into Victorian Era gaslight physics in which electricity is not considered a significant force in the atmosphere, or anywhere else in their disruptive universe.
A recommended essay by Swedish climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring offers a high school through advanced level debunking of the so-called ‘greenhouse effect.’ Dr. Jelbring finds that basic scientific principles demonstrate that global temperatures are not controlled by human emissions of ‘greenhouse gases’ and the ‘greenhouse effect’ is explainable using only the physics of pressure, gravity, volume, and the adiabatic lapse rate.
So the planet is warming then?
Did he prove this in a lab?
I'd like to see the official paper and research on this.
Some scientist. He completely blew the equation. It's not pV = RT, it's pV = nRT, and that's a pretty important variable. He's called out by actual high school students here:
How to calm the climate science confidence crisis - Capital Weather Gang
Hans' "scientific theory" is parroting the work of Ferenc Miskolczi and same is debunked here:
http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/795/P4305/
And when you have Roy Spencer calling you out, something's severely lacking:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/
How to calm the climate science confidence crisis - Capital Weather Gang
Hans' "scientific theory" is parroting the work of Ferenc Miskolczi and same is debunked here:
http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/795/P4305/
And when you have Roy Spencer calling you out, something's severely lacking:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/
Last edited:
Even worse, he can't finish his introductory paragraph without introducing a strawman:
Basic scientific principles demonstrate that the overall GE phenomenon is not a result of human emissions of “greenhouse gases”.
Nobody has ever said that the overall, or entire greenhouse effect is a result of human emissions of greenhouse gases...
It's especially humorous when we consider the very next sentence:
Politics can be claimed to be the art of appearing credible, at least in a democracy.
Not exactly credible, for a climatologist to be whacking a strawman that no scientist has ever proposed.
And he completely get's it wrong on the IPCC. The IPCC is not science...it's a review of the state of science...it's unfathomable to me that any scientist could make a mistake like this. Unless of course it isn't a mistake, in which case he is simply making statements, appearing to sound credible.
And he's also guilty of the same thing he accuses the IPCC of, in that he doesn't use the scientific method at all to make his claims. He states, without results of such tests which would allow one to claim as he does, that adding greenhouse gases will not result in any temperature change at all.
It's rubbish pseudoscience.
It is quite clear that Tonn and Mr. Floss are involved in the mass conspiracy to rob all of mankind of their rights a freedoms at the hands of Climatologists and the evil that is known as science. They are probally members of the Stone Cutters who of course killed Kennedy and rigged the last election in the US.
The mainstream media would be reporting this scary stuff it weren't controled by Jews.
Keep the good fight going petros, for it is only you and your ilk that know the truth.
Now I think I'll go have a cup of tea and watch JFK by Oliver Stone...I need some truth right now.
The mainstream media would be reporting this scary stuff it weren't controled by Jews.
Keep the good fight going petros, for it is only you and your ilk that know the truth.
Now I think I'll go have a cup of tea and watch JFK by Oliver Stone...I need some truth right now.