Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

The Climate Change People are Lying to Us

Recommended Posts

The Financial Post have decided this week is "junk science" week, and are pointing out the errors and dishonesty of various types of scientific predictions, scenarios and findings. One of which, of couse, involves the claims around climate.Ross McKitrick details these in his column today. Also relevant is a column by Terence Corcoran, who quotes the late climate science professor Stephen Schnieder on exaggerating things: “On the one hand,” said Schneider, “as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

...

Whenever you read a media story about how we’re heading toward catastrophe if we continue operating “business as usual” — i.e., if we don’t slash carbon emissions — the reports are almost always referring to a model simulation using RCP8.5. And you can bet that nowhere in the story will they explain that RCP8.5 is an implausible worst-case scenario that was never meant to represent a likely base case outcome, or that scientists have begun castigating its usage as a prediction of a doomed business-as-usual future.

The term RCP8.5 refers to a greenhouse gas emissions scenario often used by scientists for climate model projections. You might never have heard of RCP8.5 but you have definitely heard of forecasts based on it. Listening to the politicians who make the strongest pleas for radical climate action, it is clear that their fears for the future are driven by RCP8.5 scenarios, yet it is also clear that they have no idea what it is or what is wrong with it.

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/ross-mckitrick-the-flaw-in-relying-on-a-worst-case-scenario-climate-model

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever "RCP8.5" is we don't hear about it when they tell us the lie that their predictions based on models come true.

They don't predict the future of climate very well but there are lots of prediction models so all they have to do is find the one of them that came close according to the temperature record that's most radical (and if that one  doesn't work they'll rewrite it) then say, "See. We were right all the time."

But they weren't. The Arctic isn't ice-free in the summer time. Manhattan isn't under water. There's still snow in Britain and so on...

climate-change-pronouncements.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually if you take the mainstream opinions and not some outlier then - yes - the predictions are pretty good.  Don't quote some loon that says "NY will be underwater in 5 years" then use their wrongness as proof of anything.

Don't quote Al Gore.

Don't quote advocates.

Don't quote David Suzuki.

Don't quote hysterical people.

Don't quote unknowns and bloggers.

Whoever Stephen Schneider is (I hadn't heard of him) his quote was made pretty much in the open, and over 30 years ago.  

“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary
scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any
doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between
being effective, and being honest.”–Stephen Schneider, Discover Magazine
Oct, 1989

Quote the science, the consensus, the oft-cited and PUBLISHED paper.  Mitigating climate change by reducing carbon emissions doesn't cost much as a % of our economy and could forestall huge disasters. 

Be sensible, people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

 Mitigating climate change by reducing carbon emissions doesn't cost much as a % of our economy and could forestall huge disasters. 

Be sensible, people.

I like to be sensible. And it does not strike me as sensible to heap carbon taxes on industry so that they move to China or Mexico or Thailand or wherever. There are 193 members of the UN and only about two dozen or so are actually trying to cut back on their emissions. The big carbon taxes necessary to do that which the Europeans have imposed have really only succeeded in driving a big chunk of their manufacturing to China and India. That does not strike me as helping lower world emissions even slightly. Magna is one of Ontario's biggest employers, and warned years ago they would henceforth be opening up new factories in Mexico or the US rather than Canada due to Ontario's emissions policies and energy costs. I do not think it helps world emissions to have a factory in Mexico rather than Canada.

If every country imposed carbon taxes at the same level so that companies could not avoid them by moving around, that would be sensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Actually if you take the mainstream opinions and not some outlier then - yes - the predictions are pretty good.  Don't quote some loon that says "NY will be underwater in 5 years" then use their wrongness as proof of anything.

Do you know who James Hansen is? Actually, I agree that he was just some loon. But I doubt you'll really want to cop to that once I tell you who he is.

James Hansen used to head NASA GISS. NASA GISS is the temperature record you'd be most likely to quote if you wanted to weed through computer models to find one that might fit a much massaged temperature record if you wanted to pretend predictory climate models aren't almost always wrong. James Hansen also wrote a lot of those models.

He's also this guy:

Quote

Scientist Who Predicted NYC Would Be Underwater

https://dailycaller.com/2016/04/12/scientist-who-predicted-ny-city-would-be-underwater-says-hes-not-an-alarmist/

James Hansen was the mainstream scientist you'd be most likely to quote if you wanted to try to make the point climate model predictions are pretty good. You'd have to be tricky to do it though and I'd call you on it. Try it with the IPCC models if you like. There are arguments for those. You can find them with a Google. Those arguments are faulty too though. Go ahead. Find them. Post them. I'll show you what I mean.

 

Edited by Infidel Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

 James Hansen was the mainstream scientist you'd be most likely to quote if you wanted to try to make the point climate model predictions are pretty good. You'd have to be tricky to do it though and I'd call you on it. Try it with the IPCC models if you like. There are arguments for those. You can find them with a Google. Those arguments are faulty too though. Go ahead. Find them. Post them. I'll show you what I mean.

Fair enough, but here's the thing: his predictions are extreme.  

Michael Mann: 

Quote

“I’m always hesitant to ignore the findings and warnings of James Hansen; he has proven to be so very prescient when it comes to his early prediction about global warming. That having been said, I’m unconvinced that we could see melting rates over the next few decades anywhere near his exponential predictions, and everything else is contingent upon those melting rates being reasonable.”


So there isn't consensus with what he says.  It doesn't mean that Climate Science doesn't carry a consensus on temperature change.  Impacts are a different thing, and you will find a lot less agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Abies said:

So far denialists have failed to produce any evidence for their claims that AGW is not real.

What sort of proof would you accept for that negative?

As I understand it these predictions of catastrophe from human caused global warming (eg melting of greenland and western antarctica) aren't supposed to happen for a couple hundred years. What sort of proof would you accept to "prove" that won't happen? Other than waiting 2 hundred years to see, I mean?

There is reason to doubt the next great flooding of the earth. So far the ocean is only rising at about 7 inches a century. When were you expecting to run out of shore line at that rate?

Oh, and you forgot the C in your AGW. It's Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming that has its doubters.

I suppose you warminista alarmists have proof this crisis you're predicting will happen, do you? I mean you seem to think people need to prove a negative so offering evidence for your positive should be easy-peasy. Produce it then. When will this Warmaggedon happen? What will it be specifically? How will it happen. If you're the ones with the evidence, let's see it.

Here's the thing. If you can show me why I should believe a catastrophe is coming I might take your need to organize the globe and manage a solution for your imagined crisis seriously. You might even be able to sell me on the necessity of a carbon tax. But If you don't have any better reason I should believe the end of the world is coming than you'll call me a name if I don't believe you, why are you bothering people with your silly End-times scenarios?

Oh and Michael Mann is the braintrust behind the much debunked hockey stick graph. That's all he's known for. Pardon me, that and claiming he and his crew fix peer review to keep out anybody daring to disagree with him and his gang. Lately he's been resorting to suing his many critics and so far he's lost 2 out of 3 cases. The third one is still trying to get Mike into a courtroom but Mann keeps finding ways to avoid it. So if all you've got is Mikey doesn't agree with Jimmy on how fast Warmageddon is coming, good for him but so what?

Edited by Infidel Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hockey stick graph has not been debunked since other studies have supported Mann's findings. He has lost one case due to delay. The merits of each side has not been heard or ruled upon. the others are still working it's way through the system.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, seeing as author/commentator Mark Steyn is one of the litigants it might be worth hearing what he has to say on the subject. I'm going to assume he knows at least as much on the subject as you do:

Quote

Many climate scientists other than hardcore Mann-boys are embarrassed by the prominence given to the hockey stick. But Mann has to protect his increasingly flaccid stick, and so he began launching various vanity lawsuits. This last year has not gone well for him. His suit against Tim Ball was dismissed with prejudice by the British Columbia Supreme Court for failure to prosecute, with costs awarded to Dr Ball. That's to say, Mann lost - decisively. Mann denied that that was what had happened, and his halfwit groupies seemed willing to swallow that denial of reality, but the big clue to the final scorecard is the significant six-figure check he was ordered to write to Tim Ball. The dishonorable Mann has indicated he will refuse to pay, and, being resident outside Her Majesty's Dominions, he may get away with that, or at least drag it out awhile.

[UPDATE: I speculated back in October whether Mann, a loser and a liar, would also prove a scofflaw and a deadbeat. Yes, he is. It is ten months since he lost at the BC Supreme Court and, despite Mr Justice Giaschi's order, Doctor Fraudpants has yet to pay Tim Ball a penny. So he's a fraudulent plaintiff in every respect. This scumbag has financially ruined Dr Ball, lost at trial, and refuses to pay up. Mann's conduct is appalling: it's no wonder so few climate scientists are willing to defend him.]

However, Mann has now been ordered by the District of Columbia Superior Court to write a just-shy-of-five-figure check to my co-defendants Rand Simberg and the Competitive Enterprise Institute - and for the same reasons as in BC: dragging things out and piling up additional costs on the defendants because (all together now) the process is the punishment.

By the way, I love how Mann's doting fanbois react to news of his courtroom setbacks by wearily insisting that, unless you're an accredited climatologist, you have no right even to weigh in on the subject. Appeals to authority are always unbecoming to a free society (and especially so after the CDC/WHO Covid fiasco), but appeals to the wrong authority are just pathetic. This is not a tree-ring class at a Department of Atmospheric Sciences; this is a legal proceeding, where the relevant authorities are judicial - and, while I'm no QC, I do have some form with kicking the arse of litigious cockwombles.

https://www.steynonline.com/10400/the-costs-of-mann-delay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Abies said:

The hockey stick graph has not been debunked since other studies have supported Mann's findings.

Have they? Show me. Show me the graphs for studies that duplicate this:

945.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter which model one uses.  Most of them have provided some good data and some bad.  Personally I'm surprised that any scientist worth his or her salt would make any public prediction based on a model.  If the model is correct, you get nothing.  It was the model that predicted it.  If the model is wrong, you get ridiculed for believing it.

All we need to know is, the climate is warming, the change in temperature correlates with the increase in greenhouse gases and population since the industrial revolution, and it won't be stopped in any of our lifetimes, unless some of us are very young. 

That, obviously, is a gross oversimplification, but if we can't all agree on that there's not much point in arguing about the finer points.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Are you asking for studies that support the idea that the temperature is going up ?

 

No. Everybody knows temperatures have been rising since the end of the little ice age, in the middle of the 19th century.

I take it you're not up on the Hockey stick controversy or Michael Mann's general shifty behaviour.

Basically there is an era of climate called the Medieval Warm Period. This was creating a problem for Global Warming alarmists. It was as hot or hotter than present day. This was long before any alleged problem with human caused greenhouse emissions. These hot temperatures of the MWP said modern warming was nothing special. That was a problem. They couldn't have that, so this guy who was unknown at the time named Michael Mann used some magic math, manipulated data and bogus graphing tricks to erase the MWP from the record. The hockey stick graph was a big thing for pushers of the coming Warmageddon like Al Gore and the IPCC. They jumped aboard with both feet.

Then Canadian Scientist Dr. Ross McKitrick and Canadian geologist and fraud investigator Steve Mcintyre decided to have a look at how the fraud of the hockey stick had been perpetrated.

One of those most fun things to ridicule was what's called "hide the decline" or "Mike's nature trick". It goes like this. If you just use the tree ring proxies the graph will flatten out and the MWP will disappear but there's a problem. As you start to reach the modern record temperatures decline. They get colder. Mike couldn't have that so for his paper in nature he just deleted the tree ring proxy temps and added Jim Hansen's NASA Giss temperature record at the end of his new invented record. And presto changeo, abracadabra - temperatures rose again.

What Abies likes to call "denialists" got a good laugh out of that one. Would you like to see an example:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really old news.  You're quoting things that were brought up years ago and didn't go anywhere.  There is no longer a 'hockey stick controversy' or a debate about the MWP.   People were talking about that many years ago but the model continues to correlate well and there are basically no scientists active in Climate Science who deny human-caused warming. 

"Hide the decline" was a fad during the email hack days and we talked about this to great depth years or maybe even a decade ago on here.  Search out the posts.  

Richard Lindzen and his Iris Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_hypothesis) were the rage but I think he even says humans are the major cause of warning now...

Anyway, this is like going through a high school yearbook and seeing the schnook who farted in gym class again... not fun.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you already knew the hockey stick graph was much disputed (I would say debunked) why are you pretending people need to respect Mann as credible now.

Are you thinking you know something new that proves that graph true now? Go ahead then show me. Show me why there was no medieval warm period. Because there have been tons of studies from all over the  globe since that time showing there was one.

Here's a global interactive map:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&hl=en_US&ll=16.10404598750997%2C1.827248500000067&z=2

Here's links to peer reviewed studies:

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

Notice that they're global?

But go ahead show me why I should ignore all that science and find Mikey's disappearing of the MWP to be based on something more than the wishful thinking of gullible believers.

I hope you have better evidence than 'cause you say so.'

Edited by Infidel Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. Well if you already knew the hockey stick graph was much disputed (I would say debunked) why are you pretending people need to respect Mann as credible now.

2.  Show me why there was no medieval warm period.

3. Because there have been tons of studies from all over the  globe since that time showing there was one.

 

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

 

4. But go ahead show me why I should ignore all that science and find Mikey's disappearing of the MWP to be based on something more than the wishful thinking of gullible believers.

5. I hope you have better evidence than 'cause you say so.'

1. It's disputed by bloggers and internet gnomes.  There's no significant opposition to Climate Change theory in the science.
2. The MWP period's size and significance is still being looked at in climate science, and doesn't really have an impact on the overall assertion that human generated CO2 is causing warming.
3. Yeah... the very old look of that page was a dead giveaway.  A lot of such pages were funded by the oil lobby and probably whoever funded the email hack.  The most recent study I saw cited was 2003 and that was Mann.  Anyway, like I said this is all old news.  See here for newer research: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period#Initial_research And like I said it's still in dispute.
4. Because those are older studies, and the MWP doesn't matter in the big picture of human generated CO2 increasing temperatures.  There was an increase in temperatures (maybe - some scientists dispute that it was global) possibly in the recent past.  They don't know exactly if or why.  And this means what for today exactly ?
5.  I have been stating the reasons since the start.  You are parroting denier pages from 2003.

 

Let's just NOT rehash arguments I had at nauseum with posters more intellectually honest than you - who conceded points and worked with me to build an understanding of problems with climate science.  Those were good back-and-forth discussions, not like this.

Just cite me some recent and significant studies that bring doubt to the prevailing theory of climate change.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. It's disputed by bloggers and internet gnomes.  There's no significant opposition to Climate Change theory in the science.
2. The MWP period's size and significance is still being looked at in climate science, and doesn't really have an impact on the overall assertion that human generated CO2 is causing warming.
3. Yeah... the very old look of that page was a dead giveaway.  A lot of such pages were funded by the oil lobby and probably whoever funded the email hack.  The most recent study I saw cited was 2003 and that was Mann.  Anyway, like I said this is all old news.  See here for newer research: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period#Initial_research And like I said it's still in dispute.
4. Because those are older studies, and the MWP doesn't matter in the big picture of human generated CO2 increasing temperatures.  There was an increase in temperatures (maybe - some scientists dispute that it was global) possibly in the recent past.  They don't know exactly if or why.  And this means what for today exactly ?
5.  I have been stating the reasons since the start.  You are parroting denier pages from 2003.

 

Let's just NOT rehash arguments I had at nauseum with posters more intellectually honest than you - who conceded points and worked with me to build an understanding of problems with climate science.  Those were good back-and-forth discussions, not like this.

Just cite me some recent and significant studies that bring doubt to the prevailing theory of climate change.

 

1. You don't know what you're talking about.

2. Overwhelming preponderance of studies say the MWP existed as warm or warmer than today. There are some who try to argue it might have been more a northern hemisphere thing. Skepticism of the global warming hypothesis isn't directed so much at the idea man can affect climate and perhaps cause some warming. It questions how much and is there any danger. If what we're experiencing today happened before less than a millennium ago and mankind did just fine with it, why worry?

3. The studies linked there are peer reviewed. Why would it matter who found them? What? You think you use the magic word "oil lobby" and you prove something? 

But if you really want to get an overly biased view of issues like Global Warming just go to Wikipedia. Even the creator of the online encyclopedia complains how the left has taken it over and challenged its credibility.

4. When I click on the links at the interactive map I see studies from 3 or 4 years ago so I'm not sure what your complaining about or why. Are you aware of more recent studies that contradict the idea of a warm MWP? I'll answer that question for you. You're not.

5. Well we already know you're a liar because you're lying  right now by talking to me. You promised not to bother me anymore.

You've cited me nothing that questions the existence of a warm MWP. You told me NASA GISS director James Hansen director's faulty predictions don't matter because climate clown, Michael Mann disagreed with him about how fast the ice would melt. That's the limit of any support you've offered. Oh maybe the boring insult of "denier" and some other magic words of Proggish shutuppery like "oil lobby." But other than that you've got nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

3. 

Edited by Infidel Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

 1. Overwhelming preponderance of studies say the MWP existed as warm or warmer than today.
 2.  Skepticism of the global warming hypothesis isn't directed so much at the idea man can affect climate and perhaps cause some warming.
 3. It questions how much and is there any danger.
 4. If what we're experiencing today happened before less than a millennium ago and mankind did just fine with it, why worry?

 5. The studies linked there are peer reviewed. Why would it matter who found them? What? You think you use the magic word "oil lobby" and you prove something? 

 6. But if you really want to get an overly biased view of issues like Global Warming just go to Wikipedia.  

 7. When I click on the links at the interactive map I see studies from 3 or 4 years ago so I'm not sure what your complaining about or why. Are you aware of more recent studies that contradict the idea of a warm MWP? I'll answer that question for you. You're not.

 8. Well we already know you're a liar because you're lying  right now by talking to me. You promised not to bother me anymore.

 9. You've cited me nothing that questions the existence of a warm MWP. You told me NASA GISS director James Hansen director's faulty predictions don't matter because climate clown, Michael Mann disagreed with him about how fast the ice would melt.  

1. Cite please.  Cite something that says overwhelming preponderance of studies says that MWP global temperatures were as warm as today.
2. Then for God's sake let's stop talking.
3.  Danger ?  Do you mean risk ?  Danger sounds too subjective a word for science.
4. There are lots of reasons to worry.
5. No - just that your 20-years-old-and-looks-it website is the result of oil companies fomenting a political movement, not any kind of scientific groundswell.
6. Oh, here we go.  Next you will tell me that The Rebel has the objective word on this.
7. I'm asking for a wider view of what is happening with the study, but again - from #2... I absolutely don't want to talk about this if you already agree in anthropogenic warming.
8. I happen to like the topic and when I saw another blocked zombie posting it I thought there was new information.  Lo and behold you are posting web pages from the days of MySpace and flip phones.  You are finding new ways to disapoint and bore me, which is paradoxically ... interesting.

9. Ad hominem on Mann... ok

Listen - I have spent the better part of an hour on this - are you going to pay me back by answering my question from above (Just cite me some recent and significant studies that bring doubt to the prevailing theory of climate change.)  or are you going to just ignore it and copy/paste more websites from 2003.  Say - are you a time traveler ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem as we can see here is that arguing with deniers makes them think their ideas are on the same level as a scientist who studies the topic. It's no different than arguing with Holocaust deniers and Armenian genocide deniers. They aren't interested in coming to a consensus academically. They simply want a platform to disseminate their lies as widely as possible to convince as many people as possible. It's political not scientific.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Cite please.  Cite something that says overwhelming preponderance of studies says that MWP global temperatures were as warm as today.
2. Then for God's sake let's stop talking.
3.  Danger ?  Do you mean risk ?  Danger sounds too subjective a word for science.
4. There are lots of reasons to worry.
5. No - just that your 20-years-old-and-looks-it website is the result of oil companies fomenting a political movement, not any kind of scientific groundswell.
6. Oh, here we go.  Next you will tell me that The Rebel has the objective word on this.
7. I'm asking for a wider view of what is happening with the study, but again - from #2... I absolutely don't want to talk about this if you already agree in anthropogenic warming.
8. I happen to like the topic and when I saw another blocked zombie posting it I thought there was new information.  Lo and behold you are posting web pages from the days of MySpace and flip phones.  You are finding new ways to disapoint and bore me, which is paradoxically ... interesting.

9. Ad hominem on Mann... ok

Listen - I have spent the better part of an hour on this - are you going to pay me back by answering my question from above (Just cite me some recent and significant studies that bring doubt to the prevailing theory of climate change.)  or are you going to just ignore it and copy/paste more websites from 2003.  Say - are you a time traveler ?

 

1. Already did.

2. You first. Stop trying to scare people. Warmageddon isn't coming.

3. Semantics.

If there is no danger why do you need a special tax. Why do special government organizations need to be formed that are starting to look more and more like a push for global government. Explain the push to subsidize rare bird choppers in the form or wind turbines or to fry them with solar banks. What's with the dirty throngs Progs have scared into rioting on the streets to stop the coming apocalypse of nice weather. If there's no danger why is it so important to support of the climate scare? And what's with all this frightening of children. Stay out of schools. Leave poor Greta alone.

4.If you need to be worried why this one? Why not worry about the coming Yellowstone super-volcano, Niburu or an alien invasion. There's about as much evidence for those as there is of a coming Warmageddon.

5. Most oil Companies claim to support the movement you call "climate change". Support they might give to any opposition is mostly, extinct and even when it was present it was comparatively tiny compared to the money put out pushing the fear.

6.  Nonsense.

7. There's no secret what almost all skeptics support.

There has been some warming since the end of the little ice age. Humans can have some effect on climate. Nobody knows how much or if it's a problem but any possible problem could be better dealt with through adaptation rather than mitigation. If you don't already know this why are you pushing so hard to display your naivety?

And Buddy, it was you who wanted to present Michael Mann as your hero. I'm only saying if that's the case you have some pretty pathetic heroes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Abies said:

The problem as we can see here is that arguing with deniers makes them think their ideas are on the same level as a scientist who studies the topic. It's no different than arguing with Holocaust deniers and Armenian genocide deniers. They aren't interested in coming to a consensus academically. They simply want a platform to disseminate their lies as widely as possible to convince as many people as possible. It's political not scientific.

If all you got is an insult term, appeals to the authority of an imagined consensus, and the ignorance of science that challenges your hypotheses you've got nothing.

Basically all you've got is what the side pushing the fear has always got. This:

 

Edited by Infidel Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Abies said:

The problem as we can see here is that arguing with deniers makes them think their ideas are on the same level as a scientist who studies the topic. It's no different than arguing with Holocaust deniers and Armenian genocide deniers. They aren't interested in coming to a consensus academically. They simply want a platform to disseminate their lies as widely as possible to convince as many people as possible. It's political not scientific.

Good call.

 

15 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

4.If you need to be worried why this one? Why not worry about the coming Yellowstone super-volcano, Niburu or an alien invasion. There's about as much evidence for those as there is of a coming Warmageddon.

 

 

There really is no more point in engaging AGW deniers than there is in engaging holocaust deniers.  While their views are not motivated by anything near as distressing as those of the latter, their methods of argument are the same.  Ignore the preponderance of evidence and focus on the outliers and the crackpots.  Same as the 9/11 truthers we used to have fun with a few years ago.  It's a waste of time to post evidence, because there is always someone, somewhere, who has posted a rebuttal, no matter how outlandish, and that's what will be posted in reply. 

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And again if all you've got is name-calling you've got nothing.

If you actually have what you're calling a "preponderance of evidence" that warmagedon is coming and the only way to stop it is with increased government and  global management, produce it.

If that's not what you're arguing for then as MH says what are you arguing about? Because that's what I'm arguing against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

And again if all you've got is name-calling you've got nothing.

If you actually have what you're calling a "preponderance of evidence" that warmagedon is coming and the only way to stop it is with increased government and  global management, produce it.

If that's not what you're arguing for then as MH says what are you arguing about? Because that's what I'm arguing against.

I thought "warmagedon" was your construct?

Regardless of what one calls it, I don't think there is any way to stop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...