Religion of Global Warming Exposed by one of their own.

[Darkstorn]

How long does our duty to maintain an open mind last?

It takes an "open minded" drone such as yourself to make claims like "nazis are left wing" indeed.

So yes, practically, i do find your entire position silly and worth a few laughs.

 

[metis]

No, they aren't fools, they're demagogues. The ones who buy into their manipulations with blind allegiance are the fools.

I see, so they're all pretty much dishonest, as are the other "fools" in adjacent areas of science.

Got it.

 

[Debateable]

Another good video on temperature measuring stations.

 

[Debateable]

I see, so they're all pretty much dishonest, as are the other "fools" in adjacent areas of science.

Got it.

What is dishonest is the idea that the worlds best climate scientists are the ones telling us we are causing all this warming. Watch the video with Donna Laframboise. It talks about this. How can someone that is still a grad student be a lead author of IPCC reports be the worlds top scientist? How can scientists with activist ties be trusted to be objective?

 

[Debateable]

What, dead because it doesn't toe the liberal dogma line?

Dead because journalism these days are about being first to report instead of being correct on what you report.

 

[metis]

What is dishonest is the idea that the worlds best climate scientists are the ones telling us we are causing all this warming.

Sorry but I don't buy this as I've been following this subject going all the way back to the 60's in scientific publications, especially "Scientific American".

BTW, they are not saying "all this warming", just a majority of it through various activities related to human endeavor. There are simply no external sources that have been found to warrant what we are seeing happen.

 

[Debateable]

Here's why it's a bad idea to try and stop climate change rather than adapt.

 

[Debateable]

Sorry but I don't buy this as I've been following this subject going all the way back to the 60's in scientific publications, especially "Scientific American".

BTW, they are not saying "all this warming", just a majority of it through various activities related to human endeavor. There are simply no external sources that have been found to warrant what we are seeing happen.

Did you even watch the video? No, I didn't think so.

 

[Debateable]

Here's another that addresses government funding and research.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I see, so they're all pretty much dishonest, as are the other "fools" in adjacent areas of science.

Got it.

I'm glad you do because you fell off the floor on that last part, for me.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

It takes an "open minded" drone such as yourself to make claims like "nazis are left wing" indeed.

So yes, practically, i do find your entire position silly and worth a few laughs.

So NAZI isn't an acronym for the German National Socialist Worker's Party? Communist=government control by ownership. Nazi/Fascist=government control by regulation....which is where we are up to our necks. So communists fought the Nazi/Fascists because one believed in sprinkling and the other believed in immersion? No. It's because all socialism is about the concentration of government power into an elite group or individual.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Over the last several decades, the scientific community has eliminated all other possibilities as being the major cause of global warming. These researches, I would suggest, are not fools.

You are in denial, genuine climate scientists say the science is not settled. Heck, even the present government of the US appears to be taking a stand that it is not settled..

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry but I don't buy this as I've been following this subject going all the way back to the 60's in scientific publications, especially "Scientific American".

BTW, they are not saying "all this warming", just a majority of it through various activities related to human endeavor. There are simply no external sources that have been found to warrant what we are seeing happen.

You are mistaken, there are natural causes of change in global temperature along with the human contribution, but there is no, I repeat, no consensus science on the quantification of these natural contributions in in climate models. Of all the climate models in existence, there are no two the same. If you had gotten your understanding of climate science from reading the IPCC ARs, the views of the skeptical science, and the views of agw science, instead of getting it from such left wing biased rags such as Scientific Ammerican, you would know what these natural contributions are.

 

[Jose Fly]

Ya, and it's that some people are far more apt to believe their politicians than the vast majority of scientists who specialize in climatology, which has to be the epitome of ignorance.

Doesn't everyone know that it's far better to get one's understanding of climate science from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, James Inhoffe, Dick Cheney, and Donald Trump, rather than actual climatologists? Sheesh.

 

[Jose Fly]

Certainly not enough to KNOW we were the cause.

How do you know? How did you become such an authority on the state of climatology pre-1988?

When you state that your focus is on human-induced climate change, you don't leave any room for looking at alternative reasons. Certainly you can see the problem here, or are you too blinded?

Apparently you've not bothered to read much on this subject, and are a bit ignorant of the basics of how science works. First, climatologists have examined other potential causes. Shoot, just a couple of days ago we were discussing how the data rules out solar forcing as a cause, including the data you posted that showed it didn't explain the warming trend post-1950. I guess you forgot.

Second, just because scientists identify a cause for a phenomenon, that doesn't mean they've forever shut the door on consideration of other potential causes. Simply put, if you have data that points to a different cause for the warming trend, post it. If you don't, then you can't really complain about me not considering something that you can't even name.

 

[siti]

An oxymoron can be used sometimes for ironic emphasis--even if one doesn't realize it at the time.

Given the source, that would indeed be emphatically ironic!

 

[Debateable]

How do you know? How did you become such an authority on the state of climatology pre-1988?

Because if they KNEW, they wouldn't be giving reports TODAY starting with "in our opinion". That's not a statement of fact.

Apparently you've not bothered to read much on this subject, and are a bit ignorant of the basics of how science works. First, climatologists have examined other potential causes. Shoot, just a couple of days ago we were discussing how the data rules out solar forcing as a cause, including the data you posted that showed it didn't explain the warming trend post-1950. I guess you forgot.

Second, just because scientists identify a cause for a phenomenon, that doesn't mean they've forever shut the door on consideration of other potential causes. Simply put, if you have data that points to a different cause for the warming trend, post it. If you don't, then you can't really complain about me not considering something that you can't even name.

LOL, so much blind faith here.

 

[Jose Fly]

Because if they KNEW, they wouldn't be giving reports TODAY starting with "in our opinion". That's not a statement of fact.

Oh geez.....just like a creationist you jump back and forth between complaining that scientists are too certain, and complaining that they aren't certain enough.

LOL, so much blind faith here.

What a great rebuttal.

 

[metis]

You are in denial, genuine climate scientists say the science is not settled. Heck, even the present government of the US appears to be taking a stand that it is not settled..

You are mistaken, there are natural causes of change in global temperature along with the human contribution, but there is no, I repeat, no consensus science on the quantification of these natural contributions in in climate models.

Here: There is continuing discussion through published peer-reviewed scientific papers, which are assessed by scientists working in the relevant fields taking part in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The scientific consensus as of 2013 stated in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report is that it "is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century". A 2008 report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences stated that most scientists by then agreed that observed warming in recent decades was primarily caused by human activities increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In 2005 the Royal Society stated that while the overwhelming majority of scientists were in agreement on the main points, some individuals and organizations opposed to the consensus on urgent action needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have tried to undermine the science and work of the IPCC. National science academies have called on world leaders for policies to cut global emissions. -- Global warming - Wikipedia

The word "consensus" does not mean that literally everyone is on the same page but that most do agree that human activity is the greatest likely cause based on what they know. In science, we tend to use our words quite cautiously, always leaving an "out" in case we miss something.

...instead of getting it from such left wing biased rags such as Scientific Ammerican, you would know what these natural contributions are.

You obviously are not very familiar with "Scientific American" when you make such a patently absurd charge.

 

[Debateable]

Oh geez.....just like a creationist you jump back and forth between complaining that scientists are too certain, and complaining that they aren't certain enough.

Again with that idiotic argument, lol.

What a great rebuttal.

What else do you want me to say? I gave you the words from the horses mouth and you blow it off, lol.