I thought you guys were "winning"...?

Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
You understand you're the ones insisting the world is flat, right? The ones still asking for the missing link?

And everybody is laughing at you?

You get that, right?

LOL
Click to expand...
Really? You're claiming we're flat Earthers? So you can't make an intelligent argument but can resort to making ridiculous accusations
Padawanbater2 said:
More Than 1000 International Scientists
Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming
Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk Fading
“Consensus” in 2008 & 2009 & 2010
http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

Hmm.. "climate depot" huh.. wonder what that is, lets investigate...

Looks like it was founded by a guy named Marc Morano.. who's he?

Born in Virginia, has a BS in political science, a former employee of Jim Inhofe, then after that began working for Rush Limbaugh from 92-96... hmm.. He was one of the people to fabricate 'climategate', lets see what else we can find..

"The list presented by Morano in his minority 2007-2008 report has been criticized by Joseph J. Romm for including a significant number of people who are not sufficiently well-qualified to assess climate science, such as author Ray Kurzweil and a number of television meteorologists, such as Steve Baskerville, as well as scientists whose expertise is in geomagnetism. In 2009, Joseph Romm wrote that Morano was "unquotable and uncitable," adding "Besides his penchant for smear, he just makes stuff up..."

At the end of 2012 Media Matters for America named Morano the "Climate Change Misinformer of the Year.""

Lol, so as if all of that wasn't bad enough...

I wonder where the dude gets his funding...

"Climate Depot.com run by Morano, is funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, known for his financial support of conservative public policy organizations. CFACT's tax filings list Morano as the most highly paid member of the organisation.

Hmm, who's Richard Mellon Scaife?... lets find out, together ;)

"Richard Mellon Scaife (July 3, 1932 – July 4, 2014) was an American billionaire, a principal heir to the Mellon banking, oil, and aluminum fortune, and the owner and publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. In 2005, Scaife was number 238 on the Forbes 400, with a personal fortune of $1.2 billion. By 2013, Scaife had dropped to number 371 on the listing, with a personal fortune of $1.4 billion.

Scaife was also known for his financial support of conservative public policy organizations over the past four decades. He provided support for conservative and libertarian causes in the United States, mostly through the private, nonprofit foundations he controlled: the Sarah Scaife Foundation, Carthage Foundation, and Allegheny Foundation, and until 2001, the Scaife Family Foundation, now controlled by his daughter Jennie and son David."


LOL

So in conclusion, you cited a "study" conducted by a guy with a BS in political science who interviewed people with no scientific backgrounds, that was funded by a billionaire tied to the oil industry.



Here's a video of the douchnozzle trying to go up against Bill Nye and getting totally fucking owned;

Click to expand...
Once again, you make no argument what-so-ever against the content of the article, but complain about the source. It is apparent you HAVE no argument. You never do. So you hold your opinion on faith and faith alone. This is a religion for you. Any who doubt the holy writ of Al Gore must be crucified.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
So was that your strongest evidence against ACC? Did you watch the video where Nye schooled the creep?

What did you think of my analysis of your citation? How can you criticize Cook when you cite shit like that?
Click to expand...
You didn't analyze his citation. Complaining about who funded it doesn't even begin to address the content.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
People like your weatherman are who Morano asked if they believe in ACC or not

People like Charles and David Koch actively influence the ways in which viable alternatives are accepted, that's the problem. The science is settled, the manufactured "debate" exists only in the political realm.
Click to expand...
So meteorologists know nothing about weather, much less than say..the (failed) cartoonist you've been quoting? A thousand scientist disagree, but "the science is settled"?
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
You are delusional. Do you know what that word means? It's a person who has false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions. Nearly every credible scientist on the planet Earth accepts ACC as the cause of the recent climate change. In every other facet of your life, you rely on these exact same scientists to provide the lifestyle you're accustomed to, but when it comes to climate, all of a sudden none of them know what the fuck they're doing, or they're all politically biased. Even when you're shown the sources you rely on to support your agenda have obvious conflicts of interest, you don't relent.

The vast majority of the western world accepts ACC, just like they accept the theory of evolution. The difference between the rest of the world and the United States is the well funded active propaganda campaign that circulates throughout American media, as cited dozens of times on this forum.

For you to believe the bullshit you do, it would require tens of thousands of scientists to be in on it, a global conspiracy to subvert truth from leading experts who've built their careers over decades, do you even understand the scope of said conspiracy? What that would mean, what would be needed to pull something like that off and for not a single leak to get out in more than 40 years of study? It would be easier to make me a theist (impossible).

You're a 'climate-truther' (I'm coining that term, just for you)

All of this and yet you still relent. Really all you're doing is wasting your breath, like I said and like most of us - the ones that understand how science works - accept, the change is inevitable. Your generation will die off in the next few decades and the rest of us will be your age now with the younger generations only becoming more accepting as time passes. What are you hoping to accomplish by remaining diligent in your ignorance? It's going to happen, whether you like it or not, and time is on our side, compadre.

400K+, and each IPCC assessment only strengthens the case.

Conservatives might as well be beavers when it comes to understanding modern science.
Click to expand...
" for not a single leak to get out in more than 40 years of study" Uh...do you remember "climategate"? You know, where they got caught falsifying data?
" It would be easier to make me a theist " You are a theist, you just pretend it's "science". Like all theists do.
"and each IPCC assessment only strengthens the case." The last few were backpedaling, when none of their predictions came true.

 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Like I said, dismiss the Cook study, you're still left with the IPCC and all 34 international science academies who support it, that's 100%, with 0% dissent

100%

LOL

So keep telling me how much smarter you are than 100% of every single international science academy in the entire fuckin' world

You have to be an idiot to be this fuckin retarded..

Also, it doesn't surprise me you're the kind of person who looks down on service workers. I hope you enjoy those spit burgers :D
Click to expand...
He doesn't look down on all service workers, just you. But even other service workers look down on you.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I don't work minimum wage. I did at one point, as I'm sure you did too! Does that make you an idiot? Are you calling yourself an idiot? Are you calling all workers who make minimum wage during a time of recovery an idiot? Your argument, like usual, is demonstrably baseless. There are workers with masters degrees who make minimum wage, 60% of service workers have Bachelors degrees and are being underemployed, you fucking retard. Our society is going through a deep depression, and yet in all your stupidity, you fail to take that into account and label everyone making less than you a piece of shit scumbag. You know what? At least they don't look down upon their fellow citizen for simply earning less money, that's the signature of an elitist piece of shit who's never actually worked a day in his life and has been given everything to him, hand and foot, at the expense of others. Exactly the fucking scumbags I fight against. You think earning more makes you a better person? OK, fair enough. Enjoy the BBQ that's coming for your ass. You'll be the first at the stake to be served as steak. You think regular people have any qualms about tasting human? I certainly don't! I bet the rich taste better. After all, you sit on your fat asses all day doing nothing but screwing working people out of their money, lets see if money makes you more flavorful :P It'll be funny til you're actually on the rotisserie, eh?

Less than 1% of scientists take your climate-truther bullshit as fact, why do you insist on lying about it to make your argument seem more valid?

Nobody but an uneducated, illiterate retard takes your position. So, you are in good company. You guys should invest in wall technology, because the rest of us are coming, and you're first on the fuckin' menu.
Click to expand...
You might want to wipe the spittle off your chin. People might think you're crazy..........Oh, never mind.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
Really? You're claiming we're flat Earthers? So you can't make an intelligent argument but can resort to making ridiculous accusations

Once again, you make no argument what-so-ever against the content of the article, but complain about the source. It is apparent you HAVE no argument. You never do. So you hold your opinion on faith and faith alone. This is a religion for you. Any who doubt the holy writ of Al Gore must be crucified.
Click to expand...
You are arguing the point of the flat earthers using this analogy, yes

“If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?”

-Sam Harris

All 34 international science academies and 97% of scientists accept ACC. You're still standing there with your thumb up your butt asking for the missing link

Red1966 said:
You didn't analyze his citation. Complaining about who funded it doesn't even begin to address the content.
Click to expand...
That's the entirety of your sides argument against the IPCC, so are you sure you want to go down that road?

If funding doesn't matter, why don't you accept IPCC's analysis?

Red1966 said:
So meteorologists know nothing about weather, much less than say..the (failed) cartoonist you've been quoting? A thousand scientist disagree, but "the science is settled"?
Click to expand...
"The list presented by Morano in his minority 2007-2008 report has been criticized by Joseph J. Romm for including a significant number of people who are not sufficiently well-qualified to assess climate science, such as author Ray Kurzweil and a number of television meteorologists, such as Steve Baskerville, as well as scientists whose expertise is in geomagnetism. In 2009, Joseph Romm wrote that Morano was "unquotable and uncitable," adding "Besides his penchant for smear, he just makes stuff up..."

Red1966 said:
" for not a single leak to get out in more than 40 years of study" Uh...do you remember "climategate"? You know, where they got caught falsifying data?
" It would be easier to make me a theist " You are a theist, you just pretend it's "science". Like all theists do.
"and each IPCC assessment only strengthens the case." The last few were backpedaling, when none of their predictions came true.
Click to expand...
Climategate was investigated 8 different times, and all 8 the investigations cleared the climate scientists of any wrongdoing at all. All you watch is right wing media so you likely didn't know that, or you did and you're just being dishonest like usual. Or you simply don't care they were found not guilty 8 different times and will continue to spout off that right wing talking point as if it's a fact, just like the pundits you watch do. That's the GOP's style.

PS. Learn to multiquote
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
The chart on post #431 is garbage. It is a denier's interpretation of IPCC data yet it claims IPCC as source. To add insult to injury, the black line is still within predictions and as I told Sketchy Etchy when he linked it, the line representing 2006 denotes actual predictions from retrospect. It is therefore worthless.
One down, three to go.



The list on post #426 is a communication from the senate minority report. If you don't know who the senate minority was during this period, I'll tell you, it was the Republican party. The position is a dispute of consensus and not in any way does it represent a scientific conclusion. This list was compiled by James Inhofe (R-OK) with out consent of the scientists themselves. He has received nearly a million dollars in donations from the coal industry. In an attempt to divorce the science from politics, let's take a closer look at the content. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002211/
The list was compiled by Inhofe’s staff without prior consent by the scientists themselves; Parkinson says some have requested to be taken off the list. Moreover, only 15% of the scientists listed had published in the refereed literature on subjects related to climate science. Precisely how these individuals line up with respect to their own political views and funding isn’t disclosed in the report and therefore can’t be easily discerned.
Click to expand...
Pretty damning stuff. The Senate Minority report is garbage. Two down, two to go.



On post #433 a chart entitled "NASA Data: Global Warming Still on “Pause,” Sea Ice Hit Record". All this means is that some newspaper took NASA research and added the title to spin it into denial. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, record sea ice means gains in a single year. We're talking about 2012. The chart actually has no relation what so ever to the sea ice gains but you are quite stupid so what can we expect? Nonetheless, I'll explicate your nonargument. Measuring surface sea ice gains from record lows has been repeatedly demonstrated as a useless measurement. It doesn't represent record low tempuratures as the surface need only reach freezing in order to freeze. Furthermore, it also indicates record melts in the previous season. When one looks at total ice volume loss, it is clear that the ice caps have shrunk drastically. Furthermore, this summer saw record melts in a devastating way. Damning yet again. Three down and 1 to go.



Lastly post #430 we finally have you succeeding by accident. By that I mean, your link was garbage except for the fact that it actually contains a citation. So let's take a look at that. Kundzewicz et al. (2013)
ABSTRACT
Flood risk assessment is a pre‐requisite to flood risk management, required by the
Floods Directive of the European Union. However, even evaluation of flood risk changes in past‐
to‐present is problematic. No ubiquitous, general, and significant changes in observed flood
flows can be detected. Flood risk projections for the future are far more uncertain. A climatic
track is likely but there is also a strong natural variability and, at times, non‐climatic factors
dominate. Clearly, climate models cannot reliably reconstruct past precipitation and massive
bias reduction is necessary that does not build confidence. Projections are not only scenario‐
specific, but also largely model‐specific.Robust projections are sought across models and
scenarios, but often in vain. Hence, the question “adapt to what?” comes about. For the time
being, precautionary principle is of use. Even if science cannot deliver a crisp number, safety
margin approach lends itself well and adaptation is driven by the willingness to be on the safe
side. There is hope in reducing uncertainty by advancing rigorous attribution, via model‐based
interpretation of past extreme flood events
Click to expand...

^^I don't see anything about disputing CO2 as the cause for climate change in there.^^


Verdict, you managed to cite one actual scientific study, but because you relied on conservative media outlets, you were fooled into thinking that you were citing actual science. The one scientific study you accidentally shared, turned out to not support your argument. You have literally NOTHING!
 
Last edited:
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
You didn't analyze his citation. Complaining about who funded it doesn't even begin to address the content.
Click to expand...
I did. I explicated all of his arguments thoroughly. Of all of them he only actually cited a single peer reviewed study but it didn't even support his argument. He failed to cite anything worthwhile.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
You are arguing the point of the flat earthers using this analogy, yes
Nope. You're trying to misrepresent our statements

“If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?”

-Sam Harris
This applies to you as much as anyone.
All 34 international science academies and 97% of scientists accept ACC. You're still standing there with your thumb up your butt asking for the missing link

You mean the 97% of 38% that expressed an opinion? That's only 37%

That's the entirety of your sides argument against the IPCC, so are you sure you want to go down that road?
We have plenty of other arguments, You just ignore them
If funding doesn't matter, why don't you accept IPCC's analysis?

Because IPCC keeps backpedaling

"The list presented by Morano in his minority 2007-2008 report has been criticized by Joseph J. Romm for including a significant number of people who are not sufficiently well-qualified to assess climate science, such as author Ray Kurzweil and a number of television meteorologists, such as Steve Baskerville, as well as scientists whose expertise is in geomagnetism. In 2009, Joseph Romm wrote that Morano was "unquotable and uncitable," adding "Besides his penchant for smear, he just makes stuff up..."

Your "97%" includes a majority of non-qualified persons, yet that's fine by you.

Climategate was investigated 8 different times, and all 8 the investigations cleared the climate scientists of any wrongdoing at all. All you watch is right wing media so you likely didn't know that, or you did and you're just being dishonest like usual. Or you simply don't care they were found not guilty 8 different times and will continue to spout off that right wing talking point as if it's a fact, just like the pundits you watch do. That's the GOP's style.
Investigated by more global warming loons, you mean. Others, including members of the IPCC itself, found multiple instances of fraud.
PS. Learn to multiquote
Click to expand...
Tor won't let me attempt to multiquote without crashing
I watch MSNBC as much as I watch FOX
I'm registered as a Democrat, so not "GOP style"
P.S. Learn to argue what we say, not something we didn't say
All must bow down to the holy prophet Al Gore
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top