bearlyamazing;842852972 said:

---

Oh yeah, that carries a lot of weight coming from the far left



All of those characterizations come straight from the left handbook. You can't even attempt to deny it, either. Vilify, marginalize, shout over, control the message, dupe the public and deny debate. Classic lefty tools. Are you trying to deny for even a second that the far left and liberal media don't play the "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, climate-denying, money-grubbing, ignorant bible thumper, Trump-lover" card against republicans or Trump voters constantly? In what world does that not happen?

Cal88 and hbbear, among others have brought great counterpoints to the debate but are met with the typical snark, contempt and denial we'd expect to see from true lefties that are outraged at being challenged on their climate mantras. Settled science! 97% of experts agree! They won't accept anyone challenging their narrative, much like the establishment they're shilling for here.

---

I honestly feel bad for you, man. The "evidence" presented by Cal88 has been either flat-out false (and proven as such) or cherry-picked from highly questionable sources. You seem to believe it mostly because it goes against what "the left" wants.

The fact that all of your responses on this issue just devolve into attacks on "liberals" and "lefties" suggests that this is purely about sticking with your "tribe" and not any deeper examination of what is actually true.

I'm sure you will say the same about me, as you have been doing. I understand that. I just hope that some day you'll recognize that the climate change deniers are lying to you. That doesn't mean you have to become a liberal or a Democrat, but it will mean you have a firmer grasp on reality.

Time for bearlyamazing to put up or shut up. Which of the numerous instances of Sycasey, Berliner and others uncovering Cal88 falsehoods are incorrect?

Perhaps you can muster a defense where Cal88 hasn't even bothered.

More poo pooing and patronization.

Don't ever change.

bearlyamazing;842852984 said:

---

More poo pooing and patronization.

Don't ever change.

---

As I expected.

bearlyamazing;842852984 said:

---

More poo pooing and patronization.

Don't ever change.

---

Sounds like "the typical snark, contempt and denial we'd expect to see from true [insert whatever it is you are] that are outraged at being challenged."

Unit2Sucks;842852983 said:

---

Perhaps you can muster a defense where Cal88 hasn't even bothered.

---

Hold my beer.

sycasey;842852940 said:

---

If you've gotten wise to Cal88's strategy, you may have figured this out already, but just to go over this.

Here he is comparing a survey done by credentialed scientists from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) to an informal survey done by "Kenneth Richard," which is an Internet alias for a climate denier named Rick Cina. Does he have any credentials in climate science? No.

http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/16/current-solar-cycle-weakest-in-2-centuries-and-grant-fosters-far-fetched-model-claims/comment-page-1/#comment-1154323

The blog is run by Pierre Gosselin, who is also not a credentialed scientist:

http://notrickszone.com/about-pierre-gosselin/#sthash.BY4WyEPc.dpbs

However, he has been known to misrepresent claims about global climate change and the scientific consensus surrounding it before:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/07/wuwt-shows-that-999-of-recent-papers.html

I also do not purport to be a climate scientist, so I wouldn't expect anyone to take my interpretations of scientific papers more seriously than NOAA either. However, just in looking at the quotes from the papers provided in Cal88's link, I already see some things that look pretty questionable as support for "global cooling." Some of them only actually describe temperature changes in the Northern Hemisphere (which is not "global," as you might have guessed). Some of them only describe temperature changes over a certain number of years but do not necessarily predict that the cooling trend will continue. Some of them are really just papers that express doubts about the effect of CO2 on global temperature changes (which I and the sources I link to already acknowledge was still not clear in the 1970s, much clearer now) and don't mention global cooling. Cal88, of course, is lumping these in with the others in an attempt to prove a "global cooling" scientific consensus at the time.

So just looking at those examples already has me skeptical that this guy is not on the level. The fact that he publishes under a pseudonym on a site called "No Tricks Zone" also seems fishy. And the fact that he admits himself that he does not have any formal education in the sciences makes me think that he is probably not qualified to review scientific papers and determine what they are saying about global climate change.

So again, this comes down to who you want to believe: actual credentialed scientists or bloggers who post under fake names?

---

This is the equivalent of Cumberland frantically trying to to work the ref down by 176 pts to Georgia Tech in the 4th quarter.

Because the score here is 220-44 Sy, 220 scientific papers on global cooling versus 44 on global warming in the 1960s/70s period studied. An 83.3% to 16.7% blowout.

And here you are Sy, nitpicking about how the northern hemisphere, with 90% of the world population and over 2/3 of the land mass is [U]NOT[/U] indicative of global temperature, no siree!

You're telling us that we should believe Connolley, the Climate Scientist[SUP][/SUP] from NOAA, who somehow could only manage to find SEVEN scientific papers about global cooling in the period he studied, and not believe that shady blogger who somehow managed to find and list 213 additional published scientific studies on global cooling just from that 1965-79 period, neatly presented and repertoried on his blog (LINK)?

Maybe Connolley, the Climate Scientist[SUP][/SUP] from NOAA, doesn't believe that the National Academy of Science actually exists, because they've published a study in 1975 stating that " Since the 1940’s, mean temperatures have declined and are now nearly halfway back to the 1880 levels.There seems little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate". That 1975 study was left out from his survey of 1970s studies.

Or maybe Connolley, the Climate Scientist[SUP][/SUP] from NOAA, doesn't actually believe that the Central Intelligence Agency actually exists, because they've published a study in 1974 stating that "22 out of 27 forecasting methods examined predicted a cooling trend through the remainder of this century". That 1974 study was left out from his survey of 1970s studies.

OK, so you can forgive Connolley for missing those two studies, and maybe even the other 210 sicentific studies on global cooling from 1965-79 he's managed to miss on top of these two studies... But when Connolley, the Climate Scientist[SUP][/SUP] from NOAA doesn't even mention the 1974 publication from NOAA, an article in their official quarterly review that states the following: "Some climatologists think that the present cooling trend may be the start of a slide into another period of major glaciation, popularly called an “ice age.”, well then you know that the guy is really full of it.

Even when he and Peterson get called for their con job trying to hide the fact of the scientific consensus on global cooling in the 1960s/70s by claiming there were only 7 studies on global cooling instead of hundreds, they don't bother to retract that rigged survey of theirs, because they know that they can get away with this kind of gross manipulation, I mean everyone knows that those deniers are a fishy bunch.

Sorry Cal88 but if it's not on a fake Time magazine cover, a fraudulent graph, or a cherry-picked datapoint, your denier friends won't believe it. I have a feeling you have a bunch more in your back pocket though.

FCBear;842852979 said:

---

Bam!

Don't give up boys!

Question science!

The left hates any questioning of their beliefs..

---

Imagine what could be accomplished if the power of human reason wasn't in the terribly burdensome position of having to defend empiricism and justice from the absurdity that is the conservative body politic. Without the left to contain the evil of American conservatism, we would still have slavery, anti-miscegenation laws, only property owning white men would be allowed to vote, creation science would replace modern biology, women would return to subjugation, no social services, the prison population, unemployment rate, poverty and the national debt would all soar, etc, etc

It gets funnier: 7 of these 1970s papers on global cooling claimed that the cause for global cooling is... CO2. I guess the climate scientists where for it, before they were against it.

Seriously thouhh, the gist from most of these 70s studies was the weather is getting colder, and we need to really worry about this wiping out crops, back when the world population was less than half what it is today. In truth they had some reason to be concerned, as there were more regular crop failures back then. Well the weather got a bit warmer since, and with this, combined with the ~25% increase in CO2 concentrations since the 60s (fertilizing effect), we now have record crops and record stocks of wheat, rice, corn and soybeans.

This is the real snapshot of the current world food situation, those are some headlines from grain industry outlets most of us haven't heard about (links provided):

U.S. wheat glut may top 1 billion bushels, in world awash in grain
World awash in grain despite record consumption
Soybeans and corn record crops challenge Brazil's storage capacity
Another record-breaking harvest - World grains production will break records again this year.


...and this the kind of reporting on the world food supply that you get from mainstream alarmist climate change media (from Climate Central, the site strongly recommended by mbBear a few pages ago):

"CLIMATE CHANGE COULD DISRUPT FOOD "CHOKEPOINTS"" link

Right, the world is ending! We have only 10 more years left. 8 years ago, Prince Charles said we only had 8 years to go (link), so I guess those 10 years to come are a sweet bonus.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25-years-of-predicting-the-global-warming-tipping-point/

Unit2Sucks;842852994 said:

---

Sorry Cal88 but if it's not on a fake Time magazine cover, a fraudulent graph, or a cherry-picked datapoint, your denier friends won't believe it. I have a feeling you have a bunch more in your back pocket though.

---

You're making a solid, well-supported case here, U2S.

Cal88;842852998 said:

---

It gets funnier: 7 of these 1970s papers on global cooling claimed that the cause for global cooling is... CO2. I guess the climate scientists where for it, before they were against it.

Seriously thouhh, the gist from most of these 70s studies was the weather is getting colder, and we need to really worry about this wiping out crops, back when the world population was less than half what it is today. In truth they had some reason to be concerned, as there were more regular crop failures back then. Well the weather got a bit warmer since, and with this, combined with the ~25% increase in CO2 concentrations since the 60s (fertilizing effect), we now have record crops and record stocks of wheat, rice, corn and soybeans.

This is the real snapshot of the current world food situation, those are some headlines from grain industry outlets most of us haven't heard about (links provided):

U.S. wheat glut may top 1 billion bushels, in world awash in grain
World awash in grain despite record consumption
Soybeans and corn record crops challenge Brazil's storage capacity
Another record-breaking harvest - World grains production will break records again this year.


...and this the kind of reporting on the world food supply that you get from mainstream alarmist climate change media (from Climate Central, the site strongly recommended by mbBear a few pages ago):

"CLIMATE CHANGE COULD DISRUPT FOOD "CHOKEPOINTS"" link

Right, we have only 10 more years left. 8 years ago, Prince Charles said we only had 8 years to go (link), so I guess those 10 years to come are a sweet bonus.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25-years-of-predicting-the-global-warming-tipping-point/

---

Look at what Cal88 is doing. The claims of a relative handful of papers written over 40+ years ago has no practical bearing on the tens thousands research papers and data collections performed all over the world in the last 20 years. He's ignoring all benefit from the technological advances in meteorology and data analysis in order to prop up this ridiculous charade, as though technological and theoretical advancement hadn't forced us to rewrite (or at least enormously supplement) every science book written before 2000 several times over. All in the cause of distraction, disruption and confusion for the political gain of Republican politicians and the financial gain of conservative oligarchs. I expect some of it has to be for fun too. We all know persecuting people--especially scientists--is a favorite pastime among those of his ilk.

Unit2Sucks;842852956 said:

---

I really would like to know what other conspiracy theories you all believe in. Any birthers or truthers in the house? Moon landing and Sandy hook was faked? Ogopogo monster believers? Rapture? Don't be shy tell us what else we've been lied to about. I'm open minded - I could be convinced NASA is building a slave colony on mars with kidnapped children.

---

You couldn't be convinced of anything.

Cave Bear;842852996 said:

---

Imagine what could be accomplished if the power of human reason wasn't in the terribly burdensome position of having to defend empiricism and justice from the absurdity that is the conservative body politic. Without the left to contain the evil of American conservatism, we would still have slavery, anti-miscegenation laws, only property owning white men would be allowed to vote, creation science would replace modern biology, women would return to subjugation, no social services, the prison population, unemployment rate, poverty and the national debt would all soar, etc, etc

---

No wonder any discussion is near impossible here. I might comment with the above post your screen name is appropriate.

How many lies need to be uncovered before you realize Cal88 is not acting in good faith?

For a "near impossible" discussion, this thread sure has gone on for a long time and been remarkably civil. But back to my first question, how long do you expect people to engage with someone who continually posts proven false propaganda, faked charts and data (and magazine covers) and otherwise employs misinformation techniques with no defense when he's caught red-handed?

I would say I'm surprised by the lack of disappointment from the "open minded" crowd, but it's all too common these days.

Cave Bear;842853000 said:

---

Look at what Cal88 is doing. The claims of a relative handful of papers written over 40+ years ago has no practical bearing on the tens thousands research papers and data collections performed all over the world in the last 20 years. He's ignoring all benefit from the technological advances in meteorology and data analysis in order to prop up this ridiculous charade, as though technological and theoretical advancement hadn't forced us to rewrite (or at least enormously supplement) every science book written before 2000 several times over. All in the cause of distraction, disruption and confusion for the political gain of Republican politicians and the financial gain of conservative oligarchs. I expect some of it has to be for fun too. We all know persecuting people--especially scientists--is a favorite pastime among those of his ilk.

---

Fahrenheit invented the mercury thermometer over 300 years ago. Scientists in the 1970s were perfectly capable of accurately documenting their climate, and by a margin of 5 to 1, they told us that their world was cooling. And unlike the batch of zealots running the show today, they had far less financial or political incentive to fudge their numbers. Those are the kind of statements scientists made before the debate got politicized in the 1990s, this is what Thomas Karl, the former director of NOAA had to say about warming in the 20th century:



The current batch of zealots didn't just rewrite every textbook, they also "rewrote" the data that their forebearers had painstakingly observed and recorded. Here is the NASA US 20th century average temperature graph as it appeared in 1999, and as it was "rewritten" by lead NASA administrator James Hansen in 2014:



And here are carefully documented extensive evidence of similar data manipulation at NOAA and elsewhere:

http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/30/robust-evidence-noaa-temperature-data-hopelessly-corrupted-by-warming-bias-manipulation/#sthash.tyiW2q81.dpbs


An on the subject of "the financial gain of conservative oligarchs", which side do you actually think Goldman Sachs and the rest of Wall Street and The City (London, not SF), are on? Who is going to run and profit from the carbon trade market deviced by Ken Lay in the 1990s, slated to reach $10 trillion/yr by the end of next decade?

Quote:

---

A market that trades $10 trillion a year would generate $25 billion a year in revenue, if fees and commissions average 0.25 percent. If Goldman can capture 30 percent of these trades by getting in on the ground floor, then it stands to generate more than $8 billion each year in revenue from carbon trading. This is enough to explain Goldman’s enthusiasm for cap and trade — it’s all about as clear as it can possibly be.

---

This is from Mother Jones, those conservative oligarch shills:
"WALL STREET AND CARBON TRADING" (LINK)

Quote:

---

Quote Originally Posted by Cave Bear
We all know persecuting people--especially scientists--is a favorite pastime among those of his ilk.

---

Final point, on persecuted scientists, guess who is being targeted here. Here's a 4 minute interview of Judih Curry, who was at the top of the academic field and got pushed out:

[video=youtube;qUVAwp1x1hw][/video]

Unit2Sucks;842853013 said:

---

How many lies need to be uncovered before you realize Cal88 is not acting in good faith?

For a "near impossible" discussion, this thread sure has gone on for a long time and been remarkably civil. But back to my first question, how long do you expect people to engage with someone who continually posts proven false propaganda, faked charts and data (and magazine covers) and otherwise employs misinformation techniques with no defense when he's caught red-handed?

I would say I'm surprised by the lack of disappointment from the "open minded" crowd, but it's all too common these days.

---

Some of the "open minded" crowd might actually be open minded, or at least interested in hearing about the many aspects of this debate that they haven't been exposed to, laid out and presented in a rational and civil manner.

"Cal88 is a liar!!" is not a cogent argument, it's a basic smear that reflects your lack of command of the subject at hand and your will to obfuscate the debate through personal attacks and smears. And it's not a very effective line, even if you repeat it till you wear out your keyboard.

Cal88;842853018 said:

---

Some of the "open minded" crowd might actually be open minded, or at least interested in hearing about the many aspects of this debate that they haven't been exposed to, laid out and presented in a rational and civil manner.

"Cal88 is a liar!!" is not a cogent argument, it's a basic smear that reflects your lack of command of the subject at hand and your will to obfuscate the debate through personal attacks and smears. And it's not a very effective line, even if you repeat it till you wear out your keyboard.

---

"Cal88 is a liar" has the benefit of being demonstrably shown in this thread. You have no credibility.

Cal88 - you can start by refuting all of the proof of your misinformation that's been offered up in this thread. Instead you post more stuff you probably found on your climate denier message boards of questionable authenticity. Given how many fake charts and periodicals you've produced, why would we believe any new ones that you post?

While we are at it, you keep bringing up Judith Curry as if she supports your position but she isn't really a climate change denier, she's more of a shrugger. Here's what appears to me to be a balanced interview with her from 2013 by NPR. She certainly challenges the status quo and thinks that there is more uncertainty than prevailing science, but to throw her out as an example of someone who denies AGW is inaccurate. She says "If all other things remain equal, it's clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet" but she says we don't know enough about natural variation (which is in her Tucker Carlson interview although being the partisan shill that he is, he didn't want to let her talk about that). She also worries about the economic impact. I don't think anyone here is afraid to have the type of discussion that Curry is interested in, but it's very different from the way you've represented her position and the position that you and other climate deniers are advocating.

Now that you've exhausted your top 50 bogus arguments and been called on so many lies, I expect you to cut and paste another unrelated batch of information from your favorite blog instead of answering your critics. Perhaps the next blast will be about the health benefits of vitamin D absorption in a CO2 rich atmosphere or the improvement in Icelanding beer fermentation.

Cave Bear;842853000 said:

---

Look at what Cal88 is doing. The claims of a relative handful of papers written over 40+ years ago has no practical bearing on the tens thousands research papers and data collections performed all over the world in the last 20 years. He's ignoring all benefit from the technological advances in meteorology and data analysis in order to prop up this ridiculous charade, as though technological and theoretical advancement hadn't forced us to rewrite (or at least enormously supplement) every science book written before 2000 several times over. All in the cause of distraction, disruption and confusion for the political gain of Republican politicians and the financial gain of conservative oligarchs. I expect some of it has to be for fun too. We all know persecuting people--especially scientists--is a favorite pastime among those of his ilk.

---

The fact that Cal88 is tireless with his disinformation campaign is certainly noteworthy. As in the movie Groundhog Day, it's like he regularly starts from square one, no matter what transpires shortly before. I must say, however, it is even more noteworthy that he has a couple of ardent followers. I'm just thankful there is always somebody around to point out the holes in his campaign.

What holes, Chazzed? Don't confuse personal attacks and smears with holes in my rational argumentation.

Unit2Sucks;842853024 said:

---

Cal88 - you can start by refuting all of the proof of your misinformation that's been offered up in this thread. Instead you post more stuff you probably found on your climate denier message boards of questionable authenticity. Given how many fake charts and periodicals you've produced, why would we believe any new ones that you post?

---

The answer to your bolded part is, ONE Time magazine cover that turned out to be fake, and dozens of real clippings and covers, all of which are real.

I've also proven beyond doubt that the point made in that cover, global cooling, was actually the norm across the media of the time and by a ratio of 5 to 1, the actual consensus in the scientific community in the 1960s/70s.

NONE of the charts I've posted are fake, the only thing that is fake here is your cheap lawyerly argumentation that boils down to smearing my entire body of work over that one Time magazine cover that was only a side part of a larger graphic.

Smear away, U2S!

Quote:

---

While we are at it, you keep bringing up Judith Curry as if she supports your position but she isn't really a climate change denier, she's more of a shrugger. Here's what appears to me to be a balanced interview with her from 2013 by NPR. She certainly challenges the status quo and thinks that there is more uncertainty than prevailing science, but to throw her out as an example of someone who denies AGW is inaccurate. She says "If all other things remain equal, it's clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet" but she says we don't know enough about natural variation (which is in her Tucker Carlson interview although being the partisan shill that he is, he didn't want to let her talk about that). She also worries about the economic impact. I don't think anyone here is afraid to have the type of discussion that Curry is interested in, but it's very different from the way you've represented her position and the position that you and other climate deniers are advocating.

---

Dr. Curry is a lukewarmer, someone who believes that humans do have an impact on climate, but that the extent of which is unknown relative to the the natural forces governing climate. The great majority of "deniers", myself included, also happen to believe this. That the 97% scientific consensus lumps all of them together with the scientific establishment shows you how manipulative that narrative is, Curry drives home this point at the end of the interview above, saying how she was included in the consensus despite not being fully on board, thus debunking the 97% consensus mantra.

The other key point to take in here is that even a moderate, in the form of a leading scientific figure like Judith Curry, will find herself at odds in the scientific community for straying a bit off the alarmist position. She was relentlessly harrassed and targeted for not being 100% on board of established climate dogma, so much so that she got driven out from academia. Her moderate position is not one that the scientific establishment is interested in acknowledging.

Unfortunately, that kind of intransigence is also reflected in this thread, judging by the number of personal attacks and smears I've been the target of in the last half dozen pages of this thread.

OdontoBear66;842853011 said:

---

No wonder any discussion is near impossible here. I might comment with the above post your screen name is appropriate.

---

Feel welcome to point out which parts of the above post you think aren't true

"Call88 is a liar" may not be a cogent argument, but is "climate change is a plot by the One World Order to replace the US with the UN" any more cogent?

It is true that there was a time when global cooling was considered a possibility. The best current understanding is that the increase in CO2 as well as better data have changed the current conclusions. The idea that scientists have been incorrect in the past is a reason to disregard science now is preposterous. For millennia it was known that the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat. Therefore, we shouldn't believe current scientific dogma that the sun is the center of the solar system and the earth is round (actually more oval, but whatever); it's just a temporary theory.

As I posted before, when basing policy on scientific data, you need to consider the consequences of Type 1 and Type 2 errors. In this case, the consequence of a Type 1 error (concluding no effect when there is, in fact, a real one) is potentially quite devastating, while the consequence of a Type 2 error (concluding an effect when there isn't really one) is less severe: possible temporary economic dislocation, drop in income for the Koch brothers, etc. (unless you believe that it's all a plot by a secret cabal to destroy America). Thus the prudent individual/society prepares for the more destructive possibility.

Cal88;842853016 said:

---

Fahrenheit invented the mercury thermometer over 300 years ago. Scientists in the 1970s were perfectly capable of accurately documenting their climate, and by a margin of 6 to 1, they told us that their world was cooling. And unlike the batch of zealots running the show today, they had far less financial or political incentive to fudge their numbers. Those are the kind of statements scientists made before the debate got politicized in the 1990s, this is what Thomas Karl, the former director of NOAA had to say about warming in the 20th century:



The current batch of zealots didn't just rewrite every textbook, they also "rewrote" the data that their forebearers had painstakingly observed and recorded. Here is the NASA US 20th century average temperature graph as it appeared in 1999, and as it was "rewritten" by lead NASA administrator James Hansen in 2014:



And here are carefully documented extensive evidence of similar data manipulation at NOAA and elsewhere:

http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/30/robust-evidence-noaa-temperature-data-hopelessly-corrupted-by-warming-bias-manipulation/#sthash.tyiW2q81.dpbs


An on the subject of "the financial gain of conservative oligarchs", which side do you actually think Goldman Sachs and the rest of Wall Street and The City (London, not SF), are on? Who is going to run and profit from the carbon trade market deviced by Ken Lay in the 1990s, slated to reach $10 trillion/yr by the end of next decade?



This is from Mother Jones, those conservative oligarch shills:
"WALL STREET AND CARBON TRADING" (LINK)




Final point, on persecuted scientists, guess who is being targeted here. Here's a 4 minute interview of Judih Curry, who was at the top of the academic field and got pushed out:

[video=youtube;qUVAwp1x1hw][/video]

---

Right, I understood you the first time. Because science held something else before, we can't believe what they hold now. Of course it's total garbage because it applies to literally every field of science and has zero bearing on the content of the research that is conducted today.

Cal88;842853034 said:

---

NONE of the charts I've posted are fake, the only thing that is fake here is your cheap lawyerly argumentation that boils down to smearing my entire body of work over that one Time magazine cover that was only a side part of a larger graphic.

---

Nice try but there was the chart from the Alex Jones website among others. Also there were 3 other Time covers which were real but which you asserted with no factual basis were in support of your (largely irrelevant) position that there was some consensus on global cooling in the 1970s. All you have to do is actually engage with Berliner, Sycasey and others who have pointed out your lies but you refuse to do so. Look at posts 569, 556, 548 and 529. That's just what I could find in the last few pages with a few minutes of review but I'm sure if someone wanted to go back to the beginning of this thread there would be others as well.

chazzed;842853029 said:

---

The fact that Cal88 is tireless with his disinformation campaign is certainly noteworthy. As in the movie Groundhog Day, it's like he regularly starts from square one, no matter what transpires shortly before. I must say, however, it is even more noteworthy that he has a couple of ardent followers. I'm just thankful there is always somebody around to point out the holes in his campaign.

---

You guys crack me up. Apparently there is no information provided by climate skeptics that is worthy of your consideration. After all the two greatest scientists of all (AlGore and BO) have weighed in.

ps try following the money to them if you dare...

NVBear78;842853049 said:

---

You guys crack me up. Apparently there is no information provided by climate skeptics that is worthy of your consideration. After all the two greatest scientists of all (AlGore and BO) have weighed in.

ps try following the money to them if you dare...

---

The only people that bring up Al Gore on this thread are deniers. The other side is talking about actual scientists.

NVBear78;842853049 said:

---

You guys crack me up. Apparently there is no information provided by climate skeptics that is worthy of your consideration.

---

It's been considered, and found either (1) fake, (2) irrelevant, or (3) highly cherry-picked and out of context. As such, the person who keeps posting this information has no credibility.

[video=youtube;WJfS5bvb6Yk][/video]

NVBear78;842853049 said:

---

You guys crack me up. Apparently there is no information provided by climate skeptics that is worthy of your consideration.

---

Then you're cracked up over your own misunderstanding. Worthy information could certainly be provided by a climate skeptic, just not from those who have contributed here so far. I welcome all views from qualified experts--that's qualified scientists who aren't shills for the fossil fuels industry, not propagandists like Cal88 who among other objectionable practices posts fake charts, doctored magazines, and denials of contemporary science based on the failures of science from previous generations.

Quote:

---

After all the two greatest scientists of all (AlGore and BO) have weighed in.

---

Excellent NVBear78, I couldn't be more pleased you've pointed this out because it helps us make the next step together. Let's now remove all unqualified people like Gore, Obama and everyone else who's not a qualified Earth scientist from the argument because I agree that these are the opinions that should matter. Now that we've clearly established who we should be listening to, let's hear what they have to say: by overwhelming majorities they say that (1) climate change is real, (2) it's being driven by humans burning carbon, (3) it will have severe negative impacts on both human populations and be catastrophic to natural ecosystems.

Quote:

---

ps try following the money to them if you dare...

---

If that's a compelling argument to you, look to your own back yard. Tell me honestly NVBear78, because apparently you are savvy enough to see the danger from financial conflict of interest, why have you never followed the money to the source for the deniers? How does it not damn the integrity of their position when the entire denial movement is driven by the people with the greatest financial conflict of interest?

Unit2Sucks;842853042 said:

---

Nice try but there was the chart from the Alex Jones website among others.

---

Very lousy attempt at Guilt By Association there. That chart might have been picked up and republished by Alex Jones, but it's been published by WUWT (WattsupWithThat.com), the most widely viewed website on climate change in the world, here is the page featuring this graph, the entry about the logarithmically-diminishing rate of heating from increases in atmospheric CO2:



https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

The information conveyed on this graph is beyond debate, it's widely accepted basic CO2 behavior. Your smear campaign is completely groundless, a complete nothing burger (and hold the cheese).

Quote:

---

the chart from the Alex Jones website among others

---

What "others", there is no there there, Gerturde.

Quote:

---

Also there were 3 other Time covers which were real but which you asserted with no factual basis were in support of your (largely irrelevant) position that there was some consensus on global cooling in the 1970s. All you have to do is actually engage with Berliner, Sycasey and others who have pointed out your lies but you refuse to do so. Look at posts 569, 556, 548 and 529. That's just what I could find in the last few pages with a few minutes of review but I'm sure if someone wanted to go back to the beginning of this thread there would be others as well.

---

Right then, ignore completely the dozens and dozens of media clippings and links from reputable sources painstakingly gathered in my two mega-posts showing the irrefutable consensus on global cooling, and nitpick about the existential symbolism in those Time covers... Those aren't the droids you've been looking for! and oh...ALEX JONES!!!!

Sycasey, dajo and cavebear have zero credibility here.

By using the straight out of the climate change fanatic handbook tactic of completely dismissing out of hand any skepticism or evidence that contradicts their absolutist philosophies, they show the complete intransigence and cult-like mentality of the crowd they run with. Painting those with opposing views as liars or ignorant and trying to discredit each and every counterpoint and piece of evidence that shows their intractable views on the subject might be found questionable and lacking in some areas is the type of bs bullying that people are sick of and it reflects very poorly on our great university that we'd produce people like you.

Most of the "climate skeptics" out there believe that there's a man-made influence on climate to some extent and are willing to take common sense steps to protect the environment but your complete and utter refusal to accept that some of the philosophies that drive the climate change movement have plenty of room for error and, at a minimum, a need for more data, study and discovery just shows your obliviousness to reality.

bearlyamazing;842853062 said:

---

Most of the "climate skeptics" out there believe that there's a man-made influence on climate to some extent and are willing to take common sense steps to protect the environment

---

Oh now that is something interesting. What steps would those be? I confess I haven't seen any such proposals from the climate skeptics.

sycasey;842853063 said:

---

Oh now that is something interesting. What steps would those be? I confess I haven't seen any such proposals from the climate skeptics.

---

For one thing, the world will not end just because we are not on board with the Paris Accords.

Cal88, I admire your persistence. And your arguments.

Did you see all the refutations I got when I posted the source CO2 data published by NASA/NOAA/Hadley? I didn't either.

Whenever these CC proponents are confronted with evidence, they call it fraudulent or ignore it. They have no facts to refute it, especially when it's their data.

We are not dealing here with people of a liberal persuasion. Instead, they fancy themselves as soldiers in the war to tyrannize the US and part of that (from Alinsky) is never to allow the other side to have the last word. Never. They "fight" by doing or saying whatever they think will damage the other side, no matter what. To them, the truth is whatever they say.

Happily, there are more and more of the population who believe, as we do, that we can be good stewards of the planet without self-bankruptcy. That we must face up to what's really going on and make progress (cough) to ameliorate it in the face of actual events and not contrivances. We will not be bullied or extorted into bending the knee simply because they won't shut up. We will not take action or be taxed because someone tried to guilt trip us into their nightmare.

Strykur;842853066 said:

---

For one thing, the world will not end just because we are not on board with the Paris Accords.

---

That's not a proposal.