Study: Prematurely Migrating Birds Too Stupid to Realize Climate Change a Hoax

PolarBearCartoon.jpg
 
Cypress said:
Wrong, Mr. "PhD in Physical Chemistry".
Natural causes has been ruled out with a high degree of scientific certainty and deviation from a natural baseline is known with a high degree of scientific certainty.
Click to expand...
Problem with that is I've read enough articles that were slightly slanted towards AGW with a few key words or sentences that contradicted one another.



Cypress said:
If you want to make a claim that is very far outside the norms of accepted science - namely that the rate of global warming is all natural - then the burden is on you to provide a body of scientific evidence from a range of reputable peer reviewed sources having expertise in climate science, demonstrating your assertion is true.
Click to expand...
This last statement reveals to me that you have no idea what my assertion is. I've never, ever stated that. I challenge you to find it.

Cypress said:
I am not obligated to accept the premise of random "questions", unless you can prove there is a credible basis supporting the premise of your question.
Click to expand...
It was a very specific question. I'll repeat it for the benefit of those that can think with a semblance of logic (not you):
aloysious said:
Since AGW has been verified, I assume it's been verified what the climate would be without humans. Any scientific references to this verification?
Click to expand...
The 'inconvenient truth', unlike Algore's sensationalized hollywood movie chock full of lies and exaggerations , is that the answer is a resounding and obvious "no". Until you present peer reviewed scientific papers with the repeatable conclusion that even 50% of the present climate change (and yes, it's always changing) is due to human activity, then it's proof enough that there are none, zero. In fact, it's plenty proof enough that you won't do it because you can't. It's just not there. And it's certainly not there because Algore says so.
 
Cypress said:
Nope. You don't get to do that.

You do not get to retreat, back pedal, and goal post move away from previous wingnut claims about hoaxes, faked data, and vast global conspiracies to dupe the public.

At the height of the phony Climategate non-scandal, winguts - to a man - did a victory dance and falsely claimed that the scientific community had been faking data, and perpetrating a hoax on the public.

Any sentient adult also remember when wingnuts - to a man - denied there was any global warming at all. Their favorite pet theory was that warming was fake, and being cause by urban heat islands.

You own the claims of hoaxes, conspiracies, and data fabrication. You are not, under any circumstances allowed to innocently claim you supposedly knew all along that the earth was warming, that climate was changing.

If you would keep from changing your stories a full 180 degrees, then maybe you could be trusted to debate honestly
Click to expand...

Translation:

Yes, the climate has warmed and cooled and warmed and cooled, long before the industrial age. But you don't get to point out that fact to me, because I must worship at the feet of Gore and blame only man for 'climate change'. There is no other reason the climate would change.
 
Saccharin is another example of an item that was banned when anyone who looked at the studies (except the judge) knew it was safe. After decades, saccharin was finally removed from the cancer causing list.
 
aloysious said:
Sorry , you won't get an answer from the Algore worshipers/believers. Too inconvenient to answer the truth . They can't come up with anything.
Click to expand...

The majority of them don't really know the science so they can't answer it. They subscribe to AGW because they believe the issue has been settled.

It's unfortunate that the left is dogmatic about it because it's a fascinating topic/debate. The problem is it's been infused with ideology.

Climatology has become a 'political science'.
 
Dogma said:
yet dumbasses like you aren't willing to give up anything.
Click to expand...

How do you know that? If you understand the basic science, understand that it is occurring, and support policies that reduce and reverse its effect, that's enough. This or that small hypocrisy will itself be ameliorated by the coercion on businesses to produce environmentally preferable alternatives. Then instead of that inefficient engine, even the well intentioned hypocrites will be purchasing cleaner engines on everything from cars to lawn care products.

That how it works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top