Good News Sucks for Climate Cultists

[Into the Night]

As usual, you are wrong.

Not wrong. Climate is not a branch of science. There is no such thing as 'climate science'. Climate has no value associated with it. What is changing?

[Lionfish]

Throwing money at globull warming is like stapling money to the clouds

[Into the Night]

He said he didn't find any links.

He didn't find any links to what he requested.

I pointed him in the direction of where the links are at.

You never made any links to what he requested.

Why do you think your opinion is so important on EVERYTHING?

For the same reason you do.

You realize no one actually takes anything you say seriously, right?
You aren't under the impression that your posts are of any value whatsoever are you?

Bulverism fallacy.

[Saint Guinefort]

You didn't make them obvious URL's like this

Sorry you are unfamiliar with how hyperlinks work. They have been on the internet since the 1990's.

That makes them hard to spot.

Are you new to the internet?

[Saint Guinefort]

He didn't find any links to what he requested.

That's why I helped him find them. He doesn't know how hyperlinks work on the internet. No harm, no foul. Everybody has to learn sometime.

You never made any links to what he requested.

That's a lie.

[Into the Night]

And you don't know how grant money is apportioned.

Simple. Money is taken from those that produce by force and given to those that produce nothing. It's communism.

Funny...I lived with someone whose job it was to assess incoming grant applications for earth science research.

Earth is not a branch of science. There is no such thing as 'earth science'.

And she never said that. In fact she said just the opposite.
But I'm sure YOU are far more knowledgeable on this topic than the people who actually do it.

Who is 'she'? Why does anything that 'she' said make any difference?

[Into the Night]

You didn't make them obvious URL's like this

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2...RoCTYIQAvD_BwE

That makes them hard to spot. I'll read them, but I'm not expecting much.

Already read it. It's just a circular argument. It's fundamentalism. No data is presented. Only religious statements. It does try to name drop NOAA and NASA, as if they somehow had some magick data.
Of course the historic data from the National Hurricane center disagrees with the article. That can be found here.

[Into the Night]

Throwing money at globull warming is like stapling money to the clouds

[Into the Night]

Sorry you are unfamiliar with how hyperlinks work. They have been on the internet since the 1990's.



Are you new to the internet?

A Holy Link is not a proof. You never provided any links to the data he requested.

[Saint Guinefort]

Simple. Money is taken from those that produce by force and given to those that produce nothing. It's communism.

Earth is not a branch of science. There is no such thing as 'earth science'.

Who is 'she'? Why does anything that 'she' said make any difference?

You're too funny. (Well, not really "funny", more like "sad" and "pathetic". But if it helps keep you occupied I guess it's all good. Enjoy spreading misinformation and lies.

[Into the Night]

That's why I helped him find them. He doesn't know how hyperlinks work on the internet. No harm, no foul. Everybody has to learn sometime.



That's a lie.

Lie. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

[Saint Guinefort]

A Holy Link is not a proof. You never provided any links to the data he requested.

Stop lying.

[T. A. Gardner]

Post #79. Second paragraph. There's two links in there.

Gosh I hate to think how sloppy you are overall if you couldn't find those. THey were addressed directly TO YOU.

Okay, I read them. NASA practically breaks a proverbial arm patting themselves on the back. What that article amounts to is, We did an analysis of our analysis and we were right! The article in Science is a bit better but hardly convincing on its own. I would assume the modelling is getting better, but the problem remains that it's basically a variant of the McNamara fallacy in the form of a fallacy fallacy. That is, it is a quantitative analysis with so many unknows in it as to be little more than a guess.

More damning for the True Believers are articles that are now popping up like this one:

The Right Words Are Crucial to Solving Climate Change
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...limate-change/

(See? That's an obvious link)

It was in February 2023's Scientific American, and the author for all intents is telling the reader how to use propaganda techniques and other means of obfuscation to try and convince people about the radical Left's version of Gorebal Warming. When the True Believers are resorting to propaganda and lies to try and convince someone of their beliefs they've become no better than religion and many cases worse.

I also don't buy the idea that the solutions to this problem are set in concrete the way the Left does. They push solar and wind, not what works which would be nuclear and natural gas. They push battery cars and such when the solution would be anhydrous ammonia or hydrogen (gas or liquid). They have a set and entrenched position, and stridently ignore other solutions. Again, that reeks of religion not science.

There is every reason NOT to believe the Gorebal Warming crowd, and every reason to reject them.

[Into the Night]

You're too funny. (Well, not really "funny", more like "sad" and "pathetic". But if it helps keep you occupied I guess it's all good. Enjoy spreading misinformation and lies.

So where does that grant money come from? Taxes? Printing it? Borrowing it?

It's communism, dude.

[Into the Night]

Stop lying.

Contextomy fallacy. Random statement. No apparent coherency.