How to talk climate change issues 2017

[cancel2 2022]

I grow exceedingly tired of explaining the same stuff over and over, so here are all the talking points in one place.

http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uplo...ing-Points.pdf

Sent from my iPhone 25S Turbo

[Owl'd You're Up!]

Nice collection of crooks, paid-for liars, and cranks you got there.

Here's a good, generic description of your "paper" and its main characteristics, particularly its odious strategery. So, there really is no need for you to explain "the same stuff over and over", as it has been well understood, seen through, and debunked, years ago. The only things you need to explain is how you acquired the temerity to throw out the same, tired old stuff time and again, and what the difference really is between a run-of-the-mill denialist, and a "climate realist", for I cannot see any.

[cancel2 2022]

Nice collection of crooks, paid-for liars, and cranks you got there.

Here's a good, generic description of your "paper" and its main characteristics, particularly its odious strategery. So, there really is no need for you to explain "the same stuff over and over", as it has been well understood, seen through, and debunked, years ago. The only things you need to explain is how you acquired the temerity to throw out the same, tired old stuff time and again, and what the difference really is between a run-of-the-mill denialist, and a "climate realist", for I cannot see any.

Speak to me like an arrogant twat and you will get treated like one! If you can't or won't do that then you will be ignored. We have enough CAGW arseholes on here already without importing more.

Sent from my iPhone 25S Turbo

[cancel2 2022]

James Lovelock, proposer of the Gaia Theory and the first to draw attention to the thinning if the ozone layer now says environmentalism is a religion.


"What has changed dramatically, however, is his position on climate change. He now says: “Anyone who tries to predict more than five to 10 years is a bit of an idiot, because so many things can change unexpectedly.” But isn’t that exactly what he did last time we met? “I know,” he grins teasingly. “But I’ve grown up a bit since then.”

Lovelock now believes that “CO2 is going up, but nowhere near as fast as they thought it would. The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact,” he goes on breezily, “I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change. You’ve only got to look at Singapore. It’s two-and-a-half times higher than the worst-case scenario for climate change, and it’s one of the most desirable cities in the world to live in.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ave-taken-over

Sent from my iPhone 25S Turbo

[Amadeus]

Maybe the right-wing should just STFU since they've denied climate change for the past 30 years.

[cancel2 2022]

Maybe the right-wing should just STFU since they've denied climate change for the past 30 years.

Maybe you should take politics out of science, how about that? Do you think James Lovelock is right wing? When will you climate alarmists get it into your heads that a scientist's first duty is to be sceptical. If not then you are a prosyletiser instead.

Sent from my iPhone 25S Turbo

[cawacko]

Maybe the right-wing should just STFU since they've denied climate change for the past 30 years.

And let you implement your socialist desired economic programs to "deal with it"? No thank you

[cancel2 2022]

And let you implement your socialist desired economic programs to "deal with it"? No thank you

Christiana Figueres has admitted as much, so that cat is well and truly out of the bag.


http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...orm-economic-0

Sent from my iPhone 25S Turbo

[Amadeus]

And let you implement your socialist desired economic programs to "deal with it"? No thank you

Of course not. That would detract from the conservative principle removing regulations so that the environment and economy so that you and your ilk and bleed it try.

Can we stop pretending that modern conservativism amounts to anything other than being selfish? After all, everyone voted for Trump because he offered them promises, and to hell with who was thrown under the bus.

[Micawber]

We have enough CAGW on here already without importing more.

Sent from my iPhone 25S Turbo

That is false. If we expected the population of posters to reflect the composition of the experts in climate science who actually publish peer review scientific papers, deniers like you are vastly overrepresented. We need 100 posters who agree with the consensus for 3 tinfoils like you.

[cawacko]

Of course not. That would detract from the conservative principle removing regulations so that the environment and economy so that you and your ilk and bleed it try.

Can we stop pretending that modern conservativism amounts to anything other than being selfish? After all, everyone voted for Trump because he offered them promises, and to hell with who was thrown under the bus.

Nice liberal meme that conservatism is about selfishness. You think forced massive redistribution of income is unselfish? You think the whole "if you're lower income we'll give you a number of 'free' gov't programs is not appealing to selfishness"?

[cancel2 2022]

That is false. If we expected the population of posters to reflect the composition of the experts in climate science who actually publish peer review scientific papers, deniers like you are vastly overrepresented. We need 100 posters who agree with the consensus for 3 tinfoils like you marked.

Yeah bullshit on stilts, I am beginning to think Sailor has got your card marked. I posted this before but you conveniently ignored it, something you're getting pretty good at. You accuse me of saying the same thing yet that's exactly what you do over and over ffs. If you have nothing original to contribute then why bother, I know your views already.

.................................................. .......................

1000 peer reviewed papers in three years

Yesterday Kenneth Richard published his list of 500 climate catastrophe sceptic papers appearing in scientific journals in 2016 alone. It is the latest addition to the 282 papers published in 2015, and the 248 papers published in 2014, bringing the total number of peer-reviewed papers published over the past three years to more than 1000.

As a result the once many dramatic hockey-stick shaped curves put out by some climate scientists over the past two decades showing the earth is headed for disaster have been exposed as fake science, which of course had spawned some 20 years of nonstop fake news – much of it designed to spread panic among the population.

Needlessly hyped

According to Richard, the vast collection of fresh papers show that natural factors play a much larger if not a dominant role when it comes to climate change. The expected global warming has been needlessly hyped, experts are now saying.

Puts IPCC to shame

Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon thinks the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has strayed way off track. “I’m not surprised by the large number or empirical evidence that rejects the CO2 dangerous global warming alarmism,” wrote Soon in an e-mail. “This sort of literature review ought to put the sort of biased, if not anti-science, reports by the UN IPCC to shame.”

Dr. Soon has long been a sharp critic of the mainstream institutionalised climate science. He added: “It is high time for the wider public to not only bear witness to the unbalance and corruption of our science institutions, but also to demand answers on why there has been such a disregard for truth and fact.”

Climate well within natural variability

Many among the 1000 peer-reviewed scholarly papers show that extreme weather events are in fact NOT increasing in any unusual manner, that they were also common in the past, and that today they are still well within the range of natural variability.

Other papers show that biodiversity is not under any serious threat. Hundreds of other papers have found that solar activity and oceanic cycles are in fact the driving factors behind climate change. In short the latest fresh batch of scientific literature is telling us that all the past alarmism likely has been needlessly shrill and that it’s time to take a step back and to seriously refocus.

Although most of the papers listed by Richard do not refute global warming and that man plays a role – they do cast undeniable doubt over the cause of the warming, especially the warming over the past 35 years. The recent literature clearly shows that natural factors indeed play a major role, and CO2 much less so.

Climate science a UN charade

Not mincing any words, Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball feels that global warming became a charade years ago and that it has gone on too long.

He offers an even harsher assessment of the UN climate science, writing that the IPCC is made up of “bureaucrats” who harbour a political agenda. “Extreme bias of climate research was deliberately created through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to prove rather than disprove the hypothesis that human CO2 was causing runaway global warming,” he wrote to NTZ in an email. “The political message and funding were directed to only research that proved their hypothesis. Only journals that favoured the objective were used and encouraged, so the preponderance of research and publications supported the predetermined message. It is a classic case of Lysenkoism”


http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/03/1....dU79XEyV.dpbs

Sent from my iPhone 25S Turbo

[Granule]

Nice collection of crooks, paid-for liars, and cranks you got there.

Here's a good, generic description of your "paper" and its main characteristics, particularly its odious strategery. So, there really is no need for you to explain "the same stuff over and over", as it has been well understood, seen through, and debunked, years ago. The only things you need to explain is how you acquired the temerity to throw out the same, tired old stuff time and again, and what the difference really is between a run-of-the-mill denialist, and a "climate realist", for I cannot see any.

I'm just waiting for the day after tomorrow. Where is it, fuckface?

13 years and counting....

[Cancel 2018.1]

That is false. If we expected the population of posters to reflect the composition of the experts in climate science who actually publish peer review scientific papers, deniers like you are vastly overrepresented. We need 100 posters who agree with the consensus for 3 tinfoils like you.

I'd like to see one peer reviewed study with the conclusion that human activity has caused an increase in temperatures. Please provide one, just one. I'll make it easy - increase in temperatures over any range of time.
There must be one out there with the thousands of papers written on the subject and 99.9% of real scientists agree that they have.

[Owl'd You're Up!]

[...]

Climate science a UN charade

Not mincing any words, Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball feels that global warming became a charade years ago and that it has gone on too long.

He offers an even harsher assessment of the UN climate science, writing that the IPCC is made up of “bureaucrats” who harbour a political agenda. “Extreme bias of climate research was deliberately created through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to prove rather than disprove the hypothesis that human CO2 was causing runaway global warming,” he wrote to NTZ in an email. “The political message and funding were directed to only research that proved their hypothesis. Only journals that favoured the objective were used and encouraged, so the preponderance of research and publications supported the predetermined message. It is a classic case of Lysenkoism”


http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/03/1....dU79XEyV.dpbs

notrickszone.com and their collection of denialist nincompoops? That's the best you got? Oh, and Tim Balls is a crackpot and a proven liar, who hasn't published a single paper on climate change, and who has a prize for resume stretching in his name.

I am beginning to believe you are not overly discerning in your choice of "sources".