Is climate change real?

[Nordberg]

Heaven forfend, it's like talking to Scientologists with some of you people. So are you going to tell me that the positive feedbacks, needed by alarmists to ramp up global temperatures to scare the bewildered, are science based and backed up by empirical data? If there was no net positive feedback, climate sensitivity would be around 1°C for a doubling of CO2 concentration as predicted by the Arrhenius equation. Hence positive feedbacks are needed to get the 3+ degrees required to truly scare the shit of people. There is scant scientific evidence for that, except in climate models which is not evidence at all.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk

The scientology analysis would apply to you. We back the huge body of scientific evidence and the overwhelming support of almost every scientist. We are evidence based. The data is clear and unmistakable.

[CFM]

The scientology analysis would apply to you. We back the huge body of scientific evidence and the overwhelming support of almost every scientist. We are evidence based. The data is clear and unmistakable.

The predictions have failed to come true.

Anyone that believes in the climate hoax is stupid enough to believe professional wrestling is real.

[cancel2 2022]

The scientology analysis would apply to you. We back the huge body of scientific evidence and the overwhelming support of almost every scientist. We are evidence based. The data is clear and unmistakable.

Hopeless, you're all the same, just parrot talking points without any level of understanding. Care to have a shot at answering post 56, somehow I know the answer already?

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk

[Cancel 2018.1]

The scientology analysis would apply to you. We back the huge body of scientific evidence and the overwhelming support of almost every scientist. We are evidence based. The data is clear and unmistakable.

Have you ever co-authored a peer reviewed scientific paper outside of the topic 'climate'? I didn't think so.
I'm no climate scientist but the reason I'm a climate realist is because I've never seen one, not one so called peer reviewed article on climate science that would adhere to the strict requirements of any other scientific journal, not even close.

[archives]

Consensus is the absence of leadership. What consensus does is allows those that go along with something an out when what they go along with goes south.

My doctor hasn't failed like so many climate hoax predictions have.

"What consensus does is allows those that go along with something an out when what they go along with goes south," that even defies Orwellian logic

But medicine as a field is totally based consensus Science, if it wasn't, your docter would be a medicine man

[archives]

Hopeless, you're all the same, just parrot talking points without any level of understanding. Care to have a shot at answering post 56, somehow I know the answer already?

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk

The question in post 56 is bogus, that is like us asking you if a squeeze play is the best option in the bottom of the ninth with no outs, losing by two runs, and the top of the order is up, you wouldn't have a clue because you have no familiarization of what we are talking about

And you still haven't told us if you believe what your Docter tells you given that Medicine is based upon consensus science which you reject

[CFM]

"What consensus does is allows those that go along with something an out when what they go along with goes south," that even defies Orwellian logic

But medicine as a field is totally based consensus Science, if it wasn't, your docter would be a medicine man

My doctor has done what he said. The predictions your climate scientists have made failed.

[Cancel 2018.1]

But medicine as a field is totally based consensus Science,

Wow, you're not really that ignorant about medical science, are you?
Sure , it once was when blood letting was the consensus. It's based on Scientific Method. Consensus is a political term, not a scientific one.

[cancel2 2022]

The question in post 56 is bogus, that is like us asking you if a squeeze play is the best option in the bottom of the ninth with no outs, losing by two runs, and the top of the order is up, you wouldn't have a clue because you have no familiarization of what we are talking about

And you still haven't told us if you believe what your Docter tells you given that Medicine is based upon consensus science which you reject

One of the most popular alarmist arguments is likening the climate science consensus to medical doctors.

Refuting this fallacy is complicated by the fact that there are two distinct problems. Miscommunication and the deliberate corruption of science. The former has persisted for over 3 decades whilst the latter first became noticeable about twenty years ago and has become more problematic ever since.

So in answer to your dilemma here is the following:

1. A medical doctor is a highly-qualified professional.

Doctors must successfully complete training in medical school, spend several years in hospitals treating patients, and be licenced to even practice.

In contrast, any Tom, Dick or Harriet can call him or herself a climate scientist and speak on behalf of climate science. Enviro-activists and certain media personalities have been abusing this freedom for decades. Look at Al Gore and Bill Nye as just two examples. Also Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS is a mathematician yet passes himself off as a climate scientist.

2. A medical doctor is totally accountable.

A doctor would lose patients or be fired if his or her advice isn’t sound. A doctor can also be sued for malpractice. In a number of cases, doctors have been indicted.

A putative climate scientist can hardly even be criticised these days. Remember how a mere investigation of the misconduct by Michael Mann caused pandemonium. Nevertheless, perceived academic immunity is widely abused by con artists and leftist operatives in universities and research institutions.

3. Patients have direct communication with their doctor.

“Direct” means that the patient usually speaks face-to-face with the doctor, the patient can ask the doctor questions and get answers. Many so-called climate scientists refuse to enter into discussions, as in the case of Michael Mann, who even refused to hand over his tree proxy data for his infamous Hockey Stick.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk

[Micawber]

Adopting a consensus opinion of experts when not an expert is a matter of rationality and logic, not science.
This is no 51/49 battle of experts by the way. It's 99/1, figuratively speaking (and yes pun intended)

You'd be a fucking idiot not to select the expert consensus over the , what do they like to be called? skeptics.

Hilarious all Havana Poon could find today was a Blog misrepresenting a study about the anomalous cold due to the jet stream dip.
The sentence before the one he relied upon admitted increased global temperature since 1895..... What a clown.
His own source kicked him in the nutsack with a steel toe boot.

[Micawber]

One of the most popular alarmist arguments is likening the climate science consensus to medical doctors.

Refuting this fallacy is complicated by the fact that there are two distinct problems. Miscommunication and the deliberate corruption of science. The former has persisted for over 3 decades whilst the latter first became noticeable about twenty years ago and has become more problematic ever since.

So in answer to your dilemma here is the following:

1. A medical doctor is a highly-qualified professional.

Doctors must successfully complete training in medical school, spend several years in hospitals treating patients, and be licenced to even practice.

In contrast, any Tom, Dick or Harriet can call him or herself a climate scientist and speak on behalf of climate science. Enviro-activists and certain media personalities have been abusing this freedom for decades. Look at Al Gore and Bill Nye as just two examples. Also Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS is a mathematician yet passes himself off as a climate scientist.

2. A medical doctor is totally accountable.

A doctor would lose patients or be fired if his or her advice isn’t sound. A doctor can also be sued for malpractice. In a number of cases, doctors have been indicted.

A putative climate scientist can hardly even be criticised these days. Remember how a mere investigation of the misconduct by Michael Mann caused pandemonium. Nevertheless, perceived academic immunity is widely abused by con artists and leftist operatives in universities and research institutions.

3. Patients have direct communication with their doctor.

“Direct” means that the patient usually speaks face-to-face with the doctor, the patient can ask the doctor questions and get answers. Many so-called climate scientists refuse to enter into discussions, as in the case of Michael Mann, who even refused to hand over his tree proxy data for his infamous Hockey Stick.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk

Refuting analogies is a waste of time. All analogies are fallacious. They are teaching tools, not math problems. They are either apt or inapt.

[Cancel 2018.1]

Adopting a consensus opinion of experts when not an expert is a matter of rationality and logic, not science.
This is no 51/49 battle of experts by the way. It's 99/1, figuratively speaking (and yes pun intended)

You'd be a fucking idiot not to select the expert consensus over the , what do they like to be called? skeptics.

Hilarious all Havana Poon could find today was a Blog misrepresenting a study about the anomalous cold due to the jet stream dip.
The sentence before the one he relied upon admitted increased global temperature since 1895..... What a clown.
His own source kicked him in the nutsack with a steel toe boot.

Wow, I guess that proves steam engines started it all.

[Micawber]

Consensus science for what exactly? I have asked several times which of the four Representative Concentration Pathways, defined in the IPCC AR5 report, do people think is the most likely. Not a peep out of any of you, nada, zip, zilch out if any of you. Any chance of an answer this time?


Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk

Because it is premised as much on political forecast as much as physical science. You want an RCP 8.5 world, and we want a 2.6 one.

[Micawber]

The question in post 56 is bogus, that is like us asking you if a squeeze play is the best option in the bottom of the ninth with no outs, losing by two runs, and the top of the order is up, you wouldn't have a clue because you have no familiarization of what we are talking about

And you still haven't told us if you believe what your Docter tells you given that Medicine is based upon consensus science which you reject

"I keep asking you whether next year's top homerun slugger will hit 20-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51 -60 or 61-70 dingers and you CAN'T answer! OMG, fake science!" Havana Poon

[goldkam]

No, I have posted a huge number of papers, discussion documents and scientific evidence over the years. Use the search facility and stop being lazy.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk

Well thank you for informing me. I was not even aware there was a search facility on this forum, as I am a new member.

I have responded to your statement, how about you answer my question. "Why do they need scientific credentials when he is simply stating facts gathered which is supported on a vast majority of reputable websites?"