Scientist who said climate change sceptics were proved wrong accused of hiding truth

[Mott the Hoople]

1) ah, so you were 'laughing' again. Kind of like you were 'laughing' as you kept asking everyone to read about Muller in the article you kept linking to, all the while completely ignorant of the FACT that the OP article that you refuse to read was about the very same author? That kind of 'laughing'? The kind of 'oh my God I am embarrassed for having been such a fool and for everyone to be mocking me now' kind of laugh? That kind of 'laughing'?

2) Again, it is YOU that has been intellectually dishonest on this thread.... consistently so. It is quite amusing for you to continue proclaiming I am 'intellectually dishonest', yet when asked, you cannot provide even ONE example of my doing so on this thread? Not one Mott? I can point to yours if you like?

3) I did not personally draw a conclusion from the CERN experiment as I did not conduct any studies myself. I did however read what has been written on the experiment. From the reports on the experiment it shows that cosmic radiation could be playing a larger role in the late century warming trend than your global warming fear mongers told you. Which yet again shows that you idiots are wrong to declare a 'consensus' when so much is yet to be known on the topic. There is much more to be debated. The very fact that idiots like you still continue to cling to your chants of 'consensus' shows us which group truly 'denies' science.

You can actually read up on what has been said at the following links: (note, these articles provoked Gore into proclaiming 'deniers' are 'racists' etc... and other nonsense like that)

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/206...xperiment-sun-cosmic-rays-chambor-cloud-c.htm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/08/25/did-cloud-just-rain-on-the-global-warming-parade/

Due note as well Mott.... as usual, I answered your questions. Yet you provide one lame excuse after another to avoid answering mine. Why is that Mott?

Well then your just proving my point. You're scientifically illiterate. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the CERN experiment is that it is "possible" that cosmic rays "might" being a "contributing factor" in the earth's warming but that the data gathered from the experiment was "far from conclusive".

 

[cancel2 2022]

Well then your just proving my point. You're scientifically illiterate. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the CERN experiment is that it is "possible" that cosmic rays "might" being a "contributing factor" in the earth's warming but that the data gathered from the experiment was "far from conclusive".

What they actually found was that sulphuric acid and ammonia both aid the formation of aerosols but do not alone explain the observed real world effects. Hence they have speculated that the process also needs the addition of volatile organic compounds which is what they are doing now.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...rncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Well then your just proving my point. You're scientifically illiterate. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the CERN experiment is that it is "possible" that cosmic rays "might" being a "contributing factor" in the earth's warming but that the data gathered from the experiment was "far from conclusive".

Seriously... do you comprehend ANYTHING that I have written or are you once again proving how intellectually dishonest you are?

My comment stated.... "I did not personally draw a conclusion from the CERN experiment as I did not conduct any studies myself. I did however read what has been written on the experiment. From the reports on the experimentit shows that cosmic radiation could be playing a larger role in the late century warming trend than your global warming fear mongers told you."

I then continued by stating "Which yet again shows that you idiots are wrong to declare a 'consensus' when so much is yet to be known on the topic. There is much more to be debated.

So tell us Mott....

Are you a fucking idiot?
Or just a dishonest piece of shit?

Or could it be.... BOTH?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

yet again Mott will run away without addressing any questions. He once again made a fool out of himself and is left to cower in the dark corners of his bedroom mumbling to himself...'I do knowz about Science, I is edumacated'

 

[Mott the Hoople]

So tell us Mott.... these are all simple questions, even a pretend scientist like you should be able to answer them.....

1) Do you deny the outcome of the CERN data?
2) Do you deny the Earth has not significantly warmed since the late 1990's?
3) Do you deny the fact that despite the lack of warming CO2 levels have risen?
4) Do you deny the fact that the computer models used by the fear mongers have been obliterated by actual data?

The only thing I know of is that you are guilty of the scientiific crime of having made up your mind to suite what you believe and you keep reinforcing my point. There is why what you are posting is such a joke, particularly with you grasping at the straws of ambient temperatures. It's a laugh a minute. Look, there's no arguing that there is a scientific consesus supporting Anthropogenic Climate Change. Having said that, the point that all scientific knowledge is tentative sails right over your neophyte head. Just because there is a consensus doesn't mean that the consensus is right! History is replete with examples of scientific consensus that was wrong. Nor does it mean that their are not those who dissent from that consensus nor that there is not data supporting dissent. The consensus is built upon the fact that a substantial majority of credentialed scientist in the field have a proponderance of data which leads them to support this consensus. It is indeed quite possible that anthropogenic climate change could be wrong but that's a moot point down the road if it does turn out to be correct and we do nothing about it.

There is much about current climate interactions that we don't know and obviously we need to learn more before broad based public policy on the issue is implemented. But that brings us back to your intellectual dishonesty and your lack of understanding of how science works. You don't give a rats ass about the science. You just care about the conclusion you've drawn and are utterly incapable of admiting the phrase "but I could be wrong". Just as those who support ACC must admit "Our data indicates thus....but we could be wrong!". Again, you don't give a rats ass about none of that, you just want a soap box in wich to tell those who don't agree with you that their fucking morons.

The facts that I know about ACC is that their is a consensus in the scientific community supporting ACC, that there is a large body of data supporting that consensus and that this consensus has broad support. Common sense also tells me that humans cant cut down fast swath's of forest and change the ecology of large geographical regions and pour billions of tons of pollutants into our athmosphere and not expect ecological changes, including climate, to occur. That's just not rational but to reiterate, just because there is a consensus doesn't mean that the consensus is right or that all dissent is wrong nor does it mean that we don't need to learn a hell of a lot more before we act. I suspect none of that really matters to you. You only care about being right and telling other people their idiots and that's what makes your post pure comedy.


http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/07/scientific-consensus-climate-change
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/i...nsus-on-climate-change-stronger-and-stronger/
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.ph...ange/climate-change-scientific-consensus.html

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I want to know why there was a fear, in the early 1960's, that we were headed for another Ice Age.

That's a good point. However, that was never a consensus of the scientific community that another ice age would occur soon barring nuclear winter or some other unforseen natural occurance.

Look, I'm no climatologist but I do have a strong scientific back ground. I know just how difficult it is to build any sort of consensus with in the scientific community and I am also keenly aware that even if one does exist that a healthy amount of skepticism is required because more then one scientific consensus has been over turned by new discoveries. QED would be a good example of that.

Where Freak's arguments fall into the category of comedy is his denial of this consensus and the very large body of work and data, not to mention independent scientific organizations from around the world that this consensus is built upon. He's expecting me to believe that he and his cherry picked data is right over the vast numbers of professionals in this field who contradict him? That doesn't pass the smell test. It does't neccessarily mean he's wrong, it just means the probability of his being right is pretty small.

I'm a firm believer in Occam's razor and I think it's pretty much common sense that human activity is impacting climate. Denying this is just plain silly. Equally silly would be denying that we don't have a whole lot more to learn about climate. This is why I find the science deniers like Freak hillareous.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The only thing I know of is that you are guilty of the scientiific crime of having made up your mind to suite what you believe and you keep reinforcing my point. There is why what you are posting is such a joke, particularly with you grasping at the straws of ambient temperatures. It's a laugh a minute. Look, there's no arguing that there is a scientific consesus supporting Anthropogenic Climate Change. Having said that, the point that all scientific knowledge is tentative sails right over your neophyte head. Just because there is a consensus doesn't mean that the consensus is right! History is replete with examples of scientific consensus that was wrong. Nor does it mean that their are not those who dissent from that consensus nor that there is not data supporting dissent. The consensus is built upon the fact that a substantial majority of credentialed scientist in the field have a proponderance of data which leads them to support this consensus. It is indeed quite possible that anthropogenic climate change could be wrong but that's a moot point down the road if it does turn out to be correct and we do nothing about it.

ROFLMAO.... wow.... the above is quite the treat. Mott completely makes a fool out of himself yet again. My position is that "the debate is not over and that it is foolish to shout consensus at this time on this topic"

1) Mott then rambles on about 'there is no arguing that there is a scientific consensus' (yet there is reason to argue that point given that many disagree).
2) Mott then tells us 'that just because there is a consensus it doesn't mean the consensus is right'..... yet every time someone like me says it is foolish to proclaim the debate over and shout consensus... Mott shouts 'consensus!' and proclaims those questioning the consensus to be 'science deniers'

3) Then Mott goes into his normal 'u don't understand science' rant. Despite the FACT that out of the two of us, I am the one actually adhering to the scientific method and not fixating myself on a religious belief (like Mott is doing).

4) Mott then goes on to rant about 'u intellectually dishonest'.... when the only one being intellectually dishonest is MOTT. Time and time again Mott the Fool misstates my position because it makes him feel better when he burns his straw man down.

5) Mott then goes back to chanting 'consensus' and pretending their is 'a large amount of data to support it', yet fails to acknowledge that the data does NOT support it. It hasn't for years. He won't address ANY questions that show his position is wrong. He talks about people clinging to their beliefs, yet he is the only one desperately clinging to the his ACC 'consensus'.

It truly is comical watching Mott contradict himself in the same post. It is truly comical watching as Mott pretends to be a Scientist.

There is much about current climate interactions that we don't know and obviously we need to learn more before broad based public policy on the issue is implemented.

Which is what I have stated for years, yet idiots like you and Cypress continued shouting 'We have a consensus, you are just science deniers'!!

But that brings us back to your intellectual dishonesty and your lack of understanding of how science works.

Again Mott, you have made this claim many times. SHOW ME THE FUCKING POST WHERE I HAVE BEEN INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST. SHOW IT MOTT. THE ONLY ONE OF US BEING DISHONEST IS YOU.

You don't give a rats ass about the science.

LMAO.... yet I am the one defending science, you are the one beholden to your religious beliefs and fear mongering. You truly are comical Mutt.

You just care about the conclusion you've drawn and are utterly incapable of admiting the phrase "but I could be wrong".

More dishonesty from Mutt. I have stated time and again that there is still much to be decided and learned. The only solid conclusion that I have come to believe is 100% true is that the global warming fear mongering religious nuts like Mutt are WRONG to be shouting 'consensus' and 'the debate is over' and 'if you disagree with us you are denying science'. That is the only conclusion I have come to Mutt.

Now tell us Mutt... which one of us answers the others questions point for point? Which one of us is so beholden to his religious fear mongering beliefs that he REFUSES to answer a very simple question....

DO YOU DENY THAT GLOBAL TEMPERATURES HAVE SEEN NO SIGNIFICANT INCREASES SINCE THE LATE 1990'S?

Why can't you answer that Mutt?

Why do you continue to deflect with your intellectually dishonest straw men?

Just as those who support ACC must admit "Our data indicates thus....but we could be wrong!".

ROFLMAO.... those who supported ACC did not state 'but we could be wrong'.... they said 'we are right, the debate is over, if you disagree with us you are climate/science deniers'

It is beyond pathetic for you to pretend that idiots like you and Cypress were stating 'we could be wrong'. Talk about being a dishonest piece of shit. That takes the cake Mutt.

Again, you don't give a rats ass about none of that, you just want a soap box in wich to tell those who don't agree with you that their fucking morons.

No dear Mutt, My point was to stop idiots like you from running around shouting consensus when the topic had so much yet to be determined.

The facts that I know about ACC is that their is a consensus in the scientific community supporting ACC, that there is a large body of data supporting that consensus and that this consensus has broad support.

Ah... back to shouting consensus. Yes, there was indeed consensus by those who controlled the release of information and bashed the hell out of anyone who would dare oppose their views.

Common sense also tells me that humans cant cut down fast swath's of forest and change the ecology of large geographical regions and pour billions of tons of pollutants into our athmosphere and not expect ecological changes, including climate, to occur. That's just not rational but to reiterate, just because there is a consensus doesn't mean that the consensus is right or that all dissent is wrong nor does it mean that we don't need to learn a hell of a lot more before we act. I suspect none of that really matters to you.

Yet dear Mutt, that IS what matters to me. That we don't act based on the fear mongering bullshit computer models created by those who wished to further their cause. That we DO act based on what we know to be true. As you said, we know that pumping pollutants into the air/land/water is not a good idea and that is something we can work to reduce. Which we have. But running around creating false boogey men to promote problems is NOT going to help. THAT is what you and Cypress and Gore have done. Promoted the fear mongering, tried to silence dissent by mocking those who disagreed, attacking their creditials or what universities they were from or flatly saying 'u denying science'. All THAT bullshit that idiots like you spout off... yeah... that is what matters to me. because then idiots like you push for moronic 'solutions' to 'made up problems' and we end up with nonsense like Kyoto protocols or cap and trade schemes.

But none of that matters to you does it Mutt? You just want to pretend that you are a scientist and that you understand the issue. you do not. The more you promote the idiot fear mongers who shout consensus, the more you show the rest of the world what a fool you truly are.

You only care about being right and telling other people their idiots and that's what makes your post pure comedy.

See mutt... the fact that you continue to try attacking me, rather than actually addressing any of the simple questions put forth to you shows the rest of the board what an ignorant hack you really are.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Look, I'm no climatologist but I do have a strong scientific back ground.

Quite obviously it is not that strong. You have proven you have no morals or even a basic understanding of the scientific method.

I know just how difficult it is to build any sort of consensus with in the scientific community and I am also keenly aware that even if one does exist that a healthy amount of skepticism is required because more then one scientific consensus has been over turned by new discoveries. QED would be a good example of that.

Yet you are among the crowd shouting 'science denier' to those who are skeptical of this 'consensus'.

Where Freak's arguments fall into the category of comedy is his denial of this consensus and the very large body of work and data

More intellectual dishonesty from Mutt. I have never denied that the consensus is there you fucking idiot. I stated it is ridiculous to shout consensus when there is so much yet to be learned. A point that has proven very valid as more and more data becomes available over the past 15 years. Something YOU continue to run away from.

not to mention independent scientific organizations from around the world that this consensus is built upon.

Yet as I have pointed out time and again, each of those organizations is drawing conclusions from the same three data sets. Many of those 'independent' organizations that Cypress loved listing, don't even have climatologists on staff. They just signed off on it because it was the politically correct thing to do. A point you idiots always ignore.

He's expecting me to believe that he and his cherry picked data is right over the vast numbers of professionals in this field who contradict him?

WHAT cherry picked data Mutt? Why do you keep accusing me of things, yet somehow failing to EVER show us where I have done such things? What data am I cherry picking Mutt?

Show us an example Mutt. Do tell us you can at least do that? Do tell us you are not going to be shown to have been intellectually dishonest yet AGAIN?

That doesn't pass the smell test. It does't neccessarily mean he's wrong, it just means the probability of his being right is pretty small.

ROFLMAO.... ever thought of applying your 'smell test' to all of the bullshit you have been posting on this topic? Or to what the fear mongers have been spoon feeding you?

I'm a firm believer in Occam's razor and I think it's pretty much common sense that human activity is impacting climate.

Occam's razor in this case states that you are a fucking retard. That is quite simply the simplest explanation for your moronic comments on this topic.

Denying this is just plain silly. Equally silly would be denying that we don't have a whole lot more to learn about climate. This is why I find the science deniers like Freak hillareous.

And there we go again.... shouting ' you denying science'.

You are a fucking idiot Mutt. You haven't a clue on this topic. You are simply spouting talking points and hoping desperately that something sticks.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Still can't answer the simple question Mott? Mr. 'Science' can't answer the very simple questions?

 

[DamnYankee]

15ppMoot, why are you such a fucking pussy?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

That's a good point. However, that was never a consensus of the scientific community that another ice age would occur soon barring nuclear winter or some other unforseen natural occurance.

Look, I'm no climatologist but I do have a strong scientific back ground. I know just how difficult it is to build any sort of consensus with in the scientific community and I am also keenly aware that even if one does exist that a healthy amount of skepticism is required because more then one scientific consensus has been over turned by new discoveries. QED would be a good example of that.

Where Freak's arguments fall into the category of comedy is his denial of this consensus and the very large body of work and data, not to mention independent scientific organizations from around the world that this consensus is built upon. He's expecting me to believe that he and his cherry picked data is right over the vast numbers of professionals in this field who contradict him? That doesn't pass the smell test. It does't neccessarily mean he's wrong, it just means the probability of his being right is pretty small.

I'm a firm believer in Occam's razor and I think it's pretty much common sense that human activity is impacting climate. Denying this is just plain silly. Equally silly would be denying that we don't have a whole lot more to learn about climate. This is why I find the science deniers like Freak hillareous.

Really!
That must be why it was being widely reported in the news and there were no dissenting views.

The rest is just you trying to build a foundation on wet sand.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Imagine that.... Mott still can't answer the simple questions. You would think 'mr. Science' would be able to handle them.

 

[DamnYankee]

15ppMoot runs away from all arguments after he's been proven wrong. He'll bring up his same failed position later on in a different thread, usually after several months.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

yeah, poor Mott is hiding out in the off topic forum.... too much shame for him to return here to face.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Still nothing Mott? I guess Mott got tired of being an intellectually dishonest science denying flat earth global warming fear mongering idiot.