Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

Anthropogenic Climate change gets it's day in court


geeser
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, pappysmarket said:

I hope you take daily BP readings and report same to your cardiologist...dude, you're gonna have a stroke.

Is this called a "red herring?" Dropping out of the conversation aren't you?

 

3 hours ago, pappysmarket said:

MW...my post was a question to the person I quoted. I did not rank countries from worst to best so...calm yourself down and learn how to have an opinion and let others have theirs without bursting a blood vessel.  You'll never live to a ripe old age the way you're going.

 

4 hours ago, pappysmarket said:

Are you perhaps, inadvertently, making the case for the world's cleanest countries to wipe the world's dirtiest off the planet and thus decrease the amount of pollution by about 75%...hmmm?

 

On 10/4/2019 at 5:36 PM, pappysmarket said:

Whenever I see this type of "argument" being made for anything...I know the author is bereft of the ability to make an intelligent argument. Sad but oh so common.

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pappysmarket said:

Is it still a conversation or just a rant? 

It is an interesting fact based debunking of the OP's link with links to some articles on both sides which also debunk some added links and some posters' opinions which cannot be avoided. Some of those might be called a rant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, AlanMexicali said:

It is an interesting fact based debunking of the OP's link with links to some articles on both sides which also debunk some added links and some posters' opinions which cannot be avoided. Some of those might be called a rant.

My small brain gets confused when the debunkers start debunking each other.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2019 at 12:39 PM, Islander said:

That is good Slainte39, I'd love to hear more from our Mexican friends. It would be very valuable here.

You never will.  They don`t like purposelessly jumping into mudholes.  They are too busy enjoying life.  What a concept.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 10/5/2019 at 3:39 PM, MarkWebles said:

Geeser, you are a liar. ...and a bad one at that. I found the source text from which your quote is drawn and it comes as no surprise to anyone except maybe MC and his coterie of fabulists that very few of the signees to this document are Climate Scientist (sic) and that most aren't scientists at all. I'll post here just one of many examples just to make you look ridiculous...

10. Allen MacRae, retired Engineer, Canada

It goes without saying that the quote itself has no merit. ...and scientific findings are always considered provisional. This is not news. You might want to try a source that has a bit more credibility than does americanthinker.com.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-thinker/

"Overall, we rate the American Thinker, Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, use of poor sources and failed fact checks."

 

I won't waste time responding to your "liar" charge but I would meet you to discuss it. I had rather try to enlighten those of you who can;t or won't research: 

Scientist refute anthropogenic climate change here

30,000 scientist say Anthropogenic climate change is a hoax

97% of scientist agree is a total hoax, it is only 32% at most

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on you guys. Don't you get it? We are having Global cooling, Yes GLOBAL COOLING. Start writing down the high temperature each day. You will see that it has been getting cooler every day.  Rumor has it that sometime after Christmas we may have Global Warming. It is just so confusing.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hemispherical inconsistencies persist, to the consternation of those who avoided STEM, even before the term was coined. Most are part of the pollution collusion, and also believe that the ocean level only rises at high tide. They don't like me, and only seem to like each other.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, geeser said:

I won't waste time responding to your "liar" charge but I would meet you to discuss it. I had rather try to enlighten those of you who can;t or won't research: 

Scientist refute anthropogenic climate change here

30,000 scientist say Anthropogenic climate change is a hoax

97% of scientist agree is a total hoax, it is only 32% at most

Are you suggesting that the links you posted are the result of research? You respond three weeks after my post, and this is all you got? I'd be less embarrassed for you if you posted a link to some random site selling Peanuts paraphernalia as proof of existence for the Great Pumpkin. What's most demoralizing is that you don't understand why what you've posted here fails as evidence for anything other than, perhaps, gullibility. Here's a tip: If a site uses the word Truth in it's banner, it's a sure bet the site contains none.

Here's an example of the crap you've subjected us to: "Evans shows data from Envisat (European satellites) which reveal how the sea level is rising 0.33 mm per year (3.3 cm per century), far below what the IPCC predicts (26-59 cm per century)"   A comment on Dr. David Evans damning (so called) evidence.

Can you see how he's comparing apples (point in time measurement) to oranges (predictions) and telling us it's all a sow's ear? I'll not waste any more time on your febrile machinations.

 

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had (and I have in fact produced evidence in past postings), would you have read it? Have you read any of the
links posted by myself, and by many other posters here, to sites providing evidence for the validity of ACD? The
quality of your own links suggest you might not recognize real evidence if it kicked you. As an aside, I find it
funny that some of the evidence you produce contra-ACD is to denigrate its proponents for being paid for their
work (almost sounds like capitalism), meanwhile the real profit is being made by the corporations who are sowing
doubt and doing their best to avoid consequences. This sowing of doubt is an old tactic, but it still seems to work, proving
Santayana's adage: 'Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.'

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pappysmarket said:

I found this to be an interesting article:

https://www.city-journal.org/global-warming#.XbGKGtFqQQM.email

Let's see what we can learn about Judith Curry

Funding from fossil fuel industry - Check
Won't reveal identity of clients - Check
Endeavors to create doubt about ACD - Check
Uses misleading/false data to support position - Check

Yeah, paint me impressed. She certainly has that je ne sais quoi the Right finds so compelling. What does mediabiasfactcheck.com have to say about www.city-journal.org?

RIGHT BIAS

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your reply certainly cements my thought that this is a "cult" following with no dissent allowed. Scientology, Moonies, etc.

As from the article:

"“Independence of mind and climatology have become incompatible,” she says. Do you mean that global warming isn’t real? I ask. “There is warming, but we don’t really understand its causes,” she says. “The human factor and carbon dioxide, in particular, contribute to warming, but how much is the subject of intense scientific debate.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MarkWebles said:

Reiterating what your shill for the Oil industry has said doesn't further your claim. Why is this so difficult for you?  "Tide comes in, tide goes out, you can't explain it". -Another !d!o+ of the Right.

Have not noticed before..... probably because I do not use the term.... that one cannot spell out the word  I  D  I  O  T  on this Board. It throws in a bunch of &*%$$%* kind of stuff.  I found this out when I tried to Post:

I D I O T S and liars.... with those kind of words one will gain a lot of followers and sympathizers.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the KKK published a paper that supports the theory that the earth revolves around the sun...would that make the theory wrong simply because of where it was published?

You seem to be making that argument instead of engaging with the argument itself. Why can't we have a civil discussion of almost any topic here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pappysmarket said:

If the KKK published a paper that supports the theory that the earth revolves around the sun...would that make the theory wrong simply because of where it was published?

You seem to be making that argument instead of engaging with the argument itself. Why can't we have a civil discussion of almost any topic here?

The earth revolves around the sun? Wait here, I'll go ask Copernicus. Super great analogy you got there. We are well past the point of dialectics here, at least your own information-free postings suggest as much. Try finding a source the isn't immediately refutable and perhaps we'll discuss it. This isn't difficult. Vetting your sources is easy once you get the hang of it. My goal here, any way, isn't to convince you of anything, but rather to show the fence sitters just how weak the arguments contra-ACD are. Frankly, this has all the satisfaction of discussing the theory* of evolution with an evangelist, and to be sure eventually I will stop bothering, but for now there's always the chance that you'll post something substantive. Hope springs eternal, right?

 

* In science a theory is not a guess, but "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK with me, I'll just have to respectfully say that I have not seen the proof that would cause me to sway from "reasonable doubt" to a guilty verdict. Again, from the article I linked to:

In 2005, I had a conversation with Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian railway engineer, who remade himself into a climatologist and became director of the IPCC, which received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize under his tenure. Pachauri told me, without embarrassment, that, at the UN, he recruited only climatologists convinced of the carbon-dioxide warming explanation, excluding all others. This extraordinary collusion today allows politicians and commentators to declare that “science says that” carbon dioxide is to blame for global warming, or that a “scientific consensus” exists on warming, implying that no further study is needed—something that makes zero sense on its face, as scientific research is not based on consensus but on contradictory views.

The last phrase being the most important to me since it says science is never "settled", it just awaits the next theory which then must undergo rigorous testing and scrutiny from the scientific community to be proven or disproved. If proven it also awaits the next dissenter and our knowledge advances rather than being "settled" because someone or some group says so.

I'll give you the last word.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"who remade himself into a climatologist". No, he did not. His double doctorate is in engineering/economics. "became director of the IPCC". An administrative position, he had no input to any scientific determinations. "Nobel prize". Awarded to the IPCC (well known for it's conservative assessments), not to Dr. Pachauri.  He has little credibility in the climate sciences as he does not engage in actual science, and he has questionable integrity overall as is evidenced by allegations made against the Doctor of both financial and sexual transgressions. All this you would know if you wanted to. "scientific research is not based on consensus but on contradictory views".  Utter crap. "it says science is never "settled"". Thanks for the laugh. Everyone who cares enough to read for comprehension knows that scientific findings are provisional, subject to revision based on new information, which BTY, is why phrenology isn't in much demand today. Finally, you might want to include some quotes (except of course when not necessary, as in "settled") in your postings if you want to avoid accusations of plagiarism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...