Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[Winehole23]

not so different from posting and commenting about Twitter threads, but whatever

[boutons_deux]

^lol, an article about YouTube comments

^lol, Darrin

You accept lies and propaganda from your "official" bull ters, so why not accept verbatim comments from you fellow AGW-denying assholes?

[RandomGuy]

So part of your real denial is not reading my past posts on the issue when i posted the full study, and directly quoted from it, even giving page numbers.

Stop bothering me if you are going to ignore facts.

Your denial of facts is noted.

What exactly have I "denied"? Sorry if I don't hang on your every post, and (gasp) occasionally take a break from posting here. I read it this time, it was relevant and fairly decent commentary. Still doesn't say what you hope it does though. Your insistence that it does, without answering my question about meaningfulness and usefulness is telling.

Remember the thread is only tangentially about climate change.

The real point is that people like you fail miserably in the critical thinking department. Your spluttering in lieu of organized thought simply proves out the OP, yet again.

By all means, keep avoiding good critical thinking questions.

So, let's try again. Is it possible for even a flawed poll to produce meaningful or useful results? If not, why not, if so, why?

[Wild Cobra]

What exactly have I "denied"?

If I remember correctly, you blew it off. Wouldn't even look at my link, because the only internet copy of the complete study available was hosted by a "denier" site.

Even though it was the actual original work.

Not by fault you and others deny works not hosted by sites blessed by your dogma.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wild Republican likes peer reviewed pieces as long as they are endorsed by AGW denier sites. The rest of course is to be discounted and lots of handwaving to ensue.

All this whining and he still hasn't presented what he claims.

[Wild Cobra]

Wild Republican likes peer reviewed pieces as long as they are endorsed by AGW denier sites. The rest of course is to be discounted and lots of handwaving to ensue.

All this whining and he still hasn't presented what he claims.

Who here is a wild republic?

[RandomGuy]

If I remember correctly, you blew it off. Wouldn't even look at my link, because the only internet copy of the complete study available was hosted by a "denier" site.

Even though it was the actual original work.

Not by fault you and others deny works not hosted by sites blessed by your dogma.

So, you aren't really going to answer my question.

[RandomGuy]

Since I can't get an honest answer to my fair question:

Yes, even a flawed poll can tell us more than we knew before, and can yield useful data.

But, better than a poll, is what scientists themselves say, without a filter of a poll. Let's see what a group of scientists say in their own words.

Global warming is already having significant and harmful effects on our communities, our health, and our climate. Sea level rise is accelerating. The number of large wildfires is growing. Dangerous heat waves are becoming more common. Extreme storm events are increasing in many areas. More severe droughts are occurring in others.

We must take immediate action to address global warming or these consequences will continue to intensify, grow ever more costly, and increasingly affect the entire planet—including you, your community, and your family.

The good news is that we have the practical solutions at hand to dramatically reduce our carbon emissions, slow the pace of global warming, and pass on a healthier, safer world to future generations.

With your help, we can accomplish it.

Together, we can tackle global warming.

Global warming is happening now. The planet's temperature is rising. The trend is clear and unmistakable.

Every one of the past 38 years has been warmer than the 20th century average. The 12 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998. The hottest year ever recorded for the contiguous United States occurred in 2012.

Globally, the average surface temperature has increased more than one degree Fahrenheit since the late 1800s. Most of that increase has occurred over just the past three decades.



We are the cause. We are overloading our atmosphere with carbon dioxide, which traps heat and steadily drives up the planet’s temperature. Where does all this carbon come from? The fossil fuels we burn for energy—coal, natural gas, and oil—plus the loss of forests due to deforestation, especially in the tropics.

The scientific evidence is clear. Within the scientific community, there is no debate. An overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and that human activity is the primary cause.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming

Seems pretty unambiguous.

[boutons_deux]

Sea Level Rise Swallows 5 Whole Pacific Islands

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...cific-islands/

Map Shows Where Sea Level Rise Will Drown American Cities

http://www.wired.com/2015/10/map-sho...erican-cities/

[SnakeBoy]

Since I can't get an honest answer to my fair question:

Yes, even a flawed poll can tell us more than we knew before, and can yield useful data.

But, better than a poll, is what scientists themselves say, without a filter of a poll. Let's see what a group of scientists say in their own words.



http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming

Seems pretty unambiguous.

lol that list of "experts".

[FuzzyLumpkins]

lol that list of "experts".

Pick any of the Science Academies across the world and it is the same thing. You know I've rubbed your face in the NAS's stance. Willful ignorance is fun I guess.

[Wild Cobra]

So, you aren't really going to answer my question.

You deny anything brought up that doesn't agree with your faith.

Period.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You deny anything brought up that doesn't agree with your faith.

Period.

Your intellectual cowardice is showing. Let's review some of the more harebrained idiocies you've claimed.

The ocean is like a big soda.
Noah's Flood could be explained by a 'solar burp.'
Trying to use the dynamics of CO2 feedback on solar irradiance of the ocean.
Sampling at the period length to make a straight line and thinking you had discovered something.
Trying to explain ocean behavior by a water solubility chart.
Making numerous graphs without any sense of normalization.
Trying to make statistical claims between different datasets without normalizing the data.
Trying to merge linear and nonlinear systems.
Not understanding the function of capacitors and flywheels despite claiming to repair them as a profession.


And that is just your stupidity regarding climate science that I can come up with off the top of my head. You've been equally peabrained on countless other topics. You have no leg to stand on and your word is absolutely worthless.

If you cannot name what you claim then there is no reason whatsoever to buy your horse .

[boutons_deux]

Scientists see corals dissolving much faster than they projected.

IPCC, AGW projections are conservative, with happening much faster than their conservative predictions.

How much of your taxes are your AGW deniers willing to pay to save or liquidate Miami, New Orleans, other US coastal cities?

[Wild Cobra]

Your intellectual cowardice is showing.

I guess from the perspective of a fool like yourself, you have to rationalize.

Let's review some of the more harebrained idiocies you've claimed.

The ocean is like a big soda.

Liar. I never said that.

Noah's Flood could be explained by a 'solar burp.'

Misinterpreting my words again.

I only posed possibilities.

But then, everyone here knows the truth about the pitiful fuzzy troll.

Trying to use the dynamics of CO2 feedback on solar irradiance of the ocean.

You are too stupid to understand what I was doing. that was not feedback, but indirect forcing from ac ulated energy that takes time to move.

If your stupidity wasn't so pathetic, it would be funny.

Sampling at the period length to make a straight line and thinking you had discovered something.

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Must be your lack of understanding that words have meaning.

Trying to explain ocean behavior by a water solubility chart.

You mean showing the facts of ove variable... Idiot, that's not the "ocean" behavior.

Your stupidity is non-stop. Man, I pity you.

Making numerous graphs without any sense of normalization.

More generalities that are meaningless without context...

Trying to make statistical claims between different datasets without normalizing the data.

Your perception of normalization is flawed.

Trying to merge linear and nonlinear systems.

Not that I recall... But then again, you are too stupid to elaborate a cogent point.

Not understanding the function of capacitors and flywheels despite claiming to repair them as a profession.

Not my fault that you are too stupid to understand what someone says.

And that is just your stupidity regarding climate science that I can come up with off the top of my head. You've been equally peabrained on countless other topics. You have no leg to stand on and your word is absolutely worthless.

If you cannot name what you claim then there is no reason whatsoever to buy your horse .

Why should I try to explain to a moron like you? No matter how many times I have corrected you, you remember it all wrong.

You are pathetic!
[QUOTE=FuzzyLumpkins;8576218]

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I guess from the perspective of a fool like yourself, you have to rationalize.


Liar. I never said that.


Misinterpreting my words again.

I only posed possibilities.

But then, everyone here knows the truth about the pitiful fuzzy troll.


You are too stupid to understand what I was doing. that was not feedback, but indirect forcing from ac ulated energy that takes time to move.

If your stupidity wasn't so pathetic, it would be funny.


I'm not sure what you are referring to. Must be your lack of understanding that words have meaning.


You mean showing the facts of ove variable... Idiot, that's not the "ocean" behavior.

Your stupidity is non-stop. Man, I pity you.


More generalities that are meaningless without context...


Your perception of normalization is flawed.


Not that I recall... But then again, you are too stupid to elaborate a cogent point.


Not my fault that you are too stupid to understand what someone says.


Why should I try to explain to a moron like you? No matter how many times I have corrected you, you remember it all wrong.

You are pathetic!

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5458330

The ocean is like a soda, going flat.

I suggest you do some real studying on the effects of temperature for a solutions ability to absorb gas, and the related equilibrium.

I will maintain my contention that temperature drives CO2. CO2 does not drive temperature.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Here is your solubility chart

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Solar burp stupidity:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5667710

I had completely forgot how you didn't understand that the reaction to make water out of hydrogen was combustion.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post4666035

Here is my summation of your capacitor stupidity which is when you became partschanger.

[RandomGuy]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/not-just-...878.html?nhp=1

It's not just Alberta: Warming-fueled fires are increasing

"The Alberta wildfires are an excellent example of what we're seeing more and more of: warming means snow melts earlier, soils and vegetation dries out earlier, and the fire season starts earlier. It's a train wreck," University of Arizona climate scientist Jonathan Overpeck wrote in an email.

Worldwide, the length of Earth's fire season increased nearly 19 percent from 1979 to 2013, according to a study by Mark Cochrane, a professor of fire ecology at South Dakota State University.

Fires had steadily been increasing, but then in the late 1990s and early 2000s, "we've suddenly been hit with lots of these large fires we can't control," Cochrane said.

[RandomGuy]

You deny anything brought up that doesn't agree with your faith.

Period.

I think at this point, even you are beginning to realize the data are increasingly stacked against your denial that humans are causing the changes we are seeing in climate patterns.

That would explain the temper tantrums.

[RandomGuy]

lol that list of "experts".

PhD's in climate science, and other applicable fields. I can copy paste if you want.

[RandomGuy]

lol that list of "experts".

Within the scientific community, there is no debate. An overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and that human activity is the primary cause.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5458330

Leaving out the context of "going flat" entirely changes the perception, hence, intentionally misleading, which is a lie.

The previous times you used that, you included "fizzing." I guess you are capable of learning. Regardless, it shows your stupidity to think the reference I used is stupid.

I would have never guessed that you could have learned to stop using "fizzing."

Going flat is a direct reference to losing absorbed gasses. When a soda is cold, it retains CO2. When it warms, it outgasses. So does the ocean. It absorbs CO2 in the polar areas, and outgasses in the equatorial regions. The balance of these two actions determines if the ocean is a net sink or net source. It is a net source as the oceans warm, and a net sink as they cool.

If you are to illiterate in basic chemistry to understand such simple ideas, then I can see you you think it's silly. Just like the neanderthals thought fire was magic.

[Wild Cobra]

Solar burp stupidity:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5667710

I had completely forgot how you didn't understand that the reaction to make water out of hydrogen was combustion.

Whats wrong when clearly speaking hypothetically? My response was: "Misinterpreting my words again. I only posed possibilities."

I can't believe how you are capable of twisting a persons meaning. You have a rare gift of self delusions if you really believe the perceptions you relay.