The right wing 'China won't curb their emissions' argument goes down in flames

[Hineswardkickedurpanzyass]

Dammit Ed, don't you know that the super cold winter was because of global warming? And that the water absorbed all of the heat? And that fish are going to die because you want to drive a Suburban? Do I have to continuously remind you of all of this?

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

Einstein was not 'rejected' for legit reasons where do you come up with this nonsense? Much of the criticism of his work was based on bigotry, there were also claims that experiments disproved his theories. They were proven wrong.

Where are the deniers experiments? Where is their a denier doing research and publishing papers that pass peer review?

NOWHERE! and that's because that is not what denier 'scientists' do. What they do is nit pick real work and use their training and knowledge of mathematics to confuse the average Joe. We've all seen the phony graphs Steeltime(A.K.A. Deepthroattime) post from time to time. They come from the WATTS blog or other fossil fuel funded sources.

What 'hard evidence' do the deniers have? Show us a shred please.

You don't understand how science works. That much is clear. Disproving a theory is just as important as defending a theory. You are not supposed to shout down the other side.

When Einstein proposed his theory of relativity, the scientific community didn't just accept it and throw him a parade. Einstein himself devised his own tests to try to disprove his theory. It took years. He made very specific predictions and said if they were not true then his theory was wrong.

He wrote "The chief attraction of the theory lies in its logical completeness. If a single one of the conclusions drawn from it proves wrong, it must be given up; to modify it without destroying the whole structure seems to be impossible."

Did you know that to this very day there are scientists testing relativity and trying to disprove it? Are they deniers who should be shouted down? No, they are following the scientific method which seeks truth.

Climate Propagandists make predictions, the predictions are wrong, and then they still declare themselves right. Then they bully anybody who questions their completely unproven theories.

It's the opposite of science. Just like liberalism is the opposite of reason.

 

[hamster]

You did notice I said Co2 would help plants and mainly American farmers short term right?

James Taylor ambulance chaser and Prof. Don J. Easterbrook a geologist, not a climate scientist and an academic pariah even at his own university.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Easterbrook

Don J. Easterbrook (born January 29, 1935, in Sumas, Washington) is a geology professor emeritus at Western Washington University. Dr. Easterbrook holds that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes. He edited Evidence-Based Climate Science (2011) a book which contends that increased CO2 emissions aren't the cause of climate change. He predicted lower global temperatures than the IPCC temperature projections.[1] He appeared on the Headline News program Glenn Beck[2] and has been interviewed for the New York Times.[3] Other members of the geology department at WWU, however, have criticized, and attempted to distance themselves from, his views after Easterbrook testified before the Washington State Senate Energy, Environment and Telecommunications Committee that carbon dioxide could not cause global warming.[4]

NEXT LIE OR MISREPRESENTATION STEP RIGHT UP CLOWNS, WHERE IS YOUR RIDE? LET'S HAVE A BLAST FROM THE PAST! HERE COMES YOUR RIDE DENIERS!

"My academic dick is bigger than yours!" You are a dolt.

I could care less about your academics. They are all bought and paid for by special interests, just like mine. For everyone you produce, I can produce the opposite.
That is all you know...copy and paste.
You prove nothing.

Oh, but keep linking the Youtube clips. At least that shows a little creativity, and is entertaining.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

http://news.yahoo.com/surprise-icebergs-spotted-lake-superior-140245612.html

Damn you global warming!!!! Release us from your fiery death grip!!

If we had more global warming, the Titanic wouldn't have hit an iceberg and sunk.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Don't forget they also invented that 'Polar Vortex ' term just last winter----Rush Limbaugh

Well, the LGBT activists didn't invent the word "gay" either.

 

[PoloMalo43]

You don't understand how science works. That much is clear. Disproving a theory is just as important as defending a theory. You are not supposed to shout down the other side.

When Einstein proposed his theory of relativity, the scientific community didn't just accept it and throw him a parade. Einstein himself devised his own tests to try to disprove his theory. It took years. He made very specific predictions and said if they were not true then his theory was wrong.

He wrote "The chief attraction of the theory lies in its logical completeness. If a single one of the conclusions drawn from it proves wrong, it must be given up; to modify it without destroying the whole structure seems to be impossible."

Did you know that to this very day there are scientists testing relativity and trying to disprove it? Are they deniers who should be shouted down? No, they are following the scientific method which seeks truth.

Climate Propagandists make predictions, the predictions are wrong, and then they still declare themselves right. Then they bully anybody who questions their completely unproven theories.

It's the opposite of science. Just like liberalism is the opposite of reason.

I know exactly how the method is supposed to work and of course I understand the role of skepticism in it.

Who exactly is doing experiments on relativism?

While we're at it where are the experiments, no let's not even go that far where are the peer reviewed papers that provide an alternate hypothesis for the warming being observed, or the papers that invalidate AGW?

Real peer reviewed papers that are cited, not the type where Fox news guards the Exxon chicken coop like below.

NEXT LIE NEXT MISREPRESENTATION!

 

[Spike]

Fanatical global warming believer zealots, screaming red-faced, pounding on their AGW altars, are not science



Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.


Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

--------------------


yep - it's a religious war alright

believers vs. non-believers

The Left is the new hardline Shiite state religion of the new century.

 

[PoloMalo43]

Fanatical global warming believer zealots, screaming red-faced, pounding on their AGW altars, are not science



Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.


Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

--------------------


yep - it's a religious war alright

believers vs. non-believers

The Left is the new hardline Shiite state religion of the new century.

So you are also going to post stuff from the ambulance chaser James Taylor? Have any of you learned anything yet?

This is not a 50/50 proposition. 97.2% of climate scientists on one side and less than 3% on the other spouting nonsense, in this case a survey of weathermen/women and petroleum engineers(NO CLIMATE SCIENTISTS) gives us opinions on the subject that matter as much as those of a waitress.

Do you ask your plumber for his opinion on your medical problems? Think man, try it I promise it doesn't hurt.

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2...rbes-courtesy-of-heartland-hack-james-taylor/

Denialism From Forbes Courtesy of Heartland Hack James Taylor

The paper is actually quite interesting, and I’m glad I read it, as it is consistent with our thesis that ideological conflicts result in refusal to accept science that contradicts one’s overvalued ideas or personal interests. The authors surveyed a professional association of geoscientists in Alberta Canada (APEGGA), most of whom are working for the petroleum industry, and then performed a detailed analysis of their free-text responses on why they accept or reject climate science. What they found was there are 5 general “frames” used by respondents that their answers conformed to. The most common response was that global warming is real, and we need to act with regulation to address the problem (at 36%, the number quoted by Taylor to suggest there is no consensus), another 5% expressed doubt at the cause but agreed green house gases needed to be regulated. The second most common responses were “it’s nature” or “it’s a eco-regulatory conspiracy” and these responses showed a great deal of hostility in language towards environmentalism, proponents of global warming, liberalism etc. These came in at about 34% of responses and were more common from older white males in the higher tiers of the oil industry corporate structure. The most common remaining frame was a “fatalist” frame (17%) which could take or leave the science because hey, we’re screwed no matter what we do.

NEXT LIE NEXT MISREPRESENTATION! LETS GO CLOWNS!

 

[Steeltime]

Polo:

Since AGW scientists who raise doubts about the models and projections from the AGW, in particular the IPCC projections, crowd are "all oil industry ******," then why don't you provide a shred of evidence to support the claim?

Let me give some examples, and you provide a whit of evidence that the individual is tailoring his findings in exchange for compensation:

Roy Spencer
Freeman Dyson
Richard Lindzen
Nils-Axel Mörner
Garth Paltridge
Peter Stilbs
Philip Stott
Hendrik Tennekes
Khabibullo Abdusamatov
Sallie Baliunas
Tim Ball
Robert M. Carter
Ian Clark
Chris de Freitas
David Douglass
Don Easterbrook
William M. Gray
William Happer
Ole Humlum
Wibjörn Karlén
William Kininmonth
David Legates
Anthony Lupo
Tad Murty
Tim Patterson
Ian Plimer
Arthur B. Robinson
Murry Salby
Nicola Scafetta
Tom Segalstad
Fred Singer
Willie Soon
Henrik Svensmark
George H. Taylor
Jan Veizer
Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Claude Allègre
Robert Balling
John Christy
Petr Chylek
David Deming
Ivar Giaever
Vincent R. Gray
Keith Idso
Antonino Zichichi

Go ahead ... one piece of evidence that ANY of the foregoing has offered false analysis in return for "money from big oil."

And for the love of God, don't say, "So-and-so received x dollars for speaking at a conference funded in part by Fill-in-the-blank, which owns an interest in energy production."

Jesus-effing-Christ, if that were a reason to dismiss the published scientific data, without actual responding to the POINT ADDRESSED AND DATA UTILIZED in the article, then every ******* article by every AGW proponent would by force of reason have ZERO value since they MAKE THEIR ******* LIVING ON THE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY.

 

[Spike]

You're wasting your time trying to talk to a True Believer fanatic.

They clutch their little Al Gore bibles while groveling on their knees, screeching outto everyone to JUST BELIEVE....just believe everything we tell you - it's true, it's true, our Lord AlGore says it's so!

WE'RE ALL DOOMED!

We must begin to starve off 6 billion people - it's the only way to save Gaia - we promise! We call it the AGW Final Solution!

 

[madinsomniac]

You're wasting your time trying to talk to a True Believer fanatic.

They clutch their little Al Gore bibles while groveling on their knees, screeching outto everyone to JUST BELIEVE....just believe everything we tell you - it's true, it's true, our Lord AlGore says it's so!

WE'RE ALL DOOMED!

We must begin to starve off 6 billion people - it's the only way to save Gaia - we promise! We call it the AGW Final Solution!

Well humans do produce CO2. .. also he could just be a troll trying to get a rise out of everyone... in any case when someone is dismissing everything against their argument the way its going right now it is kind of pointless to continue... The ultimate fact is there isn't enough power on the grid to compensate for the plants closing due to the MATS rules next year... these rules might mean we lose up to 50% of the grid, because they will actually affect gas plants as well... none of it is actually going to get all the way to law... The EPA has already had far less impactful rules tossed for a fraction of the issues this one would have.

there is a reason why the people most likely to benefit from these rules are pressing so hard for them... why the point of no return date keeps getting sped up... if they don't make their big money before the next gen of power options arrive, they are **** out of luck... well that and NASA really needs a reason to keep getting funded... since we suddenly have bored of space exploration... Look there is plenty of opportunity for legitimate debate on this subject... but when people from onbe side are advocating anyone who disputes the data be imprisoned or worse... well that's not openminded debate...

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

I know exactly how the method is supposed to work and of course I understand the role of skepticism in it.

Who exactly is doing experiments on relativism?

While we're at it where are the experiments, no let's not even go that far where are the peer reviewed papers that provide an alternate hypothesis for the warming being observed, or the papers that invalidate AGW?

Real peer reviewed papers that are cited, not the type where Fox news guards the Exxon chicken coop like below.

NEXT LIE NEXT MISREPRESENTATION!

So you respond with nonsense and a cut and paste graphic that you don't understand. You say you understand the role of skepticism and then proceed to paste a graphic which champions conformity.

the irony is liberals think they are free thinkers, when in reality, they are the exact closed minded tryrats they claim to rail against.

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

Here's an interesting article from the NY Times entitled Was Einstein Wrong? It's about some 2011 experiments at CERN. Maybe you should tell them to stop their research because it's been decided Einstein is right so no further research need ever be done. They are just a bunch of flat Earthers, deniers who must be mocked until they quit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/opinion/30iht-eddas30.html?_r=0

Go ahead, take your time to find something really witty to cut and paste in response. Has Jon Stewart ever mentioned Einstein on the daily show?

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Wait a minute...NASA says CO2 keeps the Earth cool? http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

All right, which is it?

 

[PoloMalo43]

Here's an interesting article from the NY Times entitled Was Einstein Wrong? It's about some 2011 experiments at CERN. Maybe you should tell them to stop their research because it's been decided Einstein is right so no further research need ever be done. They are just a bunch of flat Earthers, deniers who must be mocked until they quit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/opinion/30iht-eddas30.html?_r=0

Go ahead, take your time to find something really witty to cut and paste in response. Has Jon Stewart ever mentioned Einstein on the daily show?

Posting a link is better than cut and paste ? OKaaaaaaaaay.......

I don't think the point of the experiment was to test relativity, it was probably something else and this 'discovery' was ancillary.

Either way it doesn't matter because they forgot about relativity[/] while thinking they had stumbled on to something. When you measure from satellites using GPS you introduce distance from the source. Anyway it was a mistake on the researchers part, relativity stands as we would all expect since it is basically fact.

Of course it was skepticism that corrected the mistake using empirical evidence, where is this empirical evidence for the deniers?

Forget the empirical evidence where is a simple hypothesis from the deniers countering AGW that I can't ***** slap back into Plato's aether with 'relative' ease.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Posting a link is better than cut and paste ? OKaaaaaaaaay.......

I don't think the point of the experiment was to test relativity, it was probably something else and this 'discovery' was ancillary.

Either way it doesn't matter because they forgot about relativity[/] while thinking they had stumbled on to something. When you measure from satellites using GPS you introduce distance from the source. Anyway it was a mistake on the researchers part, relativity stands as we would all expect since it is basically fact.

Of course it was skepticism that corrected the mistake using empirical evidence, where is this empirical evidence for the deniers?

Forget the empirical evidence where is a simple hypothesis from the deniers countering AGW that I can't ***** slap back into Plato's aether with 'relative' ease.

AGW is the hypothesis. Needs no counter hypothesis. It's false. What is it that you would like us to hypothesize about?

Empirical evidence? How about no global warming in the last 15 years. That work for ya?

 

[PoloMalo43]

So you respond with nonsense and a cut and paste graphic that you don't understand. You say you understand the role of skepticism and then proceed to paste a graphic which champions conformity.

the irony is liberals think they are free thinkers, when in reality, they are the exact closed minded tryrats they claim to rail against.

Yes because non conformity publishes paid denier's 'climate science' in economic journals, American Petroleum Institute journals,etc.

Yeah why don't you pull out those old published Heartland studies that show smoking is not bad for you? They were also published in 'journals'. Will you whip em out or shall I?

THESE ARE THE SCUMBAGS YOU"RE USING AS SOURCES! THIS WEASEL DENIES THEN AGREES, ALL THE WHILE WITH HIS '**** EATING ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK' GRIN ON HIS FACE! THIS IS THE SCUM YOU STAND WITH!

 

[Stewey]

A proponent of the global warming hoax displays skepticism.

http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/03/lennart-bengtsson-speaks-out/

Professor fired for claiming climate change is unproved science.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06...oped-calling-global-warming-unproved-science/

And the brainwashing continues.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/climatechange-musical-GreatImmensity/2014/04/01/id/562966/

 

[EdReed4Prez]

Yes because non conformity publishes paid denier's 'climate science' in economic journals, American Petroleum Institute journals,etc.

Yeah why don't you pull out those old published Heartland studies that show smoking is not bad for you? They were also published in 'journals'. Will you whip em out or shall I?

THESE ARE THE SCUMBAGS YOU"RE USING AS SOURCES! THIS WEASEL DENIES THEN AGREES, ALL THE WHILE WITH HIS '**** EATING ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK' GRIN ON HIS FACE! THIS IS THE SCUM YOU STAND WITH!

Yeah, those guys with the **** eating all the way to the bank on their faces really piss me off too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2320452/Al-Gore-Romney-Rich-grew-net-worth-200m-decade.html

 

[PoloMalo43]

Yeah, those guys with the **** eating all the way to the bank on their faces really piss me off too.





http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2320452/Al-Gore-Romney-Rich-grew-net-worth-200m-decade.html

That's great except for the fact that he buys renewable energy credits to power his houses, and he has solar panels.

NEXT LIE NEXT MISREPRESENTATION! STEP RIGHT UP CLOWNS.

 

[EdReed4Prez]

That's great except for the fact that he buys renewable energy credits to power his houses, and he has solar panels.

NEXT LIE NEXT MISREPRESENTATION! STEP RIGHT UP CLOWNS.

Where did I lie? He made $200M off of global warming hysteria. Used it to buy a mcmansion that burns a shitload of energy. Oh but wasting energy is ok if you buy renewable energy credits.

Translation: this green **** is easy if you're rich man. Very similar to Bloomberg wanting to outlaw guns as long as he can have hired armed guards.

 

[PoloMalo43]

Polo:

Since AGW scientists who raise doubts about the models and projections from the AGW, in particular the IPCC projections, crowd are "all oil industry ******," then why don't you provide a shred of evidence to support the claim?

Let me give some examples, and you provide a whit of evidence that the individual is tailoring his findings in exchange for compensation:

Roy Spencer
Freeman Dyson
Richard Lindzen
Nils-Axel Mörner
Garth Paltridge
Peter Stilbs
Philip Stott
Hendrik Tennekes
Khabibullo Abdusamatov
Sallie Baliunas
Tim Ball
Robert M. Carter
Ian Clark
Chris de Freitas
David Douglass
Don Easterbrook
William M. Gray
William Happer
Ole Humlum
Wibjörn Karlén
William Kininmonth
David Legates
Anthony Lupo
Tad Murty
Tim Patterson
Ian Plimer
Arthur B. Robinson
Murry Salby
Nicola Scafetta
Tom Segalstad
Fred Singer
Willie Soon
Henrik Svensmark
George H. Taylor
Jan Veizer
Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Claude Allègre
Robert Balling
John Christy
Petr Chylek
David Deming
Ivar Giaever
Vincent R. Gray
Keith Idso
Antonino Zichichi

Go ahead ... one piece of evidence that ANY of the foregoing has offered false analysis in return for "money from big oil."

And for the love of God, don't say, "So-and-so received x dollars for speaking at a conference funded in part by Fill-in-the-blank, which owns an interest in energy production."

Jesus-effing-Christ, if that were a reason to dismiss the published scientific data, without actual responding to the POINT ADDRESSED AND DATA UTILIZED in the article, then every ******* article by every AGW proponent would by force of reason have ZERO value since they MAKE THEIR ******* LIVING ON THE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY.

Hey you done with the Bukakke already? Is that the list of your ' Sperm donors'

I'm not going through that entire list. Let's have fun with one though.



Direct payments from Heartland; here is a leaked budget document from 2012. This is just one year mind you, we don't know who and what they've paid all those other years they've been in 'business'.

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/(1-15-2012) 2012 Heartland Budget.pdf

Fred Singer:

We see in the table at the bottom of page 7 that Singer receives $5,000 a month from Heartland, now the key is you want me to prove that in exchange for money Singer gives false analysis, right?

Well you and I know that is like proving that lobbyists give money to congressmen/women to help their particular special interest.

We both know LOBBYISTS ONLY GIVE MONEY TO CONGRESSMEN/WOMEN BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY'RE CUTE./sarcasm steeler nation/


Is that what you believe? I KNOW you don't believe that you just gave me an impossible task in a weak attempt to try and win a point since you've been non stop abused since you first confronted me.

So Fred Singer receives $5,000 dollars a month from Heartland because he is cute.

What we can easily do is give Singer the benefit of the doubt about being a fossil fuel industry *****...lol... and instead pretend that he's just plain old incompetent.....

Look at how many things he's wrong on, he's 0 for 24.....lol!

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Fred_Singer.htm



As a side note Singer goes back to Heartland's 'Smoking is good for you days' That's how long he's been spouting nonsense for them.

NEXT LIE NEXT MISREPRESENTATION! STEP RIGHT UP AFTER YOU WIPE THE SEMEN OFF YOUR FACE WOULDN'T WANT TO HAVE AN ACCIDENT.............

 

[PoloMalo43]

Where did I lie? He made $200M off of global warming hysteria. Used it to buy a mcmansion that burns a shitload of energy. Oh but wasting energy is ok if you buy renewable energy credits.

Translation: this green **** is easy if you're rich man. Very similar to Bloomberg wanting to outlaw guns as long as he can have hired armed guards.

It's not that much more to buy renewable from your utility, almost anyone can do it and yes if you use more you can buy more.

I thought you guys loved capitalism?

 

[diver]

It's not that much more to buy renewable from your utility, almost anyone can do it and yes if you use more you can buy more.

I thought you guys loved capitalism?

So, the elites like Al Gore can burn all the energy they want, and then buy credits or whatever, cause they are millionaires. The rest of us sclubs are the ones who have to conserve.

When are you going to learn? It really isn't as much conservative vs. liberal, or Democrat vs. Republican. It is the ruling class elites vs. everybody.