Global warming scepticism

Yep, an answer with no science but continued focus on politics. Typical.

 

your hypocrisy is amusing

[video=youtube;NPepzNF8nXw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPepzNF8nXw[/video]

 

Interesting. Evidently you are the one that listens to Rush. LOL

I have noticed you have not been able to refute anything I have posted so far since it is factual so instead start resorting to character assassination which is typical when an alarmist is backed into a corner.

 

i'm pointing out how ridiculous your assertions are

you talk about a lack of science, then reference a book by a political commentator

 

so your answer is you don't have any idea what CO2 can do? It's what I thought. And still no solution provided to get out of the supposed mess you believe we're in. What will you do? What sacrifices are you willing to make to help with the Carbon footprint? Stop driving, take your residence off the grid? Stop shopping at local stores for food, clothes and any other items? Ride your bike to and from work? the problem I see is how to heat your home when it's negative 20 degrees outside. How you gonna do that? hmmm? let's hear your solution s0n!!!!

 

Lack of science? funny stuff. You, the one that presents something as fact that is already been debunked as raw, and, you know it and still posted it. You're disingenuous and worried about politics. Nothing about science. Judith Curry, just remember her. She is no Rush whoever, and is a former warmist, now debunking it all. So friend, start off with posting something scientific if you really think you have proof of anything.

 

that's right, mark steyn isn't a scientists

you have no clue what you're talking about, i posted plenty of science

 

dude, you posted a link misrepresenting the data in it, when you knew it wasn't what you said it was, which is, Michael Mann's raw data. That is such a violation of science that it's not funny. Scientific? Provide us with what is scientific about carbon credits and explain just how that helps your scenario about bad CO2 from man.

 

there's no misrepresenting from mann

the misrepresentations are coming from you, big oil and steyn

 

Well, since you can't prove it's Mann's raw data, you have no scientific position that you can take. The issue is still in litigation and as such you can't say with certainty what it is Mann did provide. So, again, you can't prove it.

And I have not misrepresented anything. I merely am presenting what has been discussed for a few years as fraud and unchallenged by Mann so far. He hasn't completed the lawsuit to which he filed. So, who has the position? Maybe neither of us. But one thing for certain, you cannot make the claim you made because it hasn't been decided.

 

what a joke, it came directly from him

 

Then you should be able to easily refute them, yet you haven't and can't.

 

i easily showed how ridiculous your claim is

 

With character assassination? MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

with facts

 

And challenged. What part of the law suit don't you understand? Right now, I found nothing he submitted as verified.

 

who said i don't understand it?

 

I do if you state his data is raw data.

 

These threads are silly. It is like non-doctors having a debate about brain surgery except climate science is more complicated. The scientific community cannot be refuted by an online link. If someone wants to contest scientific opinions or findings, then they need to submit their research and conclusions in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Basically everything else is not a scientific approach. Being a self proclaimed junior amateur scientist is not the source any reasonable person is going to rely on.

 

says who?

 

Blah, blah, blah, you never have anything other than 'because I said so' and personal attacks.

 

It is pretty clear who said it. You even quoted me in your reply. If you disagree, then please explain why people should ignore the concensus of the scientific community and instead go with the opinion of a non-expert when it is a scientific issue that is being discussed. If it was a rocket science issue, then a rational person would defer to a rocket scientist. Since we are talking about climate science, then the climate scientists are the experts. Non scientists who think they know more about science than scientists are specifically the ones we should ignore.

 

Who are you that you think you get to dictate who is allowed to say what about climate? There's no such thing as consensus, it's a liberal word and has no place in science.

 

It isn't a question of who I am. The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts that global warming is happening land also that it is very highly likely that it is being caused by human activity. There isn't anything "liberal" about that fact. It is also a fact that much of the denier "science" has been funded by people connected to the fossil fuel industry. However, none of that has anything to do with the absurd claim that non-scientists know better than the real scientists. That is too silly to discuss. Would you let Rush Limbaugh perform surgery on you or would you go to a real surgeon?

 

What does rush whoever have to do with climate?

Who thinks they know more than scientists?

Can you or they prove human CO2 is evil?