Why I dislike the AGW cult

Read it and found it to be garbage and just as the link I gave you said.

 

Yes I'm aware the cult trashes all non believers

 

Oh, well prove it.

 

Gary Novak believes that virtually all of physics as we understand it today is wrong. Not only is he a climate change denier, but he also vehemently denies almost the entirety of scientific knowledge. It's all fake according to him.

So you tell me...is this someone you want to throw your lot in with?

 

Probably not. Bet “he’s” read the Old Testament though.

 

A “cult” that includes all of the accredited institutes of higher learning in the entire world ? At this point, Faux News and Heritage become the cults. There's a high probability you’re a Republican. If you like sushi, then you can now call yourself a libertarian instead. You’re unaffected by the truth.

 

The article I linked is quotes from others.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Landsea

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Segalstad

 

Well, you would just say that 98% of people are dumber than you, is this not correct?

:EDIT:

Oh and professors can turn out to be not that smart.

 

After review of your posts and evaluation of the interaction you present, as well as the content of your "arguments" I am left with the impression that you use science as you understand it as a political tool and do so rather poorly. Much of what you put forward as "Science" runs counter to what the people who do the science are saying and the individuals you say are scientists either do not meet the criteria or do the same things you do.

 

Your opinion is noted.

 

As is yours, for what it is worth.

 

I have read the IPCC Assessments. The IPCC is a bit dishonest or deceptive. They frame everything around their target date of 2100. Therefore, when they say we must do such and such to keep atmospheric CO2 concentrations below 450ppm they mean only to the year 2100, their mapped response will not prevent future warming after 2100. The IPCC misleads people into thinking modest reductions in CO2 emissions is all that is required and therefore easily achievable if everyone would participate. That is not the science.

 

And your evidence is just what you say in a short paragraph.

The right wing is curly scientific.

:EDIT:

Trump is in collusion with aliens to destroy Canada!

 

I gave you the clues, it would likely be more beneficial to you if you find your own evidence.



I dont know anything about Trump and aliens but i do know Canada has been sending feckless provocateurs to America to influence and interfere in America's politics and free elections.

 

Sorry mate but science is not refuted by some whack job of a Mushroom farmer with an unreferrenced blog - someone who, by the way, thinks that Einstein was wrong - as I said google "Gary Novak" the author of that piece - what a twonk!!!

It is refuted by analysing the research critiquing it and showing where the research is not robust

You have not even come close to that

 

Critique

If you are to have any credibility in this debate then it has to be at academic standard

Quote specifics - chapter and page with links - analyse the data and then formulate a response

Otherwise it is the internet equivalent of flapping your gums

 

Less than the bandwidth it uses

 

Didn't read them did you?

The links in that blog you referrenced do not work and that is probably because they are about a decade old - which fits with my memory of first reading his whacked out rubbish.

Yeah! I have been debating this topic for over 10 years now and I have read just about every denialist site out there. Which is why I get annoyed that so few of the deniers bother even to read the basic information

 

I've read it and find it seriously flawed at every level but I won't try to convince you or deprogram you. I'm through wasting my time with that. I would ask though what you are doing about this "looming threat" to humanity besides bitching about it online and smearing non believers?

 

This isnt a debate, i merely gave my opinion as did yourself. I have no delusions that i can, or will, convince you or anyone else that that the true believers are misrepresenting science. Finding the truth is your responsibility, i can only give you clues on where to look.

Certainly, i could dig up my dusty literature and web links to provide an argument worthy of a debate, but as it always happens with internet debates, you will ignore the facts and choose a narrative that is most politically expedient.

For the most part, both sides of the public discourse on AGW are Deniers.

 

Sorry but I do not believe you HAVE read the IPCC - not even the summaries, if you had you would never have chosen a complete science denier as your bastion of all things anti climate science

 

No

I DO have science on my side. I have read the IPCC and respect the hundreds of scientists who contributed as well as other industry leaders (what? You did not know it was not only scientists???). These scientists come from nearly every country on Earth - so how can they all have the same political agenda? If there were any serious deficiencies in the science do you not think that someone somewhere (other of course than the paid pundits and crackpots) would have published a paper or two?

 

I actually don't have much problem with his position on hurricanes. He claims AGW has increased average hurricane wind speeds by 1 or 2 percent. While it is on the low side it's actually not out of line from the consensus.

I don't really know what to say here. We are pumping 4 ppm/yr of CO2 into the air and the biosphere is only absorbing 2 ppm/yr of the excess which leaves us with an imbalance of +2 ppm/yr. So if he's trying to claim that CO2 concentrations aren't increasing because the oceans are absorbing it all then he's dead wrong.

 

What are we misrepresenting?

 

Sorry but I don't believe you do anything about this so called catastrophic problem at our doorstep except whine online and denigrate non believers.