Climategate, the sequel:

I'll take that wager. but again you have no evidence which just supports my point.

 

No, it is you alleging to have evidence. But it is bogus.

You support my point by not having true evidence to support your claims. Do you recall what your claims are?

Before you claim you have evidence, which to date, no left winger ever shows up with, backed up with the math, etc., let me tell you what Obama would be doing today were this a genuine danger.

Obama would have had the Army Corps of engineers show the public a full plan to prevent eastern seas, from Boston to New York to Norfolk, VA and others down to Miami, tell us their plans to prevent sea levels from swamping all those cities. Even parts of SF and Seattle would be swamped yet we know nothing of plans to save said cities.

Can they prevent rising oceans?

Certainly not the way they are claiming to try. They are barking up the wrong tree by whining about carbon dioxide.

That is your entire argument. It fails. It never could work.

 

Does this mean you don't have evidence about your wager about pilots? LOL

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/opinion/airline-pilots-and-climate.html

To the Editor:

The European Union’s unilateral effort to tax United States airlines in the name of addressing climate change threatens thousands of United States jobs at a time when our airlines are already overtaxed and competing with heavily state-backed foreign carriers (“Your Biggest Carbon Sin May Be Air Travel,” news analysis, Sunday Review, Jan. 27).

Airline pilots play a critical role in protecting the environment. Along with our union’s efforts to promote sound environmental policy, pilots also make our commitment clear in the cockpit, through single-engine taxiing, technology-enhanced departure and arrival procedures, and other emission-cutting flight operations.

The true solution to reducing emissions is maximizing voluntary measures that are already proved to make a difference and creating international emissions guidelines through the International Civil Aviation Organization.

The United States airline industry’s employees need the federal government to make certain our industry thrives and to help us deliver on our drive to compete and win in the global marketplace.

LEE MOAK
President, Air Line Pilots Assn. Intl.
Washington, Jan. 29, 2013

 

The true solution to reducing emissions is maximizing voluntary measures that are already proved to make a difference and creating international emissions guidelines through the International Civil Aviation Organization.

The true solution to what ....Robert? It sounds like he recognizes a problem and is offering an ALTERNATIVE solution.

Welcome aboard

 

I will try again, maybe you can learn how to read in the mean time before you answer. Do you think John Cook of the 97% paper is one of those finest scientists you speak of?

 

I would not consider John Cook one of the top scientists in the world. I understand he only recently even completed his phd. Is that a clear enough answer for you. LOL

 

Who would you consider to be the finest scientists in the world?

 

Thread summary:

Deniers are illustrating a standard tactic of cults. If the facts contradict cult dogma, and the cultist can't refute the facts, then the cultist should divert attention away from the inconvenient facts by any means necessary. Suitable ways include demonizing one of the officially defined EnemiesOfTheCult, going off on totally irrelevant political rant, or invoking a nefarious conspiracy about how the whole world is plotting against the cult.

 

I would be happy to start naming them. For each one I name give me the name of a scientist you respect that openly denies AGW

Robert D Cess.

Your turn

 

Looks like this whole "second climategate" is just another failure to look up how and why data is adjusted. Conspiracy theorists need their conspiracy, so instead of seeking explanations for what they don't understand, they just assume foul play.

http://berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/

90% for anyone that has published a climate paper, about 97% for those who are most actively contributing to the field, or by total number of papers. More like 80-90% for other fields like misc AAAS scientists or earth scientists in general. Pick a number you feel is most relevant. Personally, I'll go with the people who aren't in the bottom 10 percent for number of papers published and actually specialize in climate as opposed to another field. Any way you look though, the agreement is pretty high.

 

Most scientists do not deny AGW but the true believers call them deniers because they are not on board with the alarmist religion.

 

I graciously accept your defeat

 

What defeat? You haven't a clue about AGW as you keep proving.

 

The fight is over son. The bell has rung, the hand has been raised, the belt awarded and the crowd has gone home. You are shouting to an empty arena. LOL

 

Self delusion suits you.

 

It's the AGW cult in here attacking people, the OP attacks false data

 

You do know that cults are SMALL religious groups? So if anything the cult would of course be the deniers. They are few in number and not mainstream.

Definition of cult
: a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous
: a situation in which people admire and care about something or someone very much or too much
: a small group of very devoted supporters or fans

Do you guys ever get anything right?

 

Indeed we do....

90% of Earth ice on Antarctica has done nothing but GROW GROW GROW every year since Algore started lying...

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

"According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."

which is the same thing the British Court concluded... that the tippy toppiest "top climate scientists" have done nothing but lie about Antarctic ice...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...ven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth

"And what are those inaccuracies?

The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim."


Given all the lies, all the real evidence, one has to wonder, just how STUPID does a "human" life form have to be to believe this???

 

Take a course in source criticism and come back. Enjoy...

 

I make a motion to task Academia with discovering how to put a research station on the ocean floor.

 

you do realize that there is over 60% of the population that doesn't care about GW right? so how is it figure that statement?

 

To deny a religious fanatic groups dogma is the exact opposite of a cult. AGW true believers think us non believers are the equivalent of infidels in the ISIS cult and are to be shunned, ostracized and dealt with harshly.

 

Well, to be truthful, if you weren't the follower of a cult, you would be saying that you think there might be discrepancies in
current models on Climate Change and further study is needed - you wouldn't be saying that there is no way Climate Change is
related to human actions and all the scientists who use any warming data are charlatans and have been bought off ...

Full denial is pretty much a harbinger of a cultist.

If you want to stand up and say that further study is needed - that I can agree with. But full-on denial ... ?

 

I deny the AGW dogma that says there is no room for dissent, believe or be labeled a denier. As of now with the scientific evidence or should I say lack thereof to prove this hypothesis I reject it outright. So far there is nothing but correlation and computer models and the hypothesis fails test after test so until some real evidence comes in I will remain an infidel.