Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.
It is great that you are having a discussion on the science of climate change. However, please do try to keep the discussion civil. We do not publish comments that are uncivil or use inappropriate language. Thank you.
@TAMPADOC64 Then have a look at realclimate org index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/ "Thus, Gray’s statement that "The average THC circulation cools the ocean by about 3 W/m2" is a scientific absurdity." You cannot defend his paper against a single one of the criticisms posted there. How do I know that? Because Dr. Gray (who is not an expert in global climate despite your claim that he is) couldn't defend it either.
@ExperienceCounts2 As he states Mr. brainwashed tool, historical data proves him correct.
Realclimate is a propaganda site, nothing more. Since Dr.Gray has dealt with climate data almost twice as long as any of the so called experts your worship, I think that makes him more then qualified.
So what next, you're going to attempt to discredit Prof. Richard Lindzen of MIT, the foremost expert in the world on climate?
@TAMPADOC64 He's not "the foremost expert", he's not even a scientist any more, just read his writings. Realclimate and thinkprogress both point out specific scientific errors Lindzen made. If Lindzen couldn't defend his paper, why are you? The journal where Lindzen's paper was published refused to allow comments on it. Isn't that what you accuse climate scientists of, suppressing dissent? I am not discrediting Lindzen, he brought it on himself.
@ExperienceCounts2 So what you're trying to say here is that IPCC picked; actually begged the top person at MIT (you do realize how hard it is to work at MIT I hope) but after he disagreed with their fake findings hes now not qualified?
Do you sniff glue a lot?
Do you understand the definition of propaganda?
If he's not really a scientist (laughing at your stupidity) and he is so unqualified: why did the IPCC want him badly?
You're a DRONE! You can no longer reason! You spew PROPAGANDA!
@TAMPADOC64 False. The people who serve on the IPCC committees are unpaid volunteers, they are not solicited by the IPCC. That has always been the case. Would you agree that a scientist who publishes papers containing the same error they made years earlier and who refuse to respond to (or even acknowledge) very clear, very specific fundamental errors, are not qualified to sit on the IPCC?
@ExperienceCounts2 I would agree that you're a moron; you are babbling propaganda that is not factual! The IPCC INVITED it's members when it was for you spit drooling moron! What do you believe that the organization was formed and instantly scientist wanted to join? You continually demonstrate that you're nothing but a propaganda queen. You also demonstrate that you're a mindless tool and understand nothing of what you are commenting on.
@TAMPADOC64 Apparently you think by hurling enough insults it will make people forget that you present no evidence, that you have no explanation of why you throw away 80% of the data to make your claims, that you cannot cite a single specific case of scientific fraud and that you cannot answer the question that any rational person can easily answer: your own personal opinion on what evidence would have to be presented to convince you that AGW theory is correct. Insults don't hide your lies.
@ExperienceCounts2 You're a funny if not pathetic creature. You were the one who started hurling insults, not I. Once again since obviously your lack of intelligence prevented you from understanding this the first time: The AGW cult only had to tamper with a small amount of data to skew the models. They eliminated little things like the entire MWP, and the cooling in the 50s and 60s.
Also, you mindless toad, they admitted these actions and tried to rationalize them, Are you that stupid????
@TAMPADOC64 I defy you to cite a specific case of data tampering. Until you cite a specific case of tampering or scientific fraud I will continue to call you a liar. Cite evidence or quit crying.
@ExperienceCounts2 It's undeniable that it's certainly not a case of me lying, but rather your stupidity. I cited multiple articles where your AGW gods admitted they tampered with data and tried to justify their actions. You can call me what ever you like, I doubt anyone pays attention to a spit drooling moron like yourself. Perhaps someday you'll remove your head from your rectum so you can smell reality. Until then I shall suggest that you self fornicate with extreme vigor until you expire.
@TAMPADOC64 "Frankly, Lindzen's claim that "what we've seen so far" suggests sensitivity is no higher than 1°C for doubled CO2 could not be further from the truth. In reality, nothing credible we've seen so far suggests sensitivity is nearly as low as Lindzen claims. It's no wonder that Lindzen focuses so strongly on this argument, since climate sensitivity is the "skeptic" endgame, but as tends to be the case, the scientific evidence is not on Lindzen's side."
@TAMPADOC64 "Upon reading it, they are still calculating strictly upon tropical data, using a simple geometric extension of tropical insolation to the rest of the globe, and still do not address heat transfer in/out of the tropics, which is considerably larger in magnitude than their feedbacks (one of the Trenberth criticisms)." Isn't using overly simplistic models one of the things you accuse climate scientists of?
@TAMPADOC64 Climate scientist comment on your "expert": "it is impossible to calculate the net greenhouse effect without knowing where heat is deposited by the dynamic heat transports." This sounds like a repeat of many of the L&C criticisms. And yet his 2010 revision (17 years after this correspondence) of the L&C paper completely ignores this issue!
@TAMPADOC64 scienceblogs com /deltoid/2006/05/richard_lindzen_claims_global.php "Yeah, it appears that not only was Lindzen cherry-picking, he was cherry-picking with manipulated data. Here's Lindzen's graphic and a graphic based on data downloaded from the source he cites.
You can see that he chopped off the temperature for 2003-2005 in order to make it appear to have flattened out when it was rising.
@TAMPADOC64 "I must give him points for brazenness by doing a blatant cherry pick right in front of his audience. They seemed to buy it.
I'll go the other way. Look at the graph on the lower right and then look at it in context in the graph on the top right with the red line showing the trend. It's clear that warming didn't stop in 1998 and it shows just how misleading Lindzen's cherry pick is."
Yeah, sounds like "the foremost expert" to me. Even his own graphs call him a liar.
@TAMPADOC64 ossfoundation us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/richard-lindzen "What is interesting [...] is that Hansen made two appeals to the data gathering community to test a) whether water vapour feedbacks can be observed, and b) whether the ocean heat content is increasing in line with the model predictions. It is quite telling that both of these data analyses have since been made and they confirm Hansen's contentions, not Lindzen's."
The extreme anti-science response to AGW theory actually has some precedence. At physicstoday org they have an article "Science controversies past and present"
by Steven Sherwood that compares the anti-science nuts to the ignorant peasants who rejected the heliocentric model of the solar system for a couple of hundred years. IMO the comparison isn't 100% because in this case the anti-science nuts have access to all the information that scientists do, so they have no excuse.
@ExperienceCounts2 What a simple minded dolt like you fail to understand is that conclusions in science aren't always correct.
i.e: Until the heliocentric model scientist all believed in the geocentric model.
Scientist all believed dinosaurs were cold blooded.
And just to show how easily scientist can be sucked into fraud (just like the AGW fraud) scientist believed in phlogiston simply because of the writing of one scientist (like AGW cult) suckered the rest and profited off of it.
@TAMPADOC64 You've just discovered that scientists are convinced by compelling evidence? That's how science works. If a theory disagrees with evidence, it *must* be revised or discarded. There is no significant body of evidence that disagrees with AGW theory, otherwise you would have cited it by now. You have no data, no evidence of controversy, no evidence of fraud, no evidence of data destruction. You have nothing but repeated, unsubstantiated claims of a global conspiracy.
@ExperienceCounts2 My mindless little twit! The problem is you lemming, that that there is no evidence supporting AGW except for manufactured data from the CRU. And in FACT (I'm sure you're not familiar with that word) according to the laws of Physics and the observed data, the outrageous predictions of the AGW cult are quite impossible.
If you actually took the time to look at the video of Dr.William Gray you may actually learn something.
Or you can continue to rant and look like an idiot!
Foster & Rahmstorf2 "Global temperature evolution 1979–2010". If the anti-science crowd's need to discard 80% of the data in order to claim it has been cooling since 1998 isn't enough to demonstrate they are dishonest then a well documented analysis of the data should. A clear warming trend since 1979 and the anti-science crowd can't cite a specific technical or logical error in it. Gotta love real science, filtering b.s. for centuries and still going strong.
@Besetho What about you trying to change the subject again? Can't you answer a simple, innocuous question about your methods? Why did you discard 80% of the data? You made the claim, it's there for everyone to see, so convince us. You must have a reason for discarding all the data that disagrees with your claim, right?
@Besetho You sure talk a lot without ever citing a specific published peer reviewed paper. I didn't ask for bluster or claims of "many examples". The one bit I notice you forgot to mention about a scientific theory: it must explain the available evidence. And BTW "Mr. Scientist", the word is "falsifiable". So here's the question again: In your own personal opinion, what evidence would have to be provided to convince you that AGW theory is correct? Have a nice run.
@Besetho A scientist can be reasoned with. You can't even be bothered to explain why you discarded 80% of the data in order to make a false claim that the global climate is cooling. That is not rational, reasonable or honest. If you can't even own up to your claims then you're no scientist, you're simply speculating and spreading gossip. Your job title might be science related but rest assured, you're no scientist.
@Besetho Apparently you don't waste you time on any research at all since anyone even vaguely familiar with the issues knows that the IPCC doesn't do any science and never has. You claim to be a scientists yet you'll discard 80% of your data just to find a subset of it that suits your predetermined conclusion? That sounds more like something that a politician would do, not a scientist.
@Besetho That's strange. Just like all the other anti-science trolls, you make claims without presenting any evidence. You demand evidence but you can't provide any?
We won't defeat manmade climate change until we arrest all the AGW-deniers for crimes against humanity and for subversion of state security and send them off to die in the ocean, or lock them up for life.
The crucial objective viewpoint is presented here. The skepticism about the skeptics is vastly increasing, faster than they can promote the industry interest. It's about time.
wow all you guys that dont believe in climate change are sad. Like he said in his other interview people are not listening to scientist. People are listening to politicians, random websites and other non scientific opinions about global warming. It just proves that people are created excuses so they dont have to change their lives in order to preserve our planet. if you are not creating climate change they we are creating deforestation, and disruption in the ecosystem.
@coollinemms 80% of IPCC are political hacks. The small percentage of scientist that actually support AGW are getting paid to support it and are doing everything they can to discredit, slander and block any legitimate criticism of a claim based on faked, falsified and manipulated data. So what is pathetic, people that listen to so called scientist that falsify data and block peer review or the people that ignore them.
@widebody123 I have review both of them extensively and both avoid using facts. REALCLIMATE is a propaganda website done by the AGW cult. SkepticalScience's "Arguments" page has more wrong data then right. Even things that the AGW cult climate scientist have admitted was incorrect, that website still tout as being true. You yourself could go down there list and look up those topics and see the vast amount of incorrect assertions on that page, and I encourage you to do so.
@TAMPADOC64 Your displayed lack of knowledge of grammar in the English language gives a strong clue as to your level of intelligence (low). To refer to an 'AGW cult' is so ridiculous. I can't actually believe I'm responding to a troll but I'm bored
@widebody123 Yeah, us physicist and our poor grammar make us unqualified to understand the physics behind the 2nd Law of thermal dynamics and entropy of ground energy. Funny, you belief in a concept that totally defies physics and science led me to the belief that you were not only of extremely insignificant intellect, but also demonstrated herd mentality. After you and your brethren are finish with your excrement fight, don't bother responding, it will only embarrass you further.
@TAMPADOC64 If you "reviewed both sites extensively" how come you don't know that they maintain the discussions on both sites with full threads going back years? So here's my question that no anti-science type has ever tried to answer: In your own personal opinion, what specific evidence would have to be provided to convince you that AGW theory is correct?
@TAMPADOC64 There are discussions on skepticalscience and realclimate, and both sites have long-running threads where errors are discussed and corrected and genuine scientific skepticism is always welcome. Why don't you list all their errors for them? Don't you want to arrive at the truth of the matter? Don't you want your "facts" to embarrass the scientists who contribute there? Come to think of it, why would you post to yt at all, why not publish your "facts" in AGU?
@ExperienceCounts2 Why would you assume I haven't? What makes you think I'm not published or that I haven't had papers reviewed? You come here and question me while only posting propaganda. I have posted many errors, most of which are well known. It's apparent that cult members such as you have no interest in fact, only in worshipping the AGW Cult. Your masters have been caught in numerous lies, fraudulent activities and unprofessional activities. Why don't you question their integrity?
@TAMPADOC64 You haven't because you can't even cite one specific issue even on youtube, if you tried the same shit on there they'd mod you right off. You can't cite a single paper that used "faked" data or a single instance of fraud and I'm calling you on it. You have zip-point-shit for evidence. When did asking you for proof of your claims become "posting propaganda"? I thought you wanted people to know exactly what the climate scientists have done.
@ExperienceCounts2 Very classy response! I underestimated you, obviously you are highly educated! You must have a (dare I say) 5th or 6th grade education!
You lords and masters have been caught, admitted and made excuses for the fraud they have committed. In any other field of science they would have been called frauds and black balled. But in the AGW cult their actions are totally overlooked if not accepted as "the ends justifying the means"
REAL scientists NEVER destroy substituted raw data!
@TAMPADOC64 "Supporting material consists of published reports and proceedings from workshops and expert meetings within the scope of IPCC work programme that have IPCC recognition and material commissioned by Working Groups in support of IPCC assessment process which IPCC decides should have wide dissemination. Supporting material is prepared for consideration by the IPCC and has not been subject to the formal IPCC review process."
@ExperienceCounts2 Wow! You're a mindless drone! First of all most of the respected scientist left the IPCC years ago because they disagree with their phony conclusions. Most of the IPCC board consist of political hacks not scientist. Suggesting that they can be considered subjective or even impartial is a kin to suggesting cows can fly.
You just keep worshipping your gods and ignore common sense and reality. People like you need something to believe in!
@TAMPADOC64 You must be in really good shape. All that running from global conspiracy claim to global conspiracy claim, trying desperately not to take one position long enough to answer a simple question about your personal opinion. So, in your own personal opinion, what evidence would have to be presented to convince you that AGW theory is correct? Have a nice run. BTW any time you feel like citing specific evidence, feel free. You've posted zero so far.
@ExperienceCounts2 You say I cited zero, but all you've sited was fraud. Since you're unable to produce any evidence that isn't tainted by fraudulent data there is no need for me to disprove the fraud. The implication that their admitted use of fraudulent data proves beyond question your lack of objectivity and demonstrates your worship of your AGW gods.
@TAMPADOC64 Newsflash: your wild claims of fraud are not the same thing as evidence of fraud. You demand evidence from scientists, but then run screaming from any post that challenges you to provide your evidence. You can't even respond to a simple question about your personal opinion. You repeatedly demand that everyone take your word for it that a global conspiracy is at work. Your "proof" is just gossip columns on sensationalist websites. You refuse to provide any evidence.
@ExperienceCounts2 News Flash! If they admitted it, if they have been caught committing fraud on numerous occasions, it's hard for an intelligent person to call it my "wild claims".
Since they made the claims, since they committed fraud and falsified their results, why is it simple minded tools like you are questioning me? Do you not understand what has happened?
Many of the top climatologist as well as many other experts in weather and climate agree with me, are they also gossips?
@TAMPADOC64 You're well past the point of reason now. You produce NO evidence whatsoever. It seems to me that either you have no evidence to present, you're simply a compulsive liar or else you consider yourself a supreme authority who is above the standards of evidence. Not one of those problems on your part affects the climate science. Cite the name of just one "top climatologist" who supports you. You cannot, you're just making shit up while you run from the questions.
@TAMPADOC64 Guess what? nap.edu openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=1 That paper has Lindzen's name on it and it says "Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century"
@ExperienceCounts2 So because his name (the head of Climatology at MIT) appears on a paper, regardless of the fact that he has openly stated many times that he disagrees with the AGW cult, that it proves your point? You really are a brainwashed twit!
BTW, the foremost expert in the world on Sea level rise has stated that the sea isn't rising. I suppose that doesn't mean anything either, right?
@TAMPADOC64 Meteorology is not global climate. From that paper "Dr. Richard S.Lindzen is the Alfred P.Sloan Professor of Meteorology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology." thinkprogress org /romm/2010/01/11/205326/science-lindzen-debunked-again-positive-negative-feedbacks-clouds-tropics/
Did you know that Prf. Lindzen was begged to be on the IPCC?
Do you know he and many other top scientist left the IPCC because they were so opposed to the fraud the IPCC was publishing?
Did you know that the IPCC fraudulently used their names on the reports anyway?
So if he isn't an expert like you claim, why did they want him so badly, why did they fraudulently use his name, and with that in mind, why are you trying to discredit him
@TAMPADOC64 You must be in really good shape. All that running from global conspiracy claim to global conspiracy claim, trying desperately not to take one position long enough to answer a simple question about your personal opinion. So, in your own personal opinion, what evidence would have to be presented to convince you that AGW theory is correct? Have a nice run. BTW any time you feel like citing specific evidence, feel free. You've posted zero so far.
@TAMPADOC64 Please tell me you're joking. You have to be. You cite a lawsuit by a fringe group as "proof" of something? Then you cite the online equivalent of the National Enquirer because you're ignorant of the IPCC processes and Wattsuphisass takes advantage of that ignorance? I think you need glasses or English lessons since you seem incapable of reading or comprehending "The data is still there — you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center.”
@ExperienceCounts2 Joking, you're obviously simple minded. I could site dozens of sources with the same data. They have admitted they were caught; what more can be produced? The problem with you AGW worshippers is that you dismiss anything that contradicts your AGW gods.
BTW, please continue to demonstrate your ignorance! The data used wasn't all provided by NOAA. Further if you did an honest evaluation of surface station data you would know it to has been compromised by heat island intrusion.
@TAMPADOC64 You "can site (sic) dozens of sources..."? What "data" are you talking about ? Online gossip sites and newspapers who carry stories on bigfoot and flying saucers provide "data"? You can't cite a single scientific paper, you cannot explain why you throw away 80% of the available data and you cannot name a single specific instance of any scientist committing fraud or altering data inappropriately. Wild claims of a global conspiracy are not evidence. You presented nothing.
@ExperienceCounts2 Wall Street Journal, NY Times(L), CBS, Fox, MediaMatter (L), The National Review, The Telegraph, The American Thinker, Nature, The Register, The Office of The United States Senate, MIT Journal, The Guardian, etc...
You obviously lack any understanding of science. I can alter the results of any study with a very small percentage of the data. The fact that they altered, replaced, and destroyed data and tried to hide the fact disqualifies their credibility as well as their work!
@TAMPADOC64 You claim that WSJ, NYT and Fox "News" publish science and then claim that you have an understanding of science? I repeat, you're a liar and I'm calling you on it. You cannot cite a single case of scientific fraud on the part of climate scientists. No data was destroyed. You're lying every time you repeat those claims. At this point no reasonable person can doubt that you're lying because you've had ample opportunity to cite one specific instance and you haven't.
What you fail to understand is I can cite tons of data. However I understand its a waste on a buffoon like yourself. If you could grow a brain we may have a discussion. That however seems highly unlikely!
@TAMPADOC64 You're a liar. You cannot cite any data, otherwise you would have. As for your link, do you even know what an FTP server is? It's used to serve up files for transfer. When files are removed from the ftp download directory it doesn't mean the data was destroyed. I repeat, you're a liar. No data was deleted. As the original article said "We haven't destroyed anything. The data is still there -- you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center."
@ExperienceCounts2 First of all, you constantly demonstrate your stupidity! They ADMITTED you MORON, that they substituted data and destroyed the original data. Not all of the data you idiot was from NOAA. If you're attempting to tell us that tree ring data from Siberia is from NOAA it further demonstrates your total lack of intelligence. It's obvious you bring nothing to this discussion but propaganda and since you refuse to face facts but instead insist on childish behavior, this is over.PUTZ
@TAMPADOC64 I didn't realize that the ability to read a news story to the end was called "MORON". When you develop the skills of "MORON" such that you can read the entire article instead of he one sentence from it, you'll actually see it was the very same person saying it. And once again, you make wild, unsubstantiated claims that the data was destroyed. Have you even glanced at the paper in question or looked at which data set it cited? (that's rhetorical, obviously you did not)
@TAMPADOC64 Cite a published scientific paper that used faked, falsified or incorrectly manipulated data. You won't because you can't. You're telling a lie and I'm calling you on it.
Hansen claims that the Antarctic has reached a tipping point and that the ice is going to be completely gone. Why should we believe this? What is the basis for such a claim? Does Hansen possess a crystal ball?
Isn't it obvious by now that these 'scientists' have a larger agenda and are willing to lie and exaggerate in order to advance it?
"Isnt the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse? Isnt it our responsibility to bring that about?" --Maurice Strong, UN
@firecloud77 You don't need a crystal ball to know that if the polar ice caps are melting now (Which they are as you can pretty much go and observe it for yourself in the polar regions) and global warming is also taking place that the polar ice caps will continue to melt at a faster rate until they are gone. Climate change and its main cause the increasing levels of CO2 emission are going to be the biggest problems to face the planet in the next 100 - 300 years. We need to stop emitting CO2 now.
Hansen endorsed an extreme eco-fascist book by Keith Farnish calling for the end of industrial civilisation, as Heinrich Himmler once did.
Most don't realise that realise that environmentalism is a policy of the ultra conservative, extreme right
Nazi lite.
Prince Charles, Prince Philip, Prince Bernhardt, Viscount Porrtt, Lord Melchitt, Oliver Tickell, George Monbiot, Zak Goldsmith, David de Rothschild, Paul Kingsnorth, James Lovelock, Edward Goldsmith , John Aspinall.
@eric144144 What most people do realise is that you reply to published science, rational analysis of data and a hundred years of good quality measurements with nothing but rhetoric. Godwin's law combined with the law of the anti-science, anti-evidence fringe seems to be in effect.
@eric144144 You've presented zero for evidence, therefore your analysis cannot be considered either rational or an analysis of data. Rational means "using reason or logic in thinking out a problem". You either cannot or choose not to express your claims in logical terms or describe your reasoning methods. Climate scientists *have* to do that to be considered scientists. They write down their processes and methods. Anti-science lunatics just post wild, unsubstantiated claims.
@eric144144 Okay, so I'm a simpleton. As a simpleton, I can answer a simple question about my person opinion on AGW theory. If a simpleton can understand and answer the question, why can't any of the anti-science crowd answer the same question?
@ExperienceCounts2 Also Mr.Drone, why in the world would you be calling us the "anti-science crowd"? Are you so brainwashed as to not comprehend that millions of scientist disagree with the religion of AGW?
I have only one question for you: How often do you drink the Cool-Aid?
This has been flagged as spam show
More Evidence of AGW Fraud series
No Need to Panic About Global Warming
Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.
WSJ Jan 27
TAMPADOC64 2 weeks ago
It is great that you are having a discussion on the science of climate change. However, please do try to keep the discussion civil. We do not publish comments that are uncivil or use inappropriate language. Thank you.
UNUChannel 1 month ago
So why is it that so many experts believe this is a hoax?
Watch this!
3w. youtube. com/watch?v=oZVE8JHxRAc
TAMPADOC64 1 month ago
@TAMPADOC64 Then have a look at realclimate org index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/ "Thus, Gray’s statement that "The average THC circulation cools the ocean by about 3 W/m2" is a scientific absurdity." You cannot defend his paper against a single one of the criticisms posted there. How do I know that? Because Dr. Gray (who is not an expert in global climate despite your claim that he is) couldn't defend it either.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2 As he states Mr. brainwashed tool, historical data proves him correct.
Realclimate is a propaganda site, nothing more. Since Dr.Gray has dealt with climate data almost twice as long as any of the so called experts your worship, I think that makes him more then qualified.
So what next, you're going to attempt to discredit Prof. Richard Lindzen of MIT, the foremost expert in the world on climate?
TAMPADOC64 1 month ago
@TAMPADOC64 He's not "the foremost expert", he's not even a scientist any more, just read his writings. Realclimate and thinkprogress both point out specific scientific errors Lindzen made. If Lindzen couldn't defend his paper, why are you? The journal where Lindzen's paper was published refused to allow comments on it. Isn't that what you accuse climate scientists of, suppressing dissent? I am not discrediting Lindzen, he brought it on himself.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2 So what you're trying to say here is that IPCC picked; actually begged the top person at MIT (you do realize how hard it is to work at MIT I hope) but after he disagreed with their fake findings hes now not qualified?
Do you sniff glue a lot?
Do you understand the definition of propaganda?
If he's not really a scientist (laughing at your stupidity) and he is so unqualified: why did the IPCC want him badly?
You're a DRONE! You can no longer reason! You spew PROPAGANDA!
TAMPADOC64 1 month ago
@TAMPADOC64 False. The people who serve on the IPCC committees are unpaid volunteers, they are not solicited by the IPCC. That has always been the case. Would you agree that a scientist who publishes papers containing the same error they made years earlier and who refuse to respond to (or even acknowledge) very clear, very specific fundamental errors, are not qualified to sit on the IPCC?
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2 I would agree that you're a moron; you are babbling propaganda that is not factual! The IPCC INVITED it's members when it was for you spit drooling moron! What do you believe that the organization was formed and instantly scientist wanted to join? You continually demonstrate that you're nothing but a propaganda queen. You also demonstrate that you're a mindless tool and understand nothing of what you are commenting on.
Please do the world a favor and go away!
TAMPADOC64 1 month ago
@TAMPADOC64 Apparently you think by hurling enough insults it will make people forget that you present no evidence, that you have no explanation of why you throw away 80% of the data to make your claims, that you cannot cite a single specific case of scientific fraud and that you cannot answer the question that any rational person can easily answer: your own personal opinion on what evidence would have to be presented to convince you that AGW theory is correct. Insults don't hide your lies.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2 You're a funny if not pathetic creature. You were the one who started hurling insults, not I. Once again since obviously your lack of intelligence prevented you from understanding this the first time: The AGW cult only had to tamper with a small amount of data to skew the models. They eliminated little things like the entire MWP, and the cooling in the 50s and 60s.
Also, you mindless toad, they admitted these actions and tried to rationalize them, Are you that stupid????
TAMPADOC64 1 month ago
@TAMPADOC64 I defy you to cite a specific case of data tampering. Until you cite a specific case of tampering or scientific fraud I will continue to call you a liar. Cite evidence or quit crying.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2 It's undeniable that it's certainly not a case of me lying, but rather your stupidity. I cited multiple articles where your AGW gods admitted they tampered with data and tried to justify their actions. You can call me what ever you like, I doubt anyone pays attention to a spit drooling moron like yourself. Perhaps someday you'll remove your head from your rectum so you can smell reality. Until then I shall suggest that you self fornicate with extreme vigor until you expire.
TAMPADOC64 1 month ago
@TAMPADOC64 "Frankly, Lindzen's claim that "what we've seen so far" suggests sensitivity is no higher than 1°C for doubled CO2 could not be further from the truth. In reality, nothing credible we've seen so far suggests sensitivity is nearly as low as Lindzen claims. It's no wonder that Lindzen focuses so strongly on this argument, since climate sensitivity is the "skeptic" endgame, but as tends to be the case, the scientific evidence is not on Lindzen's side."
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@TAMPADOC64 "Upon reading it, they are still calculating strictly upon tropical data, using a simple geometric extension of tropical insolation to the rest of the globe, and still do not address heat transfer in/out of the tropics, which is considerably larger in magnitude than their feedbacks (one of the Trenberth criticisms)." Isn't using overly simplistic models one of the things you accuse climate scientists of?
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@TAMPADOC64 Climate scientist comment on your "expert": "it is impossible to calculate the net greenhouse effect without knowing where heat is deposited by the dynamic heat transports." This sounds like a repeat of many of the L&C criticisms. And yet his 2010 revision (17 years after this correspondence) of the L&C paper completely ignores this issue!
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@TAMPADOC64 scienceblogs com /deltoid/2006/05/richard_lindzen_claims_global.php "Yeah, it appears that not only was Lindzen cherry-picking, he was cherry-picking with manipulated data. Here's Lindzen's graphic and a graphic based on data downloaded from the source he cites.
You can see that he chopped off the temperature for 2003-2005 in order to make it appear to have flattened out when it was rising.
Holy cow."
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@TAMPADOC64 "I must give him points for brazenness by doing a blatant cherry pick right in front of his audience. They seemed to buy it.
I'll go the other way. Look at the graph on the lower right and then look at it in context in the graph on the top right with the red line showing the trend. It's clear that warming didn't stop in 1998 and it shows just how misleading Lindzen's cherry pick is."
Yeah, sounds like "the foremost expert" to me. Even his own graphs call him a liar.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@TAMPADOC64 ossfoundation us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/richard-lindzen "What is interesting [...] is that Hansen made two appeals to the data gathering community to test a) whether water vapour feedbacks can be observed, and b) whether the ocean heat content is increasing in line with the model predictions. It is quite telling that both of these data analyses have since been made and they confirm Hansen's contentions, not Lindzen's."
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
The extreme anti-science response to AGW theory actually has some precedence. At physicstoday org they have an article "Science controversies past and present"
by Steven Sherwood that compares the anti-science nuts to the ignorant peasants who rejected the heliocentric model of the solar system for a couple of hundred years. IMO the comparison isn't 100% because in this case the anti-science nuts have access to all the information that scientists do, so they have no excuse.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2 What a simple minded dolt like you fail to understand is that conclusions in science aren't always correct.
i.e: Until the heliocentric model scientist all believed in the geocentric model.
Scientist all believed dinosaurs were cold blooded.
And just to show how easily scientist can be sucked into fraud (just like the AGW fraud) scientist believed in phlogiston simply because of the writing of one scientist (like AGW cult) suckered the rest and profited off of it.
TAMPADOC64 1 month ago
@TAMPADOC64 You've just discovered that scientists are convinced by compelling evidence? That's how science works. If a theory disagrees with evidence, it *must* be revised or discarded. There is no significant body of evidence that disagrees with AGW theory, otherwise you would have cited it by now. You have no data, no evidence of controversy, no evidence of fraud, no evidence of data destruction. You have nothing but repeated, unsubstantiated claims of a global conspiracy.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2 My mindless little twit! The problem is you lemming, that that there is no evidence supporting AGW except for manufactured data from the CRU. And in FACT (I'm sure you're not familiar with that word) according to the laws of Physics and the observed data, the outrageous predictions of the AGW cult are quite impossible.
If you actually took the time to look at the video of Dr.William Gray you may actually learn something.
Or you can continue to rant and look like an idiot!
TAMPADOC64 1 month ago
Foster & Rahmstorf2 "Global temperature evolution 1979–2010". If the anti-science crowd's need to discard 80% of the data in order to claim it has been cooling since 1998 isn't enough to demonstrate they are dishonest then a well documented analysis of the data should. A clear warming trend since 1979 and the anti-science crowd can't cite a specific technical or logical error in it. Gotta love real science, filtering b.s. for centuries and still going strong.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@Besetho What about you trying to change the subject again? Can't you answer a simple, innocuous question about your methods? Why did you discard 80% of the data? You made the claim, it's there for everyone to see, so convince us. You must have a reason for discarding all the data that disagrees with your claim, right?
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@Besetho You sure talk a lot without ever citing a specific published peer reviewed paper. I didn't ask for bluster or claims of "many examples". The one bit I notice you forgot to mention about a scientific theory: it must explain the available evidence. And BTW "Mr. Scientist", the word is "falsifiable". So here's the question again: In your own personal opinion, what evidence would have to be provided to convince you that AGW theory is correct? Have a nice run.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@Besetho A scientist can be reasoned with. You can't even be bothered to explain why you discarded 80% of the data in order to make a false claim that the global climate is cooling. That is not rational, reasonable or honest. If you can't even own up to your claims then you're no scientist, you're simply speculating and spreading gossip. Your job title might be science related but rest assured, you're no scientist.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@Besetho Apparently you don't waste you time on any research at all since anyone even vaguely familiar with the issues knows that the IPCC doesn't do any science and never has. You claim to be a scientists yet you'll discard 80% of your data just to find a subset of it that suits your predetermined conclusion? That sounds more like something that a politician would do, not a scientist.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@Besetho That's strange. Just like all the other anti-science trolls, you make claims without presenting any evidence. You demand evidence but you can't provide any?
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch this video
Climate Change Facts vs Fiction
andyzbak2 3 months ago
We won't defeat manmade climate change until we arrest all the AGW-deniers for crimes against humanity and for subversion of state security and send them off to die in the ocean, or lock them up for life.
mphello 8 months ago
So why did we all freeze this winter?
david222444 10 months ago
@david222444 Think you may be confusing climate and weather.
UNUChannel 10 months ago
@UNUChannel so is James Hansen.
quantumG 5 months ago
The crucial objective viewpoint is presented here. The skepticism about the skeptics is vastly increasing, faster than they can promote the industry interest. It's about time.
followthefleet1 1 year ago
wow all you guys that dont believe in climate change are sad. Like he said in his other interview people are not listening to scientist. People are listening to politicians, random websites and other non scientific opinions about global warming. It just proves that people are created excuses so they dont have to change their lives in order to preserve our planet. if you are not creating climate change they we are creating deforestation, and disruption in the ecosystem.
coollinemms 1 year ago
@coollinemms 80% of IPCC are political hacks. The small percentage of scientist that actually support AGW are getting paid to support it and are doing everything they can to discredit, slander and block any legitimate criticism of a claim based on faked, falsified and manipulated data. So what is pathetic, people that listen to so called scientist that falsify data and block peer review or the people that ignore them.
TAMPADOC64 8 months ago
@TAMPADOC64 May I refer you to the websites RealClimate and SkepticalScience. They offer a very good presentation of the facts about climate science.
widebody123 4 months ago
@widebody123 I have review both of them extensively and both avoid using facts. REALCLIMATE is a propaganda website done by the AGW cult. SkepticalScience's "Arguments" page has more wrong data then right. Even things that the AGW cult climate scientist have admitted was incorrect, that website still tout as being true. You yourself could go down there list and look up those topics and see the vast amount of incorrect assertions on that page, and I encourage you to do so.
TAMPADOC64 4 months ago
@TAMPADOC64 Your displayed lack of knowledge of grammar in the English language gives a strong clue as to your level of intelligence (low). To refer to an 'AGW cult' is so ridiculous. I can't actually believe I'm responding to a troll but I'm bored
widebody123 3 months ago
@widebody123 Yeah, us physicist and our poor grammar make us unqualified to understand the physics behind the 2nd Law of thermal dynamics and entropy of ground energy. Funny, you belief in a concept that totally defies physics and science led me to the belief that you were not only of extremely insignificant intellect, but also demonstrated herd mentality. After you and your brethren are finish with your excrement fight, don't bother responding, it will only embarrass you further.
TAMPADOC64 3 months ago
@widebody123 PS, you post a fragmented sentence and criticize my grammer? You must be highly edjamacated, why you must be a "ROAD" scholar!
TAMPADOC64 3 months ago
@TAMPADOC64 If you "reviewed both sites extensively" how come you don't know that they maintain the discussions on both sites with full threads going back years? So here's my question that no anti-science type has ever tried to answer: In your own personal opinion, what specific evidence would have to be provided to convince you that AGW theory is correct?
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@TAMPADOC64 There are discussions on skepticalscience and realclimate, and both sites have long-running threads where errors are discussed and corrected and genuine scientific skepticism is always welcome. Why don't you list all their errors for them? Don't you want to arrive at the truth of the matter? Don't you want your "facts" to embarrass the scientists who contribute there? Come to think of it, why would you post to yt at all, why not publish your "facts" in AGU?
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2 Why would you assume I haven't? What makes you think I'm not published or that I haven't had papers reviewed? You come here and question me while only posting propaganda. I have posted many errors, most of which are well known. It's apparent that cult members such as you have no interest in fact, only in worshipping the AGW Cult. Your masters have been caught in numerous lies, fraudulent activities and unprofessional activities. Why don't you question their integrity?
TAMPADOC64 1 month ago
@TAMPADOC64 You haven't because you can't even cite one specific issue even on youtube, if you tried the same shit on there they'd mod you right off. You can't cite a single paper that used "faked" data or a single instance of fraud and I'm calling you on it. You have zip-point-shit for evidence. When did asking you for proof of your claims become "posting propaganda"? I thought you wanted people to know exactly what the climate scientists have done.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2 Very classy response! I underestimated you, obviously you are highly educated! You must have a (dare I say) 5th or 6th grade education!
You lords and masters have been caught, admitted and made excuses for the fraud they have committed. In any other field of science they would have been called frauds and black balled. But in the AGW cult their actions are totally overlooked if not accepted as "the ends justifying the means"
REAL scientists NEVER destroy substituted raw data!
TAMPADOC64 1 month ago
@TAMPADOC64 "Supporting material consists of published reports and proceedings from workshops and expert meetings within the scope of IPCC work programme that have IPCC recognition and material commissioned by Working Groups in support of IPCC assessment process which IPCC decides should have wide dissemination. Supporting material is prepared for consideration by the IPCC and has not been subject to the formal IPCC review process."
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2 Wow! You're a mindless drone! First of all most of the respected scientist left the IPCC years ago because they disagree with their phony conclusions. Most of the IPCC board consist of political hacks not scientist. Suggesting that they can be considered subjective or even impartial is a kin to suggesting cows can fly.
You just keep worshipping your gods and ignore common sense and reality. People like you need something to believe in!
TAMPADOC64 1 month ago
@TAMPADOC64 You must be in really good shape. All that running from global conspiracy claim to global conspiracy claim, trying desperately not to take one position long enough to answer a simple question about your personal opinion. So, in your own personal opinion, what evidence would have to be presented to convince you that AGW theory is correct? Have a nice run. BTW any time you feel like citing specific evidence, feel free. You've posted zero so far.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2 You say I cited zero, but all you've sited was fraud. Since you're unable to produce any evidence that isn't tainted by fraudulent data there is no need for me to disprove the fraud. The implication that their admitted use of fraudulent data proves beyond question your lack of objectivity and demonstrates your worship of your AGW gods.
PS: I'm in great shape!
TAMPADOC64 1 month ago
@TAMPADOC64 Newsflash: your wild claims of fraud are not the same thing as evidence of fraud. You demand evidence from scientists, but then run screaming from any post that challenges you to provide your evidence. You can't even respond to a simple question about your personal opinion. You repeatedly demand that everyone take your word for it that a global conspiracy is at work. Your "proof" is just gossip columns on sensationalist websites. You refuse to provide any evidence.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2 News Flash! If they admitted it, if they have been caught committing fraud on numerous occasions, it's hard for an intelligent person to call it my "wild claims".
Since they made the claims, since they committed fraud and falsified their results, why is it simple minded tools like you are questioning me? Do you not understand what has happened?
Many of the top climatologist as well as many other experts in weather and climate agree with me, are they also gossips?
TAMPADOC64 1 month ago
@TAMPADOC64 You're well past the point of reason now. You produce NO evidence whatsoever. It seems to me that either you have no evidence to present, you're simply a compulsive liar or else you consider yourself a supreme authority who is above the standards of evidence. Not one of those problems on your part affects the climate science. Cite the name of just one "top climatologist" who supports you. You cannot, you're just making shit up while you run from the questions.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2 You're quite pathetic!
Let see... Who is the foremost expert in the world on Climatology? Hmmm
That would be Prof. Richard Lindzen of MIT
And guess what? He believes AGW is a fraud!
Wow! Guess what, you look even more the fool now!
I like how you mindless dolts have to use profanity to express yourselves. You must be highly edjamacated!
TAMPADOC64 1 month ago
@TAMPADOC64 Guess what? nap.edu openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=1 That paper has Lindzen's name on it and it says "Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century"
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2 So because his name (the head of Climatology at MIT) appears on a paper, regardless of the fact that he has openly stated many times that he disagrees with the AGW cult, that it proves your point? You really are a brainwashed twit!
BTW, the foremost expert in the world on Sea level rise has stated that the sea isn't rising. I suppose that doesn't mean anything either, right?
You're a waste of time!
TAMPADOC64 1 month ago
@TAMPADOC64 Meteorology is not global climate. From that paper "Dr. Richard S.Lindzen is the Alfred P.Sloan Professor of Meteorology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology." thinkprogress org /romm/2010/01/11/205326/science-lindzen-debunked-again-positive-negative-feedbacks-clouds-tropics/
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2 one last point, then I'm done with you.
Did you know that Prf. Lindzen was begged to be on the IPCC?
Do you know he and many other top scientist left the IPCC because they were so opposed to the fraud the IPCC was publishing?
Did you know that the IPCC fraudulently used their names on the reports anyway?
So if he isn't an expert like you claim, why did they want him so badly, why did they fraudulently use his name, and with that in mind, why are you trying to discredit him
TAMPADOC64 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TAMPADOC64 You must be in really good shape. All that running from global conspiracy claim to global conspiracy claim, trying desperately not to take one position long enough to answer a simple question about your personal opinion. So, in your own personal opinion, what evidence would have to be presented to convince you that AGW theory is correct? Have a nice run. BTW any time you feel like citing specific evidence, feel free. You've posted zero so far.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@TAMPADOC64 ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_supporting_material.shtml
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2 Just a few examples of scientific fraud!
3w. nytimes. com/gwire/2009/10/14/14greenwire-scientists-return-fire-at-climate-skeptics-in-31175. html
3w. wattsupwiththat. com/2010/01/23/breaking-news-scientist-admits-ipcc-used-fake-data-to-pressure-policy-makers/
TAMPADOC64 1 month ago
@TAMPADOC64 Please tell me you're joking. You have to be. You cite a lawsuit by a fringe group as "proof" of something? Then you cite the online equivalent of the National Enquirer because you're ignorant of the IPCC processes and Wattsuphisass takes advantage of that ignorance? I think you need glasses or English lessons since you seem incapable of reading or comprehending "The data is still there — you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center.”
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2 Joking, you're obviously simple minded. I could site dozens of sources with the same data. They have admitted they were caught; what more can be produced? The problem with you AGW worshippers is that you dismiss anything that contradicts your AGW gods.
BTW, please continue to demonstrate your ignorance! The data used wasn't all provided by NOAA. Further if you did an honest evaluation of surface station data you would know it to has been compromised by heat island intrusion.
TAMPADOC64 1 month ago
@TAMPADOC64 You "can site (sic) dozens of sources..."? What "data" are you talking about ? Online gossip sites and newspapers who carry stories on bigfoot and flying saucers provide "data"? You can't cite a single scientific paper, you cannot explain why you throw away 80% of the available data and you cannot name a single specific instance of any scientist committing fraud or altering data inappropriately. Wild claims of a global conspiracy are not evidence. You presented nothing.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2 Wall Street Journal, NY Times(L), CBS, Fox, MediaMatter (L), The National Review, The Telegraph, The American Thinker, Nature, The Register, The Office of The United States Senate, MIT Journal, The Guardian, etc...
You obviously lack any understanding of science. I can alter the results of any study with a very small percentage of the data. The fact that they altered, replaced, and destroyed data and tried to hide the fact disqualifies their credibility as well as their work!
TAMPADOC64 1 month ago
@TAMPADOC64 You claim that WSJ, NYT and Fox "News" publish science and then claim that you have an understanding of science? I repeat, you're a liar and I'm calling you on it. You cannot cite a single case of scientific fraud on the part of climate scientists. No data was destroyed. You're lying every time you repeat those claims. At this point no reasonable person can doubt that you're lying because you've had ample opportunity to cite one specific instance and you haven't.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2 Really, you! a mindless, common, ignorant, herdistic, mindless twit have the audacity to call me a liar?
3w. climateaudit. org/2009/07/31/the-cru-data-purge-continues/
What you fail to understand is I can cite tons of data. However I understand its a waste on a buffoon like yourself. If you could grow a brain we may have a discussion. That however seems highly unlikely!
TAMPADOC64 1 month ago
@TAMPADOC64 You're a liar. You cannot cite any data, otherwise you would have. As for your link, do you even know what an FTP server is? It's used to serve up files for transfer. When files are removed from the ftp download directory it doesn't mean the data was destroyed. I repeat, you're a liar. No data was deleted. As the original article said "We haven't destroyed anything. The data is still there -- you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center."
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2 First of all, you constantly demonstrate your stupidity! They ADMITTED you MORON, that they substituted data and destroyed the original data. Not all of the data you idiot was from NOAA. If you're attempting to tell us that tree ring data from Siberia is from NOAA it further demonstrates your total lack of intelligence. It's obvious you bring nothing to this discussion but propaganda and since you refuse to face facts but instead insist on childish behavior, this is over.PUTZ
TAMPADOC64 1 month ago
@TAMPADOC64 I didn't realize that the ability to read a news story to the end was called "MORON". When you develop the skills of "MORON" such that you can read the entire article instead of he one sentence from it, you'll actually see it was the very same person saying it. And once again, you make wild, unsubstantiated claims that the data was destroyed. Have you even glanced at the paper in question or looked at which data set it cited? (that's rhetorical, obviously you did not)
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@TAMPADOC64 Cite a published scientific paper that used faked, falsified or incorrectly manipulated data. You won't because you can't. You're telling a lie and I'm calling you on it.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
GOOOD man^
listen pollution-tax-fearmonger-victims
they(NASA climate-most important institute)
want the taxes monthly in YOUR pocket!
aerobique 2 years ago
Hansen claims that the Antarctic has reached a tipping point and that the ice is going to be completely gone. Why should we believe this? What is the basis for such a claim? Does Hansen possess a crystal ball?
Isn't it obvious by now that these 'scientists' have a larger agenda and are willing to lie and exaggerate in order to advance it?
"Isnt the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse? Isnt it our responsibility to bring that about?" --Maurice Strong, UN
firecloud77 2 years ago
@firecloud77
LOL.
ask alex jones or glenn beck, fanboy - they know it all
aerobique 2 years ago
@firecloud77 You don't need a crystal ball to know that if the polar ice caps are melting now (Which they are as you can pretty much go and observe it for yourself in the polar regions) and global warming is also taking place that the polar ice caps will continue to melt at a faster rate until they are gone. Climate change and its main cause the increasing levels of CO2 emission are going to be the biggest problems to face the planet in the next 100 - 300 years. We need to stop emitting CO2 now.
moonomatic 9 months ago
eric, your just an obvious fool
aerobique 2 years ago
Hansen endorsed an extreme eco-fascist book by Keith Farnish calling for the end of industrial civilisation, as Heinrich Himmler once did.
Most don't realise that realise that environmentalism is a policy of the ultra conservative, extreme right
Nazi lite.
Prince Charles, Prince Philip, Prince Bernhardt, Viscount Porrtt, Lord Melchitt, Oliver Tickell, George Monbiot, Zak Goldsmith, David de Rothschild, Paul Kingsnorth, James Lovelock, Edward Goldsmith , John Aspinall.
eric144144 2 years ago
@eric144144 What most people do realise is that you reply to published science, rational analysis of data and a hundred years of good quality measurements with nothing but rhetoric. Godwin's law combined with the law of the anti-science, anti-evidence fringe seems to be in effect.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ExperienceCounts2
You don't know anything about science or the rational analysis of data, do you ?
eric144144 1 month ago
@eric144144 You've presented zero for evidence, therefore your analysis cannot be considered either rational or an analysis of data. Rational means "using reason or logic in thinking out a problem". You either cannot or choose not to express your claims in logical terms or describe your reasoning methods. Climate scientists *have* to do that to be considered scientists. They write down their processes and methods. Anti-science lunatics just post wild, unsubstantiated claims.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2
You are a simpleton as the other guy said.
eric144144 1 month ago
@eric144144 Okay, so I'm a simpleton. As a simpleton, I can answer a simple question about my person opinion on AGW theory. If a simpleton can understand and answer the question, why can't any of the anti-science crowd answer the same question?
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2 Also Mr.Drone, why in the world would you be calling us the "anti-science crowd"? Are you so brainwashed as to not comprehend that millions of scientist disagree with the religion of AGW?
I have only one question for you: How often do you drink the Cool-Aid?
TAMPADOC64 1 month ago
bring back the Nuremberg trials for climate criminals!
szatmar666 2 years ago