Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#3,026
#3,026
Sandvol said:
I wasn't referring to the letter. I was referring to the other link and to Bart's point about how the Pope might be taking up the AGW cause.
Click to expand...

Im sure he will talk about how we need to be good stewards of the earth, but I doubt he talks about CO2 emissions. When its actually published, be sure to read what he actually writes and not what the AP or some blog thinks
 
#3,027
#3,027
BnxhAmTCUAEmKBA.jpg:large


The Antarctic ice sheet is collapsing!
 
#3,031
#3,031
BigOrangeTrain said:
Scientists Debunk White House Global Warming Report | The Daily Caller

Let me guess Bart, these scientists are not credible because they are skeptics right?
Click to expand...
No; all scientists are skeptics. These guys aren’t credible because they’re regurgitating the same old denialist talking points like the name-change myth alluded to just a few lines in. They’re not credible because they refer their readers to known tobacco offenders CATO, CEI, Heritage, and to lulzy blogs like WUWT (more affectionately nicknamed WTFUWT and LOLWUWT). They’re not credible because they consist of your usual who’s who of denialists like Singer and Easterbrook along with economists, engineers, and other non-climate scientists.

This is almost as pathetic as the last time you pulled the woe-is-me persecuted “skeptic” card when you defended the moron who said CO2 levels haven’t increased at all over the past century.
BigOrangeTrain said:
Where Did '97 Percent' Global Warming Consensus Come From? | The Daily Caller

Oops.
Click to expand...
Yawn. After reviewing the abstracts John Cook let authors self-rate their papers’ positions on AGW and he still arrived at the 97% figure. Multiple independent studies have also gotten the same result. Consensus denial… that’s really grasping at straws
 
#3,032
#3,032
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Im sure he will talk about how we need to be good stewards of the earth, but I doubt he talks about CO2 emissions. When its actually published, be sure to read what he actually writes and not what the AP or some blog thinks
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t be so sure… the new Pope has done some pretty controversial stuff already. And he’s a Jesuit (who have a rich history of science) and has a master’s degree in chemistry. He also took on the name of Francis of Assissi, the patron saint of animals and the environment. Furthermore he’s following Benedict aka “the Green Pope”, who also spoke specifically about climate change.

one of us, one of us
gooble-gobble-o.gif


Are you Catholic VNSF? Sandvol’s catholic-bashing seemed to rub you the wrong way. The church’s anti-science reputation, mostly due to the well-known Galileo story, is unfair IMO. They have been big supporters of and participators in science throughout history. Catholics even embrace evolution. Kudos.

How do you feel about the church’s position that we need to be good stewards of the earth? Do you agree, or do you prefer the dominionist interpretation of the bible?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,033
#3,033
BartW said:
I wouldn’t be so sure… the new Pope has done some pretty controversial stuff already. And he’s a Jesuit (who have a rich history of science) and has a master’s degree in chemistry. He also took on the name of Francis of Assissi, the patron saint of animals and the environment. Furthermore he’s following Benedict aka “the Green Pope”, who also spoke specifically about climate change.




one of us, one of us
gooble-gobble-o.gif





Are you Catholic VNSF? Sandvol’s catholic-bashing seemed to rub you the wrong way. The church’s anti-science reputation, mostly due to the well-known Galileo story, is unfair IMO. They have been big supporters of and participators in science throughout history. Catholics even embrace evolution. Kudos.

How do you feel about the church’s position that we need to be good stewards of the earth? Do you agree, or do you prefer the dominionist interpretation of the bible?
Click to expand...



That's how I pictured LG's house around Thanksgiving ..
 
#3,034
#3,034
BartW said:
No; all scientists are skeptics. These guys aren’t credible because they’re regurgitating the same old denialist talking points like the name-change myth alluded to just a few lines in. They’re not credible because they refer their readers to known tobacco offenders CATO, CEI, Heritage, and to lulzy blogs like WUWT (more affectionately nicknamed WTFUWT and LOLWUWT). They’re not credible because they consist of your usual who’s who of denialists like Singer and Easterbrook along with economists, engineers, and other non-climate scientists.

This is almost as pathetic as the last time you pulled the woe-is-me persecuted “skeptic” card when you defended the moron who said CO2 levels haven’t increased at all over the past century.

Yawn. After reviewing the abstracts John Cook let authors self-rate their papers’ positions on AGW and he still arrived at the 97% figure. Multiple independent studies have also gotten the same result. Consensus denial… that’s really grasping at straws
Click to expand...

:snoring: same ol blah blah blah. Nothing new here from Bart.
 
#3,036
#3,036
BartW said:
No; all scientists are skeptics. These guys aren’t credible because they’re regurgitating the same old denialist talking points like the name-change myth alluded to just a few lines in. They’re not credible because they refer their readers to known tobacco offenders CATO, CEI, Heritage, and to lulzy blogs like WUWT (more affectionately nicknamed WTFUWT and LOLWUWT). They’re not credible because they consist of your usual who’s who of denialists like Singer and Easterbrook along with economists, engineers, and other non-climate scientists.

This is almost as pathetic as the last time you pulled the woe-is-me persecuted “skeptic” card when you defended the moron who said CO2 levels haven’t increased at all over the past century.

Yawn. After reviewing the abstracts John Cook let authors self-rate their papers’ positions on AGW and he still arrived at the 97% figure. Multiple independent studies have also gotten the same result. Consensus denial… that’s really grasping at straws
Click to expand...

"The definition Cook used to get his consensus was weak, the climatologists said. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined by Cook explicitly stated that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.

“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” said Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study’s lead author."

Seems like you and your master are the deniers.
 
#3,038
#3,038
From Dr. Spencer:

Of course there are liberal equivalents [to denial]. For example, here are seven that immediately come to mind:

1) natural climate change denial

2) denial that coal and petroleum work better than unicorn farts as fuels,

3) denial that a small amount of warming is better than killing millions of poor people by restricting access to inexpensive energy,

4) denial that the human-induced component of climate change is anything but catastrophic and an emergency,

5) denial that an increasing number of scientists are becoming skeptics,

6) denial that IPCC scientists were caught red-handed trying to silence the opposition and “hide the decline”,

7) denial of the observations, which show much less warming than any of the climate models can explain over the last 30+ years.

I’m sure I could think of more, but I don’t like to waste any more time than necessary answering such silly claims.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#3,039
#3,039
Guys don’t joke about HAARP, you’re gonna scare BOT.

It’s good to hear from “the honorable Dr. Roy Spencer” again. I have explicitly stated that there are liberal equivalents to conservative climate change denial, but considering Spencer is also an outspoken creationist I doubt he would recognize science denial if it bit him in the ass. Cute list though, really. I think #6 is my favorite. A+ manufactroversy
 
#3,040
#3,040
BartW said:
No; all scientists are skeptics. These guys aren’t credible because they’re regurgitating the same old denialist talking points like the name-change myth alluded to just a few lines in. They’re not credible because they refer their readers to known tobacco offenders CATO, CEI, Heritage, and to lulzy blogs like WUWT (more affectionately nicknamed WTFUWT and LOLWUWT). They’re not credible because they consist of your usual who’s who of denialists like Singer and Easterbrook along with economists, engineers, and other non-climate scientists.

This is almost as pathetic as the last time you pulled the woe-is-me persecuted “skeptic” card when you defended the moron who said CO2 levels haven’t increased at all over the past century.

Yawn. After reviewing the abstracts John Cook let authors self-rate their papers’ positions on AGW and he still arrived at the 97% figure. Multiple independent studies have also gotten the same result. Consensus denial… that’s really grasping at straws
Click to expand...

It's becoming way to easy Bart. You're so easily baited into posting more stupid things like this. I knew you would say they are not credible. As I have always said, in this thread as long as YOU say a scientist is credible then they are.
 
#3,041
#3,041
BartW said:
Guys don’t joke about HAARP, you’re gonna scare BOT.

It’s good to hear from “the honorable Dr. Roy Spencer” again. I have explicitly stated that there are liberal equivalents to conservative climate change denial, but considering Spencer is also an outspoken creationist I doubt he would recognize science denial if it bit him in the ass. Cute list though, really. I think #6 is my favorite. A+ manufactroversy
Click to expand...

We all know what HAARP does, well everyone except you probably. You probably think HAARP is harmless.

As usual another person deemed not credible because YOU say so.
 
#3,044
#3,044
BartW said:
Guys don’t joke about HAARP, you’re gonna scare BOT.

It’s good to hear from “the honorable Dr. Roy Spencer” again. I have explicitly stated that there are liberal equivalents to conservative climate change denial, but considering Spencer is also an outspoken creationist I doubt he would recognize science denial if it bit him in the ass. Cute list though, really. I think #6 is my favorite. A+ manufactroversy
Click to expand...

My professor at UT was a Creationist. One of the most intelligent men I ever knew. If you can come up with something better I'm all ears. He never liked the idea that something could come from nothing. Me neither. He used to debate the Darwinists on campus. He would wear them out. Loved to go to those things. They stopped debating him.
 
Last edited:
#3,045
#3,045
#3,046
#3,046
Sandvol said:
My professor at UT was a Creationist. One of the most intelligent men I ever knew. If you can come up with something better I'm all ears. He never liked the idea that something could come from nothing. Me neither. He used to debate the Darwinists on campus. He would wear them out. Loved to go to those things. They stopped debating him.
Click to expand...

If he's a creationist, he must believe that something came from nothing. That whole "in the beginning, there was void" is hard to get around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,047
#3,047
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,049
#3,049
MG1968 said:
If he's a creationist, he must believe that something came from nothing. That whole "in the beginning, there was void" is hard to get around.
Click to expand...

I've always had trouble understanding nothing.
What is nothing. Even empty space is something.


Meh, nevermind.
 
#3,050
#3,050
TSwafford said:
The colder winters britain has been experiencing are due to global warming according to these scientists
Global warming 'will give Britain longer, colder winters' as melting sea ice plays havoc with weather patterns | Mail Online


A few years ago Global Warming scientists were saying the oposite:
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent

does anybody actually believe the global warming garbage, except the people that are making billions from this myth? LOL
Click to expand...

The entire planet could freeze over and the GW whakos would still be trying to explain how it's related to humans. The Earth has been cyclically warming and cooling for eons. 50,000 years ago we had an Ice Age. 10,000 years ago we had a mini Ice Age. This is the coldest Spring I've ever seen. Sea levels have not risen an inch. It's driven by scientists who want to keep the myth going so they can make a buck. Nothing else.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top