Author Topic: Climate-Triggered NYC Disaster - New York on Ice, or Real (not faux) Climate Change  (Read 1237 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
If you are interested in understanding the skeptical position that is well founded by science try here:
https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/12/the-debate-mann-titley-moore-curry/

Alarmists prefer to argue the more ridiculous arguments presented by psuedo-skeptics and resort to naming calling and other ad-homs when presented with arguments that do have sound scientific basis. That does not mean that the planet is not warming or that CO2 does not present an unquantifiable risk. It just means the known unknowns and unknown unknowns are much bigger than alarmists claim and there is no reason to believe that reducing CO2 emissions today would necessarily result in more good than harm.

So once again you try to flog this nonsense that 97% of climate scientists must somehow be "pseudo" and so I guess you think the deniers must be the only actual scientists involved in the issue. Sorry, fail. However you did manage a good reiteration Rumsfeld
Like Like x 2 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
So once again you try to flog this nonsense that 97% of climate scientists must somehow be "pseudo" and so I guess you think the deniers must be the only actual scientists involved in the issue. Sorry, fail. However you did manage a good reiteration Rumsfeld
Your posts are generally bizarro nonsense that completely miss the point. This takes it to a whole new level. Try reading what I say for once and coming up with a response that actually addresses the argument I made instead of responding to whatever odd delusion pops into your head.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Your posts are generally bizarro nonsense that completely miss the point. This takes it to a whole new level. Try reading what I say for once and coming up with a response that actually addresses the argument I made instead of responding to whatever odd delusion pops into your head.
Point being your never ending attempts to discredit the majority of legitimate climate scientists continue to fall flat. But keep tryin' l'il buddy.
Like Like x 2 View List

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2956
If you are interested in understanding the skeptical position that is well founded by science try here:
https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/12/the-debate-mann-titley-moore-curry/

Alarmists prefer to argue the more ridiculous arguments presented by psuedo-skeptics and resort to naming calling and other ad-homs when presented with arguments that do have sound scientific basis. That does not mean that the planet is not warming or that CO2 does not present an unquantifiable risk. It just means the known unknowns and unknown unknowns are much bigger than alarmists claim and there is no reason to believe that reducing CO2 emissions today would necessarily result in more good than harm.
If you want to read a hack who is funded by the oil industry, check out Judith Curry. Yeah.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2956
Your posts are generally bizarro nonsense that completely miss the point. This takes it to a whole new level. Try reading what I say for once and coming up with a response that actually addresses the argument I made instead of responding to whatever odd delusion pops into your head.
What you say is nonsensical garbage that shouldn't even be dignified with responses. You post fringe hacks on climate, as if their words are gospel, ignoring all of the problems with their arguments, whilst claiming that the scientific consensus is wrong. If you were half as skeptical about crackpot climate change deniers as you are about the scientific consensus, you would see how stupid you look.
Winner Winner x 2 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Alarmists ... resort to naming calling and other ad-homs

Alarmists - says the denier.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Alarmists - says the denier.

Would this be a good time to paste a link to Merriam-Webster under "hypocrisy"?
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
What you say is nonsensical garbage that shouldn't even be dignified with responses. You post fringe hacks on climate, as if their words are gospel, ignoring all of the problems with their arguments, whilst claiming that the scientific consensus is wrong.
Pathetic. You are just like a Trumpette running off to propaganda sites screaming ad homs whenever you hear an argument that offends your ideological obsessions. If you actually cared about science you would learn what the well founded counter arguments are and try to understand the limitations of current knowledge. Except you don't care  about understanding the world or science. You only care about pushing your ideologically driven viewpoints under the bogus premise of "consensus" science. And you have the nerve to lecture me. Look in a mirror.
Dumb Dumb x 2 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Pathetic. You are just like a Trumpette running off to propaganda sites screaming ad homs whenever you hear an argument that offends your ideological obsessions. If you actually cared about science you would learn what the well founded counter arguments are and try to understand the limitations of current knowledge. Except you don't care  about understanding the world or science. You only care about pushing your ideologically driven viewpoints under the bogus premise of "consensus" science. And you have the nerve to lecture me. Look in a mirror.

The well founded counter arguments account for ~3% of peer reviewed reports. So who is pushing ideologically driven viewpoints?

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10187
So once again you try to flog this nonsense that 97% of climate scientists must somehow be "pseudo" and so I guess you think the deniers must be the only actual scientists involved in the issue. Sorry, fail. However you did manage a good reiteration Rumsfeld

There's a pretty strong consensus on AGW but where do you get the 97% number?
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Informative Informative x 1 View List

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10187
2 days from now is supposed to be sunny with cloudy periods, 10% of rain.  The vast majority of meteorologists forecast this.  There are a small minority of meteorologists who forecast scattered showers throughout the day, 80% of rain.

This is what the climate "debate" sounds like to me.  Not that I'm comparing weather with climate (you can't), the analogy just means that if there's some skeptics with different science conclusions that's fine, but if you're going to plan your day two days from now based on the weather, the only logical choice is to put more weight in the what the vast majority of scientists say than what a small minority say.

It's amazing to me how frequently one's political leanings will match what they believe about climate change.  There is no "belief", there's only science, statistics/evidence, and probabilities.
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
There's a pretty strong consensus on AGW but where do you get the 97% number?
The number is pure propaganda because it is based on a question which almost every scientific skeptic agrees with too. Studies that ask the question that matters (i.e. are CO2 emissions a serious concern) then the consensus is closer to 80%. Still a majority but 20% is a significant minority. Large enough that people that simply dismiss skeptical POVs are clearly anti-science.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
The number is pure propaganda because it is based on a question which almost every scientific skeptic agrees with too. Studies that ask the question that matters (i.e. are CO2 emissions a serious concern) then the consensus is closer to 80%. Still a majority but 20% is a significant minority. Large enough that people that simply dismiss skeptical POVs are clearly anti-science.

It would be interesting to hear what actual scientists have to say about your claim  that their professional, peer reviewed findings are nothing more than propaganda. Did you ever try and push a rope up hill as well?
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
This is what the climate "debate" sounds like to me.  Not that I'm comparing weather with climate (you can't), the analogy just means that if there's some skeptics with different science conclusions that's fine, but if you're going to plan your day two days from now based on the weather, the only logical choice is to put more weight in the what the vast majority of scientists say than what a small minority say.
Except what is really happening is meteorologists are giving medical advice. i.e. it will rain in the next 2 days so you need to have your appendix removed. If one is going to put weight on the advice of experts one must choose the right experts and the sad fact is climate scientists have no expertise in economics or energy system design so they have nothing useful to tell us about the cost of reducing CO2 vs. the cost of adapting.
Dumb Dumb x 3 View List