The Great Climate Hoax

[carolina73]

And that's been done conclusively.

AGW theory explains all of the observed data, and it is the simplest theory to do so. By Occam's Razor, it is thus most likely to the be correct theory.

So what's your theory to explain the current fast warming?

Make sure it explains the directly observed stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation and decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the greenhouse gas bands. None of the "Natural Cycle!" theories explain that data, so those theories are demonstrably wrong.

You don't have a theory at all. You're just waving your hands around wildly. Until you can put forth a theory that explains all the observed data, you won't be taken seriously.



Which is why your side should quit it with the lying.



See? That's why most everyone concludes that you're a pack of frauds, because your side keeps telling whoppers like that.

If all the data didn't say you were pushing fraud, you wouldn't have to invoke a loopy conspiracy theory to give you an excuse to discard that inconvenient heretical data that dared contradict sacred cult dogma. But the actual data does so that, so you see such conspiracy theories as your only option.



Which conspiracy blog fed you that story? It's a conspiracy theory I hadn't seen before, so I'd like to see the source of it.



Again, what conspiracy blog came up with that whopper?



Those two "changes" are a fantasy on your part.



The Bush admin coined that term. You don't seem well-informed about the history of this issue.



No, that's nonsense too.



Good thing the records go way, way back more.



As one of my ongoing points is that every denier is a member of the right-wing kook extremist fringe cult, I thank you for confirming that point. Denialism is entirely political and has nothing to do with science. If right-wing politics vanished, denialism would instantly vanish. In stark contrast, the reputable science crosses all political boundaries around the world. If left-wing politics vanished, the science wouldn't change a bit.




And we know humans are making the temperature rise quickly, because that's what the hard data says.



This right-wing hatred of science just got us a pandemic. There's a price to pay for rejecting science.

Occam's Razor means nothing except that you went to see the movie $#@!tails. It is not a logical argument. It is a quip.

Carbon dating
https://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/...curate-faq.htm

The common accepted usefulness is longer than this article suggests with most saying about 10,000 years.
At 60,000 years it would be like me claiming I was 20 +/- 100 years by the test.

Sorry, but I have two Engineering degrees before I got my MBA. I understand the science and probability far more than you do. You are just repeating what you were told. I started in R&D and no one was called a scientist. I also checked NASA and no one is called scientist in the title. 97% of scientist say is a lie. It was a college project that even the professor told us that the information was used incorrectly and the data was selective.

Now your entire package of lies is premised on the fact that the climate has been getting warmer but you have never tied it to man. Pollution is bad. We all know that. When the earth is not warming then it is cooling. The climate always changes.

[Padme]

None.

Climate change has occurred... The change started when the Earth was born!

The prediction of a coming ice age that was made in the 70's by a small group of scientists did not have a broad consensus. A small group of scientists thought it was a possibility...that's contrasted today by a broad consensus among scientists, scientific groups, academies, institutions, governments and businesses. They virtually all agree than human activity is changing the climate.

Of course! Human activity has been changing climate since the industrial revolution in the 1800's (Sorry). Now, if we are going to think about "human activity changing the climate" we have to think -no doubt about it - that where there are more humans, there are more activities. So, where are more humans? What countries have more humans? The United States of America is certainly not the place where there are more humans changing the climate!

Hint, hint, think China and India.

[mamooth]

Occam's Razor means nothing except that you went to see the movie $#@!tails. It is not a logical argument. It is a quip.

It's actually mathematically provable.

Carbon dating

Creationist website garbage? Hilarious.

Carbon dating has nothing to do with measuring CO2 levels in ice cores. It doesn't matter how old the carbon is, the level is the level.

Sorry, but I have two Engineering degrees before I got my MBA. I understand the science and probability far more than you do.

You demonstrably don't. After all, you thought carbon dating was used to measure CO2 levels, and you reference creationist garbage.

You are just repeating what you were told. I started in R&D and no one was called a scientist. I also checked NASA and no one is called scientist in the title. 97% of scientist say is a lie. It was a college project that even the professor told us that the information was used incorrectly and the data was selective.

If someone has a doctorate and post-doctorate in atmospheric physics, that person is a scientist. That describes climate scientists. So just what are you babbling about? They are scientists. You are not. You are an engineer with delusions of adequacy.

Now your entire package of lies is premised on the fact that the climate has been getting warmer but you have never tied it to man.

I addressed that directly, and you cut and ran. I've taken your measure, and found you wanting.

Pollution is bad. We all know that. When the earth is not warming then it is cooling. The climate always changes.

And you're back to your "climate can change naturally, so humans can't change climate" stupidity, even after I pointed out the stupidity of it. But then, I suppose that stupidity is the best you've got, given your complete ignorance of the topic.

[mamooth]

So, let's see, from that list what is a hoax or a conspiracy to you?

I posted the actual record of the climate predictions, and two deniers immediately said it was a hoax.

Why? They had to. Their religion demands it. In their minds, their religion is infallible, therefore any data that contradicts their sacred scripture must be a hoax.

Declaring how any data you don't like is a hoax is typical conspiracy cultist behavior, and it's pretty much all that global warming deniers do.

[Common Sense]

Occam's Razor means nothing except that you went to see the movie $#@!tails. It is not a logical argument. It is a quip.

Carbon dating
https://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/...curate-faq.htm

The common accepted usefulness is longer than this article suggests with most saying about 10,000 years.
At 60,000 years it would be like me claiming I was 20 +/- 100 years by the test.

Sorry, but I have two Engineering degrees before I got my MBA. I understand the science and probability far more than you do. You are just repeating what you were told. I started in R&D and no one was called a scientist. I also checked NASA and no one is called scientist in the title. 97% of scientist say is a lie. It was a college project that even the professor told us that the information was used incorrectly and the data was selective.

Now your entire package of lies is premised on the fact that the climate has been getting warmer but you have never tied it to man. Pollution is bad. We all know that. When the earth is not warming then it is cooling. The climate always changes.

Did you really just use a creationist website and expect to be taken seriously?

What's next, the earth is 6000 years old and flat?

[Common Sense]

Climate change has occurred... The change started when the Earth was born!



Of course! Human activity has been changing climate since the industrial revolution in the 1800's (Sorry). Now, if we are going to think about "human activity changing the climate" we have to think -no doubt about it - that where there are more humans, there are more activities. So, where are more humans? What countries have more humans? The United States of America is certainly not the place where there are more humans changing the climate!

Hint, hint, think China and India.

Huh? I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make.

I'm glad you are accepting that man has been effecting climate since the beginning of the individual revolution (late 1700's). Yes, high population densities can mean greater impact on climate, but not always. Population density is an important factor, but so is the rate of industrialization, manufacturing, consumption rates etc...

[Tahuyaman]

Has anyone made a link between climate change / disruption / global warming to the spread of the coronavirus?

[Tahuyaman]

Huh? I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make.

I'm glad you are accepting that man has been effecting climate since the beginning of the individual revolution (late 1700's). Yes, high population densities can mean greater impact on climate, but not always. Population density is an important factor, but so is the rate of industrialization, manufacturing, consumption rates etc...

What's the "individual revolution"?

So, high density population can impact the climate and sometimes it doesn't. I guess one can cherry pick when it does or doesn't.

[Sunsettommy]

And we do. But we demand we clean up our own backyard first. That's how people who understand responsibility roll. You can't demand someone else take action while you're proudly declaring that you don't have to take action yourself.

We understand where you're coming from. To conservatives, taking responsibility for your own actions is something that only liberals do. Just look at Trump. Conservatives idolize him precisely because he never takes any responsibility for anything. The goal of every conservative is to live a responsibility-free lifestyle, just like DearLeader. The concept of responsibility is so foreign to conservatives, they can't recognize it when they see it in moral people.

Meanwhile your partisan attacks doesn't impress many because you prefer to make divisive attacks, which is why you remain ignorant of the fact that it was a Republican President who pushed for the creation of the EPA, and supported the Clean Air act of 1970.

Your long standing attacks on Republicans doesn't match reality, your partisan attacks are boring and divisive.