More evidence that the GW crowd is using junk science

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Mon Feb 09, 2015 12:36 am

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02 ... can-trust/

The gist of the article is the numbers are inflated by 35%, which utterly invalidates any "data" they have gathered. But please, don't let this stop you global warming Chicken Littles here from running around telling us the sky is falling and polar bears are drowning.

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Mon Feb 09, 2015 1:07 am

Moar
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/e ... -ever.html

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Mon Feb 09, 2015 1:29 am

Yea that David Burton, he's a hoot.

http://www.burtonsys.com/m125/

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Feb 09, 2015 4:55 am

Rooster wrote:Moar
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/e ... -ever.html

Nice job. You've convinced me.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Feb 09, 2015 5:21 am

Mikey wrote:
Rooster wrote:Moar
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/e ... -ever.html
Nice job. You've convinced me.

That article actually doesn't bring anything new to the table. This has been discussed for years, with the Iceland dude (one of those actual "climate scientists" that the Cult says are uniquely entitled to comment) leading the charge.

And altering observed data is the antithesis of "science."

The grift continues.

The State · Post by **The State** » Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:02 am

Game over...

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/tag/climate-change/

http://www.dailycal.org/2015/01/29/uc-b ... ican-city/

Oh yeah,

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2014/07/ ... te-change/

I'm surrounded by idiots

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Feb 09, 2015 12:31 pm

The State wrote:I'm surrounded by idiots

Of course you are, Meltin. You live in San Francisco.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:41 pm

Nice "I know I'm not but what are your neighbors" you black cock swallowing failure.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:48 pm

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 1:15 am

Interestingly, you lock-step Denialists never say why you're so vehement about your absolute belief in some conspiracy by...who?..George Soros and Al Gore?...

Are you just determined not to allow any waste of public funds as might be incurred in dealing with Climate Change? Are you so conscientious ? And similarly, why are you so determined to deny that the entire Demialist effort--including the new "scandal" info provided--is funded by the Koch brothers and similar corporate factions in a very concerted and organized fashion? The actual payoffs and fake "institutes" are well documented. So...what's your actual motivation here?

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 3:06 am

My motivation here is to stop not just a domestic power grab by the Left, but something far more genuinely sinister: A global power grab. Not content to ruin just our economy and strip basic human rights from ordinary US citizens, now the goal is merely to enslave an entire planet to an agenda that based on intentionally misleading "science" --if you can even call it that in light of the falsehoods that have been made public. Say that I am being overly dramatic, but the reality is the breadth and scope of this conspiracy is so jaw droppingly huge it boggles the mind.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02 ... integrity/

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 3:11 am

Your jaw-dropping stupidity boggles the mind.

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 3:21 am

The fact you deny that there is a conspiracy to legitimize global warming and control US industry for the purpose of redistributing our wealth is mind boggling. Let me know when China and India are told to curb their carbon emissions at the same time and to the same standard as the US. Then you can smirk and tell me I'm full of shit.

In the meantime you have on your side Al Gore telling us from Davos that the world needs to spend 90 trillion dollars to stop allowing cars from operating in all the world's cities. Remember, this is your guy. And if you had your way he's have been our proto-Obama, but for the wisdom of the Supreme Court.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 3:28 am

Don't tell me who my guy is, Shit-for-Brains.

Your guy apparently is Breitbart, which removes any trace of credibility right from the start.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 3:31 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:
Are you just determined not to allow any waste of public funds as might be incurred in dealing with Climate Change?

Yes, that's it exactly, Felchie old shoe. Indulge your fantasies on your own nickel if you don't mind.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 3:45 am

Willers, yer drunk again.

babs, but what about the colossal costs of not dealing with the profound (and much quicker ) dire effects of Climate Change?

rooster, yours is a simplistic wind-up right-wing radio paranoia. What is this supposed global power grab you're gibbering about?

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 3:58 am

AS for the "expert" sources of Denial, like the Breitbart site provided, let's examine this propaganda effort ..
http://www.breitbartunmasked.com/

And willers...who gives a fuck about your tedious nonsense?..

The State · Post by **The State** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 6:08 am

Porky, went cut and paste... and didn't give credit... once again.

Too fucking funny.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 12:00 pm

Hey I hate to be the one to break this to you, but even the most uninformed clowns walking the earth right now acknowledged climate change is real

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... ge-is-real

of course, the party line vote was 50 said man had no relationship to this change, while 49 said mankind was a large factor.....

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 1:07 pm

Felix wrote:Hey I hate to be the one to break this to you, but even the most uninformed clowns walking the earth right now acknowledged climate change is real.

Damn near everyone understands that the climate is changing. Just like it has since something created this rock.

Where the disagreement begins is on how large a factor man plays in the change.

Why is this distinction so hard for you and others to understand?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 3:05 pm

Felix wrote:Hey I hate to be the one to break this to you, but even the most uninformed clowns walking the earth right now acknowledged climate change is real

Of course climate change is real. The climate has never and will never do anything but change.

The fantasy is twofold at its most basic.

A. That the minuscule input of human activity into this enormous and wildly chaotic system can and has been measured with any degree of accuracy.

B. That by reducing our minuscule input by a small fraction (at the cost of untold trillions) will have any effect whatsoever on the climate.

You idiots are trying to measure a fart in a tornado and believe that, if we clench our ass cheeks real tight and only let out half a fart, it will make some kind of difference. You are delusional cultists.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 6:19 pm

mvscal wrote:
A. That the minuscule input of human activity into this enormous and wildly chaotic system can and has been measured with any degree of accuracy.

B. That by reducing our minuscule input by a small fraction (at the cost of untold trillions) will have any effect whatsoever on the climate.

Yea cause no species has ever had an effect on the climate before. Why do you think humans are so ineffectual?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 6:32 pm

Ineffectual?

I'm just asking for real measurements. No hidden declines. No fudged numbers or hockey sticks. No computer models which aren't even able model historical climate data. Anyone who says the "science is settled" is a fucking liar or a fucking idiot or a lying fucking idiot. It's patently obvious that we don't understand the climate and all of the various inputs and feedback well enough to model its behavior with any degree of confidence.

What percentage (if any) of observed variability is due to human activity? How much human activity can we curtail without living in caves? How much will it cost and will it even have any measurable impact on the climate one way or another?

Check back in when you can answer those questions. Until then....not one fucking dime.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:30 pm

mvscal wrote:Ineffectual?

I'm just asking for real measurements. No hidden declines. No fudged numbers or hockey sticks. No computer models which aren't even able model historical climate data. Anyone who says the "science is settled" is a fucking liar or a fucking idiot or a lying fucking idiot. It's patently obvious that we don't understand the climate and all of the various inputs and feedback well enough to model its behavior with any degree of confidence.

What percentage (if any) of observed variability is due to human activity? How much human activity can we curtail without living in caves? How much will it cost and will it even have any measurable impact on the climate one way or another?

Check back in when you can answer those questions. Until then....not one fucking dime.

I see you've got your simplistic droning marching orders from the various Koch-sponsored shell "institutes"...yawn..well, here's some basic evidence that of course human activity has already caused tremendous damage--and is increasing--to our fragile ecosystem..

And these are actual scientists--who are not in some conspiracy with Soros and the evil democrats...( :twisted: )...

http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-w ... NqFpObF9sI

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empiric ... arming.htm

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

And of course you're inured to any such plain facts just like a Christer. But..reality is here...and you're hiding under a rock.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 12:26 am

88... epic fail on your part. If you wanted to make a point about life expectancy being related to CO2 level, you should have gone back and altered all of the observed data to ensure it reinforces your point...

It's how "science" is done these days. Thn you can claim it's "settled."

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 12:27 am

"on the government take" ? This is the conspiracy theory that Soros and some global hegemonists are using the Climate Change issue as a money-making , power-grabbing plot...?

Umm...but you offer nothing whatever to support this. And the constant blather of the fake "institutes' established by the Kochs really doesn't count.

And you seem to be cherry picking in attempting to dispute the clear assertions. There's lots of evidence provided in the three sites. As for the fact of overpopulation attending the alarming factors of environmental strain and damage, well...duh....this is no surprise.

What's almost interesting is the curious similarity between the old Christer position of "man can't influence the planet" with the newer Koch position of the same claim. The Kochs of course are not religious, but "libertarian," which is exactly the same except it worships money instead of a deity.

But again...why are you so entrenched in your Denialism? What's your angle? That is, you can't seriously believe that we're not fucking up the planet--very quickly. The fishing stocks, the fresh water supplies, the accumulated toxins in all manner of human life, the desertification of huge amounts of land, the growing acidification of the seas, and the increasing speed of extinction of species. And you're taking some "anti-government" position on some murky Ayn Rand principle?

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 1:04 am

mvscal wrote:Of course climate change is real. The climate has never and will never do anything but change.

This.

And then this.

You idiots are trying to measure a fart in a tornado and believe that, if we clench our ass cheeks real tight and only let out half a fart, it will make some kind of difference.

classic mv.

It's damn near impossible to walk thru a room clenching your ass cheeks.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 1:58 am

Who is "they"? You use the word "government" very loosely. As for 9/11, this wasn't "the government" at all, but a cabal of traitors inside the government--the Bush administration--who pulled off a massive crime.

http://how911wasdone.blogspot.com/

What's your absurd connection? Where is your Denialism actually rooted? Besides the constant droning of the fake Koch "institutes"...what are you basing anything on?

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 11:55 pm

88 wrote:Instead, put me down as someone who believes in the scientific method

really?

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 12:29 am

Felix wrote:
88 wrote:Instead, put me down as someone who believes in the scientific method
really?

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

For really real?

You're actually contending that science-by-democracy is consistent with "scientific method"?

So, the flat earth has the sun revolving around it?

"Even if we have to change what the peer review process is!!!!!!"

Felix, yes or no question -- don't dance around it:

Is altering observed data (always in one direction) consistent with the scientific method?

"YES" or "NO"?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 12:40 am

Felix wrote:
88 wrote:Instead, put me down as someone who believes in the scientific method
really?

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Yeah, really, you brainless fucktard. Consensus is a political term with no scientific relevance whatsoever.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 1:44 am

mvscal wrote: Yeah, really, you brainless fucktard. Consensus is a political term with no scientific relevance whatsoever.

So surely a more relevant factor in assessing a scientist's credibility would be if he's getting paid to produce his findings. You know, like the various institutes and credentialed scientists who are the only ones denying Climate Change? Like the various Koch-funded groups whose simplistic reasoning mixed with nasty smears and vague but urgent warnings of a vast conspiracy by liberals. Yes, they're all on the payroll of the Kochs and similar corporatists--and this is not hidden or denied. So...why do you accept their shill findings?

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:01 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:So surely a more relevant factor in assessing a scientist's credibility would be if he's getting paid to produce his findings.

Everybody wants and needs to be paid, whatever it is they do to buy groceries and pay the rent.

You ask a lot of questions. Some fair, most rhetorical or loaded.

So my fair question to you is, what do you do to get paid?

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:39 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:
mvscal wrote: Yeah, really, you brainless fucktard. Consensus is a political term with no scientific relevance whatsoever.
So surely a more relevant factor in assessing a scientist's credibility would be if he's getting paid to produce his findings. You know, like the various institutes and credentialed scientists who are the only ones denying Climate Change?

It is amazing that you refuse to understand that most of those who claim global warming is human based are being paid as well.

But as 88 pointed out, who is paying the bills matters not in their credibility.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 3:04 am

False equivocation, fake seater. The various agencies who support the assertion of Climate Change--and that's the vast majority of the world's experts--are of course drawing a salary, or a grant. But they are most decidedly not being paid to produce and report a specific result. And this is of course exactly the situation of every single Climate Change denier. The Kochs and their ilk fund them with explicit instructions to produce the denailist claims.

Of what part of this are you in denial?

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 3:16 am

War Wagon wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:So surely a more relevant factor in assessing a scientist's credibility would be if he's getting paid to produce his findings.
Everybody wants and needs to be paid, whatever it is they do to buy groceries and pay the rent.

You ask a lot of questions. Some fair, most rhetorical or loaded.

So my fair question to you is, what do you do to get paid?

of course you're a coward and won't expose yourself while you question others motivation at the very same moment.

Put up or shut up.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 3:36 am

LTS the only fake here is you.

There is far more evidence of a conspiracy with altering data and emails saying it is ok to destroy data or overstate findings, than there is with 9/11. But of course you can't see that with all your cut and pasting.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 4:10 am

There well may have been some fudging of figures on one particular project, and this has been noted--though blown up far more than warranted. But there's nothing whatsoever you can produce that suggests an actual conspiracy of Soros and Al Gore or whatever.. However, what you seem intent on denying is that the Kochs actually buy the denying scientists. All of them. Why doesn't this cause you to doubt--if not completely dismiss--their fake findings?

Are you prepared to dispute these reports? Or just dismiss them as part of a "liberal" conspiracy?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... al-effort/

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campai ... ndustries/

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 4:21 am

After the damage Greenpeace caused the Nazca Lines, where they stupidly damaged a world heritage site to make a political point last month, your AGW cite is less than credible, LTS.

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 4:22 am

Or perhaps those dastardly Koch brothers donned Greenpeace uniforms and did it themselves to discredit environmentalists?