placeholder

Here's the first definition of denialist courtesy of the Oxford English Dictionary: de·ni·al·ist /dəˈnī(ə)ləst/ noun a person who does not acknowledge the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence; a denier. "the small minority of very vocal climate change denialists" https://www.google.com/search?q=denialist&oq=denialist&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDUxMjhqMGo3qAIIsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Denier is not a personal slur. It's entirely based on the words you wrote here. But what did I write here that justified this comment directed at me: "And you're a hypocrite because you aren't part of the solution to your imaginary problem."

Got any evidence to support this?

The surest tell of when someone has got nothing is when they make it personal. You've got nothing.

And your utter lack of knowledge of the huge advances that have already been made in renewable energy is telling. Renewable energy prices are plulnging. Already, renewable energy is cheaper than coal. And gas peaker plants - the ones that come online when power demand is high - are being displaced by batteries.

Can you share with us the evidence of this global conspiracy? How thousands of climatologists are engaging in a massive fraud. You've got nothing.

As I noted, the reason that only those studies were included was because far from all climatological research addresses climate change. Why would anyone include in their inventory a research paper that doesn't address this issue? As I pointed out, apparently to no avail, most papers in the field of biology don't address the issue of evolution. Does this mean that only a small percentage of biologists accept the theory of evolution?

Actually, in the 1970's some scientists working for exxon predicted the effect of increased CO2 levels on global warming. Oddly enough, Exxon suppressed that research.

At this point in time, it's no longer an hypothesis. It's a full-blown theory with massive confirmation to back it.

Vincent RJ was referring to the fact that currently cold weather accounts for more deaths than hot weather. Maybe you think it's irrelevant that the same stuff that is mostly fueling the rise in CO2 and other greenhouse gasses is irrelevant. I don't.

I should also point out to you that the criticism of Powell's method which you claim Cook levelled at Powell (he didn't) was exactly the same criticism that denialists level at Cook.

This is nonsense. It's like claiming that biologist don't support the theory of evolution because mostly it's not mentioned in their research. Lots of climatological research has nothing to do with global warming. So the research papers were chosen that in some way addressed that issue. What's more, Cook would be greatly amused to learn that his research from 2013 undermined Powell's from 2015. According to Cook, in 2013 the consensus was at 97%. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421514002821#:~:text=Introduction-,Cook et al.,real and largely human-made.

False. The earth has experienced strong el nino years in 1978-79 and in 2016. That first el nino meant that the global average temperature was the hottest ever recorded. Now, it doesn't even make the top 10. It's gotten so hot because the El Nino occurred over an already higher baseline.

No, it's the science that can be read in scientific journals. Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous: Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True The extent of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has the potential to influence public opinion and the attitude of political leaders and thus matters greatly to society. The history of science demonstrates that if we wish to judge the level of a scientific consensus and whether the consensus position is likely to be correct, the only reliable source is the peer-reviewed literature. During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity. https://philpapers.org/rec/POWCSV

What is it about denialists that keeps them from understanding the concept of "rate of change". If you were to choose between 2 equally guaranteed accounts to park your cash in, one of which offered a rate of return of 1% and other which offered 5%, would you think that there was no significant difference between the 2? That rates don't matter?

But it's not only about temperature is it. What about the effect of burning fossil fuels on human health? Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide The study shows that more than 8 million people around the globe die each year as a result of breathing in air containing particles from burning fuels like coal, petrol and diesel, which aggravate respiratory conditions like asthma and can lead to lung cancer, coronary heart disease, strokes and early death. The research, led by Harvard University in collaboration with UCL, the University of Birmingham and the University of Leicester has been published in the journal Environmental Research. Co-author and UCL Associate Professor Eloise Marais (UCL Geography) said: “Burning fossil fuels produces fine particles laden with toxins that are small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs. The risks of inhaling these particles, known as PM2.5, are well documented. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/feb/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-1-5-deaths-worldwide

Either you are being deceptive in using this graph or you have been deceived by your fellow denialists. Since you don't include a link to it, who knows where it came from. What I do know is that this graph.Your graph actually is incomplete. It fails to include most of the period starting around 1980 when temperatures began to rise sharply, as per the predictions of the scientific community. Not only is it incomplete but it treats phenomena such as the medieval warm period, Roman warming, and the little Ice age as global phenomena which they weren't. 2000+ year graph of global temperature including so-called "Medieval Warm Period" (shaded in pink) and "Little Ice Age" (shaded in blue) - derived from graphic by Ed Hawkins. Suggested caption: Global average temperatures show that the Medieval Warm Period was not a planet-wide phenomenon, and that the Little Ice Age was not a distinct planet-wide time period but rather the end of a long temphttps://web.archive.org/web/20200202220240/https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2020/2019-years/erature decline that preceded recent global warming.

I've seen this trope repeated endless times and its silliness should be obvious. If I live in a house made out of wood, am I living in a house made of fuel? If it's not used for combustion, it's not a fuel. Any petroleum or natural gas that is turned into various substances other than those created by combustion, is not being used as a fuel.

Trying to wriggle away from your previous comment. Here it is again: "No, he hasn't. The Court decided to let the states decide for themselves, and they are." And no, the Supreme Courts Dobbs decision didn't empower states to expand abortion right protection. They were always free to do so. As for severe restrictions, I guess you are unfamiliar with the term "trigger law". Supreme Court Will Hear Challenge to Idaho’s Near-Total Abortion Ban The legal battle in Idaho is part of a broader wave of challenges following the 2022 Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, when a so-called “trigger” law automatically came into effect in Idaho prohibiting all abortions except in cases where it is deemed necessary to prevent the mother's death. https://time.com/6969108/supreme-court-idaho-abortion-ban-case/ New Texas law increasing penalties for abortion providers goes into effect Aug. 25 The U.S. Supreme Court issued its judgment Tuesday in the Mississippi case that revoked a constitutional right to abortion. That means Texas’ “trigger law” severely limiting the procedure will soon take effect. https://www.texastribune.org/2022/07/26/texas-abortion-ban-dobbs/ Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe: Missouri has begun to enforce its trigger ban to prohibit abortion entirely. On June 24, 2022, Missouri began enforcing its trigger ban,[1] which bans all abortions except to save the life of the pregnant person, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.[2] https://reproductiverights.org/maps/state/missouri/

So, he's only responsible for setting back women's rights in states that have imposed severe restrictions on abortions.

Spoken like a true Little Englander

Who made you the Lord of the English language? "a very young child, especially one newly or recently born." https://www.google.com/search?q=baby+definition&oq=baby+definition&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDI4MDZqMGo5qAIAsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

More misinformation for the semi-literate. If someone had a serious case to make, they would put it in writing. "Although there is nothing wrong with the statement that the Earth is truly very hot at its center (actually as hot as the surface of the sun) the notion that it is a significant source of heat at the surface is easily dismissed with a little critical thinking. If the inner heat were really the dominant factor, then surely the day-night cycle would not be what it is, nor would you expect such variation in climates over seasons and latitudes. How can the south pole be covered with thousands of meters of ice with all this heat supposedly bubbling up from the surface? Why would a little lower angle of sunlight cause the average temperature to drop from +20°C in the summer to -20°C in the winter?" https://grist.org/climate-energy/global-warming-comes-from-within/

And yet even republicans overwhelmingly support abortion in the case of rape or incest or the health of the mother. And even states with strict anti-abortion laws allow for these exceptions. I guess they don't have stones to call it murder either. Vast majority of Republicans support abortion exceptions for rape, incest and mother's health A new survey shows broad bipartisan support for abortion exemptions, including in states that have restricted the procedure. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/vast-majority-republicans-support-abortion-exceptions-rape-incest-moth-rcna52237 DeSantis signs Florida GOP’s 6-week abortion ban into law The law contains some exceptions, including to save the woman’s life. Abortions for pregnancies involving rape or incest would be allowed until 15 weeks of pregnancy, provided a woman has documentation such as a restraining order or police report. DeSantis has called the rape and incest provisions sensible. https://apnews.com/article/florida-abortion-ban-approved-c9c53311a0b2426adc4b8d0b463edad1

I nearly believe you.