Climate change: July set to be world's warmest month on record

[Danderman123]

3 hours ago, owl sees all said:

 

 

I don't know whether there is warming or cooling. 

 

Here, I'll help you:

 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

 

 

[owl sees all]

46 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Here, I'll help you:

 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

 

 

Yes! Very good!

 

But you missed out the second line of the post:

 

I don't know whether there is warming or cooling. In fact I'm not bothered.

 

Just like the huge majority; I've got other stuff to think of. Like WW3 starting.

 

Feel a bit sorry for the Dutch. But not the hoity-toity Bangkokians. But hey! That's the way the cookie crumbles. I'll be OK up here.

 

ps. Is Ms Greta still locked up?

[placeholder]

28 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Yes! Very good!

 

But you missed out the second line of the post:

 

I don't know whether there is warming or cooling. In fact I'm not bothered.

 

Just like the huge majority; I've got other stuff to think of. Like WW3 starting.

 

Feel a bit sorry for the Dutch. But not the hoity-toity Bangkokians. But hey! That's the way the cookie crumbles. I'll be OK up here.

 

ps. Is Ms Greta still locked up?

So you keep on contributing essentially to tell us you don't care/

And thanks for sharing with us the true mark of a climate troll: the gratuitous mention of Greta Thunberg.

You've got less than nothing.

[Tippaporn]

On 8/19/2023 at 8:25 PM, placeholder said:

You know when someone cites Al Gore or, for that matter, Greta Thunberg, they are trying to deflect. As far as I know, neither Al Gore not Greta Thunberg are climatologists. So what do you think you're proving by quoting them?

And what is your definition of believers? Because if you mean climatologists, then their most important predictions have come true. Or do you dispute that?

As for your comment about evidence, the fact is, once again, that climatologists' predictions have come true. Global temperatures are rising at a far greater rate than has been established for thousands years. . The worlds glaciers on balance are losing vast quantities of water. The Arctic and the Antarctic temperatures are increasing faster than elsewhere. And the kick in the teeth is that while the troposphere is getting warmer, the stratosphere is getting colder. There's no need to explain to you what that means. Or is there?

Al Gore and Greta Thunberg are perhaps two of the most influential and visible people behind the climate change hysteria.  How can you, in good conscience, and as a vociferously vocal climate change believer, abandon two of your most recognised leaders of this cult?  Are you distancing yourself from them only due to the negative exposure they've received?

 

On 7/28/2023 at 8:27 AM, Social Media said:

Some experts believe that July might well be the warmest month in the past 120,000 years.

This statement couldn't be more disingenuous for it to be true one would need to know the precise temperature in the month of July for the past 120,000 years.  The precise temperature, not the deduced or extrapolated or estimated temperature.  And not just in a single location but in enough locations to show it to be global.  To it's credit the statement does use "believe" and "might be" as qualifiers.  To it's discredit by it's mere inclusion into the article it attempts to suggest the statement is indeed more factual than not.

The fact that most climate change cultists run with this article as factual evidence supporting their beliefs is all the evidence one needs to know that there is no true objectivity amongst them as they in no way attempt to denounce the statement as being not factual.  But there's more.

 

On 7/28/2023 at 8:27 AM, Social Media said:

Scientists agree the extra heat is mainly linked to fossil fuel use.

Another piece of evidence which exposes the disingenuous nature of the climate change cultists is the constant touting of the consensus line "scientists agree," or "the majority of scientists agree" (90% is a favourite number used because it's psychologically closest to 100% agreement; and 100% agreement would represent proof positive).  Everyone knows that consensus does not equate to proof.  Yet again and again you hear this worthless, and highly debatable, factoid being passed off falsely as proof that the climate hoax is in fact real.  Following the purest definition of democracy, or mob rule as it is commonly known, the majority now gets to define what fact, proof and truth is via consensus.  No one who is even remotely interested in honesty and truth should ever even mention the word consensus in any of their arguments.

If one wanted to explore in much greater detail the vast evidence that exists which shows the disingenuous nature of the climate change movement in so many various aspects it would require that one's eyes are kept open, e.g. maintaining strict objectivity, during such an investigation.  I'll end it here as I'm restrained to staying on topic.

As to predictions, placeholder, I understand that the failure of so many dire predictions to materialise to date are quite a sore spot for those who have been promoting and selling end-of-human-life disaster scripts.  So it's not surprising that an effort is now being made to prove the great predictive ability of climate change climatologists in order to regain their credibility.  Even if they don't succeed to any great degree there will always be a given number of Bud Lite drinkers.

 

Regarding the data you and others put forth, placeholder, there always exists data to the contrary.  To that end we could theoretically go on eternally exchanging data points and evidences and studies whilst refuting each other's evidence.  To what end?  I'll never be able to convince you or any other with data.  You folks are already too heavily invested, both intellectually and emotionally, in your position that you have the "truth."  At this point you couldn't reverse course even if you wanted to.

I'll let this post be my single response to other's who have replied to me in recent days.  @Danderman123 @heybruce @Bkk Brian

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, owl sees all said:

Yes! Very good!

 

But you missed out the second line of the post:

 

I don't know whether there is warming or cooling. In fact I'm not bothered.

 

Just like the huge majority; I've got other stuff to think of. Like WW3 starting.

 

Feel a bit sorry for the Dutch. But not the hoity-toity Bangkokians. But hey! That's the way the cookie crumbles. I'll be OK up here.

 

ps. Is Ms Greta still locked up?

If you are not worried about climate change, why do you post so much about it?

[Danderman123]

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Al Gore and Greta Thunberg are perhaps two of the most influential and visible people behind the climate change hysteria.  How can you, in good conscience, and as a vociferously vocal climate change believer, abandon two of your most recognised leaders of this cult?  Are you distancing yourself from them only due to the negative exposure they've received?

 

This statement couldn't be more disingenuous for it to be true one would need to know the precise temperature in the month of July for the past 120,000 years.  The precise temperature, not the deduced or extrapolated or estimated temperature.  And not just in a single location but in enough locations to show it to be global.  To it's credit the statement does use "believe" and "might be" as qualifiers.  To it's discredit by it's mere inclusion into the article it attempts to suggest the statement is indeed more factual than not.

The fact that most climate change cultists run with this article as factual evidence supporting their beliefs is all the evidence one needs to know that there is no true objectivity amongst them as they in no way attempt to denounce the statement as being not factual.  But there's more.

 

Another piece of evidence which exposes the disingenuous nature of the climate change cultists is the constant touting of the consensus line "scientists agree," or "the majority of scientists agree" (90% is a favourite number used because it's psychologically closest to 100% agreement; and 100% agreement would represent proof positive).  Everyone knows that consensus does not equate to proof.  Yet again and again you hear this worthless, and highly debatable, factoid being passed off falsely as proof that the climate hoax is in fact real.  Following the purest definition of democracy, or mob rule as it is commonly known, the majority now gets to define what fact, proof and truth is via consensus.  No one who is even remotely interested in honesty and truth should ever even mention the word consensus in any of their arguments.

If one wanted to explore in much greater detail the vast evidence that exists which shows the disingenuous nature of the climate change movement in so many various aspects it would require that one's eyes are kept open, e.g. maintaining strict objectivity, during such an investigation.  I'll end it here as I'm restrained to staying on topic.

As to predictions, placeholder, I understand that the failure of so many dire predictions to materialise to date are quite a sore spot for those who have been promoting and selling end-of-human-life disaster scripts.  So it's not surprising that an effort is now being made to prove the great predictive ability of climate change climatologists in order to regain their credibility.  Even if they don't succeed to any great degree there will always be a given number of Bud Lite drinkers.

 

Regarding the data you and others put forth, placeholder, there always exists data to the contrary.  To that end we could theoretically go on eternally exchanging data points and evidences and studies whilst refuting each other's evidence.  To what end?  I'll never be able to convince you or any other with data.  You folks are already too heavily invested, both intellectually and emotionally, in your position that you have the "truth."  At this point you couldn't reverse course even if you wanted to.

I'll let this post be my single response to other's who have replied to me in recent days.  @Danderman123 @heybruce @Bkk Brian

It's getting hotter globally. We are at the hottest point in the recorded temperature history of the planet.

 

Your deflections cannot change that.

[Bkk Brian]

15 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Al Gore and Greta Thunberg are perhaps two of the most influential and visible people behind the climate change hysteria.  How can you, in good conscience, and as a vociferously vocal climate change believer, abandon two of your most recognised leaders of this cult?  Are you distancing yourself from them only due to the negative exposure they've received?

 

This statement couldn't be more disingenuous for it to be true one would need to know the precise temperature in the month of July for the past 120,000 years.  The precise temperature, not the deduced or extrapolated or estimated temperature.  And not just in a single location but in enough locations to show it to be global.  To it's credit the statement does use "believe" and "might be" as qualifiers.  To it's discredit by it's mere inclusion into the article it attempts to suggest the statement is indeed more factual than not.

The fact that most climate change cultists run with this article as factual evidence supporting their beliefs is all the evidence one needs to know that there is no true objectivity amongst them as they in no way attempt to denounce the statement as being not factual.  But there's more.

 

Another piece of evidence which exposes the disingenuous nature of the climate change cultists is the constant touting of the consensus line "scientists agree," or "the majority of scientists agree" (90% is a favourite number used because it's psychologically closest to 100% agreement; and 100% agreement would represent proof positive).  Everyone knows that consensus does not equate to proof.  Yet again and again you hear this worthless, and highly debatable, factoid being passed off falsely as proof that the climate hoax is in fact real.  Following the purest definition of democracy, or mob rule as it is commonly known, the majority now gets to define what fact, proof and truth is via consensus.  No one who is even remotely interested in honesty and truth should ever even mention the word consensus in any of their arguments.

If one wanted to explore in much greater detail the vast evidence that exists which shows the disingenuous nature of the climate change movement in so many various aspects it would require that one's eyes are kept open, e.g. maintaining strict objectivity, during such an investigation.  I'll end it here as I'm restrained to staying on topic.

As to predictions, placeholder, I understand that the failure of so many dire predictions to materialise to date are quite a sore spot for those who have been promoting and selling end-of-human-life disaster scripts.  So it's not surprising that an effort is now being made to prove the great predictive ability of climate change climatologists in order to regain their credibility.  Even if they don't succeed to any great degree there will always be a given number of Bud Lite drinkers.

 

Regarding the data you and others put forth, placeholder, there always exists data to the contrary.  To that end we could theoretically go on eternally exchanging data points and evidences and studies whilst refuting each other's evidence.  To what end?  I'll never be able to convince you or any other with data.  You folks are already too heavily invested, both intellectually and emotionally, in your position that you have the "truth."  At this point you couldn't reverse course even if you wanted to.

I'll let this post be my single response to other's who have replied to me in recent days.  @Danderman123 @heybruce @Bkk Brian

Do your self a favour and read ipcc report 2023. Better then pure belief and religion.

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

It's getting hotter globally. We are at the hottest point in the recorded temperature history of the planet.

 

Your deflections cannot change that.

Are you saying I shouldn't buy that fur coat today? 

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Do your self a favour and read ipcc report 2023. Better then pure belief and religion.

After Climategate I wouldn't trust any of the data from these people.  Unless they all suddenly found religion and become honest.  But I highly doubt it.

If you were honest you'd admit that you have not personally accessed or assessed any of the data from this report yourself.  In which case you're operating on blind faith and trust that these people are not duping you.  That is your right.  And mine is not to trust them as far as I can throw them.

Cui bono?

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

After Climategate I wouldn't trust any of the data from these people.  Unless they all suddenly found religion and become honest.  But I highly doubt it.

Like I said:

 

12 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Do your self a favour and read ipcc report 2023. Better then pure belief and religion.

 

[Tippaporn]

49 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Like I said:

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

Do your self a favour and read ipcc report 2023. Better then pure belief and religion.

You're ignoring that all important ingredient - trust.  You seem to think that after the Climategate revelations we all just merrily hand them our unfettered trust again, as if Climategate never happened.  You have obviously done so, and that is your God given right.  But don't think you can simply dismiss the loss of trust that others have with a wave of your hand.  Do you understand that point?

As I stated to Bkk Brian, if he were honest he'd admit that he has not personally accessed or assessed any of the data from this report himself.  Neither have you.  So what's the point?  The point is that you are 100% reliant on pure belief that what these people are telling you is indeed true.  That belief requires faith.  Are those two, belief and faith, not identical components to what religion requires?

Now if you were truly interested in the truth, and the truth only - no matter where it lies (as one honest poster admitted that he gives two cents either way as long as it's the truth), then you would not at all be only trying to validate what you believe to be true.  Instead, you would purposely look at every piece of information that counters your belief to see what lies there.  And then, only after all of the evidence is assembled, evaluate, with pure objectivity, what the truth is and what it is not.

You see, that's what I've done.  And I found that there is so much more to this story.  And there's much that stinks to high heaven.  But for the life of me I can't force anyone else see what I've seen.  Not as long as they willingly close their eyes and cover their ears.

 

[Bkk Brian]

51 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You're ignoring that all important ingredient - trust.  You seem to think that after the Climategate revelations we all just merrily hand them our unfettered trust again, as if Climategate never happened.  You have obviously done so, and that is your God given right.  But don't think you can simply dismiss the loss of trust that others have with a wave of your hand.  Do you understand that point?
 

Climategate:

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[17] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations.[18] However, the reports urged the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future, and to regain public confidence following this media storm, with "more efforts than ever to make available all their supporting data – right down to the computer codes they use – to allow their findings to be properly verified". Climate scientists and organisations pledged to improve scientific research and collaboration with other researchers by improving data management and opening up access to data, and to honour any freedom of information requests that relate to climate science.[89]

 

51 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

As I stated to Bkk Brian, if he were honest he'd admit that he has not personally accessed or assessed any of the data from this report himself.  Neither have you.  So what's the point?  The point is that you are 100% reliant on pure belief that what these people are telling you is indeed true.  That belief requires faith.  Are those two, belief and faith, not identical components to what religion requires?

I am Bkk Brian, I find your remark that I'm not honest as being inflammatory and disrespectful and expect an apology. I have posted numerous links to different sections of the IPPC reports on this forum so yes I have read its more relevant findings but certainly not all 8,000 pages. This along with numerous other credible links.

 

I've yet to see anything from you aside from disparaging remarks to others, making false assumptions and in your previous remark pure dishonesty on what I do or do not know or have or have not read. Oh, that along with your beliefs.

 

Facts and evidence do it for me. Which is direly lacking from your side.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3061/2020-tied-for-warmest-year-on-record-nasa-analysis-shows/

[Red Phoenix]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

[17] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations.

Two quotes by Michael CRICHTON on the notion of 'scientific consensus', which is often mistaken for scientific evidence. 

#1

“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”

 

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/michael-crichton-explains-why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/

[Bkk Brian]

 

Ok here you go:

Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/

 

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/michael-crichton-and-global-warming/

 

I enjoyed watching the Jurassic Park movies based on his books with my daughter though.

[Yellowtail]

41 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Michael Crichton the science fiction novel writer. Yep, about what I expect from you. Along with an unattributed post that is far above the allowed headline and 3 sentences.

Yeah, the science fiction writer that majored in anthropology at Harvard and graduated summa cum laude, lectured at Cambridge and then returned to the US and Harvard Medical school where he got his MD. that moron. 

 

But yes, the only people that we can trust are the people making their living from the climate change hysteria. 

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yeah, the science fiction writer that majored in anthropology at Harvard and graduated summa cum laude, lectured at Cambridge and then returned to the US and Harvard Medical school where he got his MD. that moron. 

 

But yes, the only people that we can trust are the people making their living from the climate change hysteria. 

that moron. 

 

Yep, that's the one but a little harsh of you.

[Tippaporn]

40 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Climategate:

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[17] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations.[18] However, the reports urged the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future, and to regain public confidence following this media storm, with "more efforts than ever to make available all their supporting data – right down to the computer codes they use – to allow their findings to be properly verified". Climate scientists and organisations pledged to improve scientific research and collaboration with other researchers by improving data management and opening up access to data, and to honour any freedom of information requests that relate to climate science.[89]

 

I am Bkk Brian, I find your remark that I'm not honest as being inflammatory and disrespectful and expect an apology. I have posted numerous links to different sections of the IPPC reports on this forum so yes I have read its more relevant findings but certainly not all 8,000 pages. This along with numerous other credible links.

 

I've yet to see anything from you aside from disparaging remarks to others, making false assumptions and in your previous remark pure dishonesty on what I do or do not know or have or have not read. Oh, that along with your beliefs.

 

Facts and evidence do it for me. Which is direly lacking from your side.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3061/2020-tied-for-warmest-year-on-record-nasa-analysis-shows/

Climategate:

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[17] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations.[18] However, the reports urged the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future, and to regain public confidence following this media storm, with "more efforts than ever to make available all their supporting data – right down to the computer codes they use – to allow their findings to be properly verified". Climate scientists and organisations pledged to improve scientific research and collaboration with other researchers by improving data management and opening up access to data, and to honour any freedom of information requests that relate to climate science.[89]

Sorry, I've read the emails and more.  There exist no amount of committees that can change what was in those emails.  The "eight committees . . . " is the same deceptive ploy as "90% of scientists . . . " in that it caters to consensus to imply whatever their findings to be legitimate.  After all I've written about the fallacious and deceptive use of consensus and you think you're going to pull this off on me?  Come on, Brian.  I should demand an apology from you for treating me as though I'm stupid. 

Another point about investigative committees.  I know of at least three very high profile investigative committee findings, not related to climate change so I won't name them, which were wholesale BS.  Again, it's an issue of trust.  Just as you unquestioningly trust your scientists and climate change orgs implicitly, and on pure faith since you're not privy to the raw, unfiltered information, it appears you unquestioningly trust authority in general.  Anyone who accepts information from whatever source unquestioningly is more than a bit foolish.  And if burned by their naïveté then som nam na.  But again, it's your God given right to make your own choices.  Just don't expect others to follow blindly in your footsteps.

 

I am Bkk Brian, I find your remark that I'm not honest as being inflammatory and disrespectful and expect an apology. I have posted numerous links to different sections of the IPPC reports on this forum so yes I have read its more relevant findings but certainly not all 8,000 pages. This along with numerous other credible links.

 

My bad on referencing you to yourself.  Now I did not state that you were a dishonest fellow.  My phrasing was "if you were honest you'd admit . . ." which was giving you an option to be honest or not about having personal access to the raw data used in the conclusions drawn from the study you cited.  So be careful not to twist anything in order to read into something that which is not there.  So no apology will be forthcoming as there is no infraction.

But, since the subject of honesty has been raised by you then I ask, what do you make of this?
 

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

Michael Crichton the science fiction novel writer. Yep, about what I expect from you. Along with an unattributed post that is far above the allowed headline and 3 sentences.

Now if my 'rithmetic is correct I count 4 sentences which you copy and pasted from your unattributed quote, which was from this Wiki page:

 

Climatic Research Unit email controversy

 

Doesn't that beat all, now?  A classic example of sticking one's foot in one's mouth. 

And finally, as I had mentioned in my previous post, in which I linked a notification specifically to you, I'll requote myself on my stance regarding the endless loop of data, studies, graphs, etc. which is offered by the climate change believers here.  You obviously didn't read it or you would have saved yourself the time and effort to post more data, studies, graphs, etc. which I simply ignore after so many circular trips to nowhere on this bizarre merry-go-round.

 

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Regarding the data you and others put forth, placeholder, there always exists data to the contrary.  To that end we could theoretically go on eternally exchanging data points and evidences and studies whilst refuting each other's evidence.  To what end?  I'll never be able to convince you or any other with data.  You folks are already too heavily invested, both intellectually and emotionally, in your position that you have the "truth."  At this point you couldn't reverse course even if you wanted to.

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Climategate:

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[17] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations.[18] However, the reports urged the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future, and to regain public confidence following this media storm, with "more efforts than ever to make available all their supporting data – right down to the computer codes they use – to allow their findings to be properly verified". Climate scientists and organisations pledged to improve scientific research and collaboration with other researchers by improving data management and opening up access to data, and to honour any freedom of information requests that relate to climate science.[89]

Sorry, I've read the emails and more.  There exist no amount of committees that can change what was in those emails.  The "eight committees . . . " is the same deceptive ploy as "90% of scientists . . . " in that it caters to consensus to imply whatever their findings to be legitimate.  After all I've written about the fallacious and deceptive use of consensus and you think you're going to pull this off on me?  Come on, Brian.  I should demand an apology from you for treating me as though I'm stupid. 

Another point about investigative committees.  I know of at least three very high profile investigative committee findings, not related to climate change so I won't name them, which were wholesale BS.  Again, it's an issue of trust.  Just as you unquestioningly trust your scientists and climate change orgs implicitly, and on pure faith since you're not privy to the raw, unfiltered information, it appears you unquestioningly trust authority in general.  Anyone who accepts information from whatever source unquestioningly is more than a bit foolish.  And if burned by their naïveté then som nam na.  But again, it's your God given right to make your own choices.  Just don't expect others to follow blindly in your footsteps.

 

I am Bkk Brian, I find your remark that I'm not honest as being inflammatory and disrespectful and expect an apology. I have posted numerous links to different sections of the IPPC reports on this forum so yes I have read its more relevant findings but certainly not all 8,000 pages. This along with numerous other credible links.

 

My bad on referencing you to yourself.  Now I did not state that you were a dishonest fellow.  My phrasing was "if you were honest you'd admit . . ." which was giving you an option to be honest or not about having personal access to the raw data used in the conclusions drawn from the study you cited.  So be careful not to twist anything in order to read into something that which is not there.  So no apology will be forthcoming as there is no infraction.

But, since the subject of honesty has been raised by you then I ask, what do you make of this?
 

Now if my 'rithmetic is correct I count 4 sentences which you copy and pasted from your unattributed quote, which was from this Wiki page:

 

Climatic Research Unit email controversy

 

Doesn't that beat all, now?  A classic example of sticking one's foot in one's mouth. 

And finally, as I had mentioned in my previous post, in which I linked a notification specifically to you, I'll requote myself on my stance regarding the endless loop of data, studies, graphs, etc. which is offered by the climate change believers here.  You obviously didn't read it or you would have saved yourself the time and effort to post more data, studies, graphs, etc. which I simply ignore after so many circular trips to nowhere on this bizarre merry-go-round.

 

Oh dear, I'll address again where you accuse me of being dishonest again:

 

 

My quote was four sentences, it did not include a copied headline The Climategate prefix was mine. if I had added a headline the quote would have been with 3 sentences.

 

"27. You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Only post a link, the headline and three sentences from the article. Content in the public domain is limited to the same restrictions."

 

Enough of your off topic diversion. Its all you've got in that post. The link you provided on Climategate has already had eight committees investigate the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

 

You've got zero.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Michael Crichton the science fiction novel writer. Yep, about what I expect from you. Along with an unattributed post that is far above the allowed headline and 3 sentences.

I don't mean to step on Red Phoenix's toes by butting in here but I couldn't help but notice that you made zero mention of Crichton's absolutely spot on critique of the fictitious, deceptive, and fallacious logic of "consensus science."

Do you agree with Crichton?  I must warn you in advance that if you do agree and in the future you reference the "overwhelming consensus of scientists agree . . ." or some such similar phrasing then you can be sure that I'll dig this post up again. 

 

And if you don't agree then what would be your rationale and logic for disagreeing?

And if you decide not to reply either way and ignore this post, well, we'll just have to conclude the obvious.

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

I don't mean to step on Red Phoenix's toes by butting in here but I couldn't help but notice that you made zero mention of Crichton's absolutely spot on critique of the fictitious, deceptive, and fallacious logic of "consensus science."

Do you agree with Crichton?  I must warn you in advance that if you do agree and in the future you reference the "overwhelming consensus of scientists agree . . ." or some such similar phrasing then you can be sure that I'll dig this post up again. 

 

And if you don't agree then what would be your rationale and logic for disagreeing?

And if you decide not to reply either way and ignore this post, well, we'll just have to conclude the obvious.

I tend never to ignore posts but I do point out the facts and provided the links to debunk Crichton essays. All the info is there if you care to read, you obviously haven't otherwise why ask me?

[Yellowtail]

25 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I tend never to ignore posts but I do point out the facts and provided the links to debunk Crichton essays. All the info is there if you care to read, you obviously haven't otherwise why ask me?

Yes, the opinion "articles" from people that make their living from climate change hysteria, clearly the only people we can trust. 

[owl sees all]

7 hours ago, placeholder said:

So you keep on contributing essentially to tell us you don't care.

And thanks for sharing with us the true mark of a climate troll: the gratuitous mention of Greta Thunberg.

You've got less than nothing.

Watch yer don't fall off yer horse Placeholder.

 

I think you are another poster who has been smitten with SRS; 'elective Reading Syndrome'. I'll spell my position out for you:::

 

The climate is indeed changing. It always has done, and will in the future. I'm not bothered about that (as I stated). What I don't like is the people that insist that humans are causing the changes. Some call it an emergency. I call it a hoax.

 

Our contribution, as humans, is insignificant, in the big picture.

 

As for Ms - you have stolen my dreams - Greta. She is simply ridiculed my the majority; in the west. A joke figure. Not sure the billions of people, not in the west, would know of her though.

 

If I've got 'less than nothing'; (as you so eloquently put it) so be it.

 

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, the opinion "articles" from people that make their living from climate change hysteria, clearly the only people we can trust. 

I don't read opinion articles unless they link to credible sources. I leave the fiction to Crichton to sell his books on climate change denialism.

[Tippaporn]

46 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I tend never to ignore posts but I do point out the facts and provided the links to debunk Crichton essays. All the info is there if you care to read, you obviously haven't otherwise why ask me?

But I did read both of them.  The word "consensus" appears in only one article and once only:

In challenging the scientific consensus, Crichton rehashes points familiar to those who follow such issues.

That single reference does not at all relate to the Crichton material supplied by Red Phoenix, which was solely dedicated to the topic of consensus specifically as it is used to insinuate something as fact and true merely due to the agreement of parties.

Regardless of the fact that you point to those articles with the implication that your answer to consensus is contained within them, though it obviously is not, you should still be able to answer whether or not you believe that consensus equals fact, truth and proof.  Why don't you then?

You may very well not ignore posts but in acknowledging them yet at the same time not addressing their content then you may as well be ignoring them.  The result is the same, is it not?  No answer.

Sad to say bu so far I think we are left no option but to conclude the obvious.

 

[Bkk Brian]

36 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

But I did read both of them.  The word "consensus" appears in only one article and once only:

In challenging the scientific consensus, Crichton rehashes points familiar to those who follow such issues.

That single reference does not at all relate to the Crichton material supplied by Red Phoenix, which was solely dedicated to the topic of consensus specifically as it is used to insinuate something as fact and true merely due to the agreement of parties.

Regardless of the fact that you point to those articles with the implication that your answer to consensus is contained within them, though it obviously is not, you should still be able to answer whether or not you believe that consensus equals fact and truth.  Why don't you then?

You may very well not ignore posts but in acknowledging them yet at the same time not addressing their content then you may as well be ignoring them.  The result is the same, is it not?  No answer.

Sad to say bu so far I think we are left no option but to conclude the obvious.

 

That single reference does not at all relate to the Crichton material supplied by Red Phoenix, which was solely dedicated to the topic of consensus specifically as it is used to insinuate something as fact and true merely due to the agreement of parties.

 

So tell me, why on earth would I debate a critical piece on Scientific Consensus written by a well known fiction writer where the article uses NASA as his link to disparage and fails miserably. The facts are all in the link https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ He has not in any way debunked any of those facts contained.

 

Michael Crichton, world’s most famous global warming denier, dies

Then he used his fame in the most destructive way possible — to cast doubt on the overwhelming scientific understanding of global warming, to urge people not to take action against the gravest preventable threat to the health and well-being of future generations.

In 2004, he published State of Fear, a deeply flawed novel that attacks climate science and climate scientists. Although a work of fiction, the book had a clear political agenda, as evidenced by Crichton’s December 7, 2004 press release:

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/michael-crichton-worlds-most-famous-global-warming-denier-dies-147caec78b70/

 

If you want to debate, link to credible peer reviewed studies from climate scientists that have sources attached and I'll be more than happy to do so.

[0james0]

On 8/20/2023 at 2:35 PM, placeholder said:

I agree. Most of the CO2 is a natural phenomenon. About 2/3

Erroneous exaggeration, 90% of C02 is natural, about 10% is from human activity. 

[Yellowtail]

50 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I don't read opinion articles unless they link to credible sources. I leave the fiction to Crichton to sell his books on climate change denialism.

Indeed. Sources that also make their living from climate change hysteria. 

 

In the meantime, with all the idiotic renewable energy and social engineering, we are continuing to generate more CO2 each year. 

 

Stay the course! 

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

You're ignoring that all important ingredient - trust.  You seem to think that after the Climategate revelations we all just merrily hand them our unfettered trust again, as if Climategate never happened.  You have obviously done so, and that is your God given right.  But don't think you can simply dismiss the loss of trust that others have with a wave of your hand.  Do you understand that point?

I'll deal with more of your nonsense later but your take on the so-called Climategate scandal shows how perjured the sources you draw on are:

Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done

A lie can get halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on, as Mark Twain said (or "before the truth gets a chance to put its pants on," in Winston Churchill's version), and nowhere has that been more true than in "climategate." In that highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal, e-mails hacked from computers at the University of East Anglia's climate-research group were spread around the Web by activists who deny that human activity is altering the world's climate in a dangerous way, and spun so as to suggest that the scientists had been lying, cheating, and generally cooking the books.

But not only did British investigators clear the East Anglia scientist at the center of it all, Phil Jones, of scientific impropriety and dishonesty in April, an investigation at Penn State cleared PSU climatologist Michael Mann of "falsifying or suppressing data, intending to delete or conceal e-mails and information, and misusing privileged or confidential information" in February. In perhaps the biggest backpedaling, The Sunday Times of London, which led the media pack in charging that IPCC reports were full of egregious (and probably intentional) errors, retracted its central claim—namely, that the IPCC statement that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian rainforest could be vulnerable to climate change was "unsubstantiated." The Times also admitted that it had totally twisted the remarks of one forest expert to make it sound as if he agreed that the IPCC had screwed up, when he said no such thing.

https://www.newsweek.com/newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-damage-still-done-214472

 

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Indeed. Sources that also make their living from climate change hysteria. 

 

In the meantime, with all the idiotic renewable energy and social engineering, we are continuing to generate more CO2 each year. 

 

Stay the course! 

Indeed. Sources that also make their living from climate change hysteria.

 

Do you have a list of those?

[placeholder]

15 minutes ago, 0james0 said:

Erroneous exaggeration, 90% of C02 is natural, about 10% is from human activity. 

You don't just have a disagreement with me but you got one with nuclear physics as well. In brief, the carbon that comes from fossil fuels contains virtually no carbon 14. So it's a simple matter to measure how the ration of carbon 14 to carbon 12 and carbon 13 in the atmosphere has declined. That's about as ironclad as a proof can be.

Here's a far more thorough and better explanation of how this works:

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans