Historic pact to slow global warming is celebrated in Paris

[Si Thea01]

No, it is not why alarmists don't engage, it's because they can't, and I assure you that most people are waking up to your lot for what they are, scaremongers who are governed by greed. So what majority are you referring to, those governments who want to wreck their countries economy and the 40,000 free loaders who went to Paris for their almighty but ineffectual gabfest that will come to nothing. It hasn't even been signed off on, two years to go, yet your lot are off on your happy endings. Sorry that should be happy days. Give me a break please.

Through your post you have proven my point. You have no answers to what was asked and just revert to the old adage of you couldn't be bothered. No wonder people are waking up to the rubbish being uttered. So it's not the science after all, it's because it's politically accepted that it must be right. Who said anything about an ETS being a redistribution of wealth, I certainly didn't. That's an addition on your behalf. The negative effects outway the positives, can't even express yourself here, just a total generalisation which means absolutely nothing. All the governments of the world, another falsehood. Typical of the alarmists, taking remarks out of context, adding things that were never mentioned, exaggeration, misleading statements, falsifying reports to downright lies. There's an old saying which it looks like you lot have adopted, do whatever it takes to win. You certainly have the left leaning reporters on your side.

Given what you have written only highlights that you're unable to quantify anything you say but I know why, it's because you have nothing to say. What page of your bible did you turn to for this response. So we can see now where you're coming from, it's all about making money, nothing to do with any of sciences you try to shove down our throats. What an astonishing remark, weather has nothing to do with climate. When I went to school I was taught that climate related to the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period. You are certainly getting yourslef in a kerfuffle. One last matter for you to ponder, if it's not wealth redistribution, what do you call the UN green climate fund, who wants to have 100 billion from western countries' funds to give to 3rd world developing countries by the year 2020.

It is just way too boring for me. After you have debated the same old boring Climate Denial 200 times it just becomes mind numbingly boring. If you are interested to learn about the actual scientific facts on GW / CC there is a very good site called Skeptical Science that starts with the Basics and depending your educational background you can step up to Intermediate or Advanced. It is run by John Cook the guy who published the 97% Consensus paper Cook et al 2013. Yes 16 years AFTER the Zimmermann Paper you referred to earlier. It will explain the difference between weather and climate for you. You may want to check out Powell et al 2015 for the latest research on consensus.

Sorry but your understanding of GW / CC is very basic and dated nearly 20 years.

I don't know why you keep engaging, it just highlights you really have nothing of interest to offer. I see you have been taking lessons from the guy from the Sierra Club, all he could do, when asked a question he could not or should I say, would not answer, was to sprout the 97 percenter line. The difference between weather and climate, please educate me, as you seem to think I might have a lesser education than your lot and need to be indoctrinated into your way of thinking.

Please show me where I have stated or even intimated that climate change does not exist. Also, global warming, show me where I have denied this? It is only the totally false, misleading information and outright lies put out by the alarmists that we are calling into question and the scare tactics used to promote it. As I said before, it is only a money making scam, put into place by the UN, who are following the lines of the unelected EU Commisars, who have taken control of Europe, with the specific intention of the UN applying the same, only on a global basis. It must make your days happy to see children being scared through lessons they ar\e forced to endure at school. Does this give you your jollies for the day

And please, don't be so presumptious as to state openly that we are people who do not read the science. Don't assume anything as you will often be wrong. I for one do and I would say that many others do also, as can be seen by their responses, that is why I and they are able to call you to task over what you state as case dismissed and the proliferation of your propoganda. If you sir, took time to adjust your knowledge bank, and accept that there are two sides to any debate, not the one facist idea of everyone thinking along and following the same old party line, then maybe you will post something worthwhile..

In addition, I have no problem with governments and/or private enterprise looking for alternate sources of energy, and in doing so provide the population of the world with the cheapest form of electricity, not what we are being lumped with now. The cost of electricity has risen, exponentially, over the past ten years, ever since the greenies (or should I say reds) stared their resolve to rid the world of fossil fuels. All they have succeeded in doing is forcing many manufacturers offshore, caused the loss of millions of jobs in the west by pushing many industries into countries where these costs are none existant.

I do not agree with many things the fossil fuel industry gets up to but to be blindsided, like yourself and a few others, only shows that one truly has no wordly knowledge and only acts upon what he/she is told how they must think. Sounds to me like facist, marxist, communist, whatever you want to call it, party line doctrine. And your line of "couldn't be bothered" only highlights just that.

Not surprised he is getting bored. It is almost impossible to argue with someone who refuses to say anything of substance. Not once in your posts do you provide any substantiation for any claim that make. No substantiation of the 1000 scientist silliness. No factual rebuttal of the accepted consensus among the vast majority of scientists. Just generalisations and insults. Just what you accuse others of doing.

Well here is something factual. Energy efficiency programs are part of the action plans agreed by countries. The most recent IEA iea.org report calculates that energy efficiency programs have avoided $5.7 trillion of energy expenditure since 1990. This is avoided expenditure that has not been passed to the consumer. IEA also estimates that 40% of the emissions reductions targeted by 2050 can be achieved through energy efficiency programs. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/energy-efficiency-market-report-2015-.html

Saving money and reducing emissions that pollute the environment.

What argument do you have against this?

Perhaps you can provide some actual rebuttal instead of your usual supercilious insults.

Please do not come back with what your grade school teacher taught you. One of the first thing that students learn in schools with properly trained teachers is that weather and climate are not the same thing. While you keep offering this silly argument that climate change is not real because scientists can't predict the weather for up to 3 days, pretty much nobody except your fellow ideologues will pay any attention.

Nothing of substance, if you say so. He is bored, apparently you're not if, as you have alleged, you have disseminated the information contained in my posts, there are a few of them. Like everything else the alarmists are on about, if they cannot answer anything, then the name of the game is deflect. So you want everything handed to you, why so, you will only come back with something that you'd make up to discredit what one has listed. I normally wouldn't but on this occasion I will, here is the link to your so called 1000 scientists silliness.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284 .

Are you referring to the consensus at the latest gabfest. So it was the vast majority was it, then who are the minority that did not go along with the consensus, answer me that? Provide the percentages please. There is no binding agreement because no one has signed, there's still another two years before this is required. So where is the consensus? Me thinks a consensus to do nothing. Nearly every country has adopted their own approach and have stuck their fingers up at the UN and the so called agreement.

But wait, I can see where you are coming up with your responses, it is from the bible of the alarmists, and here is the link.

http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/how-to-communicate-the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change

It provides the alarmists with the teachings so that they can stifle debate of those who object to the falsehoods, changing of data, twisting of words and quotes, misinformation and deliberate falsifying of percentages, as well as the failure of the world press to publish both sides of the science. Insults and wait for it the big one, supercilious insults. Show me where. I can show you where some from your side have turned nasty but that wouldn't interest you, would it? But because we are of opposing views, it is ok for your side to sling it. I think most of us try our hardest to be civil despite what some dish out.

As for climate, look it up and you will see that it and weather are in correlation and what I posted has nothing to do with what my grade school teacher taught me because at that time there was none of the BS going round. The reason students of today are being taught about climate change, global warming or whatever other name has to be thought up is because most of them are from the far left, are believers and alarmists.

I have never said that climate change is not real because scientists cannot predict the weather for up to 3 days. You have put into print an absolute falsehood, completely changed what was said, so if you want to lie then get your facts down pat before coming on here and making yourself look foolish and highlighting the extent that your lot will go to in your attempts to discredit those who have differing opinions

Here is my quote so all those who come on here to get an insight into both sides of the debate can see the lengths that some will go to in their attempts to discredit another. The weather forcasters cannot accurately predict weather patterns two or three weeks in advance, yet these believers want us to accept that they can predict changes 10, 20 40 or 50 years into the future. If you believe that then what can one say. I have never denied climate change or global warming, just the misinformation, the cheating, falsehoods, fabrication of evidence and data, as well as the sccare tactics and scams initiated to make certain alarmists very wealthy people..

As for other substantiations, there are ample on here so I won't waste time in duplicating anything, I will just suggest you have a good read and view the videos, the latter will give you a real insight into why we do not accept the proganda you and the others are touting.

[Linzz]

None of the Climate Denial 'pseudo science' is peer reviewed or part of mainstream science. It all just comes from Climate Denier blogsites that are not restricted by scientific fraud. From time to time they are threatened with legal action when they take their deception a little too far.

Climate Denial really relies on people not having a basic knowledge of GW and CC. Once you have a basic understanding it is pretty easy to see you are being punked.

COP21 a great success, Debate the Climate Denier pseudo science? Who cares. Maybe if it is absolutely way off the mark I may comment.

If anyone posts a link to a published peer reviewed research Paper or Article sure I will read that out of interest. That adds to your knowledge on the issue but links to the same old Climate Denier drivel blogsites, it is pretty much the same old rubbish over and over again and just gets boring for me.

Happy Days

OK I'll try to stay away from "denier blogsites". How about Forbes? Is it mainstream enough? Or just popularist? GOP mag? Not socialist?Apparently "peer reviewed" survey. It seems your 97% is merely 36%?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

Guess nothing will settle this debate especially on this blog of Thai Visa top rated scientists....but I believe the debate it is not scientifically but politically driven

Happy Days

[up2u2]

None of the Climate Denial 'pseudo science' is peer reviewed or part of mainstream science. It all just comes from Climate Denier blogsites that are not restricted by scientific fraud. From time to time they are threatened with legal action when they take their deception a little too far.

Climate Denial really relies on people not having a basic knowledge of GW and CC. Once you have a basic understanding it is pretty easy to see you are being punked.

COP21 a great success, Debate the Climate Denier pseudo science? Who cares. Maybe if it is absolutely way off the mark I may comment.

If anyone posts a link to a published peer reviewed research Paper or Article sure I will read that out of interest. That adds to your knowledge on the issue but links to the same old Climate Denier drivel blogsites, it is pretty much the same old rubbish over and over again and just gets boring for me.

Happy Days

OK I'll try to stay away from "denier blogsites". How about Forbes? Is it mainstream enough? Or just popularist? GOP mag? Not socialist?Apparently "peer reviewed" survey. It seems your 97% is merely 36%?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

Guess nothing will settle this debate especially on this blog of Thai Visa top rated scientists....but I believe the debate it is not scientifically but politically driven

Happy Days

It is okay to read the Climate Denier blogs and Murdoch media but when you read the scientific analysis of their claims they fall in a heap. You tend to waste a lot of time.

Happy Days ^TM

Edited December 21, 2015 by up2u2

[lostboy]

I don't know why you keep engaging, it just highlights you really have nothing of interest to offer. I see you have been taking lessons from the guy from the Sierra Club, all he could do, when asked a question he could not or should I say, would not answer, was to sprout the 97 percenter line. The difference between weather and climate, please educate me, as you seem to think I might have a lesser education than your lot and need to be indoctrinated into your way of thinking.

Please show me where I have stated or even intimated that climate change does not exist. Also, global warming, show me where I have denied this? It is only the totally false, misleading information and outright lies put out by the alarmists that we are calling into question and the scare tactics used to promote it. As I said before, it is only a money making scam, put into place by the UN, who are following the lines of the unelected EU Commisars, who have taken control of Europe, with the specific intention of the UN applying the same, only on a global basis. It must make your days happy to see children being scared through lessons they ar\e forced to endure at school. Does this give you your jollies for the day

And please, don't be so presumptious as to state openly that we are people who do not read the science. Don't assume anything as you will often be wrong. I for one do and I would say that many others do also, as can be seen by their responses, that is why I and they are able to call you to task over what you state as case dismissed and the proliferation of your propoganda. If you sir, took time to adjust your knowledge bank, and accept that there are two sides to any debate, not the one facist idea of everyone thinking along and following the same old party line, then maybe you will post something worthwhile..

In addition, I have no problem with governments and/or private enterprise looking for alternate sources of energy, and in doing so provide the population of the world with the cheapest form of electricity, not what we are being lumped with now. The cost of electricity has risen, exponentially, over the past ten years, ever since the greenies (or should I say reds) stared their resolve to rid the world of fossil fuels. All they have succeeded in doing is forcing many manufacturers offshore, caused the loss of millions of jobs in the west by pushing many industries into countries where these costs are none existant.

I do not agree with many things the fossil fuel industry gets up to but to be blindsided, like yourself and a few others, only shows that one truly has no wordly knowledge and only acts upon what he/she is told how they must think. Sounds to me like facist, marxist, communist, whatever you want to call it, party line doctrine. And your line of "couldn't be bothered" only highlights just that.

Not surprised he is getting bored. It is almost impossible to argue with someone who refuses to say anything of substance. Not once in your posts do you provide any substantiation for any claim that make. No substantiation of the 1000 scientist silliness. No factual rebuttal of the accepted consensus among the vast majority of scientists. Just generalisations and insults. Just what you accuse others of doing.

Well here is something factual. Energy efficiency programs are part of the action plans agreed by countries. The most recent IEA iea.org report calculates that energy efficiency programs have avoided $5.7 trillion of energy expenditure since 1990. This is avoided expenditure that has not been passed to the consumer. IEA also estimates that 40% of the emissions reductions targeted by 2050 can be achieved through energy efficiency programs. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/energy-efficiency-market-report-2015-.html

Saving money and reducing emissions that pollute the environment.

What argument do you have against this?

Perhaps you can provide some actual rebuttal instead of your usual supercilious insults.

Please do not come back with what your grade school teacher taught you. One of the first thing that students learn in schools with properly trained teachers is that weather and climate are not the same thing. While you keep offering this silly argument that climate change is not real because scientists can't predict the weather for up to 3 days, pretty much nobody except your fellow ideologues will pay any attention.

Nothing of substance, if you say so. He is bored, apparently you're not if, as you have alleged, you have disseminated the information contained in my posts, there are a few of them. Like everything else the alarmists are on about, if they cannot answer anything, then the name of the game is deflect. So you want everything handed to you, why so, you will only come back with something that you'd make up to discredit what one has listed. I normally wouldn't but on this occasion I will, here is the link to your so called 1000 scientists silliness.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284 .

Are you referring to the consensus at the latest gabfest. So it was the vast majority was it, then who are the minority that did not go along with the consensus, answer me that? Provide the percentages please. There is no binding agreement because no one has signed, there's still another two years before this is required. So where is the consensus? Me thinks a consensus to do nothing. Nearly every country has adopted their own approach and have stuck their fingers up at the UN and the so called agreement.

But wait, I can see where you are coming up with your responses, it is from the bible of the alarmists, and here is the link.

http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/how-to-communicate-the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change

It provides the alarmists with the teachings so that they can stifle debate of those who object to the falsehoods, changing of data, twisting of words and quotes, misinformation and deliberate falsifying of percentages, as well as the failure of the world press to publish both sides of the science. Insults and wait for it the big one, supercilious insults. Show me where. I can show you where some from your side have turned nasty but that wouldn't interest you, would it? But because we are of opposing views, it is ok for your side to sling it. I think most of us try our hardest to be civil despite what some dish out.

As for climate, look it up and you will see that it and weather are in correlation and what I posted has nothing to do with what my grade school teacher taught me because at that time there was none of the BS going round. The reason students of today are being taught about climate change, global warming or whatever other name has to be thought up is because most of them are from the far left, are believers and alarmists.

I have never said that climate change is not real because scientists cannot predict the weather for up to 3 days. You have put into print an absolute falsehood, completely changed what was said, so if you want to lie then get your facts down pat before coming on here and making yourself look foolish and highlighting the extent that your lot will go to in your attempts to discredit those who have differing opinions

Here is my quote so all those who come on here to get an insight into both sides of the debate can see the lengths that some will go to in their attempts to discredit another. The weather forcasters cannot accurately predict weather patterns two or three weeks in advance, yet these believers want us to accept that they can predict changes 10, 20 40 or 50 years into the future. If you believe that then what can one say. I have never denied climate change or global warming, just the misinformation, the cheating, falsehoods, fabrication of evidence and data, as well as the sccare tactics and scams initiated to make certain alarmists very wealthy people..

As for other substantiations, there are ample on here so I won't waste time in duplicating anything, I will just suggest you have a good read and view the videos, the latter will give you a real insight into why we do not accept the proganda you and the others are touting.

Your insults directed towards me and my words are offensive.

It is silly to claim that I have been disseminating your information when I clearly argue against what you have said. To whom am I supposed to have disseminated your silly statements and on what forum?

It is silly to argue that only 52 scientists wrote the IPCC paper in 2009 and 1000 scientists do not agree with it without including the number of scientists who do agree with it. Providing such information would have substantiated your argument. You present a logical fallacy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy in the guise of debate.

It is silly to argue that the 1000 scientists who did not agree wth the 2009 IPCC report indicates that there is not a consensus of scientists on the issue of climate change. You demand figures? Why, so you can go ad hominem against the sources? How about NASA which says 97% http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ or Wikipedia that provides a justification for the 98% figure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change. It is just silly to keep saying that everyone else is wrong and only you and a few others are correct. Particularly when you don't rebut the arguments. Just dish out insults.

It is silly to claim that the agreement at COP21 was not an agreement. Apart from demonstrating that you are quite ignorant about multilateral program development and administration, it is just silly to deny that there was an agreement when that agreement has been reported.

It is silly to accuse an academic publication that seeks to provide material that explains a complex issue as a propaganda device just because you don't like what it says. In comparing the credentials of the Yale University Climate Change Communication Project in the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies including the staff, the affiliates and the sponsors against your credentials - I think silly doesn't really cover it.

It is silly to double down on your claim that climate change is not real because forecasters cannot predict the weather up to 2 - 3 weeks. You are correct that I was mistaken in saying 2 - 3 days. It is even sillier for you to demand that I find the quote and then provide it yourself, when it proves exactly what I said. Climate and weather are not the same thing. Every student, except you, learned this at school. Weather refers to atmospheric conditions over a short period of time. Climate refers to atmospheric trends over a long period of time. Very easy to find the definition. Keep doubling down on this please. It reminds people that there is no basis for your spin.

What is most offensive though is your diktat that I read the ramblings of the various old grumps on this thread who rant against climate change because you can't be bothered to post information. Factual information I presume. You don't have any. Otherwise you would use it to counter arguments. I have read this and other threads. I have posted on many. If you are too lazy or intellectually challenged to post information that disproves my statements and just want to be offensive, then go for it. This exercise merely passes the time.

You make no response to my statements on energy efficiency. Unsurprisingly.

Edited December 21, 2015 by lostboy

[lostboy]

Then why all the anger, ranting and breast beating?

That is a question you should be asking all your fellow progressives who want climate change skeptics -- or anyone who disagrees with the urgency for taking action on the climate -- executed, branded, gassed, or imprisoned.

Very well. I will ask at the next club meeting. You don't find passion in the next generation a good thing? Their zeal to address the issue could mean that certain bad practices can be addressed.

I actually have a healthy respect for skepticism. I don't believe the deniers are skeptics. I think they are mostly ideologues. If they were skeptics, then they wouldn't resort to insults.

I studied a little of Pyrrho in Classics but was more intrigued by the Stoics and particularly the Epicureans.

Interestingly skeptics question un-empirical knowledge, which I guess explains the zeal to discredit climate data.

Anyway, I will ask for the item to be put on the agenda for the next meeting and get back to you.

[RickBradford]

Anyway, I will ask for the item to be put on the agenda for the next meeting and get back to you.

No need -- you completely missed the point anyway.

[up2u2]

Up2u I guess

There is actually an interesting back story to Cruze's line of questioning. He is actually blowing it out his proverbial. The interesting backstory is the 'inaccuracy' in the satellite data was well known. It wasn't all that a big deal. In temperature data you are looking for the 'Trend Anomaly' not actually the exact temperature measurement. The Satellite data was just slightly out from the measured temperature data, no real big deal as the Temperature Trend Anomaly matched. The person who headed up the Huntsville Satellite analytics's was a guy called Roy Spencer. He couldn't figure it out. It wasn't till a young guy called Carl Mears came along and found the error in processing the satellite data. Mears et al 2005 "The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature."

Carl Mears went on to become the world authority (scientific rock star) on Satellite Data processing for Remote Sensing Systems (RSS). Roy Spencer went on to become a Climate Denier funded by the Fossil Fuel industry. Failure effects people in different ways. Spencer co published with another guy named Christy. Christy was man enough to admit they got the algorithms wrong and I believe is still involved in science.

It goes to my point Cruz fools you because most people would not know the Satellite measurements were not important in that they didn't exactly match the measured data and that the surface temperature 'Trend Anomaly', what you are actually wanting to establish did.

Happy Days^TM

[lostboy]

Anyway, I will ask for the item to be put on the agenda for the next meeting and get back to you.

No need -- you completely missed the point anyway.

Really?

You want me to dumb it down for you? The fun has now gone out of it for me.

Disappointing. But there are still a few on TVF who can keep up. I will play with them instead.

[Si Thea01]

I don't know why you keep engaging, it just highlights you really have nothing of interest to offer. I see you have been taking lessons from the guy from the Sierra Club, all he could do, when asked a question he could not or should I say, would not answer, was to sprout the 97 percenter line. The difference between weather and climate, please educate me, as you seem to think I might have a lesser education than your lot and need to be indoctrinated into your way of thinking.

Please show me where I have stated or even intimated that climate change does not exist. Also, global warming, show me where I have denied this? It is only the totally false, misleading information and outright lies put out by the alarmists that we are calling into question and the scare tactics used to promote it. As I said before, it is only a money making scam, put into place by the UN, who are following the lines of the unelected EU Commisars, who have taken control of Europe, with the specific intention of the UN applying the same, only on a global basis. It must make your days happy to see children being scared through lessons they ar\e forced to endure at school. Does this give you your jollies for the day

And please, don't be so presumptious as to state openly that we are people who do not read the science. Don't assume anything as you will often be wrong. I for one do and I would say that many others do also, as can be seen by their responses, that is why I and they are able to call you to task over what you state as case dismissed and the proliferation of your propoganda. If you sir, took time to adjust your knowledge bank, and accept that there are two sides to any debate, not the one facist idea of everyone thinking along and following the same old party line, then maybe you will post something worthwhile..

In addition, I have no problem with governments and/or private enterprise looking for alternate sources of energy, and in doing so provide the population of the world with the cheapest form of electricity, not what we are being lumped with now. The cost of electricity has risen, exponentially, over the past ten years, ever since the greenies (or should I say reds) stared their resolve to rid the world of fossil fuels. All they have succeeded in doing is forcing many manufacturers offshore, caused the loss of millions of jobs in the west by pushing many industries into countries where these costs are none existant.

I do not agree with many things the fossil fuel industry gets up to but to be blindsided, like yourself and a few others, only shows that one truly has no wordly knowledge and only acts upon what he/she is told how they must think. Sounds to me like facist, marxist, communist, whatever you want to call it, party line doctrine. And your line of "couldn't be bothered" only highlights just that.

Not surprised he is getting bored. It is almost impossible to argue with someone who refuses to say anything of substance. Not once in your posts do you provide any substantiation for any claim that make. No substantiation of the 1000 scientist silliness. No factual rebuttal of the accepted consensus among the vast majority of scientists. Just generalisations and insults. Just what you accuse others of doing.

Well here is something factual. Energy efficiency programs are part of the action plans agreed by countries. The most recent IEA iea.org report calculates that energy efficiency programs have avoided $5.7 trillion of energy expenditure since 1990. This is avoided expenditure that has not been passed to the consumer. IEA also estimates that 40% of the emissions reductions targeted by 2050 can be achieved through energy efficiency programs. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/energy-efficiency-market-report-2015-.html

Saving money and reducing emissions that pollute the environment.

What argument do you have against this?

Perhaps you can provide some actual rebuttal instead of your usual supercilious insults.

Please do not come back with what your grade school teacher taught you. One of the first thing that students learn in schools with properly trained teachers is that weather and climate are not the same thing. While you keep offering this silly argument that climate change is not real because scientists can't predict the weather for up to 3 days, pretty much nobody except your fellow ideologues will pay any attention.

Nothing of substance, if you say so. He is bored, apparently you're not if, as you have alleged, you have disseminated the information contained in my posts, there are a few of them. Like everything else the alarmists are on about, if they cannot answer anything, then the name of the game is deflect. So you want everything handed to you, why so, you will only come back with something that you'd make up to discredit what one has listed. I normally wouldn't but on this occasion I will, here is the link to your so called 1000 scientists silliness.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284 .

Are you referring to the consensus at the latest gabfest. So it was the vast majority was it, then who are the minority that did not go along with the consensus, answer me that? Provide the percentages please. There is no binding agreement because no one has signed, there's still another two years before this is required. So where is the consensus? Me thinks a consensus to do nothing. Nearly every country has adopted their own approach and have stuck their fingers up at the UN and the so called agreement.

But wait, I can see where you are coming up with your responses, it is from the bible of the alarmists, and here is the link.

http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/how-to-communicate-the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change

It provides the alarmists with the teachings so that they can stifle debate of those who object to the falsehoods, changing of data, twisting of words and quotes, misinformation and deliberate falsifying of percentages, as well as the failure of the world press to publish both sides of the science. Insults and wait for it the big one, supercilious insults. Show me where. I can show you where some from your side have turned nasty but that wouldn't interest you, would it? But because we are of opposing views, it is ok for your side to sling it. I think most of us try our hardest to be civil despite what some dish out.

As for climate, look it up and you will see that it and weather are in correlation and what I posted has nothing to do with what my grade school teacher taught me because at that time there was none of the BS going round. The reason students of today are being taught about climate change, global warming or whatever other name has to be thought up is because most of them are from the far left, are believers and alarmists.

I have never said that climate change is not real because scientists cannot predict the weather for up to 3 days. You have put into print an absolute falsehood, completely changed what was said, so if you want to lie then get your facts down pat before coming on here and making yourself look foolish and highlighting the extent that your lot will go to in your attempts to discredit those who have differing opinions

Here is my quote so all those who come on here to get an insight into both sides of the debate can see the lengths that some will go to in their attempts to discredit another. The weather forcasters cannot accurately predict weather patterns two or three weeks in advance, yet these believers want us to accept that they can predict changes 10, 20 40 or 50 years into the future. If you believe that then what can one say. I have never denied climate change or global warming, just the misinformation, the cheating, falsehoods, fabrication of evidence and data, as well as the sccare tactics and scams initiated to make certain alarmists very wealthy people..

As for other substantiations, there are ample on here so I won't waste time in duplicating anything, I will just suggest you have a good read and view the videos, the latter will give you a real insight into why we do not accept the proganda you and the others are touting.

Your insults directed towards me and my words are offensive.

It is silly to claim that I have been disseminating your information when I clearly argue against what you have said. To whom am I supposed to have disseminated your silly statements and on what forum?

It is silly to argue that only 52 scientists wrote the IPCC paper in 2009 and 1000 scientists do not agree with it without including the number of scientists who do agree with it. Providing such information would have substantiated your argument. You present a logical fallacy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy in the guise of debate.

It is silly to argue that the 1000 scientists who did not agree wth the 2009 IPCC report indicates that there is not a consensus of scientists on the issue of climate change. You demand figures? Why, so you can go ad hominem against the sources? How about NASA which says 97% http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ or Wikipedia that provides a justification for the 98% figure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change. It is just silly to keep saying that everyone else is wrong and only you and a few others are correct. Particularly when you don't rebut the arguments. Just dish out insults.

It is silly to claim that the agreement at COP21 was not an agreement. Apart from demonstrating that you are quite ignorant about multilateral program development and administration, it is just silly to deny that there was an agreement when that agreement has been reported.

It is silly to accuse an academic publication that seeks to provide material that explains a complex issue as a propaganda device just because you don't like what it says. In comparing the credentials of the Yale University Climate Change Communication Project in the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies including the staff, the affiliates and the sponsors against your credentials - I think silly doesn't really cover it.

It is silly to double down on your claim that climate change is not real because forecasters cannot predict the weather up to 2 - 3 weeks. You are correct that I was mistaken in saying 2 - 3 days. It is even sillier for you to demand that I find the quote and then provide it yourself, when it proves exactly what I said. Climate and weather are not the same thing. Every student, except you, learned this at school. Weather refers to atmospheric conditions over a short period of time. Climate refers to atmospheric trends over a long period of time. Very easy to find the definition. Keep doubling down on this please. It reminds people that there is no basis for your spin.

What is most offensive though is your diktat that I read the ramblings of the various old grumps on this thread who rant against climate change because you can't be bothered to post information. Factual information I presume. You don't have any. Otherwise you would use it to counter arguments. I have read this and other threads. I have posted on many. If you are too lazy or intellectually challenged to post information that disproves my statements and just want to be offensive, then go for it. This exercise merely passes the time.

You make no response to my statements on energy efficiency. Unsurprisingly.

Playing the victim now are we?. No one has insulted you nor have any offensive words been directed toward you. Taking the "I'm Precious" bit a little to far aren't we. I am able to take the pugnacious manner in which you elect to respond all without complaining but maybe my skin is thicker than yours. I will not reiterate anything previousy posted as it is obvious you have closed your eyes and no one else is entitled to a view. if they do, it is silly, silly, silly and they are wrong, wrong, wrong.

I will ask you though what don't you understand about the following? I have not and never will claim that climate change is not real, yet you keep on keeping on about this. My response was to ask if the weather forcasters, who are also scientists, cannot accurately predict weather over a 2 to 3 week peiod, then how can the scientists, who are on the alarmists side, predict changes in climate many years in advance. Do you understand that. But maybe you believe this is a silly and irrelevant question.

I note that even at the end of your post you continue with your repugnant responses yet you have the hide to criticise me. I will let you know that I do not have to resort to your level and as for being lazy, your the one who wants matters to be substantiated so if this is your need, I would say to you there are many sites that you can direct your research to becasue I'm no lacky of yours. So it is most offensive for you to be directed to posts where you will have an alternate argument but you refer to these as rants by various old grumps against climate change. What do you call you description of those posters? I would say very offensive.

Now back to climate and weather. Climate is the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period whilst weather is the state of the atmosphere

at a particular place and time as regards heat, cloudiness, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc. You use other words, atmospheric conditions atmospheric trends to distinguish between the two, well how about synonyms, a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language. So if the synonym for weather is atmospheric conditions whilst the synonyms for climate are weather pattern, weather conditions, weather and atmospheric conditions, you still insist they are different and have no relevance to each other.

As for the energy efficiency, I would have thought that by not listing a response, then it would be sufficient that I agree wth savings, if genuine, and getting rid of pollution, not carbn dioxide, which isn't. Od do you need that spelt out to you as well? It's funny how your posts started of as benign but as time goes on it has become more confrontational, which may suggest you are a troll and just looking for someone to take you on so you can have your dose of daily jollies. Sorry if I do oblige you further.

[Linzz]

None of the Climate Denial 'pseudo science' is peer reviewed or part of mainstream science. It all just comes from Climate Denier blogsites that are not restricted by scientific fraud. From time to time they are threatened with legal action when they take their deception a little too far.

Climate Denial really relies on people not having a basic knowledge of GW and CC. Once you have a basic understanding it is pretty easy to see you are being punked.

COP21 a great success, Debate the Climate Denier pseudo science? Who cares. Maybe if it is absolutely way off the mark I may comment.

If anyone posts a link to a published peer reviewed research Paper or Article sure I will read that out of interest. That adds to your knowledge on the issue but links to the same old Climate Denier drivel blogsites, it is pretty much the same old rubbish over and over again and just gets boring for me.

Happy Days

OK I'll try to stay away from "denier blogsites". How about Forbes? Is it mainstream enough? Or just popularist? GOP mag? Not socialist?Apparently "peer reviewed" survey. It seems your 97% is merely 36%?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

Guess nothing will settle this debate especially on this blog of Thai Visa top rated scientists....but I believe the debate it is not scientifically but politically driven

Happy Days

It is okay to read the Climate Denier blogs and Murdoch media but when you read the scientific analysis of their claims they fall in a heap. You tend to waste a lot of time.

Happy Days ^TM

Yes, so predictable. Also others having studied the Classics, gosh I'm so impressed by the alumni this subject has attracted! What a lot of unnecessary supercilious superiority on exhibition here!

Mr UpU2 I really try to take your posts seriously but you talk down from the moral high-ground far too much with such intellectual snobbery that it does amount to wasting time talking to you. The one instance you were right. Now you have a trade mark as well ! Oh dear. You are probably breaching copyright of the series. Yawn! You are SO bored by anyone's opinions except those of your own, I guess that's the only one reason you are still with us.

Happy Daze

But I mustn't get off topic. I will address Si Thea01 instead of Happy Clappy so as not to waste my time because he's pulled his blinds down. Anyway U-tube videos are only for he great unwashed like you and me so he won't watch it because it is politically incorrect.

This is an interesting hypothesis that EVERYTHING is linked, the Earth, the Sun,our Galaxy and it's rotations. Everything is cyclical from atoms to spiral galactic arms. If so the very fact that we humans are so egocentric (as demonstrated in the belief systems promulgated here) that we think we can cause and cure cyclical climate change is just a bad joke. Also an interesting dialogue between an inquiring mind and a mind rigidly made up, also as demonstrated on TV forum. It wouldn't do to find that carbon emissions are not the cause of climate change. Hard to tax the sun and the clouds!

[lostboy]

Nothing of substance, if you say so. He is bored, apparently you're not if, as you have alleged, you have disseminated the information contained in my posts, there are a few of them. Like everything else the alarmists are on about, if they cannot answer anything, then the name of the game is deflect. So you want everything handed to you, why so, you will only come back with something that you'd make up to discredit what one has listed. I normally wouldn't but on this occasion I will, here is the link to your so called 1000 scientists silliness.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284 .

Are you referring to the consensus at the latest gabfest. So it was the vast majority was it, then who are the minority that did not go along with the consensus, answer me that? Provide the percentages please. There is no binding agreement because no one has signed, there's still another two years before this is required. So where is the consensus? Me thinks a consensus to do nothing. Nearly every country has adopted their own approach and have stuck their fingers up at the UN and the so called agreement.

But wait, I can see where you are coming up with your responses, it is from the bible of the alarmists, and here is the link.

http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/how-to-communicate-the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change

It provides the alarmists with the teachings so that they can stifle debate of those who object to the falsehoods, changing of data, twisting of words and quotes, misinformation and deliberate falsifying of percentages, as well as the failure of the world press to publish both sides of the science. Insults and wait for it the big one, supercilious insults. Show me where. I can show you where some from your side have turned nasty but that wouldn't interest you, would it? But because we are of opposing views, it is ok for your side to sling it. I think most of us try our hardest to be civil despite what some dish out.

As for climate, look it up and you will see that it and weather are in correlation and what I posted has nothing to do with what my grade school teacher taught me because at that time there was none of the BS going round. The reason students of today are being taught about climate change, global warming or whatever other name has to be thought up is because most of them are from the far left, are believers and alarmists.

I have never said that climate change is not real because scientists cannot predict the weather for up to 3 days. You have put into print an absolute falsehood, completely changed what was said, so if you want to lie then get your facts down pat before coming on here and making yourself look foolish and highlighting the extent that your lot will go to in your attempts to discredit those who have differing opinions

Here is my quote so all those who come on here to get an insight into both sides of the debate can see the lengths that some will go to in their attempts to discredit another. The weather forcasters cannot accurately predict weather patterns two or three weeks in advance, yet these believers want us to accept that they can predict changes 10, 20 40 or 50 years into the future. If you believe that then what can one say. I have never denied climate change or global warming, just the misinformation, the cheating, falsehoods, fabrication of evidence and data, as well as the sccare tactics and scams initiated to make certain alarmists very wealthy people..

As for other substantiations, there are ample on here so I won't waste time in duplicating anything, I will just suggest you have a good read and view the videos, the latter will give you a real insight into why we do not accept the proganda you and the others are touting.

Your insults directed towards me and my words are offensive.

It is silly to claim that I have been disseminating your information when I clearly argue against what you have said. To whom am I supposed to have disseminated your silly statements and on what forum?

It is silly to argue that only 52 scientists wrote the IPCC paper in 2009 and 1000 scientists do not agree with it without including the number of scientists who do agree with it. Providing such information would have substantiated your argument. You present a logical fallacy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy in the guise of debate.

It is silly to argue that the 1000 scientists who did not agree wth the 2009 IPCC report indicates that there is not a consensus of scientists on the issue of climate change. You demand figures? Why, so you can go ad hominem against the sources? How about NASA which says 97% http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ or Wikipedia that provides a justification for the 98% figure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change. It is just silly to keep saying that everyone else is wrong and only you and a few others are correct. Particularly when you don't rebut the arguments. Just dish out insults.

It is silly to claim that the agreement at COP21 was not an agreement. Apart from demonstrating that you are quite ignorant about multilateral program development and administration, it is just silly to deny that there was an agreement when that agreement has been reported.

It is silly to accuse an academic publication that seeks to provide material that explains a complex issue as a propaganda device just because you don't like what it says. In comparing the credentials of the Yale University Climate Change Communication Project in the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies including the staff, the affiliates and the sponsors against your credentials - I think silly doesn't really cover it.

It is silly to double down on your claim that climate change is not real because forecasters cannot predict the weather up to 2 - 3 weeks. You are correct that I was mistaken in saying 2 - 3 days. It is even sillier for you to demand that I find the quote and then provide it yourself, when it proves exactly what I said. Climate and weather are not the same thing. Every student, except you, learned this at school. Weather refers to atmospheric conditions over a short period of time. Climate refers to atmospheric trends over a long period of time. Very easy to find the definition. Keep doubling down on this please. It reminds people that there is no basis for your spin.

What is most offensive though is your diktat that I read the ramblings of the various old grumps on this thread who rant against climate change because you can't be bothered to post information. Factual information I presume. You don't have any. Otherwise you would use it to counter arguments. I have read this and other threads. I have posted on many. If you are too lazy or intellectually challenged to post information that disproves my statements and just want to be offensive, then go for it. This exercise merely passes the time.

You make no response to my statements on energy efficiency. Unsurprisingly.

Playing the victim now are we?. No one has insulted you nor have any offensive words been directed toward you. Taking the "I'm Precious" bit a little to far aren't we. I am able to take the pugnacious manner in which you elect to respond all without complaining but maybe my skin is thicker than yours. I will not reiterate anything previousy posted as it is obvious you have closed your eyes and no one else is entitled to a view. if they do, it is silly, silly, silly and they are wrong, wrong, wrong.

I will ask you though what don't you understand about the following? I have not and never will claim that climate change is not real, yet you keep on keeping on about this. My response was to ask if the weather forcasters, who are also scientists, cannot accurately predict weather over a 2 to 3 week peiod, then how can the scientists, who are on the alarmists side, predict changes in climate many years in advance. Do you understand that. But maybe you believe this is a silly and irrelevant question.

I note that even at the end of your post you continue with your repugnant responses yet you have the hide to criticise me. I will let you know that I do not have to resort to your level and as for being lazy, your the one who wants matters to be substantiated so if this is your need, I would say to you there are many sites that you can direct your research to becasue I'm no lacky of yours. So it is most offensive for you to be directed to posts where you will have an alternate argument but you refer to these as rants by various old grumps against climate change. What do you call you description of those posters? I would say very offensive.

Now back to climate and weather. Climate is the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period whilst weather is the state of the atmosphere

at a particular place and time as regards heat, cloudiness, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc. You use other words, atmospheric conditions atmospheric trends to distinguish between the two, well how about synonyms, a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language. So if the synonym for weather is atmospheric conditions whilst the synonyms for climate are weather pattern, weather conditions, weather and atmospheric conditions, you still insist they are different and have no relevance to each other.

As for the energy efficiency, I would have thought that by not listing a response, then it would be sufficient that I agree wth savings, if genuine, and getting rid of pollution, not carbn dioxide, which isn't. Od do you need that spelt out to you as well? It's funny how your posts started of as benign but as time goes on it has become more confrontational, which may suggest you are a troll and just looking for someone to take you on so you can have your dose of daily jollies. Sorry if I do oblige you further.

Your own words from the topmost quote "you will only come back with something that you'd make up to discredit what one has listed". You directly accuse me of lying. Your insults are offensive.

I tell you that climate and weather are not the same thing and you give me a lecture on synonyms. Like I said, keep up the silliness on this issue. You entirely discredit anything you say by doubling down on your moronic statement about weather forecasters.

You are the first to play the troll card. You lose. Godwin's Modified Rules.

Please continue with your supercilious analysis of my writing style. It certainly lets you avoid making any statement of substance. Funny you don't like the insults you throw at others to be returned. Please continue to be repelled. It is intentional.

Will you be returning to the topic any time soon?

[RickBradford]

You want me to dumb it down for you?

To dumb down what you wrote is a logical impossibility.

But to restate the point for those smart enough to get it, virtually all of the vitriol and abuse and certainly all the calls for trial and execution of opponents comes from the tolerant totalitarians of the progressive Left.

These dim bulbs only have a handful of tired old refrains on their jukebox : Bad, Bad Fox News; You're a Denier; Evil Big Oil; The Greedy Koch Brothers, The Debate is Over; Those Beastly Wingnut Republicans, and the old favourite That Well-Funded Vicious Climate Denialist Machine (lyrics: ME Mann).

Such is their emotional attachment to these limited and infantile ideas, that any criticism sends them into a terrible tantrum, hence the calls for prosecution, trials, and executions.

[lostboy]

You want me to dumb it down for you?

To dumb down what you wrote is a logical impossibility.

But to restate the point for those smart enough to get it, virtually all of the vitriol and abuse and certainly all the calls for trial and execution of opponents comes from the tolerant totalitarians of the progressive Left.

These dim bulbs only have a handful of tired old refrains on their jukebox : Bad, Bad Fox News; You're a Denier; Evil Big Oil; The Greedy Koch Brothers, The Debate is Over; Those Beastly Wingnut Republicans, and the old favourite That Well-Funded Vicious Climate Denialist Machine (lyrics: ME Mann).

Such is their emotional attachment to these limited and infantile ideas, that any criticism sends them into a terrible tantrum, hence the calls for prosecution, trials, and executions.

OK. I will reply to the literal points you made instead of going off on tangents.

You comment on the language of vilification used by what you call the alarmists. You cite numerous examples. This is not, however a one way street. I have seen posts by you and many other deniers that uses equally vilifying language on other threads. What you state in this and the previous post equally applies to you and other deniers.

I engaged with you some time ago because I did not understand. Once I realised this is nothing to do with environmental protection and merely a proxy for the Liberal/Conservative clash of ideologies, I withdrew from the debate.

So again we come to pots and kettles and their colour.

You at least have sufficient grounding and technical knowledge to actually make an argument on a number of issues but these arguments quickly turn to insults on both sides and there is an intransigence that does not allow any acceptance of points made by the other side in case of seeming weak.

My solution is to avoid using the code words and engage with like minded people in an effort to learn. Those occasions have been and will continue to be quite rare on TVF. I do reserve the right to comment though on some of the more egregious hyperbole from the deniers when it is blatantly hypocritical.

[Pinot]

It's impossible to have a discussion with wingnut climate change deniers. They pull out their own science and facts. The stuff they get from the wingnut media.

The Republicans are the only major political party in the WORLD that denies climate change.

So, it's important to eff with them as much as possible. They deserve it.

You know what line I love, "I'm not a scientist." Neither am I, that's why I listen to...SCIENTISTS! Real Scientists.

[chuckd]

You want me to dumb it down for you?

To dumb down what you wrote is a logical impossibility.

<snip>

<snip>

"...these arguments quickly turn to insults on both sides..."

<snip>

lostboy:

I honestly believe you lost the insult battle.

[lostboy]

You want me to dumb it down for you?

To dumb down what you wrote is a logical impossibility.

<snip>

<snip>

"...these arguments quickly turn to insults on both sides..."

<snip>

lostboy:

I honestly believe you lost the insult battle.

An objective an unbiased opinion of course. The 'honestly' marks it thus.

[mopar71]

Oh very partisan. So it's fait accompli. The debate is closed because the desired result is achieved so no challenge is allowed even as new considerations emerge. Sounds dictatorial. Historically science is littered with examples of maverick thinkers who challenged the accepted scientific/political/religious order of the day and suffered for it or went into hiding. I am willing to take your point of view seriously but you sir have a closed mind. If science ceases to debate issues especially of this magnitude, then it ceases to be science and just simply becomes politics. And in this case it has become just that and you have become it's minion

Of course science can be challenged by absolutely ANYONE. The proper process is to present your research theory along with your data have it 'peer reviewed' then present it for publication where it goes through another process of peer review and is published. It then becomes established science.

"Peer reviewed" doesn't mean what it used to as the East Anglia scandal showed...

Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review

[up2u2]

It is okay to read the Climate Denier blogs and Murdoch media but when you read the scientific analysis of their claims they fall in a heap. You tend to waste a lot of time.

Happy Days ^TM

Yes, so predictable. Also others having studied the Classics, gosh I'm so impressed by the alumni this subject has attracted! What a lot of unnecessary supercilious superiority on exhibition here!

Mr UpU2 I really try to take your posts seriously but you talk down from the moral high-ground far too much with such intellectual snobbery that it does amount to wasting time talking to you. The one instance you were right. Now you have a trade mark as well ! Oh dear. You are probably breaching copyright of the series. Yawn! You are SO bored by anyone's opinions except those of your own, I guess that's the only one reason you are still with us.

Happy Daze

But I mustn't get off topic. I will address Si Thea01 instead of Happy Clappy so as not to waste my time because he's pulled his blinds down. Anyway U-tube videos are only for he great unwashed like you and me so he won't watch it because it is politically incorrect.

This is an interesting hypothesis that EVERYTHING is linked, the Earth, the Sun,our Galaxy and it's rotations. Everything is cyclical from atoms to spiral galactic arms. If so the very fact that we humans are so egocentric (as demonstrated in the belief systems promulgated here) that we think we can cause and cure cyclical climate change is just a bad joke. Also an interesting dialogue between an inquiring mind and a mind rigidly made up, also as demonstrated on TV forum. It wouldn't do to find that carbon emissions are not the cause of climate change. Hard to tax the sun and the clouds!

Solar radiation is relatively stable running on a 11 year cycle.

I know your Climate Denial blogosphere looks all sciency but when you look at the actual facts it falls in a heap. Read Trenberth he is the expert this field.

[RickBradford]

You comment on the language of vilification used by what you call the alarmists. You cite numerous examples. This is not, however a one way street. I have seen posts by you and many other deniers that uses equally vilifying language on other threads. What you state in this and the previous post equally applies to you and other deniers.

Once again, you miss the point with breathtaking ease. I am not, of course, referring to what posters on this forum write about each other; it is of no importance whatever.

I am talking about people with power and influence in the real world, people who may be able to make good on their threats, or persuade others to take punitive action.

So here's a short list of "the language of vilification" from the Alarmists. Perhaps you would like to provide an equivalent list of vilification by skeptics.

(Professor Richard Parncutt, Graz University)

"I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases. Even mass murderers like Breivik should not be executed, in my opinion. GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. If a jury of suitably qualified scientists estimated that a given GW denier had already, with high probability (say 95%), caused the deaths of over one million future people, then s/he would be sentenced to death."

(Talking Points Memo website)

At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers?

Robert Kennedy Jr.

“[Y]ou hear this from the oil industry and the coal industry and their ‘indentured servants’ in our political process that global climate stability is a luxury that we can’t afford,” said Kennedy. "This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors."

former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm

“An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind [climate "deniers"] while you sleep in your beds,”

Grist

"When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

Chris Huhne, former UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change

“Fighting Climate Change Deniers Is Like Fighting Hitler”

Bill McGuire, University College London (2006)

"We have Holocaust deniers; we have climate change deniers. And to be honest, I don’t think there’s a great deal of difference."

Charles Larson, American University (2013)

"The deniers of climate change are cut from the same cloth as Holocaust deniers. They’ve never been to the death camps, Auschwitz and Birkenau, so what they haven’t seen does not exist."

George Monbiot, The Guardian

“…every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned.”

Richard Glover, Sydney Morning Herald

Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.”

Michael T. Eckhart, president of the American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)

“It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity."

Aah, don't you just love that tolerance, the hallmark of the 'progressive' mindset?

[chuckd]

Here's an actual scientist that may have just signed his own death warrant, if all those tolerant alarmists have their way.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Scientist: Global Warming Won’t Be Dangerous

ANDREW FOLLETT

Energy and Environmental Reporter

3:47 PM 12/21/2015

Global warming won’t raise global temperatures enough to be dangerous, according to an analysis of satellite data released over the weekend by University of Alabama scientists.

The analysis of satellite data stretches back 37 years and estimates that the temperature increase will be only 1.15° Celsius over the century. Keeping global warming below 2° Celsius by 2100 is the widely accepted goal promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations COP 21 Paris summit. Such a low rate of temperature increase would prevent what global warming alarmists say are the most hazardous impacts of global warming.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/21/scientist-global-warming-wont-be-dangerous/#ixzz3v1BXIxkm

and: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta4.txt

[RickBradford]

Here's an actual scientist that may have just signed his own death warrant, if all those tolerant alarmists have their way

Oh, Christy's been on the blacklist for ages.

For a start, he co-developed the satellite temperature measurement system; plus, as the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, he gets to talk to Congressional committees about climate.

These are sufficient indicators, to the tolerant alarmists, that Christy is an individual of extreme political and moral backwardness, and depravity.

They had a go at getting rid of him earlier this year, but the attempt failed.

[lostboy]

You comment on the language of vilification used by what you call the alarmists. You cite numerous examples. This is not, however a one way street. I have seen posts by you and many other deniers that uses equally vilifying language on other threads. What you state in this and the previous post equally applies to you and other deniers.

Once again, you miss the point with breathtaking ease. I am not, of course, referring to what posters on this forum write about each other; it is of no importance whatever.

I am talking about people with power and influence in the real world, people who may be able to make good on their threats, or persuade others to take punitive action.

So here's a short list of "the language of vilification" from the Alarmists. Perhaps you would like to provide an equivalent list of vilification by skeptics.

(Professor Richard Parncutt, Graz University)

"I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases. Even mass murderers like Breivik should not be executed, in my opinion. GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. If a jury of suitably qualified scientists estimated that a given GW denier had already, with high probability (say 95%), caused the deaths of over one million future people, then s/he would be sentenced to death."

(Talking Points Memo website)

At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers?

Robert Kennedy Jr.

“[Y]ou hear this from the oil industry and the coal industry and their ‘indentured servants’ in our political process that global climate stability is a luxury that we can’t afford,” said Kennedy. "This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors."

former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm

“An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind [climate "deniers"] while you sleep in your beds,”

Grist

"When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

Chris Huhne, former UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change

“Fighting Climate Change Deniers Is Like Fighting Hitler”

Bill McGuire, University College London (2006)

"We have Holocaust deniers; we have climate change deniers. And to be honest, I don’t think there’s a great deal of difference."

Charles Larson, American University (2013)

"The deniers of climate change are cut from the same cloth as Holocaust deniers. They’ve never been to the death camps, Auschwitz and Birkenau, so what they haven’t seen does not exist."

George Monbiot, The Guardian

“…every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned.”

Richard Glover, Sydney Morning Herald

Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.”

Michael T. Eckhart, president of the American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)

“It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity."

Aah, don't you just love that tolerance, the hallmark of the 'progressive' mindset?

Clearly missing the point through poor communication is the fault of the readers' comprehension. I can only take your words at face value. I am not a mind reader. Reading your posts on various threads that are clearly political and ideological rather than technical informs my view. Posts like #3 on http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/842324-world-mayors-at-vatican-urge-bold-climate-agreement/ where you indulge in a typical anti-Left diatribe. This seems quite broad brush. Not narrowly focussed on "those with power" as you claim.

You want a tit-for-tat on hate speech from the Deniers? Easy to find here and elsewhere online. I don't find such a game worth playing but since you asked, you can read a list of quotes from skeptics here http://www.c3headlines.com/quotes-from-global-warming-critics-skeptics-sceptics.html How many of these quotes contain the same political and ideological slants common in your posts and the posts of others? Use of words like scams, cult and alarmist. I appreciate reading the comments on technical issues. The political stuff is boring.

So I cannot see anyone calling for Denier Genocide or similar. But there are plenty of equally moronic and inflammatory statements and actions. Like Inhofe, Chair of the Environment Committee taking a snowball into Congress and claiming climate change is a myth because it was snowing outside. Or the use of political intimidation by Deniers in positions of power http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-s-bradley/the-house-committee-on-sc_b_8479612.html

I suspect that you will generally win an argument on the lunacy of climate change alarmists. You seem to track this far more closely than I or others do. Keep at it. Whatever floats your boat. Environmental issues impact on my professional life in terms of development and implementation of policy. That is where my focus lies. It allows me to not have to indulge in the political and ideological mud.

I don't buy your claim of purity and only aiming at the those with the influence to affect change in ways that you do not like. You are sullied by the anti-Leftist scrum and its attendant 'language of vilification' as the rest of the old grumps. I commend the passion and zeal of those who want to take action to conserve and preserve the environment. You condemn them.

Edited December 22, 2015 by lostboy

[up2u2]

Here's an actual scientist that may have just signed his own death warrant, if all those tolerant alarmists have their way.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Scientist: Global Warming Won’t Be Dangerous

ANDREW FOLLETT

Energy and Environmental Reporter

3:47 PM 12/21/2015

Global warming won’t raise global temperatures enough to be dangerous, according to an analysis of satellite data released over the weekend by University of Alabama scientists.

The analysis of satellite data stretches back 37 years and estimates that the temperature increase will be only 1.15° Celsius over the century. Keeping global warming below 2° Celsius by 2100 is the widely accepted goal promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations COP 21 Paris summit. Such a low rate of temperature increase would prevent what global warming alarmists say are the most hazardous impacts of global warming.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/21/scientist-global-warming-wont-be-dangerous/#ixzz3v1BXIxkm

and: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta4.txt

Here's an actual scientist that may have just signed his own death warrant, if all those tolerant alarmists have their way

Oh, Christy's been on the blacklist for ages.

For a start, he co-developed the satellite temperature measurement system; plus, as the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, he gets to talk to Congressional committees about climate.

These are sufficient indicators, to the tolerant alarmists, that Christy is an individual of extreme political and moral backwardness, and depravity.

They had a go at getting rid of him earlier this year, but the attempt failed.

Could you post the link to the Science Journal this research Paper / Article was peer reviewed and published in? Or a link to the actual Research Paper ie (Christy et al 2015). I would like to read the Abstract.

[Pinot]

Attacking the climate "Alarmists" is all they have left.

Wingnuts are afraid of many things, but climate change isn't one of them.

[RickBradford]

I commend the passion and zeal of those who want to take action to conserve and preserve the environment. You condemn them.

Quite wrong. I fully support people who stand up for the protection and preservation of the environment.

But the fact is, UN climate policy has nothing to do with the environment, as senior UN officials have publicly stated. In 2010, Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of a UN IPCC working group, was asked precisely that question in an interview. He replied:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

Earlier this year, Christina 'Tinkerbell' Figueres, executive secretary of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of the UN is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to undermine and reverse capitalism.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution."

As I have said before, anyone who truly believes the world is at risk from global warming should feel profoundly betrayed by the Paris talks, which have given nations carte blanche to do as much or as little as they want to counter the "problem" of global warming.

[up2u2]

I commend the passion and zeal of those who want to take action to conserve and preserve the environment. You condemn them.

Quite wrong. I fully support people who stand up for the protection and preservation of the environment.

But the fact is, UN climate policy has nothing to do with the environment, as senior UN officials have publicly stated. In 2010, Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of a UN IPCC working group, was asked precisely that question in an interview. He replied:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

Earlier this year, Christina 'Tinkerbell' Figueres, executive secretary of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of the UN is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to undermine and reverse capitalism.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution."

As I have said before, anyone who truly believes the world is at risk from global warming should feel profoundly betrayed by the Paris talks, which have given nations carte blanche to do as much or as little as they want to counter the "problem" of global warming.

That would be accurate. In addressing Fossil Fuel pollution and the changes required to reduce CO₂ levels it would redistribute the worlds wealth and change the development Model for many countries. Nothing sinister about that. It is simply a fact.

I think your problem is you have little understanding of GW / CC or understand the function of the IPCC and UN's Framework Convention or the precedent made in having EVERY country on the Planet agree on anthropogenic global warming. In fact that could be a 'miracle'.

That's one thing I have noticed people who support action on GW understand the science behind the issue. Climate Deniers don't have the foggiest idea of the science on GW to the point it is embarrassing.

[Linzz]

Is there any substance to GISS/NASA altering records for political purposes or is this another conspiracy theory blog? Depends on your politics whether you dismiss or consider I guess.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/

[Linzz]

"Climate Deniers don't have the foggiest idea of the science on GW to the point it is embarrassing."

This is an overstatement again when many highly qualified scientists seem to disagree and are at least worthy of consideration. Is up2u a scientist himself that he understands these things and can say such categorical stuff? Great minds usually are not closed and understand modesty because the beginning of knowledge recognizes how little one really knows.. Just wondering...

Edit: grammar

Edited December 22, 2015 by Linzz

[canuckamuck]

I commend the passion and zeal of those who want to take action to conserve and preserve the environment. You condemn them.

Quite wrong. I fully support people who stand up for the protection and preservation of the environment.

But the fact is, UN climate policy has nothing to do with the environment, as senior UN officials have publicly stated. In 2010, Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of a UN IPCC working group, was asked precisely that question in an interview. He replied:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

Earlier this year, Christina 'Tinkerbell' Figueres, executive secretary of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of the UN is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to undermine and reverse capitalism.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution."

As I have said before, anyone who truly believes the world is at risk from global warming should feel profoundly betrayed by the Paris talks, which have given nations carte blanche to do as much or as little as they want to counter the "problem" of global warming.

That would be accurate. In addressing Fossil Fuel pollution and the changes required to reduce CO₂ levels it would redistribute the worlds wealth and change the development Model for many countries. Nothing sinister about that. It is simply a fact.

I think your problem is you have little understanding of GW / CC or understand the function of the IPCC and UN's Framework Convention or the precedent made in having EVERY country on the Planet agree on anthropogenic global warming. In fact that could be a 'miracle'.

That's one thing I have noticed people who support action on GW understand the science behind the issue. Climate Deniers don't have the foggiest idea of the science on GW to the point it is embarrassing.

Personally I think it is the opposite. The people who blindly follow the propaganda are the ones who haven't invested the effort to understand what a shaky foundation the whole catastrophic climate change scenario is constructed on. Most people still trust mainstream media to report the truth. And they feel that because of the overwhelming media position of this, it must be true. This is part of the reality that news and mainstream media is rarely neutral any more.

Edited December 22, 2015 by canuckamuck

[Linzz]

I commend the passion and zeal of those who want to take action to conserve and preserve the environment. You condemn them.

Quite wrong. I fully support people who stand up for the protection and preservation of the environment.

But the fact is, UN climate policy has nothing to do with the environment, as senior UN officials have publicly stated. In 2010, Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of a UN IPCC working group, was asked precisely that question in an interview. He replied:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

Earlier this year, Christina 'Tinkerbell' Figueres, executive secretary of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of the UN is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to undermine and reverse capitalism.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution."

As I have said before, anyone who truly believes the world is at risk from global warming should feel profoundly betrayed by the Paris talks, which have given nations carte blanche to do as much or as little as they want to counter the "problem" of global warming.

That would be accurate. In addressing Fossil Fuel pollution and the changes required to reduce CO₂ levels it would redistribute the worlds wealth and change the development Model for many countries. Nothing sinister about that. It is simply a fact.

I think your problem is you have little understanding of GW / CC or understand the function of the IPCC and UN's Framework Convention or the precedent made in having EVERY country on the Planet agree on anthropogenic global warming. In fact that could be a 'miracle'.

That's one thing I have noticed people who support action on GW understand the science behind the issue. Climate Deniers don't have the foggiest idea of the science on GW to the point it is embarrassing.

Personally I think it is the opposite. The people who blindly follow the propaganda are the ones who haven't invested the effort to understand what a shaky foundation the whole catastrophic climate change scenario is constructed. Most people still trust mainstream media to report the truth. And they feel that because of the overwhelming media position of this, it must be true. This is part of the reality that news is rarely neutral any more.

and trust in politicians and governments...it's all about the money, follow the money trail. I have never heard of anything so contradictory as buying carbon credits so you can continue to pollute. When electric cars replace fuel driven they will next to be taxed along with electronic cigarettes? It's called redistributing wealth