Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 11041 - 11060 of total 25963 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 7, 2013 - 07:17pm PT
His presentations, added to the increasing volumes of real climate science being done looking for all real mechanisms and realistic values, along with the shear weight of the testimony against CAGW by many of the world's preeminent scientists, added to the reliably false predictions of the models and the increasingly desperate hysterics of the lead CAGW proponents, leads any reasoning person to the conclusion that the catastrophe's you guys are so fond of advancing are a fraud.Period...ey Bruce?
dirtbag

climber
Aug 7, 2013 - 07:31pm PT
^^^^^ It's not surprising that you admire that illiterate ditz from wasilla.^^^^
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Aug 7, 2013 - 08:09pm PT
His presentations,

What about his presentations? Are you a simpleton? Was I not clear enough? I know he provides presentations and opinion and conjecture and a bunch of other stuff but that has nothing what so ever to do with the precise language I used to present the question.

Why are you such an intellectual coward? You know precisely what I am asking and we know you have a decent enough command of the english language to articulate an answer. Why do you not address it with the precision it requires? Why is it necessary for you to be so evasive?

How about this - are you capable of providing yes or no answers?

Here is one that even Sarah Palin wouldn't be nervous about.... well, perhaps thats not true, but certainly you shouldn't be:

Do you or do you not consider Lord Bunkton capable of judging climate science?

yes or no, thats all I ask



Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Aug 7, 2013 - 08:19pm PT
Are there any climate change deniers on this thread that aren't science/math retards?
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 7, 2013 - 08:34pm PT
Malmuts
Are there any climate change deniers on this thread that aren't science/math retards?

A far better and more realistic question is, are there any AGW zealots on this thread that aren't straight up across the board without any doubt, retards.


Nope!



Got it.



Thanks for that confirmation MALMUTS
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Aug 7, 2013 - 08:47pm PT
A person has to be mentally-challenged to post here. Count me in!

I found this today;



Bacon fries on pavement as heat wave grips China
SHANGHAI (AP) — It's been so hot in China that people are grilling shrimp on manhole covers, eggs are hatching without incubators and a highway billboard has mysteriously caught fire by itself.
http://news.yahoo.com/bacon-fries-pavement-heat-wave-grips-china-115417865.html


Hey mate, throw another shrimp on the Barbie! (I added this)
dirtbag

climber
Aug 7, 2013 - 09:11pm PT
Yes malamute, they're all like that. Even worse, they're too arrogant to realize they know nothing.


This is for you Chief Loud Mouth. Don't forget to be a good Yappy dog and lap up your mess.






McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Aug 7, 2013 - 09:15pm PT
That's the spirit. I miss those doggies! It's really a better way to communicate.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Aug 7, 2013 - 11:39pm PT
I'm sure Rick has gone off to prepare his concise answer to my question.

Concise in that it will be either a Yes or a No, and not a maybe....


While we wait, here is a person who claims to be able to thuroughly and utterly destroy Bunktons credibility as a climate science critic. I myself can't judge conclusively due to my lack of scientific expertise, although considering Bunktons credentials as a proven liar and career charlatan, I suspect he may be on to something.

Fortunately Rick can. After Rick provides a simple yes or no answer to my question, he can then justify his yes or no answer. After all, if he is capable of saying yes or no then he must have credible reason for his judgement. If he is currently struggling with a case of "writers block" perhaps using these videos can speed the process along.













BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 7, 2013 - 11:59pm PT
It doesn't even seem like you guys are arguing the same subject?

So here's one for ya, what's the difference between "reason" and "common sense"?
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 8, 2013 - 12:08am PT
Ed, The Chief, Rick can't take your calls now-out climbing till sunday evening-please leave message. Beep.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 8, 2013 - 12:41am PT
So here's one for ya, what's the difference between "reason" and "common sense"?

As Werner states repeatedly and most assuredly is the bottom line logical point in all this, how about "The Truth".

Ed H hit it outta the park in another thread earlier today. Would really make this all that much more simpler if he only confessed it here as well. Definitely worth repeating as it is so appropriate.

While devastating to humans, it most assuredly has happened in the past "naturally."Why attempt to change what is natural?
Ed Hartouni





In addition, here is the opening paragraph of Roger Pielke Sr's (who btw was on the original "Draft Committee" of the recent Statement) response to the latest final AGU Statement on Climate Change:

I served on the AGU Panel to draft the updated Position Statement on “Human Impacts on Climate”. We were charged by the AGU to provide

“…..an up-to-date statement [that] will assure that AGU members, the public, and policy makers have a more current point of reference for discussion of climate change science that is intrinsically relevant to national and international policy.”

In my view, this means we were tasked to report on the most important aspects of climate change. This was incompletely done in the Statement, where they inaccurately, in my view, discuss a view of climate change that is dominated by the emission of CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases. Indeed, the Committee, under the direction of Jerry North, with the report writing subgroup led by Susan Hassol, was clearly motivated to produce a Statement of this one particular view. Under his leadership, other views were never given an adequate opportunity to be discussed.


Imagine that. Gotta maintain that bullshet and totally one sided propaganda protocol.
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Aug 8, 2013 - 02:19am PT
What's funny is what Judith Curry has to say about it. Her opening statement is so predictable since she is the Queen of Uncertainty and how to use it politically. She might just be looking for a new job soon, but tucked away where she is she is pretty safe. Here is what she says from her blog;

JC comments

" Of the two statements, I vastly prefer Roger Pielke Sr’s statement,since he discusses the complexity of the issue and the uncertainties.

That said, I will once again question why AGU or any other professional society is issuing statements on this topic. IMO, AGU’s statement is one of the worst I’ve seen from a professional society on this topic, in particular its title ‘Human-induced climate change requires urgent action.’ This is an explicit statement of advocacy, that goes well beyond what the IPCC has said (and is expected to say in the AR5; we will see).

What really irks me about this statement is that I am a member of the AGU, and therefore this statement is implicitly speaking for me. It is clear that not even the 15 AGU members set to write this statement agreed, since one of their members (Pielke) has written a dissenting statement. The words ‘uncertainty’ or ‘debate’ are not used in the statement, leaving no wiggle room for them to pretend that this statement accounts for the range of perspectives in the AGU (or even within the writing committee), or the uncertainties.

If the AGU wants to maintain credibility as a scientific organization, it should do some serious self reflection. "

Ha! If the AGU wants to maintain credibility it will show her the door! The foot-dragger Curry wonders WHY the AGU made a statement at this time. I wonder how long she will keep up her stupid ruse, or how much longer the world will let her. It's time to move on.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 8, 2013 - 09:40am PT
What's funny is what Judith Curry has to say about it. Her opening statement is so predictable since she is the Queen of Uncertainty and how to use it politically. She might just be looking for a new job soon, but tucked away where she is she is pretty safe

More like BEING TUCKED AWAY WHERE SHE CAN'T BE HEARD. Seems that is how the AGW INDUSTRY HEAD ZEALOTS role. Shut anyone up that disagrees, has the solid foundation to do so and more importantly, the over powering experience & credentials to back up their talk.



Talk about being "SPOT ON":
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Aug 8, 2013 - 12:28pm PT
I think it can be said that to the extent that Curry is agreeing with the AGW side in her most recent statements, she is already scrambling to save whatever credibility she has left. She will have to get her sh#t together and let her affiliation with the Denialists go, or get a job with the tobacco industry.

It's a funny image thinking of Foot-Dragger Curry straddling the fence of AGW V The Denialists. There is no question which side she will ultimately end up on......she has already crossed BACK over more to AGWists.
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Aug 8, 2013 - 12:59pm PT
Do any of you smart guys know of a way to reverse the climate change?

If not, we're better off directing our resources toward dealing with the consequences of a changing climate.

Either way, it needs to be done quickly.

Me, I'd like it if it were warmer around here. Maybe my avocados wouldn't freeze so often.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 8, 2013 - 01:09pm PT
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Aug 8, 2013 - 01:28pm PT
So what do you do, Monolith? Reverse it? Or adjust to it?

We have to choose, and we need to do it quickly.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 8, 2013 - 01:43pm PT
You do what you can, Chaz. If reducing the growth of CO2 emissions now will reduce the potential impact in the future, then that sounds like a reasonable thing to do.

Why do you make it a choice of one or the other?
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 8, 2013 - 01:51pm PT
If reducing the growth of CO2 emissions now will reduce the impact in the future, then that sounds like a reasonable thing to do.

And you all know for certain that will remedy the potential end of the world as you claim it will happen.


NOT!


You are all simply pulling that one outta your asses. Cus not ONE of your 200IQ scientist knows if that is the real issue. Nor do they know at all if that will actually work. No one knows.

That is a FACT!


Hell, according to head ZEALOT James Hansen, the turning point has past and there is NO turning back.
Messages 11041 - 11060 of total 25963 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews