Climate Propaganda

Wake wrote:
Most of the supporters of man-made climate change haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences.

[b]Surface Detail wrote: I suggest it is actually you who hasn't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
Most of the supporters of man-made climate change haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences.

Really? So you think that these 76 Nobel Laureates who have expressed their support of the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change "haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences"?

Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change

"Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change. We believe that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions. This endeavor will require the cooperation of all nations, whether developed or developing, and must be sustained into the future in accord with updated scientific assessments. Failure to act will subject future generations of humanity to unconscionable and unacceptable risk."

Peter Agre, J. M. Bishop, Elizabeth Blackburn, Martin Chalfie, Steven Chu, Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, James W. Cronin, Peter Doherty, Gerhard Ertl, Edmond Fischer, Walter Gilbert, Roy Glauber, David Gross, John L. Hall, Serge Haroche, Stefan Hell, Jules A. Hoffmann, Klaus von Klitzing, Harold Kroto, William Moerner, Ferid Murad, Ei-ichi Negishi, Saul Perlmutter, William Phillips, Richard Roberts, Kailash Satyarthi, Brian Schmidt, Hamilton O. Smith, George Smoot, Jack Szostak, Roger Y. Tsien, Harold Varmus, J. Robin Warren, Arieh Warshel, Torsten Wiesel, Robert Wilson, Hiroshi Amano, David Baltimore, Aaron Ciechanover, Elias Corey, Robert Curl, Johann Deisenhofer, Jerome I. Friedman, Sheldon Glashow, Robert Grubbs, Leland Hartwell, Dudley Herschbach, Roald Hoffmann, Wolfgang Ketterle, Walter Kohn, Yuan T. Lee, Anthony J. Leggett, Michael Levitt, John Mather, Arthur B. McDonald, Mario J. Molina, Edvard Moser, May-Britt Moser, Erwin Neher, Ryoji Noyori, Paul Nurse, John O'Keefe, Douglas Osheroff, Arno Penzias, Adam Riess, Carlo Rubbia, Oliver Smithies, Jack Steinberger, Thomas Steitz, Horst Stormer, Thomas Südhof, John Sulston, Joseph H. Taylor, Steve Weinberg, Carl Wieman, David Wineland.

I suggest it is actually you who hasn't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
Most of the supporters of man-made climate change haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences.

Really? So you think that these 76 Nobel Laureates who have expressed their support of the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change "haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences"?

Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change

"Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change. We believe that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions. This endeavor will require the cooperation of all nations, whether developed or developing, and must be sustained into the future in accord with updated scientific assessments. Failure to act will subject future generations of humanity to unconscionable and unacceptable risk."

Peter Agre, J. M. Bishop, Elizabeth Blackburn, Martin Chalfie, Steven Chu, Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, James W. Cronin, Peter Doherty, Gerhard Ertl, Edmond Fischer, Walter Gilbert, Roy Glauber, David Gross, John L. Hall, Serge Haroche, Stefan Hell, Jules A. Hoffmann, Klaus von Klitzing, Harold Kroto, William Moerner, Ferid Murad, Ei-ichi Negishi, Saul Perlmutter, William Phillips, Richard Roberts, Kailash Satyarthi, Brian Schmidt, Hamilton O. Smith, George Smoot, Jack Szostak, Roger Y. Tsien, Harold Varmus, J. Robin Warren, Arieh Warshel, Torsten Wiesel, Robert Wilson, Hiroshi Amano, David Baltimore, Aaron Ciechanover, Elias Corey, Robert Curl, Johann Deisenhofer, Jerome I. Friedman, Sheldon Glashow, Robert Grubbs, Leland Hartwell, Dudley Herschbach, Roald Hoffmann, Wolfgang Ketterle, Walter Kohn, Yuan T. Lee, Anthony J. Leggett, Michael Levitt, John Mather, Arthur B. McDonald, Mario J. Molina, Edvard Moser, May-Britt Moser, Erwin Neher, Ryoji Noyori, Paul Nurse, John O'Keefe, Douglas Osheroff, Arno Penzias, Adam Riess, Carlo Rubbia, Oliver Smithies, Jack Steinberger, Thomas Steitz, Horst Stormer, Thomas Südhof, John Sulston, Joseph H. Taylor, Steve Weinberg, Carl Wieman, David Wineland.

I suggest it is actually you who hasn't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
Most of the supporters of man-made climate change haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences.

Really? So you think that these 76 Nobel Laureates who have expressed their support of the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change "haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences"?

Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change

"Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change. We believe that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions. This endeavor will require the cooperation of all nations, whether developed or developing, and must be sustained into the future in accord with updated scientific assessments. Failure to act will subject future generations of humanity to unconscionable and unacceptable risk."

Peter Agre, J. M. Bishop, Elizabeth Blackburn, Martin Chalfie, Steven Chu, Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, James W. Cronin, Peter Doherty, Gerhard Ertl, Edmond Fischer, Walter Gilbert, Roy Glauber, David Gross, John L. Hall, Serge Haroche, Stefan Hell, Jules A. Hoffmann, Klaus von Klitzing, Harold Kroto, William Moerner, Ferid Murad, Ei-ichi Negishi, Saul Perlmutter, William Phillips, Richard Roberts, Kailash Satyarthi, Brian Schmidt, Hamilton O. Smith, George Smoot, Jack Szostak, Roger Y. Tsien, Harold Varmus, J. Robin Warren, Arieh Warshel, Torsten Wiesel, Robert Wilson, Hiroshi Amano, David Baltimore, Aaron Ciechanover, Elias Corey, Robert Curl, Johann Deisenhofer, Jerome I. Friedman, Sheldon Glashow, Robert Grubbs, Leland Hartwell, Dudley Herschbach, Roald Hoffmann, Wolfgang Ketterle, Walter Kohn, Yuan T. Lee, Anthony J. Leggett, Michael Levitt, John Mather, Arthur B. McDonald, Mario J. Molina, Edvard Moser, May-Britt Moser, Erwin Neher, Ryoji Noyori, Paul Nurse, John O'Keefe, Douglas Osheroff, Arno Penzias, Adam Riess, Carlo Rubbia, Oliver Smithies, Jack Steinberger, Thomas Steitz, Horst Stormer, Thomas Südhof, John Sulston, Joseph H. Taylor, Steve Weinberg, Carl Wieman, David Wineland.

I suggest it is actually you who hasn't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences.

Consensus is not used in science.

The Nobel Prize is not science.
Credentials are not science.
No university, government organization, political group, or individual is science.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

Scientists have religions, just like the rest of us.

Surface Detail wrote:
I am simply pointing out the the vast majority of Nobel laureates, who can be reasonably assumed to have more than a passing knowledge of science, do actually agree that AGW is real and dangerous. Wake is therefore lying, as usual.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I am simply pointing out the the vast majority of Nobel laureates, who can be reasonably assumed to have more than a passing knowledge of science, do actually agree that AGW is real and dangerous. Wake is therefore lying, as usual.

"The majority of Nobel laureates"? And who are those? Are you speaking of the "Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change"? Why do you suppose they didn't publicize WHO those who signed were?

Surface Detail wrote: For the sake of humanity, open your eyes!

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I am simply pointing out the the vast majority of Nobel laureates, who can be reasonably assumed to have more than a passing knowledge of science, do actually agree that AGW is real and dangerous. Wake is therefore lying, as usual.

"The majority of Nobel laureates"? And who are those? Are you speaking of the "Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change"? Why do you suppose they didn't publicize WHO those who signed were?

WTF are you talking about? I just listed in bold the names of the signatories of the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change. They are all Nobel prize winners.

Their opinion reflects that of the vast majority of scientists: that AGW is real and dangerous. That's why every single national and international scientific organisation in the world has also issued statements to that effect.

The only people disputing the reality of AGW are the evil manipulators who are prepared to sacrifice the lives of our descendants for their personal gain and gullible fools like yourself who swallow their propaganda because it chimes with their personal politics. For the sake of humanity, open your eyes!

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I am simply pointing out the the vast majority of Nobel laureates, who can be reasonably assumed to have more than a passing knowledge of science, do actually agree that AGW is real and dangerous. Wake is therefore lying, as usual.

"The majority of Nobel laureates"? And who are those? Are you speaking of the "Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change"? Why do you suppose they didn't publicize WHO those who signed were?

WTF are you talking about? I just listed in bold the names of the signatories of the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change. They are all Nobel prize winners.

Their opinion reflects that of the vast majority of scientists: that AGW is real and dangerous. That's why every single national and international scientific organisation in the world has also issued statements to that effect.

The only people disputing the reality of AGW are the evil manipulators who are prepared to sacrifice the lives of our descendants for their personal gain and gullible fools like yourself who swallow their propaganda because it chimes with their personal politics. For the sake of humanity, open your eyes!

I find it interesting that in the past you criticized my sources claiming that they were not "climate scientists" but among that listing you have are astrophysicists, chemists, physicists specializing in super-fluids, biochemists, many neuroscientists, a physicist whose specialty is masers, etc. In fact I can't see one climate scientist in the lot - nor can I see any one of them that have specialties that would allow them to even understand the climate.

So why are you criticizing climate scientists that are saying that there is no climate change other than normal by presenting biologists and neurologists?

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I am simply pointing out the the vast majority of Nobel laureates, who can be reasonably assumed to have more than a passing knowledge of science, do actually agree that AGW is real and dangerous. Wake is therefore lying, as usual.

"The majority of Nobel laureates"? And who are those? Are you speaking of the "Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change"? Why do you suppose they didn't publicize WHO those who signed were?

WTF are you talking about? I just listed in bold the names of the signatories of the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change. They are all Nobel prize winners.

Their opinion reflects that of the vast majority of scientists: that AGW is real and dangerous. That's why every single national and international scientific organisation in the world has also issued statements to that effect.

The only people disputing the reality of AGW are the evil manipulators who are prepared to sacrifice the lives of our descendants for their personal gain and gullible fools like yourself who swallow their propaganda because it chimes with their personal politics. For the sake of humanity, open your eyes!

I find it interesting that in the past you criticized my sources claiming that they were not "climate scientists" but among that listing you have are astrophysicists, chemists, physicists specializing in super-fluids, biochemists, many neuroscientists, a physicist whose specialty is masers, etc. In fact I can't see one climate scientist in the lot - nor can I see any one of them that have specialties that would allow them to even understand the climate.

So why are you criticizing climate scientists that are saying that there is no climate change other than normal by presenting biologists and neurologists?

I find it interesting that you refuse to admit that your statement that "Most of the supporters of man-made climate change haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences" is just another of your lies. Instead, you just keep on lying.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I am simply pointing out the the vast majority of Nobel laureates, who can be reasonably assumed to have more than a passing knowledge of science, do actually agree that AGW is real and dangerous. Wake is therefore lying, as usual.

"The majority of Nobel laureates"? And who are those? Are you speaking of the "Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change"? Why do you suppose they didn't publicize WHO those who signed were?

WTF are you talking about? I just listed in bold the names of the signatories of the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change. They are all Nobel prize winners.

Their opinion reflects that of the vast majority of scientists: that AGW is real and dangerous. That's why every single national and international scientific organisation in the world has also issued statements to that effect.

The only people disputing the reality of AGW are the evil manipulators who are prepared to sacrifice the lives of our descendants for their personal gain and gullible fools like yourself who swallow their propaganda because it chimes with their personal politics. For the sake of humanity, open your eyes!

I find it interesting that in the past you criticized my sources claiming that they were not "climate scientists" but among that listing you have are astrophysicists, chemists, physicists specializing in super-fluids, biochemists, many neuroscientists, a physicist whose specialty is masers, etc. In fact I can't see one climate scientist in the lot - nor can I see any one of them that have specialties that would allow them to even understand the climate.

So why are you criticizing climate scientists that are saying that there is no climate change other than normal by presenting biologists and neurologists?

I find it interesting that you refuse to admit that your statement that "Most of the supporters of man-made climate change haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences" is just another of your lies. Instead, you just keep on lying.

In your reference to "many Nobel Laureates" they do NOT show those names.

Surface Detail wrote:
I find it interesting that you refuse to admit that your statement that "Most of the supporters of man-made climate change haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences" is just another of your lies. Instead, you just keep on lying.

Surface Detail wrote:
Click the link I gave and scroll down, you utter moron. You can either use the scroll wheel on you mouse or drag down the bar on the right-hand side of the screen.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I find it interesting that you refuse to admit that your statement that "Most of the supporters of man-made climate change haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences" is just another of your lies. Instead, you just keep on lying.

And again you lie through your teeth because that's all you have.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/21/climate/how-americans-think-about-climate-change-in-six-maps.html

If the majority of Americans believe in AGW then most do not have a lick of science training.

I'm waiting for you to explain this climate expertise neurologists and biologists have.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I find it interesting that you refuse to admit that your statement that "Most of the supporters of man-made climate change haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences" is just another of your lies. Instead, you just keep on lying.

And again you lie through your teeth because that's all you have.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/21/climate/how-americans-think-about-climate-change-in-six-maps.html

If the majority of Americans believe in AGW then most do not have a lick of science training.

I'm waiting for you to explain this climate expertise neurologists and biologists have.

Do stop evading, Wake.

You claimed: "Most of the supporters of man-made climate change haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences." This is the statement that I have shown is a lie. You made no mention of expertise in climate science in your claim.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I find it interesting that you refuse to admit that your statement that "Most of the supporters of man-made climate change haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences" is just another of your lies. Instead, you just keep on lying.

And again you lie through your teeth because that's all you have.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/21/climate/how-americans-think-about-climate-change-in-six-maps.html

If the majority of Americans believe in AGW then most do not have a lick of science training.

I'm waiting for you to explain this climate expertise neurologists and biologists have.

Do stop evading, Wake.

You claimed: "Most of the supporters of man-made climate change haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences." This is the statement that I have shown is a lie. You made no mention of expertise in climate science in your claim.

Not only did I answer your question but I gave a specific reference.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I find it interesting that you refuse to admit that your statement that "Most of the supporters of man-made climate change haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences" is just another of your lies. Instead, you just keep on lying.

And again you lie through your teeth because that's all you have.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/21/climate/how-americans-think-about-climate-change-in-six-maps.html

If the majority of Americans believe in AGW then most do not have a lick of science training.

I'm waiting for you to explain this climate expertise neurologists and biologists have.

Do stop evading, Wake.

You claimed: "Most of the supporters of man-made climate change haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences." This is the statement that I have shown is a lie. You made no mention of expertise in climate science in your claim.

Not only did I answer your question but I gave a specific reference.

You have given no reference that supports your statement. You can't, because your statement is a lie.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
Most of the supporters of man-made climate change haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences.

Really? So you think that these 76 Nobel Laureates who have expressed their support of the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change "haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences"?

Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change

"Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change. We believe that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions. This endeavor will require the cooperation of all nations, whether developed or developing, and must be sustained into the future in accord with updated scientific assessments. Failure to act will subject future generations of humanity to unconscionable and unacceptable risk."

Peter Agre, J. M. Bishop, Elizabeth Blackburn, Martin Chalfie, Steven Chu, Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, James W. Cronin, Peter Doherty, Gerhard Ertl, Edmond Fischer, Walter Gilbert, Roy Glauber, David Gross, John L. Hall, Serge Haroche, Stefan Hell, Jules A. Hoffmann, Klaus von Klitzing, Harold Kroto, William Moerner, Ferid Murad, Ei-ichi Negishi, Saul Perlmutter, William Phillips, Richard Roberts, Kailash Satyarthi, Brian Schmidt, Hamilton O. Smith, George Smoot, Jack Szostak, Roger Y. Tsien, Harold Varmus, J. Robin Warren, Arieh Warshel, Torsten Wiesel, Robert Wilson, Hiroshi Amano, David Baltimore, Aaron Ciechanover, Elias Corey, Robert Curl, Johann Deisenhofer, Jerome I. Friedman, Sheldon Glashow, Robert Grubbs, Leland Hartwell, Dudley Herschbach, Roald Hoffmann, Wolfgang Ketterle, Walter Kohn, Yuan T. Lee, Anthony J. Leggett, Michael Levitt, John Mather, Arthur B. McDonald, Mario J. Molina, Edvard Moser, May-Britt Moser, Erwin Neher, Ryoji Noyori, Paul Nurse, John O'Keefe, Douglas Osheroff, Arno Penzias, Adam Riess, Carlo Rubbia, Oliver Smithies, Jack Steinberger, Thomas Steitz, Horst Stormer, Thomas Südhof, John Sulston, Joseph H. Taylor, Steve Weinberg, Carl Wieman, David Wineland.

I suggest it is actually you who hasn't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences.

Consensus is not used in science.

The Nobel Prize is not science.
Credentials are not science.
No university, government organization, political group, or individual is science.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

Scientists have religions, just like the rest of us.

I'm not making any points about what does or doesn't constitute science.

Surface Detail wrote:
I am simply pointing out the the vast majority of Nobel laureates, who can be reasonably assumed to have more than a passing knowledge of science, do actually agree that AGW is real and dangerous. Wake is therefore lying, as usual.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I am simply pointing out the the vast majority of Nobel laureates, who can be reasonably assumed to have more than a passing knowledge of science, do actually agree that AGW is real and dangerous. Wake is therefore lying, as usual.

"The majority of Nobel laureates"? And who are those? Are you speaking of the "Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change"? Why do you suppose they didn't publicize WHO those who signed were?

What about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C35pasCr6KI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GujLcfdovE8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFfOOF-6Fs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKBwoO8DOPw

Another demonstration of how the sea level BS is entirely wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDIjIWKkQL4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjqTxziiY9A

Wake wrote:
Of course you are the one claiming to have a PhD in plasma physics but is incapable of transposing terms in a simple algebraic calculation.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I am simply pointing out the the vast majority of Nobel laureates, who can be reasonably assumed to have more than a passing knowledge of science, do actually agree that AGW is real and dangerous. Wake is therefore lying, as usual.

"The majority of Nobel laureates"? And who are those? Are you speaking of the "Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change"? Why do you suppose they didn't publicize WHO those who signed were?

WTF are you talking about? I just listed in bold the names of the signatories of the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change. They are all Nobel prize winners.

Surface Detail wrote:
Their opinion reflects that of the vast majority of scientists: that AGW is real and dangerous.

Surface Detail wrote:
That's why every single national and international scientific organisation in the world has also issued statements to that effect.

Surface Detail wrote:
The only people disputing the reality of AGW are the evil manipulators who are prepared to sacrifice the lives of our descendants for their personal gain and gullible fools like yourself who swallow their propaganda because it chimes with their personal politics. For the sake of humanity, open your eyes!

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I find it interesting that you refuse to admit that your statement that "Most of the supporters of man-made climate change haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences" is just another of your lies. Instead, you just keep on lying.

And again you lie through your teeth because that's all you have.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/21/climate/how-americans-think-about-climate-change-in-six-maps.html

If the majority of Americans believe in AGW then most do not have a lick of science training.

I'm waiting for you to explain this climate expertise neurologists and biologists have.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I find it interesting that you refuse to admit that your statement that "Most of the supporters of man-made climate change haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences" is just another of your lies. Instead, you just keep on lying.

And again you lie through your teeth because that's all you have.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/21/climate/how-americans-think-about-climate-change-in-six-maps.html

If the majority of Americans believe in AGW then most do not have a lick of science training.

I'm waiting for you to explain this climate expertise neurologists and biologists have.

Do stop evading, Wake.

You claimed: "Most of the supporters of man-made climate change haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences." This is the statement that I have shown is a lie. You made no mention of expertise in climate science in your claim.

Into the Night wrote: It's BS because it's not possible to measure sea level accurately. We have no usable reference point. The land moves.

Wake wrote: Of course you are the one claiming to have a PhD in plasma physics but is incapable of transposing terms in a simple algebraic calculation.

That's the third person you are describing as having said this. You seem to confused about who you're talking to. As always, claims of credentials mean nothing here. You seem to have not figured that out yet.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I find it interesting that you refuse to admit that your statement that "Most of the supporters of man-made climate change haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences" is just another of your lies. Instead, you just keep on lying.

And again you lie through your teeth because that's all you have.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/21/climate/how-americans-think-about-climate-change-in-six-maps.html

If the majority of Americans believe in AGW then most do not have a lick of science training.

I'm waiting for you to explain this climate expertise neurologists and biologists have.

Do stop evading, Wake.

You claimed: "Most of the supporters of man-made climate change haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences." This is the statement that I have shown is a lie. You made no mention of expertise in climate science in your claim.

Not only did I answer your question but I gave a specific reference.

You have given no reference that supports your statement. You can't, because your statement is a lie.

So you believe it's a lie that most of the people in this country have been convinced that AGW is real? That most of the people doing the talking are like you - without a shred of education in the sciences?

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I find it interesting that you refuse to admit that your statement that "Most of the supporters of man-made climate change haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences" is just another of your lies. Instead, you just keep on lying.

And again you lie through your teeth because that's all you have.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/21/climate/how-americans-think-about-climate-change-in-six-maps.html

If the majority of Americans believe in AGW then most do not have a lick of science training.

I'm waiting for you to explain this climate expertise neurologists and biologists have.

Do stop evading, Wake.

You claimed: "Most of the supporters of man-made climate change haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences." This is the statement that I have shown is a lie. You made no mention of expertise in climate science in your claim.

Not only did I answer your question but I gave a specific reference.

You have given no reference that supports your statement. You can't, because your statement is a lie.

So you believe it's a lie that most of the people in this country have been convinced that AGW is real? That most of the people doing the talking are like you - without a shred of education in the sciences?

No, of course I don't. But that has nothing to do with pointing out that you are wrong in claiming that most of the supporters of man-made climate change haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences. Are you actually capable of rational thought?

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: It's BS because it's not possible to measure sea level accurately. We have no usable reference point. The land moves.

Wake wrote: Of course you are the one claiming to have a PhD in plasma physics but is incapable of transposing terms in a simple algebraic calculation.

That's the third person you are describing as having said this. You seem to confused about who you're talking to. As always, claims of credentials mean nothing here. You seem to have not figured that out yet.

I have a very difficult time distinguishing you and surface-detail apart. You both are so full of crap that you look the same shade of brown.

Wake wrote:
If you have traced ANYTHING about the sea level rises you'd know that it is entirely local.

Wake wrote:
That world wide the sea level doesn't appear to be rising at all.

Wake wrote:
As I pointed out before it was all due to lower latitude glaciers melting.

Wake wrote:
These were formed in the Little Ice Age and and almost gone.

Wake wrote:
There is unlikely to be any higher latitude glaciers melting significantly.

Wake wrote:
Since most of these are at or above the Arctic or Antarctic Circles they have six months of no sun and another six when the sun barely rises above the horizon.

Wake wrote:
But you also again show a patent distrust of real science when you tell us that they cannot measure actual sea level rises where it is rising.

Wake wrote:
The TOTAL rise in sea level over the next 100 years will at most be 5 inches

Wake wrote:
and apparently you don't even know why.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I find it interesting that you refuse to admit that your statement that "Most of the supporters of man-made climate change haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences" is just another of your lies. Instead, you just keep on lying.

And again you lie through your teeth because that's all you have.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/21/climate/how-americans-think-about-climate-change-in-six-maps.html

If the majority of Americans believe in AGW then most do not have a lick of science training.

I'm waiting for you to explain this climate expertise neurologists and biologists have.

Do stop evading, Wake.

You claimed: "Most of the supporters of man-made climate change haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences." This is the statement that I have shown is a lie. You made no mention of expertise in climate science in your claim.

Not only did I answer your question but I gave a specific reference.

You have given no reference that supports your statement. You can't, because your statement is a lie.

So you believe it's a lie that most of the people in this country have been convinced that AGW is real? That most of the people doing the talking are like you - without a shred of education in the sciences?

No, of course I don't. But that has nothing to do with pointing out that you are wrong in claiming that most of the supporters of man-made climate change haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences. Are you actually capable of rational thought?

Into the Night wrote: Do you see me pushing the Church of Global Warming? That should at least give you SOME kind of obvious clue.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
As I pointed out before it was all due to lower latitude glaciers melting.

How do you know what is melting and what is not?

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
These were formed in the Little Ice Age and and almost gone.

They are not almost gone.

Into the Night wrote:Wake wrote:
There is unlikely to be any higher latitude glaciers melting significantly.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Do you see me pushing the Church of Global Warming? That should at least give you SOME kind of obvious clue.

You are so preposterously uneducated in science that you make the entire claim that there is no global warming seem rediculous.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
As I pointed out before it was all due to lower latitude glaciers melting.

How do you know what is melting and what is not? No one is monitoring the glaciers of the world.
Did you know there are still glaciers at the equator?

This is what I was just speaking of. You are an uneducated moron that thinks that actual education is being indoctrinated.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
These were formed in the Little Ice Age and and almost gone.

They are not almost gone.

Into the Night wrote:
If a glacier fails to receive snow to feed it, it usually just sublimates away, not melt.

I retract the suggestion you take a science class. Just days ago Starman imparted information about ice, water and vapor. And you didn't get his information then and you have totally forgotten it now. Glaciers do not sublimate those no doubt there is some sublimation in direct lower latitude sunlight. They MELT.

Wake wrote:
There is absolutely no point in carry this on because you are incapable of understand the most elementary science. Instead you prefer taking your vocabulary out of "The Big Book of Big Words that will make you Sound Intelligent".

Wake wrote:
ignore: litebeer and ITN