Remember me
▼ Content

Climate Propaganda


Climate Propaganda05-08-2017 23:25
Wake
★★★★☆
(1645)
Mark Twain said: "It's easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled".

And what we have seen people being pounded into the ground with is climate propaganda. Most of the supporters of man-made climate change haven't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences. So how is it possible that they would think that the Earth is being destroyed by natural processes claimed to be the fault of man?

https://www.nas.org/images/documents/A_Crisis_of_Competence.pdf

https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/war_peace/media/hpropaganda.html

What is very clear is that people who have a vested interest in the idea of defeating conservatism will say and do anything to defeat the idea that man should be free. That a government has only the right to tax them for the common good of all and not the false beliefs of a few.

The Republican Party stands for as small a government as possible. But even a large segment of that party can see the benefits of a larger and ever larger government and it's ability to suck more and more money from it's citizens. All in the name of making them safer of course. Safer from that evil CO2 and the rising ocean levels that have risen the same amount every year since the end of the little ice age.

We have had some blithering idiot tell me that I didn't believe in common science that could be found in any college textbook. But somehow he hasn't been able to show a paragraph out of any college textbook that contradicts me. And in the meantime Nobel laureates say exactly the opposite of him. Well, they must be wrong because he also claims to have a PhD in plasma physics but was unable to transpose terms in an algebraic formula.

So in order to admit he has been fooled he is willing to lie through his teeth. In order to protect his own opinion of himself he will destroy other's opinion of him.

At what point and with what evidence of the lies of the "environmentalists" doyou suppose they will be willing to admit they've been taken in and attempted to do the same with others?
06-08-2017 00:14
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1622)
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.
06-08-2017 03:28
litesong
★★★★☆
(1232)
[b]Surface Detail wrote: I suggest it is actually you who hasn't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences.

Expanding:
.....it is actually you who hasn't a passing knowledge of the simplest sciences....
yet, NOT passing by, but attending a kkk(always small letters) bon-fire gathering.
06-08-2017 16:15
Wake
★★★★☆
(1645)
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.


So your idea of a "textbook" is a group that has stated that their goal is redistribution of global wealth. Interesting.
06-08-2017 18:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(3137)
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.


The Parrot Killer
06-08-2017 23:02
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1622)
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.

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.
07-08-2017 00:14
Wake
★★★★☆
(1645)
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

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.

You lie through your teeth and then have the cowardice to call someone else a liar.
Edited on 07-08-2017 01:12
07-08-2017 08:11
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1622)
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!
07-08-2017 15:00
litesong
★★★★☆
(1232)
Surface Detail wrote: For the sake of humanity, open your eyes!

Doesn't matter if "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" opens its eyes or not. Science is leading humanity in other directions, while "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" & cohorts trail off into their own "sigh-ants" wilderness.
07-08-2017 15:35
Wake
★★★★☆
(1645)
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?
07-08-2017 15:50
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1622)
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.
07-08-2017 16:02
Wake
★★★★☆
(1645)
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. And in other places on the Internet they do not show those names. I would be willing to bet that in direct conversation with those people that they would say that they were pressured via funding to sign that.

And you STILL haven't told us how a bunch or neurologists and biologists would have the slightest idea what climate change even is. I'm waiting.
07-08-2017 16:06
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1622)
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.

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.
07-08-2017 16:51
Wake
★★★★☆
(1645)
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.
07-08-2017 17:01
Wake
★★★★☆
(1645)
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.


I did and didn't find a legitimate climate scientist in the lot.

And strangely enough Michael Mann was NOT invited to sign.

So why was the only climate scientist present not asked to sign? What would the rest who were not climate scientists know about anything other than they were told by NOAA and NASA?
07-08-2017 17:04
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1622)
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.
07-08-2017 17:08
Wake
★★★★☆
(1645)
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.

Now answer mine - of what value is an "agreement" among Nobel Laureates if not a single one of them is a climate scientist or one who has any knowledge of that specialty?
Edited on 07-08-2017 17:10
07-08-2017 18:01
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1622)
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.
07-08-2017 18:28
Wake
★★★★☆
(1645)
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?
07-08-2017 18:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(3137)
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.

You did just exactly that.
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.

You are doing it again, liar.

You STILL have not come up with a definition for 'global warming' that isn't a circular definition.


The Parrot Killer
07-08-2017 18:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(3137)
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

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.


The Parrot Killer
07-08-2017 18:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(3137)
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.

Science is not the Nobel or any other prize. Scientists have religions just like everyone else.
Surface Detail wrote:
Their opinion reflects that of the vast majority of scientists: that AGW is real and dangerous.

Argument from randU. You are not a spokesman for <insert large random number here> scientists.
Surface Detail wrote:
That's why every single national and international scientific organisation in the world has also issued statements to that effect.

Science is not any political group or science organization. Consensus is not used in science.
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!

Ah...the usual fear mongering from the Church of Global Warming.

Now you decided to compare any Outsider of your religion not just as the usual Unenlightened, but as Agents of Evil as well. Why don't you just invoke the name of Satan and condemn us all to hell like any fundie would?


The Parrot Killer
07-08-2017 19:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(3137)
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.


I find that Americans are waking up to the whole 'global warming' scam somewhat. They know there is something wrong with it, though they can't quite put their finger on what.

Even here on the Left Coast, I see this happening. I for one am glad to see it.


The Parrot Killer
07-08-2017 19:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(3137)
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.


You have shown nothing. There is no such thing as a 'climate scientist'. Climate isn't a science. None of these guys have created a single theory of science.


The Parrot Killer
07-08-2017 20:19
Wake
★★★★☆
(1645)
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.

If you have traced ANYTHING about the sea level rises you'd know that it is entirely local. That world wide the sea level doesn't appear to be rising at all. As I pointed out before it was all due to lower latitude glaciers melting. These were formed in the Little Ice Age and and almost gone. There is unlikely to be any higher latitude glaciers melting significantly. 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.

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. The TOTAL rise in sea level over the next 100 years will at most be 5 inches and apparently you don't even know why.
07-08-2017 20:35
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1622)
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?
07-08-2017 20:47
Wake
★★★★☆
(1645)
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?


As usual you're backing up still again.

You still haven't explained how those super-intelligent and scientific Nobel Prize winning biologists and neurologists would know anything about climate science.
07-08-2017 20:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(3137)
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.

Do you see me pushing the Church of Global Warming? That should at least give you SOME kind of obvious clue.
Wake wrote:
If you have traced ANYTHING about the sea level rises you'd know that it is entirely local.

Odd qualifier. How local? The local beach? An individual tidal monitoring station? Something larger? Are you including the effects of storm surges, delta expansion, erosion, heat expansion?

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

We don't know this. There is certainly no reason that I can see for it to change though.
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?
Wake wrote:
These were formed in the Little Ice Age and and almost gone.

They are not almost gone.
Wake wrote:
There is unlikely to be any higher latitude glaciers melting significantly.

If a glacier fails to receive snow to feed it, it usually just sublimates away, not melt.
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.

Yet some glaciers have seen dramatic reductions due to lack of snow feeding them.

Others have seen growth.

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.

They can't. There is no useful reference.
Wake wrote:
The TOTAL rise in sea level over the next 100 years will at most be 5 inches

This is what your chicken entrails tell you, right?
Wake wrote:
and apparently you don't even know why.

You don't even know IF.


The Parrot Killer
07-08-2017 21:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(3137)
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?


They may have. Some are even talented. Religion is not a substitute for science however, regardless of one's history or credentials.


The Parrot Killer
07-08-2017 22:45
Wake
★★★★☆
(1645)
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.

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. [/quote]
Did you know there are still glaciers at the equator?[/quote]

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

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.

If a glacier fails to receive snow to feed it, it usually just sublimates away, not melt.[/quote]

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.

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".

ignore: litebeer and ITN
08-08-2017 19:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(3137)
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.

Contextomy. You were trying to compare me with Surface Detail, remember?
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.

Contextomy. This response has nothing to do with glaciers at the equator.
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.

They do both. I never said they didn't also melt. Most glacier loss is due to sublimation. Any ice still below the freezing point can and does sublimate away, despite what you think Starman may have shown.
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".

Contextomy. This actually seems to be YOUR problem.
Wake wrote:
ignore: litebeer and ITN

Liar. You do neither.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 08-08-2017 19:17




Join the debate Climate Propaganda:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Hitler Learns of Leak that Climate Change is Just Propaganda014-05-2017 04:52
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact