The Climate Change Fraud
- Thread starter Big Sleazy
- Start date
The headline sure sounds like it could be someones autobiographyI was sure this was going to be an autobiographical thread.
The Climate Change Fraud Used by Marxists When Communism Failed
Sure, like someone who doesn't 'buy' the science and then posts charts repeatedly that fraudulently compares mismatched data.The headline sure sounds like it could be someones autobiography
Co2 - Poison or Plant Food
Koch Brothers - Bogey Men or Job creators
Fake News - Jussie Smollet or Nick Sandman
Baby Boomers - The root of all problems or The greatest Generation.
Climate Change - Using Cars Bad or Making Cars Good.
Criminal Reform - Criminalize Climate Denial - Common Sense
Climate Facts - 99.3 percent of scientists believe climate warming is real - Less than half of the 99.3 percent believe it is a threat to society.
Left vs Right - Nonsense or Common Sense.
Left vs Right - Debatable vs Hard Facts.
Koch Brothers - Bogey Men or Job creators
Fake News - Jussie Smollet or Nick Sandman
Baby Boomers - The root of all problems or The greatest Generation.
Climate Change - Using Cars Bad or Making Cars Good.
Criminal Reform - Criminalize Climate Denial - Common Sense
Climate Facts - 99.3 percent of scientists believe climate warming is real - Less than half of the 99.3 percent believe it is a threat to society.
Left vs Right - Nonsense or Common Sense.
Left vs Right - Debatable vs Hard Facts.
Climate Facts - 99.3 percent of scientists believe climate warming is real - Less than half of the 99.3 percent believe it is a threat to society.
Your list, your own personal bias reinforced by confirmation bias, but I'll just use the one example with 'facts' to argue that you're posting bias, not facts.Sorry the last 2 words are not correct. They are not HARD facts, but I believe they at least more factualy based. I tried not to use the words common sense again and incorrectly used the verb hard.
The claim:
is not a factLess than half of the 99.3 percent believe it is a threat to society.
Too bad I understand the science and you do notSure, like someone who doesn't 'buy' the science and then posts charts repeatedly that fraudulently compares mismatched data.
Do you care to explain the physics behind the Infrared absorption of Water Vapor and CO2 in our Atmosphere?
(calling one forcing and the other feedback will not do)
Your mis-matched data claim is the non-scientific babbling of a highschool drop out and nobody who understands the greenhouse gas theory would dare to claim atmosphere temperatures changes are not relevant
What percentage of the 99.3% do believe it is a threat to society?Your list, your own personal bias reinforced by confirmation bias, but I'll just use the one example with 'facts' to argue that you're posting bias, not facts.
The claim:
is not a fact
Sources please
larue, you are scientifically ignorant.Too bad I understand the science and you do not
Do you care to explain the physics behind the Infrared absorption of Water Vapor and CO2 in our Atmosphere?
(calling one forcing and the other feedback will not do)
Your mis-matched data claim is the non-scientific babbling of a highschool drop out and nobody who understands the greenhouse gas theory would dare to claim atmosphere temperatures changes are not relevant
I posted the IPCC paper explaining water vapour's effect on the climate, which represents the summation of thousands of scientists and the latest scientific knowledge, complete with references to the studies and evidence.
This was your post where you showed off your 'superior scientific understanding' and 'great and unmatched wisdom' where you used the very height or your knowledge to try to rebut all of science's understanding of climatology.
That, my ignorant friend, is Dunning-Kruger at its best.I do not buy the amplifying arguments, for as you have pointed out (for all the wrong reasons. Ha Ha ha ) cloud formation and rain tend to cool things down
The incorrect amplifying effect assumption is the reason the models have missed their mark by so much (see chart below)
The self declared iconoclast scientific genius ignorantly denying scientific reality based on his ignorant understanding of basic physics combined with his superior beliefs that first year university chemistry is all you need to know.
Ask drawcoat, its his claim to defend.What percentage of the 99.3% do believe it is a threat to society?
Sources please
You should stick to embarrassing yourself on water vapour, where clearly you are an expert.
Ha Halarue, you are scientifically ignorant.
Says the high school drop out?
Any moron can post a link to a dysfunctional organization who places their agenda ahead of scientific truthI posted the IPCC paper explaining water vapour's effect on the climate, which represents the summation of thousands of scientists and the latest scientific knowledge, complete with references to the studies and evidence.
This was your post where you showed off your 'superior scientific understanding' and 'great and unmatched wisdom' where you used the very height or your knowledge to try to rebut all of science's understanding of climatology.
2/3 of the lead authors on one of the IPCC reports were also members of the World Wildlife Foundation
Why not just ask the communist party to give us the definitive end of argument on the stock markets value to society
Prove to us that you understand the greenhouse gas theory
Actually it is a very solid explanation why the the models have missed their mark by so muchThat, my ignorant friend, is Dunning-Kruger at its best.
The self declared iconoclast scientific genius ignorantly denying scientific reality based on his ignorant understanding of basic physics combined with his superior beliefs that first year university chemistry is all you need to know.
Scientific reality??
You claim water vapour has only a feedback effect and CO2 has a forcing effect , and yet you refuse to explain the physics behind this absurd and completely false statement
DO NOT DARE TO QUESTION ANYONE'S UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENTIFIC REALITY UNTIL YOU HAVE FULLY AND COMPLETELY eXPLAINED THE PHYSICS BEHIND YOUR FALSE STATEMENT
larure once again shows of his superior scientific understanding through character assassinations on an organization that won a Nobel.Any moron can post a link to a dysfunctional organization who places their agenda ahead of scientific truth
2/3 of the lead authors on one of the IPCC reports were also members of the World Wildlife Foundation
Why not just ask the communist party to give us the definitive end of argument on the stock markets value to society
An organization whose work is supported by every fricking legitimate scientific agency in North America.
Confederacy of Dunces really is your story.
JohnLarue - you are misquoting me in a totally dishonest straw man argument. I never said 'only', that is a lie from you.You claim water vapour has only a feedback effect and CO2 has a forcing effect , and yet you refuse to explain the physics behind this absurd and completely false statement
DO NOT DARE TO QUESTION ANYONE'S UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENTIFIC REALITY UNTIL YOU HAVE FULLY AND COMPLETELY eXPLAINED THE PHYSICS BEHIND YOUR FALSE STATEMENT
The IPCC is a political organization, no doubt about itlarure once again shows of his superior scientific understanding through character assassinations on an organization that won a Nobel.
An organization whose work is supported by every fricking legitimate scientific agency in North America.
Confederacy of Dunces really is your story.
There is no oversight on this organization
A nobel prize winner in physics returned his prize because The IPCC was awarded a Nobel prize.
The politicians have the final say on the "For policy makers Summary"
2/3 of the lead authors on one report are WWF members, activists first , scientist second
Well is only or is it not ??JohnLarue - you are misquoting me in a totally dishonest straw man argument. I never said 'only', that is a lie from you.
If Water Vapour has a forcing effect (which it does) then the Co2 contribution to the greenhouse effect is miniscule and you will need to find something else to tax
Answer the damn question
Show the physics that supports your incorrect and scientifically absurd position or say no more on this matter
You can not do this because
1. You do not have a clue about the science
2. You are absolutely dead wrong
Answer the damn question
I understand this way better than you doAsk drawcoat, its his claim to defend.
You should stick to embarrassing yourself on water vapour, where clearly you are an expert.
Science isn't always right, they told everyone including pregnant women "Smoking is good for you". Science is correct most of the time but not always. In this case I think they might be but I can't be sure. Too many questions still need to be answered.Sure, like someone who doesn't 'buy' the science and then posts charts repeatedly that fraudulently compares mismatched data.
Scientists and non-scientists, climate change activists and
non-activists, climate change deniers and supporters, left- and
right-leaning politicians in North America all have one thing
in common. They are among the world's most profligate non-renewable
energy users. Here is a the per capital co2 emission statistics from
2016 for selected countries:
Country CO2 emission from fuel combustion per capita
China 6.4 T
U.S. 15.0 T
India 1.6 T
Germany 8.9 T
Canada 14.9 T
Brazil 2.9 T
Australia 16.2 T
U.K. 5.2 T
It is clear that us Canadians are among the biggest
polluters in the world. There are even worse offenders
than us like the population of Saudi Arabia. But we are
supposed to be on higher moral ground.
The change to a
cleaner world obviously have to be initiated by individuals
not the government. In the free world the government
can only go along with the people's will. We must take
the initiative to drive less for the sake of the
environment. Emission of NOx, SO2 and carbon particulates
are pollutants detrimental to our health. Climate change
or no climate change it is in the interest of future generation
to initiate the process of weaning our society off fossil fuel.
Only by driving less collectively can our government implement
the policy needed for the transition to the post-oil era.
non-activists, climate change deniers and supporters, left- and
right-leaning politicians in North America all have one thing
in common. They are among the world's most profligate non-renewable
energy users. Here is a the per capital co2 emission statistics from
2016 for selected countries:
Country CO2 emission from fuel combustion per capita
China 6.4 T
U.S. 15.0 T
India 1.6 T
Germany 8.9 T
Canada 14.9 T
Brazil 2.9 T
Australia 16.2 T
U.K. 5.2 T
It is clear that us Canadians are among the biggest
polluters in the world. There are even worse offenders
than us like the population of Saudi Arabia. But we are
supposed to be on higher moral ground.
The change to a
cleaner world obviously have to be initiated by individuals
not the government. In the free world the government
can only go along with the people's will. We must take
the initiative to drive less for the sake of the
environment. Emission of NOx, SO2 and carbon particulates
are pollutants detrimental to our health. Climate change
or no climate change it is in the interest of future generation
to initiate the process of weaning our society off fossil fuel.
Only by driving less collectively can our government implement
the policy needed for the transition to the post-oil era.
Actually Frank Footer. I tried to show how both side look at things and how both sides have truth to them. Is Co2 poison,Ya it is, but one side says lets put a vent in our home to avoid being poisoned and the other side says lets outlaw it or at the very least lets have fewer and fewer people able to access it. U might not like the Koch brothers for there perceived beleifs and actions. Thats fine. I think they are job creators. Your not wrong , neither am I. But for sure you would like to see there demise if not there out right death. I believe in the right to free speech and the only thing I believe in more is equality, no cop, no journalist, no nobody deserves to not come home alive form work. So having said that I think what Jamal Koshioshgis writings were reprehensible and totally against what I believe our world should be. His killing is a black mark on us as humans. Nothing to do with left and right. He had the absolute right to publish beliefs that were masoganistic and anti freedom. I believe in nothing he spews, But I would have gladly escorted him home cause I believe everyone deserves to make it home alive after doing there jobs. If the left catches you leaving an event with a red hat on. Good luck to you,50/50 you make it past them without getting a beating or worse. We just see things differently and from my point of view thats ok. Im sure you have no tolerance for my view and again thats your right in a world I wanna live in. If we all have to live in a world you project, than the first to fall will not be the side you wish to censor. They made it out of the depression, 2 world wars. They know about things like pensions, paying for there own education, living within your means, not blaming other people for your shortcomings, I raised my son this way, geez I hope I didn't give him bad advice. Im sure you will straighten me out though. Good luck to ya.
I have tolerance for your views, unlike larue, you listen.Actually Frank Footer. I tried to show how both side look at things and how both sides have truth to them. Is Co2 poison,Ya it is, but one side says lets put a vent in our home to avoid being poisoned and the other side says lets outlaw it or at the very least lets have fewer and fewer people able to access it. U might not like the Koch brothers for there perceived beleifs and actions. Thats fine. I think they are job creators. Your not wrong , neither am I. But for sure you would like to see there demise if not there out right death. I believe in the right to free speech and the only thing I believe in more is equality, no cop, no journalist, no nobody deserves to not come home alive form work. So having said that I think what Jamal Koshioshgis writings were reprehensible and totally against what I believe our world should be. His killing is a black mark on us as humans. Nothing to do with left and right. He had the absolute right to publish beliefs that were masoganistic and anti freedom. I believe in nothing he spews, But I would have gladly escorted him home cause I believe everyone deserves to make it home alive after doing there jobs. If the left catches you leaving an event with a red hat on. Good luck to you,50/50 you make it past them without getting a beating or worse. We just see things differently and from my point of view thats ok. Im sure you have no tolerance for my view and again thats your right in a world I wanna live in. If we all have to live in a world you project, than the first to fall will not be the side you wish to censor. They made it out of the depression, 2 world wars. They know about things like pensions, paying for there own education, living within your means, not blaming other people for your shortcomings, I raised my son this way, geez I hope I didn't give him bad advice. Im sure you will straighten me out though. Good luck to ya.
The Koch's do create jobs but they also are one of the biggest funders of climate change disinformation as well as funding and backing changes to US that have lead to much more income inequality. Those two items are both major strikes against the good of a country, in my opinion.
As for saying that there is more hate from left wing (or against those wearing MAGA hats, as you suggest), its pretty easy to point out that extreme right wing terrorism is now killing as many people as Islamic terrorism, while there are essentially zero deaths or real threats from any left wing threats. Populism is now the new fascism across the globe in places like Hungary, Indonesia, Brazil and now India.
Thanks for confirming that you are a science denier.The IPCC is a political organization, no doubt about it
There is no oversight on this organization
A nobel prize winner in physics returned his prize because The IPCC was awarded a Nobel prize.
The politicians have the final say on the "For policy makers Summary"
2/3 of the lead authors on one report are WWF members, activists first , scientist second
That really sums it up.
How many times to I have to repeat the same basic scientific facts for you?Well is only or is it not ??
If Water Vapour has a forcing effect (which it does) then the Co2 contribution to the greenhouse effect is miniscule and you will need to find something else to tax
1) Most of water vapour in the atmosphere functions as a feedback forcing on the climate, reacting to changes caused by CO2 level changes.
2) A 'negligible' amount of positive forcing in the stratosphere from anthropogenic causes also occurs
3) Some water vapour also functions as a cooling effect in the form of clouds
When you put all those together the sum effect is that water vapour acts as a feedback effect to temperature changes caused by CO2 level changes, as CO2 is a forcing effect on the climate.
Your 'denial' of those basic facts, as repeatedly shown, proves you are a science denier.
