Look, you are spectacularly wrong on your claim about IPCC projections as you are making false claims about what it is the project.
You are the one who is spectacularly wrong and criticizing the IPCC for claims they don't make.
16 Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
You are the one who is spectacularly wrong and criticizing the IPCC for claims they don't make.
There are other references in the IPCC reports that confirm what I've been saying. And they have been provided to you before.
Try looking for yourself, for once.
Washington Post columnist George F. Will has weighed in with his thoughts on this political attack on free speech.
It's well worth reading.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...acd802-07de-11e6-a12f-ea5aed7958dc_story.html
It's well worth reading.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...acd802-07de-11e6-a12f-ea5aed7958dc_story.html
Nonsense.
The IPCC makes projections based on a range, you take the average of that and then claim that the mean is the only projection and it has to be spot on.
That is making false claims.
Its just more bullshit from you.
What a stupid article.
Will assumes that a corporation, Exxon, has a right to free speech as if it were a person.
Then he takes an accusation that Exxon lied about the effects of their products, based on their own research, as if it were about free speech.
Incredibly stupid.
Are you also accusing the US government of trying to stifle Volkswagen's free speech by taking them of for faking tests on their cars?
Really stupid.
"Really stupid" perfectly describes that analogy.
Volkswagen broke the law.
However, it's not illegal (at least, not yet) to question man-made global warming, or to suggest that more research should be done before policy-makers take action.
Exxon did question AGW and did their own research to answer that question. When their privately funded research came back stating that their products cause climate change they went and then hid the research, lied about it and then paid for lobbyists to spread the type of disinformation that fools like you still believe.
That's why its not about free speech, its about a company that found out its products were harmful and then lied about them.
That's fraud.
Impossible. There is no research anywhere that is able to draw that type of definitive conclusion.
This statement by you,..."a company that found out its products were harmful",...confirms once again were you are coming from on the climate gate debate,...it OBVIOUSLY has NOTHING to do with the climate,...but your hate.
To say their "products cause climate change" has to be one of the most delusional out of touch with reality, things you have ever stated,...and that's saying a lot.
Do you really think Exxon commisioned those two now unemployed "scientists" publicize their unfounded pseudo science project,...grow up.
FAST
There you go claiming that you know better then all of science again.
You really are suffering from Dunning-Kruger effect, aren't you?
Not at all. If there were evidence providing that level of certainty, scientists wouldn't have such wide-ranging disagreements on the issue.
There isn't wide ranging disagreement.
As is posted on the AAAS webpage, the largest organization of scientists in North America:
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/
Only a moron would say 97% agreement is 'wide ranging disagreement'.
For those who have the time to watch it, author Mark Steyn -- who is in a legal tussle with fake "Nobel laureate" Michael E. Mann -- talks in this interview about the misguided attempts to try to resolve scientific matters in court.
That's the largest organization of scientists in North America backing the legitimacy of the 97% consensus stat.
But given that we know you consider it 'immaterial' whether you base your claims on legit sources or bullshit, we know better then to listen to you.
The only fairy tale is the nonsense you spout.
The 97% consensus is completely bogus. Your allusion to it over and over tells us all we need to know - that you are utterly devoid of logic, common sense and rational behavior. You continually post doctored graphs that use false and manipulated data records. You think that sites like skepticalscience.com and desmogblog are objective sources - what a total crock! Your posts all added up amount to nada, zip, zilch, diddly squat. Congratulations you are now the forum's new Peckrwood
waiting for the day when they go after anti-vaxxers that are bringing back diseases that were once eradicated by vaccines.
I gave you an incredibly legit source, the organization that represents the largest pool of scientists in North America.
Your opinion in contrast is worthless, its uninformed and wrong.
If you want to discuss science you need evidence.
The AAAS link proves that the claim is legit.
Prove it.
Prove that I have used doctored charts or manipulated data records.
And if you can't, you should apologize.
