Amidst Global Warming Hysteria, NASA Expects Global Cooling

[PornAddict]

But porny, neither chart on p8 say that.
You just read that on some denier site, didn't you?
If you actually read the paper you'd understand that you've been played as a sucker for repeating bullshit.
tsk, tsk.

And as I noted:
The author replied to the specific false claims you are making about his study, clearly stating that you are wrong.
Are you now calling him a liar?
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/tag/pbl/

Clearly you don't know how to read a bar chart ... You are either soooo stupid or clearly how own agenda of pushing global warming bullshit and making shit up.

See page 8 on bar chart graph .

According to the author: on page 8 clearly says only 66.6% of climate scientists agree with AGW
Page 8: http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/fil...ence-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf
Only 66% of the climate scientists support AGW.
Checkmate you lose ..loser!!

 

[Frankfooter]

Ah Character assassination when you are shown the truth
Richard Tol was an inside guy
Are you to attack his character as well?
you trashed Judith Curry too !
I better start keeping a list.
I keep on finding more & more very intelligent people who have a different view from you
Now smarten up and think
When you get people resigning because there is too much politics within an organization, then there is politics
Claiming there is zero politics is a lie and it is quite irresponsible of you.
Then this guy is pretty much convinced there is politics
https://www.objectivescience.net/20...-organization-but-a-political-lobbying-group/
If you read the whole article you will see he really does a number on them
I expect you to trash him as well, probably claiming he knows nothing about science , despite your very obvious short comings in scientific knowledge
Why do you deny there is politics?
Continuing to do so only further waters down credibility and gets others to question blindly accepting "the debate is over"
You are the worst possible spokes person for your cause
Now if you were smart you would try a different approach, but.........
Instead you will continue to claim you are absolutely and without question right and any scientist or layperson who does not 100% completely agree with you needs some character assassination and must be labelled a denier.
You need to grow up

Where do you find these blogs, larue?
https://www.objectivescience.net/

Its another site that uses the word 'science' in its link but its just another denier blog.
You really can't tell science from bullshit, can you?

Until you can recognize science from blogs, you aren't even fit to discuss politics vs science summary.

 

[basketcase]

Do not dare to call anyone a denier,...

Do you have a better word in mind? Luddite? Ignoramus? Grumpy old men?

 

[basketcase]

...

No scientist worth his salt would declare the debate over ...

Depending which debate. The vast majority believe there is no debate that CO2 is playing a significant role. The debate is simply over how much of a role.

 

[basketcase]

Definitely legit!!...

Did you read your own data? The vast majority of people who study climate say it is majority human caused. Even if it's not 97% as one study said, this study is overwhelming.

78% Mostly human
10% equally human and natural

If you are happy with 88% of Climate scientists disagreeing with you than fine.

 

[Frankfooter]

Clearly you don't know how to read a bar chart ... You are either soooo stupid or clearly how own agenda of pushing global warming bullshit and making shit up.

See page 8 on bar chart graph .
!

You're bullshitting, pornaddict.

I read both the charts on p8 and neither say what you claim.
Go ahead and read them for once and quote the numbers.

Bullshitter.

 

[JohnLarue]

Do you have a better word in mind? Luddite? Ignoramus? Grumpy old men?

How does opposing view point sound?
Taking an absolute "I am right and anyone who does not agree is a deniar" is unbelievably arrogant
Particularly when it comes to a highly technical and emotional issue

 

[Frankfooter]

Particularly when it comes to a highly technical and emotional issue

Its science, larue.
Not emotion.

 

[JohnLarue]

Depending which debate. The vast majority believe there is no debate that CO2 is playing a significant role. The debate is simply over how much of a role.

Oh, so you get to call others with a differing opinion a denier only depending on which debate it is as you define it?

that is strange because Frankfooter never spelled that out when he called me a denier or when he slagged off scientists who understand 1000 X what he does
yet he insists he is 100% absolutely right and anyone who disagrees deserves character assassination and to be labeled as a denier. That is just disgraceful

One might argue that man is quite possibly doing damage to the environment, but C02 may not be the magic bullet. The heat from the combustion maybe more dangerous than the 300 parts per million C02. Climate is a very complex thing with many influences. Always has been , always will be
rising temperatures maybe driving COs concentrations higher rather than visa versa

climate has been changing for 4.5 B years due to many many forces which continue to impact the planet

correlation does not prove causation

As I have stated all along I am neutral on a very complex problem which is no where near fully understood, yet I am being told "The debate is over" and If I dont agree I get called a "denier of the truth"

You guys get an A for arrogant, Frankie gets another for ignorance

 

[JohnLarue]

Its science, larue.
Not emotion.

i stated this

I expect you to trash him as well, probably claiming he knows nothing about science , despite your very obvious short comings in scientific knowledge

and you proceeded to do just exactly that

Richard Tol was an inside guy

Richard Tol resigned from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) because their latest report was too alarmist. His action proves that the latest IPCC Report (AR5) raised the level of alarmism without justification. He complained about the problem back in 2010 in a guest post for Roger Pielke’s Jr, but did nothing. Apparently they crossed some threshold of alarmism that scared adherents.

When you get people resigning because there is too much politics within an organization, then there is politics

You are such a simpleton
Grow up or go away

 

[JohnLarue]

Until you can recognize science from blogs, you aren't even fit to discuss politics vs science summary.

I have forgotten more about science than you will ever know

Do not presume you get to judge who is fit to discuss anything!!!!! You arrogant ignorant fool

 

[Frankfooter]

i stated this

You also stated this:

Particularly when it comes to a highly technical and emotional issue

Some day you'll get over your emotional issues and try to understand the 'highly technical' science.
We hope.

 

[Frankfooter]

I have forgotten more about science than you will ever know

I fully accept that you have forgotten a lot about science.
Unfortunately what's left in your head is too difficult and emotional for you now.

Particularly when it comes to a highly technical and emotional issue

 

[JohnLarue]

I fully accept that you have forgotten a lot about science.
Unfortunately what's left in your head is too difficult and emotional for you now.

Do you deny it is an a highly technical and emotional issue?
Because I bet we could get oh say 97% consensus on that, maybe even better


No emotions for you eh, Frankie when you slag off scientists far more intelligent than you?
Or is character assassination just a regular thing for a lifelong bullshit artist like yourself

you have the mind of a child
Time to grow up

 

[bver_hunter]

Checkmate you lost!

Page 8: http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/fil...ence-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf
Only 66% of the climate scientists support AGW.


NASA Is sooooo perfect that they blew up two space shuttle ( challenger & Discovery)!
Tell that to the dead space shuttle astronauts and the school teacher that die in space shuttle Challenger explosions.

You do not understand what you are posting do you?? Go to question 1b on page 9 and look at the actual number (1222) that thought it was over than 50% compared to those who thought that it was less than 50% (217). In other words 85% thought that it was over 50% likely. 85% is closer to 97%, than that random number that you have from a fake source!! BTW the "No Warming" was 0.4%. Those are the skeptics like you !!

At least NASA send men to the moon, and have done scientific studies beyond those of the skeptics, who come up with sweet nothings that you buy!!

 

[Frankfooter]

Do you deny it is an a highly technical and emotional issue?

Its not an 'emotional' subject unless you're feeling butthurt because its too 'technical' for you to understand.

You claim to be a science genius, smarter then all of climatology and know better than them, yet you can't actually read a single one of the IPCC assessments and follow it.
I get how that must make you 'emotional'.

This is the synthesis of climatologists work right here.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/

Try and read it and if you can't follow it then the yes, you're not bright enough to be in this debate.

 

[JohnLarue]

Its not an 'emotional' subject unless you're feeling butthurt because its too 'technical' for you to understand.

I am not the one who is beleating "deniar" like a frightened sheep

You claim to be a science genius,

I never claimed that

smarter then all of climatology and know better than them,

I never claimed that either
FYI it is not all.There are lots of very intelligent scientists who disagree with you
You know the ones you perform character assassination on specifically because they disagree with your sheepeople position

yet you can't actually read a single one of the IPCC assessments and follow it.

Sure I can & have
no doubt the scientists who have done the work are very bright and have dedicated their lives to what they feel is the most noble calling in the world
I have lots of respect for intelligent hard working dedicated people who seek the truth & value the individual opinions of their colleagues.

That does not mean they are 100% absolutely correct nor does it mean the debate is over.
Climate is far to complex & dynamic to ever make the claim "the debate is over"

I wonder what the poll results of these scientist would be if the question was "Is the debate over" ? Yes or No ?
I also wonder what the poll results of these scientists would be if the question was "Should anyone opposing the IPCC conclusion be subject to automatic character assassination? Yes or No

I also wonder how many would puke on the spot after watching you represent them

I get how that must make you 'emotional'.

and once again you would be wrong (why are you wrong so often?)
You are the one shitting in his pants because you think the world is coming to an end
You are the one who resorts to character assassination of scientists. That is quite emotional
Your pathologic need to mislead others is no doubt tied to some emotional issues

This is the synthesis of climatologists work right here.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/

Yawn
Yeah you mentioned that before


Hey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J0F8T9BY3U
I bet you get lost 3 minutes in

you're not bright enough to be in this debate.

Debate????
WTF. What makes you think you are debating ?????
How can you debate anything when you refuse to consider any result which is not 100% in agreement with your position ?
If an impartial judge was to declare your opposition the winner of a debate, you would just attack his character and call him a "denier" & then deny the event even took place


You are performing character assassination, misrepresenting intelligent people and trying to brow beat opposing views
That is not debating

A debate requires intelligent arguments and well thought-out intelligent rebuttals.
Bleating denier, misleading others & character assassination of scientists. does not qualify
Grow up

 

[basketcase]

Oh, so you get to call others with a differing opinion a denier only depending on which debate it is as you define it?...

Yes. In a discussion about science, the people who refuse to listen to science are deniers and their own opinion is irrelevant.

Sorry but you are arguing against the vast majority of the scientists who actually study the topic. Even the scientists you mention only disagree with exactly how much of a role human CO2 plays or how log it will take before the change becomes catastrophic to human society..

 

[Frankfooter]

I am not the one who is beleating "deniar" like a frightened sheep


I never claimed that

I never claimed that either

Sure you did, larue.

My position has been that It would be the biggest sin mankind ever committed if we cause our own extinction

I have also never said I know more than the scientists
To be fair I have also never said I do not

This is your reaction to the IPCC reports:

Yawn

Guess its still too technical for you.

Do you deny it is an a highly technical and emotional issue?

 

[PornAddict]

You do not understand what you are posting do you?? Go to question 1b on page 9 and look at the actual number (1222) that thought it was over than 50% compared to those who thought that it was less than 50% (217). In other words 85% thought that it was over 50% likely. 85% is closer to 97%, than that random number that you have from a fake source!! BTW the "No Warming" was 0.4%. Those are the skeptics like you !!

At least NASA send men to the moon, and have done scientific studies beyond those of the skeptics, who come up with sweet nothings that you buy!!

You too stupid. Clearly you don't know how to read a bar chart graph on page 8.
Page 8: http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/file...nses_01731.pdf
Only 66% of the climate scientists support AGW.

Checkmate you lost!

PS NASA is sooooo perfect that they never make a mistake, then why did two space shuttle blew up? LOL.
Climate is the most complex system in the world . Hubris to think that NASA don't make mistake.