The “anti-Greta”

[bitchstewie]

Randy Winkman said:

Not sure I get the speech marks on you post but I'll still point out her t-shirt said "ant fascist" not "antifa".

Anyone can buy one on-line. https://www.redbubble.com/people/abstractee/works/...

I'm anti-fascist, aren't you?

Probably a little subtle/dry on my part but you need a whoosh dude

[turbobloke]

smn159 said:

turbobloke said:

smn159 said:

Out of interest, which other generally accepted scientific theories are you trying to disprove?

A neat way of masking the usual appeal to (non-) consensus logical fallacy. Well done!

The agw null hypothesis has already been rejected by comparing empirical data to agw model gigo.

See McKitrick & Christy 2018 as posted earlier. Here's a link to an online version of the full paper.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/1...

Paper said:

the major hypothesis in contemporary climate models, namely, the theoretically based negative lapse rate feedback response to increasing greenhouse gases in the tropical troposphere, is incorrect

Your back-to-front question has already been answered.

Since you insist on responding to everything by posting a few sentences of bluster and yet another link which I'm guessing has been picked up from a denialist website, heres a link from NASA - who I'm sure you are about to tell be are now populated exclusively by 'lefties' and didn't really send a man to the moon

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

You can post as many links, memes or whatever as you like - it appears clear to me anyway that you are motivated by ideology rather than the science, largely because you don't like the potential consequences of MMGW being true, and that your objective appears to be to misrepresent the current state of the science.

That's ironic as the links I gave show the current state of the science rather than the current state of the faith. The ideology is all on the agw side. My interest is in empirical data not assumptions in models with omissions, approximations and dozens of parameterisations because the actual science isn't sufficiently understood and too complex to compute otherwise. Data shows what's actually going on. I'm not motivated by anything other than sharing a wider set of data and related information, on a current topic of interest, than would be found elsewhere.

There's no bluster at all from me but a lot from you as you make personal attacks at almost every opportunity. Neither you nor the NASA link counter or even address the conclusions in papers already cited.

Have another go, and remember it's not what I'm saying it's what scientists authoring peer reviewed papers published in 2018 and 2019 have to say, based on data.

"it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities"

"the major hypothesis in contemporary (agw) climate models...is incorrect"

"the results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate"

As to NASA, are we meant to discuss the scientific NASA or the political NASA? Spot the difference.





Put the above URL into the Wayback Machine and see for yourself that it's the same page e.g. 23 September 2010 and 24 February 2017.

Wayback Machine old webpage
https://web.archive.org/web/20100923185503/science...

Wayback Machine newer webpage
https://web.archive.org/web/20170224005746/https:/...

The idea that they knew the Sun is the primary climate forcing not anthropogenic carbon dioxide, which is treated as just another forcing, became too much to have visible online.

[Gadgetmac]

smn159 said:

turbobloke said:

smn159 said:

Out of interest, which other generally accepted scientific theories are you trying to disprove?

A neat way of masking the usual appeal to (non-) consensus logical fallacy. Well done!

The agw null hypothesis has already been rejected by comparing empirical data to agw model gigo.

See McKitrick & Christy 2018 as posted earlier. Here's a link to an online version of the full paper.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/1...

Paper said:

the major hypothesis in contemporary climate models, namely, the theoretically based negative lapse rate feedback response to increasing greenhouse gases in the tropical troposphere, is incorrect

Your back-to-front question has already been answered.

Since you insist on responding to everything by posting a few sentences of bluster and yet another link which I'm guessing has been picked up from a denialist website, heres a link from NASA - who I'm sure you are about to tell be are now populated exclusively by 'lefties' and didn't really send a man to the moon

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

You can post as many links, memes or whatever as you like - it appears clear to me anyway that you are motivated by ideology rather than the science, largely because you don't like the potential consequences of MMGW being true, and that your objective appears to be to misrepresent the current state of the science.

Disappointing that people feel the need to do this, but that's 'post truth' for you.

Of course the minute you find one of his links has been shot down in flames (ie Varotsos & Efstathiou) he moves onto another link.

And yes, everyone can see the reasoning behind his stance on AGW, he struggles to keep it in.

But when you ask what he thinks about Anti Greta’s links to a scientific Eugenicist and Immigration hater he goes strangely quiet. Weirdly she’s the subject of this thread but he has very little to say on her and would much rather continue bombarding every thread with the same posts and links.

If you hang around long enough it’ll pop up again sometime this evening in one or other of them.

[Dont Panic]

smn159 said:

Hmm.. I'm familiar with all of the words, but I've never seen them used in that order before.

Im glad to be able to enrich your life by some small token.

smn159 said:

Who is this 'new Jesus of climate religion'?

Why, they messianic Greta of course.

smn159 said:

Are you suggesting that the climate isn't warming because everything that you can see around you isn't actually on fire?

Im suggesting that the world isnt on fire either literally or figuratively and that any warming has nothing to do with anthropogenic emissions.

That being so is the truth because the pro side simply havent proved otherwise, (what date was agw proven?) why then the need to interfere in a system thats not properly understood?
Why the need to exaggerate the claims? The catastrophe scenarios? Throw insults and all that other good stuff we see thrown in the direction of those who refuse to yield to the utter tripe narratives?
And what the heck is a climate denier anyway?

[Dont Panic]

Gadgetmac said:

Of course the minute you find one of his links has been shot down in flames (ie Varotsos & Efstathiou) he moves onto another link.

As opposed to your side who dont even attempt to try to answer any questions.

Gadgetmac said:

And yes, everyone can see the reasoning behind his stance on AGW, he struggles to keep it in.

Like many, his stance is that he prefers not to believe the sky is falling in. Why do you?

Gadgetmac said:

But when you ask what he thinks about Anti Greta’s links to a scientific Eugenicist and Immigration hater he goes strangely quiet.

Obvious distraction attempt is obvious.

Youre saying because she may have sympathies to people/organisations you dont approve of that the rest of the arguments shes making are invalid?
What kind of cockeyed logic is that?
You need to check your emotional baggage at the desk.

Gadgetmac said:

Weirdly she’s the subject of this thread but he has very little to say on her and would much rather continue bombarding every thread with the same posts and links.

If you hang around long enough it’ll pop up again sometime this evening in one or other of them.

Whys he or anyone else compelled to deviate from the main thrust of the debate and gratify your bizarre ravings?
Because youd like to talk about anything other than the fact that the narratives a huge pile of bovine excrement most likely.

Edited by Dont Panic on Sunday 1st March 19:30

[Gadgetmac]

Who were you before you were Don't Panic?

[Greeny]

Gadgetmac said:

Who were you before you were Don't Panic?

I am Spartacus
I mean
I am Turbobloke

[Gadgetmac]

Greeny said:

Gadgetmac said:

Who were you before you were Don't Panic?

I am Spartacus
I mean
I am Turbobloke

It's VERY fishy isn't it?

[Esceptico]

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I find it difficult to take Turbo and is ilk seriously because the current acceptance of AGW is not built on a single argument or a single line of evidence, rather there are lots of different phenomena that support the notion that increases in CO2 drive increased temperatures (and that humans are responsible). It is improbable that AGW is wrong and improbable claims demand extraordinary evidence. The stuff posted by Turbo from denier websites and whataboutery from others on here who are not climate scientists doesn’t come close to meeting that requirement. Hence I am very skeptics of their claims.

[anonymous-user]

Gadgetmac said:

Greeny said:

Gadgetmac said:

Who were you before you were Don't Panic?

I am Spartacus
I mean
I am Turbobloke

It's VERY fishy isn't it?

He said they sound the same because he’s been reading TBs posts for years on the climate threads.

[deeps]

Dont Panic said:

Gadgetmac said:

Of course the minute you find one of his links has been shot down in flames (ie Varotsos & Efstathiou) he moves onto another link.

As opposed to your side who dont even attempt to try to answer any questions.

Gadgetmac said:

And yes, everyone can see the reasoning behind his stance on AGW, he struggles to keep it in.

Like many, his stance is that he prefers not to believe the sky is falling in. Why do you?

Gadgetmac said:

But when you ask what he thinks about Anti Greta’s links to a scientific Eugenicist and Immigration hater he goes strangely quiet.

Obvious distraction attempt is obvious.

Youre saying because she may have sympathies to people/organisations you dont approve of that the rest of the arguments shes making are invalid?
What kind of cockeyed logic is that?
You need to check your emotional baggage at the desk.

Gadgetmac said:

Weirdly she’s the subject of this thread but he has very little to say on her and would much rather continue bombarding every thread with the same posts and links.

If you hang around long enough it’ll pop up again sometime this evening in one or other of them.

Whys he or anyone else compelled to deviate from the main thrust of the debate and gratify your bizarre ravings?
Because youd like to talk about anything other than the fact that the narratives a huge pile of bovine excrement most likely.

Edited by Dont Panic on Sunday 1st March 19:30

All he has is appeals to authority and snidey personal attacks. That's all any of them have. Mind you, Gadget once boasted that he has an even greater CO2 footprint than his mate Stovey, which seems unlikely until one considers the colossal amount of BS he spouts

[CarreraLightweightRacing]

TB above you mention:

Here is what scientists authoring peer reviewed papers published in 2018 and 2019 have to say, based on data.

"it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities"

"the major hypothesis in contemporary (agw) climate models...is incorrect"

"the results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate"

Do you have any links to verify the above?

[turbobloke]

CarreraLightweightRacing said:

TB above you mention:

Here is what scientists authoring peer reviewed papers published in 2018 and 2019 have to say, based on data.

"it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities"

"the major hypothesis in contemporary (agw) climate models...is incorrect"

"the results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate"

Do you have any links to verify the above?

Yes, see below, with search terms to go straight to the extracts, though why not read the full papers (first two links) if you have time.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
Carry out an Edit=>Find on the word reliably to locate the quote above.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/1...
This time Edit=>Find using incorrect

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12665-0...
See the last sentence in the abstract at the link.

[Gadgetmac]

deeps said:

All he has is appeals to authority and snidey personal attacks. That's all any of them have. Mind you, Gadget once boasted that he has an even greater CO2 footprint than his mate Stovey, which seems unlikely until one considers the colossal amount of BS he spouts

You missed out the weight of the scientific establishment and every scientific Institute on the globe plus the vast and overwhelming amount of peer reviewed published papers.

A small omission but one that I feel is important.

[turbobloke]

PS

The first two papers as linked are available in full / free / online, they don't require special access rights.

Many similar papers are available, but not all are published in full online with open access. Some are, others include:

Mao et al (2019) 1880-2013 temperature changes fit “perfectly" with a calculation utilising periodic functions of natural variation (i.e. not anthropogenic), pdf:
https://file.scirp.org/pdf/ACS_2019010914482656.pd...

Christy and McNider (2017) on the problem of climate model parameterisations (indequate)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-0...


And with NS in mind - a climate of icy blasts.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-28...

[Dont Panic]

Gadgetmac said:

Who were you before you were Don't Panic?

Ghandi.

Are you now believing in reincarnation as well?

As previously mentioned some pages ago, Ive not posted here previously, your continued attempts to stir up a ban based on what you believe (theres that word again) confirms that you have no power to convince people of your case veracity but prefer to have counter views closed down to save face and your points from the attacks they well deserve .

Edited by Dont Panic on Monday 2nd March 09:17

[Dont Panic]

Esceptico said:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I find it difficult to take Turbo and is ilk seriously because the current acceptance of AGW is not built on a single argument or a single line of evidence, rather there are lots of different phenomena that support the notion that increases in CO2 drive increased temperatures (and that humans are responsible). It is improbable that AGW is wrong and improbable claims demand extraordinary evidence. The stuff posted by Turbo from denier websites and whataboutery from others on here who are not climate scientists doesn’t come close to meeting that requirement. Hence I am very skeptics of their claims.

You do realise that correlation dosnt equal causation?

Glad to see youre a sceptic, welcome to the rightside.

[rscott]

Dont Panic said:

Gadgetmac said:

Who were you before you were Don't Panic?

Ghandi.

Are you now believing in reincarnation as well?

As previously mentioned some pages ago, Ive not posted here previously, your continued attempts to stir up a ban based on what you believe (theres that word again) confirms that you have no power to convince people of your case veracity but prefer to have counter views closed down to save face and your points from the attacks they well deserve .

Edited by Dont Panic on Monday 2nd March 09:17

What attracted you to join a car forum? Just wondering as you only seem to have posted once outside NP&E

[Dont Panic]

rscott said:

What attracted you to join a car forum? Just wondering as you only seem to have posted once outside NP&E

Funny you should ask that. I own a car.
Its odd that those who propose global fricasseeing via co2 emissions from cars would also find themselves here and who also own a car, is it not?

I found the level of debate on the site regarding climate change dogma hypothesis to be at a level I felt i could contribute to without becoming bogged down in the complex science.
Im a layman with an opinion like many here.

I dont grasp the level of interest in myself to be honest although I can easily see why those who have an issue with being challenged on their belief system might wish me to go away either voluntarily or forcibly.

Edited by Dont Panic on Monday 2nd March 11:27

[Gadgetmac]

Well she did it again over the weekend...praised a white nationalist.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/ent...

She's exactly the sort of woman you'd want hanging around with your daughters.