Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[Diderot]

gadgetmac said:

gadgetmac said:

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

You really are a card. Every scientific institution in the world? Oh really? Have you checked the position of every single one? And don't keep banging on about the mythical 97% consensus - does you even fewer favours than your incessant recourse to the 'flat earther' rubbish. Anyone would think you're a troll. Oh wait.

Well faux-pro, start naming some scientific institutions that don't believe in AGW.

It's been asked a thousand times before on this thread and never got a single reply.

Get started. I'll wait. And remember, the Heartland Institute funded by big oil doesn't count.

Er, *you* claimed every single scientific institution 'believes' in CAGW. Ergo, it's up to you to provide proof, evidence and verifiable data that you've audited every single one of them. But of course you haven't. So you can't. The logical conclusion is, therefore, that your assertions are false and baseless. Unless of course you can provide evidence to the contrary.

I'll not hold my breath.

[deeps]

gadgetmac said:

deeps said:

El stovey said:

The source of the comments definitely matter. Thats why you hide the source of some of your click and pastes and even try to change the wording slightly so people can’t google it to check.

If say wc98 or Robinessex or Diderot post something I might not agree with it but, I assume they’re telling the truth.

If you post something, I don’t believe it because you’re often misrepresenting things and plagiarising and simply making stuff up.

Never assume, you should have learnt at least that by now.

So we shouldn't 'assume' that wc98, Robinessex and diderot are telling the truth? Well the truth as they see it at least?

OK.

I'd get some sleep now deeps

Well after you've dashed across to the science thread to defend your mentor who must be sitting back with a wry smile as he watches you run around on his behalf trying to counter all of things the nasty people on NP & E are saying about him.

Edited by gadgetmac on Saturday 16th March 08:59

It seems extraordinary to me that you, as alarmists, would simply assume realists statements to be true. I actually don't believe you, as I know (and it's plain to see) it isn't the case, and that remark was actually a lie.

But it was stated by stovey nevertheless. Perhaps he'll think before he types next time, or risk another attempted slur backfiring so blatantly.

[deeps]

"Al Gore says climate change can ‘bring about the end of civilization’ during talk in Atlanta"

Article said:

The dire warning marked the start of Gore’s three-day Climate Reality Project at Atlanta’s Georgia World Congress Center. Gore shared the stage with church leaders and Saturday Night Live’s Pete Davidson who reportedly likened the “environment” to “a girl you’re in love with who just got engaged to someone else. The situation is dire but there’s still time.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/al-gore-says-clim...

[deeps]

Commenter said:

Guy lives in a giant home and has a bigger carbon foot print than 5 families!

Joking aside, it is true... those with the largest carbon footprints tend to be the most vocal climate alarmists. (shhh - no I'm not mentioning our very own double act )

[gadgetmac]

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

gadgetmac said:

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

You really are a card. Every scientific institution in the world? Oh really? Have you checked the position of every single one? And don't keep banging on about the mythical 97% consensus - does you even fewer favours than your incessant recourse to the 'flat earther' rubbish. Anyone would think you're a troll. Oh wait.

Well faux-pro, start naming some scientific institutions that don't believe in AGW.

It's been asked a thousand times before on this thread and never got a single reply.

Get started. I'll wait. And remember, the Heartland Institute funded by big oil doesn't count.

Er, *you* claimed every single scientific institution 'believes' in CAGW. Ergo, it's up to you to provide proof, evidence and verifiable data that you've audited every single one of them. But of course you haven't. So you can't. The logical conclusion is, therefore, that your assertions are false and baseless. Unless of course you can provide evidence to the contrary.

I'll not hold my breath.

That's rather a long winded way of saying I can't name even one scientific Institute on the face of the planet that doesn't support AGW.

Your bluff and bluster can't conceal it i'm afraid.

Go on, one...just one.

Show us some of your powers of research professor.

[Diderot]

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

gadgetmac said:

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

You really are a card. Every scientific institution in the world? Oh really? Have you checked the position of every single one? And don't keep banging on about the mythical 97% consensus - does you even fewer favours than your incessant recourse to the 'flat earther' rubbish. Anyone would think you're a troll. Oh wait.

Well faux-pro, start naming some scientific institutions that don't believe in AGW.

It's been asked a thousand times before on this thread and never got a single reply.

Get started. I'll wait. And remember, the Heartland Institute funded by big oil doesn't count.

Er, *you* claimed every single scientific institution 'believes' in CAGW. Ergo, it's up to you to provide proof, evidence and verifiable data that you've audited every single one of them. But of course you haven't. So you can't. The logical conclusion is, therefore, that your assertions are false and baseless. Unless of course you can provide evidence to the contrary.

I'll not hold my breath.

That's rather a long winded way of saying I can't name even one scientific Institute on the face of the planet that doesn't support AGW.

Your bluff and bluster can't conceal it i'm afraid.

Go on, one...just one.

Show us some of your powers of research professor.

You don’t even understand the term research or how it’s conducted. Prove your baseless assertion.

[gadgetmac]

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

gadgetmac said:

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

You really are a card. Every scientific institution in the world? Oh really? Have you checked the position of every single one? And don't keep banging on about the mythical 97% consensus - does you even fewer favours than your incessant recourse to the 'flat earther' rubbish. Anyone would think you're a troll. Oh wait.

Well faux-pro, start naming some scientific institutions that don't believe in AGW.

It's been asked a thousand times before on this thread and never got a single reply.

Get started. I'll wait. And remember, the Heartland Institute funded by big oil doesn't count.

Er, *you* claimed every single scientific institution 'believes' in CAGW. Ergo, it's up to you to provide proof, evidence and verifiable data that you've audited every single one of them. But of course you haven't. So you can't. The logical conclusion is, therefore, that your assertions are false and baseless. Unless of course you can provide evidence to the contrary.

I'll not hold my breath.

That's rather a long winded way of saying I can't name even one scientific Institute on the face of the planet that doesn't support AGW.

Your bluff and bluster can't conceal it i'm afraid.

Go on, one...just one.

Show us some of your powers of research professor.

You don’t even understand the term research or how it’s conducted. Prove your baseless assertion.

I’ve researched pro-agw scientific institutes and have been unsuccesful in finding even one. So by a process of elimination I have deduced that are zero scientific institutes on the face of the earth that support the view that MMGW is not happening.

Now...please prove my deduction wrong.

Don’t post bullst replies that I don’t know how to do research when you can’t even check the integrity of your sources...a primary part of any research....

I’m not the only person to ask this. I believe Zygalski and LoonyTunes also constantly asked this.

So, you said what I posted is wrong, get cracking then.

[gadgetmac]

Here’s 2 my research has thrown up, the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society.

Who’s your research thrown up prof?

[deeps]

Looking back on this thread to Friday and Saturday's attempted character assassination of Marc Morano by the usual suspects, when I read this cheap and pathetic attempt at hate mail that Marc received, I couldn't help but think of gadget and zygalski...

"Marc Morano shares some hate mail received at Climate Depot from your typical planetary champion."

Climate alarmist said:

From: Anonymous
Email: [e-mail]

Message: Listen to me, Marc. It’s just me and you, no one else is reading this email and you will never have to reply. We both know that you know the truth about climate change and pollution, but you lie. Listen to this again: I know you know the truth and you know it too, but you’re more interested in the money you can get out of lying than our children’s future. Again: you know. But you are willing to indirectly kill millions of people for the sake of some bucks.

Do you even realize it? Would you be able to shoot millions and still grin on TV? I don’t think so. I don’t want to change your mind, keep your money and keep your conscience dirty. But think of that, it’s just you and me. You know, but you’re willing to kill for money. Don’t you feel a motherfker?

You don’t have to tell anyone. Just be honest enough to admit it to you.
You must be really confident great people will be able to solve this crisis, because if they won’t, wait for me and other thousands of people raining our wrath upon you. Trust me, it wouldn’t be pleasant. Have fun.

WUWT said:

As is usual, the person doesn’t have the gonads to use their real name or real email address. Much like one of our favorite trolls from Oregon, who continues to create false personas just to comment here. But, such things do leave IP addresses and other trails. Just a gentle reminder; as we have seen recently, the Internet never forgets. And, when us skeptics compare notes, anonymous cowards like this one can sometimes find themselves having visits from the police to their front door. Have fun.

More at the world's most viewed site on global warming...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/17/hate-mail-o...

(1 minute read time)

[Randy Winkman]

deeps said:

Looking back on this thread to Friday and Saturday's attempted character assassination of Marc Morano by the usual suspects, when I read this cheap and pathetic attempt at hate mail that Marc received, I couldn't help but think of gadget and zygalski...

"Marc Morano shares some hate mail received at Climate Depot from your typical planetary champion."

Climate alarmist said:

From: Anonymous
Email: [e-mail]

Message: Listen to me, Marc. It’s just me and you, no one else is reading this email and you will never have to reply. We both know that you know the truth about climate change and pollution, but you lie. Listen to this again: I know you know the truth and you know it too, but you’re more interested in the money you can get out of lying than our children’s future. Again: you know. But you are willing to indirectly kill millions of people for the sake of some bucks.

Do you even realize it? Would you be able to shoot millions and still grin on TV? I don’t think so. I don’t want to change your mind, keep your money and keep your conscience dirty. But think of that, it’s just you and me. You know, but you’re willing to kill for money. Don’t you feel a motherfker?

You don’t have to tell anyone. Just be honest enough to admit it to you.
You must be really confident great people will be able to solve this crisis, because if they won’t, wait for me and other thousands of people raining our wrath upon you. Trust me, it wouldn’t be pleasant. Have fun.

WUWT said:

As is usual, the person doesn’t have the gonads to use their real name or real email address. Much like one of our favorite trolls from Oregon, who continues to create false personas just to comment here. But, such things do leave IP addresses and other trails. Just a gentle reminder; as we have seen recently, the Internet never forgets. And, when us skeptics compare notes, anonymous cowards like this one can sometimes find themselves having visits from the police to their front door. Have fun.

More at the world's most viewed site on global warming...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/17/hate-mail-o...

(1 minute read time)

Is you try to find out if WUWT is really the most viewed site on climate change you mostly get links to the site itself which tells you it is. I'm not by any means suggesting it isn't; I was just looking for evidence.

[Randy Winkman]

deeps said:

Looking back on this thread to Friday and Saturday's attempted character assassination of Marc Morano by the usual suspects, when I read this cheap and pathetic attempt at hate mail that Marc received, I couldn't help but think of gadget and zygalski...

"Marc Morano shares some hate mail received at Climate Depot from your typical planetary champion."

Climate alarmist said:

From: Anonymous
Email: [e-mail]

Message: Listen to me, Marc. It’s just me and you, no one else is reading this email and you will never have to reply. We both know that you know the truth about climate change and pollution, but you lie. Listen to this again: I know you know the truth and you know it too, but you’re more interested in the money you can get out of lying than our children’s future. Again: you know. But you are willing to indirectly kill millions of people for the sake of some bucks.

Do you even realize it? Would you be able to shoot millions and still grin on TV? I don’t think so. I don’t want to change your mind, keep your money and keep your conscience dirty. But think of that, it’s just you and me. You know, but you’re willing to kill for money. Don’t you feel a motherfker?

You don’t have to tell anyone. Just be honest enough to admit it to you.
You must be really confident great people will be able to solve this crisis, because if they won’t, wait for me and other thousands of people raining our wrath upon you. Trust me, it wouldn’t be pleasant. Have fun.

WUWT said:

As is usual, the person doesn’t have the gonads to use their real name or real email address. Much like one of our favorite trolls from Oregon, who continues to create false personas just to comment here. But, such things do leave IP addresses and other trails. Just a gentle reminder; as we have seen recently, the Internet never forgets. And, when us skeptics compare notes, anonymous cowards like this one can sometimes find themselves having visits from the police to their front door. Have fun.

More at the world's most viewed site on global warming...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/17/hate-mail-o...

(1 minute read time)

Is you try to find out if WUWT is really the most viewed site on climate change you mostly get links to the site itself which tells you it is. I'm not by any means suggesting it isn't; I was just looking for evidence.

[Diderot]

Even on your second attempt, that didn't make any sense Randy.

[gadgetmac]

Diderot said:

Even on your second attempt, that didn't make any sense Randy.

Only to the terminally stupid. Change the first word of the post to the word 'If' instead of 'Is'.



Got that one scientific Institute that doesn't believe in AGW yet?

[Pan Pan Pan]

What seems odd is that those who blame humans for causing climate change, seem to have no view on why we are producing ever greater numbers of the very thing they claim is causing climate change.
When this suggestion comes up, some even come out of the woodwork claiming that the rate we can go on producing `man' and that this wont have an effect, or that the rate we are producing these climate changing entities will slow down. Blithely ignoring of course, that if what they say is true, even the population we have NOW is already changing the climate, so how will it be better when we have added a few more billion climate changing people into the mix?
Unless those who support man made climate change start doing something about the root cause, and the fact that we are producing `man' at never before seen on Earth rates, they can only be seem as ridiculous hypocrites, who are not really serious about their beliefs.
The problem is also that those who claim that `man' is changing the climate, also seem able to ignore all the other things that `man' does, like hoovering fish out of the oceans, cutting down square miles of rain forest every day, making species after species extinct by encroachment onto their wild habitat, extracting more not less minerals from under the planet, all for us little ole `hu-mans' to use, and thereby produce even more `man'

[Diderot]

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

Even on your second attempt, that didn't make any sense Randy.

Only to the terminally stupid. Change the first word of the post to the word 'If' instead of 'Is'.



Got that one scientific Institute that doesn't believe in AGW yet?

Scientific institutes or institutions cannot 'believe' anything, because they are not consciousnesses. Moreover, faith has no place in science whatever. Aside from these simple concepts, you have not demonstrated that you have audited every single institution and until you do so, your claim cannot be substantiated.

[Randy Winkman]

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

Even on your second attempt, that didn't make any sense Randy.

Only to the terminally stupid. Change the first word of the post to the word 'If' instead of 'Is'.



Got that one scientific Institute that doesn't believe in AGW yet?

Scientific institutes or institutions cannot 'believe' anything, because they are not consciousnesses. Moreover, faith has no place in science whatever. Aside from these simple concepts, you have not demonstrated that you have audited every single institution and until you do so, your claim cannot be substantiated.

Thanks to Gadgetmac.

I got asked by someone to "define pollution" on another thread on this topic. I'm not sure if the above post is better or worse than that.

[gadgetmac]

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

Even on your second attempt, that didn't make any sense Randy.

Only to the terminally stupid. Change the first word of the post to the word 'If' instead of 'Is'.



Got that one scientific Institute that doesn't believe in AGW yet?

Scientific institutes or institutions cannot 'believe' anything, because they are not consciousnesses. Moreover, faith has no place in science whatever. Aside from these simple concepts, you have not demonstrated that you have audited every single institution and until you do so, your claim cannot be substantiated.

What utter rubbish just to try and hide your deficiencies.

Here's 17 National academies of science acknowledging the IPCC reports to be correct. There are lots of other similar declarations from other scientific institutes on the subject of MMGW, would you like another?

Are you not embarrassed that you get found out so often?

Come on, name just one from anywhere on the globe that agrees with you and doesn't agree with me. ONE.

Come on, I'll even take a scientific Institute where its members have 'overwhelmingly' declared that the Institute does not represent their views on the subject of AGW.

Surely there is one???

[Diderot]

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

Even on your second attempt, that didn't make any sense Randy.

Only to the terminally stupid. Change the first word of the post to the word 'If' instead of 'Is'.



Got that one scientific Institute that doesn't believe in AGW yet?

Scientific institutes or institutions cannot 'believe' anything, because they are not consciousnesses. Moreover, faith has no place in science whatever. Aside from these simple concepts, you have not demonstrated that you have audited every single institution and until you do so, your claim cannot be substantiated.

What utter rubbish just to try and hide your deficiencies.

Here's 17 National academies of science acknowledging the IPCC reports to be correct. There are lots of other similar declarations from other scientific institutes on the subject of MMGW, would you like another?

Are you not embarrassed that you get found out so often?

Come on, name just one from anywhere on the globe that agrees with you and doesn't agree with me. ONE.

Come on, I'll even take a scientific Institute where its members have 'overwhelmingly' declared that the Institute does not represent their views on the subject of AGW.

Surely there is one???

I think you need to be more aware of the logical contradictions in your posts. How can the IPCC reports be ‘correct’ when they are estimating future climate states? Have the IPCC discovered a magic time machine, better still a GCM model that actually models the climate? Clearly not.

And is this the same IPCC that fell foul of its own propaganda and shoddy research? One example, amongst many, is Glaciergate. Have you checked with the Royal Society whether they stand behind that shameful and erroneous claim? Of course you haven’t. You make these statements because you’ve been fed them and are so intellectually impotent that you repeat them without any understanding or analysis.

[gadgetmac]

So again you dodge the question with some oh-so-obvious waffle to hide your knowledge deficit.

Here's the link I forgot to post.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/292/5520/126...

As the article says it's:

A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Turkish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).

Would you like more?

Come on prof, surely you can find ONE Institute to agree with you

[Diderot]

gadgetmac said:

So again you dodge the question with some oh-so-obvious waffle to hide your knowledge deficit.

Here's the link I forgot to post.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/292/5520/126...

As the article says it's:

A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Turkish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).

Would you like more?

Come on prof, surely you can find ONE Institute to agree with you

That's from 2001, way before the debacles that are Glaicergate and Climategate surfaced, and indeed all the criticism of AR4.