Trump on dire warnings in climate report: ‘I don’t believe it’

[Axeslinger]

Y'all are pretty smart, but you're not scientists. I do appeal to authority when the subject matter is outside of my depth. I can't take you more seriously than the most qualified people on Earth.

@Dexter

Then go check with all of your “scientists” (typically AKA paid govt hacks). And get an answer to my two questions.   Search and search and research and see if you can find an answer to those two questions.   

Surely if it’s such a calamity they should be able to identify the target temperature and then tell us why that number is correct?

Think!!!

[Dexter]

@Dexter

Then go check with all of your “scientists” (typically AKA paid govt hacks). And get an answer to my two questions.   Search and search and research and see if you can find an answer to those two questions.   

Surely if it’s such a calamity they should be able to identify the target temperature and then tell us why that number is correct?

Think!!!

I think to understand what they understand as well as they do we would have to learn a great many things. I think you're not educated enough on this matter to understand why you aren't looking at the right things or asking the right questions. We have to believe in scientists.

[aligncare]

nuff said

Exactly correct. It all about securing lucrative government grants and boosted profits from marketing feel-good, “natural” products and lifestyles.

There are clearly unhealthy links between big government and scientific cronyism, in addition to corporate marketing interests involved in this scam.

[Jazzhead]

@Dexter ,  are you saying that we should rein in American economic growth in order to reduce CO2 emissions?    Such an action will have a tangible impact on ordinary Americans.   Is there science of which you are aware that suggests that efforts we make to reduce CO2 emissions will actually affect climate change?   Should ordinary Americans be martyrs when the facts show that we have already made progress in reducing our nation's percentage share of global CO2 emissions,  and the rise in such emissions is now mostly coming from third world nations now emerging into diversified economies capable of supporting a middle class?   

I say let the alarmists plead their case to India and China (where people wear masks in the street).  Although they likely will respond that they have the same right to an advanced standard of living as anyone else.   

[Dexter]

@Dexter ,  are you saying that we should rein in American economic growth in order to reduce CO2 emissions?    Such an action will have a tangible impact on ordinary Americans.   Is there science of which you are aware that suggests that efforts we make to reduce CO2 emissions will actually affect climate change?   Should ordinary Americans be martyrs when the facts show that we have already made progress in reducing our nation's percentage share of global CO2 emissions,  and the rise in such emissions is now mostly coming from third world nations now emerging into diversified economies capable of supporting a middle class?   

I say let the alarmists plead their case to India and China (where people wear masks in the street).  Although they likely will respond that they have the same right to an advanced standard of living as anyone else.   

I personally think we should invest deeply into the research and development of solar power so we can get it to and beyond the point where it can compete in the free market.

[Axeslinger]

I think to understand what they understand as well as they do we would have to learn a great many things. I think you're not educated enough on this matter to understand why you aren't looking at the right things or asking the right questions. We have to believe in scientists.

@Dexter

Why, how terribly presumptuous of you!  How do you know what I do for a living?  Or how educated I am?  Your inner elitist is showing.

Suffice it to say that I am EXACTLY as qualified as noted climate “scientist” Bill Nye.  And yet, I’ll bet you’ve lapped up his bullshit drivel like a good little follower.

Just THINK!

[Dexter]

@Dexter

Why, how terribly presumptuous of you!  How do you know what I do for a living?  Or how educated I am?  Your inner elitist is showing.

Suffice it to say that I am EXACTLY as qualified as noted climate “scientist” Bill Nye.  And yet, I’ll bet you’ve lapped up his bullshit drivel like a good little follower.

Just THINK!

Bill Nye is not a climate scientist and neither are you. I'm not one either.

[Axeslinger]

Bill Nye is not a climate scientist and neither are you. I'm not one either.

@Dexter
And yet all of your fellow alarmists listen to him, in fact he’s been invited to speak to congress!

Heres your homework, bud.


Research the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.  Then ask yourself which one climate change is.  THEN ask if you think it’s prudent to destroy the greatest economic engine in the world based upon that result

THINK!

[Emjay]

Bill Nye is not a climate scientist and neither are you. I'm not one either.

@Dexter   When I saw your name as 'last poster' on this stupid thread, I decided you are just making this ridiculous crusade for attention.  Pretty sad, Dexter.

[Dexter]

And yet all of your fellow alarmists listen to him, in fact he’s been invited to speak to congress!

He earned their hearts by being one of the best children's science teachers of our era. He is doing his best to parrot what actual climate scientists are saying because he believes in them like I do.

Research the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.  Then ask yourself which one climate change is.  THEN ask if you think it’s prudent to destroy the greatest economic engine in the world based upon that result

THINK!

A hypothesis becomes a theory after a large preponderance of evidence points in one direction. Climate scientists believe that has happened or is happening.

[txradioguy]

Any one of us would feel ignorant as hell in a conversation with climate scientists. That's just reality. I think you're being silly if you think scientists couldn't deal with your skeptical arguments.

Speak for yourself.  I'm quite confident in my ability to hold my own as well as hold an intelligent conversation with these "experts".

[Dexter]

Speak for yourself.  I'm quite confident in my ability to hold my own as well as hold an intelligent conversation with these "experts".

No offense but I would love to see that because I think it would be funny as hell. I'm not saying I'm any less ignorant.

[txradioguy]

No offense but I would love to see that because I think it would be funny as hell. I'm not saying I'm any less ignorant.

Hide and watch kid.

NOAA Data Tampering Approaching 2.5 Degrees

NOAA’s US temperature record shows that US was warmest in the 1930’s and has generally cooled as CO2 has increased.  This wrecks greenhouse gas theory, so they “adjust” the data to make it look like the US is warming.

The NOAA data tampering produces a spectacular hockey stick of scientific fraud, which becomes the basis of vast amounts of downstream junk climate science. Pre-2000 temperatures are progressively cooled, and post-2000 temperatures are warmed. This year has been a particularly spectacular episode of data tampering by NOAA, as they introduce nearly 2.5 degrees of fake warming since 1895.

https://realclimatescience.com/2018/03/noaa-data-tampering-approaching-2-5-degrees/

100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering
Climate Central just ran this piece, which the Washington Post picked up on. They claimed the US was “overwhelmingly hot” in 2016, and temperatures have risen 1,5°F since the 19th century.

The first problem with their analysis is that the US had very little hot weather in 2016. The percentage of hot days was below average, and ranked 80th since 1895. Only 4.4% of days were over 95°F, compared with the long term average of 4.9%. Climate Central is conflating mild temperatures with hot ones.

https://realclimatescience.com/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/

[txradioguy]

The 52% Consensus


The 97% consensus quoted daily by Barack Obama is based on a few fraudulent studies of a handful of published papers.

The only study which actually asked the scientists was done by the American Meteorological Society in 2013. It showed that only 52% of professional members believed the cause of global warming was “mostly human.” Among professional forecasters, the number was closer to 38%.  No group came anywhere close to 97%.

https://realclimatescience.com/the-52-consensus/

[Axeslinger]

He earned their hearts by being one of the best children's science teachers of our era. He is doing his best to parrot what actual climate scientists are saying because he believes in them like I do.



A hypothesis becomes a theory after a large preponderance of evidence points in one direction. Climate scientists believe that has happened or is happening.

@Dexter

And there is the folly in your thinking.

A theory is not subject to “believe”. It is provable can be substantiated.

Edit...was in a meeting...

[txradioguy]

He earned their hearts by being one of the best children's science teachers of our era. He is doing his best to parrot what actual climate scientists are saying because he believes in them like I do.

Bill Nye has a mechanical engineering degree, so he would have taken his fair share of physics courses, however, he has not done the work typically required to be considered a “scientist”.

[Dexter]

@Dexter

And there is the folly in your thinking.

A theory is not subject to “believe”. It is provable.

I think it's you that doesn't quite understand how theories work.

[Dexter]

Bill Nye has a mechanical engineering degree, so he would have taken his fair share of physics courses, however, he has not done the work typically required to be considered a “scientist”.

The words of non-scientists should not carry the weight of actual scientists. We are in agreement.

[Dexter]

https://realclimatescience.com/the-52-consensus/

Real climate science dot com doesn't break those statistics down fairly because they have their own agenda. If you delve deep into it you will find that yes, the government did fudge those numbers a little, but it's not as much as you think or as much as your website purports. A very large majority of climate scientists and even non-climate scientists and academics are all in close agreement. There isn't a scientific institution on Earth that is denying AGW by claiming the scientists are phonies.

[Axeslinger]

I think it's you that doesn't quite understand how theories work.

@Dexter

A theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors.

None of those adjectives apply to AGW.

It hasn’t been tested or well substantiated, every time we turn around they’re citing problems with their data, and their data can not be made to correlate to past probable results.  It is not unifying, which is why they have to shout down any “deniers”. Just like any good cult.

And they can not verify or prove the factors.


But keep on drinking the kool aid. 

You don’t want to to be challenged, you just want to be a pain in the ass. 

[Dexter]

You don’t want to to be challenged, you just want to be a pain in the ass.

I'm on this forum because I think a lot of you are wrong about some very important things. I didn't claim it would be easy to change my mind. I am always willing to learn, though. I know you don't think so.

[truth_seeker]

WELCOME

to the New

www.Dexter.briefing.room.com

Featuring a steaady feed, of ridiculous millenial social justice nonsense


Scchedule for today: One hour of free play. Teachers will then collect the crayons.



Schedule for tomorrow: FormerVP Al Gore, on "how to trade in financial securities based on the climat- change scam-"carbon credit exchanges"

[Dexter]

WELCOME

to the New

www.Dexter.briefing.room.com

Featuring a steaady feed, of ridiculous millenial social justice nonsense


Scchedule for today: One hour of free play. Teachers will then collect the crayons.



Schedule for tomorrow: FormerVP Al Gore, on "how to trade in financial securities based on the climat- change scam-"carbon credit exchanges"

I think you're pissed off because proving me wrong rather than just stating your own opinion is not as easy as you think it should be.

[txradioguy]

Real climate science dot com doesn't break those statistics down fairly because they have their own agenda. If you delve deep into it you will find that yes, the government did fudge those numbers a little, but it's not as much as you think or as much as your website purports. A very large majority of climate scientists and even non-climate scientists and academics are all in close agreement. There isn't a scientific institution on Earth that is denying AGW by claiming the scientists are phonies.

But I thought you weren't qualified to speak on this because you weren't an expert?

You said that yourself.

Yet suddenly you're qualified enough to say that the source I used doesn't break the numbers down and is biased?

 

[Restored]

How do you prove a negative? You believe in something that doesn't exist. A theory is not a fact.
I guess in theory it is.