re: 97 hours of consensus

scorncr by "consensus"

What a stupid fricking idea. Let's look at where their funding comes from.

quote:

---

For the last 17 or so years... it hasn't been rising at all.

---

ok got you down.

Someone explain this bigot thing to me. What did Tigah do to rustle Bengal's jimmies, and what did he say that was supposedly bigoted? (I'm not buying that the two are one and the same, because almost every poliboard poster has probably said something bigoted.)

quote:

---

ok got you down.

---

Still waiting for you to quantify the terms...

quote:

---

Are we really still talking about MBH98 in tyool 2014

I mean if you're going to dust off ancient tropes from ClimateAudit you could at least bring up the not-quite-as-old M08 paper and the not-quite-as-moldy talking points about Korttajarvi or whatever

---

I thought we were talking about the cartoonist turned pretend scientist in the OP.

OTOH, since you raised the issue, is the temperature rising now, in an unprecedented way? . . . e.g., by comparison to any number of points elsewhere in the past mega-annum?

quote:

---

I used the word zipperhead (which my engineer used to describe any idiot)

---

Good to see you still like top use racial slurs, bigot.

quote:

---

You do understand, the more facts you present the denialists -the more they will deny? Like any conspiracy theorist, factual evidence against their argument is actually evidence of a larger conspiracy

---

here is a fact, cap and trade doesn't work. Come up with different solutions and then I will think about listening.

quote:

---

A few tenths of a degree celsius is not worth killing millions of people.

---

Sure it is, as long as it is the right people that die. The ruling elite will make sure that only the perpetrators are punished for their actions.

These quote bubbles are a little laughable for someone to pass as scientific consensus. I am actually open to seeing what the correct answer is in regards to global warming. I'm willing to listen to the facts. I just don't think there are many out there. I think there are some on the right that do politicize the issue and will look to disprove any arguement from those that believe global warming is caused by man, and I think that is irresponsible. But at the same time, when "climate change scientists" get together for 97 hours of concensus and not a single quote that you've posted actually shows quantifiable facts, there's a big problem on that side of the arguement as well. They are all stating their conclusions and posting them as facts. They may be facts, but you need to back them up with what brought you to that conclusion. I never see that from those on that side of the arguement without caviats of them making assumtions and disregarding heaps of data, because it is an outlier that does not support their argument. You have to use all of the data. In your conlcusion you can state why you believe that is an outlier, but there is too much information that is ignored. I just don't believe anyone.

I can't tell you how many times I modified data in my engineering labs so that I could get my output to match what was supposed to happen according to texbooks. It made it A Lot easier to make my report match the expected conclusions. I knew it was very wrong, but I knew what the answer was supposed to be and knew that if I manipulated the data in a certain way I could get the desired outcome. I think these scientist already have come to the conclusion that climate change is man made and they are doing just like I did in college. Except they don't look at it as wrong, because they believe it is for the good of the planet.