Bill Nye, ‘The Jail-The-Skeptics Guy!’: Nye entertains idea of jailing climate skeptics for ‘affecting my quality of life’ (Exclusive Video)


By: - Climate DepotApril 14, 2016 10:44 AM with 315 comments

NEW YORK CITY – Bill Nye, “the science guy”, revealed he is openly favorable to the idea of jailing ‘global warming’ skeptics at the Hague  as “war criminals.” Nye was confronted with environmental activists Robert F. Kennedy’s call to jail climate skeptics for treason and lock them up at the Hague. See: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Wants To Jail His Political Opponents – Accuses Koch Brothers of ‘Treason’ – ‘They ought to be serving time for it’

Nye openly pondered the idea that climate skeptics deserve jail. Climate Hustle’s Marc Morano asked Nye in an exclusive interview, “What is your thought on jailing skeptics as war criminals?”

Nye responded: “Well, we’ll see what happens. Was it appropriate to jail the guys from ENRON?”

Nye added, “For me as a taxpayer and voter — the introduction of this extreme doubt about climate change is affecting my quality of life as a public citizen.”

Debate no more! Jailed for scientific dissent?! Twenty climate scientists, including Top UN scientist, call for RICO investigation of climate skeptics in letter to Obama

Climate Hustle‘s Marc Morano, asked Nye:

Morano: “We interviewed Robert F. Kennedy Jr. RJK Jr., the environmentalists. He said climate ‘deniers’, his words, Energy CEO’s belong at the Hague with three square meals and a cot with all of the other war criminals. What is your thought on that and do you think some of the rhetoric on your side — as I am sure both sides — gets too carried away. What is your thought on jailing skeptics as war criminals?”

Nye: “Well, we’ll see what happens. Was it appropriate to jail the guys from ENRON?”

Morano: “Interesting.”

Nye: “So, we will see what happens. Was it appropriate to jail people from the cigarette industry who insisted that this addictive product was not addictive and so on? And you think about in these cases — for me as a taxpayer and voter — the introduction of this extreme doubt about climate change is affecting my quality of life as a public citizen. So I can see where people are very concerned about this and are pursuing criminal investigations as well as engaging in discussion like this.”

Morano also asked Nye about the “chilling effect” of threatening investigations and jail to scientists who dissent on man-made global warming claims. ‘

Nye responded: “That there is a chilling effect on scientists who are in extreme doubt about climate change — I think is good. The extreme doubt about climate change people – without going too far afield here – are leaving the world worse than they found it because they are keeping us from getting to work. They are holding us back.”

#

More on Climate Hustle:

Watch: Morano in Tux on TV for DC Film Premiere – Teases Mystery Animal that Was Mascot for both Cooling & Warming fears

Watch: Bill Nye compares use of fossil fuels to human slavery: ‘Detriment’ to the future

Bill Nye the ‘science guy’ says modern energy revolution akin to ‘human slavery’ – Challenges Skeptic to Temperature Bet

Wash Times: Bill Nye, the science guy, open to criminal charges, jail time for climate-change dissenters – Mr. Nye’s comments come with a coalition of liberal attorneys general pursuing companies that challenge the catastrophic climate-change consensus, a campaign that critics fear could chill research and free speech. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude E. Walker raised concerns about a government crackdown on dissent when he issued a subpoena last week to the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute for its climate-related research and documents. About about the potential for a “chilling effect,” Mr. Nye said, “That there is a chilling effect on scientists who are in extreme doubt about climate change—I think that is good.”

Related Links:

Climate Depot Responds to Sen. Whitehouse: ‘The warmists have it exactly backwards. It is the global warming proponents who are guilty of the tobacco tactics.’

Kennedy Jr. accused skeptical politicians of “selling out the public trust.” “Those guys are doing the Koch Brothers bidding and are against all the evidence of the rational mind, saying global warming does not exit. They are contemptible human beings. I wish there were a law you could punish them with. I don’t think there is a law that you can punish those politicians under.”

Kennedy saved his most venomous comments for the Koch Brothers, accusing them of “treason” for “polluting our atmosphere.”

“I think it’s treason. Do I think the Koch Brothers are treasonous, yes I do,” Kennedy explained.

“They are enjoying making themselves billionaires by impoverishing the rest of us. Do I think they should be in jail, I think they should be enjoying three hots and a cot at the Hague with all the other war criminals,” Kennedy declared.

“Do I think the Koch brothers should be tried for reckless endangerment? Absolutely, that is a criminal offence and they ought to be serving time for it,” he added.

Kennedy previously called for jailing his political opponents. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics of 2007 declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors” In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies “criminal enterprises” and declared CEO’s ‘should be in jail… for all of eternity.”

 

 

This is not the first time global warming activists have sought to try their opponents with treason or jail them. In 2014, thewarmist Gawker website wrote: ‘Arrest Climate-Change Deniers’ – ‘Those denialists should face jail’ – ‘Criminally negligent’ – ‘It’s time to punish the climate-change liars’

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Wants To Jail His Political Opponents – Accuses Koch Brothers of ‘Treason’ – ‘They ought to be serving time for it’

In 2009, New York Times Paul Krugman accused Congressmen who voted against climate cap-and-trade bill of ‘treason against the planet!

‘Execute’ Skeptics! Krugman’s sentiment joined by fellow climate fear promoters

In June 2009, a public appeal was issued on an influential U.S. website asking: “At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers.” The appeal appeared on Talking Points Memo, an often cited website that helps set the agenda for the political Left in the U.S.

The Talking Points Memo article continues: “So when the right wing fucktards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events – how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn’t we start punishing them now?” (For full story see: ‘Execute’ Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: ‘At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers’ — ‘Shouldn’t we start punishing them now?’ – June 3, 2009)

After all the attention drawn to it by Climate Depot, the Talking Points Memo article was later pulled and the website published a retraction and apology, but the sentiment was stark and unequivocal and has significant company among climate fear promoters.

On June 5, 2009, Joe Romm of Climate Progress defended a posting on his website warning that climate skeptics would be strangled in bed for rejecting the view that we face a man-made climate crisis. “An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds,” warned the message posted on Climate Progress.

Romm, a former Clinton Administration official, pulled the comments after Climate Depot drew attention to them. “The original was clearly not a threat but a prediction — albeit one that I certainly do not agree with. Since some people misread it, I am editing it,” Romm wrote.

#

Small sampling of threats, intimidation and censorship:

NASA’s James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for “high crimes against humanity.” In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.” In 2007, The Weather Channel’s climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.

A 2008 report found that ‘climate blasphemy’ is replacing traditional religious blasphemy. In addition, a July 2007 Senate report detailed how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation.

In 2007, then EPA Chief Vowed to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic and dissenters of warming fears have been called ‘Climate Criminals’ who are committing ‘Terracide’ (killing of Planet Earth) (July 25, 2007) In addition, in May 2009, Climate Depot Was Banned in Louisiana! See: State official sought to ‘shut down’ climate skeptic’s testimony at hearing.

November 12, 2007: UN official warns ignoring warming would be ‘criminally irresponsible’ Excerpt: The U.N.’s top climate official warned policymakers and scientists trying to hammer out a landmark report on climate change that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible.” Yvo de Boer’s comments came at the opening of a weeklong conference that will complete a concise guide on the state of global warming and what can be done to stop the Earth from overheating.

October 28, 2008: License to dissent: ‘Internet should be nationalized as a public utility’ to combat global warming skepticism – Australian Herald Sun

U.N. official says it’s ‘completely immoral’ to doubt global warming fears (May 10, 2007) Excerpt: UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus.”

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics (January 17, 2007) Excerpt: The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to “Holocaust Deniers” and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.


  • spepper

    Yes we damned sure do affect his “quality of life”, proudly, when we call out morons like Nye for being total sock puppets for criminals in the UN and our own government for illegally attacking entire energy sectors like coal, while diverting billions of tax dollars to corrupt ones like solar, wind, etc.

    • Concerned

      The evidence shows that not only are these folks forcing over $1T per year on AGW related action, they are killing jobs, killing our quality of life (in 2014 over 40,000 people died from cold weather in Europe due to energy poverty caused by solar and wind expenditures and subsidies), killing 3rd world growth due to lack of cost-effective energy (millions die each year in Africa), but all of this will not make a measureable difference in our climate and climate change. In addition, these AGW folks have illegally modified the real data to reinforce their position. The real scientific data shows that we have had an 18+ year pause in global warming, area of sea ice is back to where it was in 1980, the sun is at the lowest activity level in over 100 years, and very reputable scientists and NOAA believe that we have entered an extended (40 to 60 years) cooling period for the world.
      If this occurs, is it acceptable that these global warming activists be jailed for purposely misleading us to acting on warming when it really becomes cooling?

      • Ruth Slowik

        “my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr”..,……..!wc103ctwo days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 DoIIars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k DoIIars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 DoIIars…Learn. More right Here !wc103:➽:➽:➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsProfitableGetPayHourly$98…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!wc103……

      • Nye’s suffering from intellectual retardation. “Extreme” doubt? Is that different from “moderate” doubt, or “slight” doubt? He’s a thorough nitwit, what twitter punks often refer to as “an ass hat”.

        • John

          Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in?

          What exactly do you have to fear if we take action on ACC now, serious action to prevent further damage?

          What do you have to lose if you admit that ACC is settled? How would that change your lifestyle, and why is that a bad thing?

          Answer my questions.

    • nigelf

      Actually it is Nye himself that has negatively affected his quality of life by being such a vocal and popular voice for the global warming scam.
      If you lie down with dogs you’ll get fleas. He has lain down with the dogs but now wants to blame us for his bad case of fleas.

      • John

        Why do you reject climate change science?

        • nigelf

          I don’t. I reject those who should know better that are predicting catastrophes because of a rise in a trace gas that makes up only 0.004% of the atmosphere.
          Take away the money and these doomsday predictions die overnight.

          • John

            So, you dont reject ACC, but you reject the science.

          • nigelf

            I reject the doomsday science. There’s no evidence whatsoever that any warming produced by CO2 will lead to the catastrophes we’re told it will.
            Climate models and conjecture aren’t science.

          • John

            So, now you claim that climate change science is doomsday sciecne. But you are still rejecting the scientific conclusions (facts and risk assessments). That makes no sense, you are either intellectually dishonest, or bankrupt or ignorant. Which one would you rather be?

            This is the fact that you reject:

            The mass of the atmosphere is 5.3 x 10^18 kg. 0.03% of this is carbon dioxide, which is trillions of tons. Every CO2 molecule constituting that 9 trillion tons is capable of facilitating an unlimited number of heat transfer events. That is why it is called a greenhouse gas. People who do not understand this do not understand the laws of physics. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html

            This is the risk assessment that you reject:

            The negative impacts of CO2-driven global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133.full.pdf+html

            Further to this, I’m not convinced that you understand the difference between a projection and a prediction. Climate models do projections based on scenarios, they don’t do predictions based on forecasts. Therefore, you are beating up your own straw-man with your ‘predicting catastrophes’ ignorance.

            This is the consequences of cliamte change: http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

            You claim:

            There’s no evidence whatsoever that any warming produced by CO2 will lead to the catastrophes we’re told it will.

            That is quite a claim you made, big boy. Do you have any evidence to back that up? I mean, you are literally saying to me that the greenhouse effect does not exist, that NASA is wrong and never wrote this http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/, that the majority of climate change scientists are wrong and never wrote any of this https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/.

            Gee man, you are basically claiming that you can falsify the scientific theory of anthropogenic climate change. That is incredible. I’m so glad that I met you. You will be more famous than EInstein if you can really back up your claim that there is no evidence whatsoever that any warming produced by CO2 will lead to the catastrophes.

            Now that we cleared up some of your drivel, I will ask you again:

            Why do you reject climate change science?
            You are either intellectually dishonest, or intellectually bankrupt or intellectually ignorant. Which one would you rather be?
            We both know that you fear the political and economical implications of climate change on your life style. You think that we can get unlimited growth from limited resource because you are greedy. All you want to d is protect your life style, because your greed is the most important thing for you.

            Now, can you answer my question.
            Why do you reject clime change science?

          • nigelf

            It is you who is rejecting climate science.
            When you are paid to find alarm with man made increases in CO2 well guess what? You’ll find alarm every last time. Even if it means you have to alter past historical federally owned data to show more warming than there actually was. Even if you have to fake a hockey stick graph that gets rid of the MWP to make todays warming look warmer than during the MWP.
            Unless you have integrity and will tell the truth which shows nothing to be alarmed about.
            Richard Lindzen has integrity.

            When Trump takes the gravy trough away this will stop overnight. The fraudsters pushing this scam will disappear and either go into other fields or go abroad where the scamming will linger for a little bit longer.

            It’s coming to an end, get over it.

          • John

            You have not answered my question.

            All you are doing is claiming that climate science, anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is false without stating why. You have not given any evidence to support your claims. All that you’re doing is demonstrating that you fear the political and economical implications of ACC on your greedy life style.

            What makes you think that Trump’s or your mis-informed opinion on climate change makes it true or false?

            Anthropogenic climate change is happening, weather you believe in it or not.

            Again: Why do you reject climate change science?

          • nigelf

            It’s false because we’ve been much warmer in the past with both lower and higher CO2 levels and there was no catastrophe…case closed.

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            Accepting that would reduce his/her/its level of hysteria…and that is unacceptable to the hysterical liberal. He/She/It must have an ongoing washroom crisis…unable to figure out what washroom they should use.

          • John

            Your argument is neither valid or sound.

            Sadly for you, scientific arguments are not conducted on the comment pages of Disqus. They’re conducted in the pages of scientific journals and conference proceedings. Write up your “findings/conclusions” in a scientific journal, get it peer-reviewed and then published in the scientific literature. Then wait until the scientific community can’t falsify your evidence and for the consensus to emerge that your “findings/conclusions” is not false. You’re wasting your time here with your unsound and invalid argument.
            Note: if your “findings/conclusions” consist of accusing the entire scientific community of some sort of massive conspiracy, you are not likely to get very far. Nor will you get very far if you object to the science because of what it implies for your lifestyle and political views. It is not enough just to go against the establishment, you need to be right as well. And that’s exactly as it should be. Save your opinions on what we should do about climate change for the political arena, where they belong.

            Now you know how to falsify anthropogenic climate change (ACC). The question is will you attempt to do it? We both know that you will not, yet you will still claim ACC is false.
            As such, you should not be taken seriously, no matter how serious you take yourself.

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            Failed models. QED.
            No one wants reduced standard of living. That’s why rational people wish to sell cheap energy to poorer parts of the world. Too bad hysterical liberal confused washroom users wish to simply reduce the standard of living for everybody.
            Trump has demonstrated a degree of rationality that a hysterical liberal will never understand, or match in merit. Do you need help deciding which washroom to use?
            Failed models.

          • John

            You claim:

            Failed models

            Which models failed? How do you know they failed?
            Do you understand the difference between a projection and a prediction? if so, can you explain that to me in your own words? Also, can you then tell me if climate models to projections based on scenarios, or predictions based on forecasts?

            No one wants reduced standard of living. That’s why rational people wish to sell cheap energy to poorer parts of the world. Too bad hysterical liberal confused washroom users wish to simply reduce the standard of living for everybody.

            Thank you for admitting to your greed. However, your assumption that all people share your greed is unfounded and absurdly unsound.

            Trump has demonstrated a degree of rationality that a hysterical liberal will never understand, or match in merit.

            That is merely an assertion fallacy. Do you even know what that is? Look it up, it may introduce you to reality.

            Do you need help deciding which washroom to use?

            Einstein said ‘When a person resorts to insults, he has no argument to give.’ Thank you for admitting that your reasoning failed.

            Prediction: You will not answer any of my questions. But you will still claim that some ‘unknown models failed’ as your irrational reason for being in denial of science. And you will offer more weak insults because your reasoning failed. Are you happy with that?

          • John

            Become a credentialed and published climate scientist and your opinion about what is proper climate science will actually be worth considering. Until then, you’re just another of the many people who deny climate science because they don’t like its political and economic implications.

            If you were to say instead “Yeah, we’re warming the climate but I just don’t give a damn”, I’d disagree but at least I’d respect you for your opinion. But denying the science itself so you don’t have to admit your greed is just plain dishonest.
            The answer for climate change will come from carbon-free (or at least very low carbon) sources. That includes wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and yes, nuclear. That’s what really mystifies me about climate change deniers. They all hold strongly right-wing and libertarian political views (I have yet to see an exception), and should therefore favor nuclear power just to annoy the liberals. But instead they deny the science and look ridiculous. Why?

          • nigelf

            I love nuclear and see it as the only alternative if you happen to have this false notion that CO2 emissions are bad.

          • John

            As stated before: I have yet to see an exception.

            What makes you think anthropogenic CO2 emissions are not bad?
            You completely forgot to cite your source, to cite your evidence. Is that really how you get through life? How is that working out for you so far?

            The negative impacts of CO2-driven warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133.full.pdf+html

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            The predicted negative impacts haven’t manifested, and the planet is greening. Aw, your poor little religion…so sad.

          • John

            As expected, you cited no science, only your fallacious opinion.

            The negative impacts of CO2-driven global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133.full.pdf+html

          • John

            There is a very strong correlation between climate change denial and a conservative belief in laissez-faire capitalism. It’s really quite fascinating as a sociological phenomenon, although I’m not a sociologist.

            Climate science is neither left nor right. It’s science, which deals with facts.

            That you and many other deniers keep trying to make it political is very revealing since science has nothing to say about what we should do about global warming. It simply establishes the fact that it exists and what will likely happen in the future.

            What we do about it is quite properly in the realm of public policy and politics, but the debate must be informed by the scientific facts. To deny them so you can pretend there’s no problem is dishonest.

          • John

            How do you know that?
            Did you read the scientific journal that I posted which shows that your claim is unfounded? I don’t think you did because I left a surprise in it for you. In case you missed it, you indirectly admitted to being dishonest.
            Do you know what is the difference between a projection and a prediction?

            If you read the journal, can you tell me if it makes predictions or projections?

            The negative impacts of CO2-driven warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives.
            http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133.full.pdf+html

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            Scientific journals or papers on on climate science alarm are not valid sources of information. Posting links to pseudoscientific information sources only reinforces how deluded you are! lol

          • John

            So, you could not support your claim that “The predicted negative impacts haven’t manifested, and the planet is greening”

            All you are doing is claiming is that

            Scientific journals or papers on on climate science alarm are not valid sources of information.

            Learn something today. When you hear of two mystical claims, then you can’t evidence the second occult claim with your first asurd claim.
            You can’t claim that “Scientific journals or papers on on climate science alarm are not valid sources of information” as evidence that “The predicted negative impacts haven’t manifested, and the planet is greening”

            I have given you 10 way to falsify ACC (the human impact on climate). Why have you not taken up the challenge?

            We both know why, it’s because you have no idea how to do it. In your astro-reality claims are facts. You fear the political and economical implications of ACC on your greedy lifestyle. Why can’t you be honest about that?

          • John

            Where do you get your scientific information on climate change from then?

          • John

            NASA and the counts are not valid sources of information?

            NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

            Courts: https://mn.gov/oah/assets/2500-31888-environmental-socioeconomic-costs-carbon-report_tcm19-222628.pdf
            As from
            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/may/11/coal-made-its-best-case-against-climate-change-and-lost

            So, where is your source of information that can falsify ACC?

            You have none. And we both know that. Yet you still claim ACC is false. How pathetic.

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            Oh yes…protect the church of climate pseudoscience!
            Everyone understands: FAILED MODELS. Unpredicted stoppage of global warming for 18 years. You lost with your own work, we won by sitting by and watching you fail.
            Now I say again: Would you like assistance in deciding which washroom you should use? I know it makes you hysterical and all…

          • John

            Now you want the conversation to be as meaningless as possible, to hide your vacuum of knowledge, to conceal your intellectual incapacity. You just gave away your exist strategy, your plan to admit how your reasoning failed.

            Tell me, why do you want to protect your church of climate pseudoscience?

            Let me run a test on you and demonstrate your dishonesty. You claimed Unpredicted stoppage of global warming for 18 years., yet you completely forgot to cite your source for this. That’s because in your climate pseudoscience you think that claims are fact and need no evidence.
            Further to that, let’s check the data to get an objective view of warming/cooling/hiatus.

            Check these databases for yourself rather than relying on claims by others. Here are some links:

            BEST: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt

            CRU: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/CRUTEM4v-gl.dat

            NOAA: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/6/1880-2014

            UAH: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt

            NASA: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt

            and that includes the UAH dataset, a dataset by deniers Christy and Spencer.

            Go to each database, copy & paste the data into MS Excel or some other spreadsheet, then produce scatter plots of data points over time. Run trend lines through the period 2000 to present for each database. You’ll find the line always slopes up to the right, i.e. warming not cooling. Use this method to satisfy yourself that warming is still occurring before posting again. Any future debate can then proceed from a factual basis.

            Prediction: You will not cite your source for the so called stoppage of warming. Nor will you check the temp data bases. But you will still claim that the earth is not heating up, and offer more weak insults because your reasoning failed. Are you happy with that?

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            Yep, it’s common knowledge: Stoppage of warming for 18 years. This very site has frequent headlines about it with climate science’s own data and reports. Perhaps you missed all those while hyperventilating about being able to peep into women’s washrooms. The data is *right in the source temperature data”! lol!

          • John

            As expected, you chose not to proceed from a factual basis.

            You cited no sources for your claims. And expect me to accept them.
            As such, you should not be taken seriously, no matter how serious you take yourself.

          • John

            You keep on claiming failed models, yet you fotget to back that up with evidence.

            Do you suffer from amnesia?

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            I am so sorry that you are unable to do such a simple thing as read a graph.

            You are a perfect product of crony-capitalism and consumerism.

          • John

            You did not answer my question.

            You keep on claiming failed models, yet you fotget to back that up with evidence.

            Do you suffer from amnesia?

            I am so sorry that you are unable to do such a simple thing as read a graph.

            What graph?
            Are you now delusional?

            You are a perfect product of crony-capitalism and consumerism.

            Do you honestly believe that your insults will convince me over to your ‘side’, into your pseudo astro reality?

            If so, then you are dumber than I thought.

            Now, can you answer my questions?

            Prediction: You will once again not answer any of my questions. You will, however, demonstrate hoe your reasoning failed you, and offer more weak insults to underscore your intellectual vapidness. Are you happy with that?

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            Failed models. Unpredicted cessation of global warming for 18 years. QED. Now go find something else to be hysterical about…maybe a woman’s-only washroom will get to you.

          • John

            You did not answer any of my questions.

            You made ridiculous claims:

            Failed models. Unpredicted cessation of global warming for 18 years.

            Which models failed?
            How do you know they failed?
            Were these models doing projections or predictions – and how do you know this?

            Let me run a test on you and demonstrate your dishonesty. You claimed Unpredicted stoppage of global warming for 18 years, yet you completely forgot to cite your source for this. That’s because in your climate pseudoscience you think that claims are fact and need no evidence.

            Further to that, let’s check the data to get an objective view of warming/cooling/hiatus.

            Check these databases for yourself rather than relying on claims by others. Here are some links:

            BEST: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/a

            CRU: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/d

            NOAA: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/t

            UAH: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/

            NASA: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist

            and that includes the UAH dataset, a dataset by deniers Christy and Spencer.

            Go to each database, copy & paste the data into MS Excel or some other spreadsheet, then produce scatter plots of data points over time. Run trend lines through the period 2000 to present for each database. You’ll find the line always slopes up to the right, i.e. warming not cooling. Use this method to satisfy yourself that warming is still occurring before posting again. Any future debate can then proceed from a factual basis.

            Prediction: You will not answer any of my questions about the so called failed models. You will not cite your source for the so called stoppage of warming. Nor will you check the temp data bases. But you will still claim that the earth is not heating up, and offer more weak insults because your reasoning failed. Are you happy with that?

          • John

            Sadly for you, scientific debates are not conducted on the comment pages of YouTube videos. They’re conducted in the pages of scientific journals and conference proceedings. Write up your “findings/conclusions” in a scientific journal, get it peer-reviewed and then published in the scientific literature. Then wait until the scientific community can’t falsify your evidence and for the consensus to emerge that your “findings/conclusions” is not false. You’re wasting your time here. Note: if your “”findings/conclusions” consist of accusing the entire scientific community of some sort of massive conspiracy (paid to find an alarm as you claimed), then you are not likely to get very far. Nor will you get very far if you object to the science because of what it implies for your lifestyle and political views. It is not enough just to go against the establishment, you need to be right as well. And that’s exactly as it should be. Save your opinions on what we should do about climate change for the political arena, where they belong.

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            Yes…because the Climate Cult Church of Permanent Liberal Hysteria will definitely consider something that lessens their hysteria.
            Their own models failed. They simply got more hysterical.
            L.O.L.!
            Look at you…hysterical. Do you have a washroom crisis?

          • John

            You would almost think that your drivel refuted anything I said…But then we know you aren’t very good at trends.

            Why are you telling me about your Climate Cult Church of Permanent Liberal Hysteria? We both know that your Cult of Climate Change denial have no cliamte change models.

            I don’t understand why you are admitting that your cult is hysterically pathetic, yet you remain a member. People say and do idiotic things, and there’s no legal requirement to be a scientist to say them or even to speak the truth. Nor are scientists required to debunk every false argument; science is not a sport where one side wins by default if the other side doesn’t show up. Scientists are frequently presented with a conundrum: ignore pseudoscientific claims and risk being perceived as unable to refute them, or thoroughly debunk them and risk granting a veneer of legitimacy to an illegitimate position. This is quite common thanks in part to a news media that promotes controversy by assuming every issue always has two equal sides. Evolution and climate change deniers know this very well. It’s why they constantly challenge real scientists to public debates. The public does not realize that this is not how scientific issues are resolved. They are resolved, over time, through the pages of refereed journals and conference proceedings. They exploit this public misconception this to the hilt because their goal is not to change the scientific consensus (which they cannot do, thanks to the checks and balances of the scientific method) but to influence public opinion (of which scientists form a tiny minority). That in turn warps public policy in their favor, which is their ultimate goal. That’s why we’ve long had state legislators trying to ban the teaching of evolution and promoting creationism or “intelligent design”. And now some are trying to ban the teaching of mainstream climate science.

            What now?
            We both know that you will not address the content of my post, but you will try and play the man. All you can do is offer insults because we both know that you can’t defend your denialism position.

            Your reply will demonstrate your intellectual vapidness give that I told you what your next move will be, and you will do it – you are predictable.

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            Aw that’s adorable! You wrote 5 paragraphs writing to an anonymous poster who like everyone else here sees through your sad, sad lies.

            Blab on, troll!

            Don’t you have a women’s washroom to go be hysterical about being able to peep into somewhere?

            Conference proceedings and refereed journals resolve nothing in the way of truth, only expediency. Science is founded on provisionalism, as any scientific theory can be refuted at any time, since science is based on the falsifiablity principle. Anything that, in theory, could be falsified, is ipso-facto not the truth. The truth is unfalsifiable but science considers everything that it states to be falsifiable. Therefore science can never find the truth. And climate pseudoscience has been falsified, and has exposed the weakness and weak points of science. Conference proceedings! hahahha you really are an idiot. I’m sorry…there’s just no way to have a rational conversation with you – you don’t know how to engage in reason, and when someone tries, you don’t recognize it and immediately reject it.

            I’d suggest some reading material, but it’s not for you – pearls before swine:

            https://www.amazon.com/Sciences-War-Reason-God-Book-ebook/dp/B015JLMWVY?ie=UTF8&keywords=Mike%20Hockney&qid=1462579164&ref_=sr_1_3&sr=8-3

            Yes, you play the man and insult everyone and then set a new standard that we can’t play the same. Moron!

          • John

            You claim:

            Science is founded on provisionalism, as any scientific theory can be refuted at any time, since science is based on the falsifiablity principle.

            That is why I asked you if you can falsify the scientific theory of ACC. You choose not to answer that, yet still claim it is false.
            Name me one scientific theory that has been falsified. Just one. And no, I’m not interested in hypotheses or updated scientific theories. I want you to name me one scientific theory that has been falsified. Just one.

            You claim:

            And climate pseudoscience has been falsified, and has exposed the weakness and weak points of science. Conference proceedings!

            Really? Care to back that up with some evidence: a published peer reviewed scientific journal that were accepted by the scientific community?

            Can you do that?

            And then you linked to an Amazon book as your evidence for some non-existent god? Seriously?

            There is a well known phenomena called crank magnetism; cranks are attacked to cranky ideas, just like magnets.
            Is there a cranky theory that you do not believe in?

            We both know that you will not answer that.

          • John

            You are still insisting that climate change science is a political issue. That just underscores my point that you do not like the economical and political implications of it because of your greed.

            It’s quite sad to read that you adhere to such a fringe as ‘dangerous’ anthropogenic climate change (ACC) denial. You do it because you fear the likely policies to combat it, you don’t fear the tax.

            This is quite sad, because if you were to accept the basic reality of ACC, people might actually be willing to listen to your suggestions of how to deal with it in a market-orientated way, with minimum impact on business and your quality of life.

            But no, you deny it altogether and make yourself increasingly irrelevant. You chose to imagine a reality that simply does not exist, just to avoid your responsibility.

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            I’m sorry, but you believe in a completely false reality. While you wish to reduce the quality of life of those with merit and those who produce, and hence why you believe in climate alarm, the meritocrats, i.e. my side, simply wishes to raise the standard of living of those at a lower level. Your focus is on reducing the quality of life of those who can produce quality of life, whereas our focus is on increasing quality of life for all.

          • John

            You are still claiming to know my beliefs when I have not stated them to you. What other magic can you do, besides reading my mind?

            This is quite sad, because if you were to accept the basic reality of ACC, people might actually be willing to listen to your suggestions of how to deal with it in a market-orientated way, with minimum impact on business and your quality of life.

            But no, you deny it altogether and make yourself increasingly irrelevant. You chose to imagine a reality that simply does not exist, just to avoid your responsibility.

          • nigelf

            And that’s exactly what the fraudsters like Mann and Schmidt should do…quit with the activist pseudo-science and go into politics if they want to change the world more to their liking.
            Their job is to produce science and present it to their political masters. if their political masters decide to do nothing with those scientific findings then so be it.
            It’s not up to them to go to the media screeching that we’re all going to die unless their special science is acted upon. If they were my subordinate I would fire their ass so quick it would be on fire.

            And rightly so.

          • John

            Even after I explained to you how scientific debates work, you still persist to make it a political issue.

            You’re clearly not very intelligent, that’s a fact. Your I.Q. on observation is no more than 90, and that’s being kind.

          • nigelf

            The leftists made it a political issue and co-opted pliable scientists with promises of grant money and fame. But in a sense the left was right…it is a political issue and not a scientific one. No thinking apolitical scientist will come to the conclusion that increases of CO2 will be anything more than a curiousity.

          • John

            Even after I explained to you how scientific debates work, you still persist to make it a political issue. You are merely underscoring my point that all you can do is to try and make this a political issue because you know that you can’t change the science.

          • nigelf

            I can’t change this bastardization of science, no. Only the scientists themselves can change it and eventually they will, just like they did with plate tectonics and ulcers. Those two scientists were hounded and called every demoralizing thing until the majority finally started coming around to the facts. You don’t hear any argument these days about plate tectonics or the cause of ulcers but back in the day they were ridiculed mercilessly.

            Todays climate scientists who want to keep their special truth locked up in a box so no one can question it are an endangered species who refuse to debate and will not put up with any dissent within their ranks.
            They have abandoned the scientific method and that will be the sword with which they will perish.

          • John

            It is not enough to just go against the establishment, you need to be right as well.
            Your Galiloe Gambit (plate tectonics and ulcers nonsense) is a logical fallacy.
            You seem to have no understanding of how science works, what is the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory. No wonder you think that the 97% consensus for anthropogenic climate change is a political issue.
            Keep on posting, you are merely underscoring the fact that you have no understating of how science and the scientific method works. And we have not even touched on climate chnage science.

            You claim:

            Todays climate scientists who want to keep their special truth locked up in a box so no one can question it are an endangered species who refuse to debate and will not put up with any dissent within their ranks.

            They have abandoned the scientific method and that will be the sword with which they will perish.

            I don’t understand why you keep on demonstrating your intelectual vapidness when it comes to science.
            People say lots of things, believe crazy things, and there’s no legal requirement to speak the truth or to be a scientist. Nor are scientists required to debunk every false argument; science is not a sport where one side wins by default if the other side doesn’t show up.
            Scientists are frequently presented with a conundrum: ignore pseudoscientific claims and risk being perceived as unable to refute them, or thoroughly debunk them and risk granting a veneer of legitimacy to an illegitimate position. This is quite common thanks in part to a news media that promotes controversy by assuming every issue always has two equal sides. Evolution and climate change deniers know this very well. It’s why they constantly challenge real scientists to public debates. The public does not realize that this is not how scientific issues are resolved. They are resolved, over time, through the pages of refereed journals and conference proceedings. They exploit this public misconception this to the hilt because their goal is not to change the scientific consensus (which they cannot do, thanks to the checks and balances of the scientific method) but to influence public opinion (of which scientists form a tiny minority). That in turn warps public policy in their favor, which is their ultimate goal. That’s why we’ve long had state legislators trying to ban the teaching of evolution and promoting creationism or “intelligent design”. And now some are trying to ban the teaching of mainstream climate science.

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            Aw, all you have is insults and innuendo. Everyone sees through your role here, troll. Science progresses by making mistakes, and climate science was a mistake. Everyone knows that now.

            It is you John who does not understand how science works, where the scientific method fails, and what the limits of science are.

            Don’t you have a women’s washroom to hyperventilate about being able to peep into? Spend more time on that, because science and philosophy is obviously waaaaayy out of your league.

          • John

            You claim:

            climate science was a mistake. Everyone knows that now.

            Sadly for you, inane blather and invective without evidence has no basis in science.

            You claim:

            It is you John who does not understand how science works, where the scientific method fails, and what the limits of science are.

            Why don’t you enlighten me then. Show me my errors, show me where I am wrong instead of just claiming I got it wrong. Appeal to assertion is a logical fallacy, did you know that?

            You claim:

            Don’t you have a women’s washroom to hyperventilate about being able to peep into? Spend more time on that, because science and philosophy is obviously waaaaayy out of your league.

            It is way, not waaaaayy. Try to at least get that right. I bet your friends and family also comment of your proficiency in incoherence, given that you can’t express yourself.

            More assertion from you. Seriously, you should think more slowly in the unrealistic delusion that you might be able to keep up with even the most basic of coherence.

            Philosophy belongs to antiquity, science has shown that, replaced it some ~500 years ago. I don’t think you understand anything about religion, philosophy or science. No wonder you think that your drivel refuted anything I said…But then we know you aren’t very good at trends.

            I am not interested in homework, Teacher, as you may, or may not, have gathered I am able to educate myself on any subject of my interest.

            Can you falsify ACC? If so, let’s hear it.
            We both know that you will profusely refuse to answer that.

            Pathetic.

          • John

            The difference between us is whether we accept the scientific method as the best way we have to get at the objective truth about the physical world around us. I do, and you apparently don’t despite your loud protests. And I’m backed up on this by psychological research — there are numerous studies showing a very strong correlation between global warming denial and belief in laissez-faire capitalism. I for one do not believe that objective scientific facts depend on subjective political beliefs..

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            Yes, denial of pseudoscience and irrationality correlates with desire for and value of meritocracy. Whereas belief in climate alarmist pseudoscience correlates with hysterical need to peep into women’s washrooms, labeling men as women of the year, Islamic and Sharia Law apologism, self-hatred and hatred of Western culture, welfare statism, hatred of merit and maritocracy, the denial that some cultures are better than others, the denial that some religions are better than others, the denial that some ideas are better than other (unless they are ideas which revolve around self-hatred and hatred of Western culture, in which case they are deemed better ideas), the denial that there are men and women, the denial of individual thought and the value of independence and personal sovereignty, etc etc.

            It has been known for, literally – thousands of years – that empiricism is not rational. This has been common knowledge among the learned class for -thousands of years-. Empiricism, which is what modern science is based on, is not rational, and does not partake of reason. Empiricism is another form of religion, and the religion of climate change doom alarm is exactly its product. It has been known for -thousands of years- that there are no and there is no such thing as an “objective scientific fact”. You are so woefully uneducated and uninformed that it is literally impossible for you to understand what I and others are trying to help you with. You are the perfect product of crony-capitalism and are the mindless consumer it wishes to create.

            Your lack of *basic* knowledge is a universal correlate among those who believe in the climate alarmist religion.

            We feel so sorry for you.

          • John

            You just underscored my point for me: the strong correlation between global warming denial and belief in laissez-faire capitalism.

            Thank you for that.

            empiricism is not rational…. there are no and there is no such thing as an “objective scientific fact”.

            Care to back that up? According to your logic, your denial position of ACC can never be backed up by empiricism or objective scientific fact.
            That is quite an admission there, big boy.

            As such, you should not be taken seriously, no matter how serious you take yourself.

            Pathetic.

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            Because it was such a good comment:

            nigelf: “I can’t change this bastardization of science, no. Only the scientists themselves can change it and eventually they will, just like they did with plate tectonics and ulcers. Those two scientists were hounded and called every demoralizing thing until the majority finally started coming around to the facts. You don’t hear any argument these days about plate tectonics or the cause of ulcers but back in the day they were ridiculed mercilessly.

            Todays climate scientists who want to keep their special truth locked up in a box so no one can question it are an endangered spe cies who refuse to debate and will not put up with any dissent within their ranks.

            They have abandoned the scientific method and that will be the sword with which they will perish.”

            I am so sorry for you John, that you have such a hard time with such simple concepts. I really wish the world could have done more for you.

          • nigelf

            He’s lost Beowolf, he just doesn’t know it yet. Most of the rabid believers are like that.

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            It’s hard to believe that they are *actually* like that (because it would be just so terribly sad for them), and that they’re not rather simply trolls, paid or otherwise, of some type.

          • nigelf

            I don’t think he’s paid at all. I just think he has to much faith in the system and can’t imagine how this could possibly be a manufactured crisis, therefore the logical conclusion in his mind is that I’m totally ignorant of the facts or too blind to see catastrophe that’s just around the corner (isn’t it always?).

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            Well in that case, it really is just so sad. I mean here we are wishing to progress humanity, ready and willing to develop “nice things”…but these people – a manufactured brake on humanity.

            I’m just so disappointed that they are so hopelessly inured by the system, and so naive about reality and the way the world (and science!) works.

          • John

            Why do you fear the economical and political implications of ACC on your greedy lifestyle?

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            Straw-man. You assume we have a greedy lifestyle. You are wrong. We have a capable lifestyle, and meritocrats wish others to be capable as well. You merely fear others being as successful as the West, because if you had to compete in a meritocracy, you know that you would lose. Hence, you desire a welfare state instead.

          • John

            You did not answer my question.

            Tell me, why are you against ACC?

            Do you fear that your ‘capable’ lifestyle will be impacted by ACC?
            What is a ‘capable’ lifestyle? Can you define that, or is it that you rely heavily on obscurantism in your astro-reality?

            I find it quite interesting that you can claim to know my beliefs when I have not stated them to you.

            meritocrats wish others to be capable as well. You merely fear others being as successful as the West, because if you had to compete in a meritocracy, you know that you would lose. Hence, you desire a welfare state instead.

            What other magic can you do besides read my mind?

            Of course I don’t expect to win, because climate science denial is itself a cult, driven by the ideology of total lessez-faire capitalism. The realization that the earth has limited resources and that some sort of regulation is necessary is simply unacceptable to that ideology, so it must be rejected at all costs. Yes, the temperature of the sun plays a role in climate. However, the sun’s output has been measured from space since almost the beginning of the space age and it varies only 0.1% over the 11-year solar cycle. It does not explain rising temperatures, and the claim that it does is a common denier fallacy. Increases in temperature can either lead or follow increases in CO2 depending on the cause of the temperature increase. There can be more than one cause, you know. Just because past increases were driven by, say, Milankovich cycles does not mean that the increases now cannot be driven by human CO2 emissions. That’s another common denier fallacy. Planetary positions have no effect on the earth’s climate except indirectly by causing the earth’s poles and orbit to precess. That’s the cause of Milankovich cycles, but they are very slow and fairly predictable, so they cannot explain the current rapid temperature rise. That’s another common denier fallacy. Yes, the CO2 in the atmosphere has been this high in the past. But it wasn’t supporting the same life as today — specifically homo sapiens. The last time was about 800,000 years ago, long before modern humans. It’s now 400 ppm. The last time it reached even 300 ppm was 325,000 years ago, again before modern humans. Yes, the earth’s temperature has been much higher (and much lower) than today, but again it wasn’t supporting the same life because this was long before modern humans. These are just a few of the common denier fallacies that won’t go away because denial is based on political ideology, not science.

            Now, can you answer my question.
            Why do you fear the economical and political implications of ACC on your ‘capable’ lifestyle?

          • John

            If that was a good comment then my reply was superb.

            You can’t and don’t want to reply to it because you can’t.

            You claim:

            I am so sorry for you John, that you have such a hard time with such simple concepts. I really wish the world could have done more for you.

            You and I both know that you can’t change the science. You and I have no say in scientific theory, we’re not qualified. You know this. I know this. All you have left is to try and make this a political issue, to appeal to those that have not decided in a small hope that they would fall for your crank theories, your pseudo science. You want to steal their vote in the goal to wrap political policy in your favor. That is your goal, a dishonest one. You are doing it because you fear the political and economical implications of ACC on your life style. You are greedy, you think we can get unlimited growth from limited resource. You can’t, deal with it.
            ACC is not false, whether you believe in it or not. That is the power, not eminence, of falsifiable evidence.

            Your game is known, you are exposed.
            “The greatest obstacle to discover is not ignorance. It’s the illusion of knowledge…” -Daniel Boston

            1) Can you name me a scientific body of national or international standing that maintains a formal opinion dissenting anthropogenic CC/GW?

            2) Can you present me your Peer Review scientific report that has been accepted by the scientific community that falsifies anthropogenic CC/GW?

            3) Can you present me your climate change model to support your peer review report?

            4) Can you present me your review of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)?

            5) Can you present me your evidence that the majority of climate scientists are wrong when it comes to anthropogenic CC/GW?

            We both know that you will not answer any of these questions because then you have to admit to your intellectual vapidness and that my comment drives a nail through your greed.

            Be my guest, show me wrong, answer my questions. And note, a response is not always an answer.

            What now, denier?

          • John

            I want to help you.

            It seems to me that you are desperately trying to come up with arguments and evidence why ACC is false.

            To date you have given me nothing, other than your insane claim that ACC is false because you don’t like the economical and political implications on your greedy life style. I think you can do better than that. My guess is that you must be annoyed with your denier camp because all they can offer is pseudoscientific, bad-faith nonsense promulgated by political rhetoric.

            The scientific theory of ACC is falsifiable. Falsifiable evidence is discovered via experimentation and / or observation.

            Here are the 10 way to falsify ACC (the human impact on climate).

            Observe and / or find a test to find / conclude (and don’t forget write it up, send it for peer review, then for publication, and then wait for the scientific community to accept your findings, then send me your url link to your paper, I’ll nominate you for a Nobel prize):

            A drop in global temperatures for some period of time to the level of 50 years ago or longer, without a clear cause

            A drop in global sea level for some period of time

            A strong rise or decline in the atmospheric CO2 level

            Climate forcings in the past were much larger, or temperature changes much smaller, than science found

            Warming of the stratosphere

            Major errors in equipment in satellites, measuring outgoing longwave radiation

            Evidence of a substantial fall of relative humidity with rising temperature

            A source of heat in the climate system that we do not know yet

            A fundamental flaw in the scientific understanding of radiation physics or thermodynamics

            CO2 molecules appear to behave differently in the wild, than they do in a laboratory

            I have now given you 10 ways that you can falsify ACC. Want to have a go?

            Think before you answer, before you invest your ego in a public stand that you may find difficult to reverse later. Any further dialog between us can be from this factual basis.

            Yep, I have given you some homework to do. I did it because you don’t seem to be able to string a coherent argument together to defend your denialism position or to convince me that you have a basic understanding of science and its method.

            And don’t just reject it with your knee-jerk fashion. It’ll take you some time. Don’t expect to learn and understand it while standing on one foot. Or while assuming it’s all some sort of massive conspiracy among scientists to make this hard for you. Remember, the floor is now yours, it is your chance to shine!

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            I’m sorry but in intellectual matters of objective reality, you can be of no help. We feel sad for you. You don’t understand such basic things as empiricism vs. rationalism.

          • John

            I take that as your admission that you can’t falsify ACC.

            And you persist with your insults, thinking that it will convince me of your ‘side’, or your pseudo reality.

            I asked you not to just reject it with your knee-jerk fashion. You did.

            Nice try though, Cheese Whiz, you must have been a real short-term hero in your bible study group. Have you ever thought that you might be bored simply because you’re kind of stupid? Oh wait, paradox.

          • John

            Your logic amazes me.
            Do you honestly think you will convince me of your position by insulting me?

            Bejesus. I did not think you could make a dumber post than your previous one.

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            You truly are a double-standard hypocrite. It is you who have been insulting people here.

            Do you honestly believe that you can convince us rationalists of your pseudoscience? Do you honestly think that your opinion matters? Hint: No you can’t, and no it doesn’t. You simply lack the intellectual tools necessary to comprehend what we comprehend, and what you necessarily do not.

          • John

            You did not answer my question.

            What makes you think I want to convince you of anything?
            Gee man, bejesus man, each post of yours is infinitely dumber than the previous one!

            And no, it’s not an insult when it is true. Welcome to your museum of mistakes.

            Of course I don’t expect to win, or to convince you, because climate science denial is itself a cult, driven by the ideology of total lessez-faire capitalism. The realization that the earth has limited resources and that some sort of regulation is necessary is simply unacceptable to your ideology, so it must be rejected at all costs.

            People say lots of things, and there’s no legal requirement to be a scientist to say them or even to speak the truth. Nor are scientists required to debunk every false argument; science is not a sport where one side wins by default if the other side doesn’t show up. Scientists are frequently presented with a conundrum: ignore pseudoscientific claims and risk being perceived as unable to refute them, or thoroughly debunk them and risk granting a veneer of legitimacy to an illegitimate position. This is quite common thanks in part to a news media that promotes controversy by assuming every issue always has two equal sides. Evolution and climate change deniers know this very well. It’s why they constantly challenge real scientists to public debates. The public does not realize that this is not how scientific issues are resolved. They are resolved, over time, through the pages of refereed journals and conference proceedings. They exploit this public misconception this to the hilt because their goal is not to change the scientific consensus (which they cannot do, thanks to the checks and balances of the scientific method) but to influence public opinion (of which scientists form a tiny minority). That in turn warps public policy in their favor, which is their ultimate goal. That’s why we’ve long had state legislators trying to ban the teaching of evolution and promoting creationism or “intelligent design”. And now some are trying to ban the teaching.

            I can very easily accept that I can be mistaken, fooled by my own wishful thinking, by con men (theologians, Philosophers) selling pseudoscience manufactured by the doubt industry promoting AstroReality, etc. This is exactly why I accept the scientific method and its results over my own intuition. It was created specifically to detect and correct these very human mistakes, and it has been shown to work extremely well. What I’m not so confident about is the ability of the scientific process to withstand relentless, heavily funded, bad-faith attacks by those who stand to have their livelihoods impaired by the results of the scientific process. We saw it with smoking and the tobacco companies, it’s still there with evolution and some religious sects, and we’re seeing it now with climate change and the fossil fuel industry.

            You are in the first stage of accepting scientific knowledge (anthropogenic climate change). The stages are:

            1) Denial: You deny the science due to your ignorance of science and its method due to your (yet to be defined) ‘capable’ greedy lifestyle.

            2) Anger: It contradicts some scripture or your belief

            3) Acceptance: You always knew ACC was true.

            Only you can move yourself from stage 1 denial to stage 2 anger. I can’t do it for you, nor do I want to.

            My question to you is: How do you get yourself to stage 2 anger?

          • John

            I don’t understand what you’re saying. People say lots of things, and there’s no legal requirement to be a scientist to say them or even to speak the truth. Nor are scientists required to debunk every false argument; science is not a sport where one side wins by default if the other side doesn’t show up. Scientists are frequently presented with a conundrum: ignore pseudoscientific claims and risk being perceived as unable to refute them, or thoroughly debunk them and risk granting a veneer of legitimacy to an illegitimate position. This is quite common thanks in part to a news media that promotes controversy by assuming every issue always has two equal sides. Evolution and climate change deniers know this very well. It’s why they constantly challenge real scientists to public debates. The public does not realize that this is not how scientific issues are resolved. They are resolved, over time, through the pages of refereed journals and conference proceedings. They exploit this public misconception this to the hilt because their goal is not to change the scientific consensus (which they cannot do, thanks to the checks and balances of the scientific method) but to influence public opinion (of which scientists form a tiny minority). That in turn warps public policy in their favor, which is their ultimate goal. That’s why we’ve long had state legislators trying to ban the teaching of evolution and promoting creationism or “intelligent design”. And now some are trying to ban the teaching of mainstream climate science.

          • John

            Let me remind you why I’m not debating you:

            (i) You chose not to answer my simple question. You are telling me that you have no respect for my time or your own content. That tells me that you are a climate change mis-informer and a denier.

            (ii) I already pointed out that ‘It’s clear that you refuse to answer my questions, yet you expect me to answer yours. That is a rather illogical request from you.’, yet you repeated it again. “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein

            The difference between us is whether we accept the scientific method as the best way we have to get at the objective truth about the physical world around us. I do, and you apparently don’t despite your loud protests. And I’m backed up on this by psychological research — there are numerous studies showing a very strong correlation between global warming denial and belief in laissez-faire capitalism. I for one do not believe that objective scientific facts depend on subjective political beliefs.

            You’re quite right that facts and logic are what matter in science, not anyone’s mental state or motives. Indeed, I see deniers violating this rule all the time, e.g., when they stridently appeal (as you just did) to consequences. Governments might use anthropogenic climate change as an excuse to exert more political power, ergo the science of ACC must be wrong. Did I understand you correctly?

            I do recommend that you learn more about the subject before you invest your ego in a public stand that you may find difficult to reverse later.

            The only fraud is on the side of the deniers. They like to claim that the scientists are somehow driven by greed for grant money, which I’ve always found hilariously absurd for two reasons. First, “we’ve reached a consensus” is the very last thing to say if you’re after grant money. No, you say “we just don’t know, much more study is needed…” Second, the loudest screams about financially motivated scientific fraud are from those who stand to lose the most from the acceptance of anthropogenic climate change as a scientific reality: the fossil fuel industry and those funded by them. I don’t know if it’s psychological projection or what, but it’s supremely ironic.

          • nigelf

            You said:
            Governments might use anthropogenic climate change as an excuse to exert
            more political power, ergo the science of ACC must be wrong. Did I
            understand you correctly?

            Not quite. I dismiss the conclusions of pro-AGW scientists because I think either they’re bought and their egos got swelled by the tongue baths the media gives them or they’ve found out that to speak truth to power gets you unemployed. The older ones like Lindzen or Gray or Soon aren’t afraid to speak out and that to me gives them more credibility.
            Even assuming the entire hypothesis is correct I reject giving any government more control because this always, always leads to a brutal dictatorship. History has shown us over and over again that power in the hands of the few or the one means death and destruction for the citizens unfortunate enough to live under these despots.

            That’s why adaptation is the only answer, whether it gets cooler or warmer. If you ask people whether they’d rather live under a brutal dictatorship (because that’s what it would become) or take their chances that the weather might become a bit nicer for most, which do you think they’d choose?

            You are calling for that dictatorship, even if you don’t think so. And you’re using the threat of the weather getting worse to try and convince us to buy the rope which you will hang us with.

            No thanks, I’ll reject this every time, as will most thinking people.

          • John

            You claim:

            I dismiss the conclusions of pro-AGW scientists because I think either they’re bought and their egos got swelled by the tongue baths the media gives them or they’ve found out that to speak truth to power gets you unemployed.

            You’re not the first to try to trump science with your own uninformed “gut feeling, thinking”. The name for this fallacious thinking is “arguing from personal incredulity”. Look it up. It’s a way for people with no understanding of a subject to share their ignorance around. And as I commented before the same ignorant attitude can be applied even more strongly to the idea that 10ppm of ozone in the stratosphere is blocking 97-99% of incoming UV. Do you have a problem with that BTW? Any personal incredulity there? Then there’s the fact that this tiny smidgen of CO2 is essential to the maintenance all life on the planet. No personal incredulity problem there? The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has risen by 40% over the last 150 years. Ice core data show that until that time it had been pretty stable at around 200-250ppm for at least 800,000 years. Now it’s at 400ppm. We know the extra CO2 is related to human activity carbon because: a) there has been a commensurate drop in the concentration of O2 as CO2 has risen. This shows that the CO2 is from oxidation of carbon. C + O2 -> CO2. Have a look: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2006.00175.x/pdf b) then there’s the changing ratio of carbon and oxygen isotopes (13C/12C; 18O/16O) in the atmosphere over the last 200 years. Read this: http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf I don’t know what peer reviewed research backs up your odd claim about humans only producing a smidgen of CO2 emissions. You didn’t say. Sometimes people will only look at the amount of extra CO2 that we add to the atmosphere in a single year. This way the cumulative effects of CO2 emission can be ignored. Anyway, show me this research you think backs up your claim and we’ll find out where you got confused.

            You claim:

            That’s why adaptation is the only answer, whether it gets cooler or warmer. If you ask people whether they’d rather live under a brutal dictatorship (because that’s what it would become) or take their chances that the weather might become a bit nicer for most, which do you think they’d choose?

            You are calling for that dictatorship, even if you don’t think so. And you’re using the threat of the weather getting worse to try and convince us to buy the rope which you will hang us with.

            The dictatorship I promote is where the falsifiable evidence is the dictator. You are promoting where your “gut feeling, your thinking” should be the dictator. I do not accept that objective scientific facts depend on subjective political beliefs. I do not accept that you can author objective facts from your un-evidenced “gut feeling”.

            That is the difference between you and me.

            In terms of a political dictatorship; I never proposed that. The Scandinavian countries are showing us that Democratic Socialism triumph your the ideology of total lessez-faire capitalism. You can’t get unlimited growth from limited resources.

            Norway doesn’t allow individual and corporate greed to be the dominating force in their economy. This is not a socialist or communist regime. It is one where Banks and Institutions are regulated and taxes are collected to benefit the basic needs (healthcare, education, etc) of everyone. Vital resources such as energy are owned by the country, not private corporations. The income generated is distributed across the entire population.

            Norway is not perfect, but a step forward. Their system is called democratic socialism. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, and the Netherlands all have a similar system in where the democratic part of the socialism is emphasized, not the loss of freedom and / or the value of the individual.

            You claim:

            That’s why adaptation is the only answer, whether it gets cooler or warmer.

            That is at the heart of the problem.
            Life adapts to the environment. If it can’t adapt quick enough, then it goes extinct. The issue about our observed warming planet is not the warming, it is the rate of warming.
            History has shown us quite a few mass extinction events due to climate change. The last mass extinction was only some 250mil years ago, and the primary cause was climate change.
            The science is saying that CO2 is causing a steep rise in warming (trapping heat, some of it we measure in temp), which in turn causes adverse climate which historically caused mass extinctions. Did you know that 99.9% of all species that ever lived are extinct today? Do you want humans to be part of that statistic, my dear lord heretic?

          • nigelf

            We are going to be extinct one day anyway, I can’t imagine how it can be stopped. Possibly by melding with software and such but that takes away our humanity doesn’t it?

            You say CO2 has risen 40% in 150 years, that sounds right. Now point out the disasters that caused. None. Everything about our life and health is better today than back then and there’s no reason to think in another 150 years that they’ll be saying how much better life is now than back in the early 2,000’s.

            Humans inhabit parts of the earth that range from -40C to +40C. To think we can’t adapt to a couple or more degrees right where we live now is absurd. Some species of plats and animals may go extinct if we’re not careful and fail to relocate those most in danger but as you rightfully pointed out, 90% of all species that ever existed are extinct.

            Did it cause any calamity when the Dodo Bird or Passenger Pigeon went extinct? No, most people would have never known about it if not for the news. The mighty Buffalo almost went extinct and we were fortunate enough to realize it and take some action but it really wouldn’t have made a difference if they did. It might have emotionally to some people but that’s all.

            Those socialist countries you mentioned are at a very real and immediate threat as is most of Europe and I don’t expect them to be able to survive another thirty years with the demographic suicide they’re engaged in.

            You bring up a point about falsifiability. Tell me, what would falsify CAGW in your opinion?

          • John

            You have once again not answered any of my questions. If you persist with that then you leave me no option but to ignore you, to stop providing you with free education.
            You have been warned.

            We are going to be extinct one day anyway, I can’t imagine how it can be stopped. Possibly by melding with software and such but that takes away our humanity doesn’t it?

            Yes, considering antiquity, humans will probably go extinct at some stage, or evolve to a form of like that we would not classify as humans using our current definition.
            But why rush that? Why destroy our habitat now, why not act on the evidence and preserve it for the next generation?

            You claim:

            Now point out the disasters that caused. None. Everything about our life and health is better today than back then and there’s no reason to think in another 150 years that they’ll be saying how much better life is now than back in the early 2,000’s.

            That is where you are negligent again. You claim that the rise in CO2 has not caused any disasters, yet you completely forget to provide any scientific backup for your ridiculous claims.
            Read this:
            http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
            Read this:
            https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

            Come back when we can deal in fact.

            And if you think that we are better off today then you are delusional. Just look at income inequality, the ever increasing gap between the rich and poor. The International Monetary Fund states that the gap between rich and poor in advanced economies is now at its highest level in decades.

            You claim:

            Humans inhabit parts of the earth that range from -40C to +40C. To think we can’t adapt to a couple or more degrees right where we live now is absurd. Some species of plats and animals may go extinct if we’re not careful and fail to relocate those most in danger but as you rightfully pointed out, 90% of all species that ever existed are extinct.

            How ridiculous.

            Only some 15% of earth is habitable for humans if, and only if, we take shelter and wear protective clothing. 30% of Earth’s surface is land. Some 29% humans occupy less than 1% of earth’s area. 90% of the population occupies 3% of the land.
            And no, it is 99.9%, not 90% of all species that ever lived are extinct today. And most of that extinction was due to climate change.

            And as stated before, it is not just about a temp increase. It is about the rate of increase. If the rate is small, then there is no issue, but that the rate in fast, and increasing is the issue.

            You think that this is just about a silly 1 degC temp increase since 1880. It is not, my dear lord heretic, and the rate of temperature increase has nearly doubled in the last 50 years. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade. Temperatures are certain to go up further. Despite ups and downs from year to year, global average surface temperature is rising, the rate is accelerating. There is a correlation between CO2 levels and temp increase; called climate sensitivity. A double the amount of CO2 can result in a 2-4.5 degreesC increase.

            Climate change is more than just warming (temp increase), there are projections and risk assessments as well. The scientific theory of anthropogenic climate change states that the risk is high = if the greedy do not act to reduce CO2 levels then the projections show that some regions/areas/locations may have catastrophic and some may have dangerous consequences (adverse weather, not just temp increase).
            The negative impacts of CO2-driven global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133.full.pdf+html

            You claim:

            Those socialist countries you mentioned are at a very real and immediate threat as is most of Europe and I don’t expect them to be able to survive another thirty years with the demographic suicide they’re engaged in.

            You have one again forgot to cite any sources for your claims.
            There is no one country that is 100% capitalist or 100% socialist or 100% communist. Even the USA has a very strong and large socialistic ideology. It seems to me that you have no understanding of economic systems. We already established that you have an intellectual bankruptcy when it comes to science. And your preference for your laissez-faire capitalism is merely your confusion between economics and politics.
            I would be worries if I were you.

            You ask:

            You bring up a point about falsifiability. Tell me, what would falsify CAGW in your opinion?

            There is no such thing as CAGW . The first thing that you need to learn is to use the correct terminology that is used in science. Unless you, nobody would take you seriously.

            Let me educate you.
            We classify scientific knowledge in 3 broad categories:

            1) Scientific Facts
            2) Scientific Laws
            3) Scientific Theories.

            And don’t confuse point 3 with the English word Theory that means ‘guess, conjecture, belief, speculation, etc.’

            Fact in science means data, not absolute certainty but “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.”

            A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts.

            A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe. Scientific laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. Many laws take mathematical forms, and thus can be stated as an equation; e.g Conservation of Energy: delta E=0.

            A scientific fact is a statement of how things are or appear to be. That the Earth has gotten warming in the last few decades is a scientific fact; we have measured that.
            CO2 is a greenhouse gas – that’s a scientific fact.
            CO2 is a product of breathing, fermentation, fossil fuel emissions, etc. – that’s a scientific fact.

            A scientific theory is an explanation for how something works, explaining the body of scientific facts and have some predictability capability. The explanation for the fact that the earth has been warming is CO2 that has been released by humans caused this temperature increase.

            Anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is the best explanation for global warming. In fact, it is the only scientific theory that fits all observed facts. That is why it is the prevailing scientific theory.

            And your C in CAGW probably stands for catastrophic. Again, that is not what the science says. You are straw manning science and showing that you do not understand it.

            Anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is the scientific theory. (Anthropogenic global warming AGW is not the scientific theory.) The risk assessment is high (dangerous) is we do not act (reduce CO2 levels). Some regions may be have catastrophic consequences if we do not act (reduce CO2 levels).
            Likewise, the term “global warming” is somewhat problematic as well since the planet isn’t warming uniformly—a few places have a short-lived cooling trends—and the word “warming” sounds downright cozy on a cold day, when, in fact, substantially heating of the atmosphere and ocean is happening.

            Please educate yourself in science and its method. I find your posts quite stifling and your questions pathetic. It’s feels like I’m writing to a 6 year old.

            This is how you falsify the scientific theory of ACC:
            You do not require credentials in a field to understand and accurately summarize its findings. You do require credentials in a field to meaningfully challenge those findings.

            Become a credentialed and published climate scientist and your opinion about what is proper climate science will actually be worth considering. Until then, you’re just another of the many people who deny climate science because they don’t like its political and economic implications. If you were to say instead “Yeah, we’re warming the climate but I just don’t give a damn”, I’d disagree but at least I’d respect you for your opinion. But denying the science itself so you don’t have to admit your greed is just plain dishonest.
            The way to settle science (file scientific knowledge) is with peer reviewed published journals, evaluation of them and failed falsification.

            It seems to me that you are desperately trying to come up with arguments and evidence why ACC is false.

            To date you have given me nothing, other than your insane claim that ACC is false because you don’t like the economical and political implications on your greedy life style. I think you can do better than that. My guess is that you must be annoyed with your denier camp because all they can offer is pseudoscientific, bad-faith nonsense promulgated by political rhetoric.

            The scientific theory of ACC is falsifiable. Falsifiable evidence is discovered via experimentation and / or observation.

            Here are the 10 way to falsify ACC (the human impact on climate).

            Observe and / or find a test to find / conclude (and don’t forget write it up, send it for peer review, then for publication, and then wait for the scientific community to accept your findings, then send me your url link to your paper, I’ll nominate you for a Nobel prize):

            A drop in global temperatures for some period of time to the level of 50 years ago or longer, without a clear cause

            A drop in global sea level for some period of time

            A strong rise or decline in the atmospheric CO2 level

            Climate forcings in the past were much larger, or temperature changes much smaller, than science found

            Warming of the stratosphere

            Major errors in equipment in satellites, measuring outgoing longwave radiation

            Evidence of a substantial fall of relative humidity with rising temperature

            A source of heat in the climate system that we do not know yet

            A fundamental flaw in the scientific understanding of radiation physics or thermodynamics

            CO2 molecules appear to behave differently in the wild, than they do in a laboratory

            You need to write up your results, get it peer previewed, and then published in scientific journal. Then you need to wait for the experts to try and falsify it (to show it wrong), and if they can’t, then consensus will emerge, they will stop arguing, and accept your findings/results/conclusions.

            I have now given you 10 ways that you can falsify ACC. Want to have a go?

            Think before you answer, before you invest your ego in a public stand that you may find difficult to reverse later. Any further dialog between us can be from this factual basis.

            Yep, I have given you some homework to do. I did it because you don’t seem to be able to string a coherent argument together to defend your denialism position or to convince me that you have a basic understanding of science and its method.

            And don’t just reject it with your knee-jerk fashion. It’ll take you some time. Don’t expect to learn and understand it while standing on one foot. Or while assuming it’s all some sort of massive conspiracy among scientists to make this hard for you. Remember, the floor is now yours, it is your chance to shine!

          • John

            Ok.
            Thanks for your admission.
            Since you can’t falsify ACC, why do you claim it’s false then?

          • John

            The climate science is settled: anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is a scientific theory with a 97% consensus. The science is not a political issue, it is a scientific issue, both you or I have no say in any scientific theory, we are not qualified. Because you cannot see the difference tells me that you are not worth my time debating.

            The reality of the scientific evidence for ACC has nothing to do with politics, but public policy decisions about what to do about it are (and should be) political, not scientific.

          • nigelf

            Your gullibility and openness to the 97% lie shows you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. That was shown to be a crock of shit by many people as soon as it came out but you insist on clinging to lies instead of actually digging for the truth.

            And consensus isn’t a scientific term whatsoever, it is an entirely political term.

          • John

            You claim:

            Your gullibility and openness to the 97% lie shows you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.

            The scientific theory for anthropogenic climate change (ACC) was filed.
            I accept the basic findings and conclusions of cliamte change sciecne because I understand the scientific method. For example, there are more than one published peer reviewed scientific journals that verifies the consensus, but there is no, nope, zip, null, published peer reviewed scientific journals that falsifies the consensus. Can you falsify the scientific theory of ACC?
            This is not a political issue, it is a scientific issue, both you or I have no say in any scientific theory, we are not qualified. Because you cannot see the difference tells me that you are not worth my time debating

            You claim:

            And consensus isn’t a scientific term whatsoever, it is an entirely political term.

            Can you provide your evidence for that? You know, show your work! I find your appeal to assertion rather pathetic.

            I don’t even think you know what consensus in sciecne is, or how it emerges. You seem to be confused, you think scientific consensus is similar to political opinion. Your ignorance is stifling.

            Scientific consensus emerges when evidence can’t be falsified

            And no, it’s not 97% of scientists agree: climate change is not false, anthropogenic, irreversible and incredibly dangerous, it’s 97% of climate science papers finds/concludes on anthropogenic climate change. There’s a big difference.

            It means 97% of all the papers written by experts in the subject, and had these peer reviewed and published in long standing well recognized scientific journals of note; (and understand what that implies); agree on anthropogenic climate change and that it explains the fact of global warming. Consensus emerges when scientists stop arguing and accept what the falsifiable evidence points to. They then start citing each other’s work, file the scientific knowledge (ACC) and still try to falsify it, and work on finding better explanations of the scientific facts.

            The scientific consensus for ACC is that the Earth’s climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.

            Scientific Opinion of scientific bodies
            No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from the ACC consensus or any of these 5 points:

            1. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal,

            2. Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities,

            3. Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale,

            4. The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time,

            5. The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).

            That is clearly stated on their Internet websites, go and have a look.

            Scientific Opinion of climate change scientists

            This was obtained by asking the climate change scientists what their opinion is. Note that this does not constitute consensus, it is opinion. The results were that 98.4% endorsed the 97% consensus. Another survey showed over 95% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that the earth is warming and that human activity is the cause. However, only about 50% the general public think that scientists have reached a consensus on anthropogenic climate change.

            Sources:
            Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations (2009)

            Oreskes 2004 “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”

            Doran and Zimmerman 2009 “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”

            Anderegg tal 2010 “Expert credibility in climate change”

            Cook et al 2013 “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature”

            What now? Can you falsify ACC? Do you even know what falsification is?

          • nigelf

            For such an intelligent man you sure aren’t very smart.
            Funny, I don’t remember ever in my life hearing about some scientific hypothesis that 97% agree on. I don’t recall ever hearing about polling being done amongst scientists to find out what number agree.
            That’s because this climate scam is a very different animal. It’s political to the core, first brought to light by a political group (UN) for a political end (global control).
            The trillion dollar a year climate industry is a manufactured scam and you are one of their useful idiots.
            Raise your head high!

          • John

            Your response highlights the fact that you can’t falsify the scientific theory of ACC. Thank you for your honesty.

            You are in the first stage of accepting scientific knowledge (the scientific theory of anthropogenic climate change). The stages are:

            1) Denial: You deny the science due to your ignorance of science and its method

            2) Anger: It contradicts some scripture or your belief

            3) Acceptance: You always knew it was so.

            Only you can lift yourself and move to stage 2.

            Before you try and understand this, let me explain to you more detail regarding stage 1: denial.

            Your denial will always take on 3 basic logical fallacies:

            1.1. Appeal to authority.

            You will always cite some scientific expert that claims anthropogenic climate change is false. You will never point to what the scientific community says, or what the leading scientific theories are, or point to peer review journals.

            1.2. Appeal on consequences

            You will also state how bad it will be if we accept the science and act. This is merely your outcry to the public and looking for support, hoping that you can spread your ignorance to them, and instill unsupported fear, rather than focusing on the science and trying to falsify it.

            1.3. Circular Reasoning

            You will offer one canard (false claim) after the other. When we rebut the first, you will not acknowledge that, you will just play the next canard. On and on we go, hey.

            I can’t change you, only you can do that. All I can do is explain the facts and the stages of denial/acceptance you are in. It’s your job to understand it; I can’t do your homework for you.

            What makes you think this is sport where there are 2 sides of equal authority? When I hear rubbish such as what you are preaching then I understand the conundrum: 1) Do I engage and debunk every single false claim that are making? The risk with that is that it could be perceived that there is some legitimacy in his claims and that it’s worth my time. 2) Do I not engage to debunk every single false claims of yours? The risk with that is that it could suggest that your claims can’t be debunked and is therefore not false. And here is the thing; scientists are also not required to debunk every false argument; science is not a sport where one side wins by default if the other side doesn’t show up. This is quite common thanks in part to people like you and news media that promotes controversy by assuming every issue always has two equal sides. I suspect people like you know this very well. It’s why they constantly challenge scientists to public debates. The public does not realize that this is not how scientific issues are resolved. They are resolved, over time, through the pages of refereed journals and conference proceedings. You will exploit this public misconception to the max because your goal is not to change the scientific consensus (which you cannot do, thanks to the scientific method) but to influence public opinion (of which scientists form a tiny minority). That in turn warps public policy in your favor, which is your ultimate goal. That’s why people like you are trying to ban the teaching of mainstream climate science.

            Pathetic.

          • nigelf

            Right back at ya.

            By 2015 climate change was moving off the center stage, as it

            consistently ranked near the bottom of the US public’s major policy concerns. Newspapers reassigned staff to hotter stories (the LAT in 2008, the NYT in 2013).
            Presidential candidates of both parties muted their climate change
            policies. The COP21 festival seems likely to produce few results (just
            like its predecessors).

            The death of a large joint effort creates grief, best described (impressionistically) by the five stages of the Kübler-Ross model. This fits the recent actions of climate activists. First there is…

            (1) Denial

            Activists’ initial reaction was (ironically) denial. They believed
            that the public supported them, that action was prevented only by
            shadowy conspiracies and unethical journalists (who reported both sides
            of the debate), and that strong policy action would happen soon. For
            decades they hoped that action will come after a disastrous weather
            event (to be blamed on climate change), the next conference, the next
            IPCC report, or the next media event.

            Most of the 40 thousand attendees at the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties (COP21)
            in Paris work and party in denial about the state of the movement.
            Attendees who understand this bleak prospect might treat it as a wake.

            But continued bad news erodes away denial, leading to…

            (2) Anger

            For some activists, denial has boiled over into anger. Most notably, James Hansen — who wrote a scathing essay overflowing with anger. Obama would not even meet with him, James Hansen — a star of the CAGW movement! Worse…

            “Obama is not proposing the action required for the essential change
            in energy policy direction” {decarbonization} … How can such miserable
            failure of political leadership be explained, when Obama genuinely wants
            climate policy to be one of his legacy issues? … Get ready for the
            great deceit and hypocrisy planned for December in Paris. … I have
            suggested, asked, or begged lawmakers, in more nations and states than I
            can remember, to consider a simple, honest, rising carbon fee with all
            funds distributed to legal residents. Instead, invariably, if they are
            of a bent to even consider the climate issue, they propose the
            discredited ineffectual cap-and-trade-with-offsets (C&T) with all
            its political levers.”

            Also see “Why the Paris climate deal is meaningless”
            by Oren Cass (Manhattan Institute) at Politico (a useful weather vane
            for opinion-makers’ trends). “The more seriously you take the need to
            reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, the angrier you should be.”

            Anger feels good but accomplishes nothing, leaving behind only…

            (3) Depression

            People move through these stages at their own pace, often skipping
            one or more. Some climate scientists have moved into depression, and
            understandable reaction to the failure of the policy campaign to produce
            the measures they consider necessary for the survival of humanity —
            and, in many cases, to which they have devoted so much effort for so
            long.

            These stories make anyone sad who has a shred of empathy. See some examples at “Climate depression is real. Just ask a scientist.” by Madeleine Thomas at Grist (October 2014). More recent are the stories at “When the End of Human Civilization Is Your Day Job” by John H. Richardson at Esquire
            (July 2015) — “Among many climate scientists, gloom has set in. Things
            are worse than we think, but they can’t really talk about it.” For a
            in-depth discussion with one scientist see “Is it ok for scientists to weep over climate change?” by Roger Harrabin at The Guardian
            (July 2015) — “The devastating impact CO2 emissions are having on
            oceans recently brought one professor to tears during a radio
            interview.”

            Active people eventually recover from their depression, realizing that some valuable steps can be taken. This leads to…

            (4) Bargaining

            “We don’t even plan for the past.”

            — Steven Mosher (member of Berkeley Earth; bio here), a comment posted at Climate Etc.

            The Bargaining stage might prove fruitful, when activists see the
            clock running out (especially when funding begins to dry up) and change
            their tactics from mockery and insults (“Deniers!”) to bargaining. Both
            Left and Right can find common cause about many public policy measures
            to prepare for climate change — which both sides agree is inevitable
            (although in different contexts). Many such measures will require
            large-scale infrastructure projects, often popular in Congress.

            The US public policy gridlock might break during this stage, although achieving on fragments of activists’ goals. See more details here.
            But the grand hopes for massive policy action will likely remain
            unfulfilled, especially for those using the threat of CAGW to change our
            economic and political systems (e.g., Naomi Klein and Pope Francis). Eventually most activists will come to…

            (5) Acceptance

            Life goes on, even for activists. There is always another campaign, as the coming apocalypse from air & water pollution was followed by the The Population Bomb (1968), which gave way to Limits to Growth (1972), then nuclear winter (1983), then several more campaigns until peak oil, peak everything, and climate change.

            Activists will enjoy the certainty that they were correct even though
            defeated by an ignorant public led by conservatives and oil companies.
            They will look forward — as did previous generations of such prophets — to the eventual apocalypse that results from the world’s refusal to believe.

            Eventually the weather will decide whose science was stronger, that
            of the “activists or the “skeptics”. It might take years to see decisive
            results, or perhaps decades (see some scientists’ predictions here).
            Climate change is a commonplace in history, sometimes destroying entire
            civilizations. Our refusal to prepare even for the obvious —
            continuation of the two centuries of warming or, even more
            irresponsibly, for repeat of past extreme weather — probably will prove
            expensive in lives and money.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/05/activists-go-thru-5-stages-of-grief-for-the-climate-change-campaign/

          • John

            You did not answer my question.

            Do you honestly get your scientific information from WUWT, a known climate mis-infornation and pseudo science site?

            You merely underscored my point that you will offer a 1.1. Appeal to authority.

            You will always cite some scientific ‘expert’ (WUWT pseduo science) that claims anthropogenic climate change is false. You will never point to what the scientific community says, or what the leading scientific theories are, or point to peer review journals.

            You walked into that one, hey!

            Again: How will you get yourself from stage one denial to stage 2 anger?

            Predictions. You will not answer my question. But you will offer more fallacious reasoning and weak insults. Are you happy with that?

          • nigelf

            So I guess any website or scientist who goes against what you think is a climate misinformer. You’re the one who’s appealing to authority.
            I’m the one who’s kicking authority in the nuts and saying show me the proof. You can’t just shut your eyes and say we looked at natural causes for the increase in warmth and darn it, we just can’t find any. Must be us, hand over your freedom and wealth.

            The only anger I have is the lack of common sense that’s been bred out of a good part of the population by the liberal cesspool of an education system that has enabled the mass indoctrination of the global warming scam to take hold among the weak minded. If it was just a cult that only affected it’s members it would be tolerable. But sane thinking people like myself are being forced to go along with it for now until the scamsters are fully exposed.

            Here’s your peer reviewed papers countering the non-problem of global warming:
            http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

          • John

            You did not answer my questions. But you did live up to my prediction, again!
            And you seem to be happy about that.
            *facepalm*

            You claim:

            So I guess any website or scientist who goes against what you think is a climate misinformer.

            That is a straw man argument. It is a logical fallacy.
            I never said that. What I said was that WUWT is a known pseudo science site. The fact that you can’t tell the difference is quite telling of your preference for crank theories.

            You claim:

            You’re the one who’s appealing to authority.

            That is your appeal to assertion fallacy. Another failed reasoning from you.
            Which authority have I appealed to?

            You claim:

            I’m the one who’s kicking authority in the nuts and saying show me the proof.

            What authority are you kicking?
            It is not enough just to go against the findings in climate science (the falsifiable evidence), you need to be right as well. Did that ever occur to you?
            What makes you think there is such a thing as scientific proof? In science we do not prove or disprove anything.
            Read this and stop making unintelligible statements.
            http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b10

            Here is the falsifiable evidence that ACC is not false:
            http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

            And read it, read the sources that NASA cites. And then tell me why you reject the falsifiable evidence?

            You claim:

            The only anger I have is the lack of common sense that’s been bred out of a good part of the population by the liberal cesspool of an education system that has enabled the mass indoctrination of the global warming scam to take hold among the weak minded. If it was just a cult that only affected it’s members it would be tolerable. But sane thinking people like myself are being forced to go along with it for now until the scamsters are fully exposed.

            Yes, you are angry, because you are greedy. You admitted to your ideology of total Lessez-Faire Capitalism. The realization that the earth has limited resources and that some sort of regulation is necessary is simply unacceptable to that ideology, so it must be rejected at all costs.

            Look up Lessez-Faire Capitalism, it’s your askew ideology, your astro reality. Shame on you. Look up Lessez-Faire Capitalism, it’s your crank theory.

            You claim:

            Here’s your peer reviewed papers countering the non-problem of global warming:

            http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

            LOL, you did not read it, did you. It says clearly: “The list is a bibliographic resource not a scholarly paper. Bibliographic resources are not peer-reviewed but curated by an editor.”

            Now, let’s look at how the list get’s compiled. Poptech’s Andrew C (a computer analyst) will list papers if he decides they rebut an ACC claim made by “someone” on the internet. A paper doesn’t have to dispute the mainstream climate science found in the IPCC report in order to be included. What? Read that again.

            Furthermore, PopTech lists the papers based on what he calls Alarmism (defined: “concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.”) What? Read that again. PopTech has a list of papers that does not question ACC, they question the economical and political implications of ACC. Scientists are not politicians, so it is easy to make such a list.

            Poptech defines the purpose of this list as: “To provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that “support skepticism of AGW or AGW Alarm and to prove that these papers exist contrary to widely held beliefs.”

            Poptech lists three people that seem to hold such a view, 2 politicians and one commentator at RealClimate.org. Yep, that’s right, three people are enough for a claim to be said to be “widely held”. Is he really suggesting that climate science is never critically looked at; that other climate scientists simply accept what others say?

            Up to 2011, there was some 850,000 peer reviewed papers on climate change for the 850 peer reviewed papers that PopTech presented. That is 0.1%. Oh dear, of dear. And not all of the PopTech papers were peer reviewed either! Nor have any (yes, none, zip, zero) been accepted by the climate change scientific community).

            There is plenty of room for skepticism in all areas of science, but not for denial. Science relies on healthy skepticism, but pay no attention to denial. One highly biased individual (author of populartechnology.net) creating a subjective list does not rise to the level of good scientific skepticism, it cements his denialism.

            Over 10,000 peer-reviewed studies directly related to climate change get published per year now. There is no field of study in 400 years of science that has not gotten more accurate as more scientists have piled on. The body of peer-reviewed papers in this arena has moved in a clear direction: Away from denial. Away from Populartechnology / PopTech (Andrew K, Computer Analyst).

            You can count on two hands the scientists affiliated with Big Oil either directly or indirectly who claim humans do not influence climate. (Scientists who have actually gotten climate change research published). You can count on 1 hand the diminishing tally of studies they manage to squeeze past peer-review disparaging ACC even as the number of papers directly related to ACC rapidly crests 10,000 studies annually.

            The research measuring the consensus around ACC is sound. In the Cook et al (2013) study 8,500 scientists were emailed to ask them to self rate their papers. This resulted in 1,200 scientists rating the level of endorsement of their own climate papers, with 2,142 of their papers receiving a self-rating. Of these papers 97.2% affirmed ACC. The figure arrived at by Cook et al rating 11,944 abstracts was 97.1%. Pretty close eh? I started to look at the objections raised by those who felt they’d been misrepresented in Cook at al (2013). There was Willie Soon who was 3rd author on a paper criticizing studies forecasting polar bear populations. It was classed by Cook et al (2013) as “no position on ACC” but Soon thought it should be rated as rejecting ACC. I read the abstract and found that it criticizes assumptions and methods used by some of the researchers but neither endorses nor rejects ACC. So the rating is correct. Then there was Richard Tol. Despite his many criticisms of the paper even Tol had to admit on looking at the self rating data that “There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.” It is inevitable that the denier lobby would challenge ACC consensus studies with every sort of objection imaginable. It’s what they do. But the data consistently come up with a figure of ~97% of publishing climatologists accepting ACC. Now this is either because the world’s climate scientists are part of a global conspiracy to destroy capitalism, our freedom etc, or because they are honestly dealing with the evidence and concluding that ACC is real.

            Andrew C (Poptech) resorts to his own strange classification method in order to list a papers. Of the papers on Poptech’s list, many have been debunked, many are not disputing claims against ACC but instead “Alarmist” claims from “someone” on the internet, many contradict each other and many may not be peer-reviewed. Not very convincing, but quite deceptive. The fact that you can’t tell the difference highlights your denial.

            Nobody said it is proof or confirmation or truth. It’s you that is beating up your straw man and trying to hide your mistakes.

          • John

            There is a well known phenomena called crank magnetism; cranks are attracted to cranky ideas just like magnets.
            Is there a crank theory that you do not believe in?

          • nigelf

            Try me. Come up with a list and I’ll honestly answer yes or no to each one.

          • John

            You did not answer my question. At least you admitted to being crank and believe in crank theories.

            Pay attention now
            Is there a crank theory that you do not believe in?

            Crank, that is a yes or no answer. I could not dumb it down more for you. If you answer yes, then you need to list the crank theory or theories that you do not believe in. We both know that you know what crank theories are. E.g. ACC is false. Evolution is false. God exists. Moon landing is false. Illuminati exists. Alliens abduct people. Etc.

            I don’t think you’re capable of this simply task. Nor do you understand the implications. Oh, the irony.

          • John

            I do recommend that you learn more about the subject before you invest your ego in a public stand that you may find difficult to reverse later.
            The only fraud is on the side of the deniers. They like to claim that the scientists are somehow driven by greed for grant money, which I’ve always found hilariously absurd for two reasons. First, “we’ve reached a consensus” is the very last thing to say if you’re after grant money. No, you say “we just don’t know, much more study is needed…” Second, the loudest screams about financially motivated scientific fraud are from those who stand to lose the most from the acceptance of anthropogenic climate change as a scientific reality: the fossil fuel industry and those funded by them. I don’t know if it’s psychological projection or what, but it’s supremely ironic.

          • nigelf

            The losers: All of humanity as fossil fuels were and are a godsend to keep us out of grinding poverty and subsistence.

            How come none of you that are squealing the loudest like stuck pigs about the climate use just as much gas and oil-derived products as the rest of us sane people?
            The answer is that you don’t think there’s a crisis. None of you do, you just use it as a tool to bash humanity. You hate humanity and would just love for a catastrophic virus to come along and lay waste to all of us, as Prince Phillip once said.
            You belong to a death cult, much like Islamists.

          • John

            Why do you think that insulting people will convert them to your ‘side’?

            Does it cost you money to use less gas? No
            Can your money fix the atmosphere? No.

            The loudest screams about financially incentives or taxes are from those who stand to lose the most from the acceptance of anthropogenic climate change as a scientific reality: the fossil fuel industry and those funded by them. I don’t know if it’s psychological projection or what, but it’s supremely ironic.

            How much do they pay you?

            We both know that you fear the economic and political impact of ACC on your greedy life style. You know that you can’t change the science, all you can how for its to misinform, and try to influence public opinion so that you can wrap political policy in your favour. All because of your greed.

          • nigelf

            Yeah, the best lifestyle humanity has ever had, how damn greedy.
            How come none of you that are so against fossil fuels never live like you believe your own bullshit? Because you’d be dead in a week, that’s why. I’ll hazard a guess you’ve never read Alex Epsteins book about how vital they are to life.

            Does it cost more money to use less gas? Yes. The emission control devices have cost us thousands of dollars per car, but I can live with that.
            Can your money fix the atmosphere? Yes. Pollution control equipment on cars and smokestacks have had immeasurable effect.
            Don’t get caught up in the fallacy that CO2 is pollution, it’s not. Just like oxygen isn’t pollution.
            Hey, you never came up with that crank list yet so I can surprise you with my sanity.

          • John

            You did not answer my questions.

            You claim:

            Yeah, the best lifestyle humanity has ever had, how damn greedy.

            I hit a nerve, yes!
            Climate science denial is itself a cult, driven by the ideology of total Lessez-Faire Capitalism. The realization that the earth has limited resources and that some sort of regulation is necessary is simply unacceptable to your ideology, so it must be rejected at all costs. The data consistently come up with a figure of ~97% of publishing papers finds for ACC. Now this is either because the world’s climate scientists are part of a global conspiracy to destroy your Lessez-Faire Capitalism, your freedom, your greed, or because the findings is honestly dealing with the evidence and concluding that ACC is real. . I for one do not believe that objective scientific facts depend on subjective political beliefs.

            Your Lessez-Faire Capitalism is fundamentally flawed; just look at income inequality, the ever increasing gap between the rich and poor. The International Monetary Fund states that the gap between rich and poor in advanced economies is now at its highest level in decades. Your so called Lessez-Faire Capitalism Democracy is rubbish. Especially where one has to vote for people that pontificate belief as knowledge. I prefer a Dictatorship where falsifiable evidence is the dictator.
            Luckily, there is not one country that has a 100% Lessez-Faire Capitalist (no Socialist) system. Thank your non-existent god for that.

            The fundamental issue is that both politics and economics are not driven by a tested method. The epidemiological need for your climate change denial politicians and economists are greed. The Politician’s main focus is on how to get re-elected. The Economist focus on selling you that infinitive growth is possible with limited resources. Where are the scientists, the engineers, the mathematicians in politics and economics? At least in science the rate of discoveries (output and easy of discovery) has been going up!

            Neither politics, nor economics is a science. That is why your Lessez-Faire Capitalism is fundamentally flawed.

            We need an ideology that has a system designed first and foremost to meet the needs of human beings and the Earth and the non-human species who call it home, that honors the biological and moral fact of life that we are indeed all in this together.

            In that, we need to maximize survival of the human species and minimize extinction.

            This is a society where falsifiable evidence is the dictator, explored by people that understand how to think, not what to think.

            Norway is a country that is probably the closest to this. Norway doesn’t allow individual and corporate greed to be the dominating force in their economy. This is not a socialist or communist regime. It is one where Banks and Institutions are regulated and taxes are collected to benefit the basic needs (healthcare, education, etc) of everyone. Vital resources such as energy are owned by the country, not private corporations. The income generated is distributed across the entire population.

            Of note is that religion has no say in running the country. In fact, the religions are less than 20% and their official Lutheran Protestant church is more for ceremonies without implying religious belief.

            Norway is not perfect, but a step forward. Their system is called democratic socialism. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, and the Netherlands all have a similar system in where the democratic part of the socialism is emphasized, not the loss of freedom and / or the value of the individual.

            Religion, Philosophy, Climate Change denial should be irradiated, to make way for a process that teaches you how to think, where falsifiable evidence is the dictator, to benefit the group (us, humans and the planet).

            There is a very strong correlation between climate change denial and a conservative belief in Lessez-Faire Capitalism . It’s really quite fascinating as a sociological phenomenon.

            Climate science is neither left nor right. It’s science, which deals with facts.

            That you and many other deniers keep trying to make it political is very revealing since science has nothing to say about what we should do about ACC. It simply establishes the fact that it exists and what will likely happen in the future.

            What we do about it is quite properly in the realm of public policy and politics, but the debate must be informed by the scientific facts. To deny them so you can pretend there’s no problem is dishonest.

            Let me show you how wrong you are:

            Does it cost more money to use less gas? Yes. The emission control devices have cost us thousands of dollars per car, but I can live with that.

            Emission control does make you use less gas. To use less gas means to drive less, to switch off your gas when you are not cooking or when you don’t need heating / cooling. The fact that you don’t understand this difference shows me how stupid you are.

            You claim:

            Can your money fix the atmosphere? Yes. Pollution control equipment on cars and smokestacks have had immeasurable effect.

            Pollution control on cars does not fix the atmosphere. It merely reduces the pollution. Immeasurable effect, yes, you said it, it has no effect on fixing the atmosphere.

            I’m glad many countries have initiatives to reduce CO2 emissions, but the real answer will come from carbon-free (or at least very low carbon) sources. That includes wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and yes, nuclear. That’s what really mystifies me about climate change deniers. They all hold strongly right-wing and libertarian political views (I have yet to see an exception), and should therefore favor nuclear power just to annoy the liberals. But instead they deny the science and look ridiculous. Why?

            You claim:

            Don’t get caught up in the fallacy that CO2 is pollution, it’s not.

            As expected, you completely forgot to cite any scientific journals that support your drivel.

            You claim:

            Hey, you never came up with that crank list yet so I can surprise you with my sanity.

            I asked you if there was a crank theory that you did not believe in. You have not answered that. You tried to shift the burden and did ask for a list of crank theories. I played and did send you a short list of some crank theories. You are now being dishonest to claim that I did not, besides having failed reasoning with your fallacy to shift the burden.

            This is what I wrote:
            Crank, that is a yes or no answer. I could not dumb it down more for you. If you answer yes, then you need to list the crank theory or theories that you do not believe in. We both know that you know what crank theories are. E.g. ACC is false. Evolution is false. God exists. Moon landing is false. Illuminati exists. Alliens abduct people. Etc.

            I don’t think you’re capable of this simply task. Nor do you understand the implications. Oh, the irony.

            You see, all of this is recorded in the comment section. Your dishonesty is on show here.

            Your dishonesty shines.

            My questions were:
            Why do you think that insulting people will convert them to your ‘side’?

            The loudest screams about financially incentives or taxes are from those who stand to lose the most from the acceptance of anthropogenic climate change as a scientific reality: the fossil fuel industry and those funded by them. I don’t know if it’s psychological projection or what, but it’s supremely ironic.

            How much do they pay you?

            Can you now answer my questions?

          • John

            You did not answer my questions. Here they are again.

            Can you falsify ACC? Do you even know what falsification is?

          • nigelf

            I can’t, but nature will. The climate models don’t reflect reality (data). The hypothesis is busted, time to go back to the drawing board.

          • John

            If you can’t falsify the scientific theory of ACC, why are you in denial of it?

          • nigelf
          • John

            You did not answer my questions.

            I asked you:

            If you can’t falsify the scientific theory of ACC, why are you in denial of it?
            Do you actually know what falsification is and how to do it?
            Which models do not reflect reality? And how do you know that?

            What you linked to is not climate models. It is not data, and it is not reality, it is your pseudo astro reality as defined by your admittance of your denialism. Remember, you admitted to being in denial, being a denier, hinging your drivel on denialism.

            Let me ask you this. Do you really get your scientific information from those 3 websites? Those websites are known pseudo science, born in political opinion, it’s not scientific journals. The fact that you can’t tell the difference shows me that you are not worth my time.

            You claim:

            I’ll ask again, what in your opinion would falsify the global warming dogma?

            You never asked me that question. You are now being dishonest if you claim you asked me that.
            It is up to you to tell me what falsification is. The fact that you sent me 3 links to pseduo science shows me that you have no idea what falsification is.

            falsify the global warming dogma?
            Further, ‘global warming dogma’? Science does not work on dogma, you are merely demonstrating again that you have no idea about sciecne or its method. To pontificate some ‘global warming dogma’ as something that science concluded on is wrong, it is your straw man.
            Additionally, science does not say there is global warming. That is the earth is heating up is a scientific fact – we have measured that. Do you know the difference between temperature, warming and heat? I don’t think you do. Likewise, the term “global’ in your ‘global warming” is problematic as well since the planet isn’t warming uniformly—a few places have a short-lived cooling trend. The the word “warming” sounds downright cozy on a cold day, when, in fact, substantially heating of the atmosphere and ocean is happening.
            Therefore, your ‘global warming dogma’ is your straw man, and I have no idea how you would falsify your own straw man.

            Climate models
            What is clear is that you have no idea what a climate model is. You links does not contain any climate models. These are some climate models:

            Dapper/DChart — model data referenced by the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

            http://www.ipcc-data.org/sim/gcm_monthly/AR5/

            ccsm.ucar.edu — NCAR/UCAR Community Climate System Model (CCSM)

            climateprediction.net — do it yourself climate projection

            giss.nasa.gov — the primary research GCM developed by NASA/GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies)

            edgcm.columbia.edu — the original NASA/GISS global climate model (GCM) with a user-friendly interface for PCs and Macs

            cccma.be.ec.gc.ca — CCCma model info and interface to retrieve model data

            nomads.gfdl.noaa.gov — NOAA / Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory CM2 global climate model info and model output data files

            climate.uvic.ca — University of Victoria Global climate model, free for download. Leading researcher was a contributing author to the recent IPCC report on climate change.

            videos — Visualizations of climate models of ETH Zurich

            And in case you don’t understand what a climate model is; they do projections based on scenarios, not predictions based on forecasts. So, when you claim that climate models failed to do predictions, then you are merely demonstrating that you have no clue what climate models do. A projection is not a f..ing prediction, so how on earth can you claim it failed? Bejesus, are you that stupid?

            Data
            That the earth is heating up is a scientific fact. It is based on temperature data of the surface of earth and the oceans levels that trap heat (resulting in a sea level rise because, you guess it, heat is energy, it makes molecules expand and that is why the sea level is rising, you twat).

            Check these databases for yourself rather than relying on claims by others. Here are some links:

            BEST: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt

            CRU: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/CRUTEM4v-gl.dat

            NOAA: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/6/1880-2014

            UAH: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt

            NASA: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt

            and that includes the UAH dataset, a dataset by deniers Christy and Spencer. Yes, your own camp, your fellow deniers.

            Go to each database, copy & paste the data into MS Excel or some other spreadsheet, then produce scatter plots of data points over time. Run trend lines through the period 2000 to present for each database. You’ll find the line always slopes up to the right, i.e. warming not cooling. Use this method to satisfy yourself that warming is still occurring before posting again. Any future debate can then proceed from a factual basis.

            Sea levels are currently rising at 3.2mm per year. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

            Reality
            You clearly admitted that you can’t falsify anthropogenic climate change (ACC) and you demonstrated that you have no idea what falsification in science is. ACC is the scientific theory. That the earth is heating up is the scientific fact. Global warming is not the scientific theory, nor the scientific fact.
            You don’t even understand this, no wonder you are beating up your own Global warming dogma.

            A scientific fact is a statement of how things are or appear to be. That the Earth is heating up in the last few decades is a scientific fact; we have measured that.

            CO2 is a greenhouse gas – that’s a scientific fact.

            CO2 is a product of breathing, fermentation, fossil fuel emissions, etc. – that’s a scientific fact.

            A scientific theory is an explanation for how something works, explaining the body of scientific facts and have some predictability capability. The explanation for a heating earth fact is CO2 that has been released by humans caused this temperature increase.

            Anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is the best explanation for the scientific facts. Incidentally, it is the only scientific theory that fits all observed facts. That is why it is the prevailing scientific theory.

            Anthropogenic climate change is the scientific theory. (Anthropogenic global warming AGW is not the scientific theory, nor is global warming). The risk assessment is high (dangerous) is we do not act (reduce CO2 levels). Some regions may be have catastrophic consequences if we do not act (reduce CO2 levels).

            Please educate yourself in science and its method.

            Now, can you answer my questions?

            If you can’t falsify the scientific theory of ACC, why are you in denial of it?

            Do you actually know what falsification is and how to do it?

            Which models do not reflect reality? And how do you know that?

          • nigelf

            It can’t be falsified because any weather event would be used to claim its validity! That’s why it’s a load of claptrap!
            >Temp goes up? Climate change.
            >Temp goes down? Climate change.
            >Wetter? Climate change.
            >Drier? Climate change.
            Any theory that can explain everything is wishful thinking and certainly not science. It’s political brainwashing and gobbledygook.
            Have you no desire to question any of this nonsense from a scientific perspective? Doesn’t this look like a ridiculous theory, one that the only answer to any temperature change or moisture change or shrinking glaciers or growing glaciers is climate change?
            Does it not bother you at all that the explanation of climate change is attributed to every single bad thing in the world from starvation to Syria to late Cherry blooms in Washington?
            No, you don’t question it at all, just keep pushing the meme that this is science at it’s best.
            My god I feel for humanity (and I’m an athiest).

            Falsification is when the facts disprove the theory. The low sensitivity of CO2 to temperature increases we now see proves it’s false. The temperatures running much lower after 20 years than the IPCC predicted falsifies the theory. Antarctica gaining ice steadily for thirty years disproves the theory.

            If you don’t know any of the above facts then you better look deeper because you’re spreading untruths.

          • John

            Dd you check the temp databases?
            BEST: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/a
            CRU: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/d
            NOAA: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/t
            UAH: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/
            NASA: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist

            Did you?

            You claim:

            It can’t be falsified because any weather event would be used to claim its validity!

            That fails to understand the difference between weather and climate.
            Furthermore, your argument is neither valid or sound. You need at least two non-false premises and a non-sequitur conclusion.

            Nice try though, you must have been a real short time hero in your denialist study group. Has it ever occurred to you that you must be bored because you’re stupid? Oh, that your paradox.

            Do you even know what falsification is? If so, can you explain it to me in your own words?

            You forgot, you already admitted that you can’t falsify ACC. You are yet to tell me why you still claim then that it is false.

            You claim:

            Any theory that can explain everything is wishful thinking and certainly not science.

            So, the scientific theory of gravity and evolution is false, just because it can’t explain everything?
            Bejesus man, read what you just wrote.

            You ask:

            Have you no desire to question any of this nonsense from a scientific perspective?

            Seems you don’t.
            I asked you to falsify ACC, yet you refuse to do it.
            I asked to to show me the climate models that failed, you refuse to do that.

            You claim:

            Doesn’t this look like a ridiculous theory, one that the only answer to any temperature change or moisture change or shrinking glaciers or growing glaciers is climate change?
            Does it not bother you at all that the explanation of climate change is attributed to every single bad thing in the world from starvation to Syria to late Cherry blooms in Washington?

            That fails to understand what the scientific theory of ACC postulates and comprise of.
            You are beating your own straw man.
            I told you before, I accept scientific knowledge (that ACC is not false), because I understand the scientific method.
            You don’t understand the scientific method, and your belief in total Lessez-Faire Capitalism (the realization that the earth has limited resources and that some sort of regulation is necessary is simply unacceptable to that ideology, so it must be rejected at all costs) is clouding your critical faculties.

            You claim:

            My god I feel for humanity (and I’m an athiest).

            You’re an embarrassment for atheism. The fact that you don’t understand the scientific method and center your life around your internal greed is rather pathetic.

            You claim:

            Falsification is when the facts disprove the theory.

            Wrong.
            I covered this before, there is no such thing as scientific proof; science does not prove or disprove anything. Look at math is you want binary finality.
            http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b10

            You claim:

            The low sensitivity of CO2 to temperature increases we now see proves it’s false. The temperatures running much lower after 20 years than the IPCC predicted falsifies the theory. Antarctica gaining ice steadily for thirty years disproves the theory.

            Bu before you claims that you can’t falsify ACC.
            And you claimed above that ACC is not falsifiable?
            FFS. Have it both ways?

            Can you evidence your claim that the is a “low sensitivity of CO2 to temperature increases”? Show your work, cite your scientific sources. Do you even know what the sensitivity is? How and why does that falsify ACC?
            Can you evidence your claim that “the temperatures running much lower after 20 years than the IPCC predicted”? What did the IPCC predict, cite your source. If true, how and why does that falsifies ACC.
            Can you evidence your claim that the “Antarctica gaining ice steadily for thirty years”? If true, how does that falsifies ACC? Show your work, cite your scientific sources. Also, is that sea ice or polar ice? Is it sea-ice extent (a two-dimensional measurement of the coverage, not measuring how thick it is) or polar ice (a three-dimensional measurement of volume?

            You claim:

            If you don’t know any of the above facts then you better look deeper because you’re spreading untruths.

            You are right, I don’t know these so called facts. I do know them as denier canards. And the irony is that you will destroy your own canards if you refuse to answer my questions again.

            Be my guest, destroy your own canards.

          • nigelf

            It can’t be falsified because any weather event would be used to claim its validity!

            Then tell me why scientists continually point to Katrina or a heat wave and say just that? They point to a weather event that supports their AGW hypothesis and claim that they’re right, no more questioning their superior intellect. When we point to a cold record or Antarctica they say that’s just weather, stop being a denier.

            Any theory that can explain everything is wishful thinking and certainly not science.

            Gravity and evolution don’t try to explain everything. You missed my main point that any weather event is claimed to be proof of AGW.

            Doesn’t this look like a ridiculous theory, one that the
            only answer to any temperature change or moisture change or shrinking
            glaciers or growing glaciers is climate change?
            Does it not bother
            you at all that the explanation of climate change is attributed to every
            single bad thing in the world from starvation to Syria to late Cherry
            blooms in Washington?

            Those are the claims, over eight hundred of them now all blaming AGW. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

            My god I feel for humanity (and I’m an athiest).

            I understand it quite well, it is you that have abandoned it for some pieces of silver.

            The low sensitivity of CO2 to temperature increases we
            now see proves it’s false. The temperatures running much lower after 20
            years than the IPCC predicted falsifies the theory. Antarctica gaining
            ice steadily for thirty years disproves the theory.

            I just did falsify it but you refuse to acknowledge its falsification. If you insist on being blind I can’t make you see.

          • nigelf

            Oops, those bullet points screwed everything up, sorry.

          • John

            I read your post and realized that you have not answered any of my questions. All you did was made more claims.
            Therefore, I see no need to respond to your non-answer assertion drivel.

          • nigelf

            I’ve answered your questions just fine, you refuse to see reality.
            Have a good day.

          • John

            Absolutely logical conclusion! The logic is so obvious that it turned invisible for you.
            It’s clear, your refuse to answer my questions, yet expect me to answer yours, how is that logical.

            I’ll even let youd emonstrate that.

            Dd you check the temp databases?

            BEST: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/a

            CRU: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/d

            NOAA: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/t

            UAH: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/

            NASA: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist

            Did you?

            You will not answer that, because you’re a fraud.

            You have demonstrated nothing but intellectual ineptitude and willful ignorance, and are simply being laid down in the bed you made.

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            Their kind is beyond help nigelf. This is the manifestation of a true fanatical religious believer.

            Yes, of course we’ve checked the temperature databases. That was the first thing we did, years & years ago. And the temperature databases *all* show no warming signal that could plausibly be correlated with warming from CO2, and *none* of the temperature databases show anything which can plausibly be used to support an inference for catastrophic or alarming or human-caused warming signal.

            There is simply no evidence, whatsoever, for AGW or CAGW, i.e. for climate alarmism. None. Zip. Nada.

          • John

            Now, show your work.

            Or are you scared?

            I mean, seriously, where is your peer reviewed scientific journal that supports your claim that there is no warming from CO2?

            You claim that you have it, so where is it?

          • John

            Yes, I’m not seeing your reality because it is based on your delusion.
            At least you go something right!

            And no, you have not answered any of my questions.

            If the you (a self-confessed climate change denier) did not have double standards, you would have no standards at all. How Lessez-Faire Capitalist of you!

          • John

            You claim:

            It can’t be falsified because any weather event would be used to claim its validity!

            And then:

            I just did falsify it

            Absolutely logical conclusion! The logic is so obvious that it turned invisible for you.

            Yet, you cited no sources for your claims. But you claim:

            I understand it [siecnetific method] quite well

            You know, if you’d thought before typing, you could have come up with a cogent reply.

          • John

            Dd you check the temp databases?

            BEST: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/a

            CRU: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/d

            NOAA: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/t

            UAH: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/

            NASA: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist

            Did you?
            If so, do they show warming, cooling or hiatus?

          • John

            You completely forgot to cite any sources for your claims.
            Want to have another go?

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            nigelf has completely refuted every single one of your unsubstantiated claims and appeals to authority, ad-hominem attacks, straw-men and red-herrings. You haven’t a leg left to stand on and of course never did.

            If you start from a fallacy, and you do, what can you hope to accomplish? If you can’t see that you have started from a fallacy, you have committed, as Nietzsche scathingly put it, an “irrefutable error”, i.e., your error is one you cannot refute, hence you believe it to be true…and of course that doesn’t mean that it is true. Many of humanity’s and science’s greatest “truths” are actually these irrefutable errors. Of course, they can be refuted, but no one takes the refutation seriously: they are too invested in these errors. Their careers, and everything else that the think that they know, their whole schema for interacting with the world, depends on them. The whole of climate alarm and climate science is just one giant, albeit ingenious and impressive, error. The error is exposed as soon as independent thought, independent reason, autonomous critical thinking, and the true scientific method are applied to it.

          • nigelf

            Good retort Beowolf.
            I can’t heal the blind, only they can choose to open their eyes

          • John

            You claim:

            nigelf has completely refuted every single one of your unsubstantiated claims and appeals to authority, ad-hominem attacks, straw-men and red-herrings. You haven’t a leg left to stand on and of course never did

            That is your assertion fallacy.
            Absolutely logical conclusion! The logic is so obvious that it turned invisible for you, you completely forgot to back up your assertion with evidence.

            If you start from a fallacy, and you do, what can you hope to accomplish?
            If you can’t see that you have started from a fallacy, you have committed, as Nietzsche scathingly put it, an “irrefutable error”, i.e., your error is one you cannot refute, hence you believe it to be true…and of course that doesn’t mean that it is true.

            What fallacy is that?
            Seriously, do you even know what a fallacy is?
            Are you claiming that ACC is false? if so, can you evidence that?
            Os is it that ACC is false in your denialism reality, hence you thik it’s a fallacy?

            Many of humanity’s and science’s greatest “truths” are actually these irrefutable errors. Of course, they can be refuted, but no one takes the refutation seriously: they are too invested in these errors. Their careers, and everything else that they think that they know, their whole schema for interacting with the world, depends upon them.
            he whole of climate alarm and climate science is just one giant, albeit ingenious and impressive, error. The error is exposed as soon as independent thought, independent reason, autonomous critical thinking, and the true scientific method are applied to it.

            There’s a well known phenomenon called “crank magnetism” — cranks seem to attract lots of cranky ideas just like a magnet.

            Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in?

          • John

            What you pontificate is a laughable parody of rationality and doesn’t count at all in a reality.
            “The greatest obstacle to discover is not ignorance. It’s the illusion of knowledge…” -Daniel Boston

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            That was already done….by them. Their models predicted runaway warming, which didn’t happen. All finished!

            Now don’t you have a women’s washroom to get all hysterical about and to try to peep in?

          • John

            Claims claims, yet you fail to back it up.

  • Silent Majority

    Here’s an interesting question for Bill Nye: Should the scientists and government officials who have, for 40 some years, pushed a low-fat, low-protein, high-carbohydrate diet be jailed for the affecting the quality of life now that it has been shown that high-carbohydrate/sugar diets correlate strongly with the increase in various diseases including diabetes and heart disease. Should also those scientists and government officials who then advocated the use of statin drugs to try to counteract the effects of the high-carbohydrate/sugar diet be jailed now that it has been shown that in the majority of cases the use of statins actually worsened the health of most recipients?

    Settled science is not science; it is politics. Is the earth warming? Sure, if you pick the right starting point. I CO2/AGW settled science. Sure, just as the high-carbohydrate diet was settled science. It explains some portion of the observed world, but fails to explain everything… and will be supplanted by a better scientific explanation in the future. That is the way of science.

    • The physics of CO2 and greenhouse gases is damned well settled!
      Or planet warming, that is damned well settled!
      A warming planet disrupting the biosphere systems we depend on, that’s obvious to anyone who knows the first thing about accumulating compounding interest and such real world factors!
      You folks take so much for granted – it’s like you can’t conceive of the living physical planet we depend on for everything, Simply get’s make it past your own self-interested ego. So sad.

      • Silent Majority

        “The physics of CO2 and greenhouse gases is damned well settled!”

        Waiting… waiting…. watch out for the next unsettling.

        • I’ve been paying attention to and learning about this stuff since the early 1970s – I appreciate it’s complexity very well – also that CO2 is no lone ranger. Take a look at “What’s Up With That Watts blogspot” for detailed reviews of denier nonsense – in other words I have looked at the various science contrarian claims, many times and in detail – I probably know some of them better than you do. But I also am aware of all this misrepresent, leave out, or plain and simple lie about.

          It’s fine to acknowledge various negative feedback, but that doesn’t give you the right to ignore all the positive feedbacks.

          From your second link – LOCAL EFFECTS – do not over power the effect of our global atmosphere’s insulating ability. But, if you believe so please do share specifics. Although I need to check out for three days – I’ve got an extremely crowded weekend starting in about a half hour.

          But next week, let’s go. You present specifics that you believe prove your point and we can review them together. Or find a post at my blog you think is way wrong and lets review that. Your call.
          See ya.

          • FXR

            The fact you call people names [“denier” like “holocaust denier” convenient accusations] defines your science. Nothing in the way of proof just a cult belief supported by hate, bullying and cat calls. Reminiscent of a time when the Churches defined scientific beliefs and similarly punished the “disbelievers”.

            If you have something, that did not originate with the 1970s frauds [in declaration we were moving into an ice age] to offer as scientific evidence, show me or shut the hell up. If your “science” can not hold up to discussion and scrutiny, nothing is settled but your closed mind.

            Historically “Climate data” in the largest part, was collected by high school students and hobbyists, with thermometers with no odd numbers. From which we see 7 decimal point predictions, of death and destruction. Today I see laws being written with claims to have already witnessed climate change damages. Before the levels necessary to cause those effects, have accumulated yet. Climate science is a prediction of what will happen down the road, not what exists today. Strange what people will allow themselves to believe, when motivated to do so. By the stories of drowning teddy bears perhaps? The precision of that data today, is more an effort of bias than anything scientific, you might have been encouraged to imagine.

            Science never had any part in this nonsense. It is the will of force and the employment of “useful idiots” who feel special, when they sing along.

          • Denier is someone who denies established fact.

            The fact that you need to dredge up the holocaust diversion simply shows how disingenuous you are about actually learning about our planet and what humanity’s heavy-handed impacts are doing to it’s life support systems.

      • Some very unsettling science. Warmist zombies need not bother reading it. http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html

        • There you go. Hand me a perfect example of science-in-an-echo chamber – that pretends it’s okay to ignore huge sections of known science and replace it with homespun concoctions that would not stand up to serious scrutiny – so the only place you’ll find it is within the politically motivated echo chamber such as ClimateDepot. ~> For starters claiming our understanding of manmade global warming is purely based on GCMs is another one of those deliberate strategic lies that ought to be legally ‘actionable.’
          Here, learn a little about what the world outside this scared little (but oh so powerful!) politically motivated echo-chamber chooses to ignore. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco (The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC)

          As for your “Dr. Evans” he seems to be quite the piece of work himself. Here, lets see if your sense of skepticism is capable of looking at what others see in him and his claims:
          Dr David Evans: born-again ‘alarmist’?
          https://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/10/dr-david-evans-born-again-alarmist/

          “David Evans, Rocket Scientist.[desmogblog.com/david-evans] a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.[“and part-time 2008 to 2010, (it was disbanded in 2007 !) modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering”] Is married to Jo Nova – blogger of denial site jonova, has his own website sciencespeak has written 1 science peer-reviewed paper back in the 80s not related to climate change science.”
          https://denierlist.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/dr-david-evans/

          Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists
          May 16, 2014 by Joshua Holland
          http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

          Happy learning

          • Desmog Blog? Financed by NWO shill Rockefeller Foundation subsidiary Tides, run by infamous “double dipper” (fraudster) James Hoggan. Specializes in character assassination, not one scientist to be found anywhere. Evans’ science is solid, whether Tides and you like it or not. Like the proviso to the article says “warmist zombies need not bother reading it”, which obviously you did not, else you would have explained what is wrong with his model (you cannot) instead of going on a vicious personal attack. I wonder whose paying YOUR bills?

          • How ironic, this come from a ClimateDepot fan – run by Marc Morano – Mr Political Dirty Tricks writ large. A man who’s only interest is in winning at power politics – regardless of the consequences. A man for whom honestly mean absolutely nothing, besides perhaps a good joke go laugh off.

            If you actually want to discuss actual science – provide actual sources and citation so we can rationally look at your claims. Just flinging out flippant one liners is grade school stuff.

          • You’re just a rebroadcaster of warmist mythology-all of it outdated and or debunked But why let science get in the way of a good story ?

          • What would you know about the science?

          • To be fair to you, I actually read what you seem to think is cogent argument in your favor. I feel like I need a shower. It’s a cesspool of deception and pseudo-science. Santer? Caught red handed manipulating so called scientific reports. Dessler? A low level rebroadcaster of warmist myth. The 97% per cent “consensus”? That’s been more thoroughly debunked than Lysenkoism. But I’ve got to give you credit-you work very hard at being the #climatehoax’s useful tool/fool.

          • Yeah, yeah, yeah but do you have anything you can rationally define and dispute. Stupid insults and insinuation achieve nothing.

            But then they don’t call this thing the echo-chamber for nothing do they?

          • If you wanted to be fair to me, you would define precisely what about my position and wrong and then provide constructive citations and explanations,… that is explaining in a rational manner what you think I’m wrong.
            Instead, all I see this is scatter shot of ‘attack headlines.
            Nothing actual substance, beyond emotion that is.

      • VooDude

        A real greenhouse was thought to work because glass is clear, for light, but opaque, for infrared wavelengths. The short wavelengths of sunlight pass through glass, with no appreciable loss, but the longer wavelengths of radiated heat, from the earthy stuff inside the greenhouse, were too long to pass through glass, all of which is true. This was taught in middle school science class, as why a greenhouse works. This is an important thing to note – just because the science is correct, doesn’t mean that the science explains what is going on. It is easy to prove, in a laboratory, or in a field, that sunlight passes through glass, while infrared radiation does not. These are inarguable facts. Modern plastics have the odd characteristic of being clear for both light, and infrared radiation; also inarguable facts. The surprise is, when an actual greenhouse is made using that plastic, it still works. The shell of the greenhouse, whether glass or plastic, permits the sunshine to enter, and warm stuff up. The shell, whether glass or plastic, physically restricts the warm air from escaping. It stays warm, inside the greenhouse, because warm air is kept in, and cold air, kept out. Very little energy is lost by infrared radiation, from an actual greenhouse. This was proven by Professor Wood in his 1909 experiment, and replicated by By Nasif S. Nahle: http://www.biocab.org/Experiment_on_Greenhouses__Effect.pdf

        • The shell of a Greenhouse – has next to nothing to do with our atmospheric Greenhouse Gases – where the warming has as much to do stopping convection thus keeping the heat in – as it does with glass reflecting infrared.

          Greenhouse Gases capture infrared radiation and slow its escape into space. Nature isn’t that tricky and the Air Forces of many countries spent the 40s, 50s, 60s intensely studying atmospheric heat transfer physics – independently they nailed it! – otherwise heat seeking missiles wouldn’t find their targets; satellite weather imagery would be impossible – here’s a list of modern marvels that would be impossible without scientists having achieved a thorough understanding of atmospheric greenhouse gas behavior: http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/inhofe-global-warming-hoax-is-hoax.html
          The post next to it, gives an introduction: “Archive, Hanscom AFB Atmospheric Studies, Cambridge Research Lab”

          Good ol Nasif – another Galileo in his own mind. Been there done him: July 15, 2014 “Nasif S. Nahle – a look at Science in a Vacuum”

          If anybody viewing this blog is actually into understanding, might I suggest
          July 3, 2014 “Isaac Asimov considers The Relativity of Wrong”

          • VooDude

            Nasif concludes that there is no greenhouse effect. I’m not a supporter of that concept … but, what errors of measurement or materials, or procedure, of his greenhouse (literally) experiment, do you have? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0ee9e356da2e2a74ad90a49553d8caacc951ad589cd3d23c1c621df8572239f4.jpg

          • Isn’t that iconic. All you got is a cartoon and Nasif who’s convinced he’s smarter than everyone else in the world, even though he’s produced nothing. But some self-publication and such echo chamber echoes.
            And claim I’m a joke.
            Get real.

            Me, I don’t have a cute cartoon – but I do have list of modern marvels (http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/inhofe-global-warming-hoax-is-hoax.html) that would be impossible if scientists had not gained that thorough understanding of atmospheric greenhouse gas physics …stuff you sure don’t seem to have a first clue about.
            Oh, but you do have your rage and hatred of stuff you don’t understand.

          • VooDude

            The physical greenhouse experiment is quite simple. Can you detail any measurement errors, or procedural, or material flaws in it?

            I think not.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/10833d9fd946ee8b3637c6283c80bfd038341112d49124cd5dded6e3cee81860.jpg

          • Which ‘physical greenhouse experiment’ are you talking about?

          • VooDude

            Nahle, Nasif S., and N. L. Garza. “Repeatability of Professor Robert W. Wood’s 1909 experiment on the Hypothesis of the Greenhouse Effect.” Biology Cabinet
            http://www.biocab.org/Experiment_on_Greenhouses__Effect.pdf

          • Oh, you’re talking about the Green House Effect. Here’s the abstract from your link: “ABSTRACT
            Through a series of controlled experiments, I demonstrate that the warming effect in a real greenhouse is not due to longwave infrared radiation trapped inside the greenhouse, but to the blockage of convective heat transfer with the surroundings, as proven by Professor Wood in his 1909 experiment.”
            __________________________
            Great! No argument with that. In fact, I alluded to as much in an earlier comment. So watt’s going on here?

            Yes, the term “greenhouse effect” is often used to describe the geophysical phenomena going on, but surely you must understand that in our atmosphere Greenhouse Gases do their work by absorbing and reemitting photons of energy – thus slowing infrared radiation’s escape from space. We increase the greenhouse gases and heat takes longer to escape – a lot like putting on extra shirts on an already comfortable day – before you know it you start getting hotter and pretty soon you are out of your comfort zone and dying to cool off.

            If you’re ready to move beyond Green Houses and work up understanding our planet’s atmospheric greenhouse gases and the data based physics – you’re going to have to do a lot more work that read Nasif’s echo-chamber nonsense.
            Might I suggest: David Archer’s “Global Warming – Understanding the Forecast”
            http://forecast.uchicago.edu/lectures.html

          • VooDude

            Going back to your “…a lot like putting on extra shirts on an already comfortable day … “ tell me, what happens to your core temperature, if you put on “… extra shirts on an already comfortable day … “ The reaction of core temperature is definitely not in proportion to the added insulation. “Watt’s” going on, there? The human body reacts by dilating the blood vessels near the skin, increasing heat transfer, and sweating begins. The additional conduction and radiation from the flushing if the skin surface (if the skin is not heavily pigmented, the redness is obvious) and the sweating increases heat transfer by the latent heat of evaporation.

            Similarly, the earth responds with increasing cloud cover, reflecting the incoming insolation’s short-wave energy in an increasing proportion. Increased evaporation spawns increased cloud cover, as well as the transportation of latent heat to the tropopause. As the latent heat is released by the condensation and freezing of water, high up in the troposphere, much of the “greenhouse gases” – in fact, the majority of any gas in the atmosphere – is now lower.

            Evaporation and convection processes in the atmosphere transport heat from the surface to the upper troposphere, where it can be much more efficiently radiated into space since it is above most of the greenhouse-trapping water vapor.” http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/

            Trenberth 2009 shows us that a tiny fraction of an increase in the processes that form clouds is as large as the supposed heat being retained.

            Stephens’ 2012 update paper shows us a very similar budget balance:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bd2024855ba73439836d41a1d1edc96db3b8f10ff9ec952972a368dc5d47fcd9.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/20d0e9a453e4661a80272917c91d16527c678ad4b7165dc421961f367953807e.jpg

          • you point to an article from 98, much to do with hypothetical, updated 2011 but not much considering it’s 95 IPCC focus – much has been learned since. The cooling has not occurred, and there’s plenty of data supporting that statement. Here’s an excellent lecture explaining recent observations and the evolving current understanding: “This is what a scientist sounds like, Dr. Randall on Clouds and such.”
            http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/04/davidrandall-clouds-co2science.html – April 9, 2016

            On I notice it’s a Spencer/Christy article – I wonder when it comes to accuracy of their work, Dr. Mann is a paragon of perfection. Google: “Spencer, Christy satellite data processing mistakes” It’s shocking what those guys have gotten away with. But they get a pass?

          • VooDude

            “…a lot like putting on extra shirts on an already comfortable day … “
            I prefer the analagous “pirate’s eye-patch”. It is a lot like putting sunglasses on, over your pirate’s eye-patch. In reality, the sunglasses reduce the light striking the surface of the eye patch. In theory, that will reduce the light reaching the retna through the eye-patch … but, in reality, that reduction is not enough to be noticed.

            There is such a thing as “all gone”, or “insignificance”. In engineering, we refer to that as “the law of diminishing returns”. None of real atmospheric processes actually follow a logarithmic curve, they just have that sort of shape, but fall short of having any effect at all in the extremes. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/25304382ae4643fa7f789fa827da901981b3808dfcaafccc86ea75e29a45b7c5.jpg

            The vast majority of the “greenhouse effect” in our atmosphere, is from water. In order to “slow down” the escape, CO2 must have a significant flux of infrared in the band of 666/cm … in all other bands of infrared radiation of heat from earth to space, water vapour (in aggregate effect) is so dominate over methane or CO2, that it saturates the absorption line. Water vapour is the “Pirate’s eye patch” and CO2 is the sunglasses …

            “Greenhouse Gases do their work by absorbing and reemitting photons of energy – thus slowing infrared radiation’s escape…”
            …A molecule of CO2 retains a captured photon for a few milliseconds. The deal isn’t the time, it is the direction. CO2 molecules re-emit that photon in a random direction. In aggregate, the radiation is isotropic.

            The transfer of energy to a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere can be from absorption at a very specific wavelength, but it can also be through a mechanical collision. Heated nitrogen or oxygen molecules can’t radiate infrared, but, through a chance collision into a molecule that does have infrared capabilities, heat is transferred and radiated. In such a fashion, increased CO2 actually increases radiant heat transfer into space. I believe this has been shown, recently, in a paper about Antarctica in it’s winter period … but I’d have to look it up.

          • VooDude

            “Oh, you’re talking about the Green House Effect.” No, I was actually asking about Nahle’s boxes, materials, and measurements. Or, Wood’s 1909 experiment. Can you detail any measurement errors, or procedural, or material flaws in it?

            I think not.

          • You’re a brainless twit-you muddle both the English language and science. A real legend in your own mind.

  • ScienceABC123

    Dear Bill Nye, apparently no one has ever explained the limits of your rights to you. So, let me explain it to you. Your rights end where other people’s rights begin. Your rights don’t include forcing others to live the way you want. If you want to live in a world without electricity then go live off-grid somewhere, but don’t try to force that choice on the rest of us.

    • tom_menkowitz

      Eco-Stalinist fascists like Nye advocate false imprisonment and denial of due process for “deniers”, i.e., people who oppose his bow-tied brand of climate Bolshevism. I knew this craggy-faced, Ichibod Crane-looking, mouthy, bow-tied creep was a fraud from the minute he opened his lying Green Leninist yap.

      There’s a solution to Eco-Stalinist fascists like Nye, and others like them: Put all these human-shaped bags of Green fascist sewage in front of U.S. military firing squads, 24/7/365 – however long it takes to be rid of these narcissist, Marxist-fascist a**holes.

      • John

        Do you deny being in denial of anthropogenic cliamte change?

        • tom_menkowitz

          Just shaddaap, dolt.

          • John

            Your insults do not work on me, sadly for you.

            I know you offer them because your reasoning failed you.

            There is a well known phenomenon called crank magnetism – cranks are attracted to cranky ideas just like magnets.

            Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in?

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            Aw, but you felt like you had to reply to the insult, and you felt like you had to give an insult back, and you felt like you needed to ask an insulting rhetorical question.

            Obviously, insults injure you very much. Obviously, you have a very fragile personality.

            You can’t win the science and logic debate, and so your only recourse is to stick your head in the sand (or your own rear end) and pretend you haven’t been totally refuted by them.

            You poor, poor, fragile little child. Your poor little special snowflake. You must be so worried and distraught about which washroom you should choose to pee in.

          • John

            Why can’t you answer my question? In fact, you refuse to answer it.
            There is a well known phenomenon called crank magnetism – cranks are attracted to cranky ideas just like magnets.

            Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in?

          • John

            I’m not the one claiming to be smarter than the smartest people in the world. I’m not the one claiming to know more than accepted scientific theory (ACC). That is your department, remember?

            Yet, you fail consistently to falsify ACC. In fact, you don’t even know how to falsify ACC, nor how to reason.

            All you have is insults because you know that your reasoning failed you.

            Let me give you one more chance:
            Give me your best shot at falsifying ACC.

            Prediction: You will once again not falsify ACC. You will not even try. Yet you will still claim it is false and insult me more to show how your reasoning failed you. Are you happy with that?

          • John

            Why?

  • RabidCatfish

    Nye isn’t even a real scientists, the guys a f_cking airplane engineer!
    Perhaps he should be locked up due to mental conditions.
    SMH this guy’s starts out on a local TV comedy show and now he thinks he a world renowned climatologists? Liberal logic at it’s finest…

    • Brian

      Airplane engineers make things that work very well. What do you say to that?

    • Care to tell me, how a political aide who receives money from the fuel industry and has ZERO education on the climate field (studied political science, HAH) is in any way,shape or form, better?

      Go sink into Palin’s ass

      • RabidCatfish

        And who is the political aide that receives fuel industry money?
        If you think I am, you need to put down the bong.

  • jumper297

    This clown seems to have a pretty damn good quality of life. Jetting around on Air Force One, being interviewed on TV… all without the slightest shred of credibility or credentials on the subject. While I think Michael Mann and James Hansen should be sued in order to obtain ALL of their documents and correspondences on the matter, I think a nice public beating would be okay for Bill Nye.

  • ya can’t fix stoopid!

    • John

      I know we can’t fix you. Why do you feel the need to tell everyone about it?

  • I’m curious why shouldn’t maliciously lying about the science have consequences?
    (Disregard the yelling and insults. Such as spepper hysterical nonsense. Incidentally, I’ve yet to find one climate science contrarian willing to stand up and defend their position with rational constructive logic and information, it always devolve into shrill distracting all intended to get away from looking at the science. )

    To be clear: we are talking about the unacceptability of lying about straight forward scientific information regarding something as important as understanding how we are changing this planet that we depend on for everything – all the rest is political distraction.

    • nigelf

      It should indeed have consequences. You can start with Hansen saying the West Side Highway would be under water by now and we’d be two degrees warmer than we are now. There’s also that scientist that told Al Gore that the Arctic would be ice-free by now. And David Viner saying in 2000 that snow would just be a thing of the past.
      Shall I go on?

      Incarceration is a two way street and we can prove certain scientists lied about their predictions. You can’t say the same about us.

      • You could start with real citations of what he said and where he said it. Let’s look at their actual words, and the full context of their statements. I imagine it doesn’t actually say what you want me to think it says. You folks really are great at lying about what others have said on the topic – and you don’t show the slightest interest in ‘the rest of the story’ – That’s the real tragedy. Here’s another example of the same game:
        PS http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/03/viner-2000-no-more-snow.html

        • bibletruthvstradition

          Just so I’ve got this straight-you said you “imagine” the full context doesn’t say what nigelf wants you to think it said. So either you aren’t aware of those discredited “predictions” (is that possible when you’ve been looking into this since the 70s?) or you’re not sure exactly what they said, but you still have the nerve to call nigelf a liar. That arrogance is typical of climate change zealots who want to control others’ lives.

          • nigelf

            Here’s what he said:

            While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist
            who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went
            over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City
            and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is
            anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for
            a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds.
            Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And
            there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high
            winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip
            will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why?
            “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
            http://climateobserver.blogspot.ca/2009/11/dr-james-hansens-failed-prediction.html

          • nigelf

            And none of it panned out, yet citizenschallenge says I must be mixed up.
            I don’t think so.

          • Are you saying glaciers aren’t melting massively? – Are unaware of the increasing tempo infrastructure destroying, life threatening extreme weather events occurring throughout the world?- How about the disruption of biologically systems because of changing seasons? How about vegetation Hardiness Zones shifting north and uphill? That stuff is all plenty documents… but you folks call that reality a hoax.
            http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/extreme-weather
            http://www.climatehotmap.org

          • nigelf

            We call blaming mankind for it a hoax. Weather has always changed and this is no different than has happened before.

          • It’s amazing, given all the article he’s published – the best you can do is an undocumented account of a casual conversation with a reporter. Just like the Viner no-snow non-sense. An editor’s headline trumps the substance of what Viner actually said.

            Again, do you have something serious to support your passion?

          • nigelf

            Here’s part of what Viner said:

            However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in
            winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to
            Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research
            unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter
            snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

            “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/04/the-dr-david-viner-moment-weve-all-been-waiting-for-a-new-snow-record/

            Does that look like no-snow nonsense to you?
            Once again, I’ve linked to where he said it and you deny he said it.

            I’ve got some great quotes from Ehrlich if you want to try and deny he said them too.

          • You can say whatever you want with careful Cherry Picking – but gather more evidence and your spin dissolves.

            The irony you miss, is that all you got left is slicing and dice’s other’s words – since you don’t have any substantial science on your side.
            So again how about some real citations from serious science, not carefully clipped newspaper quotes. For instance, why not produce one of Viner’s actually science papers to complain about?

            The double standard you folks live my is astounding.

          • Jamie

            To believe that long-term predictions of global climate, a very chaotic system, is ‘settled science’ is astounding. The term ‘settled science’ is an oxymoron; scientific method is based on welcoming critique of any existing theory or prediction and then weighing the critique in a measured, unemotional, and thoughtful way.

            To be emotional over critique regarding long-term predictions of climate, is to be unscientific and biased … as you are — a warmist drama queen, who is not engaged in the scientific method.

          • Oh come on, please can we get serious. Define what area of climate science you think are not settle. I do know that the physics of greenhouse gases are plenty well settled enough that we can build incredible technology, that works around – for instance air to air missiles, satellite weather imagery to mention just a couple.
            Increasing our atmospheric insulation medium will slow heats escape and that will warm our planet.
            Warming are planet with radially melt it’s cryosphere (ice-glacier, ice caps, etc.).
            Melting our cryosphere will increase sea levels and disrupt regional hydrologic cycles people depend on, to name but a couple.
            Warming our planet will also intensify and destabilize ages old weather and global circulation patterns.

            All that stuff is settled science. I challenge you to come up with serious science disputing any of that.

          • Jamie

            “All that stuff is settled science” … OK if you say so .. what an elegant conclusion!

            You demonstrate your lack of understanding regarding the scientific [stuff] method when you say, “I challenge you to come up with serious science disputing any of that.”

            This shows your basic misunderstanding of the scientific method. In science once a hypothesis is presented, like the future destruction of the biosphere based on CO2, it is the burden of the presenters of that hypothesis to ‘come up with serious science’ to prove their hypothesis. I don’t subscribe to this hypothesis, the burden to scientifically demonstrate that the hypothesis is ‘settled science’ is yours.

            Since we are talking about a very chaotic system, climate, and about long-term predictions, it is very unlikely that you or anyone can prove that their long-term predictions are correct or demonstrate that these long-term predictions are ‘settled science.’

            You sound as stupid as someone saying: “GDP will rise 10% next year! I challenge you to come up with serious science disputing any of that!”

            No citizen, the scientific method requires that those who embrace the hypothesis of warming to prove their hypothesis. You are actually working out of a very restrictive religious methodology: “I am right about the future, prove I am wrong” – which is the opposite of science, and more like fanatic mystical prophecy.

          • nigelf

            What you call cherry picking are the words right out of his mouth. But you try and deny what he said because you realize like me that’s it’s utter absurdity, like Hansen’s coal trains of death and twenty foot sea level rises.

            The good part is that we will throw this stuff at you every day as the world cools for the next thirty or so years just to show you how stupid and absurd this whole religious movement is.

            Lindzen has it right, our great grandchildren will wonder with awe what was wrong with us a hundred years from now getting all worked up about a few hundredths of degree rise in temperature and attempting to crush the worlds economy to fix it.

        • VooDude

          Don’t have anything on Hansen & Highway under water.

    • sophistryslayer
      • You are speaking nonsense, as is the fraud Joseph E. Postma – who’s great with science so long as you keep it within his echo-chamber. About the Sun which is certainly the ultimate driver of our climate. But the thing is it’s extremely stable and on the short time scales of the past couple hundred years – is has not fluctuated enough to cause the changes we are observing.

        You gotta start with the physics of greenhouse gases and an appreciation for how much of it we humans are pumping adding to our atmosphere. It really is that simple.
        About the sun – here’s an excellent lecture that will inform you well. http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/04/davidrandall-clouds-co2science.html
        Here’s a slightly more confrontational look at the talking points of this “it’s the sun” fraud you folks embrace with such thoughtless passion.
        http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/03/1-profiles-in-deception-1000frolly.html

        • Actually I guess you are Postma that master of echo-chamber science and rejecting all that doesn’t suit your fancy. The ‘It’s The Sun Theory of current global warming’ is empty, vacuous nonsense.
          > The physics of greenhouse gases is settled and demonstrable science (think air to air heat seeking missiles and weather satellite imagery, neither of which would be possible without that thorough understanding.)
          I’d love to rationally and constructively debate either of those claims with you. How about it? You know where to find me.

          • FXR

            Care to add some insights into the fact that people who speak about pollution in general, are attacked so viciously and consistently [traitors???] for distracting from the focus on global warming?

            Nox and Sox will play a definite part in your future ,if you go beyond the projections and statistical science, and consider what is measurable today and quite real.

            Global warming effects down the road, won’t be much of an issue for long, when the problem is your inability to breathe. Of course the names and possible jail time will control those concerns as well. In your “sustainable” world.

          • It’s stupid trying to talk for nebulous ‘people’ and ‘general talk’ – How about specifics?
            Look around, global warming effects are here and now – and sure to get worse. Yes, that is certain. It’s simple down to Earth physics. You can ignore it, but that won’t change the facts of life.

          • brew_it

            No evidence that AWG has been any worse than the natural kind. You talk about physics but its just an equation to find your hobgoblin CO2 guilty all the time. Warmists cannot be trusted to give the public fair science.

          • VooDude

            “Look around, global warming effects are here and now…”
            That is too vague to rebut. What effects do you think that Mannkind’s CO2 emissions actually cause?

          • VooDude

            …weather satellite imagery…
            Most of what got us into this mess, is pressing instruments designed to ‘weather forecasting’ well beyond their accuracy and stability, and then calling the result “Climate Science” … think about the accuracy required. “Climate Change” is caused by “Global Warming” – the idea that the earth is retaining a small amount of heat, because of an imbalance between the power of the sun, compared to the infrared energy that the earth emits into the cold of space. This is supposedly caused by Mannkind’s emissions of carbon dioxide. This ‘Global Warming’ has been documented by many, to be about ¾ Watts per square metre. Trenberth and pals said 0.9W/m^2, Stephens 2012 said 0.6W, Hansen said 0.85W, and later 0.58W … Allan 2014 said 0.34W/m^2 and later, 0.62W … so, about ¾W (per square metere, of course). Sunlight brings about 1,361 Watts per square metre. So, compare ¾ to 1361 … 0.055% … is anything in ‘climate science’ accurate to 0.055%?? Most things in “climate science” are grossly inaccurate. The ’science’ is fortunate to land a guess within a factor of two, relative to reality. Often, ‘climate science’ is off by an order of magnitude.

            Wunsch 2016: ”What has tended to be missing from much of the discussion is the quantitative aspects: How accurate and precise must the resulting measurements be?””As the science now stands, great accuracy is not required … as theory, in some cases, is still coping with explaining factors of two or larger. ”

            ”…Dubious claims to accuracy abound, ones that often imply the adequacy of a remarkably small number of observations.”

            ”An additional problem is that anyone who has invested substantial time and energy in analyzing a complicated data set and wants to publish is driven to find a signal whether one exists or not, sometimes in the teeth of the authors’ own uncertainty estimates. For example, Allan et al. (2014) declared that global heating of 0.34 ± 0.67 W/m^2 from 1985 to 1999 and 0.62 ± 0.43 W/m^2 from 2000 to 2012, shows global warming. Global cooling would evidently also be consistent within their 90% confidence intervals.”

            Wunsch, Carl 2016. “Global Ocean Integrals and Means, with Trend Implications.” Marine Science

            … a factor of two… double, or half, depending upon your viewpoint.

  • bigterguy

    Bill Nye, the fascist guy!

    • John

      Why do you say that?

  • Jamie

    Bobby Kennedy and clown Nye are very forgetful fascisst:

    “Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one’s own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others.”
    – John F. Kennedy

    “If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise, we do not believe in it at all.”
    – Noam Chomsky

    “Freedom is always, and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.”
    – Rosa Luxemberg

  • NUT BAG

    These statements and ideas being tossed about by these people would be pure entertainment if it weren’t so scary in the fact they may pull it off. Does anyone recall that crazy fellow Adolf Hitler that everyone laughed at back in the 1920’s??? Yes, he was ultimately taken out but after millions were left dead and the would was a shambles.

    We are one election away from from a supreme court that will be held in check or one that will run roughshod over the constitution. The CGW (catastrophic global warming) crowd are dangerous zealots who’s intention is to chant the AGW mantra long enough that the average person sees it as fact. Evolution is one theory that was bandied about for decades until it was no longer presented as theory but fact. I don’t recall evolution to be proven as fact by any stretch of the imagination but pickup any text book from elementary school to college level and the term “theory” is completely absent.

    • It’s quite true-we’re very close to a tipping point, but it’s got nothing to do with global temperatures.

  • powers2be

    “Nye entertains idea of jailing climate skeptics for ‘affecting my quality of life’ ”

    Ask any mystic or historic philosopher the meaning of life – Not affecting the quality of Bill Nye’s. I just live for that.

  • Captain Kirk

    Sorry Nye, not ready to do the fascist 2-step (goose-step) and hold my hand up with the hardy SIEG HEIL! This guy would have excommunicated Galileo too.
    He’s still pouting because he couldn’t jail scientists who claimed the earth wasn’t flat.

  • John Lange

    Bill, Robert, I am ready to go to the Hague. Are you going to take me or do I have to pay for myself?

  • Will Haas

    So Mr. Nye is totally opposed to the idea of free speech yet he himself will not keep his mouth shut. At one time the Ptolemaic system was consensus/ settled science. If consensus establishes scientific fact then the Ptolemaic system is established scientific fact and all these who say otherwise are heretics and should be punished in accordance with the dictates of Mr. Nye. If Mr. Nye himself has ever advocated that the Ptolemaic system is not established scientific fact then he should be jailed. That would any indication by him that the Earth is not the center of the universe and the entire universe revolves around the Earth.

  • MoonWatcher

    The Climate Gestapo has bow ties as part of their uniforms.

  • pinroot

    Can I later sue the alarmists for “affecting the quality of my life” after they turn the US into a third world country?

    • No, part of the process is that anyone who disagrees with them will be either executed or imprisoned.

    • John

      And there we have it. Your admission that you fear the economic and political implications of climate change science on your life style, on your greed.

      Can your money fix the atmosphere? No
      Does it cost you money to use less petroleum and gas? No.

      Does getting rid of your greed cost you anything? No.

      Does reducing your reliance on your greed cost you a decrease in cognitive functions? No.

  • PeterLT

    Jailing people for their thoughts and beliefs is exactly how things ran under Stalin. Next they will want executions.

  • Mike

    Well, Bill the Anti-Science guy. If we use the same logic toward the liberal socialist tax and spend policies that you are so fond of, they had a HUGE impact on my life. Hundreds of thousands of my dollars have been wasted on social security, medicare, public education, war on poverty, war on drugs, war on terror, etc. etc. etc. that have had absolutely no beneficial effect other than creating more of the same garbage than before. So, on these grounds, all you liberals and corrupticians deserve to be in jail for WRECKING the lives of millions upon millions of Americans. In short, eff off.

  • Minnalousha

    Tomorrow’s Headlines Today:

    “Bill Nye Celebrates Conviction in Scientific Heresy Trial”

    “Pope Endorses Death Penalty for Scientific Heresy”

    “Relief for Math Students: Consensus Finds Pi Equal to 3”

    “Government Motors Engineer Charged as Saboteur for Lopsided Tires”

    “Government Motors Engineer Cites Faulty Math, Convicted of Sedition”

  • DWKeller

    Another authoritarian. Fascist.

    • FXR

      “Useful idiot” is the most often seen term. Being a leftard has a psychological effect of transforming people into devout drama queens.

      Their importance is gauged in their homogeneity, while with a determined effort ,they can always find a way to sing along. See “Stockholm syndrome” for a better understanding of the current group think phenomenon, being described as “science” by self described “climate scientists”. Phobic and psychotic, used to be the terms we used, before we had drugs to “cure” them.
      .

  • Gary Miller

    Bill knows what he’s talking about.

    • FXR

      No he has a teleprompter to tell him what he knows.
      You should have just said.

      Bill knows how to talk.

      If accuracy matters.

  • Duke Silver

    Ah, yes it’s Bill “temps don’t effect a football’s psi” Nye again.
    Haven’t you alarmists seen enough from this guy? You seem to think he’s an asset. Well, maybe compared with the other hipsters you masquerade as experts….

  • Alice Cheshire

    If you want this to stop, have the energy companies shut themselves down NOW. The only reason this insanity works is it is like boiling a lobster in a pot—go slow and the creature doesn’t notice. Toss him into boiling water and he fights like crazy. Turn up the burner and boil the water. Illustrate now the outcome. Of course, at the rate we’re going in fighting this, we’ll all be living in the dark because energy people appear to want to lose their businesses. They do nothing to stop this. People defend Exxon and Shell, but these companies will not do what it takes to stop this. So whose side are they on???

  • GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE PRIMER

    Global Warming is Dead

    The argument about global warming has morphed into climate change. This subtle shift was necessary because the warming has stopped over the last 18+ years, even while CO2 concentrations have continued to increase. It has become obvious CO2 is not driving the warming or the climate.

    The hysteria about melting ice caps, sea level rise, stronger storms, droughts, floods, forest fires, etc., has not materialized:

    * ice continues to accumulate at record levels in the Antarctic wherein lies 90% of the world’s ice inventory. Meanwhile, the Arctic Ice Cap has survived decades of predictions of its demise.

    * sea level rise according to Nils-Axil Morner, the world’s leading authority on sea level change, has not changed at all.

    * annual accumulated cyclonic energy is at historical lows, as are the overall number and strength of hurricanes and tornadoes.

    * Droughts and floods continue their march in tune with oceanic oscillations, such as, La Ninas and the Indian Ocean Dipole.

    * Forest fire activity remains at the mercy of lightning strikes, underbrush stockpiles and human interferences.

    Climate Change has no Evidence

    There is not one piece of empirical evidence linking human activities to the climate – NOT ONE. The only arguments for climate change besides the usual logical fallacies are anecdotes, computer projections, Hockey Sticks, and consensus.

    * Anecdotes are short, obscure historical or biographical accounts. Anecdotes cannot be traced to one another. Anecdotes are not proof.

    * Computer projections are Ludic fallacies based on dubious initial conditions. The computer projections have failed, because their only input is greenhouse gases. Computer projections are not proof.

    * Hockey Sticks are the cobbling together of two unrelated proxy data sets. These FrankenGraphs, which would have received an “F” in Junior High School science class 50 years ago, are incredibly embraced by many scientists today. Hockey Sticks are artificial fabrications, not proof.

    * Consensus is an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole. Millennia and centuries ago the consensus believed the Earth was the center of the Universe and Solar System. Consensus is not proof.

    To the contrary, there is abundant evidence proving the climate has changed often and sometimes violently, all without any human influence.

    The Temperature Record

    For the last 600,000,000 years temperatures have hovered around 12C about 14% of the time, around 22C about 50% of the time, and somewhere in between 36% of the time. Right now we are at 14.5C, about 25% above the bottom of the historical range. (Ref: Dr. Christopher R. Scotese‘s PALEOMAP Project at http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm). We are no where near any temperature tipping point.

    The 0.4C rise in temperature since the Industrial Revolution (IR) pales in comparison to the 1.6C increase of the Medieval Warming Period (WP), the 2.5C increase of the Roman WP, and the 3.2C increase of the Minoan WP using the IR as a baseline. The average temperature has been declining for the last 6,000 years. (Alley, R.B. 2000, The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland, Quaternary Science Reviews, 19:213-226.) We are at the very
    end of the present 10,500 year old Interglacial WP. After this comes about 90,000 years of snow, ice, advancing glaciers and incredible loss of life. Enjoy the warmth while you can.

    The CO2 Record

    About 550,000,000 years ago CO2 was 7,000 ppm and has wound it‘s way down to where it is today, near it’s historic low (Berner, R.A. and Z. Kothavala, 2001. GEOCARB III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time, American Journal of Science, v.301, pp.182-204, February 2001.) Below 100
    ppm photosynthesis ceases. We are very close to the tipping point of Earth turning into a lifeless snowball with too little CO2 for plants to reproduce. On the other hand, plants thrive in nurseries kept at CO2 concentrations of 1,000 ppm. Thanks to recent CO2 increases, vegetation has increased 11% in arid areas of the world.

    The famous Mauna Loa CO2 measurements began in 1958, coincidentally at a historic low CO2 level of 315 ppm. In 1942 and again in 1822 CO2 was 440 ppm, 40 ppm higher than today. (Ernst-Georg Beck, 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas
    Analysis By Chemical Methods, Energy & Environment, Volume 18 No. 2, 2007,
    Fig. 2).

    To say we are nearing runaway, irreversible global warming due to recent paltry
    CO2 increases is ludicrous.

    Temperatures and Fossil Fuel Use

    For the last 150 years there has not always been a correlation between fossil fuel use and temperature. Between 1940 and 1970 while CO2 increased, fossil fuel use leveled off and slightly decreased. (Klyashtorin and Lyubushim, Energy & Environment, Vol 14, No 6, Fig 1). If all the world’s known fossil fuel reserves were burned overnight, the resulting CO2 temperature increase would be no more than 5C.

    Temperatures and Solar Irradiance

    There have been three global cooling and three global warming periods within the last 250 years, all marching to the tune of changing solar irradiance, not CO2 concentrations. (Douglas V. Hoyt and Kenneth H. Schatten, A Discussion of Plausible Solar Irradiance Variations, 1700-1992, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 98, No. All, Pages 18,895-18,906, November 1, 1993).

    Greenhouse Gas Effect (GGE)

    Only 3.27% of all CO2 generated comes from man, the other 96.73% comes from nature. Only 0.001% of water vapor comes from man; the other 99.999% comes from nature. Water vapor by a factor of 26 has more of a spectral absorption
    bandwidth or GGE than does CO2. After adding the contributions of methane, nitrous oxide, and CFCs it turns out only 0.28% of the GGE comes from man, the other 99.72% comes from nature. If man ceased to exist, the reduction in the GGE would be barely noticeable.

    Planetary Mechanics – THE Driver of Climate Change

    Planetary mechanics is the study of orbiting celestial bodies, including changes to the solar system barycenter, spin orbit coupling, and changes in angular momentum. It is the very interaction of the motion of
    the planets, Sun and moon which dictate our climate and our weather. This isn’t theory. This is astrophysics.

    Jupiter, Venus and Earth are called the Tidal Planets for good reason. They control the Sun’s tide and its 11 year sunspot cycle. There are many harmonics of this basic 11 year Schwab cycle. There is the 22 year Hale magnetic cycle. There is the 44
    year Solar Conveyor Belt cycle. Every 88 years there is the Gleisberg cycle – an amplitude modulation of Schwab cycles. There is the 208 year Suess/deVries cycle. The 1,440 year Bond or Ice Debris Cycle. The 2,200 year Hallstadt Cycle.

    There are numerous other cycles built from combinations of solar, lunar and planetary cycles. Every 18 years there is the Lunar Tidal Cycle which corresponds to abundance cycles on Earth. About every 60 years there is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation cycle, the most powerful climate force on the planet.

    Then there is Uranus and Neptune (U-N) with their 178 year orbit beat cycle. The Sun also operates in 360 year cycles, a harmonic of the U-N cycle. Each 360 year cycle is composed of Regular Oscillations, followed by a Grand Solar Maximum, followed by a Grand Solar Minimum. This totally predictable 360 year cycle has resulted in the Oort, Sporer, Maunder, Dalton and other unnamed Minimums within the past two millennia.

    In 2009, we entered the next Grand Solar Minimum – the Landscheidt Minimum.
    This isn’t unfounded speculation. This is traceable, predictable planetary mechanics (Duhau and de Jager, The Forthcoming Grand Minimum of Solar
    Activity, Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 8, 1983-1999). From this point forward be prepared for relentless colder winter temperatures which will reach bottom around
    2040. Along the way there will be ever-increasing fuel scarcity, crop failures, food shortages, famines and loss of life of millions. The next Little Ice Age has begun. No amount of pithy CO2 increase is going to provide enough life-saving warmth. Prepare for decades of bone-chilling cold winters.

    Planetary mechanics is the elephant in the room of climate change. The planets control the climate of the Sun which, combined with the Moon, control the climate on the Earth. CO2 is only a flea on the elephant’s ass coming along for the ride.

    Climate Change is Big Business

    The myth of global warming, climate change, climate change catastrophe – or whatever they are calling it today – continues, because of the trillions of dollars that would be lost and millions of leaf-raking jobs eliminated, if this charade were to be exposed.

    * Banks and brokerage houses reap huge commissions from it.
    * Scam artists like Maurice Strong thrive on it, creating schemes like carbon trading which suck billions of dollars from consumers’ wallets.
    * Politicians need it to save us from imaginary hobgoblins and to justify tax increases to fund largesse programs that garner votes.
    * Scientists keep busy by grazing at the trough of free grant money made available, but only if it can be shown that man is the cause.
    * Corporations need it to sell cures for which there is no disease, and fatten up their bottom lines.
    * The alternative energy, Green Building and sustainability industries came into existence and thrive off of it.
    * The news media needs it to keep the frenzy going, the ratings up, and ad revenue coming in.
    * The United Nations needs it to forge its role as the leader in One World Governance.
    * Environmentalists, anti-industrialists, and other Communists need it in order to cut the legs out from underneath the evil, Capitalist United States and level the playing field for the world‘s less fortunate nations.

    This is the hideous symbiosis of individuals, groups, businesses and governments that need the myth of climate change kept alive for their very financial survival. They are not going to go away, so long as they can continue to mainline on the juice.
    It is time to yank the tube out of their arms.

    And one last note: According to the 10,500 year temperature record of the second Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GISP2), the CO2 increases occur about 800 years AFTER the temperature increases. That is, CO2 doesn’t cause rising temperatures, rising temperatures cause CO2 to gas out of solution from the world’s oceans into the atmosphere. CO2 is not a driver of climate. It is a passenger coming along for the ride.

    Get the facts visit:

    http://www.windpowerfraud.com

    http://www.aconvenientfabrication.com

  • paasingby

    Ken Lay from Enronn went to prison for fraud, he set up carbon credits with Al Bore.

  • Dano2

    Energy CEOs, not addled and underinformed denialists.

    Weak propaganda is weak.

    Best,

    D

  • Marilynne L. Mellander

    Once again, no mention of the deliberate efforts to affect our weather via geoengineering…Marc Morano, please start talking about the spraying of toxic substances and the use of patented methodologies to move the wind currents, the Jet Stream, et al which cause aberrant weather patterns
    And, using Sarah Palin for a spokesperson is NOT a good idea…she comes off as a total nutjob…

  • Apr 18, 2016 Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?

    Climate change is an urgent topic of discussion among politicians, journalists and celebrities…but what do scientists say about climate change? Does the data validate those who say humans are causing the earth to catastrophically warm? Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world’s leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.

    https://youtu.be/OwqIy8Ikv-c

  • elia

    Here is a great article regarding how “science” is politicized and, even without politics, frequently reaches the wrong results due to career climbing and pressure to conform. Marc Morano should do a detailed review of this article. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regress

  • strawnman

    “Nye added, “For me as a taxpayer and voter — the introduction of this extreme doubt about climate change is affecting my quality of life as a public citizen.””

    If the introduction of extreme doubt about your worldview, doubt which affects your quality of life as a public citizen, is the standard for criminal activity which results in legal action, fines, and imprisonment, then we are no longer under the rule of law. How are we supposed to evaluate and substantiate such claims? What is the standard of evidence needed to prove that our “quality of life as a public citizen has been affected?”

    I wonder which other worldviews Nye would allow his standard of criminal culpability to judge? Would Nye stand up for pedophiles who believe that the introduction of extreme doubt about the morality of child molestation has affected their quality of life as a public citizen? How about thieves? Do they have the right to believe that stealing is OK, and none of us have the right to question their judgment under the penalty of law? Has Nye stood up for Christians whose quality of life is affected by the demands of the gay rights movement that they not just accept but also affirm and participate in celebrations of their sinful lifestyles?

    Nye is a mechanical engineer and actor, not a scientist. It is clear that he is also not a legal scholar. Anyone who points to Nye as a reliable source of scientific analysis calls their own judgment into question.

    • John

      Yes or No:
      Do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change?
      Do you agree that there is a positive correlation between anthropogenic climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?
      Anthropogenic climate change deniers pontificate free-market ideologues such as Laissez-Faire Capitalism, and are attracted (love & beget) to conspiracy/crank theories.
      http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf
      http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/03/25/0956797612457686.abstract

      • strawnman

        First, you present two false dichotomies. You paint two and only two camps, and everyone falls into one or another if they have an opinion on the subject. I deduced that from the “Yes or No” premise. I can understand and forgive how you may think that such fallacious argumentation may be valid after reading the fist few pages of the screed you linked to. That was awful. I am embarrassed for you.

        Second, correlation is scientifically meaningless. Correlation is not causation, but that if your implication. There is a correlation between ice cream consumption and drowning – every year, people eat more ice cream in the summer, and more people drown in the summer. Using your logic, ice cream consumption and drowning are somehow linked. I could cite studies backing each of my claims and then say that my correlation is “scientifically backed.” I think it’s clear that there is no science involved in my example at all, and neither was there any science in your example.

        For the record, I do not support lassez-faire economics. I also believe we actually landed on the moon, and that Oswald shot Kennedy. I do not believe that contrails are chem trails, and I don’t believe in the Rothschild/Bilderberg nonsense. I also think AGW is pseudo-science.

        There are reasons for the differences in our opinions, and those have a vast range, but I believe the most fundamental difference is in worldview. Who do each of us accept as the ultimate authority on these issues? You accept science and the wisdom of man as your highest authority even though you are clearly not trained in scientific thought or reasoning. I accept God as the highest authority on everything, and believe that science sits at the feet of a correct understanding of God.

        And no, I don’t want to hear your silly Flying Spaghetti Monster straw man.

        • Beowolf Shaeffer

          Very nice rational response strawnman.

          Rational people could note the correlation between climate alarmism and atheism…but then smart people wouldn’t make such useless, arbitrary, and irrelevant anecdotes.

          Although, in this case, it is actually true that atheists need climate alarmism as a new religion, and are just as irrationally fanatical about it. 😉

          • John

            Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in?

            What exactly do you have to fear if we take action on ACC now, serious action to prevent further damage?

            What do you have to lose if you admit that ACC is settled? How would that change your lifestyle, and why is that a bad thing?

            Answer my questions. You are the unethical, immoral, greedy crank theorist!

        • John

          Look, religion (your god dogma and anthropogenic climate change ACC denial) should be a private thing practiced behind close doors.
          Citing your god to defend your ACC denial is rather odd though.

          And your “false dichotomy and correlation / causation reasons” were denialist crank theory claptrap.

          Your god does not exist. It’s you’re crank theory. ACC is settled science, deal with it.
          Now we know you love crank theories.
          Why do you think the government can’t regulate limited resources (coal, energy, etc)? What will be the political and economical implications on your lifestyle if ACC is true?

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            Sorry John but it is your crazy, zany, fruity religion of climate alarm which is absurd, and doesn’t exist. It is YOUR crank theory, which has been debunked by such simple things as NOAA’s temperature charts.

            Stop making up conspiracy theories and crank interpretations. It is not about being against government regulation and it is not about not wishing all people in the world to have prosperity and increased quality of life (which, of course, hydrocarbon fuels provide, thus showing your crowd to be the ones who wish to prevent poor people from having access to cheap energy – lying hypocrite much? lol!)

            It is about bad science, and the abuse of science, and about identifying and rejecting pseudoscience, i.e., climate alarm. And it is also about wanting poor people to have access to cheap energy so that they can have the same quality of life as everyone else. Stop trying to prevent poor people from having higher quality of life, John. They need hydrocarbon fuels just as much as we do…so stop trying to prevent them from having and gaining access to it.

          • John

            Err, I’m not the one that claims to know more than the smartest people in the world or to assert to know more than scientific knowledge. That’s your department, remember?

            That’s why you love your crank theories.

            What exactly do you have to fear if we take action on ACC now, serious action to prevent further damage?

            What do you have to lose if you admit that ACC is settled? How would that change your lifestyle, and why is that a bad thing?

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            Your religion is showing here, John. You really believe that climate alarmists are the smartest people in the world!? hahaha, man, you really do worship them religiously, don’t you. What faith. You are a good sheep. You’re the one in fear here, John. You are afraid of ACC. Very afraid.

            Again, it is your crank conspiracy interpretation confusing you. You just can’t comprehend anything outside of crank conspiracy theories, hence your constant reference to them.

            It is not about “fear of action on ACC”. It is that ACC is pseudoscience, and that there is no “damage” being done, and that it is a stupid waste of time. ACC is pseudoscience, and that is why no action other than debunking it should be taken. Note the difference between that and fear, if you can…although you are wrought with fear of ACC, which clouds your judgement.

            What do you have to lose if you admit that ACC is debunked pseudoscience? Why are you so afraid of that? Why are you so afraid of poor countries and poor people having access to cheap energy which will raise their quality of life and standards of living? Why are you afraid of prosperity for poor and developing nations? Because you’re afraid of ACC, but you’re so afraid of it that you are afraid of admitting that it is debunked pseudoscience. Such a contradiction for you.

          • John

            You have not answered my questions. All you did was offer more crank theories and still claiming to know more than the smartest people (scientists) in the world. How absurd.
            Climate alarmists, wow that’s your crank theory. I mean what in earth is a climate alarmist? Lol, you crack me up.

            Is there a crank theory that you don’t believein?

            What exactly do you have to fear if we take action on ACC now, serious action to prevent further damage?

            What do you have to lose if you admit that ACC is settled? How would that change your lifestyle, and why is that a bad thing?

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            I see that reading comprehension is a problem for you.

            ACC is pseudoscience, and has been debunked as such. I am so sorry that you can not understand how that answers your questions.

          • John

            How do got know ACC is false, outside your love of crank theory?

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            “How do got to know” Really? What are you, 12 years old? Learn to speak.

            All rationalists know this. Only faithful ACC fanatics don’t.

          • strawnman

            He’s a lost cause. I appreciate your engagement, with him, but you will not change his mind. Fortunately, the have a weapon sharper than any two-edged sword – the word of God. I’ll let his conscience argue with him.

          • John

            Jesus appeared to me saying he is not a god. Did he lie to me?

          • strawnman

            No, he did not. Your lawn service guy seems to understand that mocking God is not a wise thing to do, and he has more sense than you. When Christ Jesus, who is God and who cannot lie, returns, then you will kneel before Him and confess Him as God.

          • John

            You did not answer my question.
            What is wrong with you? Don’t you understand basic logic?

            Pay attention now. Answer my question.
            Jesus appeared to me saying he is not a god. Did he lie to me?

          • strawnman

            No, he did not lie to you. Anyone or anything which appeared to you was not Christ Jesus, the Lord of creation. I know this for a fact because I did not see him. You see, Jesus told us that many will say they see him, but they are lying or deceived, but that when He returns on flaming clouds with His mighty angels that we will all see him.

            So, the Jesus you spoke to is not God. I have God’s word on it, because he can not lie. And since the Jesus you spoke to is not God, then he did not lie to you.

            Nevertheless, if you persist in believing he is god then you are deceived. But I knew already that you are deceived. The Bible told me so.

          • John

            If Jesus did not lie to me, as you stated, then Jesus is not a god.

            Why do you worship Jesus if he is not a god?

          • John

            Jesus told me that you are a liar. Jesus said he is no god and that his dad did not create that rock.

            Are you telling me that Jesus lied to me?

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            “How do got to know” Really? What are you, 12 years old? Learn to speak.

            All rationalists know this. Only faithful ACC fanatics don’t know this.

          • John

            You know ACC is false because you know it. Roll eyes.
            That’s circular, and your new crank theory.

            You know because you know. Oh dear oh dear. That’s kindergarten playground material. I’ll save this and play it back to you in 50 years.

            You know ACC is false because you know that the smartest people in the world are all wrong. How do you know? You just know, because you know, hey! Incredible logic. Your reasoning is so clear it went completely invisible to you! I did not think you could beat your master crank theory, but you’re new crank theory is a diamond!

            Are you a comedian?

            Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in?

            What exactly do you have to fear if we take action on ACC now, serious action to prevent further damage?

            What do you have to lose if you admit that ACC is settled? How would that change your lifestyle, and why is that a bad thing?

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            Why do you wish to hurt poor people? What is SO wrong with you that it makes you so afraid to share the wealth of cheap energy? What drives you to wish to keep poor people down and out, with no access to cheap energy?

            You are simply so unethical and immoral!

          • John

            You have not answered my question.

            Cheap energy? No, it is dirty coal energy that will cause all life on earth to die. Do you want that?

            Renewables are cheap clean energy.

            Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in?

            What exactly do you have to fear if we take action on ACC now, serious action to prevent further damage?

            What do you have to lose if you admit that ACC is settled? How would that change your lifestyle, and why is that a bad thing?

          • John
          • John

            How do you know ACC has been falsified?

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            All people with a triple-digit IQ know this, John. As I said, you have demonstrated that you simply lack the intellectual maturity and experience to comprehend how science works. That you can even *seriously* ask that question demonstrates this.

          • John

            My IQ is triple digit and I know that ACC has not been falsified. Why did you lie to me? Was that another crank theory of yours?
            This says that you are a liar: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/may/11/coal-made-its-best-case-against-climate-change-and-lost

            Now, again: How do you know ACC has been falsified?

            I will keep on asking you until you admit that you can’t answer that, other than to offer crank theories.

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            I see that reading comprehension is a problem for you.

            ACC is pseudoscience and has been debunked as such. I am so sorry that you can not understand how that answers your questions.

          • John

            You have nor justified that ACC is false. Untill you do that, you’re in love with crank theory.

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            We know, John. You have critical thinking difficulties.

            Look John, little piece of wisdom, now that I’ve gotten to know you: This is an issue you will never understand. There is no answer I can provide that you can understand. I, and numerous others on this thread, have tried, multiple times, and to no avail. This is beyond your comprehension level. You simply lack the intellectual maturity to understand. I am sure that we all wish you could understand, but you can’t. What is curious is to watch you continue to bang your head around on this forum on this issue. It might be healthier to move on.

          • John

            Clearly, it took you a few hours to type that up; just to say you can’t falsify ACC. You may want your logorrhea get checked out. It works rather well with your Dunning-Kruger effect, old chap.

            It’s ok to be loud. It’s also ok to have nothing to say. But to be both, on a Disgus forum, like you, is pathetic.

            I’ll give you as many opportunities as you need to demonstrate your insults and crank theories as you need. One should have been enough, but you’re a very slow learner and clearly can’t spot trends. Your insults do not work on me.

            Oh, blaming me, insulting me for your inability to falsify ACC; how absurd – that’s your new master crank theory.

            Sadly, what you fail to understand is that you don’t need to convince me. You heed to convince the smartest people in the world that they are all wrong, and that you, an anonymous Disgus troll with no evidence, is right. And the best you have is to sneer and smear with your reasoning failure.

            Look Beowolf, your religion (ACC denial) should be a private thing, practiced behind closed doors. Citing crank theories to defend your denial seems extremely odd though. Blaming me for your reasoning failure is not something that I have come across before – well done, a brand new crank theory.

            And your greedy plea for your “political belief in free-open markets” remains denier claptrap.

            You know what to do to get my attention; falsify ACC, and tell me why you are so scared of ACC being true for you.
            (We both know is about your love of crank theory and your selfish greed, but I want you to admit it and not just demonstrate it.)

            Write me if you can deal in fact.

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            “Clearly, it took you a few hours to type that up”

            Wow. You are really stooping into cloud-cookoo land now. Check the time-stamps: you posted at 10:03 AM, I posted at 10:10 AM. So no, it did not take a few hours…lol!

            Your next replay, however, was at 8:10 PM, and so it is YOU who took many, many hours to come up with a sophistical reply! hahaha!

            Man, you types really embarrass and expose yourselves and your incompetence. Classic. Talk about Dunning-Kruger for yourself there John! You are unable to tell the time, let alone understand how science works! Oh my goodness. What a loon.

            ACC has been falsified by the NOAA and all other temperature charts. Although, given that you don’t understand how to read a graph (or tell the time…how can someone who can’t tell the time possibly read a graph? You can’t! lol), that you lack the intellectual maturity for comprehending science, well, I guess the findings of science will continue to elude you.

          • John

            Did you get your logorrhea checked out? I said, write me when we can deal in fact.
            You completely forgot to answer my questions again. Is that your amnesia again? You need to get that checked out as well!

            ACC has been falsified by the NOAA and all other temperature charts.

            Learn something today, denier. When you hear of two absurd claims, then you can’t use the second askew claim to explain the first pathetic claim.

            You can’t claim that NOAA falsified ACC when they do not dissent from it. They helped discover ACC, you twat.

            What temperature chart falsifies ACC? Show your work, denier. Or else, you are just cranking again with another pathetic crank theory! We both know it’s your crank theory!

            This shows that you are wrong: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/may/11/coal-made-its-best-case-against-climate-change-and-lost

            Deal with it, denier!

            You know what to do to get my attention; falsify ACC, and tell me why you are so scared of ACC being true for you.
            (We both know is about your love of crank theory and your selfish greed, but I want you to admit it and not just demonstrate it.)

            Write me if you can deal in fact.

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            John, look, you’re getting more and more irate, more and more detached from reality and a reasonable conversation.

            I should have stopped this a long time ago because it is actually making me feel bad…telling someone that they lack the intellectual maturity to understand science doesn’t actually help them and suddenly make them realize the errors of their ways…people are stuck in their paradigms and so how can you expect them to see the way out?

            Just relax John, it’s all OK. The world won’t blow up, humans won’t melt the planet, life is fun, amazing, wonderful and wondrous, and there’s lots of stuff out there and in the universe to be feel good about. Everything will be OK.

            I truly wish you a good life, and I hope that you can find the solutions to whatever problems you feel you have to deal with. The barrier between you and everyone else on this thread just seems to be impassible…bit that’s OK, the world’s problems don’t fall on your shoulders alone.

            This has not become a rational place for me to spend more time, and so I will go back to real life instead.

            I just hope that you can find some way to assuage your fears and your alarm. The world is not going to end, humanity isn’t going to end.

            I know that you won’t be able to take this sign-off in a kind and respectful way…but that’s OK too, it doesn’t bother me. Do take care.

            Try not to harbor so much fear. Adios.

          • John

            So, your could not defend your claims. Al you can do is insult because your reasoning failed you. Welcome to your museum of mistakes : http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/may/11/coal-made-its-best-case-against-climate-change-and-lost

          • John
          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            Now THAT is some crank science! Thanks for proving the point John, that you believe in crank science! lol!

          • John

            It’s not science, its the law. face palm!

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            LOL…posting the same link 20 times only demonstrates that you have no leg left to stand on, and that it is all crank science that you believe in. How embarrassing for you!

          • John

            Did you read it, denier?
            It renders your position illegitimate!
            As if I did not know that already!

          • John

            So, you accept assertion without question and expect me to do the same.
            Shame on you.

          • strawnman

            Why do the nations rage
            and the peoples plot in vain?

            The kings of the earth set themselves,
            and the rulers take counsel together,
            against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying,

            “Let us burst their bonds apart
            and cast away their cords from us.”

            He who sits in the heavens laughs;
            the Lord holds them in derision.

            Then he will speak to them in his wrath,
            and terrify them in his fury, saying,

            “As for me, I have set my King
            on Zion, my holy hill.”

            I will tell of the decree:
            The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;
            today I have begotten you.

            Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
            and the ends of the earth your possession.

            You shall break them with a rod of iron
            and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”

            Now therefore, O kings, be wise;
            be warned, O rulers of the earth.

            Serve the Lord with fear,
            and rejoice with trembling.

            Kiss the Son,
            lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
            for his wrath is quickly kindled.

            Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

          • John

            Now you want the conversation to be as meaningless as possible, to hide your vacuum of knowledge, to conceal your intellectual incapacity. You just gave away your exist strategy, your plan to admit how your reasoning failed.

            Your post content is a demonstration of nothing but intellectual ineptitude and willful ignorance, born in a delusional cognitive reasoning peril grounded in obscurantism, cemented by you, the fabulist replying on fideism.

          • strawnman

            The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
            They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds,
            there is none who does good.

            The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man,
            to see if there are any who understand,
            who seek after God.

            They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
            there is none who does good,
            not even one.

            Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers
            who eat up my people as they eat bread
            and do not call upon the LORD?

            There they are in great terror,
            for God is with the generation of the righteous.

            You would shame the plans of the poor,
            but the LORD is his refuge.

            Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion!
            When the LORD restores the fortunes of his people,
            let Jacob rejoice, let Israel be glad.

          • John

            ‘Wise men speak when they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something’ – Plato.

            Being wise, I have the following to say:
            Mark Twain – “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”

            “I see only with deep regret that god punishes so many of his children for their numerous stupidities, for which only he himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only his nonexistence could excuse him” – Albert Einstein (letter to Edgar Meyer, 1915)

            “If god is real, he will have to beg my forgiveness” – Written by a Jewish concentration camp prisoner in WW2 on the cell walls.

            My pool of evidence widens while you can only be contrite to present your museum of mistakes. Your noose tightens to make place for your growing broken reason filter and vacuum of evidence.

          • John
        • John
  • So here is where morons nest. Fascinating.

  • cupera1

    Eco-hypocrites like Al Gore, John Ewards, Bill Nye, John Travolta, Ed Bagley, Robert Redford, Tom Steyer, Bill Gates, Chris Martin, Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt , Angelina Jolie, Madanna, Barbra Streisand and all the DNC politicos. Every actor/actress/politician that has more than a single 1k/sqr foot home and a pool is an eco-hypocrite. They will continue to travel around to their four mansions, fly on private jets, sail on their luxury yachts, ride in stretch limos, consume 20X the electricity and resources. They will continue to live the life-styles of the rich and famous while the rest of the “little people” have to live in caves. I heard ALL these same arguments and reasons before with the same kind of energy restrictions and my limits of my personal freedoms back when the eco- fascists were saying it was man-made global cooling back in the 70’s that was causing a new Ice Age to start. They will manufacture ANY crises and exploit any disaster to push their agenda. “We can run your life better than you so shut-up and do and we say not as we do”.

    • John

      Do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change?
      Do you agree that there is a positive correlation between anthropogenic climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?
      Anthropogenic climate change deniers pontificate free-market ideologues such as Laissez -Faire Capitalism, and are attracted (love & beget) to conspiracy/crank theories.
      http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf
      http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/03/25/0956797612457686.abstract

      • cupera1

        NO, NO and NO. Science is just science it has no bias. There is just the measurements and historical data.

        Do you agree that there has been many past doomsday scenarios environmentalists advocated to continually changing prophecies of apocalyptic disaster. Our topsoil is being washed into the ocean (The Road to Survival — 1948). is exterminating birds with DDT (The Silent Spring — 1962). Overpopulation will result in starvation (The Population Bomb — 1968). We will run out of resources and strangle on pollution (The Limits to Growth — 1972). Acid rain from burning coal will destroy our forests and crops (circa 1985). Hairspray will destroy the ozone layer and cause cancer (1980s). Burning fossil fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere that will cause disastrous global warming (1988-2015). These prophecies and many others were claimed to be scientifically justified but ended up just another scam for the con artist trying to make a quick buck so we can add this one also. As seen in the historicasl temperature graph the “1984” changes to please the political masters in government was done

        • John

          Wow. You do love your crank theories. You clearly agree that there is a positive correlation between anthropogenic climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology.
          Do you think your government is regulated those crank theories? Do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            Oh that’s a cute non-rebuttal to being totally shut down by cupera1. LOL

            John dear boy, the only crank conspiracy theorist around here is you. All of us can see it. We can all see it. It’s really funny.

            The only conspiracy around here is the happenstance of the conglomeration of rationalist skeptics coming to the same conclusion, that climate alarm is bad & failed science.

          • John

            More crank theory from you. Wow.

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            You’ve clearly lost the debate here John.

            The life of a troll must be quite sad indeed. We feel so sorry for you.

          • John

            Thanks for conceding with your insults.

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            Again, we’re so sorry for you.

          • John

            We’re? Lol, are you two or more now, copying yourself?
            I’ll give you as many opportunities to concede with your insults as you need, troll. One should have been enough, but you (and your other imaginary self) are clearly not a quick learner.

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            Umm, yes John, we, all of the rationalists calling you out and debunking your crank conspiracy interpretations of what is really quite simple and obvious rational skepticism of pseudoscience. Given that you are the one spending time around a place where your beliefs are being debunked, ridiculed, and proven as false, and where no one agrees with you or really wants you around (man, what kind of a person does that…so sad), then clearly you are the troll here. Nice try…but fail.

          • John

            Now you want the discussions to be as meaningless as possible with your admittance to your delusion; copying yourself.
            Your insults do not work on me. You are offering them because your reasoning failed and because you’re a slow learner.
            I want you to demonstrate that for yourself and me.
            Answer this :
            What exactly do you have to fear if we take action on ACC now, serious action to prevent further damage?

            What do you have to lose if you admit that ACC is settled? How would that change your lifestyle, and why is that a bad thing?

            We both know the outcome of this test. Go for it.

          • Beowolf Shaeffer

            Again, it is your crank conspiracy interpretation confusing you. You just can’t comprehend anything outside of crank conspiracy theories, hence your constant reference to them.

            It is not about “fear of action on ACC”. It is that ACC is pseudoscience, and that there is no “damage” being done, and that it is a stupid waste of time. ACC is pseudoscience, and that is why no action other than debunking it should be taken. Note the difference between that and fear, if you can…although you are wrought with fear of ACC, which clouds your judgement.

            What do you have to lose if you admit that ACC is debunked pseudoscience? Why are you so afraid of that? Why are you so afraid of poor countries and poor people having access to cheap energy which will raise their quality of life and standards of living? Why are you afraid of prosperity for poor and developing nations? Because you’re afraid of ACC, but you’re so afraid of it that you are afraid of admitting that it is debunked pseudoscience. Such a contradiction for you.

          • John

            You did not answer any of my questions.

          • John
          • cupera1

            John, you must have forgotten CRU Climategate scandal that there was a widely organized effort to suppress alternative scientific thought and to censor scientific journals in the debate about AGW.

          • John

            Incredible, you forgot to answer my question, but you did offer another crank theory.
            Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in?
            You clearly agree that there is a positive correlation between anthropogenic climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology.
            Do you think your government is regulating those crank theories?
            Do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change

          • cupera1

            John is it a crank theory when there is a mountain of evidence to back it up??? We have the evidence, now that Mann complied with the FOIA and showed that the Hockey Stick graph was generated by taking 12 mole hills out of 252 data sets and turning them into mountains Mann won world wide acclaim and a huge following. He gave legitimacy to this brand of junk science. The 100’s of billions that are ridding on making the narrative stick despite the overwhelming evidence that it was all a hoax is the driving factor. When in doubt follow the money. There is 22 billion a year that is being used to push this agenda from governments and ultra wealth individuals and the people that write papers supporting manmade warming get a slice of that pie.

          • John

            Read this and come back when we can deal in fact: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/may/11/coal-made-its-best-case-against-climate-change-and-lost

            I’m not interested in your canards. The Michael Mann one is old, boring and dishonest. So is your cliamte models. Don’t you have new ones?

            But remember, your crank theories (canards) presents me with a conundrum:
            ignore your pseudoscientific claims and risk being perceived as unable to refute them, or
            thoroughly debunk them and risk granting a veneer of legitimacy to an illegitimate position.

            I don’t contend that you’re wrong because you disagree with me, pathetic denier; you are wrong because your position is incorrect, erroneous, and without merit. I don’t contend that you are intellectually inept and dishonest because you dispute with me; you have demonstrated nothing but intellectual ineptitude and willful ignorance, and are simply being laid down in the bed you made. It’s nice that you admire me and envy my vocabulary, but what you should admire strive toward is a worldview based upon critical thinking, sound reason, and conclusions derived from demonstrable evidence and sound logic. I’m sure you are bored. There was no in-flight cartoon and or talking animals to captivated your infantile mind.

          • cupera1

            Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels ‘COOLS planet’, says NASA
            http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/628524/Climate-change-shock-Burning-fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says-NASA
            http://www.express.co.uk/news/
            August 21, 2015 Study: German Scientists Conclude 20th Century Warming “Nothing Unusual” …Foresee “Global Cooling Until 2080″!
            The Die kalte Sonne site here features a worrisome essay by German climate scientists Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, Dr. Alexander Hempelmann and Carl Otto Weiss. They carefully examined climate changes of the past and have found that the recent changes (of the last 40 years are nothing out of the ordinary and that we need to worry about a global cooling that will persist until 2080.
            http://notrickszone.com/2015/0
            The young people like you that have no knowledge of history or science are the ones that are falling for this new scam. The older people that are skeptical of the current man made global warming theory is they lived through the last time that a collection of con men/consensus of scientist that claimed the man was causing the earth to cool and a new Ice Age was coming. These latest groups of scam artists/advocates are proposing the same kind of restrictions on personal freedoms and reductions in life styles that they pushed back in the 1970’s. This year there will be children graduating High School that have never experienced any Global Warming in their entire lives. When you forget history you are doomed to repeat.

          • John

            Pay attention:
            Read this and come back when we can deal in fact: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/may/11/coal-made-its-best-case-against-climate-change-and-lost

            I’m not interested in your canards. The Michael Mann one is old, boring and dishonest. So is your cliamte models. Don’t you have new ones?

            But remember, your crank theories (canards) presents me with a conundrum:
            ignore your pseudoscientific claims and risk being perceived as unable to refute them, or
            thoroughly debunk them and risk granting a veneer of legitimacy to an illegitimate position.

            I don’t contend that you’re wrong because you disagree with me, pathetic denier; you are wrong because your position is incorrect, erroneous, and without merit. I don’t contend that you are intellectually inept and dishonest because you dispute with me; you have demonstrated nothing but intellectual ineptitude and willful ignorance, and are simply being laid down in the bed you made. It’s nice that you admire me and envy my vocabulary, but what you should admire strive toward is a worldview based upon critical thinking, sound reason, and conclusions derived from demonstrable evidence and sound logic. I’m sure you are bored. There was no in-flight cartoon and or talking animals to captivated your infantile mind.

          • John

            Did you actually read the article?
            http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/628524/Climate-change-shock-Burning-fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says-NASA
            It says:

            “This means that Earth’s climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide—or atmospheric carbon dioxide’s capacity to affect temperature change—has been underestimated, according to the study.”

            The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which draws its TCR estimate from earlier research, places the future estimate rise at 1.8°F (1.0°C).

            But the new NASA study dovetails with a GISS study published last year that puts the TCR value at 3.0°F (1.7° C).

          • John
          • cupera1

            Cave dwelling, I have been told by environmentalists, is very nice once you drive off the bear. If you or your friends like living in caves that’s their right, the Neanderthal life style is not for me. I like the modern convinces like, electricity, indoor heating & plumbing, modern medicine & dentistry, metal tools, an electric refrigerator/freezer to store food, having a wide verity of cooked food, manufactured cloths to wear and a dry clean bed to sleep in. I have no desire to work 12 hours days on a subsistence farm working year around so I don’t starve. That is back breaking labor that makes you old by 40 and dead by 50.

          • John

            There’s a well known phenomenon called “crank magnetism” — cranks seem to attract lots of cranky ideas just like a magnet.

            Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in?

            It’s ok, denier. You’re safe here. You don’t have to accept what the courts say http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/may/11/coal-made-its-best-case-against-climate-change-and-lost.
            Nor do you have to accept that anthropogenic climate change is true because the evidence http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
            As yet….

            According to the Kübler-Ross model people go through stages when in grief, in accepting reality. You’re in stage 1 denial. You have learnt to lie to yourself about it. Well done! Denial is an immature developmental defense to make yourself believe crank theories for your own selfish greedy benefit. It’s your coping mechanism. You have to understand your denial and how it’s different to your lack of knowledge. I have calmly repeated the facts and it does not harm me when you still remain in denial. You need to talk about ACC and why you are in denial of it and why you deny legal court verdicts. I’m here for you, talk to me, get angry. That way you can move to stage two of your journey in accepting scientific and legal findings. Denial means avoiding the factual realities because they are simply too painful to behold for you. But you need to have hope and understand the difference to denial. Hope means moving forward based on a clear grasp of factual realities, it’s a commodity most people feel is a help, not a hindrance, and one that shouldn’t be abandoned. Without the willingness to own one’s own actions, you cannot change for the better, you can’t get out of denial.
            But some people can’t get out of denial due to the boogeymen: narcissism and psychopathism. Due to that, you can’t convince a denier of anything because your denial is not based on evidence but on a deep seated need to deny. I think that’s you, although I hope not. Only you would know.

            I typed the below in hope that you would understand it if I repeat the facts of this reality and how it’s different to your manufactured pseudo reality. You also need to talk to others that are not in denial of reality.

            Correction to your post content:
            It’s argument from, not argument to. Similar, it’s appeal to, not appeal from.

            At least try to formulate your crank theory properly. That way people can take you more seriously.

            How do you think that will go down with the judge, any judge, when you are denial of a verdict? You probably never pay your traffic fines or utility bills – because it’s an argument to authority. Bejesus man.

            In that case, to use your askew reasoning: you made a bad argument to pseudo science. But you have to admit even you should be shocked by your argument to crank theory on a scientific consensus. Or was that an argument from?

            Your first response to the court case link was a massive red herring. Your second response was vapid of an answer and contained an appeal to personal incredulity and emotion. Your third is a statement of denial and reasoning failure. Welcome to your museum of mistakes.

            Remember, I made no argument.
            I offered you the courts decisions. That’s the law, it is binding. There is no argument over that, denier. And the evidence for ACC makes ACC not false.

            Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in?

            Be honest now:
            Why are you in denial of ACC? It can’t be the science because the courts found that the deniers had no science, only lies. There is no scientific body of national or international standing that denies ACC. None. Are you seriously trying to claim that the smartest people in the world are all wrong, but that you, an anonymous Disgus user with no credentials in climate change science, is right? But you fail to tell me how you know that, you fail to show me your work. That’s not smart at all, denier. It’s a kindergarten cry.

            What do your have to lose if ACC is true? What do you fear about the economical and political impact on your lifestyle if ACC is true for you?

            We have done scientific research on ACC deniers and we know that answer. Is about your greed and love of crank theory. Do you want this research citation?

            Please answer each question. If you fail to answer then this discussion is over. I then suggest you seek professional, expensive help, because I can’t help someone that willingly want all life on earth to go extinct.

        • hiernonymous

          “These prophecies and many others were claimed to be scientifically justified but ended up just another scam for the con artist trying to make a quick buck so we can add this one also. ”

          Eh? In the case of the Malthusian predictions, at least, the predictions were sound, and spurred the development of technological solutions. The impending famine in India was averted, not by realizing that it was all a hoax, but by the introduction of IR8 (and later IR36), greatly improving per-acre yields.

          Acid rain is a real phenomenon; not sure how you see that as a “scam.”

          Topsoil management is also a real thing – sloppy agricultural methods can lead to desertification and loss of needed arable land. Haven’t read Vogt’s book – did he make extravagant claims, or otherwise make topsoil management a scam?

          But just assuming that all warnings are bogus, and that science will come up with solutions “somehow” is magical thinking. The boy who cried wolf was killed by a wolf, after all.

          • cupera1

            When the government gets involved and pushes an agenda that will result in more government control and fewer freedoms is the result of all these “crises”. And Chicken Little is still waiting for the sky to fall.

          • hiernonymous

            Government can use fear of crime to push an agenda that results in more government control.

            That doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as crime, or that identifying it is a scam.

            And, as I noted, some of the things you listed were very much real.

        • John
  • strawnman

    When you can’t win the argument then criminalize dissent. The arrogance of such men astounds me.

    • John

      There is a well known phenomenon called crank magnetism – cranks are attracted to cranky ideas just like magnets.

      Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in?

      • strawnman

        Yes. I don’t believe in man-made global warming. I don’t believe in evolution. I don’t believe in the big bang theory. There are lots of crank theories I don’t buy.

        Of course, you are going to tell me they are not crank theories but rather established science. And when I ask you for one single example of observable, testable, and reproducible evidence (which happens to be how we define what is science and what is not) to back your crank theory, you will accuse me of being anti-science. You will then challenge me to provide one piece of evidence that God exists.

        Look around you. There is a creation, and it did not come out of nowhere and spontaneously organize itself. The creation is all the evidence we need to know that there is a creator, just like a watch is all the evidence we need to know that there is a watchmaker.

        By the way, I never heard of your “well-known phenomenon” of crank magnetism. I guess it’s not really that well-known, is it? I found it on one website, the misnamed “Rational Wiki,” and it looks like it’s nothing more than a giant straw-man argument against people who do not agree with your crank theories.

        If you cannot prove your scientific theories with science, then fallacious straw man and ad hominem arguments are all you have left to carry the day. It must suck knowing that the only ammo you can fire is blanks, especially when the people you are firing at know it. I laugh at your arguments, your silly websites, and your desperate need to feel relevant when all you think you are is a gob of evolved goo.

        You were made in the likeness and image of God. The living God who created this entire universe to bring glory to His name wishes to have an eternal relationship with you. All you have to do is humble yourself and seek after Him.

        • John

          You did not answer my question.

          Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in?

          Your god does not exist. I did not ask you to list your crank theories. I asked you if there is a crank theory that you don’t believe in.

          Pay attention, answer my question.

          • strawnman

            Pay attention to my answer. In the first line I listed 3 specific crank theories I do not believe in. You were so busy composing your answer to the response you thought I would give that you did not bother to read the response itself.

            Look mom, see that rock? John thinks there was nothing, and then nothing happened to nothing because that’s all that can happen to nothing, and then nothing somehow blew up and became an organized everything. That mess from the explosion somehow turned itself into your eyes, your brain, and your soul, and now you can see that pretty rock which came from nothing.

            Your worldview is irrational and nonsensical. For someone who claims to believe in science you sure had to throw it all out the window to swallow that fairy tale.

          • John

            Now you want to insult me because your reasoning failed you. That’s so predictable.

            Clearly, you did not pay attention again. You completely forgot to answer my question. But you did claim to know my beliefs when I have not stated them. Where have I claimed that there was nothing, and then nothing happened to nothing because that’s all that can happen to nothing, and then nothing somehow blew up and became an organized everything?

            Where did I claim that? Can you read my mind, what other magic can you do? It is you that claim that something (a god or whatever) existed inside or outside nothing assuming it created everything from or out of nothing some x years ago. How absurd.

            Now, why is it so hard for you to list a crank theory that you don’t believe in? What you listed are not crank theories, we both know that you listed scientific theories. Are you saying to me that you reject all scientific theories? Gee man, we both know that you don’t because you’re writing me using a computer which is the result of scientific theories. You’re dishonest. What would Jesus say to you about your intellectual dishonesty? Would he approve?

            I’ll ask you one again, for the last time. If you don’t answer this question then you’re a dishonest troll and not worth my time:
            Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in?

          • strawnman

            See, I told you so.

            I told you I do not believe in the crank theories of evolution, global warming, or big bang. I also told you exactly what your response would be.

            Now listen to me carefully: not everyone who claims to be Jesus is correct. In fact, if anyone today claims to have spoken directly with God or Christ Jesus the Lord, he is either deceived or he is a liar because the Bible itself says that plainly. I played along with your silly hypotheticals and took the position, for the sake of argument, that you were being honest in your claim that you spoke with someone or something you believed to be Jesus, and I pointed out that whoever you spoke with was not, in fact, God. Now, please drop this ridiculous line of argumentation. You sound like a child. Act like an adult, will you?

            We disagree about the theories stated above. As I earlier posted, you seem to hold science as being the highest authority, yet you can not posit one single shred of scientific evidence to back any of your three claims. Hence, your claims are merely theories, and in the zeitgeist of this thread I labeled them “crank theories” just to get up your nose. What you are stating as science cannot possibly be proven because it is not observable, testable, or reproducible. Until you understand the scientific method more clearly, you ought not at pretend you are a scientist. Your science credentials are as bad as your theological credentials.

          • John

            You’re so predictable. Once again, you refuse to answer any of my questions. Why is that? Are you thick? Perhaps you’re a troll.

            Again, your claim that scientific theories are crank theories is one of your crank theories. I did not ask you to list your crank theories. I asked you to list a crank theory that you don’t believe in. Seems to me that you can’t. That’s because you’re in love with conspiracy ideology. The earth is not flat my dear, nor is it 6k years old, nor did light appear before the sun.

            Jesus told me he is no god. Unless he lied to me, that’s a fact. If you claim he is a god then you’re claiming he lied to me, which renders his god-hood moot. Thanks for playing.

            I will list my questions again. If you fail to answer again then you’re a troll.

            Read them carefully and answer them point by point. I want answers, not empty responses.

            1) Where have I claimed that there was nothing, and then nothing happened to nothing because that’s all that can happen to nothing, and then nothing somehow blew up and became an organized everything?
            Where?
            If you can’t quote me then you need to retract your claim and apologise. Or you need to admit being able to read my mind. Oh dear.

            2) Can you read my mind, what other magic can you do?

            3) How can something (your god or whatever) exist inside or outside nothing assuming it created everything from or out of nothing some x years ago?

            4) Are you saying to me that you reject all scientific theories?

            5) What would Jesus say to you about your intellectual dishonesty? Would he approve?

            6) Jesus appeared to me saying he is no god. He also said that his dad did not exist inside or outside nothing assuming you claim he created everything from or out of nothing. Did Jesus lie to me?

            7) Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in?

            8) Your 1 Peter 3:15 commands you to answer my questions and to be nice to me. Yet you fail to do that. In fact you try to insult me and lie. Why do you reject your own scripture?

            You’re in a corner now.

            Prediction. You will once again not answer any of my questions. But you will resort to insults again and claiming to be able to read my mind, to do magic. Ironically, you’re just rejecting your 1 Peter 3:15 which shows me that you don’t adhere to your own ridiculous dogma. Are you happy with that, troll?

          • strawnman

            I have answered your questions multiple times.

            You quote 1 Peter 3:15, but your proof text fails because it tells me to give an answer, which I have, but it does not say that I must agree with you nor that I must not rebuke you if you need to be rebuked. Matthew 7:6 commands:

            “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.”

            Jesus refers to you as a dog and a swine, and I am commanded not to share with you what Peter refers to in 1 Peter 3:15, which is the Gospel, as long as you display an attitude of arrogance and hatred towards God.

            I have not been trolling you: in fact, quite the opposite has been the case. Your questions are fallacious, and your assertions untrue. I have attempted to point out to you that the things you believe are true are a matter of faith on your part, yet that your faith, placed in man and science as the highest authorities, is misplaced and even inconsistent with what you purport to be true. You have a religion as well, but your religion is false and will lead you to everlasting destruction.

            I do not make these claims. This is what the bible teaches. Your argument is not with me, it is with God. All I can do is point you to what God has revealed to us through His word. If you reject it, it is to God that you will answer, not me.

            I am done with you now. You are a troll, and I will not bother responding to your childish posts any longer.

          • John

            You are still going against your 1 Peter 3:15. Not only are you not answering me, you are very rude to me. That is two strikes against you.

            It seems to me that you think a response is always an answer. That is simply wrong and pathetically absurd.

            You are however very component is offering your crank theories.

            Your argument is not with me, it is with God.

            I’m not arguing with you. Nor did I offer any arguments. I’m not god either, and neither are you. To claim that I need to argue with a nonexistent god is your master crank theory. I find it hilarious that you can’t even name me one crank theory that you don’t believe in.

            You’re a troll, and don’t even take your own religious dogma seriously.

            Pathetic.

        • John

          Look mom, see that rock? Strawman’s god made it.

          How ridiculous.

          Pathetic.

  • Crempogs

    Gee Nye, could you get a little more dramatic?