It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: Jay-morris
And is it a coincidence that since trump, we have seen a huge increase in human climate change denier threads popping up almost daily, esp in the last year.
Stop and think for a moment. How many of the most ridiculous predictions of doom since the mid 90s included "By 2020 XYZ will be under water/a desert/dead/etc due to climate change?" Here we are in 2020 and those predictions have been demonstrated as not only false, but vapidly baseless. Of course when that happens we're going to see a significant increase in threads pointing out how wrong the AGW fear mongers were. Trump doesn't have a goddamned thing to do with that aside from possibly shielding us from the predictable horsesnip of the AGW crowd saying "Look! Look! We made all these small changes and doom was temporarily averted!!! Now let's make these massive changes and try to avert it further!" We didn't change jack squat, yet NYC still sits the same degree above sea level as it was 100 years ago, Miami isn't in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean yet, coastal property is still the most expensive and sought after real estate in the world... People woke up and started smelling the AGW crowd's bullsnip. Mock and insult them if you wish, it doesn't change the fact that you lost, common sense won... those seeking to steal our wealth and our freedoms will just have to wait until they dream up the next hairbrained scam of doom intended to rob us blind.
originally posted by: Jay-morris
Because scientists were wrong in their predictions, does thst mean human made climate change is BS? Seriously?
Evidence points overwhelmingly that climate change is to do with us!
Yeah, that's sort of the backbone of the scientific method where theories are concerned... you remember the scientific method? That process that used to be the gold standard science practiced in which theories were encouraged to be tested and challenged for predicted results and which scientists modified their theories based on the results from rather than stomping their feet like toddlers and calling those who pushed challenges and testing of their theories "deniers?"
That's about as accurate as saying the existence of Bigfoot is overwhelmingly proved by evidence. I get it... you really, really want humanity to be responsible for climate change. You've invested so much of yourself in believing that to be the case that you feel in your heart that you *need* it to be true... All cults experience the same thing when their god is proven to be little more than a tool by which the cult's leaders can obtain fortune, fame, or other gains. Sorry you fell for a scam, but you did.
originally posted by: Jay-morris
Since when has "predicting something been a solid scientific method? That is a ridiculous thing to say. Scientists are always predicting, do they always get it right? No! Why? Because predictions, esp like this are always going to be unpredictable.
The overall process involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions to determine whether the original conjecture was correct
Absolute rubbish! No matter what evidence is thrown at you, you will never change your mind. It's the same with flat earthers and the HIV does not cause AIDS deniers. They rarely change their mind no matter what evidence you throw at them.
I have managed to silence yet another BS Greta thread
originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
People who deny climate change at this point are as pathetic as the people suing tobacco companies because they were convinced by the adverts that it was good for them.
I mean come on, seriously... when people start to feel the need to sink as low as posting a youtube clip of a 16 year old girl being stumped by a question in front of a large crowd, just to prove their point... you must have to stop and wonder.
When the results don't equal the prediction, you know something about your hypothesis is wrong or your understanding of that hypothesis is flawed...
Yes, I agree... there are many similarities between the flat Earth theorists and the Anthropogenic Global Warming cult. Good call there.
LMGDAO!!! Smell the E-back patting and superego! "I have managed to do yet another thing on this website, all genuflect and acknowledge the digital god of the AGW defense league! Kneel before Bullsnip Peddler!" To paraphrase a scene from one of my favorite movies, Spaceballs, "You ain't managed SNIP" calm yourself and let us continue down the road of merriment and amusement.
originally posted by: Jay-morris
Absolute load of rubbish! How can you agree with something I never said? When did i say similarities between the flat Earth theorists and the Anthropogenic Global Warming cult?
originally posted by: Jay-morris
It's the same with flat earthers and the HIV does not cause AIDS deniers. They rarely change their mind no matter what evidence you throw at them.
If you want to get into a climate change debate, then do it in the proper thread!
Look, I am agreeing with you. No matter what evidence is thrown at the AGW cultists, their cult forbids them from thinking deeper or questioning their messiahs' predictions and hypothesis. Your mind is locked in, it isn't going to change... same as the flat Earthers and, I suppose, the HIV fools.
I'm directly quoting you and you're claiming you never said it? Has your account been hacked?
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Jay-morris
How can a direct quote be a twisting of words? I'm saying that "They rarely change their mind no matter what evidence you throw at them." is an appropriate description of the AGW cult members, making the rest of what you said, when you compared those types of people to "Flat Earth and HIV doesn't cause AIDS," an eerily accurate statement. II'm taken aback here, I've never had someone fly off the handle over someone explicitly agreeing with them and directly quoting them in the process... not sure what game you're trying to play here?
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Jay-morris
Soooo we've established that it sucks when someone misrepresents your position on something? Are you and I in agreement with that statement?
“97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?
Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.
One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.
Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”
Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.
Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.
Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.
Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.
This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nations’ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming “95% confidence” in the imagined – and, as the new paper shows, imaginary – consensus.
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, an expert reviewer for the IPCC’s imminent Fifth Assessment Report, who found the errors in Cook’s data, said: “It may be that more than 0.3% of climate scientists think Man caused at least half the warming since 1950. But only 0.3% of almost 12,000 published papers say so explicitly. Cook had not considered how many papers merely implied that. No doubt many scientists consider it possible, as we do, that Man caused some warming, but not most warming.
The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol
“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
—Dr. Craig Idso
“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta
originally posted by: Jay-morris
You are basically saying that the thousands of experts who are saying climate change is to do with humans are lying, or part of this big conspiracy
originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: burdman30ott6
Ouch, that was a serious spanking you administered there.
Not that it will do any good. Zealots' minds can nary be changed.