Trump HILARIOUSLY Ignores Teenage Climate Change Propagandist

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
10,747
As the article points out, scepticism is essential to the scientific process. Flat out rejection of alternate views and studies is the issue on both sides of the debate.
 

Cray

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
19,902
Sh**ty website using Sh**ty sources (daily fail) and then editorializing something which Bates never said...

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study

How a culture clash at NOAA led to a flap over a high-profile warming pause study

A former scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Washington, D.C., made waves this past weekend when he alleged that climate scientist Thomas Karl, the former head of a major NOAA technical center, “failed to disclose critical information” to the agency, journal editors, and Congress about the data used in a controversial study published in Science in June 2015.

Tuesday, in an interview with E&E News, Bates himself downplayed any suggestion of misconduct. “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was,” he told reporter Scott Waldman. And Bates told ScienceInsider that he is wary of his critique becoming a talking point for those skeptical of human-caused climate change. But it was important for this conversation about data integrity to happen, he says. “That’s where I came down after a lot of soul searching. I knew people would misuse this. But you can't control other people,” he says
 

SlinkyMike

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
5,802
Can any of the deniers in this thread just answer a simple question: even if man made climate change is a total hoax, what do we stand to lose by cleaning up our act a bit?

The oceans are in a state with litter alone, never mind coral bleaching. What is your issue with moving away from single-use plastic?

We know for a fact that fossil fuels are finite in supply, what is the harm in preparing alternatives? Even assuming that burning fossil fuels at the scale we are burning them has no impact on the planet, even then: what is your issue with promoting the use of renewable sources of energy?

We know that trees clean the air we breathe, isn't that reason enough to decry deforestation for the purpose of creating hamberders?

What sensible person is against these things? In principle no less?

This really just seems like an issue that is cohort to other conservative views a lot of the time, i.e.: your interest is purely partisan and has no basis in the science of climate change at all. 'Liberal' = bad and that is that.

I think many of you are arguing in bad faith. The alternative is that you are simply utterly irredeemable cnuts so in a sense intellectual dishonesty is the lesser of two evils here. You should be ashamed of yourselves... "should."
 

Pegasus

Expert Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
1,673
Can any of the deniers in this thread just answer a simple question: even if man made climate change is a total hoax, what do we stand to lose by cleaning up our act a bit?

The oceans are in a state with litter alone, never mind coral bleaching. What is your issue with moving away from single-use plastic?

We know for a fact that fossil fuels are finite in supply, what is the harm in preparing alternatives? Even assuming that burning fossil fuels at the scale we are burning them has no impact on the planet, even then: what is your issue with promoting the use of renewable sources of energy?

We know that trees clean the air we breathe, isn't that reason enough to decry deforestation for the purpose of creating hamberders?

What sensible person is against these things? In principle no less?

This really just seems like an issue that is cohort to other conservative views a lot of the time, i.e.: your interest is purely partisan and has no basis in the science of climate change at all. 'Liberal' = bad and that is that.

I think many of you are arguing in bad faith. The alternative is that you are simply utterly irredeemable cnuts so in a sense intellectual dishonesty is the lesser of two evils here. You should be ashamed of yourselves... "should."
This climate change movement is not about climate, its about being anti capitalism.
Watch the Andrew Neill interview.

Lying and mass hysteria will not help.
 

SoldierMan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
217
When you let others do the research for you - yes I'm speaking to all the climate change fanatics.

Did you know that some people actually by CO2 generators to help their plants! No CO2, no food to eat and no air to breath.

The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare

Global Warming: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may have a boring name, but it has a very important job: It measures U.S. temperatures. Unfortunately, it seems to be a captive of the global warming religion. Its data are fraudulent.

What do we mean by fraudulent? How about this: NOAA has made repeated "adjustments" to its data, for the presumed scientific reason of making the data sets more accurate.

Nothing wrong with that. Except, all their changes point to one thing — lowering previously measured temperatures to show cooler weather in the past, and raising more recent temperatures to show warming in the recent present.

This creates a data illusion of ever-rising temperatures to match the increase in CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere since the mid-1800s, which global warming advocates say is a cause-and-effect relationship. The more CO2, the more warming.

But the actual measured temperature record shows something different: There have been hot years and hot decades since the turn of the last century, and colder years and colder decades. But the overall measured temperature shows no clear trend over the last century, at least not one that suggests runaway warming.

More
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
15,335
Can any of the deniers in this thread just answer a simple question: even if man made climate change is a total hoax, what do we stand to lose by cleaning up our act a bit?

The oceans are in a state with litter alone, never mind coral bleaching. What is your issue with moving away from single-use plastic?

We know for a fact that fossil fuels are finite in supply, what is the harm in preparing alternatives? Even assuming that burning fossil fuels at the scale we are burning them has no impact on the planet, even then: what is your issue with promoting the use of renewable sources of energy?

We know that trees clean the air we breathe, isn't that reason enough to decry deforestation for the purpose of creating hamberders?

What sensible person is against these things? In principle no less?

This really just seems like an issue that is cohort to other conservative views a lot of the time, i.e.: your interest is purely partisan and has no basis in the science of climate change at all. 'Liberal' = bad and that is that.

I think many of you are arguing in bad faith. The alternative is that you are simply utterly irredeemable cnuts so in a sense intellectual dishonesty is the lesser of two evils here. You should be ashamed of yourselves... "should."
Nobody is against you cleaning up your act. The problem with people that believe climate change is man made is that they are all hypocrites. You go first.
 

Pegasus

Expert Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
1,673
Nobody is against you cleaning up your act. The problem with people that believe climate change is man made is that they are all hypocrites. You go first.
I am totally against paper straws.

Cleaning up the environment eg. plastic on oceans etc, is a different thing to reversing climate change.,
 

SlinkyMike

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
5,802
Come. One of you actually make a convincing effort to answer the question please. That or just STFU going forward please.
 
Top