Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

Exactly.

Not much "climate change" if the reigning champion is a storm from 1900 that hit a population center of 44k people.

 

"Climate deniers" are a figment of Climatologism religion. As opposed to Climatologist scientists who know the science is not settled.

 

Climate denier is just another word for heretic.

They call me that and I don't deny climate change I just point out that it's been changing for 25,000 years. It's because I don't accept their lord and savior the government who will make everything work properly and better and they're definitely not the ones that cause the problem.

This is why the term watermelon was created the green on the outside and red on the.

 

void

 

You're not referring to any actual measurement here. You are making a comment about measurement and then claiming someone (the popular press??) is failing to figure it out.

Also, climate change has to consider the world, not the USA.

 

You can not POSSIBLY show evidence of this conspiracy.

First, there is no way to figure out what results scientists need to support, as there are too many branches of science involved and the relation between them can not be figured out ahead of time.

Next, science awards those who propose more successful understanding, not those who confirm previous findings.

 

Of course evidence can be shown. Who funds most of the "man made climate is an emergency"? The government. Who claims they can solve it if they have more money? The government.

Their solution so far involves building more coal factories in China to produce solar panels. Irony.

Take the oft-cited "97% of scientists agree about man made climate change" that leftists love to spout. That claim is pure fiction in and of itself.

Yeah we saw how "science" worked during covid.

Let's sum up how effective the man made climate change proponents have been by asking two questions:

1. What man made climate change predictions since the 1950's have been correct?
2. What specific examples of damage to the Earth have been caused as a result?

 

Um, yeah I am. You see you can measure the costs of damage in adjusted dollars as well as population totals. Not hard at all.

Pretty sure the USA exists inside the world.

 

You are claiming that scientists measure storm strength in dollars.

And, for studies concerning impact, you are accusing all those who consider losses to be monumentally incompetent.

I don't believe you can support that.

We are not so independent that we can ignore the rest of the world.

 

So Climate Scientists are ALL in it for only the money?

 

LoL what?

No, I'm pointing to the climate alarmists that claim some of the evidence of climate change is that storms are worse, and the way they determine that storms are worse, is that they kill more people and cause more damage.

Obviously it's not an intelligent argument, when the answer is obviously related to population instead of "stronger storms".

 

I think you should cite your source.

And before that, you need to read the IPCC report.

 

Do they work for free.

 

Sure.

Put "global warming make storms worse" into Google and read all the leftist sources you want. You'll have plenty to read.

It doesn't matter what I read.

I also noticed you didn't answer either of my questions.

Want to or would you like to avoid them?

 

Are they all untrue to their profession?

 

Red state Ohio is getting their dose of Global Warming with the latest tornadoes. Tornadoes. In Ohio. I can barely manage a "**** 'em", nevermind sympathy.

 

Yeah that damn Ohio.

Funny how 5 of the 6 worst tornado's in Ohio's history happened between 1900 and 1975.

That damn global warming pouring out of Cleveland.

 

There's a 97% consensus on that.

 

Well that would mean that Pew Research is lying.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/04/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-climate-change/

Nearly seven-in-ten Americans (69%) favor the U.S. taking steps to become carbon neutral by 2050, a goal outlined by President Joe Biden at the outset of his administration. The same share of Americans (69%) say the U.S. should prioritize developing renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, over expanding the production of oil, coal and natural gas.

 

Most scientists are devoted to their work and findings. They HAVE to get paid , just like anyone else. They are highly educated and their pay should reflect that.

 

Yes 69% favor taking steps to become carbon neutral by 2050 as long as it doesn't cost them more money or inconvenience them in any way.

Leftists are always generous with other people's money.

 

So 69% say carbon neutral, and most of them (97%) think that climate scientists are lying to them. Got it

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)17334-0/fulltext

Lies, damn lies, and scientific research

Fraud has always been present in science, long before the NIH was handing out grants. Gregor Mendel, the founder of genetics, had results that are just too good to be true. Louis Pasteur's notebooks, long kept secret, reveal that he misled the world and his fellow scientists about the research behind two of his most famous experiments: the vaccination of sheep against anthrax, and that of a boy against rabies. And it is common knowledge that Sigmund Freud fabricated many of the case studies on which he built his psychoanalytic theories and career.

Judson recounts, in detail, a number of well publicised cases of scientific fraud that have come to light over the past two decades. “In almost every case, to be sure, some one individual gets blamed”, he writes, “but these frauds cannot be presented even as anecdotes without an accounting of the relationships among many people within the laboratory and the larger institutional setting. The cases exhibit multiple, tangled complicities.”

These complicities tend to fall into predictable syndromes, Judson maintains. “The dominant form is the prodigy; others are the mentor seduced, the folie à deux, and the arrogance of power.” The prodigy, for example, is a young researcher whose productivity is too good to be true. One such prodigy was John Darsee, a Harvard researcher who had, by the age of 33, published more than 125 research articles, book chapters, abstracts, and other papers. But it turned out that he had fabricated data in scores of papers.

 

People always think pie in the sky sounds great until they have to pony up.

Ask the EV market.

 

Every so often I take someone off my ignore list



Unless you type the word “research” into google search you will not get research papers ergo you will only end up reading whatever a journalist has thought about the subject

if, however you really want the science - READ THE IPCC!

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/

Happy if you want to critique (not criticise but critique) the report by pointing out the errors in the science that is presented. Bear in mind that this report has been out for over a year and we have heard no definitive critiques of the science yet - but if you succeed you would easily get not just publication but a fair degree of fame