Scientist who said climate change sceptics proved wrong accused of hiding truth

Opinion and innuendo are far from anything called evidence, not that you would know.

 

i've presented facts and evidence, the use of innuendo and creating doubt is your game

 

The earth varies in its ability to support life, from rather poorly during ice age conditions to quite well during non ice-age conditions. Carbon Dioxide is how the earth stores life potential during the life prohibiting times and then converts it back to life during more life permissive times.

During the recent mini ice-age, Carbon Dioxide was lower, which is perfectly within expectations. It's warmed a bit, and carbon dioxide has increased a bit, again, perfectly within expectation.

Carbon Dioxide is not a "problem", wild claims of pending doom certainly can be.

Krugman said something incredibly stupid the other day, he claimed that what our economy needed was to fear a massive extraterrestrial invasion resulting in great expenditures to repel the pretend invasion. In his dim little mind, this massive misdirection of resources causes no harm and even causes good. In the real world the mass misdirection of resources causes real harm, which frankly everyone with a brain learned during the recent mass misdirection when so much money flowed into housing that it blew a bubble with a burst that the economy is still struggling to recover from.

When someone is telling you a doomsday scenario and demanding your resources, be very skeptical.

 

So, now are you back to claiming that we are experiencing global warming? Just recently it was reported that there has been no warming for fifteen to twenty years, now you're back with the warming trend.

Can you people make up your mind? Warming.... Cooling....Static..... What is it?

 

when huge conglomerate oil companies tell you not to believe science

that's when you should be skeptical, especial when they have the same lobbyists

that said smoking isn't addictive and that it doesn't cause cancer


http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/15/us/tobacco-chiefs-say-cigarettes-aren-t-addictive.html?pagewanted=all

 

What ever it is its our fault. Mostly Americas.

 

Does who pays for the research matter or not make up your mind. Science is science . If so many scientists disagree then the science is questionable

 

it's misinformation and it was refuted long ago


Global warming 'pause' didn't happen, study finds

Global warming has not undergone a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’, according to US government research that undermines one of the key arguments used by sceptics to question climate science.

The new study reassessed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (Noaa) temperature record to account for changing methods of measuring the global surface temperature over the past century.

The adjustments to the data were slight, but removed a flattening of the graph this century that has led climate sceptics to claim the rise in global temperatures had stopped.

“There is no slowdown in warming, there is no hiatus,” said lead author Dr Tom Karl, who is the director of Noaa’s National Climatic Data Centre.

Dr Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist and the director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies said: “The fact that such small changes to the analysis make the difference between a hiatus or not merely underlines how fragile a concept it was in the first place.”

The results, published on Thursday in the journal Science, showed the rate of warming over the past 15 years (0.116C per decade) was almost exactly the same, in fact slightly higher, as the past five decades (0.113C per decade).

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/04/global-warming-hasnt-paused-study-finds

 

Innuendo and strawman arguments. That's all you got.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, and I forgot the Wash, Rinse, Repeat cut and paste. Whatever you do, don't look any further than the Guardian. Wouldn't want to upset your fragile concept.

 

then why did philip morris lose a rico case?

courts don't allow innuendo and straw man arguments

they deal in facts, evidence, logic & reason


"Judge Kessler issued a 1,683 page opinion holding the tobacco companies liable for violating RICO by fraudulently covering up the health risks associated with smoking."

http://publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/tobacco-control/tobacco-control-litigation/united-states-v-philip-morris-doj-lawsuit

 

Strawman argument, not that you would know.

 

of course you can't answer the question directly

 

That has always been my argument.

 

Answering a strawman argument would be stupid.

 

your excuses for avoiding making a real argument are amusing

 

You still don't understand that a strawman argument is nothing to answer since it is a logical fallacy.

 

my argument is sound, you're afraid and wrong

big tobacco had the same lobbyists behind them as big energy does, now

there's an abundance of facts and evidence


"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank founded in 1984 and based in Chicago. The Institute conducts work on issues including education reform, government spending, taxation, healthcare, education, tobacco policy, global warming, hydraulic fracturing, information technology, and free-market environmentalism."


"Heartland has long questioned the links between tobacco smoking, secondhand smoke, and lung cancer and the social costs imposed by smokers. One of Heartland’s first and most prominent campaigns was against tobacco regulation. According to the Los Angeles Times, Heartland's advocacy for the tobacco industry is one of the two things Heartland is most widely known for."


"The shortfall led to sponsorship of the Institute's May 2012 climate conference by Illinois' coal lobby, the Illinois Coal Association, the Institute's "first publicly acknowledged donations from the coal industry," and the Heritage Foundation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#Tobacco_regulation

 

Ah, doubling down on a logical fallacy. Not surprising.

 

of course you can't address the facts i've posted

you're just dodging the truth

 

You haven't posted any facts but continue to post innuendo so there is nothing to reply to.

 

this is fact:

 

The fact is its a strawman

 

you're in denial of reality

 

Here let me explain it to you. Just because the tobacco companies covered up the bad effects of smoking does not prove the oil companies are covering up AGW

No one is arguing the tobacco companies lied

 

it demonstrates a similar pattern of behavior

tobacco companies denied the health science, oil companies deny climate science

consider motive and there's a solid rico case


Senator: Use RICO Laws to Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics


"The parallels between what the tobacco industry did and what the fossil fuel industry is doing now are striking. ... The coordinated tactics of the climate denial network, Brulle’s report states, “span a wide range of activities, including political lobbying, contributions to political candidates, and a large number of communication and media efforts that aim at undermining climate science.” Compare that again to the findings in the tobacco case.

The tobacco industry was proved to have conducted research that showed the direct opposite of what the industry stated publicly — namely, that tobacco use had serious health effects. Civil discovery would reveal whether and to what extent the fossil fuel industry has crossed this same line. We do know that it has funded research that — to its benefit — directly contradicts the vast majority of peer-reviewed climate science. One scientist who consistently published papers downplaying the role of carbon emissions in climate change, Willie Soon, reportedly received more than half of his funding from oil and electric utility interests: more than $1.2 million."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sen-whitehouse-d-ri-suggests-using-rico-laws-global-warming-skeptics_963007.html