The Global Warming Hoax is falling apart

[bigdavediode]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

By your logic, you wouldn't want to take medicine that had been developed by a pharmaceutical company. After all, they have an inherent conflict.

No, the analogy is: would I want to take a medication that has been approved for use by its manufacturer and no one else.

Scientific findings don''t come with asterisks denoting who paid for the research. Politicized science, different story entirely.

There are easy ways to identify politicized science that is unlikely to hold value:

1) Science about climatology produced by astrophysicists or other non-experts in the field.

2) Scientists from the oil and tobacco industries.

That's why the statists make ridiculous arguments about consensus

The 138 countries of the IPCC claim it exists.

The G-8 countries claim it exists.

NASA claims there's a consensus among scientists.

97% of specialists in the field surveyed agreeing indicates a consensus.

when there is none and attack the background and funding of research that does not support their alarmism. The science behind GW alarmism is tissue thin and cannot stand up to reasoned debate. You are armed with all the talking points, yet you continue to recycle totally discredited notions like the hockey stick and the idea the last ten years or whatever are the hottest on record.

So discredit the "talking points."

When we are paying $10 a gallon for gas and utility bills are $2000/month, I just hope voters recall who was pushing this garbage. Of course, you and the other obama drones will point to the fact that the planet was "saved", ignoring the fact that this tremendous waste of resources had nothing to do with it.

The debate about whether something should be done is a separate argument.

 

[Tresor]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Wow, you really don't get it. Okay, here's some breaking information for you:

1) Greenland is not part of Europe.

Nobody ever questioned this fact on this forum as far as I know.

Quote from bigdavediode:

2) Regional climate changes are possible depending on the climate and surrounding terrain and has little or nothing to do with Global Warming.

3) Europe is not the globe and the discussion is about global temperature averages.

Yeah, yeah, we all know this. You wrote once that humans had contributed to medieval warming in Europe through burning fire-camps and through deforestation.

Quote from bigdavediode:
Okay, let's try this once again: regional climate changes are not global ones. Tasmanian is not the globe. The "tropics" is not the globe.

Once again, repeat after me, global climate change requires global climate data.

Now, can you also state that humans contributed to warming in tropics and Australia 1,000 years ago? If yes, how did they manage to achieve this? Fire-camps / deforestation / other?

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Tresor:

Yeah, yeah, we all know this. You wrote once that humans had contributed to medieval warming in Europe through burning fire-camps and through deforestation.

Link to what I wrote please.

Now, can you also state that humans contributed to warming in tropics and Australia 1,000 years ago? If yes, how did they manage to achieve this? Fire-camps / deforestation / other?

Link to where I wrote this, please.

Additionally, your argument is called a fallacy of composition where one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

bigavediode, Your talking points have been discredited repeatedly in this thread and elsewhere. You just continue to post away pretending they are true. And it works. They sound plausible to the uninformed. Most people dont have the time or interest to run down your endless misstatements.

Anyway, this is pointless. You have confused a few people but most see through you. Or maybe it is the other way around.
These days, who knows?

 

[drjekyllus]

Quote from bigdavediode:



As for 96 year olds with dementia, yes, they are not sufficient for appeals to authority.

William Gray is not 96 years old and he does not have dementia. Nice try.

 

[drjekyllus]

Lets just watch this month by month and keep it real. Bigdave will certainly oppose this approach.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from drjekyllus:

William Gray is not 96 years old and he does not have dementia. Nice try.

Frederick Seitz is nearly 100 and yes, he does have dementia.

William Gray is 80 years old and labors under beliefs, such as his belief about the thermohaline circulation, which are 50 years out of date.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

bigavediode, Your talking points have been discredited repeatedly in this thread and elsewhere.

Then give just one example.

 

[drjekyllus]

Quote from bigdavediode:

That doesn't work just as you can't tell if the yearly average for the stock market is going to be up by picking one month.

In case you haven't noticed it is 30 years of data and how did I know that you would be opposed to the idea.

 

[drjekyllus]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Frederick Seitz is nearly 100 and yes, he does have dementia.

William Gray is 80 years old and labors under beliefs, such as his belief about the thermohaline circulation, which are 50 years out of date.

William Gray has more knowledge about climate in his little finger than you have in your entire body times 100.