[Hindsite]

I agree with Truth To Power on all but question 5.

[Sivad]

Jets flying higher than they used to.

Nope.

Yep.

Chimp virus.

Probably. Building 7's graceful descent into its own footprint when it had not been hit by a jet is the smoking gun.

Yes.

Not Oswald. The backward jerk of JFK's head seen in the Zapruder film shows the fatal bullet came from the front.

Unlikely.

Who has denied that climate changes?

The funny thing is most babbitts couldn't actually argue for their position on any of those issues because they don't arrive at their worldview through informed critical analysis. They're just dogmatic pseudo-skeptics that don't have the first clue about what planet they're living on, they just go around huffing their own ignorant smug completely oblivious to their own buffoonery.

[Hindsite]

The funny thing is most babbitts couldn't actually argue for their position on any of those issues because they don't arrive at their worldview through informed critical analysis. They're just dogmatic pseudo-skeptics that don't have the first clue about what planet they're living on, they just go around huffing their own ignorant smug completely oblivious to their own buffoonery.

That is one way to put it.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Sivad

You did not answer the questions.

——————————

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-coo ... ifications

In 2012, cognitive scientist Stephan Lewandowsky and his colleagues surveyed more than 1,000 climate blog readers and observed a link between science denial and conspiracy theorizing. People who denied scientific propositions such as the link between AIDS and HIV or climate change and human activity were more likely to subscribe to conspiracy theories like Princess Diana was murdered or AIDS was created by the government. How did climate deniers respond to evidence associating science denial with conspiracy theorizing? With more conspiracy theories, of course!

The conspiracy theories directed toward the “moon landing paper” began small-scale, but grew in scope and intricacy. Now to social scientists, such a public response can mean only one thing. Data! I collaborated with Lewandowsky in documenting the various conspiracy theories and tracking their evolution over time. The analysis has now been published in the paper “Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation.”

Conspiracy theorists exhibit a number of tell-tale characteristics. Almost ubiquitous is the accusation of nefarious intent. After all, people never conspire with benevolent intent (unless planning a surprise party). One theory promoted by climate deniers focused on the experiment design used for the “moon landing paper.” The scientists emailed survey invitations to a range of climate blogs — some endorsing the scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming and others denying the consensus.

“Nefarious intent”....

[SolarCross]

Fabian Fake Scientist: "We made up a fake study showing that skepticism is anti-science".

------

As aside I happened to watch Oliver Stone's interview with POD's Dear Leader Fidel Castro in which Castro expressed doubt on the official story of the JFK assassination (Oliver Stone himself of course is also a famous JFK lone gunman denier). Therefore according to POD's fake fabian scientist his own Dear Leader was a tinfoil hat raving loon and a "climate denier".

[Pants-of-dog]

Fabian Fake Scientist: "We made up a fake study showing that skepticism is anti-science".

Feel free to show how it is fake. Thanks.

As aside I happened to watch Oliver Stone's interview with POD's Dear Leader Fidel Castro in which Castro expressed doubt on the official story of the JFK assassination (Oliver Stone himself of course is also a famous JFK lone gunman denier). Therefore according to POD's fake fabian scientist his own Dear Leader was a tinfoil hat raving loon and a "climate denier".

No, you are making a logical error here.

Not all conspiracy theorists are climate deniers, nor are all climate deniers also conspiracists.

But some people fit into both groups because of their anti-science beliefs.

But not Castro: https://climateandcapitalism.com/2016/1 ... he-planet/

[MrWonderful]

@Sivad
Please tell me your beliefs about the following:
1. Chemtrails.
2. Is the Earth flat?
3. Did the USA land on the moon?
4. How did AIDS start?
5. Was 9/11 a false flag?
6. Is smoking linked to cancer?
7. Who killed JFK?
8. Is the US air force hiding evidence of extraterrestrials?
Other climate change denialists can answer these questions too!

Pants-of-dog, please tell everyone your beliefs on the following:
1. Did you believe the Club of Rome when they presented their *scientific* assessment decades ago that hundreds of millions would die of starvation around the world?
2. Did you believe President Jimmy Carter when he stated publicly that the entire world would run out of petroleum before the end of 1999?
3. Did you believe the Alar Scare?
4. Did you cheer the elimination of DDT to save a few birds, while consigning scores of millions of humans to death from malaria?
5. Did you believe Carl Sagan when he claimed that the oil well fires lit by Iraqi troops in Kuwait might never be put out?
6. Did you believe the *scientists* who claimed that nuclear bombs would annihilate mankind?
7. Did you believe Nancy Pelosi when she said, "Donald Trump is NOT going to be president; you can take that to the bank"?
8. What do you think Al Gore's scientific foundations are given that he flunked out of Vanderbilt Divinity School and earned a grade of "D" on the only science class he took in college?
9. Are *environmentalists* justified in preaching the evils of *greedy big oil* and then flying and driving around the world, to climate conferences, and to Earth Day festivities, and to protest marches badmouthing EEEEEVIL fossil fuels and President Trump?
10. Do you see the slightest bit of Eco-Hypocrisy in Hollywood Ignorati who preach conservation and the EEEEVILS of *big oil* before they climb back into their limousines to ride to their Lear Jets for the next film festival, where they are joined by their hundreds of fellow Eco-Hypocrites?
Do YOU drive to movies, and to restaurants and to vacation spots, killing polar bears and all wildlife on earth?

[Pants-of-dog]

Pants-of-dog, please tell everyone your beliefs on the following:
1. Did you believe the Club of Rome when they presented their *scientific* assessment decades ago that hundreds of millions would die of starvation around the world?

I have no idea who those people are (were?) or what they predicted.

2. Did you believe President Jimmy Carter when he stated publicly that the entire world would run out of petroleum before the end of 1999?

US presidents say dumb things all the time. Trump even used that to his advantage.

But is important to note that we no longer have light sweet crude that is accessible for less than a certain amount per barrel, and that dollar figure will only go up.

As we continue to use the more easily accessible petroleum resources and deplete them, we move onto less accessible sources, which requires more energy to extract in terms of each barrel extracted.

So the amount of energy you use to get the fuel is always increasing.

On the other hand, with nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro, the opposite is true. As technology improves, each unit of energy becomes cheaper in terms of how much energy is ised to get it.

3. Did you believe the Alar Scare?

Since I have never heard of it, I can confidently say no.

4. Did you cheer the elimination of DDT to save a few birds, while consigning scores of millions of humans to death from malaria?

Oddly enough, malaria is one of the most significant ways that deforestation is being slowed down now.

By that I mean that as people are forced to deforest for economic reasons, the malaria rate increases, and the people who were deforesting get sick and die.

So, if stopping malaria is important to you, then you should support efforts to stop deforestation and improve other economic opportunities in those countries that are using deforestation to create economic opportunities.

5. Did you believe Carl Sagan when he claimed that the oil well fires lit by Iraqi troops in Kuwait might never be put out?

This is another one of thise times when I can confidently say no simply because I have no idea what you are discussing.

6. Did you believe the *scientists* who claimed that nuclear bombs would annihilate mankind?

No, but I do believe they could. Everyone who lived in the shadow of MAD does.

I also think that nuclear energy is actually quite efficient and useful, and a lot of this is due to the insane way that the Pentagon threw money at it so that they could kill people better.

I have no trouble with proliferation of nuclear technology, and I think we should give the information and resources to all countries. Including Muslim ones. Are you okay with that?

7. Did you believe Nancy Pelosi when she said, "Donald Trump is NOT going to be president; you can take that to the bank"?

No. I thought Trump would win. After all, you guys re-elected Shrub.

8. What do you think Al Gore's scientific foundations are given that he flunked out of Vanderbilt Divinity School and earned a grade of "D" on the only science class he took in college?

Since Al Gore is irrelevant to climate science, I have never thought about his education.

Is a lack of education a common things among US politicians?

9. Are *environmentalists* justified in preaching the evils of *greedy big oil* and then flying and driving around the world, to climate conferences, and to Earth Day festivities, and to protest marches badmouthing EEEEEVIL fossil fuels and President Trump?

10. Do you see the slightest bit of Eco-Hypocrisy in Hollywood Ignorati who preach conservation and the EEEEVILS of *big oil* before they climb back into their limousines to ride to their Lear Jets for the next film festival, where they are joined by their hundreds of fellow Eco-Hypocrites?

The hypocrisy of the person making the argument has no bearing on the validity of the argument itself.

If someone claimed that the Earth was round, but lived his life as if it were flat, he would still be correct in his claim that the Earth is round. Even if he was a big hypocrite.

Do YOU drive to movies, and to restaurants and to vacation spots, killing polar bears and all wildlife on earth?

No. I do not have a car.

So, why do you not believe in the anthropogenic climate change theory?

[MrWonderful]

You are clearly very young, and haven't experienced much of life. No car, no clue as to multiple historical events.
As a chemical engineer, I realize that the arguments presented to frighten people into acceptance of this Fraud are anti-scientific.
For example, the Keeling Curve is a fraud intended to scare you.

Add water vapor, THE dominant greenhouse gas, and it goes flat as a pool table:

[MrWonderful]

Here is the Keeling Curve put in proper perspective:

[Hindsite]

Feel free to show how it is fake. Thanks.



No, you are making a logical error here.

Not all conspiracy theorists are climate deniers, nor are all climate deniers also conspiracists.

But some people fit into both groups because of their anti-science beliefs.

But not Castro: https://climateandcapitalism.com/2016/1 ... he-planet/

You believe Fidel Castro? So now he was not only a political dictator in Cuba, but has also declared himself a bull shit climate change dictator for the world. I am sure all communists and socialists will fall in line.

[Atlantis]

@MrWonderful, if you are indeed older than @Pants-of-dog.

If you double you cholesterol level from around 200 to 400, most doctors will tell you that you are in deep trouble even though the increase in cholesterol mass is insignificant compared to your total body mass. The same applies to your claim that the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere is insignificant.

[MrWonderful]

Hindsite, my Friend, thank you for your comment, and for your quote from Albert Einstein. We could be great friends.
As to who is ignorant or dishonest, the comparison of earth's climate to an individual's cholesterol level is as puerile and superficial as anything can be.

The Keeling Curve is misleading and therefore fraudulent. It attempts to mislead and science is not about misleading others. It is about discovering facts.
I presented a factual curve showing THE dominant greenhouse gas, viz., water vapor, included with CO2, which has been increasing annually, from all sources, at ~1.3 parts per million volume. I can assure you that the two challenging me cannot tell you the alternative to reporting atmospheric gas composition in terms of ppmv. The infrared spectrum of water vapor shows much broader absorption of infrared radiation than CO2 and therefore the significance of water vapor is qualitatively and quantitatively greater. This too the laymen have failed to consider.

Finally, the Keeling Curve gives the impression to lay public that all the CO2 is produced by humans. That is not remotely true. Humans account for something on the order of 4% of that trivial annual increase. The rest is produced by decomposition of plant and animal matter, volcanoes, degasification, breakdown and release of inorganic minerals, and other sources.

[Hindsite]

Hindsite, my Friend, thank you for your comment, and for your quote from Albert Einstein. We could be great friends.

That sounds great, since I mostly have enemies on here. I am not anywhere close to being a scientist, but I do believe in God.
HalleluYah

[Pants-of-dog]

You are clearly very young, and haven't experienced much of life. No car, no clue as to multiple historical events.

From behind, I look eighteen.

As a chemical engineer, I realize that the arguments presented to frighten people into acceptance of this Fraud are anti-scientific.
For example, the Keeling Curve is a fraud intended to scare you.

Add water vapor, THE dominant greenhouse gas, and it goes flat as a pool table:

Both of these graphs contain and communicate the same information.

The only real difference is how clearly the information is communicated.

The first one (that you call a fraud) is set to the proper scale and maximum and minimum in order to communicate carbon dioxide ppm as clearly as possible.

The second graph is set to the proper scale, maximum, and minimum in order to communicate water vapour ppm as clearly as possible.

Both show the same increase in CO2.

The Keeling Curve is misleading and therefore fraudulent. It attempts to mislead and science is not about misleading others. It is about discovering facts.

How is it misleading? It merely shows the observed change in CO2 concentrations over time.

I presented a factual curve showing THE dominant greenhouse gas, viz., water vapor, included with CO2, which has been increasing annually, from all sources, at ~1.3 parts per million volume.

Actually, your graph does not show water vapour concentrations over time, which would be nice.

Also, your grammar is a little unclear here. Do you mean that water vapour concentrations have been increasing annually, or CO2 concentrations?

I can assure you that the two challenging me cannot tell you the alternative to reporting atmospheric gas composition in terms of ppmv. The infrared spectrum of water vapor shows much broader absorption of infrared radiation than CO2 and therefore the significance of water vapor is qualitatively and quantitatively greater. This too the laymen have failed to consider.

Yes, water vapour is a more powerful greenhouse gas.

And water vapour concentrations fluctuate wildly all the time. Water tends to precipitate out of the atmosphere within hours or days of evaporating. Carbon dioxide can stay in the air for centuries. So a significant increase in CO2 can have far more impact than a larger increase in water vapour concentrations.

More importantly, water vapour can exacerbate the temperature increase due to carbon dioxide because it is also a greenhouse gas. CO2 warms the atmosphere, which causes more water to evaporate, which acts as a greenhouse gas, which makes it warmer, which causes more water to evaporate....

Finally, the Keeling Curve gives the impression to lay public that all the CO2 is produced by humans. That is not remotely true. Humans account for something on the order of 4% of that trivial annual increase. The rest is produced by decomposition of plant and animal matter, volcanoes, degasification, breakdown and release of inorganic minerals, and other sources.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.

[Atlantis]

Europe is developing in the right direction:

[Sivad]

Fabian Fake Scientist: "We made up a fake study showing that skepticism is anti-science".

Those dinks figured out that some people are conspirinoiacs, what a breakthrough!

Some people are conspiritards and on the opposite extreme you got your babbitt dinks, but none of that has any bearing on reality. We arrive at reality by weighing evidence and applying reason, not by rigidly adhering to some dogmatic worldview. The narrow reality tunnel of the babbitt dink is not one whit less idiotic than that of the conspiritard.

[Sivad]

Finally, the Keeling Curve gives the impression to lay public that all the CO2 is produced by humans. That is not remotely true. Humans account for something on the order of 4% of that trivial annual increase. The rest is produced by decomposition of plant and animal matter, volcanoes, degasification, breakdown and release of inorganic minerals, and other sources.

Author of the seminal book on climate; "Physics of the Atmosphere & Climate" Professor Murry Salby is without doubt one of the best Climate Scientists on the planet. In a lecture in London on the 17th March, 2015, he reveals new work which shows that:

1) The climate sensitivity is below 0.2c - confirmed by 3 independent methods.

2) Most of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is not anthropogenic.

3) CO2 movements and concentrations are largely determined by nature, not man; consequently, any cuts we make to our CO2 emissions will not have the desired effect, and are a costly waste of time.

4) CO2, whether man-made or not, does not 'drive' the climate system.

[Pants-of-dog]

Those dinks figured out that some people are conspirinoiacs, what a breakthrough!

Some people are conspiritards and on the opposite extreme you got your babbitt dinks, but none of that has any bearing on reality. We arrive at reality by weighing evidence and applying reason, not by rigidly adhering to some dogmatic worldview. The narrow reality tunnel of the babbitt dink is not one whit less idiotic than that of the conspiritard.

You and I actually discussed most of the climate change conspiracy theories from the Wikipedia article about these theories. You agree with most of them, from what I recall.

Author of the seminal book on climate; "Physics of the Atmosphere & Climate" Professor Murry Salby is without doubt one of the best Climate Scientists on the planet. In a lecture in London on the 17th March, 2015, he reveals new work which shows that:

1) The climate sensitivity is below 0.2c - confirmed by 3 independent methods.

2) Most of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is not anthropogenic.

3) CO2 movements and concentrations are largely determined by nature, not man; consequently, any cuts we make to our CO2 emissions will not have the desired effect, and are a costly waste of time.

4) CO2, whether man-made or not, does not 'drive' the climate system.

Can you show us his evidence for these claims?

[Atlantis]

Only 1% of EU citizens deny climate change and a further 4% deny man-made climate change.

Looks like climate change deniers may be a specifies in danger of extinction.

Should I feel bad about being so hard on a species that may be in danger of extinction?