[Pants-of-dog]

More accurately, you do not care that you made a false accusation against me.

Of course, because as I already informed you and you ignored, anyone doing paid research or charitable work funded by organizations that get donations from oil companies has, in what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind," also "received oil money," including anti-fossil-fuel scaremongers. Indeed, the only people you can claim never received any oil money are those who have never received any but government money.

No, you simply made that up.

Can you name anyone that isn't? All the universities get oil money, so in your mind, that means anyone who has ever worked at or for a university is a paid shill for oil companies. It's just absurd, disingenuous nonsense.

So no, you cannot name a single climatologist who agrees with your unscientific claims except those who get paid by oil companies and have spread misinformation.

So, on the one side, we have a whole field of scientists pointing out the fact of anthropogenic climate change, and on the other hand, we have a few scientists from different fields being paid by an industry to lie.

[boomerintown]

@Truth To Power

I think the best advice is to just ignore Pants-of-dog. He is obviously a troll who will destroy any discussions he enters. He seriously asked me if I was white in another topic...

[Truth To Power]

My claim is correct,

No it isn't.

Dr. Spencer receives money from oil companies.

No he doesn't, any more than the many thousands if not millions of other people doing paid charity work for organizations that get donations from oil companies.

The fact that others do to is irrelevant.

No, it is not, because it proves your claim is nothing but misleading, disingenuous propaganda, like claiming someone who sees an old photo of a baby on a bearskin rug "looks at pictures of naked children."

And yes, I did provide evidence.

No, you did not.

I provided evidence that Spencer receives money from oil companies.

No more than anyone doing paid research funded by a university or paid charitable work for any of thousands of charities, including all of the biggest ones.

And evidence that he spreads misinformation.

No you didn't.

You literally just quoted it.

I quoted the proof that what you provided was not in fact evidence for your claims. As usual.

[Pants-of-dog]

No it isn't.

No he doesn't, any more than the many thousands if not millions of other people doing paid charity work for organizations that get donations from oil companies.

No, it is not, because it proves your claim is nothing but misleading, disingenuous propaganda, like claiming someone who sees an old photo of a baby on a bearskin rug "looks at pictures of naked children."

No, you did not.

No more than anyone doing paid research funded by a university or paid charitable work for any of thousands of charities, including all of the biggest ones.

No you didn't.

I quoted the proof that what you provided was not in fact evidence for your claims. As usual.

Again, anyone can read the evidence that Spencer spread misinformation.

And the evidence that he was paid by oil companies.

[Truth To Power]

So no, you cannot name a single climatologist who agrees with your unscientific claims except those who get paid by oil companies and have spread misinformation.

Or a single one who disagrees.

So, on the one side, we have a whole field of scientists pointing out the fact of anthropogenic climate change,

You misspelled, "post hoc fallacy."

and on the other hand, we have a few scientists from different fields being paid by an industry to lie.

And the actual physical events that continue to prove the latter are objectively correct.

[Truth To Power]

Again, anyone can read the evidence that Spencer spread misinformation.

And the evidence that he was paid by oil companies.

You provided a lot of misleading and disingenuous propaganda, but no actual evidence.

[Pants-of-dog]

Or a single one who disagrees.

You misspelled, "post hoc fallacy."

And the actual physical events that continue to prove the latter are objectively correct.

Again, please write clear and coherent sentences.

It is not up to others to parse an argument out of these fragments.

You provided a lot of misleading and disingenuous propaganda, but no actual evidence.

Again, anyone can read the evidence that Spencer spread misinformation.

And the evidence that he was paid by oil companies.

At this point, I am repeating myself. Please let me know if you have anything new.

[Unthinking Majority]

So Biden held an EV summit this year and didn't invite (nor mention) Tesla/Musk. Dems are bought off by the unions Musk says:

[late]

All the universities get oil money, so in your mind, that means anyone who has ever worked at or for a university is a paid shill for oil companies.

It's just absurd, disingenuous nonsense.

Project much?

First Rule of Holes, when you're in one, stop digging. Oh wait, you're paid to do this.

[Truth To Power]

Project much?

Nope.

First Rule of Holes, when you're in one, stop digging. Oh wait, you're paid to do this.

I wish.

First Rule of Writing: No one pays for the truth.

[Pants-of-dog]

….

First Rule of Writing: No one pays for the truth.

….which implies that oil companies paid Dr. Spencer to write something other than the truth.

[Truth To Power]

….which implies that oil companies paid Dr. Spencer to write something other than the truth.

No, because oil companies didn't pay him to write anything. You simply made that up.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, because oil companies didn't pay him to write anything. You simply made that up.

Again, please write clear and coherent sentences.

It is not up to others to parse an argument out of these fragments.

Again, anyone can read the evidence that Spencer spread misinformation.

And the evidence that he was paid by oil companies.

At this point, I am repeating myself. Please let me know if you have anything new.

[late]

At this point, I am repeating myself. Please let me know if you have anything new.

As I pointed out on a previous page of this dreary thread, repeating BS endlessly is all he's got, and what he's paid to do. Creating the appearance of controversy was one of the tricks tobacco companies came up with when they wanted to keep killing lots of people.

Same with oil, megadeath is just a business decision to them.

[Truth To Power]

As I pointed out on a previous page of this dreary thread, repeating BS endlessly is all he's got, and what he's paid to do.

As pointed out several times, you haven't shown that anything I've written is untrue, and I am not being paid for any of this.

Creating the appearance of controversy was one of the tricks tobacco companies came up with when they wanted to keep killing lots of people.

So now controversy per se is enough to prove malign intent? Please.

Same with oil, megadeath is just a business decision to them.

More deaths are caused by cold weather than warm. How will you apologize when the megadeaths are being caused by global cooling and a shortage of fossil fuels?

[Pants-of-dog]

More deaths are caused by cold weather than warm.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Thanks.

Please note that 1260 people died in the heatwave this summer. So, you will have to show that more people died of cold last winter.

[late]

global cooling

You really don't have a clue.

The two scientists that wrote the one paper proposing global cooling had to retract their paper, and nearly lost their jobs because they screwed up so badly.

Frankly, you're all crap, all the time.

[late]

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Thanks.

Please note that 1260 people died in the heatwave this summer. So, you will have to show that more people died of cold last winter.

All crap, all the time...

[Truth To Power]

The two scientists that wrote the one paper proposing global cooling had to retract their paper, and nearly lost their jobs because they screwed up so badly.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

[Truth To Power]

Please provide evidence for this claim.

It is a fact well known to everyone who knows anything about climate, and not controversial:

"The study found more people had died of cold than heat over the two-decade period. "

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... tudy-finds

"They found that seven per cent of deaths registered during this period were attributed to temperature-related fatalities, and that cold-related deaths were 10 times higher than heat-related deaths."

https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-envi ... -1.5500941

Here's the original peer-reviewed article:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanp ... 42-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext

"Globally, 5 083 173 deaths (95% empirical CI [eCI] 4 087 967–5 965 520) were associated with non-optimal temperatures per year, accounting for 9·43% (95% eCI 7·58–11·07) of all deaths (8·52% [6·19–10·47] were cold-related and 0·91% [0·56–1·36] were heat-related)."

The fact that you require evidence for it proves that you are not numbered among those who know anything about climate.

Please note that 1260 people died in the heatwave this summer. So, you will have to show that more people died of cold last winter.

No, that's just another of your absurd and disingenuous non sequitur fallacies -- but see above.