Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

[verreauxi]

I re-read and changed it to something equally pertinent - no biggie

How convenient for you.

 

[WA Toffee]

"“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”. – IPCC TAR WG1, Working Group I:"

Hence no peer review paper can exist definitively attributing a single cause to the changing climate - man made or otherwise - but always remember the burden of proof must come from the proponent of an idea and as demonstrated the dangerous man made co2 notion has no observational peer reviewed evidence whatsoever. It is a product of gigo computer models which are erroneously offered as fact

Co2 is not dangerous but essential for plant life and at present levels, 400ppm, the planet is in co2 drought the most significant explosion of life on this planet came when co2 was in the order of thousands ppm (7000ppm I think) furthermore the various doom claims from terror fundamentalists are all covered by the null hypothesis. We exist in a naturally warming cycle, the long term depletion of polar ice is expected as is mild warming and the attribution of specific weather events like droughts, storms etc as man made co2 caused is science bereft wishful thinking.

Add in the only long term study of co2/temp relationship (800k yrs ice samples) irrefutably showing co2 rise lags warming in line with orbital cycles and it's a slam dunk - there really is nothing to worry about. I won't go into all the temp manipulations and other political chicanery of head honchos driving the cult, there's only a handful of them, because it makes supporters of the nonsense OD on doughnuts.

Suffice to say if people concentrate on robust rather than pseudo science it's a doozie

You're not a scientist, are you? I am, which is how I can tell you aren't. But you do appear to have the qualifications to be a politician. Change the subject, check. Argue in favour of something no one is actually arguing against, check. Make up data and present it as fact, check. Using a fact but presenting it completely out of context hoping no one will actually notice, check.
You've done pretty well in that post

 

[BlueTX]

While somewhat entertaining to watch Baz subject himself to repeated flagellation, shall we return this thread to exploring the wonder that is the mind of the Marmalade Dotard?

Trump attacks whistleblower in tweetstorm full of rants and conspiracies

President Donald Trump retweeted an attack that included an unsubstantiated name of the intelligence community whistleblower at the heart of the Ukraine scandal as part of a series of rants and conspiratorial posts Friday night.

www.cnn.com

 

[Barry Rathbone]

You're not a scientist, are you? I am, which is how I can tell you aren't. But you do appear to have the qualifications to be a politician. Change the subject, check. Argue in favour of something no one is actually arguing against, check. Make up data and present it as fact, check. Using a fact but presenting it completely out of context hoping no one will actually notice, check.
You've done pretty well in that post

Surely you should have enclosed a gif of a child poking it's tongue out shouting "NAH, NAH ... NA, NAH, NAH!!" at this hilarious appeal to authority.

Furthermore no real scientist would fail to understand how "burden of proof" works and arrive at this fallacy "You make it sound like there is actual peer reviewed scientific journals that prove man made climate change is fiction".

Not done quite so well in your post have you my dear little test tube filler

 

[McBain]

Surely you should have enclosed a gif of a child poking it's tongue out shouting "NAH, NAH ... NA, NAH, NAH!!" at this hilarious appeal to authority.

Furthermore no real scientist would fail to understand how "burden of proof" works and arrive at this fallacy "You make it sound like there is actual peer reviewed scientific journals that prove man made climate change is fiction".

Not done quite so well in your post have you my dear little test tube filler

Analyse the data you cockwombelous bore

 

[Prevenger17]

Surely you should have enclosed a gif of a child poking it's tongue out shouting "NAH, NAH ... NA, NAH, NAH!!" at this hilarious appeal to authority.

Furthermore no real scientist would fail to understand how "burden of proof" works and arrive at this fallacy "You make it sound like there is actual peer reviewed scientific journals that prove man made climate change is fiction".

Not done quite so well in your post have you my dear little test tube filler

Looooooooool

Keep on keeping on Baz, put these so-called scientists with their so-called facts and qualifications in their place.

 

[Prevenger17]

Unleash the full truth of wattsupwiththat.com, finish them Barry

 

[Barry Rathbone]

Analyse the data you cockwombelous bore

Would that be data they tried to hide, the manipulated temp data or robust satellite and platinum standard data from USCRN showing nothing beyond natural variability?

You see it all depends what data you choose whether you end up with spoof or real science my uneducated little blusterer

Just a tad more anger and inanity about a topic you have absolutely no idea about and you can become a full member of cult climate doom like the other strange people. Imagine how you can justify getting off your skull every night because you believe we've got less than 12yrs left, no more scolding from mommy.

The whole canard has become so desperate as a result of no observational science for man made climate doom the recent Madrid climate conference has gone down the toilet amidst acrimony and infighting leaving only a school girl with Asperger's stamping her feet. There is no case for man made co2 catastrophe

Keep kicking them in the nads, Donald (keeping it on topic right there,)

 

[Walken]

clueless baz is defo a big top gear fan

 

[WA Toffee]

Surely you should have enclosed a gif of a child poking it's tongue out shouting "NAH, NAH ... NA, NAH, NAH!!" at this hilarious appeal to authority.

Furthermore no real scientist would fail to understand how "burden of proof" works and arrive at this fallacy "You make it sound like there is actual peer reviewed scientific journals that prove man made climate change is fiction".

Not done quite so well in your post have you my dear little test tube filler

You are a bit correct in that the burden of proof was on those initially suggesting that climate change was accelerated by human activity. They can't just make that claim and hope everyone believes them without providing any evidence.
However, the many millions of data points reviewed in the past 50 years with more and more accurate and powerful measurement tools has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that they were correct, and those conclusions are agreed by over 97% of the scientific community.

For those denouncing science, the burden of proof now lies with you. Claims of conspiracy don't cut it any more, where is your proof? Because the world would be a much better place if you were correct, we all want you to be correct. Please prove to us that you are correct.

 

[Barry Rathbone]

You are a bit correct in that the burden of proof was on those initially suggesting that climate change was accelerated by human activity. They can't just make that claim and hope everyone believes them without providing any evidence.
However, the many millions of data points reviewed in the past 50 years with more and more accurate and powerful measurement tools has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that they were correct, and those conclusions are agreed by over 97% of the scientific community.

For those denouncing science, the burden of proof now lies with you. Claims of conspiracy don't cut it any more, where is your proof? Because the world would be a much better place if you were correct, we all want you to be correct. Please prove to us that you are correct.

What conclusions?

Find me the peer reviewed paper concluding "97% of the scientific community agree observational evidence of dangerous man made climate change exists" .

If you can (and you most certainly will not be able to) then supply me with the total number of scientists that exist in this "scientific community" as I've never seen a figure definitively listing how many scientists are on the planet. After that chuck in the non modelled peer reviewed evidence they are referring to.

No obfuscation allowed.

As an aside I will be having sausage casserole in a mo whilst watching the first Kingsman movie.....yummy!!

 

[tsubaki]

clueless baz is defo a big top gear fan

the new one only; he abandoned Clarkson when he admitted climate change was actually occuring

 

[Prevenger17]

Find me the peer reviewed paper concluding "97% of the scientific community agree observational evidence of dangerous man made climate change exists" .

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

Loads of peer reviewed papers cited in there saying the same thing too. What does wattsupwiththat.com say?

 

[Walken]

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

Loads of peer reviewed papers cited in there saying the same thing too. What does wattsupwiththat.com say?

on a scale of one to 10, with 10 being the most robust and 1 being the least robust, just how robust would you say the science is in that link?

 

[Prevenger17]

on a scale of one to 10, with 10 being the most robust and 1 being the least robust, just how robust would you say the science is in that link?

Honestly mate, I'm not the requisite expert on robustitude, let's ask Baz