Last one for today: http://tinyurl.com/39xpdjv (PDF file: Global Warming Science: A Cross Examination)
Now, go ahead and apply your memes. Have fun.
“Quote selectively from the evidence provided by skeptics”
Huh? I’m just concerned when the POLITICS and SCIENCE of climate change intermingle..you can’t argue the science with politics.
“Dr. Rancourt, – same guy as in the video posted by Kate – also a extreme leftwinger, NOT tainted by “Conservative connections” – agrees with him on almost every point.”
That ‘interview’ was worthless…you couldn’t even tell what the question was that Rancourt was replying to! It was just a bunch of edited clips of Rancourt speaking. It’s not the first time Marc has done this either.
“Upward temperature trends over a very short period of time, while ignoring all past climate data showing upward temperature trends prior to Western industrialization as in the Medieval Warm Period = anthropogenic cause”
Did I say that? No…I simply pointed out that the reason for there being no high latitude data was that the time period selected was not appropriate. When you select 1980-2009 it shows a high degree of warming over those 30 years, especially in the arctic.
“Deflect and discount all contrary information”
You completely ignored the results of proper use of the GISS data did you not?
“Accuse others of doing the very same thing you do (pulling random facts), and, in a brilliant display of leftie logic, saying that that’s not legit.”
Any examples of me stating random facts and then attempting to make a conclusion?
“Assume guilt by association”
There was no ‘guilt’ implied, I was simply pointing out that Morano is no scientist and no expert by any standards whatsoever, he’s a political spin doctor (Communications director)…that’s his job is it not?
““Attach the messenger, not the message”
Actually I did attack the message, he lied and distorted facts, he falsely quoted people…the message was trash.
“Scream bloody murder when a supposed “sin” is committed by skeptics, while ignoring or downplaying the same “sin” if it’s committed by the IPCC.”
I pointed out a lie, show me where I downplayed an IPCC action of the same proportions…I have said time and again that I DON’T READ THE IPCC REPORTS, THEY DO NOT FORM THE BASIS OF MY ARGUMENT…I’ve said not to trust them, I’ve said they are not a scientific body, but include politics, social and business realms.
“Big Green”
What are you talking about?
“http://tinyurl.com/yp822w”
Let me get this straight, you use the same source that was pointed out IN THE SAME THREAD to be unreliable and inaccurate to prove your point? Are you out of your mind?
Anything of SCIENTIFIC concerns to point out Louise? Or are you only interested conspiracy theories and political babble?
Our residence AGW ideologist is back in full form.
My scientific concern is scientific FRAUD. Please enlighten us all with
1. When did the SCIENCE of AGW commence?
2. When did the dire warnings of warming start? Bonus points — When did the dire warnings of the looming ice age stop?
3. When did AGW transform into massive fraud that it has become today?
4. How many carbon credits have you bought?
I’m very curious to see how you handle 4 simple questions.
Meanwhile, I’ve got some carbon to spew. (It’s OK, I banked some credits even before I knew there was going to be a market for them.) Later.
1. When did the SCIENCE of AGW commence?
Early 1800s
2. When did the dire warnings of warming start? Bonus points — When did the dire warnings of the looming ice age stop?
1970’s. The extremely short lived ice age theories were a product of relatively early climate science, especially compared to the extent of technology we have today.
“3. When did AGW transform into massive fraud that it has become today?”
It didn’t, as with everything else that has potential to affect/reach lots of people, politics and business jump at every opportunity to take advantage of them.
“4. How many carbon credits have you bought?”
None.
1. WOW. Close. So close, you should be able to pull up the peer reviewed scientific papers that will give others a real insite as to when we discovered that our cars and computers and toothpaste and factories (you get the picture) were ruining the enjoyment of our planet for future generations.
2. No bonus points. You need to answer the first part of the question for the bonus points. But FYI … in the ’70s….Woe, doom and gloom we are all in big trouble ’cause it’s going to get colder….and then the theory becomes…..Woe, doom and gloom we are all in big trouble ’cause it’s going to get warmer.
3. Good answer! It didn’t but it did! Since there is no real science (come up for air, the peer reviewed science has been shown to be fraudulant..at a minimum), the AGW scam has always been a fraud. (real pollution is another story)
4. No money it in for you. Then left wing ideology drives your inability to consume/digest/analyze any information that contradicts what you learned in school. WOW.
Later.
“computers and toothpaste”
Huh?
“in the ’70s….Woe, doom and gloom we are all in big trouble ’cause it’s going to get colder….and then the theory becomes…..Woe, doom and gloom we are all in big trouble ’cause it’s going to get warmer.”
You like the really simple explanations I see…I’m sorry my friend but it didn’t work like that. To the average lazy ass viewer who demands information be spoon fed, sure.
“Since there is no real science ”
Easy to say when you can’t read scientific articles and don’t bother to try.
Last one for today:
http://tinyurl.com/39xpdjv (PDF file: Global Warming Science: A Cross Examination)
Now, go ahead and apply your memes. Have fun.
“Quote selectively from the evidence provided by skeptics”
Huh? I’m just concerned when the POLITICS and SCIENCE of climate change intermingle..you can’t argue the science with politics.
“Dr. Rancourt, – same guy as in the video posted by Kate – also a extreme leftwinger, NOT tainted by “Conservative connections” – agrees with him on almost every point.”
That ‘interview’ was worthless…you couldn’t even tell what the question was that Rancourt was replying to! It was just a bunch of edited clips of Rancourt speaking. It’s not the first time Marc has done this either.
“Upward temperature trends over a very short period of time, while ignoring all past climate data showing upward temperature trends prior to Western industrialization as in the Medieval Warm Period = anthropogenic cause”
Did I say that? No…I simply pointed out that the reason for there being no high latitude data was that the time period selected was not appropriate. When you select 1980-2009 it shows a high degree of warming over those 30 years, especially in the arctic.
“Deflect and discount all contrary information”
You completely ignored the results of proper use of the GISS data did you not?
“Accuse others of doing the very same thing you do (pulling random facts), and, in a brilliant display of leftie logic, saying that that’s not legit.”
Any examples of me stating random facts and then attempting to make a conclusion?
“Assume guilt by association”
There was no ‘guilt’ implied, I was simply pointing out that Morano is no scientist and no expert by any standards whatsoever, he’s a political spin doctor (Communications director)…that’s his job is it not?
““Attach the messenger, not the message”
Actually I did attack the message, he lied and distorted facts, he falsely quoted people…the message was trash.
“Scream bloody murder when a supposed “sin” is committed by skeptics, while ignoring or downplaying the same “sin” if it’s committed by the IPCC.”
I pointed out a lie, show me where I downplayed an IPCC action of the same proportions…I have said time and again that I DON’T READ THE IPCC REPORTS, THEY DO NOT FORM THE BASIS OF MY ARGUMENT…I’ve said not to trust them, I’ve said they are not a scientific body, but include politics, social and business realms.
“Big Green”
What are you talking about?
“http://tinyurl.com/yp822w”
Let me get this straight, you use the same source that was pointed out IN THE SAME THREAD to be unreliable and inaccurate to prove your point? Are you out of your mind?
Anything of SCIENTIFIC concerns to point out Louise? Or are you only interested conspiracy theories and political babble?
Our residence AGW ideologist is back in full form.
My scientific concern is scientific FRAUD. Please enlighten us all with
1. When did the SCIENCE of AGW commence?
2. When did the dire warnings of warming start? Bonus points — When did the dire warnings of the looming ice age stop?
3. When did AGW transform into massive fraud that it has become today?
4. How many carbon credits have you bought?
I’m very curious to see how you handle 4 simple questions.
Meanwhile, I’ve got some carbon to spew. (It’s OK, I banked some credits even before I knew there was going to be a market for them.) Later.
1. When did the SCIENCE of AGW commence?
Early 1800s
2. When did the dire warnings of warming start? Bonus points — When did the dire warnings of the looming ice age stop?
1970’s. The extremely short lived ice age theories were a product of relatively early climate science, especially compared to the extent of technology we have today.
“3. When did AGW transform into massive fraud that it has become today?”
It didn’t, as with everything else that has potential to affect/reach lots of people, politics and business jump at every opportunity to take advantage of them.
“4. How many carbon credits have you bought?”
None.
1. WOW. Close. So close, you should be able to pull up the peer reviewed scientific papers that will give others a real insite as to when we discovered that our cars and computers and toothpaste and factories (you get the picture) were ruining the enjoyment of our planet for future generations.
2. No bonus points. You need to answer the first part of the question for the bonus points. But FYI … in the ’70s….Woe, doom and gloom we are all in big trouble ’cause it’s going to get colder….and then the theory becomes…..Woe, doom and gloom we are all in big trouble ’cause it’s going to get warmer.
3. Good answer! It didn’t but it did! Since there is no real science (come up for air, the peer reviewed science has been shown to be fraudulant..at a minimum), the AGW scam has always been a fraud. (real pollution is another story)
4. No money it in for you. Then left wing ideology drives your inability to consume/digest/analyze any information that contradicts what you learned in school. WOW.
Later.
“computers and toothpaste”
Huh?
“in the ’70s….Woe, doom and gloom we are all in big trouble ’cause it’s going to get colder….and then the theory becomes…..Woe, doom and gloom we are all in big trouble ’cause it’s going to get warmer.”
You like the really simple explanations I see…I’m sorry my friend but it didn’t work like that. To the average lazy ass viewer who demands information be spoon fed, sure.
“Since there is no real science ”
Easy to say when you can’t read scientific articles and don’t bother to try.