Science Deniers are Everywhere

Try this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

I provided all the sources, in fine print. You can follow any one of them if you are trully interested in exploring this topic. But you are not, I suspect.

Michael Oppenheimer lays out the pessimistic view in The Atlantic.


Avoiding Two Degrees of Warming 'Is Now Totally Unrealistic'

Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton scientist and longtime observer of UN climate talks, says that the world has lost its last shot at staving off dangerous global warming.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/oppenheimer-interview/529083/

In effect, an experiment has been performed on the Earth during the past half-century – an experiment that includes all of the complex factors and feedback effects that determine the Earth's temperature and climate. Since 1940, hydrocarbon use has risen 6-fold. Yet, this rise has had no effect on the temperature trends, which have continued their cycle of recovery from the Little Ice Age in close correlation with increasing solar activity.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

So, can you provide the study that shows that the six-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had an effect on temperature trends . . . or not?
_________________________________________

Figure 14: Satellite microwave sounding unit (blue) measurements of tropospheric temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 0 and 82.5 N, Southern Hemisphere between 0 and 82.5 S, tropics between 20S and 20N, and the globe between 82.5N and 82.5S between 1979 and 2007 (29), and radiosonde balloon (red) measurements in the tropics (29). The balloon measurements confirm the satellite technique (29-31). The warming anomaly in 1997-1998 (gray) was caused by El Niño, which, like the overall trends, is unrelated to CO2 (32).

The U.S. temperature record has two intermediate uptrends of comparable magnitude, one occurring before the 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use and one during it. Between these two is an intermediate temperature downtrend, which led in the 1970s to fears of an impending new ice age. This decrease in temperature occurred during a period in which hydrocarbon use increased 3-fold.

Seven independent records – solar irradiance; Arctic, Northern Hemisphere, global, and U.S. annual average surface air temperatures; sea level; and glacier length – all exhibit these three intermediate trends, as shown in Figure 13. These trends confirm one another. Solar irradiance correlates with them. Hydrocarbon use does not.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
___________________________________________

Do you have anything to refute these finding? Perhaps some studies that show that the information and graphs are fraudulent?

Sounds like he needs a paper bag to keep from hyperventilating.

While we are on the subject of science denial, Olivier, science denial on the most wild of scales, and seeing as you a stellar member of that illustrious club, how about this?

Yet you, Max, farmerman, all manner of science deniers will deny this. And yet it is right there, for you, for everyone to see, with your and their own eyes.

Growing Evidence Missiles Used in 9/11 Attack on Twin Towers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbwQM_4i5ok

It is an anomaly that the US government conspiracy theory can not explain because it can't possibly fit within their theory.

If it isn't a missile, then what is it?

If it the plane, how does a plane go thru two walls of 14" steel box columns without any damage?

Well, then Trump's withdrawal of the Paris Accords doesn't mean anything.



So it's what other nations do, not what the US does. Now that's pretty brilliant of all the leaders of the other nations. They're not Deniers but if the US doesn't take the lead why should they give a damn about their people and the rest of humanity?



Not quite the doomsayer

How do you stunning hypocrites do it, Finn? I mean, you folks are the epitome of the thread title, and you are running all over this thread denying science.

With panache

You ought to try to look that word up. Rank liars/science deniers hardly have panache.

Camlok, it must really suck being you. It does just to read your posts.

Try addressing the facts, Centrox. That is definitely not your strong suit. We saw that when you provided some cockamamie BS in the 911 Physics thread that you didn't even understand, then you did what you always do, flee, except when you gather up the "courage" to snipe.

You are a science denier. That is defined as people who will not look at the facts because facts are what science is about.

A video [from the BBC] of an incredible anomaly, a large cylindrical object exiting WTC2, which is an impossibility, doesn't even stir in your "scientific mind".

Your level of knowledge doesn't even approach a level where you ought to be doing anything but asking questions, like in the grammar/English/ EFL threads.

You deny science there too, all the time. You seem to incapable of discussing anything.

The problemp is both in the US lack of commitment to doing anything, AND in the copy-cat effect it could have on other countries.

He's just being realistic.

These are lies, not "fingings".

You have shown repeatedly thru your science denials, Olivier, that you don't have the abilities to discern such things and even if you did have such abilities, you lie with such wild abandon that anything you say has to be passed over as being unreliable.

Are you mocking his spelling?

That's not what Oppenheimer wrote.

It will be interesting to see if you are as harsh with the copycats as you are with the US.

Actually, the questions put to you were:

Can you provide the study that shows that the six-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had an effect on temperature trends . . . or not?

Do you have anything to refute these finding? Perhaps some studies that show that the information and graphs found at the link below are fraudulent?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
___________________________________________

So your answer is "no."

Are you asking because he seems to be on your side, Finn?

Why can't everyone act like the adults they pretend to be and address all issues of science in the fashion that adults are supposed to be doing so?