Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

I saw the current PBS four hour documentary on the great political divide and saw how much of oralloy's thought is just parroting deluded conservative memes from the net.

You cannot provide any examples of me ever doing such a thing.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

most ALL bogus SITES are dot com.

Says who?

farmerman wrote:

youve presented your disdain for edu, gov, org, mil, etc etc (not to mention the sites from other countries and arent loaded with BS like our own dot coms.

You cannot provide any examples of me ever doing such a thing.

farmerman wrote:

You must be suffering from short term memory loss then.

My memory is nearly perfect.

farmerman wrote:

In the previous page youve posted a cartoon from Legal Insurrection DOT COM.

So?

farmerman wrote:

do you take credit for the cartoon??

No.

farmerman wrote:

Or is your concept of originality being the first on to post someone elses thoughts. ?

No. I don't play the "I think what that guy over there thinks" game like that other fellow does.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

No such evidence ever existed. Just another absurd right wing conspiracy theory. And whle you haven't been looingl you have missed the FACT that it is not leftist narrative at all, ut rather what the entire world scientific and ecnomic community are saying, as well as that wel-known hotbed of radical leftist progressivism, t5he Department of Defense. Admit it. You copped that whole idea wholesale from some wack denialist. Not your original thought. You're so transparent.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

My memory is nearly perfect

.that is demonstrably false.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Your failure to demonstrate it shows otherwise.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

No such evidence ever existed. Just another absurd right wing conspiracy theory.

Wrong again. Some of the scientists whose data was suppressed complained quite loudly about it.

MontereyJack wrote:

And whle you haven't been looingl you have missed the FACT that it is not leftist narrative at all, ut rather what the entire world scientific and ecnomic community are saying, as well as that wel-known hotbed of radical leftist progressivism, the Department of Defense.

Claims that are based on cherry picked data are not terribly useful.

MontereyJack wrote:

Admit it. You copped that whole idea wholesale from some wack denialist.

Sorry. It is not my nature to agree to untrue statements.

MontereyJack wrote:

Not your original thought.

True. In the case in question, I was merely pointing out facts and reality. I was not contributing anything additional to those facts.

MontereyJack wrote:

You're so transparent.

It comes from me being such an honest person.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

amug, yes. illogical, yes. cherry picking data, yes, you did yourself and illogically claimed that tainted the whole subject. Honest? No. You've repeatedly been wrong.

1 Reply

How climate change influenced Australia's unprecedented fires

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

No. I don't play the "I think what that guy over there thinks" game like that other fellow does

. Apparently you do , you just deny doing it,, kinda like hoow you deny science that is well researched and peer reviewed.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Don't be so dishonorable. You cannot provide any examples of me ever playing the "Look everyone! I think what that other guy thinks!" game.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

illogical, yes.

You cannot provide any examples of me ever being illogical.

MontereyJack wrote:

cherry picking data, yes, you did yourself

You cannot provide any examples of me ever cherry picking data.

MontereyJack wrote:

and illogically claimed that tainted the whole subject.

Nothing illogical about that. It is clear that climate change journals are cherry picking data.

MontereyJack wrote:

Honest? No.

You cannot provide any examples of dishonesty on my part.

MontereyJack wrote:

You've repeatedly been wrong.

You cannot provide any examples of untrue statements in my posts.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Wrong again. There is sound evidence that climate change journals are suppressing data that is inconvenient to the leftist narrative.

Journals have no responsibility to publish denialism in order to be politically balanced.

As much as I distrust the left, climate denialism is not a good tactic of the right wing.

Everyone simply needs to accept that humans have altered the way the planet functions by changing the natural flows of energy and land/water use to a great extent.

Then we should discuss how to restore natural climate without destroying human life.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

That is incorrect. Journals are not supposed to bar the publication of facts. They are supposed to focus on the actual truth.

The fact that climate journals cherry pick the data that they publish means that their claims are not to be believed.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

That is incorrect. Journals are not supposed to bar the publication of facts. They are supposed to focus on the actual truth.

Denialists are not motivated by truth. They are motivated by political opposition to the political/economic ramifications of acknowledging climate change.

Quote:

The fact that climate journals cherry pick the data that they publish means that their claims are not to be believed.

You don't need a single climate journal to acknowledge what humans do to the planet changes the way it functions.

All you need to do is pay attention to the way natural ecosystems function and analyze how they are part of a larger energy process of the planet that also results in fossil fuels building up underground.

When you grasp the big picture of how energy on Earth works, you can see for yourself how human activities that alter ecosystems will also alter the longer term climate trends.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

Denialists are not motivated by truth. They are motivated by political opposition to the political/economic ramifications of acknowledging climate change.

That is incorrect. You are applying the "denialist" label to hardworking scientists who merely report facts that the left wishes to suppress.

livinglava wrote:

When you grasp the big picture of how energy on Earth works, you can see for yourself how human activities that alter ecosystems will also alter the longer term climate trends.

Sorry. I'm only interested in hard provable facts.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

That is incorrect. You are applying the "denialist" label to hardworking scientists who merely report facts that the left wishes to suppress.

Climate has become politicized. 'Denialists' are people who can't stand the political/economic ramifications of acknowledging the effects of human activities on natural climate and thus put effort into building models that deny those effects.

Quote:

livinglava wrote:
When you grasp the big picture of how energy on Earth works, you can see for yourself how human activities that alter ecosystems will also alter the longer term climate trends.

Sorry. I'm only interested in hard provable facts.

What is not 'hard' and 'provable' about energy dynamics? Ecological systems are complexes of chemical pathways involving energy use and storage. Just because they are complex and involve biological organisms and systems doesn't make them any less real.

Fossil fuels are a byproduct of living ecosystems. Atmospheric carbon gets taken up by plants and fed to animals. Biological sediments contain carbon and stored energy, and they become fossil fuels over time.

Why do these facts seem less than 'hard' or 'provable' to you?

What other theories are you considering to be provable by fact? I.e. how do YOU think the climate works except by taking carbon out of the air and putting it into living things, which gradually turn into energy-rich sediments?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Then look at the millions of hard proven FACTS THat show CC is real, and is happening, and has obvious observable consequences already.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Sorry. I'm not interested in conclusions that can only be backed up with cherry picked data.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

'Denialists' are people who can't stand the political/economic ramifications of acknowledging the effects of human activities on natural climate and thus put effort into building models that deny those effects.

Then you are wrong to apply the term to hardworking scientists who are only trying to report the truth.

livinglava wrote:

Why do these facts seem less than 'hard' or 'provable' to you?

I don't know how hard it is. I only know that no one is being allowed to publish unbiased data.

livinglava wrote:

What other theories are you considering to be provable by fact?

All theories can be tested by experimentation and observation.

livinglava wrote:

how do YOU think the climate works except by taking carbon out of the air and putting it into living things, which gradually turn into energy-rich sediments?

I don't worry much about how it works. If any real science is ever allowed to be done on the issue, then I'll look at what the conclusions are.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You cherry picked ONE article not ppublished which came to a questionsable conclusion not becked by research in the Cascades in later years and speciously generalized it to cover the thousands of totally indepencdent research done, to support your political ideological point, You're the one that's incorrect and tainted.

1 Reply

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know