Note: #5 is a trap both sides fall into. Of course, the Climate Realist side has up to 4.5 billion years of Earth’s history on our side, as well as observational data, including from other planets.
THE AUTHOR
PAGES
Recent Comments
- Flexo on If All You See…: “Elwood, how did she use a figure of speech by Russians? Your article quotes her as speaking English. Think about…” Apr 20, 01:36
- drowningpuppies on If All You See…: “Seems Karen (aka Rimjob) sees no problem in giving away 100 billion dollars to foreign countries. Fuck the national debt,…” Apr 20, 01:13
- drowningpuppies on Climate Cult Groups Want Kennedy To Drop To “Honor Our Planet”: “Utter codswallop courtesy of Karen (aka Rimjob). You’re welcome.” Apr 20, 01:08
- Elwood P. Dowd on If All You See…: “Marjorie Traitor Greene (R-Budapest) offered the following amendment to a late iteration of the Ukraine military aid bill: “No funding…” Apr 20, 00:24
- Elwood P. Dowd on Climate Cult Groups Want Kennedy To Drop To “Honor Our Planet”: “From 280 ppm to 420 ppm is a 50% increase. 420 ppm is by far the greatest CO2 concentration in…” Apr 19, 23:07
Wait… this sounds … awfully… familiar. It’s almost like this fits J and Z like a glove.
wow. who knew that when they followed the proverbial carrot, they hung themselves with the stick.
Wow. Data from other planets. Go on…
So your trust data from other planets that support your cause, but distrust data from this planet??? You do realize it’s easier to measure temps here than on Mars, right? Let me guess, Martian scientists don’t fake data like Earth scientists?
1. You call those with whom you disagree “warmists”, “hypoocrites” and worse but call yourself a “climate realist.” lol
1b. You consider AGW refuted because some scientists drive cars, fly on planes and use clothes dryers. lol
2. You accuse genuine climate realists of wanting to suddenly reduce carbon footprints to zero. lol
3. It’s cold in Philly and Europe, AGW is refuted. lol
4-9. You assume because it’s been warm before, that the current warming period is “natural”.
“The 10 Commandments of Logic? Isn’t that what is referred to as an appeal to authority??
“You consider AGW refuted because….some drive cars, fly on planes…lol. We don’t have to refute anything- it has be proved first, which it hasn’t. See number 4, I think, from the original post “begin the argument with a false premise.” Even bigger lol. “It’s cold in Philly and Europe, AGW refuted.” There’s a severe storm here or there, you consider this proof of AGW. Even bigger lol.”You assume because it’s been warm before, that the current warming period is natural.” You assume because it’s warm before that whatever caused it back then without a doubt couldn’t be causing it now- even though it’s not warming now. Even bigger lol. “You trust data from other planets but distrust data from other planets.” You trust a computer model, which isn’t data, and distrust hard data that shows this warming (that’s stopped) isn’t out of the ordinary. Lol, again.
You call us skeptics and deniers, the last meant to equate people who do not believe in AGW with those who do not believe in the Holocaust. Skeptics I do not mind, because skepticism is a major part of practicing science.
No, we primarily consider you hypocrites. And we note that your belief set isn’t enough to change your behavior, hence, we understand that this is a political issue, not a scientific one.
You assume because a slight increase in a trace gas necessary for life has occurred that Mankind is at fault and life on earth is dooooooomed. Even though nature puts out more CO2 than mankind. Even though the Earth is still recovering from a glacial period. Even though said CO2 increase has seen a generational pause. Even though your models mostly fail.