This is what Warmists are reduced to. But, then, this has never been about science: it’s about politics, and Warmists have been using these types of personal smears since they invented the issue in order to push their Progressive doctrines
What Is The Difference Between A Psychic And A Climate Science Denier?
What is the difference between a psychic and a climate science denier? The answer might surprise you.
The question popped out of my head while it was exploding from this jaw-dropping story: “CNN’s Sister Network Asks Psychic To Explain What Happened To Missing Malaysia Jet!†(snip)
Her answer reminded me of the deniers:
“Naturally, I don’t have hard, concrete evidence. I think any psychic who has hard, concrete evidence can’t do their job correctly…. They’ll just work off what they know. I tend to work off what I don’t know.†(snip)
I know what the similarities are between psychics and deniers. They both use unscientific methods, generally make stuff up with no evidence to support their views, and have consistently been debunked when scrutinized.
What is the difference between a psychic and a climate science denier? In fairness, psychics sometimes guess the right answer.
Let’s consider: who was right about the climate?
Hmm, looks like the Warmist models were wrong. Warmists were wrong about sea level rise. They were wrong about snow being a thing of the past. They were wrong about the Arctic being ice free. They were wrong about tropical storm development and landfalls. And they cannot prove, using the scientific model, that the warming of the (insert time frame based on their talking points here) was mostly/solely caused by anthropogenic means.
So what you are saying is that the planet is getting hotter but just not as fast as was modeled.
Teach do you think the US Navy should know about YOUR scientific acumen on this subject? Have you considered emailing them ? Why do you think the temps are going up ? Is it God’s punishment, you know like the great flood? Have you read the US Navy’s Article Roadmap ? It is done every 5 years. They are predicting trans polar commercial traffic by 2030 right over the pole. Of course we have commercial Northwest passage now
Maybe.
But what is known is that as the models are inaccurate that means that either the data is bad (GIGO principle,) the models are bad (which calls into question the whole theory, or the “scientists” can’t predict or model the climate because the earth has always cooled and warmed over its history.
Really john, this “Navy meme” of yours has been blown out of the water so many times it is not funny.
What scientists were part of the report you cite? Did you even look at the sources they used?
Nah, because the details don’t matter to you. You like to use a discredited meme over and over as if your retelling the same lie gives it a new life of truth.
Maybe you should first go back to figuring out what an “average” is.
We don’t deny that the earth is currently in a warm period, john, nor that it has warmed. What we are saying that it is not mostly/solely caused by Mankind.
Since you are beating your Navy meme to death, I’ll beat mine: have you given up all use of fossil fuels? Gone carbon neutral?
BTW, you still haven’t answered my questions regarding abortion restrictions, via the post on e cigarettes. Don’t feel bad, Jeff ducked them too.
Teach typed:
“BTW, you still haven’t answered my questions regarding abortion restrictions, via the post on e cigarettes. Don’t feel bad, Jeff ducked them too.”
Bullshit. I’ve answered once, although your demand had nothing to do with nicotine. Here it is again. I agree with the Supreme Court. States can, and several do, have consent requirements for minors but only if they have a judicial bypass. In other words, a judge can excuse the young woman from the consent requirement. So neither I nor the Supreme Court would accept a restrictive consent requirement that left young women with no options, as you propose.
Try being a man, instead of sneaking around in other posts telling lies.
Heifer hockey.
You did not answer the question. Furthermore, the question did not have anything to do with nicotine as you assert, but was in a thread on e-cigs. Apparently not only are you dishonest, you are partially illiterate or have comprehension skills. Or perhaps you just like to lie and spread falsehoods about others to cover up your lack of integrity in all that you do and say.
Here is the question that was asked in that thread:
You responded with:
As was stated previously, “consent” (which is what Teach asked) is not the same as “consent or notification” which is what you answered with.
You ducked the question.
Another projection from Jeffery.
The problem is Jeffery that you get caught lying all the time (as in this case) and then try and blame others.
Now you want to say “try being a man?”
You don’t know the meaning of the word.
Oh, and by the way Jeffery, Al Gore and you are still hypocrites in the AGW debate and your unwillingness of you, Gore and people of your ilk to change your lifestyle shows that your talk about AGW is bluster and that you don’t actually believe what you type.
Actions speak louder than words Jeffery.
Jeff has run from answering the question yet again. And we knew he, and John, like most abortion on demand supporters, refuse to allow any restrictions.
Suck it, Teach.
I’ve answered your irrelevant question twice.
This is why people doubt liberals and science deniers like you Jeffery.
You think “0 = 2.”
It doesn’t. And people with an education above that of kindergarten know it.
Oh, and by the way Jeffery, Al Gore and you are still hypocrites in the AGW debate and your unwillingness of you, Gore and people of your ilk to change your lifestyle shows that your talk about AGW is bluster and that you don’t actually believe what you type.
Actions speak louder than words Jeffery.