Trevor must be a member of Great Britain's "Royally Blind Society" since he doesn't understand that the Royal Society was given the initial task of "proving that CO2 causes the Planet to continually warm". The IP CC was established through the Royal Society and is nothing but a self-serving entity. So far, they have established that the temperature has risen by as much as 0.8C and recent scientific data shows that at the most humans are responsible for less than 35% of that warming which amounts to around 0.28C.
133 years = 0.28C of warming at most? ... and how much has been given to the IP CC to establish this?
Anyone who doesn't understand that there is an attempt to defraud Government's from their moneys for a cause with no direct effect has total belief in scientific arrogance. Let the sheep fall where they lay. .. or is that chips? Hmmmmmmm?
I'm not sure why there is any complaining. It gives some a chance to flex their superiority complex, increase their self esteem and rest on their "consensus" and "scientific authority".
When I ask very specific scientific questions, I get very little response. When I ask a question that even has a hint of anything of a questioning nature (and yes sometimes it's in black and white), I get a whole raft of answers not even related to the question and many with both covert and overt abuse.
Sometimes I'm not sure why I bother around here. I can say that lately, I am just doing this for myself to learn more not to trying to convince anybody else of anything. And even that's fading.
_______________________________________...
Edit: "Cite a YA denier question NOT based on implicit assumptions that climate science is a conspiratorial hoax?"
You should note that paranoid people see conspiracies in everything. From a psychological point of view, this stems from the need to have some security that what is happening in the world is not random but is all under control.
Hmm, that makes one wonder....
I think another aspect is what when you feel out of control, you can project blame on a named enemy to help distinguish between good and evil and provide an outlet for hostile feelings.
Hmm, that makes one wonder....
Sagebrush, given that you are the biggest liar of all, you have some nerve to accuse Trevor or anyone else of lacking integrity.
Calling James Hansen a liar, claiming that a video of a graph taped to a see-saw by someone who has no interest in people analyzing the graph is evidence, calling James Hansen a Communist without evidence, making light of the people who suffered under Communism by making such an accusation, claiming that it is others who follow your idol, Herr Goebbels.
JImZ
So do you.
I block people who block me. Unlike Dook, and yourself, Madd Maxx, Cyclops and Royal Society Richie, I don't prevent people from answering just because they don't agree with me. They just can't count on 10 points for BA.
edit
I did give Dook a TD.
There are "Exceptions"- to Every Rule. And THAT goes for a Handful of the Questions AND Answers TO Them- On Here. ;)
What is your estimated value for the perfect global temperature, in whatever units you understand?
Dook is a pathetic partisan that has got to get out of mommy's basement from time to time to see how the real world works. Trevor likes to pretend he isn't a partisan and has no agenda. Yesterday's smear of Monckton was pretty telling. There are so many lefties who see their politics as facts. It is a religious conviction to them and they just can't see how they could be wrong. It defines why they believe in AGW but they can't recognize that either.
Dook's questions aren't meant to learn something. They are meant to gather the like-minded and that is why Dookie bans anything that doesn't agree with his religion. I told myself I should lighten up a bit but honestly the direction of my country and state in the last few years has me pretty irritated at the ignorant but I am confident enough people will wake up eventually and stop believing the lies.
Actually CR, I only blocked you because you had blocked me. It used to show up that people you block had a red symbol by them. When I realized you were still on my block list a couple weeks ago, I unblocked you. In fact, I block very few, and primarily only Dook. I lost interest in what he blathers long ago.
I don't think there are any such questions. Because any question that implies doubt on the IPCC 'consensus' is immediately cast as a denier question and stating that you are believing in a conspiracy.
I'd say it depends on how you define "denier". I question many things within the AGW framework, and would not consider myself a denier, though I have been called one by a few here. I also never make any allusion to a conspiracy.
I do ocasionally make reference to a BIAS, though. Its not a conspiracy for chocolate makers to come out with a study on the benefits of chocolate. In a simliar manner, it is not a conspiracy that scientists who funding is greatly increased due to fear of global warming would inherently be biased towards seeing global warming. Scientists from the 80s that made their name on global warming are now in charge of things like the section of NASA that studies climate change. If one assumes that they are not naturally biased, that is a poor assumption. That is not a conspiracy, that is a reality.
As far as the politics of AGW, go, there is a clear bias of liberals to think of things like taxes as a methods of addressing the issue. In the same way, the repubs are going to say the opposite of whatever the liberals say. That is our 2 party system.
As far as the models go. Those are what I have the most problem with. I don't think the scientists are trying to make bad models that overestimate. But as all scientists do, they try to make their research appear to be the most important and innovative research ever created and downplay any inherent problems. THat is the way it works. It is not a conspiracy, it just is.
Dook,
You block everyone who challenges your view. Its pathetic that you want to even pretend to be unbiased or pretend you hold some high ground. Are you kidding me??? Look at your posts. You resort to insulting faster than most anyone else who frequents here. AND you block more.
I can respect people like pegminer, trevor, Chem flunky and others, because while I disagree with them, they at least somewhat avoid insulting and don't block everyone who disagrees with them. Your combination of blocking and insulting, looks too childish to even garner a modicum of respectibility.
Edit to Dook,
You crack me up.
Ohh I disagree with my fellow warmers on a few minor issues, so you are wrong. LOL. That is your attempt at pretending to be fair minded??? You don't block people who clearly hold mostly similar views??? THAT IS YOUR DEFENSE???? REALLY???
And while you PRETEND to be the defender of science, real science need no defender. It is equal to the task of answering questions and looking at issues in different ways. You want to place these scientists as gods, while I can assure you that they are quite human.
In fact, I just quoted Rosenthal in a WARMER ARTICLE, as saying that they UNDERESTIMATED the effect of the ocean. My asking if the underestimation will be exacerbated by the fact that the differential between the oceans and the atmospheric temperature will increase, seems a rather valid question.
Which is the problem. Asking a valid question is what you don't like. You don't really care about science. You care about it saying what you want it to say and will religiously defend that to the hilt. You think you are different from the people who burned books to ensure no one question theri beliefs or the figures they revered??? You are no different.
In fact, while the warmers here defend you (cause you are one of their own) my guess is that secretly they feel embarrassed when they see your constant barrage of insults and use of blocking.
And AS I HAVE SAID. If you really believe the negative crap you write about me, then perhaps you should not answer questions I post, hypocrite.
Further, when you have attained a PhD in a science-related field like statistics, we can have a discussion of who anti-scientific. As it stands, you assume that just because I disagree with you, means I agree with every "denier". That is a false assumption, so don't tell me who my leader is. I have no leaders. I let truth guide me.
Further, if you want to pretend to care so much about the environment whilst you sit on your high horse, than have a plan for fixing it, like I do. Your arbitrary lets tax people crap solution is beyond pathetic.
The irony is overwhelming, we're supposed to believe skepticism is driven by a conspiracy and not by the nebulous ambiguity of man induced climmate change.
There is no man made global warming. There is no man made climate change. Some so-called climate scientists are engaging in fraud to get money.
Here is another Dork question. Let us open it up for all, as he blocks everyone once he discovers they have an IQ above 70.
