However, the scope and volume of lies coming from some of the skeptics has nothing to do with genuine errors. These lies are made knowingly and deliberately with the sole intent of deceiving.
As the amount of genuine evidence available to the skeptics is rapidly receding they are forced to resort to more underhand tactics, this is very apparent in the general decline of the skeptics conduct. It’s also apparent that several skeptics are arguing their point more out of anger than anything else and thus tend to dispense with rationality, honesty and integrity.
You may also have observed that the demographic of the vehement skeptics is getting narrower and narrower and that a significant majority of them fall into the same socio-economic group, the same group that denier websites and organisations focus their attention on.
That group is becoming ever more insular with the members feeding off each other thus propagating their own lies and errors. Unfortunately there is no place within thus group for the more rational and informed skeptics. In the past the reasonable skeptics had a moderating influence but that doesn’t seem to be happening as much these days.
The trend toward more bizarre and extreme behaviour looks set to continue well into the future.
TO KANO:
You need to back up your claim that you caught me lying, failure to do so means that you’re the liar. Please go ahead and provide your evidence.
- - - - - - - - -
EDIT: TO KANO (1)
Thank you for your added details. You’re wrong.
I stated there had been a decrease in snow, you accuse me of lying and as evidence you use the snowfall for the month of January only. I have previously stated on Answers that snowfall during winter will increase (warmer temps = more evapouration = more snowfall when it’s cold) but during the rest of the year it will decrease (warmer temps = more evapouration = rain instead of snow when it’s warmer).
This is precisely what is happening and when you look at total snow cover, not just a single month, it’s decreased:
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/ind...
On this occasion I’ll accept that you made a mistake.
EDIT: TO KANO (2)
Sorry but you’re still wrong, although it’s not your fault.
It’s the graph you linked to on the Climate4You website that’s wrong. It claims the data are from Rutgers but when you actually plot the data this is what you get:
There simply isn't sufficient evidence for significant or catastrophic AGW to justify its use to push your otherwise failed far leftists political agenda. The lies come from leftists because they can't push their agenda without lies. They pretend to have science on their side to fool the young, ignorant, and gullible. Obama said that you could keep your doctor yet leftists do nothing but cover for him because they know the cause is more important than telling the truth. He does nothing but lie, but because he is half black and an extreme leftist, he is like a god to those on the far left. I guess they can still pretend it was all Bush's fault. I think maybe it is just their religious belief system that keeps you from seeing the obvious truths that really aren't that hard to figure out IMO. Too many are being led like sheep to push a monstrous central authority and killing the great experiment that was the United States. Our Constitution was created to protect us from government tyranny but now we have people that worry about trivial things like CO2 and miss the fact that we are becoming a controlled society. You worried about the Patriot Act yet have been pretty silent since for the last few years. When it is Obama spying on his enemies, I guess that doesn't concern you. I worry because the ignorant youth clearly have no idea how great the USA is but it is rapidly sliding.
The 22 year solar cycle is associated with variations in magnetic storms as well as changes in solar emissions of light, just in case you weren't aware of that.
Maxx, I've explained to you many times why the things you said about Masters were incorrect, yet you have never admitted you were wrong. It's not a matter of interpretation--you slandered Masters and won't admit that you were wrong--that's lying. Until you admit that what you said about him was wrong, I will persist in calling you a liar. It's not the only example I could have shown, either.
I wouldn't say the first two are blatant lies exaggeration maybe, the last one is though, but amongst any group you will always have the odd crackpot.
Anyway this is going back a while, only this week I caught Trevor lying, which I consider more serious as he is so convincing.
Edit
Trevor here https://ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/in...
"The prediction was for more rain and less snow. Real world evidence shows it was correct"
There is more snow not less https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.60799866...
With anyone else I would think it was a mistake, but you always research your answers, so you had to know what you were saying was not correct.
Edit
Oops I didn't realise that was January http://climate4you.com/images/NHemispher...
and that was not what you said, you might have said differently before, but this time you imply snow is decreasing. I have quoted you correctly above.
Edit
I hardly think showing snow cover for July and August proves anything.
Big Oil and other corporations fund studies to make it look like it's not happening.
There are people here who think their god controls the weather.
There's people who think Rush Limbaugh, Bill ORielly ect.. tell the truth while scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson or Dr Eugenie Scott are lying for money.
A new dark age has begun.
Deniers are raping mother earth
That's an interesting standard there. Now Michael Mann published a paper in 2008 that used a chart upside down to generate a tree-ring-free hockey stick. It was pointed out to him that it was used upside-down, and he followed up the next year and used it again. Shouldn't lies by prominent climate scientists get called out?
Indeed, shouldn't scientists support Mark Steyn who is getting sued by the aforementioned liar Michael Mann for calling him 'the ring master of the tree ring circus.'
http://www.steynonline.com/6159/stick-it...
I guess the real question is, is it lying or can they just not read, the link concerning the Philippine hurricane in which the denier claims 'alarmists' are lying, in the article it pretty clearly states the 195 miles per wind speed is before the hurricane made landfall, the lower figure is after it made landfall, I though it was pretty well known that most hurricanes slow down over land.
So for that link no 'alarmist' lied.
Interesting the rebooted jello is off to flying start with even kano labeling him "odd crackpot", I wonder if the new jello will start having to block deniers given he has already blocked most 'alarmists'
Trevor: Kano appeared while you were on a break, to have him talk of lying is interesting as originally he claimed to have lived in the middle east for over a decade and be a retired fisherman, now he claims to live in the Philippines and be a retired power station engineer (unless he has changed his story again)
Just for the record pegminer, I'm not seeing any lies in any of the examples you linked. One of the linked post is by me and you keep saying that I lied about Jeff Masters --- but I did NOT. I linked the very story that I based my question on and my statement is a direct quote from that story. You may disagree with it, but for you to call it a lie --- makes YOU the liar.
-----------------------
Their lies are their evidence – that is their secret weapon. Anything you say against climate science or climate scientists is not only real evidence – it is damn good irrefutable evidence.
Kano provides a perfect example in his answer to a question about changing opinions on AGW:
>>A lot, first, the next 17 years having a temperature rise in line (or higher) with CO2 atmospheric content rise.<<
>>Next proof that Nikolov and Zeller's "unified theory of climate" is totally wrong.<<
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
Because kano’s first sentence is based on a complete ignorance of the climate system and the relationship between global temperature and atmospheric change, it effectively divorces AGW from all science; and, therefore, eliminates all scientific evidence from the discussion.
In the second sentence, kano wants to be shown evidence disproving evidence that he does not understand to begin with. Kano can’t integrate x^2 from 0 to 1, let alone understand one word or equation from Nikolov and Zeller, but he knows that it is good Denier evidence and, therefore, true.
You cannot argue with it because it is insane.
They actually don't think they're lying but it is interesting how much effort they have to put into validating their beliefs.
Here are questions with blatant lies by 3 of the top "skeptics" in here. I would think that if they had a real case, skeptics wouldn't need to lie. I would also think that other "skeptics" would point out that these people are lying, but all I ever see is support from them.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20131110060743AAtvJXc
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20131031051603AA4WDSD
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140807112859AAOyaNt
There ios no significant evidence to disproveAGW, It is all lies pepetrated bu deniers AGW is a scientific reality
Peggy, when will you learn that you can't turn the the truth into a lie by merely calling it a lie.
yes
Because there is no such evidence.
