https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
You're really not very good at this, are you Eugene?
You're really not very good at this, are you Eugene?
So you think that some unknown skeptic with a website trumps Professor Richard Lindzen's credentials?https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
You're really not very good at this, are you Eugene?
You just don't get it. It doesn't matter in science if you are religious leader of the planet or win every scientific and math prize ever offered. Those aren't credentials in science (or the law!) for having an expert opinion in a field where you don't work. Reality, not cult figures, is the only recognized authority.So you think that some unknown skeptic with a website trumps Professor Richard Lindzen's credentials?
Any time you're ready to sequentially go through the points made in the opening video I'll be willing to listen.Richard Lindzen's logical arguments are not fact-based and his fact-based arguments are not logical.
So you won't listen to rpenner's response in post 6 because his answers are in the wrong order? You certainly don't have a denilist agenda...Any time you're ready to sequentially go through the points made in the opening video I'll be willing to listen.
Enough. You are showing videos of the wrong consensus. Look at THIS interactive consensus:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
These climate SATELLITE images, many of them from climate satellites LAUNCHED BY SIR ISAAC NEWTON HIMSELF clearly show that since 1884, the average climate has been getting warmer by TENTHS OF A DEGREE!!!!!!! If everyone is not alarmed enough to stop driving personal automobiles, put out all those campfires and breathe slower, science will not be able to help when you suffocate or are overcome by heat. Additionally, if you could just seal the remains of yourselves and your deceased loved ones in biodegradable plastic bags, it would make much less atmospheric methane (a greenhouse gas) emissions in the near term.
Dissenting views are interesting but that does not negate the 1000's of climatologist that this guy disagrees with.Look the
If your serious about the climate and such. Visit this site;
http://drtimball.com
Simple as that.
Dissenting views are interesting but that does not negate the 1000's of climatologist that this guy disagrees with.
Simple as that.
First of all, it tells me that he didn't even watch the video. That opening video is the topic of debate, not the anti-Ivar Giaever diatribe that rpenner is copying and pasting from.So you won't listen to rpenner's response in post 6 because his answers are in the wrong order?
Dr. Ball's opinions would play much better if his climate media/productions were not funded in substantial measure by the fossil fuel industry. Anyone so involved should publicly recuse participation in climate debates due to a conflict of interest.Simple as that.
I bet that you crapped your pants when you heard that.Enough. You are showing videos of the wrong consensus. Look at THIS interactive consensus:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
These climate SATELLITE images, many of them from climate satellites LAUNCHED BY SIR ISAAC NEWTON HIMSELF clearly show that since 1884, the average climate has been getting warmer by TENTHS OF A DEGREE!!!!!!!
Your naivete is hilarious. Or are you joking?If everyone is not alarmed enough to stop driving personal automobiles, put out all those campfires and breathe slower, science will not be able to help when you suffocate or are overcome by heat.
Maybe a little. It's hard to resist in a discussion this serious.Or are you joking?
Why believe a majority of scientists in anything if most of them are willing to prostitute themselves for funding?Dissenting views are interesting but that does not negate the 1000's of climatologist that this guy disagrees with.
Simple as that.
Why believe a majority of scientists in anything if most of them are willing to prostitute themselves for funding?
Let's see your evidence that the sources I cited in this thread received questionable money from any industry.It is the anti-climate change lobby that is notoriously well-funded, from the bottomless pockets of the Koch bros and similar.
I've heard Dr. Ball deny receiving money from the fossil fuel industry. Where is your evidence to the contrary?Dr. Ball's opinions would play much better if his climate media/productions were not funded in substantial measure by the fossil fuel industry.
from:I've heard Dr. Ball deny receiving money from the fossil fuel industry. Where is your evidence to the contrary?