BBC climate editor whose sister is an Insulate Britain fanatic made false claims on global warming

[HenryChinaski]

So still nothing. Have fun with your false religion, Mr. Swaggart.

NASA perpetuates a "false religion" got it..

 

[PoS]

NASA perpetuates a "false religion" got it..

If you aint got proof, it's not real. Common sense you know.

 

[HenryChinaski]

If you aint got proof, it's not real. Common sense you know.

You’re smarter than NASA. That’s pretty ****ing amazing..

 

[PoS]

You’re smarter than NASA. That’s pretty ****ing amazing..

Im smarter than you since all you can do is point to a website which proves you just google headlines without understanding any of it.

 

[HenryChinaski]

Im smarter than you since all you can do is point to a website which proves you just google headlines without understanding any of it.

A website from an Scientific organization with linking information provided by people who know way the **** more than some random Internet poster.

 

[PoS]

A website from an Scientific organization with linking information provided by people who know way the **** more than some random Internet poster.

Appeal to authority fallacy is a fallacy. Do you know what a fallacy is? Obviously not.

Even then, you cant point to the study, so it means you havent read what's on the website. Keep up the bad work!

 

[HenryChinaski]

Appeal to authority fallacy is a fallacy. Do you know what a fallacy is? Obviously not.

Even then, you cant point to the study, so it means you havent read what's on the website. Keep up the bad work!

Call it what you want, but I’ll listen to NASA and the linking scientific organizations provided on NASA‘s website, people who have actually “done the work” over some random Internet poster..

 

[PoS]

Call it what you want, but I’ll listen to NASA and the linking scientific organizations provided on NASA‘s website, people who have actually “done the work” over some random Internet poster..

Appeal to authority fallacy is a fallacy. Do you know what a fallacy is? Obviously not.

Even then, you cant point to the study, so it means you havent read what's on the website. Keep up the bad work!

 

[HenryChinaski]

Appeal to authority fallacy is a fallacy. Do you know what a fallacy is? Obviously not.

Even then, you cant point to the study, so it means you havent read what's on the website. Keep up the bad work!

You’re no different than a young earth creationist. You both willfully rebuke firmly established scientific evidence. You both falsely portray the scientific community as divided over settled science. You both make spurious appeals to academic freedom, arguing that "both sides" of the debate should be presented as though they possess equal merit.
Your motivations are probably very different. But what’s interesting is that most young earth creationists also deny man-made global warming. It’s the last thing I’m gonna say to you about this, you’re too far gone.

 

[PoS]

You’re no different than a young earth creationist. You both willfully rebuke firmly established scientific evidence. You both falsely portray the scientific community as divided over settled science. You both make spurious appeals to academic freedom, arguing that "both sides" of the debate should be presented as though they possess equal merit.
Your motivations are probably very different. But what’s interesting is that most young earth creationists also deny man-made global warming. It’s the last thing I’m gonna say to you about this, you’re too far gone.

First you said you were done with this thread a few replies ago, so thats a lie right there, and now youre once again doubling down on appeal to authority fallacy. With that kind of faulty logic, you must also believe that Ukraine is full of Nazis because that is what Russian state media is saying.

There is no scientific evidence that the science of climate change is settled. To claim is such is another lie. Anyone who knows basic science knows this. I have read the crappy studies they cite on the NASA website and they are all based on computer modeling, which they admit may even be wrong- so that is not evidence of any kind.

You are no different from the Taliban and Al Qaeda who demand fanatical adherence to their kooky beliefs. Your mindset is exactly the same, and anything you say should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

 

[StillBallin75]

BBC climate editor made false claims on global warming

The programme Wild Weather, presented by climate editor Justin Rowlatt (pictured), said deaths worldwide were rising due to extreme weather caused by climate change.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Yup. The climate change scam is finally getting exposed for what it is.

(Now watch the climate nuts attempt a shoot the messenger fallacy-as well as engage in other fallacies-without actually refuting the story)

The fallacy is you concluding that AGW is a scam based on what one person said on one show.

AGW is happening, the people who literally study this shit know it's happening, and its impacts are being felt currently as we speak, whether you like it or not, or whether you admit it, or not.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Climate change is a fact. Facts have no impact on today's conservatives. I'm out.

Climate has always been changing.

That is a fact too.

 

[PoS]

The fallacy is you concluding that AGW is a scam based on what one person said on one show.

AGW is happening, the people who literally study this shit know it's happening, and its impacts are being felt currently as we speak, whether you like it or not, or whether you admit it, or not.

If it is, then show defitinitive proof that its man made. Im waiting.

 

[bluesmoke]

There is no scientific evidence that the science of climate change is settled. To claim is such is another lie. Anyone who knows basic science knows this. I have read the crappy studies they cite on the NASA website and they are all based on computer modeling, which they admit may even be wrong- so that is not evidence of any kind.

You are no different from the Taliban and Al Qaeda who demand fanatical adherence to their kooky beliefs. Your mindset is exactly the same, and anything you say should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Very little in the world of science is "settled". There are levels of confidence in the evidence and likelihood of a hypothesis conclusion. ACC has a very likely (>90%) level of confidence in the quality of the evidence and an extremely high (>95%) probability that humans are the primary cause of global warming. These conclusions have to take into consideration likelihood of other possibilities, which are extremely unlikely (<5%). That you don't know or care not to discover such, all available in IPCC reports, indicates you don't have the base knowledge to debate the subject intelligently.

 

[PoS]

Very little in the world of science is "settled". There are levels of confidence in the evidence and likelihood of a hypothesis conclusion. ACC has a very likely (>90%) level of confidence in the quality of the evidence and an extremely high (>95%) probability that humans are the primary cause of global warming. These conclusions have to take into consideration likelihood of other possibilities, which are extremely unlikely (<5%). That you don't know or care not to discover such, all available in IPCC reports, indicates you don't have the base knowledge to debate the subject intelligently.

LOL what a moronic, word salad reply. To even quantify things as "extremely likely" when so many factors are unknown speaks of pure idiocy.

 

[bluesmoke]

LOL what a moronic, word salad reply. To even quantify things as "extremely likely" when so many factors are unknown speaks of pure idiocy.

Hence science is idiocy, PoS is sense.

 

[PoS]

Hence science is idiocy, PoS is sense.

"Is sense?"

You might want to work on that word salad of yours. It's not looking good for you when you have to reply weeks later.

 

[longview]

Very little in the world of science is "settled". There are levels of confidence in the evidence and likelihood of a hypothesis conclusion. ACC has a very likely (>90%) level of confidence in the quality of the evidence and an extremely high (>95%) probability that humans are the primary cause of global warming. These conclusions have to take into consideration likelihood of other possibilities, which are extremely unlikely (<5%). That you don't know or care not to discover such, all available in IPCC reports, indicates you don't have the base knowledge to debate the subject intelligently.

If we look at your central premise,

(>95%) probability that humans are the primary cause of global warming.

And correct it, because the statement has to be confined to the last 44 years,
the statement is accurate, Human activities have cause a majority of the observed warming since 1978.
The problem is that many people take that statement, and assume that it means that all the catastrophic
predictions are also correct, and nothing could be further from the truth.
Simple greenhouse gas forcing is all that is required to make the central premise correct.
Warming since 1979, based on Hadcrut4 is 0.588C.
Greenhouse gasses in CO2-eq, have increased from 382 ppm to 508 ppm, NOAA AGGI
Forcing from that increase 5.35 X ln (508/382) X .3 =0.4575C, clearly more than half of 0.588C.
Why is this different from the high warming predictions of the models, well if for example the warming
from a gradual doubling of the CO2 level were in fact the predicted 3C, then it would require a much higher feedback factor than
exists within the instrument record. Climate feedbacks operate on warming inputs, and cannot tell the source of the warming,
so the warming from 1979 to say the year 1998 (20 years) would be input for the climate feedbacks, and the resulting
amplified warming would already be in the 2022 record.
Warming from 1978 to 1998 was 0.482 C, so if the 2.72 feedback factor required for 2XCO2 warming of 3C were present,
by 2022, we would have to have 0.482 X 2.72 =1.311C of additional unaccounted for warming.
Strangely no such warming exists in the record!

 

[Deuce]

BBC climate editor made false claims on global warming

The programme Wild Weather, presented by climate editor Justin Rowlatt (pictured), said deaths worldwide were rising due to extreme weather caused by climate change.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Yup. The climate change scam is finally getting exposed for what it is.

(Now watch the climate nuts attempt a shoot the messenger fallacy-as well as engage in other fallacies-without actually refuting the story)

We're mad about the sister of some journalist?

 

[Bear5131]

Call it what you want, but I’ll listen to NASA and the linking scientific organizations provided on NASA‘s website, people who have actually “done the work” over some random Internet poster..

Most of the CO2 is coming from the southern hemisphere, deforestation from NASA C02 satellite

 

[Nickyjo]

BBC climate editor made false claims on global warming

The programme Wild Weather, presented by climate editor Justin Rowlatt (pictured), said deaths worldwide were rising due to extreme weather caused by climate change.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Yup. The climate change scam is finally getting exposed for what it is.

(Now watch the climate nuts attempt a shoot the messenger fallacy-as well as engage in other fallacies-without actually refuting the story)

BBC

Ah, so its clear that you relaly dont have any proof at all, otherwise you would have surely linked the exact study. Thanks for once again proving that your fake beliefs are all fake.

His beliefs are fake because you can't follow links at NASA?

 

[PoS]

We're mad about the sister of some journalist?

You sure are lol

BBC

His beliefs are fake because you can't follow links at NASA?

You claiming that a NASA link proves manmade CC is real is like a bible thumper claiming god exists because of the bible. Well done on your highlighting your fanaticism.

 

[Nickyjo]

You sure are lol


You claiming that a NASA link proves manmade CC is real is like a bible thumper claiming god exists because of the bible. Well done on your highlighting your fanaticism.

Ok, in theory what evidence, what source or type of evidence might cause you to change your mind?

 

[PoS]

Ok, in theory what evidence, what source or type of evidence might cause you to change your mind?

If you can show me convincing evidence, then go for it. I'll willingly accept defeat and become a climate cultist if you do.

 

[Bear5131]

Ok, in theory what evidence, what source or type of evidence might cause you to change your mind?

Have at it I am a reasonable person and can change my mind with hard core facts