Questioning the Climate-Change Narrative

[Darien100]

I look at the pic and can clearly read the text.

I clicked on attach, then insert, and full image. Just getting used to this forums anomalies, but that seems to be the procedure. I can read them easily even with my ancient eyeballs. Unless the forum is deliberately making your images too small to read i cant really produce any more clarity.

When you people see text is it just symbols or what? Do you really not comprehend that these are actual words in the picture or below the pic?

Heres another one with text and a picture. Same reference, corrupt government "data".



Here's another.

This also just text, and also mentions the source for the entire article right in it. Maybe get your mom to read the text and explain it to you.

 

[watsup]

I look at the pic and can clearly read the text.

I clicked on attach, then insert, and full image. Just getting used to this forums anomalies, but that seems to be the procedure. I can read them easily even with my ancient eyeballs. Unless the forum is deliberately making your images too small to read i cant really produce any more clarity.

When you people see text is it just symbols or what? Do you really not comprehend that these are actual words in the picture or below the pic?

Heres another one with text and a picture. Same reference, corrupt government "data".

View attachment 67335244

Here's another.

This also just text, and also mentions the source for the entire article right in it. Maybe get your mom to read the text and explain it to you.

View attachment 67335250

That is not the “procedure”. If you get information from an outside source, then you are required to identify that source by clicking on and copying the complete heading of the google page. As I said, without enabling others to read the ENTIRE article from which the information is sourced, it basically means nothing in terms of in-depth debate. If you look at the posts in which outside information is used, they always provide a LINK back to the original article. The LINK is the key. We can’t determine the accuracy of the information unless we can read it “in the context” of the entire article. See post #313 for an example of a link.
Again, where EXACTLY did you get this info from. Provide us with a link to that google page. I really doubt that you copied this directly from the IPCC report. So where did you get it from?

 

[Lord of Planar]

“Screen shots” mean nothing. This is the second consecutive post in which you have used “screen shots” without sourcing the actual article. It means nothing unless we can read the entire article to determine its accuracy and understand it in more depth. Do you have actual sources, or just random “screen shots” that you no doubt got from a denier blog. Until you do, to repeat, it means nothing.

You source material is just links to lying journalists, so what's the difference?

 

[Lord of Planar]

That is not the “procedure”. If you get information from an outside source, then you are required to identify that source by clicking on and copying the complete heading of the google page. As I said, without enabling others to read the ENTIRE article from which the information is sourced, it basically means nothing in terms of in-depth debate. If you look at the posts in which outside information is used, they always provide a LINK back to the original article. The LINK is the key. We can’t determine the accuracy of the information unless we can read it “in the context” of the entire article. See post #313 for an example of a link.
Again, where EXACTLY did you get this info from. Provide us with a link to that google page. I really doubt that you copied this directly from the IPCC report. So where did you get it from?

A photo is more reliable than a lying journalist.

 

[watsup]

A photo is more reliable than a lying journalist.

Such a silly statement.

 

[Darien100]

[ Watup That is not the “procedure”]

Apparently the liberal version of "a source" is some liberal loonietoon website.

As for "google" i never use that piece of crap.

The SOURCES are the people and organizations named in the articles. The magazine is in print form , hence the scanned jpgs. Advantage of physical sources is they cant "disappear" the articles. You can always get back issues and check em out. Websites can just delete articles that get discredited.

Libs just want everything handed to them on silver platter. That how you people got so screwed up mentally. "TV says it....must be true, If it aint a liberal site its allllll lies" - Liberal dogma.

Only people who have been caught lying have been government alarmists. 2009, leaked emails put the kabosh on Pelosis Carbon scheme. 2011, another batch from the same "source", Phil Jones East Anglia. No leaks of any kind from non alarmists (wrongly called "deniers")

No scaremongering of "catastrophic AGW caused by Americans high living standards" or anything, Just present facts like what real science does.

Links to the first scandal have disappeared. Everyone knows about it tho.
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate

Once again, how does moving manufacturing from the US to China help solve the "Global Warming" crisis?

How does Biden illegally restoring the fony Climate Treaty that Obama signed illegally save us?

 

[watsup]

[ Watup That is not the “procedure”]

Apparently the liberal version of "a source" is some liberal loonietoon website.

As for "google" i never use that piece of crap.

The SOURCES are the people and organizations named in the articles. The magazine is in print form , hence the scanned jpgs. Advantage of physical sources is they cant "disappear" the articles. You can always get back issues and check em out. Websites can just delete articles that get discredited.

Libs just want everything handed to them on silver platter. That how you people got so screwed up mentally. "TV says it....must be true, If it aint a liberal site its allllll lies" - Liberal dogma.

Only people who have been caught lying have been government alarmists. 2009, leaked emails put the kabosh on Pelosis Carbon scheme. 2011, another batch from the same "source", Phil Jones East Anglia. No leaks of any kind from non alarmists (wrongly called "deniers")

No scaremongering of "catastrophic AGW caused by Americans high living standards" or anything, Just present facts like what real science does.

Links to the first scandal have disappeared. Everyone knows about it tho.
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate

Once again, how does moving theremanufacturing from the US to China help solve the "Global Warming" crisis?

How does Biden illegally restoring the fony Climate Treaty that Obama signed illegally save us?

And there you go. You show that you know how to link. Now go back and link us to the webpages where you go the info for your previous information. I don't believe for a moment that you got them from a physical paper magazine, but rather from the Internet.
As an alternative, you can give us the name of the magazine along with the issue number.

 

[watsup]

[ Watup That is not the “procedure”]

Apparently the liberal version of "a source" is some liberal loonietoon website.

As for "google" i never use that piece of crap.

The SOURCES are the people and organizations named in the articles. The magazine is in print form , hence the scanned jpgs. Advantage of physical sources is they cant "disappear" the articles. You can always get back issues and check em out. Websites can just delete articles that get discredited.

Libs just want everything handed to them on silver platter. That how you people got so screwed up mentally. "TV says it....must be true, If it aint a liberal site its allllll lies" - Liberal dogma.

Only people who have been caught lying have been government alarmists. 2009, leaked emails put the kabosh on Pelosis Carbon scheme. 2011, another batch from the same "source", Phil Jones East Anglia. No leaks of any kind from non alarmists (wrongly called "deniers")

No scaremongering of "catastrophic AGW caused by Americans high living standards" or anything, Just present facts like what real science does.

Links to the first scandal have disappeared. Everyone knows about it tho.
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate

Once again, how does moving manufacturing from the US to China help solve the "Global Warming" crisis?How does Biden illegally restoring the fony Climate Treaty that Obama signed illegally save us?

Please show that the climate treaty is "illegal"

 

[Lord of Planar]

Such a silly statement.

Does it or does it not, clearly show a meteorological station in violation of regulations? There was a large effort a few years back, documenting active stations. That is one of hundreds of examples of stations in use, in violation of regulation.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Please show that the climate treaty is "illegal"

Did the senate vote on it?

 

[watsup]

If you bother to read the text it tells you right there.

What is the problem with liberals and reading? I came across someone on another forum claiming to be a "scientist" but when i posted this bit of info with sources listed in it, his response was "that doesnt tell us the data is corrupt, the government says it is fine" (or words of that general import).

Is it the government schools (Jimmy Carters Orwellian monstrosity)? I know that one can graduate from Harvard and still not be able to sign their own name. Kind of sad really (for the country that is).

Government says "American made Global Warming we all gonna die....(unless we become communists)" and liberals fall right into it, no questions asked.

What liberals cant seem to answer is how, exactly are we saving the planet by moving all manufacturing to China (where they have to wear masks all the time already)?

View attachment 67335237

Basically the data is useless as any real scientist wud testify to (and the have, at Heartland).

The information here is immediately suspect because it refers to a known denier propaganda mill, namely the Heartland Institute.

 

[rickc]

For the deniers

Auto manufacturers around the world are going electric

Countries around the world are getting away from fossil fuels and going to renewable.

Countries around the world are seriously planning for rising sea levels in their coastal cities.

The U.S. military is preparing for coastal flooding and the other results of climate change.

Only in America is there a group of people that think climate change is a hoax. Lots of money spent by you know who on propaganda to convince them so!

 

[flogger]

There is no one piece of empirical evidence that proves what you want proven.

Exactly . There is no empirical evidence period, ergo all the climate modelling underpinning this nonsense isn't worth a damn. Climate models are after all mathematical constructs that require more than guesswork to have any value whatsoever

It takes lots of evidence. Maybe if you two would actually go and read the IPPC reports and learn what they mean then you wouldn't make such nonsensical demands.

This is a political organisation set up by governments for governments. The clue to this is in the first word of its name 'intergovernmental'

 

[watsup]

Exactly . There is no empirical evidence period, ergo all the climate modelling underpinning this nonsense isn't worth a damn. Climate models are after all mathematical constructs that require more than guesswork to have any value whatsoever

This is a political organisation set up by governments for governments. The clue to this is in the first word of its name 'intergovernmental'

Common denier talking points. Nothing to do with the science underpinning global warming and climate change at all.

 

[longview]

Common denier talking points. Nothing to do with the science underpinning global warming and climate change at all.

Not really, the output of the climate models has not been validated to be accurate in any meaningful way!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Common denier talking points. Nothing to do with the science underpinning global warming and climate change at all.

As long as you deny stuff by calling them something to distract from the facts, you are just an irrelevant irritant.

It shows us you are incapable of addressing the debate at hand.

 

[flogger]

Common denier talking points. Nothing to do with the science underpinning global warming and climate change at all.

As long as you deny stuff by calling them something to distract from the facts, you are just an irrelevant irritant.

It shows us you are incapable of addressing the debate at hand.

Thanks Lord Of Planar .... you saved me the bother

 

[watsup]

As long as you deny stuff by calling them something to distract from the facts, you are just an irrelevant irritant.

It shows us you are incapable of addressing the debate at hand.

Psychological projection.

 

[watsup]

Thanks Lord Of Planar .... you saved me the bother

It does not change the fact that all you did was to repeat common denier talking points instead of discussing the science undergirding global warming and subsequent climate change.

 

[flogger]

It does not change the fact that all you did was to repeat common denier talking points instead of discussing the science undergirding global warming and subsequent climate change.

Thats the point there is no empirical science underpinning this, just a costly anti human (and very taxable) self loathing narrative .... which I know you most certainly ascribe to

 

[watsup]

Thats the point there is no empirical science underpinning this, just a costly anti human (and very taxable) self loathing narrative .... which I know you most certainly ascribe to

Common denier talking points. Nothing to do with the science underpinning global warming and climate change at all.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It does not change the fact that all you did was to repeat common denier talking points instead of discussing the science undergirding global warming and subsequent climate change.

Maybe what ypou dismiss by calling talking points, are being denied by you since someone told you to deny them.

Or maybe its an excuse because you cannot mount proper arguments.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Common denier talking points. Nothing to do with the science underpinning global warming and climate change at all.

Denial by talking point is what you are doing.

 

[longview]

It does not change the fact that all you did was to repeat common denier talking points instead of discussing the science undergirding global warming and subsequent climate change.

In science, you are not allowed to make up the facts as you want them to be!
The concept of AGW is ripe with unsupported assumptions!
We can start with the idea that doubling CO2 level would look like a 2% increase in solar output!
If solar output is 1361 W m-2, 2% is an increase of 27 W m-2, which is like 6 times higher than the accepted forcing.
Then there is the data!
The predicted feedback responses to forcing warming, cannot be validated in the instrument record, high feedback factors only seem to exist inside computer models, not in the real world!

 

[watsup]

Maybe what ypou dismiss by calling talking points, are being denied by you since someone told you to deny them.

Or maybe its an excuse because you cannot mount proper arguments.

Psychological projection.