Into the Night
Verified User
No such fallacy. Obviously, you don't understand any logic either. You can't escape your fallacies that way!
Climate change is pure bullshit!!
- Thread starter serendipity
- Start date
Into the Night
Verified User
I agree. He probably didn't even take five minutes to write his post.
Argument of the Stone fallacy. Insult fallacies.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Everyone is entitled to his beliefs, or lack thereof. Alex Newmanis the absolute authority on his beliefs, and you are not. You need to learn his positions before you can comment on them.
There is no such thing as "expertise" in your Climate religion, only OBEDIENCE to your clergy. It would be awesome if a warmizombie somewhere could actually discuss science, but the sheer science denial of Global Warming ensures no scientifically literates enter the church.
You are EXTREMELY gullible for believing that NASA is anything more than a government bureaucracy. You make a bowling ball look sharp.
NASA does not somehow need your religion to manage contracts. How stupid do you have to be to think that NASA's purview somehow involves gathering temperature data or worrying about ice.
They don't. NASA manages contracts. You are gullible.
... is correct. Your WACKY religion is a grand hoax played on unwary leftists who are all too willing to bend over whenever ordered to do so.
Let me know when you have some science supporting your beliefs ... and don't make it the standard parlor trick that was crafted to fool unwary, scientifically illiterate leftists who don't know how to apply any sort of critical reasoning.
I'm standing by.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Five minutes. I take it you're slow, and you think everyone else is as well.
That's what you do. I tell the truth in every post. That's how you and I differ.
No wonder you're a science denier.
I'm fairly certain you did. I can tell because you enjoyed it so much.
I'm not sure why it matters to you, but I worked on it for 5 minutes. Are you under the impression that I had to research anything?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
In fact, I'm just a third-grader with no credentials.
Why do I spank you and your ilk in any discussions involving math, science, logic or economics?
You are a ridiculous waste of time who's not worth the bother of trading insults with, which is the only thing you ever do.
You go around claiming that you "spank" everybody (a slang term that's been out of use for years, BTW) when in fact, you've never come close to winning an argument with anybody.
You're a loser.
Deal with it.
serendipity
Verified User
Here is some more information to look at, enjoy!
Open letter: A recent Climate Feedback “fact-check” article makes multiple false and misleading…
Dear Drs. Vincent and Forrester,
medium.com
serendipity
Verified User
Here are the three papers in question.
- Soon et al. (2023). Climate. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli11090179. (Open access)
- Connolly et al. (2023). Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics. https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/acf18e. (Still in press, but pre-print available here)
- Katata, Connolly and O’Neill (2023). Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology. https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-22-0122.1. (Open access)
Loading…
www.ceres-science.com
Last edited:
IBDaMann
Well-known member
This is exactly the response I get every time a leftist realizes he is scientifically illiterate, mathematically incompetent, logically inept, and can't possibly hang with me in a discussion of his silly religion.
This is the point in the conversation whereby you avail yourself of any excuse, no matter how lame, to flee in panic. At this point, you aren't even concerned about trying to save face because that opportunity left the station long ago.
Now it's just you and your science denial, and you can no longer defend your WACKY religion from the corner into which you have backed yourself. You fell for a religion of science denial, that claimed to be thettled thienth, just because you were too uneducated to recognize any of it's egregious violations of math, science and logic. Now you can't hide either your shame or your scientific illiteracy.
.... and it's all my fault, right?
Nope. I only acknowledge spanking Marxists. warmizombies and climate lemmings who mindlessly regurgitate their stupid religions as ordered. I only acknowledge mocking the shit out of those who are thoroughly undereducated but who nonetheless insist that they are learned scholars. Morons such as you pretend to mock others who know so much more.
Yes, I enjoy mocking morons such as you who so richly deserve it. It kind of makes my day.
I'll determine when it is "out of use," thank you very much.
Science has never lost to religion on any point about science. This is why I will always spank you.
Religion has never lost to science on any point about religion. This is why your religion always loses to Christianity the moment you claim your religion is settled science.
You're a loser. Deal with it.
serendipity
Verified User
They exist all right, shit for brains! See post 88
Last edited:
serendipity
Verified User
No.wonde4 you use a bloody parrot it's very fitting!
serendipity
Verified User
- Soon et al. (2023). Climate. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli11090179. (Open access)
- Connolly et al. (2023). Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics. https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/acf18e. (Still in press, but pre-print available here)
- Katata, Connolly and O’Neill (2023). Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology. https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-22-0122.1. (Open access)
ThatOwlWoman
Leftist Vermin
Poor sad angry little man impotently beating his dead horse again.
I took a look at one. It argues that temps in Japan other heavily developed land areas are also elevated by urbanization. Not surprising, nothing new and hardly meaningful.
moon
Satire for Sanity
You're a craven dumbass.
Your statements'
"Sweden is not to the east of the UK "
" There is no such science as paleoclimatology "
Haw, haw................................haw
Now begone- or you'll be reminded ad infinitum.
We couldn't confirm it until you provided the sources.
Now... Let's start to look at the papers and see if they confirm your initial claim.
First paper.
The Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Land Surface Warming (1850–2018) in Terms of Human and Natural Factors: Challenges of Inadequate Data
A statistical analysis was applied to Northern Hemisphere land surface temperatures (1850–2018) to try to identify the main drivers of the observed warming since the mid-19th century. Two different temperature estimates were considered—a rural and urban blend (that matches almost exactly with...
www.mdpi.com
First of all we have to accept the authors at their word and accept that they started with an assumption and then tried to prove it.
we emphasize that for simplicity, we have explicitly assumed for this paper, like AR6’s climate model hindcasts, that the main “natural” drivers of global temperature change are changes in (1) TSI and (2) volcanic forcing.
Even with that assumption they found that anthropogenic warming must be occurring.
we found that simply substituting an alternative solar forcing dataset to that considered by AR6’s climate model hindcasts can substantially increase the amount of the 1850–2018 warming that can be explained in terms of natural forcing from 21% to 70% of the long-term warming implied by the “rural and urban” series and 87% of the “rural-only” temperature series.
The final result is that this paper doesn't undermine the consensus on anthropogenic warming. If anything it confirms anthropogenic warming and only calls into question whether that contribution is the 70% also found by these authors or the 20-30% in their results using selective temperature data and TSI data.
This was the claim in the original post
"Three new peer-reviewed papers, published in major prestigious scientific journals... completely undermine the alleged scientific consensus on man-made global warming."
Is the claim of man made global warming completely undermined if it contributes 30% of the warming vs 70%? I don't think so and I don't think any rational person would think that. This paper does not completely undermine any claim about man-made global warming. It confirms that man-made global warming exists but only raises questions about how much it contributes.
ROTFLMFAO!! He is a member of the John Birch Society. Does he have several Klan outfits or does he just wash his each time he uses it. He is, of course, completely misrepresenting his own sources.
Global warming is settled science. It is costing billions of dollars and hundreds, if not thousands of lives every year. Last year was the hottest year on record. Miami has now experienced a 'once in a century rainfall' in each of the last four years due to the warming of the oceans. There was, for the first time in history, a Cat 5 Atlantic Hurricane that formed in late June. Climate deniers are no different than election deniers. They have no evidence, but the cult tells them what they should parrot.
Global warming is settled science. It is costing billions of dollars and hundreds, if not thousands of lives every year. Last year was the hottest year on record. Miami has now experienced a 'once in a century rainfall' in each of the last four years due to the warming of the oceans. There was, for the first time in history, a Cat 5 Atlantic Hurricane that formed in late June. Climate deniers are no different than election deniers. They have no evidence, but the cult tells them what they should parrot.
It's interesting the second article you listed has many of the same authors as the first article and uses the same science. There is nothing new between the two. The only differences seems to be who is the lead author and that the second article by Connelly as the lead attempt to rebut criticism of earlier work, C2021.
Here again, the result is that the only true fit to the data is to include natural and anthropogenic forcings meaning that man-made global warming exists. The only question is what percent is man contributing.
This article in no way completely undermines the consensus on man-made global warming. It confirms it and just question the percentage contributed by man.
Exactly. The logic is 'hey, factor a contributes to global warming, therefore nothing else does'. It's just one in a long line of logical fallacies that ignorant people employ. And the OP is one of those ignorant people.