How dare you question climate change propaganda!!

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



eThneoLgrRnae
Ten reasons not to believe the climate change criers:


https://youtube.com/watch?v=i-qBOyrD0-0

jaden_2.0
Remember the good ol' days when you ranted at me cos Bill Nye isn't a scientist?

This guy remembers.

Bashar Teg
This thread has been brought to you by: drugs and pure intellectual laziness

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
This thread has been brought to you by: drugs and pure intellectual laziness

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qquujepIT_g/Ul6CtMIisdI/AAAAAAAAXR4/6e8wYIR-kIU/s1600/pot-and-kettke.jpg

Aint used that in awhile.

eThneoLgrRnae
Awww....seems I've triggered a couple of the brainwashed usual "the world is ending!/the sky is falling!" crowd.

Bashar Teg
I see starfly is talking to himself again 🙄

eThneoLgrRnae
^triggered crybaby. thumb up

jaden_2.0
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
^triggered crybaby. thumb up

Brought to you from the man who regularly flies off the handle with expletive filled rants aimed at anyone and everyone. That's definitely #NotTriggered.

WWJT?

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
I see starfly is talking to himself again 🙄

The Pot Gives You the Paranoieds Don't It Bashy?

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Brought to you from the man who regularly flies off the handle with expletive filled rants aimed at anyone and everyone. That's definitely #NotTriggered.

WWJT?

I already used the Kettle Gag in this thread once.

jaden_2.0
Kettle gag? Is that one of your sex toys, Fly?

Robtard
People from shithole Kentucky are weird.

Stringer
Originally posted by Flyattractor
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qquujepIT_g/Ul6CtMIisdI/AAAAAAAAXR4/6e8wYIR-kIU/s1600/pot-and-kettke.jpg

Aint used that in awhile.

Hello sock, meet your match

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Ten reasons not to believe the climate change criers:


https://youtube.com/watch?v=i-qBOyrD0-0

Flyattractor
People that Can't Argue with the INFO in the Link that the Thread is about that instead use Personal Attacks in stead of actual debatel.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Remember the good ol' days when you ranted at me cos Bill Nye isn't a scientist?

This guy remembers.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
I see starfly is talking to himself again 🙄
Originally posted by Robtard
People from shithole Kentucky are weird.
Originally posted by Stringer
Hello sock, meet your match


Sad Little Lefties and their poor climate change delusions

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by Flyattractor
People that Can't Argue with the INFO in the Link that the Thread is about that instead use Personal Attacks in stead of actual debatel.







Sad Little Lefties and their poor climate change delusions


thumb up

Putinbot1
Troll harder star/fly

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Troll harder star/fly


Cry harder, pooty/bashy. thumb up

Putinbot1
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Cry harder, pooty/bashy. thumb up says the quoted account which is always crying and ranting as part of its trolling.

Surtur
I can't help but notice nobody actually went after any points made in the video.

I will give you guys the benefit of the doubt and assume those scoffing just didn't watch it. It would be troubling to think you watched it and couldn't refute anything so you resorted to trolling.

Yes, troubling indeed.

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by Surtur
I can't help but notice nobody actually went after any points made in the video.

I will give you guys the benefit of the doubt and assume those scoffing just didn't watch it. It would be troubling to think you watched it and couldn't refute anything so you resorted to trolling.

Yes, troubling indeed.


Of course none of the leftist trolls actually watched the video. They're afraid to because they know they probably won't be able to refute any of the points made by Liz Wheeler in the video.

dadudemon
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Of course none of the leftist trolls actually watched the video. They're afraid to because they know they probably won't be able to refute any of the points made by Liz Wheeler in the video.

I watched the whole video.

She was right and honest with about 70% of her points. Dishonest or outright lying about 30%.


That should be enough exactitude to cause any intelligent person to stop and question the Climate Change Agenda.

Her best point of all: it is inappropriate and dishonest to call Climate Skeptic, like me, a climate change denier, when I fully and readily state that Anthropogenic Climate Change is real, exists, and can be measured.

Scribble
In school we got taught (second-hand by Al Gore) that the polar ice caps would be completely melted by 2012 due to human-incited Global Warming. Just saying.

snowdragon
Overblown blowhards, yes humans impacted our climate (duh.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY

And we have a professor at MIT (head of the dept) explaining the impacts of CO2, it's less impactful then our hard pollutants.

jaden_2.0
It's not difficult.

Her point about previous predictions being wrong claiming they were predictions made by scientists. They weren't. They were claims made by media outlets reporting incorrectly. She compounds this by referring to not listening to predictions about the world ending in 12 years. It's not climate scientists making those predictions. It's politicians and media outlets.

Point 2 again compounds point 1. What do Al Gore, AOC and Greta Thunberg have in common? None of them are climate scientists.

Her argument about the 97% consensus is wrong. Cook et Al didn't do a "Google search". They searched a scientific journal publications website called ISI web of knowledge. They found that 62% took no position on the human impact but concluded that global warming is happening. 34% said the human impact was a factor but not the only factor

The 97% doesn't even come from their own analysis but rather a 2nd phase of their study when they asked authors of those articles that said human caused climate change was true to self rate them .

I've addressed the NOAA/GISTEMP issue before. Needless to say she's wrong on that again.
First it actually refers to a US only data set. Not a global one. 2nd, the entirety of this supposed scandal comes from a blog by a guy called Stephen Goddard. I'll leave you to find how legitimate his analysis is. Suffice to say she's doing exactly the same thing as those she criticises in points 1 and 2. Namely not referring to the actual science but those incorrectly interpreting the science and them making claims.

Point 5 she's actually right. Politicians are idiots.

Point 6 is the same as point 2.

She starts going off on tangents after that.

Is that enough tackling her points?

dadudemon
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
It's not difficult.

Her point about previous predictions being wrong claiming they were predictions made by scientists. They weren't. They were claims made by media outlets reporting incorrectly. She compounds this by referring to not listening to predictions about the world ending in 12 years. It's not climate scientists making those predictions. It's politicians and media outlets.

Point 2 again compounds point 1. What do Al Gore, AOC and Greta Thunberg have in common? None of them are climate scientists.

Her argument about the 97% consensus is wrong. Cook et Al didn't do a "Google search". They searched a scientific journal publications website called ISI web of knowledge. They found that 62% took no position on the human impact but concluded that global warming is happening. 34% said the human impact was a factor but not the only factor

The 97% doesn't even come from their own analysis but rather a 2nd phase of their study when they asked authors of those articles that said human caused climate change was true to self rate them .

I've addressed the NOAA/GISTEMP issue before. Needless to say she's wrong on that again.
First it actually refers to a US only data set. Not a global one. 2nd, the entirety of this supposed scandal comes from a blog by a guy called Stephen Goddard. I'll leave you to find how legitimate his analysis is. Suffice to say she's doing exactly the same thing as those she criticises in points 1 and 2. Namely not referring to the actual science but those incorrectly interpreting the science and them making claims.

Point 5 she's actually right. Politicians are idiots.

Point 6 is the same as point 2.

She starts going off on tangents after that.

Is that enough tackling her points?


https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions


This site collected scientists' positions and predictions. It wasn't just journalists as you claimed.

I should be more clear: you're wrong about her being wrong about scientists making those predictions - scientists, many relevant to the field, made those wrong predictions. You're so wrong (because it's easy to verify/check this point of hers) that I have to wonder why you're stating this. For lulz? To troll the righties?

Other than that, I generally agree with everything else you state.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by dadudemon
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions


This site collected scientists' positions and predictions. It wasn't just journalists as you claimed.

I should be more clear: you're wrong about her being wrong about scientists making those predictions - scientists, many relevant to the field, made those wrong predictions. You're so wrong (because it's easy to verify/check this point of hers) that I have to wonder why you're stating this. For lulz? To troll the righties?

Other than that, I generally agree with everything else you state. Most of those Scientists were extremists with half baked data. I don't know why you are propagating a narrative otherwise DDM? Otherwise I agree with everything you said agreeing with Jaden.

Flyattractor
Geez Putty. Throwing the People under the Bus Hard today!

dadudemon
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Most of those Scientists were extremists with half baked data. I don't know why you are propagating a narrative otherwise DDM?

Let me rephrase your question in a more accurate manner:

You don't know why I would point out that major news agencies - along with scientists and scientific communities - put out a ton false claims over the years regarding Climate Change?

Flyattractor
Aint like Al Gor didn't make Billions of Dollars doing just that.

jaden_2.0
Originally posted by dadudemon
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions


This site collected scientists' positions and predictions. It wasn't just journalists as you claimed.

I should be more clear: you're wrong about her being wrong about scientists making those predictions - scientists, many relevant to the field, made those wrong predictions. You're so wrong (because it's easy to verify/check this point of hers) that I have to wonder why you're stating this. For lulz? To troll the righties?

Other than that, I generally agree with everything else you state.

The very first example in that link is from a newspaper. With quotes from a not climate scientist.

Starting at the more recent end of the list you've got newspaper and online articles quoting the French foreign minister and Prince Charles.

Do I really need to look any further? Are all those claims completely backing up my point about not listening to media reports?

Robtard
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
The very first example in that link is from a newspaper. With quotes from a not climate scientist.

Starting at the more recent end of the list you've got newspaper and online articles quoting the French foreign minister and Prince Charles.

Do I really need to look any further? Are all those claims completely backing up my point about not listening to media reports?

It's like they're cherry-picking the worst examples and using that to blanket the whole climate science community or something...

dadudemon
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
The very first example in that link is from a newspaper. With quotes from a not climate scientist.

So you're saying you only looked for one example of something that doesn't fit exactly into your strawman position so you can be right? smile


Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Do I really need to look any further?

Yes. You should review every single example and more.

And you should then admit your point was wrong when you said:



This is wrong and very easy to disprove, as I have done. thumb up


And don't stop there! There's more!!!


https://lmgtfy.com/?q=failed+climate+change+predictions+&iie=1

eThneoLgrRnae
Just as I expected no one has actually legitimately refuted any of Wheeler's points.


Shocker... roll eyes (sarcastic)

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
It's like they're cherry-picking the worst examples and using that to blanket the whole climate science communist or something...

Watch the video in context of her point #1, read Jaden's incorrect point, then read my point about Jaden's incorrect point, and then comment your informed opinion so you don't have to talk purely in conjecture about the probabilities for the motivations of statements regarding the topic.


I promise, it will take you 5 minutes or less to do this.

Robtard
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Just as I expected no one has actually legitimately refuted any of Wheeler's points.


Shocker... roll eyes (sarcastic)

HYG, Star/fly:

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
It's not difficult.

Her point about previous predictions being wrong claiming they were predictions made by scientists. They weren't. They were claims made by media outlets reporting incorrectly. She compounds this by referring to not listening to predictions about the world ending in 12 years. It's not climate scientists making those predictions. It's politicians and media outlets.

Point 2 again compounds point 1. What do Al Gore, AOC and Greta Thunberg have in common? None of them are climate scientists.

Her argument about the 97% consensus is wrong. Cook et Al didn't do a "Google search". They searched a scientific journal publications website called ISI web of knowledge. They found that 62% took no position on the human impact but concluded that global warming is happening. 34% said the human impact was a factor but not the only factor

The 97% doesn't even come from their own analysis but rather a 2nd phase of their study when they asked authors of those articles that said human caused climate change was true to self rate them .

I've addressed the NOAA/GISTEMP issue before. Needless to say she's wrong on that again.
First it actually refers to a US only data set. Not a global one. 2nd, the entirety of this supposed scandal comes from a blog by a guy called Stephen Goddard. I'll leave you to find how legitimate his analysis is. Suffice to say she's doing exactly the same thing as those she criticises in points 1 and 2. Namely not referring to the actual science but those incorrectly interpreting the science and them making claims.

Point 5 she's actually right. Politicians are idiots.

Point 6 is the same as point 2.

She starts going off on tangents after that.

Is that enough tackling her points?

jaden_2.0
Originally posted by dadudemon
So you're saying you only looked for one example of something that doesn't fit exactly into your strawman position so you can be right? smile




Yes. You should review every single example and more.

And you should then admit your point was wrong when you said:



This is wrong and very easy to disprove, as I have done. thumb up


And don't stop there! There's more!!!


https://lmgtfy.com/?q=failed+climate+change+predictions+&iie=1

She claims scientists made those predictions.

I claim media outlets and polticians made those predictions

You claim I'm.wrong by posting a link full of media outlets and politicians making those predictions.

Thus showing I'm right.

jaden_2.0
Guess I have to post this video again to show how it works.

ugwqXKHLrGk

dadudemon
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
She claims scientists made those predictions.

And many claims that are false or didn't happen were made by scientists. Some of those claims were by non-fringe Climatologists.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I claim media outlets and polticians made those predictions

You claim I'm.wrong by posting a link full of media outlets and politicians making those predictions.

Thus showing I'm right.


I posted one link that shows many scientists making wrong predictions along with politicians.

Since I only need one example to prove you wrong, behold, the very first entry where a scientist is making a proven-false claim:

https://i.imgur.com/mxuLzan.png



smile

Surtur
Originally posted by dadudemon
I watched the whole video.

She was right and honest with about 70% of her points. Dishonest or outright lying about 30%.


That should be enough exactitude to cause any intelligent person to stop and question the Climate Change Agenda.

Her best point of all: it is inappropriate and dishonest to call Climate Skeptic, like me, a climate change denier, when I fully and readily state that Anthropogenic Climate Change is real, exists, and can be measured.

How dare you. You just destroyed my dreams and my childhood.

dadudemon
Also, so that the goalposts are not moved inappropriately away from where the power is, it doesn't matter if scientists are making wrong predictions.

What matters is if the people who have the power are making the wrong predictions and are using false information or false ideas to make policy decisions.

Let's not move the goalposts to something completely stupid just to win a minor internet argument. If the people in power are making wrong predictions and are trying to get policies made or changed based on their ideas, that's the biggest problem.


If these same people in power are making policy recommendations and decisions based on incorrect scientific information, that's also a problem. But that's almost never the actual situation as almost no person in power makes science-based policy decisions. We do not live in a technocracy or anything close to it. smile

Surtur

jaden_2.0
Originally posted by dadudemon
And many claims that are false or didn't happen were made by scientists. Some of those claims were by non-fringe Climatologists.




I posted one link that shows many scientists making wrong predictions along with politicians.

Since I only need one example to prove you wrong, behold, the very first entry where a scientist is making a proven-false claim:

https://i.imgur.com/mxuLzan.png



smile

Paul R Elhrich didn't conduct research into or publish scientific papers on climate change and it's predictions. So it's not a scientific prediction.

Really don't see why this is difficult to get.

Surtur
How many damn excuses are we gonna make?

Surtur
I'm gonna take medication meant to help with sea sickness cuz there is gonna be spinning:

https://i.imgur.com/hurKPCU.jpg

dadudemon
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Paul R Elhrich didn't conduct research into or publish scientific papers on climate change and it's predictions. So it's not a scientific prediction.

Really don't see why this is difficult to get.

Firstly, you are changing your position. You originally said this...

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Her point about previous predictions being wrong claiming they were predictions made by scientists. They weren't. They were claims made by media outlets reporting incorrectly.

lol



Secondly, he did publish scientific papers on climate change:

https://www.pnas.org/content/99/9/6070.short



And here is a longlist:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar? q=paul+r+ehrlich+climate+research+scholarly+articl
es&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart







smile smile smile smile smile

Surtur
He's changing his position faster than a hurricane caused by Trump!

Man if this man can cause hurricanes how is Jim Acostas house still standing?

cdtm
I'm just here for the show.


But I will say, if the other sides best argument is "Politicians and the media misrepresent climate science", I'd ask who they think makes policy in the first place?


It isn't scientists. They are the prostitutes of policy makers and businessmen.

jaden_2.0
Originally posted by Surtur
He's changing his position faster than a hurricane caused by Trump!

Man if this man can cause hurricanes how is Jim Acostas house still standing?

I've not changed my position at all.

It's not difficult understand.

Here's an example.

If an eminent professor goes on TV and says "by 2050 I predict the moon will be entirely made of cheese" the media will report "scientists predict moon will be made of cheese by 2050"

When you ask what research that's based on and the answer is... nothing...

Well then scientists didn't actually predict it.

This is what she, and DDM, are doing.

The video I posted addresses that very thing.

Surtur

jaden_2.0
Originally posted by dadudemon
Firstly, you are changing your position. You originally said this...



lol



Secondly, he did publish scientific papers on climate change:

https://www.pnas.org/content/99/9/6070.short



And here is a longlist:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar? q=paul+r+ehrlich+climate+research+scholarly+articl
es&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart







smile smile smile smile smile

Great. And a publication from this year shows that prediction to be happening.

Now where's his paper on famines?

Surtur
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I've not changed my position at all.

It's not difficult understand.

Here's an example.

If an eminent professor goes on TV and says "by 2050 I predict the moon will be entirely made of cheese" the media will report "scientists predict moon will be made of cheese by 2050"

When you ask what research that's based on and the answer is... nothing...

Well then scientists didn't actually predict it.

This is what she, and DDM, are doing.

The video I posted addresses that very thing.

Is the professor a scientist?

Silent Master
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I've not changed my position at all.

It's not difficult understand.

Here's an example.

If an eminent professor goes on TV and says "by 2050 I predict the moon will be entirely made of cheese" the media will report "scientists predict moon will be made of cheese by 2050"

When you ask what research that's based on and the answer is... nothing...

Well then scientists didn't actually predict it.

This is what she, and DDM, are doing.

The video I posted addresses that very thing.

Just so you can't edit this post.

jaden_2.0
Originally posted by cdtm
I'm just here for the show.


But I will say, if the other sides best argument is "Politicians and the media misrepresent climate science", I'd ask who they think makes policy in the first place?


It isn't scientists. They are the prostitutes of policy makers and businessmen.

And that's exactly why I said that the science was ignored in the Greta Thunberg thread. Policy never matches their recommendations.

Largely because 1. Policy makers are bought and paid for by lobbyists and 2. A large proportion of them are scientifically illiterate.

cdtm

jaden_2.0
Originally posted by Silent Master
Just so you can't edit this post.

Why would I?

Surtur
Originally posted by cdtm
I don't get why, though.


Are they just that hung on activism? Or, are the activists controlling the scientists? And if so, why?

Or is something else going on entirely?



I mean, what if this really is about a few bad apples in the bunch, and the bulk of science says "sound the alarms"?

The question for me is just how many bad apples there are. How did this man know people would lie unless they stated it? Not every scientist is gonna be so up front about dishonesty. They probably thought they were in like minded company. Not all will be so dumb.

And some people just can't stand to be proven wrong. Now consider the egos some intellectuals have.

Silent Master
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Why would I?

To save yourself some embarrassment.

jaden_2.0
From what? Being right?

Surtur
https://media.giphy.com/media/DM9n9fNry8tq0/giphy.gif

Silent Master
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
From what? Being right?

A scientist lying about their evidence doesn't change the fact they made a prediction. it just means the prediction was based on a lie.

Surtur
Me to climate alarmists:

dh0tIUaguqU

Putinbot1
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I've not changed my position at all.

It's not difficult understand.

Here's an example.

If an eminent professor goes on TV and says "by 2050 I predict the moon will be entirely made of cheese" the media will report "scientists predict moon will be made of cheese by 2050"

When you ask what research that's based on and the answer is... nothing...

Well then scientists didn't actually predict it.

This is what she, and DDM, are doing.

The video I posted addresses that very thing. Yes it does. thumb up

jaden_2.0
Originally posted by Silent Master
A scientist lying about their evidence doesn't change the fact they made a prediction. it just means the prediction was based on a lie.

When a scientist makes a prediction that isn't based on scientific research and peer reviewed publications it isn't a scientific prediction.

And that's part of the point.

Her entire video suggests she's addressing actual scientific predictions. In reality she's addressing media and political misrepresentation or predictions based on nothing at all.

Again, the video I posted addresses both these things and shows how it is SOP for climate deniers.

They make bold claims about the scientific predictions being wrong and yet when you dig into the actual predictions they have very little in common with the claims those deniers are addressing.

So she's right to say that AOC's prediction of the world ending because of climate change in 12 years is idiotic nonsense. She's wrong to try and conflate those predictions with actual scientific predictions.


Here's another, more specific, example of the difference between what media and alarmists claim compared to what scientists conducting the relevant research actually predict.


41TCWEl-x_g

Surtur
AOC's claim didn't come from nowhere. Didn't some dipshit committee give that brain dead cow the idea?

jaden_2.0

Surtur
I just wonder if in 50 years we are all here and there is no catastrophe will these f*ckheads stop?

Probably not, since we've already had decades of failed predictions.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
When a scientist makes a prediction that isn't based on scientific research and peer reviewed publications it isn't a scientific prediction.

And that's part of the point.

Her entire video suggests she's addressing actual scientific predictions. In reality she's addressing media and political misrepresentation or predictions based on nothing at all.

Again, the video I posted addresses both these things and shows how it is SOP for climate deniers.

They make bold claims about the scientific predictions being wrong and yet when you dig into the actual predictions they have very little in common with the claims those deniers are addressing.

So she's right to say that AOC's prediction of the world ending because of climate change in 12 years is idiotic nonsense. She's wrong to try and conflate those predictions with actual scientific predictions.


Here's another, more specific, example of the difference between what media and alarmists claim compared to what scientists conducting the relevant research actually predict.


41TCWEl-x_g Exactly, scientific method and prophecies picked from nowhere are two different things thumb up

jaden_2.0
Which failed predictions are they?

Surtur
Dude I posted a pic previously and a link. You can spout your shit about scientists and professors and all, but Manhattan ain't underwater.

Surtur
Originally posted by Surtur
I'm gonna take medication meant to help with sea sickness cuz there is gonna be spinning:

https://i.imgur.com/hurKPCU.jpg

Silent Master
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
When a scientist makes a prediction that isn't based on scientific research and peer reviewed publications it isn't a scientific prediction.

And that's part of the point.

Her entire video suggests she's addressing actual scientific predictions. In reality she's addressing media and political misrepresentation or predictions based on nothing at all.

Again, the video I posted addresses both these things and shows how it is SOP for climate deniers.

They make bold claims about the scientific predictions being wrong and yet when you dig into the actual predictions they have very little in common with the claims those deniers are addressing.

So she's right to say that AOC's prediction of the world ending because of climate change in 12 years is idiotic nonsense. She's wrong to try and conflate those predictions with actual scientific predictions.


Here's another, more specific, example of the difference between what media and alarmists claim compared to what scientists conducting the relevant research actually predict.


41TCWEl-x_g

It's still a prediction, it's just a prediction that was based on a lie.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by Silent Master
It's still a prediction, it's just a prediction that was based on a lie. Like a prophecy...

Surtur
So you're comparing climate alarmists to crazy folk who believe in prophecies?

...kinda accurate?

Hey ball park me, how many of these prophecies are we to take seriously?

Silent Master
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Like a prophecy...

You realize that the definition of prophecy is literally "a prediction". so calling it a prophecy in no way gets jaden off the hook for being wrong.

jaden_2.0
Originally posted by Silent Master
It's still a prediction, it's just a prediction that was based on a lie.

Yes. "Scientists predicted" covers a multitude of scenarios.

Someone should do correlation analysis on those predictions. The ones based on scientific research and the ones based on nothing but opinion. Which ones turned out to be right and which ones turned out to be wrong. Then compare those to which ones the deniers hold up as evidence that scientist's predictions were wrong.

jaden_2.0
Originally posted by Silent Master
You realize that the definition of prophecy is literally "a prediction". so calling it a prophecy in no way gets jaden off the hook for being wrong.

You've still to explain why I'm wrong

Surtur
Maybe scientists should stick to facts and not feelings.

And maybe if a scientist is relying on fee fee's the media outlet publishing it could note it?

When NYC was predicted to be underwater the opening paragraph should have stated it's not based on actual facts. Do you feel it did?

jaden_2.0
Originally posted by Surtur
Maybe scientists should stick to facts and not feelings.

And maybe if a scientist is relying on fee fee's the media outlet publishing it could note it?

When NYC was predicted to be underwater the opening paragraph should have stated it's not based on actual facts. Do you feel it did?

Cite the scientific paper that made that prediction.

Surtur
I posted a link about the NYC thing but I did not say there is a scientific paper. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else?

Let me break this down: it's not good enough if there isn't some paper on it. The fact any "scientist" made the claims is bad enough. If it's one of those things with a scientist without proof this should be made known in the opening paragraph.

Silent Master
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
You've still to explain why I'm wrong

Yes, I have. pretending otherwise just makes you look worse.

Surtur

Trocity
Originally posted by Surtur
I'm gonna take medication meant to help with sea sickness cuz there is gonna be spinning:

https://i.imgur.com/hurKPCU.jpg

These things will all happen by 2030, denier!!


.....yikes. laughing out loud

jaden_2.0
So ABC conducted scientific research and published a peer reviewed paper?

Surtur
If they didn't they should have kept quiet, yeah?

jaden_2.0
It's a website, referencing a news broadcaster referencing a TV show.

A great example of what I said was the case in the video in the OP.

Surtur
Either way doesn't the media have an obligation to not push forward unsubstantiated claims by upstart scientists with apocalyptic visions?*

*Points to anyone who gets the reference

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
Watch the video in context of her point #1, read Jaden's incorrect point, then read my point about Jaden's incorrect point, and then comment your informed opinion so you don't have to talk purely in conjecture about the probabilities for the motivations of statements regarding the topic.


I promise, it will take you 5 minutes or less to do this.

Excuse the delay, didn't have time to watch until now. Her #1 point starts at 06:38 and ends at 08:33.

Jaden is correct in his assessment of her #1 point, as she made at lot claims about climate change predictions being peddled, claimed it wasn't just politicians, but climate scientist, but did not drop a single scientific name backing a prediction to back up her assertions. Zero. eg The "12 years we're doomed" came from AOC; she is not a climate scientist, this was dropped twice in less than two minutes by her to prove her points.

She also claimed that 'zero' predictions came true; this is a lie. eg Warming temperatures are happening due to pollution/greenhouse gases, this has been spoken about for decades.

This woman is a gaslighter, a liar and it's sad to see her brainwashing so many young people.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
Excuse the delay, didn't have time to watch until now. Her #1 point starts at 06:38 and ends at 08:33.

Jaden is correct in his assessment of her #1 point, as she made at lot claims about climate change predictions being peddled, claimed it wasn't just politicians, but climate scientist, but did not drop a single scientific name backing a prediction to back up her assertions. Zero. eg The "12 years we're doomed" came from AOC; she is not a climate scientist, this was dropped twice in less than two minutes by her to prove her points.

She also claimed that 'zero' predictions came true; this is a lie. eg Warming temperatures are happening due to pollution/greenhouse gases, this has been spoken about for decades.

This woman is a gaslighter, a liar and it's sad to see her brainwashing so many young people.


This point of yours feels contrived as hell. haermm

It doesn't take hardly any research at all to find a single example of a scientist making a stupid prediction to make her correct.

Since there are hundreds, it's easy to prove this point of hers correct.




Also, I went back and reread the exchange between Jaden and I. haermm

Holy shit...he's either trolling or just pretending to be terrible with his arguments.

jaden_2.0
Originally posted by dadudemon
This point of yours feels contrived as hell. haermm

It doesn't take hardly any research at all to find a single example of a scientist making a stupid prediction to make her correct.

Since there are hundreds, it's easy to prove this point of hers correct.




Also, I went back and reread the exchange between Jaden and I. haermm

Holy shit...he's either trolling or just pretending to be terrible with his arguments.

Why are you still pretending to not understand?

There's literally an example of what I'm saying in first video I posted.

A scientist can make a prediction but if it's not based on anything more than their own opinion then it's not a scientific prediction, is it?

And that's one of the things that she does in her video. The others are equating media reports and what she calls "criers" as being scientific predictions.

Again there's literally examples in the video I posted if how exactly that is carried out. Namely Steven Crowder attacking scientists over predictions about water levels in the Great lakes. He claimed "scientists predicted" that the water levels would drop.and take decades to recover. Turned out it was a politician that said it. Turned out the scientists predicted exactly what was happening.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Why are you still pretending to not understand?

I have no idea why DDM goes this obdurate route sometimes when he understands full well.

Silent Master
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Why are you still pretending to not understand?

There's literally an example of what I'm saying in first video I posted.

A scientist can make a prediction but if it's not based on anything more than their own opinion then it's not a scientific prediction, is it?

And that's one of the things that she does in her video. The others are equating media reports and what she calls "criers" as being scientific predictions.

Again there's literally examples in the video I posted if how exactly that is carried out. Namely Steven Crowder attacking scientists over predictions about water levels in the Great lakes. He claimed "scientists predicted" that the water levels would drop.and take decades to recover. Turned out it was a politician that said it. Turned out the scientists predicted exactly what was happening.

It's still a prediction, it's just a prediction based on their opinion.

jaden_2.0
So we're in agreement. She's not debunking climate science. She's debunking opinions.

Silent Master
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
So we're in agreement. She's not debunking climate science. She's debunking opinions.

We are agreed that you were wrong about a prediction magically becoming something else if it can't be backed up.

jaden_2.0
Nah. It was just you being deliberately obtuse again. Unsurprisingly.

Silent Master
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Nah. It was just you being deliberately obtuse again. Unsurprisingly.

No, it was you being wrong. again.

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by Surtur
He's changing his position faster than a hurricane caused by Trump!

Man if this man can cause hurricanes how is Jim Acostas house still standing?



laughing out loud

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by Surtur
So you're comparing climate alarmists to crazy folk who believe in prophecies?

...kinda accurate?

Hey ball park me, how many of these prophecies are we to take seriously?


The climate alarmists are the crazy folk, Surtur.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
So we're in agreement. She's not debunking climate science. She's debunking opinions. Yup thumb up

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
This point of yours feels contrived as hell. haermm

It doesn't take hardly any research at all to find a single example of a scientist making a stupid prediction to make her correct.

Since there are hundreds, it's easy to prove this point of hers correct.




Also, I went back and reread the exchange between Jaden and I. haermm

Holy shit...he's either trolling or just pretending to be terrible with his arguments.

Well no, but okay.

Yet she couldn't spare all of 20 seconds to drop a single scientific name who made a given climate change prediction that was backed via review; which proved to be false to support her claims? Odd, cos she had time to drop Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "12 years" claim, not once, but twice as proof. She's also an outright liar at times.

Disagreed, Jaden's point has remained the same from the start; he has backed it with multiple examples.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
Well no, but okay.

Yet she couldn't spare all of 20 seconds to drop a single scientific name...

Why? Why would she put that out there when this stuff is easily searchable in a few seconds? Why single out one among hundreds?

It's a bit immature to do that type of mudslinging and she has 10 points to get through. If she wanted to give a presentation only on 1, they already exist and people present on it. Multiple exist if you're interested where those papers and prediction are taken apart, piece by piece.


Originally posted by Robtard
Disagreed, Jaden's point has remained the same from the start; he has backed it with multiple examples.

Very few people have been as directly and overtly wrong as Jaden and I caught him moving the goalposts: it's obvious.

This is not debatable. But I think you're doing that troll thing you do to Surtur because he's stupid enough to respond for pages where no meaningful conversation takes place.

Flyattractor
Everybody is Warming Up Twice as Fast then every one else.

S-CxkCtSnLU

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
Why? Why would she put that out there when this stuff is easily searchable in a few seconds? Why single out one among hundreds?

It's a bit immature to do that type of mudslinging and she has 10 points to get through. If she wanted to give a presentation only on 1, they already exist and people present on it. Multiple exist if you're interested where those papers and prediction are taken apart, piece by piece.


Very few people have been as directly and overtly wrong as Jaden and I caught him moving the goalposts: it's obvious.

This is not debatable. But I think you're doing that troll thing you do to Surtur because he's stupid enough to respond for pages where no meaningful conversation takes place.

Fact remains that she had no problem pointing out AOC's "12 years" claim, she did this twice in less than 2 mins to prove her point. She could have easily spent and extra 20 seconds to give even a single valid name and example; it's telling that she didn't.

You only asked me to watch her 1st point and give my POV of the situation; that's what I did. She was shifty, dishonest and outright lied in her 1st point.

I disagree and I noted why previously. Jaden's position on her #1 point has not shifted.

If you want to brush this off as "trolling", go ahead; that's on you. But it's clear I watched that part of the vid as you requested and I gave reasons to my stances.

Surtur
Also I'm gonna ask: I know he has a degree in mechanical engineering, but what scientific research has Nye conducted in regards to climate science?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
Fact remains that she had no problem pointing out AOC's "12 years" claim, she did this twice in less than 2 mins to prove her point. She could have easily spent and extra 20 seconds to give even a single valid name and example; it's telling that she didn't.

You only asked me to watch her 1st point and give my POV of the situation; that's what I did. She was shifty, dishonest and outright lied in her 1st point.

I disagree and I noted why previously. Jaden's position on her #1 point has not shifted.

If you want to brush this off as "trolling", go ahead; that's on you. But it's clear I watched that part of the vid as you requested and I gave reasons to my stances.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, so that the goalposts are not moved inappropriately away from where the power is, it doesn't matter if scientists are making wrong predictions.

What matters is if the people who have the power are making the wrong predictions and are using false information or false ideas to make policy decisions.

Let's not move the goalposts to something completely stupid just to win a minor internet argument. If the people in power are making wrong predictions and are trying to get policies made or changed based on their ideas, that's the biggest problem.


If these same people in power are making policy recommendations and decisions based on incorrect scientific information, that's also a problem. But that's almost never the actual situation as almost no person in power makes science-based policy decisions. We do not live in a technocracy or anything close to it. smile

Surtur
How dare you contradict the narrative. How dare you.

Do you not care about how many dreams and childhoods you kill?

Won't somebody worry about the dreams?!

jaden_2.0
Originally posted by dadudemon



Very few people have been as directly and overtly wrong as Jaden and I caught him moving the goalposts: it's obvious.

This is not debatable. But I think you're doing that troll thing you do to Surtur because he's stupid enough to respond for pages where no meaningful conversation takes place.

I'm right, you're wrong. Simple as that.

She did exactly as I claimed and I pointed out why her claims are wrong. I debunked her video.

No one has done the courtesy of even attempting to do the same with the videos I posted. I would be willing to bet no one even watched them. I wonder why.

Surtur
U gonna pretend like u watched the original video in this thread? Please don't.

jaden_2.0
Odd statement given I specifically addressed her points by number.

dadudemon
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I'm right, you're wrong. Simple as that.


Oh really?

smile



Originally posted by dadudemon
So you're saying you only looked for one example of something that doesn't fit exactly into your strawman position so you can be right? smile




Yes. You should review every single example and more.

And you should then admit your point was wrong when you said:



This is wrong and very easy to disprove, as I have done. thumb up


And don't stop there! There's more!!!


https://lmgtfy.com/?q=failed+climate+change+predictions+&iie=1

Originally posted by dadudemon
And many claims that are false or didn't happen were made by scientists. Some of those claims were by non-fringe Climatologists.




I posted one link that shows many scientists making wrong predictions along with politicians.

Since I only need one example to prove you wrong, behold, the very first entry where a scientist is making a proven-false claim:

https://i.imgur.com/mxuLzan.png



smile


And this is one of the funnier exchanges I've had on KMC (I rank it the #2 of all conversations where I thoroughly and completely handed someone's ass to them):

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Paul R Elhrich didn't conduct research into or publish scientific papers on climate change and it's predictions. So it's not a scientific prediction.

Really don't see why this is difficult to get.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Firstly, you are changing your position. You originally said this...



lol



Secondly, he did publish scientific papers on climate change:

https://www.pnas.org/content/99/9/6070.short



And here is a longlist:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar? q=paul+r+ehrlich+climate+research+scholarly+articl
es&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart







smile smile smile smile smile

jaden_2.0
Obviously you can't read because I didn't address 1. I addressed several. All of which proved my point. They were all news articles, not scientific papers. 1 was a quote from Al Gore (not a climate scientist). 1 was a quote from Prince Charles (not a climate scientist) and 2 were from Paul Elhrich (a scientist but not a climate scientist and from his book, not a scientific study or paper)

You. Literally. Proved. My. Point.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Obviously you can't read because I didn't address 1. I addressed several. All of which proved my point. They were all news articles, not scientific papers. 1 was a quote from Al Gore (not a climate scientist). 1 was a quote from Prince Charles (not a climate scientist) and 2 were from Paul Elhrich (a scientist but not a climate scientist and from his book, not a scientific study or paper)

You. Literally. Proved. My. Point. I honestly don't see why DDM is choosing not to understand you.

dadudemon
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Obviously you can't read because I didn't address 1. I addressed several. All of which proved my point. They were all news articles, not scientific papers. 1 was a quote from Al Gore (not a climate scientist). 1 was a quote from Prince Charles (not a climate scientist) and 2 were from Paul Elhrich (a scientist but not a climate scientist and from his book, not a scientific study or paper)

You. Literally. Proved. My. Point.


Originally posted by dadudemon
Firstly, you are changing your position. You originally said this...



lol



Secondly, he did publish scientific papers on climate change:

https://www.pnas.org/content/99/9/6070.short



And here is a longlist:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar? q=paul+r+ehrlich+climate+research+scholarly+articl
es&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart







smile smile smile smile smile

Originally posted by dadudemon
So you're saying you only looked for one example of something that doesn't fit exactly into your strawman position so you can be right? smile




Yes. You should review every single example and more.

And you should then admit your point was wrong when you said:



This is wrong and very easy to disprove, as I have done. thumb up


And don't stop there! There's more!!!


https://lmgtfy.com/?q=failed+climate+change+predictions+&iie=1

Surtur
https://media.giphy.com/media/pUeXcg80cO8I8/giphy.gif

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Putinbot1
I honestly don't see why DDM is choosing not to understand you.

Because whenever he is wrong, he doubles-down. He just tries to exhaust the other person so he does not have to admit he made a mistake.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Because whenever he is wrong, he doubles-down. He just tries to exhaust the other person so he does not have to admit he made a mistake.

Please do point out where I am wrong. Quote the exact posts and the exact posts of Jaden's, too. And articulate specifically where and why I am wrong.


smile1


Don't worry, I'll wait.

Surtur, be honest, am I missing something Jaden said? Or was Jaden wrong in addition to trying to move the goalposts?

Surtur
I don't think so and I feel like he is gas lighting you. For example, when you note that a scientific paper was indeed published he responds that no a scientific paper wasn't published it was just a "news article". As if it was some op-ed from the Washington Post or something.

jaden_2.0
Sigh. This is getting tedious.

Until someone can show me she isn't doing the exact same tactic I showed in my videos (which still no one has addressed) then I'll still be right.

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Sigh. This is getting tedious.


Indeed... just admit you're wrong and it'll be the end of it. wink

Putinbot1
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Indeed... just admit you're wrong and it'll be the end of it. wink This guy being in your corner DDM should be an indicator where you are. laughing out loud

eThneoLgrRnae
^triggered wittle pooty can't handle the truth.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Putinbot1
This guy being in your corner DDM should be an indicator where you are. laughing out loud

lol

Hey, now, he's right a majority of the time.

Originally posted by Surtur
I don't think so and I feel like he is gas lighting you. For example, when you note that a scientific paper was indeed published he responds that no a scientific paper wasn't published it was just a "news article". As if it was some op-ed from the Washington Post or something.

Thanks, I appreciate your input.

I know I did nothing wrong and Jaden and I agree on most of his points anyway. It is not controversial, even in the climate change community, to admit the predictions by the climatologists themselves, are often wrong. It's extremely difficult to make accurate predictions and those that get it right sometimes are right for the wrong reasons (wrong model that just so happened to get it right).

Flyattractor
When you Can't Attack the Source. Attack the Messenger.

Nibedicus

jaden_2.0
Originally posted by Flyattractor
When you Can't Attack the Source. Attack the Messenger.

Well done on inadvertently proving my point. Because that's exactly what she does.

DDM just compounded that point with his link.

jaden_2.0
Originally posted by dadudemon
lol

Hey, now, he's right a majority of the time.



Thanks, I appreciate your input.

I know I did nothing wrong and Jaden and I agree on most of his points anyway. It is not controversial, even in the climate change community, to admit the predictions by the climatologists themselves, are often wrong. It's extremely difficult to make accurate predictions and those that get it right sometimes are right for the wrong reasons (wrong model that just so happened to get it right).

The only paper she refers to in her video is the 97% consensus one. Her criticism of the way it's portrayed is correct but she clearly tried to also attack the paper itself and she was wrong because it doesn't say there's a 97% consensus regarding human caused climate change. It states that 62% of the studies don't give any attribution.

jaden_2.0
Other people being more concerned with semantics and pedantry isn't me moving the goalposts.

Silent Master
Originally posted by Putinbot1
This guy being in your corner DDM should be an indicator where you are. laughing out loud

^
Poisoning the well

Surtur
Originally posted by Silent Master
^
Poisoning the well

Remember the El Paso shooter believed climate change was a huge threat too.

I wonder if that guy being in their corner is an indicator of where they are...

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.