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.
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?
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.
Originally posted by dadudemonMost 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.
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictionsThis 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.
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?
Originally posted by dadudemon
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictionsThis 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?
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...
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? 🙂
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:
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.
This is wrong and very easy to disprove, as I have done. 👆
And don't stop there! There's more!!!
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=failed+climate+change+predictions+&iie=1
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.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Just as I expected no one has actually legitimately refuted any of Wheeler's points.Shocker... 🙄
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?
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? 🙂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. 👆
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.
Guess I have to post this video again to show how it works.
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 predictionsYou 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:
🙂
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.
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. 🙂
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:
🙂
FLASHBACK: ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015
Giggle.