August 02, 2019
Arguing with Idiots: Climate Change Edition III
Timothy Birdnow
I continue my argument with a global warming buffoon. She replied to my comment on Facebook:
And my response: Ellie Meleisia, you show you do not know what you are talking about
1.Science is very much an adversarial process to test hypotheses. You apparently think it is to come up with an hypothesis and then cling to it bitterly, not allowing criticism. It is very much about debating facts, as they relate to theory. That is what "testable" means, in case you can't figure that out.
2. Jeff Bezos a conservative? What kind of crack are you smoking. At this point you have lost all credibility. Bezos owns the Washington Post, the newspaper which made it it's mission to take out Trump. It made a sharp left turn after Bezos bought it. Bezos has close ties to the CIA, too, having been a contractor, and the WaPo has been at the forefront of the whole "trump collusion" meme, using CIA leaks as evidence. Maybe YOU should look it up.
And who exactly are these billionaires who own Big Oil and are promoting the destruction of the Earth? Naturally, they have no children, or they would care about making the planet uninhabitable. Right? Oh, and Bezos gave 33 million dollars for a scholarship fund for illegal aliens. Conservative? I notice you ignore the fact that governments are paying out far more money than any corporation could. And you ignore the non-profits - the Sierra Club, Greenpeace (oh, and cofounder Patrick Moore has since disavowed Global Warming, as has Bjorne Lomborg}, the World Wildlife Fund, the Audubon Society, etc. All of these organizations - many tax exempt - promote global warming alarmism. And what of Exxon-Mobile? Under Rex Tillerson they switched sides, moving to defend the holy orthodoxy. In 2014 The U.S. alone paid out 11.6 billion dollars for climate change research, and another 26.1 billion for associated programs via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. How much did the Koch brothers donate? And that was just the U.S. government. Governments all over the world are funding this stuff. And again, that ignores the non-profits and the corporations. Patagonia, for example, donated ten million dollars to environmental groups after the Trump tax cut. https://
And what of Michael Bloomberg? Bill Gates? I name names. And what of the Packard Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, etc.? They are sinking four billion into promoting global warming alarmism. https://
Your argument does not hold up to scrutiny.It is YOUR side with all the money, and still you can't close the deal. Now why is that?
3. "According to NASA multiple studies" If you bothered to check, all those studies are based on the work of Oreskes and Cook. None of the extras are original works. And all of them come from sources with vested interests. Again, you ignore the Oregon Petition, the Heidelberg Initiative, etc. because they don't comport with your radical fantasies. See oism.orgfor a list of scientists who signed the oregon Petition - all 31 thousand of them. And you ignore the quality of so many "denier" scientists (that name, btw, is a blood libel, given by your side.) Wikipedia has a list of them. https://
BTW, our side has to go several pages into Google to find our own links, since Google is on board and actively supresses information as "fake news". Numerous links I've used in the past have just disappeared altogether. Why does your side have to do that if science supports your claims? Why did Michael Mann refuse to give his data sets and codes when a Freedom of Information Act request was made for his research, research paid for by the U.S. government? (Those billions cited earlier don't even take into account indirect funding, like college funding or whatnot, by the way.) Why has Mann sued people like Dr. Tim Ball? Why did Phil Jones and company and the Climate Research Unit plot to bully journal editors and manipulate peer review? Read the climategate e-mails; there has been a concerted effort to shut the mouths of people who disagree with this. Why is that?
I continue my argument with a global warming buffoon. She replied to my comment on Facebook:
Timothy Birdnow --
Everything you've said is wrong.
1. Science is NOT actually about "debating those annoying little things". Science is about building and organizing knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world we live in.
2. Most of the billionaires who are investing in fossil fuels are conservatives. Jeff Bezos, for example, is a conservative. Google it, you'll see.
3. The blog you read that said that the 97% figure came from some questionnaire is wrong. According to NASA, "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming
https://
Everything you've said is wrong.
1. Science is NOT actually about "debating those annoying little things". Science is about building and organizing knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world we live in.
2. Most of the billionaires who are investing in fossil fuels are conservatives. Jeff Bezos, for example, is a conservative. Google it, you'll see.
3. The blog you read that said that the 97% figure came from some questionnaire is wrong. According to NASA, "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming
https://
And my response: Ellie Meleisia, you show you do not know what you are talking about
1.Science is very much an adversarial process to test hypotheses. You apparently think it is to come up with an hypothesis and then cling to it bitterly, not allowing criticism. It is very much about debating facts, as they relate to theory. That is what "testable" means, in case you can't figure that out.
2. Jeff Bezos a conservative? What kind of crack are you smoking. At this point you have lost all credibility. Bezos owns the Washington Post, the newspaper which made it it's mission to take out Trump. It made a sharp left turn after Bezos bought it. Bezos has close ties to the CIA, too, having been a contractor, and the WaPo has been at the forefront of the whole "trump collusion" meme, using CIA leaks as evidence. Maybe YOU should look it up.
And who exactly are these billionaires who own Big Oil and are promoting the destruction of the Earth? Naturally, they have no children, or they would care about making the planet uninhabitable. Right? Oh, and Bezos gave 33 million dollars for a scholarship fund for illegal aliens. Conservative? I notice you ignore the fact that governments are paying out far more money than any corporation could. And you ignore the non-profits - the Sierra Club, Greenpeace (oh, and cofounder Patrick Moore has since disavowed Global Warming, as has Bjorne Lomborg}, the World Wildlife Fund, the Audubon Society, etc. All of these organizations - many tax exempt - promote global warming alarmism. And what of Exxon-Mobile? Under Rex Tillerson they switched sides, moving to defend the holy orthodoxy. In 2014 The U.S. alone paid out 11.6 billion dollars for climate change research, and another 26.1 billion for associated programs via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. How much did the Koch brothers donate? And that was just the U.S. government. Governments all over the world are funding this stuff. And again, that ignores the non-profits and the corporations. Patagonia, for example, donated ten million dollars to environmental groups after the Trump tax cut. https://
And what of Michael Bloomberg? Bill Gates? I name names. And what of the Packard Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, etc.? They are sinking four billion into promoting global warming alarmism. https://
Your argument does not hold up to scrutiny.It is YOUR side with all the money, and still you can't close the deal. Now why is that?
3. "According to NASA multiple studies" If you bothered to check, all those studies are based on the work of Oreskes and Cook. None of the extras are original works. And all of them come from sources with vested interests. Again, you ignore the Oregon Petition, the Heidelberg Initiative, etc. because they don't comport with your radical fantasies. See oism.orgfor a list of scientists who signed the oregon Petition - all 31 thousand of them. And you ignore the quality of so many "denier" scientists (that name, btw, is a blood libel, given by your side.) Wikipedia has a list of them. https://
BTW, our side has to go several pages into Google to find our own links, since Google is on board and actively supresses information as "fake news". Numerous links I've used in the past have just disappeared altogether. Why does your side have to do that if science supports your claims? Why did Michael Mann refuse to give his data sets and codes when a Freedom of Information Act request was made for his research, research paid for by the U.S. government? (Those billions cited earlier don't even take into account indirect funding, like college funding or whatnot, by the way.) Why has Mann sued people like Dr. Tim Ball? Why did Phil Jones and company and the Climate Research Unit plot to bully journal editors and manipulate peer review? Read the climategate e-mails; there has been a concerted effort to shut the mouths of people who disagree with this. Why is that?
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:20 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 968 words, total size 13 kb.
33kb generated in CPU 0.0237, elapsed 0.1894 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.1797 seconds, 187 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
35 queries taking 0.1797 seconds, 187 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
