541–549 of 549 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, I never took you seriously, because I cannot imagine a serious adult flagging someone for libel for stating an unpleasant fact.
I flagged you for libel because you lied.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Irrelevant. The technique you used was the same as Smathers, and your intent was the same - to damage someone's reputation by insinuations and smears. It is low behavior.
Smathers' accusations related to issues that had no bearing on Peppers' merit as a political candidate or his ability to carry out his official duties. My 'insinuations' (actually, again, statements of fact) are related to Soon's behaviour within the context of climate science. If you cannot grasp this, you are not qualified to engage in debate. If you do not wish to for whatever reason, it makes it pretty clear that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not going to flag you for libel here, because I'm sure you believe this, and that is your cross to bear.
So sue me. It is demonstrable that you published falsehoods.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lomborg has openly stated multiple times that he believes in anthropogenic climate change. How is he a "climate denier"? This post looks like a cut-and-paste from a political blog.
More correct would be to say, at the time (2006), Lomborg was a denier. He only recently turned around (although first by saying that climate change is not a serious problem), which is to his credit. Still in retrospect, people shouldn't have listened to him, he was wrong.
I am not negating the global warming issue here, but what I see is just a correlation of two time series, much like the correlation between "US Spending on science, space and technology" and "Suicides by hanging, strangulation or suffocation" [1] [1] http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
This is going to sound harsh, but what you are doing is exactly what climate denialists do. You question on correlation of variables has not only been asked; it has been reformulated tens of thousands of times by climate scientists and experts in all sorts of related fields. By asking a question like this you're directly undermining the quality of reasearch that has been extremely solid on the matter. Correlation of…
By no means.
Note that I am not a climate denialist, but I generally find very little critical thinking when scientists presents climate forecasts for the next 20, or 50 or 100 years.
Please see my response to drjesusphd below for a more balanced response to this particular NASA chart.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? You're going to make some kind of "quality of science" comparison between anthropogenic climate change and geocentrism ?
You, like many others, still don't get the point. The point is that just because 97% of professionals believe something is true, does not make it so.
On top of that, the IPCC has openly encouraged scientists to deceive the public. See, e.g. http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/21/stephen-schneider-and-the-...
So, you have 1) the consensus claim shown to be a lie, and 2) the IPCC shown to be telling scientists to deceive the public.
Either of those facts alone should sink the AGW movement. But it's hard to get the truth out to people who don't care enough to look it up themselves, because the media is invested into the false narrative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You, like many others, still don't get the point. The point is that just because 97% of professionals believe something is true, does not make it so.
You claim to be interested in the science, yet you reject what the overwhelming majority of scientists have to say, and only quote people who have no experience or expertise in the topic area and who produce very many innaccurate statements, which all get rapidly debunked. But because you reject science you ignore the debunking. https://youtube.com/watch?v=GlcuV_Dojwg Did you read the IPCC report linked above yet?
How can you trust anything the IPCC or its associated scientists have to say when they have openly advocated deceiving the public?