22 billion years now, the Hubble "constant" will be infinite.

% wrote:
On 2019-11-12 2:03 p.m., Snit wrote:
On 11/11/19 5:01 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2019-11-11, chrisv wrote:
Those two guys must be part of the 3% who disagree with the other 97%.

The "97%" is a lie.

It is actually much higher than that -- when you look at the experts in
the field.

The so-called "consensus" is based on a flawed
college study and does not mean what the climate cultists and alarmists
claim that it does. The "consensus" on this issue is a fraud.

No. That is not where the idea of the consensus came from. There are
ZERO scientific organizations of international standing that disagree in
any significant way with the consensus, and when those of you who seek
to deny the science point to "experts" to do so, you almost always point
to the same list of about 70 scientists... most of whom are not even
experts in the field.

One of them is selling a book, I see.

Apparently you believe that selling a book somehow invalidates what he
has to say.Â* Believe it or not, members of the climate cult have been
known to sell books. Does that invalidate what they are saying as well?

Basically what you have in the climate cult a religion that demands its
followers give up whatever their priesthood requires in order to appease
their angry god. That makes it virtually impossible to have a rational
discussion with a climate cultist. Their arguments are based on emotion
and faith rather than facts.

Here you are just showing you do not even get the concept of science and
peer review.

The fact is that climate science, including modeling and predictions
based on necessarily simplified models, is a complex issue plagued with
uncertainty. The level of certainly claimed by the alarmists and cultists
is not justified by science or observation.

A claim you will never back. If anything the models have UNDERESTIMATED
the issue.

One of the favorite tactics of the climate cultists is to brand sceptics
as "deniers."

Noting those who deny science are deniers is accurate.

The despicable term "denier" is intentionally used to
link skeptics to holocaust deniers. However, the concerns of skeptics are
legitimate and the debate is real and ongoing, The views of the skeptics
are routinely misrepresented in the media, politicans, and rank-and-file
cultists as deluded cranks, dishonest, or paid shills for industry.

Again: your ignorance of the science does not weaken it.

Meanwhile, the repeated adjustments made to the temperature record,
always in a way that aligns the data with claims of the alarmists,
raises legitimate concerns. Distortions and outright lies have been
rampant. Additionally the motives of those providing the funding for
the alarmists (always far more than provided for skeptical scientists)
are highly questionable due to conflict of interest. Follow the money
and the power (infinite capacity to tax and control for governments)
to understand the motivations for bias and fraud.

Your ignorance here does not weaken the science.

It is also telling that the elitists pushing the fraud of human-caused
climate crisis do not themselves act as though any such crisis exists.
They continue to jet around the world for conferences, live in huge
energy-hungry homes, travel in fossil-fuel sucking fleets of SUVs, and
continue to buy oceanfront property in the face of "disastrous" rising
sea levels. Not one to my knowledge is leading by example. (Apparently
conservation and sacrifice are just for the little people.)

Your side issues tied to your ignorance does not weaken the science.

Those who actually want to research the issue rather than duckspeak the
Party line might want to look into former alarmists who are now skeptics,
such as Judith Curry. (For her trouble she was banished from her former
team and slandered as a heretic.)Â* For that matter anyone who bothers
to actually do some research will quickly find that the "certainty"
of human-caused global warming is actually far from certain.

Many DO research it. Research is ongoing. Your ignorance of this does
not weaken the science.

One thing I can tell you with absolute certainty is that I will not lift
a finger to lower my "carbon footprint" - I will not buy energy-efficient
appliances, will not buy a hybrid or electric car, will not even give
up using incandescent lights.

And if you did do you think it would help in any significant way? Do you
even understand what the issues are at all?


i do but since you ignore me i'm not telling


I am not responding to your post. Did not even see it.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.