No one and nothing could ever pry Paul Alsing's hands off his Kool-Aid.

Chris wrote:

I think you have me confused with someone else.

Chris != chrisv

--
"The moment [liberals] speak, I just want to punch them in the throat"
- right-wing propagandist "Slimer", AKA "Rabid Robot", advocating
hatred and violence

On 10/4/19 10:52 AM, Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 07:47:23 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 07:03:59 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 10/3/19 1:35 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 17:42:36 -0700, Snit
wrote:

I bet you won't read that either.

Did and responded to it. You want to play the same games over and over.

Why don't you look at actual SCIENTIFIC sites to get your knowledge
about SCIENCE?

Oh.

Because you seek to DENY science.

What starnge mental process is it that makes you think knowledge is
rendered scientific (or not) by the site it is published on?

Of course it matters. I certainly wouldn't trust anything published in the
Daily Mail. Scientists think very hard about where they publish, as the
perception is that it reflects on their work.

I didn't say anything about trust. The word I used was 'scientific'.
You won't read Watts Up With That as you regard it as not a
'SCIENTIFIC' site.

I've read enough of it to know it's full of one-sided comments and posts.
Often intentionally misinterpreting the science.

It's not a question of trust. It's not
'SCIENTIFIC'. Presumably if you read the same information on one of
your favourite sites it would then be 'SCIENTIFIC'.

If the blog posts made it into a reputable, peer-reviewed journal then,
yes, I'd be more likely to accept them.

The blog posts are not science as they don't present science. Where are the
methodologies or results? They're opinion pieces with occasional data
hacking.

I have to say that
that's a slightly bizarre way of filtering your information

Ignoring where something is published is dumb.

Ans so too is using that information alone to decide whether or not
the information can be trusted.

No one uses that alone, but once you get to know a publisher, site or
editor then you can make assumptions.


It is a
very peculiar, but not uncommon, view of things. If you want to relate
the two it makes much better sense to say that a site is rendered
scientific (or not) by the knowledge it publishes.

Thinks! - Now how can he determine the quality of a site if he never
reads it?

That is true. Credibility is hard to gain and easy to lose. How you get us
through thorough editorial standards, veracity and transparency.

There is always that list in Wikipedia to help you.

Innuendos,
unsupported opinions and personal attacks do not make the grade.

Correct. Which is where all science skeptic blogs fail.

You are not qualified to say 'all'.

Every science skeptic blog I've read has the same theme. Very little
substance and plenty of hyperbole.

I take it you cannot falsify or even throw reasonable doubt on any
part of the sources I have relied on. Otherwise you would have done
so.

How can we falsify a position that keeps shifting? And one that requires, a
frankly ridiculous position given today's politics, a well-organised,
consistent and global conspiracy to suppress any dissent. Only the "brave
bloggers " are able uncover the "truth". Really?!

Hell! They only have to read the actual documents but you turn your
nose away refusing to even read the quotes and references.

I think you have me confused with someone else.



He has many things confused... but your comments are spot on correct.

--
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.

chrisv wrote:
Chris wrote:

I think you have me confused with someone else.

Chris != chrisv

Correct!

In article ,
"Colonel Edmund J. Burke" wrote:

On 9/23/2019 6:09 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:

all of this deleted

Hey, stoopid. Try making some ****ing sense or cents (i.e., get a job).

Redmond used to be under a gates.

--
:- Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed

Unable to access Google, Paul Alsing imagined:
Still can't find an actual climate scientist
who denies climate change, eh ?

Change is obvious, doom and gloom is religious.
No one and nothing could ever pry Paul's hands off his Kool-Aid.

Four Climate Scientists Destroy Climate Change Alarmism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqejXs7XgsU

Paul won't watch this video, I guarantee you.
It's against his religion.

Paul Alsing replied ( to me ):
No one could ever pry Paul's hands off his Kool-Aid.

I've not tasted Kool-Aid and
I don't understand why you think otherwise.

Google: drinking the Kool-Aid

Four Climate Scientists Destroy Climate Change Alarmism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqejXs7XgsU

there is plenty of evidence in support of man-driven climate change.

Every time I mention your apocalypse cult, you always come back to:
" our climate is changing " -- thank you, Captain Obvious.

This video was produced by the Heartland Institute,
a well-known climate-contrarian organization funded, in part, by Exxon,

You attack the people ( Exxon ) who funded the research
so you don't have to examine it -- well done, scientist.

Exxon is evil, obviously, because they provide us
with the energy we need to survive -- May God have mercy on their souls.
I can't imagine a more sinister crime.

Tom Harris works for the International Climate Science Coalition

Right, so he isn't allowed to comment on your Apocalypse cult.
That'd be heresy, and you won't allow it.

Stanely B Goldenberg, is an actual meteorologist

Yes, and the hysteria he quoted from the American Meteorological Society,
1922, is no different from they're saying today:

" Within a few years, the sea will rise,
making most coastal cities uninhabitable. "

My hometown, Seattle used to be under a glacier.

Richard Keen, has a PhD in Geography!

Google: Richard Keen University of Colorado

Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado.
Richard A. Keen is instructor emeritus at the University of Colorado
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (ATOC).
And "Professor in the Astrophysical & Planetary Sci.".

Besides, what kind of credentials does one need
to denounce an Apocalypse cult ?

blatant cherry picking of historical data

Now we've come to the heart of the matter.
_ You _ have cherry picked the historical data.

Seattle used to be under a glacier.

Only 5 to 10 % of the time was our planet ever cooler than it is now.

440 million years ago, in the Earth's coldest period,
carbon dioxide levels were 11 times higher than they are today.

"ithinkiam" replied ( to me ):
440 million years ago, in the Earth's coldest period,
carbon dioxide levels were 11 times higher than they are today.

you don't show any evidence

Google: carbon-dioxide Ordovician-glaciation

[ in the late Ordovician, 444 million years ago ]
CO2 levels were very high, around 5'600 parts per million .

However, glaciers were so far-reaching during the late Ordovician,
it coincided with one of the largest marine mass extinction events
in Earth history.
...
How continental glaciation could have formed when
carbon dioxide levels were so high has been a paradox.

Recently it has been proposed that the terminal Ordovician glaciation
was triggered through a combination of the placement of Africa
over the South Pole and A SHORT-LIVED DRAWDOWN of atmospheric
carbon dioxide.

So there you have it, all you have to do is imagine
a huge downward spike atmospheric carbon dioxide,
so short-lived, we can't properly measure it.

Hugh replied ( to me ):
So there you have it, all you have to do is imagine
a huge downward spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide,
so short-lived, we can't properly measure it.

[ how precise were the measurements that
said that CO2 was at ~5600 ppm 444m years ago ? ]

CO2 was that high for tens of millions of years, apparently.

Geologically speaking, humanity is a tiny fraction of a rounding error.

there weren't many humans around then, were there ?

That's what evangelical Christians say about dinosaurs:

" You weren't there, so you don't know. "

Likewise, your " irrefutable science " cult lives in the shadows.

[ Exxon's ] 'scientists' are perpetrating cherrypicking of anecdotes.

Likewise, your " irrefutable science " cult cherry-picks anecdotes.

AOC is Doctor Evil; if we don't do what she says, we're toast.
Her "science" is irrefutable, we're told.

Her "Green New Deal" reminds me of China's "Great Leap Backward" (1958),
its "Cultural Devolution" (1966), and today's "Mega Ghost Town" quotas.

Since when was it a good idea for the government to control production ?!

How many tons of nails must we produce this year, comrade ?

Hurricanes aren't new to the Bahamas;
no, what's new is all the people living there now.

The entire planet shouldn't give up its sovereignty just to
(notionally) "save" the fools who built shacks in "Hurricane Alley".

Also, fires are natural; especially now, when there's enough
warmth, water, and carbon dioxide to grow plentiful forests.

Chris replied ( to me ):
there weren't many humans around then, were there ?

That's what evangelical Christians say about dinosaurs:

" You weren't there, so you don't know. "

Likewise, your " irrefutable science " cult lives in the shadows.

Wow. If that's your benchmark of salient argument
then there's not much left to say.

Sorry if I shone some light into your sacred shadows,
chasing your God away -- you had better avoid me.

In no way does Quantum entanglement imply
something is moving faster than light.

Ignorance/Randomness/StringTheory can be used to "prove" anything;
whatever your little heart desires.

The standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is:

Shut Up and Calculate;
i.e. don't ASSUME bizarre crap like faster-than-light communication
and/or infinite universes spawning infinitely fast.

Paul, Our oxygen comes from the ocean, not rain forests.

Rain Forests are important for their biodiversity,
potential medicines, and the like.

The greater the warmth, rain, and CO2, the more they thrive;
and with that comes increased forest fires.

Hurricanes aren't new; what's new is all the people in their path.
You might surrender your sovereignty to help them,
but that doesn't mean everyone else is willing to "drink the Kool-Aid".

All of the oxygen we breathe came from oceanic photosynthesis;
none of it came from the Amazon.

Scott Doty replied ( to me ):
All of the oxygen we breathe came from oceanic photosynthesis;
none of it came from the Amazon.

Relf's bizarro world is very bizarre.

Next time they let you use Google, try searching for:

Where does atmospheric oxygen come from ?

EarthSky.ORG:

Most of this oxygen comes from tiny ocean plants --
called phytoplankton -- that live near the water's
surface and drift with the currents.

Like all plants, they photosynthesize -- that is,
they use sunlight and carbon dioxide to make food.
A byproduct of photosynthesis is oxygen.

The warmer it is, and the greater the carbon dioxide,
the more oxygen is released into the atmosphere.
Were it not for carbon dioxide, we'd suffocate.