The Attempt to Establish a Climate Ministry of Truth

I haven't seen your arguments hold to that position.

 

You should be harder to fool, not easier to fool. As a pilot you understand why when one has a wing mounted to a body, with power one can make the body fly as opposed to falling to Earth.
You took training in global weather. This of course is short term climate.

The climate as an example is super different at Death Valley compared to the Antarctic.
You should be hard to fool.

You learned globally the movement of the winds, the clouds and what makes them so important. You brought up winds at the Great Lakes. And though you did not mention it, Climate change created the Great Lakes. So we do not deny climate, we embrace climate.

 

You didn't even read my response to your post about the importance of clouds.

Briefly, NO element of Earth's climate can be considered to be the overriding issue. And, that goes for clouds, according to the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, and the rest.

 

huh feels too majority that's not fallacious at all.

I guess if the majority of the world to believe that the Earth was flat that would mean it was flat.

Lolol

of course the Earth is warming it's been warming for 25,000 years. Yeah we do need to live with it because there's not much we can do about it.

You can pretend you're silly little rituals do something but they don't. Just like sacrificing witches doesn't save people from damnation.

consensus is not a credit to science. That's just popularity with a more sciencey sounding word.

Any of the science that undermines your religious beliefs is just the devil oil companies trying to trick the believers.

See you even have a bad guy in your religion that has the power to manipulate people you just ripping off Christianity.

And I guess a major cold company is one of the fallen Angels that followed Lucifer.

 

I believe you removed man from the equation.
I read all of your posts on this topic.

 

I don't see what the heck you are trying to claim with this.

You're pretty much ignoring what has been said on all sides of this issue of climate change.

You're certainly ignoring everything I've ever said.

 

???

 

I haven't presented them to you you believe anything you disagree with is a conspiracy by Cold companies and oil companies.

So you already have this built-in mechanism for which to deny things that don't affirm your religious beliefs there's no value in presenting anything to you.

And then I'm reminded of your ivermectin posts you had no clue what it was used for that it was approved by the FDA that it was used to treat symptoms of specifically respiratory viruses.

I'm going to assume you're just as clueless on the subject. Because you've done the same thing here just name dropped and acted like these names you've dropped support your religious viewpoint.

And further arguing with you doesn't mean anything it would be arguing with your ideology which you get from somebody else.

Just like arguing about the process of evolution with the young Earth creationist. It's just not a valuable use of time.

I'm here mostly showing other people who would enter this arena how to dismiss you.

 

When sources are handed to you, no matter that they are very educated, very esteemed and very honest, you try to smash them with your politics. This is why it is a total waste of time and effort to supply you with sources. You are a confirmed alarmist.

 

The point was the majority of scientists, not the general population.

It does appear that all we can do is slow the warming.

However, that is not an unreasonable objective, as slowing the warming allows more time for making (and paying for) the changes needed to live with it.

LOL!!

 

You should be smarter. And you need to stop name calling professional sources.

 

I've never mentioned politics in a positive light on this thread.

And, I have not said anything that could possibly be considered alarmist.

 

I'm certainly not going to consider those "scientists" as comparable to the vast preponderance of science from around the world.

Please remember that if you are suggesting that the entire world of scientists has it wrong, you need to explain how that could possibly happen.

That's a conspiracy theory of the largest possible magnitude.

 

That's kind of sick, isn't it?

 

Cooling began in 2016.

 

according to that 97% consensus thing? It's really sad that you don't realize what a farce that was.

and it does appear to Christians that they can escape eternal damnation by following Christ.

I'm not interested in your idiotic beliefs

so the whole point of it is to get some companies and some governments a lot of money.

Seems your position is no different than the oil companies in the coal companies.

You're just acting as a pawn for corporations.

 

Not at all. She chose to become a public figure and alarmists chose to exploit her. Those of us who perceived her problems from the beginning have every right to some schadenfreude now.

 

How can one get very rich over climate?

Quite easy in fact. Lindzen was kind to me. I asked him via E mail when he worked for the Oil Industry. He called it a lie told to discredit him. And I believe him given at the time he got a fat salary from MIT. Still he got attacked.

There are fortunes being made in alarmism.

 

There is an unimaginable sum of money to be made for selling Climate alarmism.

Just to give them a hint at the money for alarmism, check this woman out. She rakes in hundreds of thousands of dollars over her twin turbo Corvette. I also follow a female Pharmacist making tons making videos of her camping out.


And the gorgeous Druggist

 

But not the 0.1% of it that consists of anti-fossil-fuel scaremongering, and which La Carbonostra pretends is the IPCC reporting established climate science.

I already explained why that is false.

Hence the obligatory genuflections to anti-CO2 scaremongering in fields that are at most tangentially related to climate science.

 

And they all calibrate their data using the fake NASA/NOAA data.

Sure it can, and I have explained how.

They were all hilariously wrong about the GFC. Did any of them get fired? Did any of them get made fun of? Your claimed mechanisms of discipline for bad science do not exist in economics, and they don't exist in climate science, either.

I explicitly showed why that is not the case. You just ignored it.

 

I'd rather discuss what is actually found by science.

 

Oh, brother is THAT ever total BS.

 

No, you have not even touched the surface of what would be required to coordinate a false analysis of climate in a way that is consistent through all the various branches of science and all the scientists around Earth.

->pretty much all branches of science, around the entire world, in a coordinated way.

And, your point that there aren't harsher punishments for being wrong helps support what I'M saying, not what you are saying. After all, a charade of the breadth and depth you suggest would require some serious methods of enforcement.

And, NO, I didn't say that about economics. Go reread my post.