Climate Change Claims Nonsense?

[Auburn4life 24]

Yea James Spann isn't very bright, got it.

[AUDub 11,153]

Yea James Spann isn't very bright, got it.

Willfully ignorant.

[homersapien 11,386]

Yea James Spann isn't very bright, got it.

Based on his comments, he's certainly not very bright concerning the scientific consensus on AGW. That was a totally bogus explanation.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Yea James Spann isn't very bright, got it.

Willfully ignorant.

Or unimpressed by the choreographed propaganda masking as "science ".

Look to China for your problems to tackle. They are the biggest polluters on the planet. Start w/ their smog and co2 production, if you want to do anything.

[AFTiger 282]

Former AGW proponent, Judith Curry, speaks on the tactics of AW scientists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-jttIlY2mQ

[AURaptor 1,125]

Former AGW proponent, Judith Curry, speaks on the tactics of AW scientists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-jttIlY2mQ

Willfully ignorant & clearly bought / paid off by big oil!

[homersapien 11,386]

Former AGW proponent, Judith Curry, speaks on the tactics of AW scientists.

https://www.youtube....h?v=q-jttIlY2mQ

Judith Curry is not a denier. She is talking more about process and politics than substance. In fact, her criticisms are a normal - and useful - part of the scientific process. The problem is more with the politicalization of the subject as a whole than her views.

http://www.nature.co...s.2010.577.html

"Climate skeptics have seized on Curry's statements to cast doubt on the basic science of climate change. So it is important to emphasize that nothing she encountered led her to question the science; she still has no doubt that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are in large part to blame, or that the plausible worst-case scenario could be catastrophic. She does not believe that the Climategate e-mails are evidence of fraud or that the IPCC is some kind of grand international conspiracy. What she does believe is that the mainstream climate science community has moved beyond the ivory tower into a type of fortress mentality, in which insiders can do no wrong and outsiders are forbidden entry.

I highly recommend reading the entire article linked above to better understand the Judith Curry "controversy".

[AFTiger 282]

She explains what happened when she began to question AGW and why younger scientists are afraid to express contrary opinions:

Her written testimony:

http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/f739759e-3f1b-447e-a1eb-d42bbe70454e/FBA0C80EBB0D0B6545922F1D45D18C75.dr.-judith-curry-testimony.pdf

[homersapien 11,386]

She explains what happened when she began to question AGW and why younger scientists are afraid to express contrary opinions:

Her written testimony:

http://www.commerce....y-testimony.pdf

How about quoting the parts that you think support your argument and let's examine them.

[AURaptor 1,125]

homer, you're engaging in the most tedious, pointless sort of picking of nits on this topic, and I have to wonder why. It's crystal clear to anyone who saw the video AFTiger posted where Ms Curry and Mark Steyn completely school Senator " Biz " Markey . Her position is no where near in doubt, yet you want to carry on w/ this nonsense.

Why?

I tossed in the 'Biz' part, just for snorts and giggles.

[homersapien 11,386]

homer, you're engaging in the most tedious, pointless sort of picking of nits on this topic, and I have to wonder why. It's crystal clear to anyone who saw the video AFTiger posted where Ms Curry and Mark Steyn completely school Senator " Biz " Markey . Her position is no where near in doubt, yet you want to carry on w/ this nonsense.

Why?

Because there is nothing in your reference material that supports your conclusions.

That's exactly why you can't quote a paragraph that does so.

[homersapien 11,386]

But just to clarify, your position is Judith Curry is testifying that AGW is false, right?

[AURaptor 1,125]

homer, you're engaging in the most tedious, pointless sort of picking of nits on this topic, and I have to wonder why. It's crystal clear to anyone who saw the video AFTiger posted where Ms Curry and Mark Steyn completely school Senator " Biz " Markey . Her position is no where near in doubt, yet you want to carry on w/ this nonsense.

Why?

Because there is nothing in your reference material that supports your conclusions.

That's exactly why you can't quote a paragraph that does so.

MY reference material ?

You ARE confused!

[homersapien 11,386]

homer, you're engaging in the most tedious, pointless sort of picking of nits on this topic, and I have to wonder why. It's crystal clear to anyone who saw the video AFTiger posted where Ms Curry and Mark Steyn completely school Senator " Biz " Markey . Her position is no where near in doubt, yet you want to carry on w/ this nonsense.

Why?

Because there is nothing in your reference material that supports your conclusions.

That's exactly why you can't quote a paragraph that does so.

MY reference material ?

You ARE confused!

Yes, the article or clip you are talking from.

But again, you fail to answer my question: Is it your contention that Judith Curry's position is that AGW is false?

If not, what are we talking about? Maybe I am confused. What are you talking about?

[AURaptor 1,125]

AFTiger posted the link.

[homersapien 11,386]

AFTiger posted the link.

So tell us what is the point you are arguing from that link?

Are you citing Judith Curry as an opponent of AGW theory?

[AURaptor 1,125]

She is. I don't see how you can deny that.

[homersapien 11,386]

She is. I don't see how you can deny that.

I didn't see where she said that. Show me.

[AURaptor 1,125]

It's on the linked video where she's testifying , along side skeptic & author Mark Steyn.

[homersapien 11,386]

Well, by all signs, we've reached the point where you quit - if not exactly capitulate.

[AURaptor 1,125]

You believe what you want

[AFTiger 282]

You believe what you want

Homer is only doing what trolls do. Prolong the argument and declare victory.

[AURaptor 1,125]

You believe what you want

Homer is only doing what trolls do. Prolong the argument and declare victory.

Yep. Just adding on to the childish nit picking and snarking. Try to hyper analyze each minor point until he finds an apostrophe out of place or left off, then say " SEE ? You don't know what you 're talking about ! " ,or some such pathetic tactic.

Truly sad individuals.

[homersapien 11,386]

You believe what you want

Homer is only doing what trolls do. Prolong the argument and declare victory.

OK, what is your claim?

Do you claim that Judith Curry denies the reality of AGW?

[homersapien 11,386]

You believe what you want

Homer is only doing what trolls do. Prolong the argument and declare victory.

Yep. Just adding on to the childish nit picking and snarking. Try to hyper analyze each minor point until he finds an apostrophe out of place or left off, then say " SEE ? You don't know what you 're talking about ! " ,or some such pathetic tactic.

Truly sad individuals.

Yet you are the one who continually evades simple questions that are basic to the proposition on the table. You won't even confirm your position. How's that "nit-picking"?

You all are just butt hurt because I continually expose your weak-assed posts. You can't stand up to me.