T1B

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Can you present any actual evidence of his dishonesty?

Where to even begin?

"The entire North Polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years" -- it grew by about 50%, and is about the same size it was 30 years ago.

"The hockey stick" -- outright fabrication.






"“The extreme events are more extreme. The hurricane scale used to be 1-5 and now they’re adding a 6" -- made up out of thin air.

Then there's that whole deal about his movie, starring himself, being laughed out of British courts for flagrant inaccuracies.

"extreme weather events related to climate that are now 100 times more common than they were just 30 years ago" -- again, made up from thin air, since the opposite is true.



Dude, we can do this all day.

And the problem with his "investments," is the money wasn't earned -- it was garnered through those "big energy subsidies" that you hate so much. None of those companies made a dime from the open market, and existed on government largess.

All you're doing is rolling out the FOX News bullet points--provided by the Koch disinformation campaign. Each of your so-called "exposes" are in fact fake. Take a long look at that picture from Beijing. That's real. What are you?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Each of your so-called "exposes" are in fact fake.

That video, seen live by millions, is fake?

Have the statements he made in his film, starring himself, somehow been attributed to someone besides... himself?

He's a PROVEN liar -- not up for debate. This is what is known as a FACT, which has been proven over and over (unlike your junk science, which has been proven untrue).

Gore's basic thrust is of course accurate. Have you looked at that pic from Beijing? And...?...what, you just think "it's not human caused"..."we can't impact the climate"..."it's God's work, not ours"...and similar drivel?

Look, here's a clear breakdown on the Denialist campaign--into whose trough you've pushed your snout..

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campai ... ndustries/

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Gore's basic thrust is of course accurate.

No, it's not. It's a complete fabrication, and has been proven as exactly that.

Papa Willie wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:All you're doing is rolling out the FOX News bullet points--provided by the Koch disinformation campaign. Each of your so-called "exposes" are in fact fake. Take a long look at that picture from Beijing. That's real. What are you?

Chances are - your Koch boys are racking up on green shit as well. But hey - if consuming grass at a record pace is your idea of fun, Mr. Sheep - please continue to do so.

No, pops, you're in denial as to the Koch brothers. First, they're not mine, they're yours. That is, through their concerted and unrelenting efforts, they've got you parroting their positions as though you actually believe you know what you're talking about. Check yourself...where have you heard all of these scathing attacks on Gore and similar advocates for Climate Change action? It's not too hard to trace the "articles" and "experts"with whom you dutifully agree to the well-paid shill fest sponsored by the Kochs. And you suggest that Dims has presented a solid case for Denialism? Sure, let's consider that the new chairman of the senate Environment committee, James Inhofe, insists that humanity can't impact the climate because "it's all there in Genesis"..
Okay...so who is peddling "junk science"?

LTS TRN 2 wrote: Can you present any actual evidence of his dishonesty?

Will his own admission suffice?

Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

http://grist.org/article/roberts2/

Is there anything else I can help you with?

LTS TRN 2 wrote: Okay...so who is peddling "junk science"?

Both.

Hmmmm... who spends more money on their "cause" -- the Koch's, or the Cult?

I'll give you a hint -- it's a VERY one-sided battle.

Hint 2 -- it's the side that bashes their counterparts for a "lack of peer-review," (which is apparently their end-all, be-all) while wanting to base policy (read: spending other peoples' money) on reports that... aren't peer-reviewed.

Good work if you can get it, I suppose.

Papa Willie wrote:Do your family a favor and jump off a spectacular cliff.

In the interest of expeditiousness, don't ask M2 for directions to the nearest one.

So..all of you lock-step ass hats are just willing to ignore--or suck up--the milky skies of Beijing?..As Though..that won't happen to us. And too, you're willing to abide by the shills hired by the Kochs to allay any such warnings about Climate Change/ Just like Inhofe, you don't think it's even happening? And..in the usual mode of soft equivocation, you're suggesting that it's a scam for both sides and what we really need to do is keep drilling, keep fracking, keep hobbling the EPA, and keep those oil company profits at their current all-time high?

I understand that you're tired old scared white guys...looking fearfully out of your windows..trying to reassure yourselves that it's still some sort of Libertarian world out there--if only those Liberals can be routed. And it's pretty sad that you can't actually voice a reasonable idea or suggestion. Just the usual toxic racist scared crap.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:all of you lock-step ass hats

I only see one of those here, who eats up everything the Cult feeds him, even as actual science and observed data makes a joke of their pseudo-religious beliefs.

And you're suggesting that the pic from Beijing is fake?

So, there's smog in a grossly overpopulated city that due to its location, has little airflow?

Man, who woulda thunk it.

Interesting algoreism you pulled there -- take a known phenomenon, then intertwine it with a wild (and inaccurate) theory, and make them homogenous.

Why do you need to pull (ineffective) parlor tricks if you actually believe in your stance... troll?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:So..all of you lock-step ass hats are just willing to ignore--or suck up--the milky skies of Beijing?..As Though..that won't happen to us.

It did....forty years ago.

Sure, and in London sixty-years ago. So..? Are you suggesting that somehow we're out of the woods/ That there are not huge looming disastrous situations due to air pollution caused by fossil fuels? what's your slippery point?

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/0 ... ard-japan/


The basic dismissal of Climate Change--as though it's a Liberal hoax, is shameless and no better than the soap-brained Christian denial. As for your lock-step support of corporate profits over basic environmental safety, well it's as though you're some lizard creature pretending to be human.

Again -- why are you mingling basic air pollution (a legitimate concern) and a completely disproven "theory" into a single subject?

And I don't think you really understand what smog is.

Climate Change is directly connected to air pollution, though of course it's not the only cause. And too, when we say Climate Change we don't merely mean warming. How about the increasing acidification of the oceans? And the increased desertification? As for the increasingly erratic and unbalanced weather patterns, these area reminder that the impact we're having on the planet's delicate ecosystem is significant and much quicker than we'd thought. AS for the staunch denialists, this is shameless and irresponsible. The chants of 'job creation" and so forth are just lies by paid shills--like McConnell and Boehner. The Christer agenda is seriously demented and dangerous, especially when folks like Inhofe (and Joni Ernst) are in positions of real power. As for your auto-denial, it's robotic and extremely narrow. You are the ideal product of the FOX/Koch disinformation campaign.

off this shit troll.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:How about the increasing acidification of the oceans?

A complete myth. That absolutely flies in the face of PROVEN CHEMISTRY.

Make up your minds -- is the ocean warming, or is their "acidification" (it would be nice if the proponents of the myth actually knew what that word meant, since it's junior high chemistry stuff)?

And the increased desertification?

First, industrialized nations have more trees now than they did 100 years ago.

Second, you want to eliminate fossil fuels, and are now going to bitch when less developed nations use the resources at hand? Very typical of the Cult.

And again -- the word "desert" obviously doesn't mean what you think it means... is it too much to ask from the Cult to stop changing definitions of words?

As for the increasingly erratic and unbalanced weather patterns

A complete myth... do you ever stop? Weather patterns have been more stable and less severe over the last 30 years than the decades prior. This is FACT.

You are the ideal product of the FOX/Koch disinformation campaign.

Coming from the Cult of the Goracle, that's funny shit.

I'll take actual science over cult beliefs, thanks.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:You are the ideal product of the FOX/Koch disinformation campaign.

There is zero need for a disinformation campaign by Fox or Koch when the "scientists" supporting global warming are running their own disinformation campaign.

Phil Jones, scientist working for United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wrote:“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”

Phil Jones wrote:“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

Phil Jones to Penn State Univ scientist Michael Mann wrote:“Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]? Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise.”

Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC's most recent climate assessment wrote:“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out of our IPCC reports"

Penn State professor Michael Mann wrote:“I gave up on GIT professor Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,”

Penn State professor Michael Mann wrote:“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose skeptic Steve McIntyre"

Not all of the scientist are on board with the disinformation campaign and their quotes pull back the curtain on how some of these alarmists want to use information.

Peter Thorne, UK Met Office wrote:“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further”

Peter Thorne, UK Met Office wrote:“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run”

Other "scientist" show how they want to censor anyone who might question their disinformation or cover up of data.

Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored an email asserting that his fellow scientists “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.

No need for a Fox/Koch disinformation campaign when the alarmists are happy to throw accepted scientific practices out the window and out right lie in order to advance the "cause".

Please, Lefty -- the hacked emails have been THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED. Just ask LTS.

See, they did an investigation into themselves, and they cleared themselves of all wrongdoing.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:As for the increasingly erratic and unbalanced weather patterns, these are a reminder that the impact we're having on the planet's delicate ecosystem is significant and much quicker than we'd thought.

This planet is not delicate. The mere thought that ants like human beings crawling around on this (for now) habitable rock can have any effect whatsoever on climate is ludicrous. You ignore the evidence of your own senses when you make declarations like this. In short, you swallow.

Instead, this rock would spew us out like the contents of Dins stomach does his lunch after a bad wine tasting, should it take the the notion.

you can fool some of the people some of the time...

War Wagon wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:As for the increasingly erratic and unbalanced weather patterns, these are a reminder that the impact we're having on the planet's delicate ecosystem is significant and much quicker than we'd thought.

This planet is not delicate. The mere thought that ants like human beings crawling around on this (for now) habitable rock can have any effect whatsoever on climate is ludicrous. You ignore the evidence of your own senses when you make declarations like this. In short, you swallow.

Instead, this rock would spew us out like the contents of Dins stomach does his lunch after a bad wine tasting, should it take the the notion.

you can fool some of the people some of the time...

E tu, wags? C'mon, you're going all in with Inhofe and the bible thumpers who claim that we can't affect the climate on this planet? Really? But surely you can see this notion is itself absurd. Example....if we were to somehow engage a nuclear war (of course this could never happen), it would demonstrably destroy the habitat for human viability. That is, we'd have drastically affected the planet with just the push of few buttons. And whether the planet could theoretically heal and adapt in a few hundred thousand years is irrelevant. Similarly, and on a lesser but still immediate level, there was the catastrophe of the Dust Bowl, which was directly facilitated by the erroneous plowing methods, that is, man-made, and only twenty-five percent or so ever recovered. the planet is very delicate. Why do you suggest it's not? And too you suggest that the planet itself might reject us "should it take the notion." Well this sounds like a mix of Christer and Gaia druid stuff. Interesting, but what the fuck are you talking about? Katrina?

As for the simplistic auto-Koch smoke being blown by Dims and fakeseater, notice that they're just insisting that these claims aren't true. And calling it a "cult"--just like a Christer automatically calling everything 'satanic." All the evidence is squarely against them. The vast majority of credible scientific bodies agree that of course we're directly affecting--damaging--the planet's delicate ecosystem--and much faster than we'd feared. The only "scientists' denying are paid shills. Yes, the koch brothers have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in a relentless droning propaganda campaign--the Big Lie repeated endlessly--and the evidence of this campaign is clear. And their motive is just as clear.

Libs like to say "follow the money". That trail leads both ways.

And while an all nuclear holocaust would certainly exterminate most if not all of humanity for the next 10,000 years or so, the planet would certainly recover. Grass would grow again, birds would fly, fish would swim.

In the meantime don't worry, be happy. Neither you or I can control a damn thing as it relates to climate and neither will the Keystone pipeline.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: E tu, wags?

RACK!!!!

Sin,
Shoalzie


So, you're "proof" is that the Kochs spend money?

You do know the non-cultists spend a tiny fraction of the money their counterparts do, RIGHT? That it's not even close in expenditures, RIGHT?

Since "paid shills" are your metric for judging a (disproven) scientific theory, I'm glad you've seen the light, and are joining the rest of us in decrying this scam perpetrated by the 1%.

Yea your not in a cult dims. You just keep telling yourself that ditch digger.

Tnx for stealing the ditch diggers thunder

War Wagon wrote:Libs like to say "follow the money". That trail leads both ways.

And while an all nuclear holocaust would certainly exterminate most if not all of humanity for the next 10,000 years or so, the planet would certainly recover. Grass would grow again, birds would fly, fish would swim.

IIn the meantime don't worry, be happy. Neither you or I can control a damn thing as it relates to climate and neither will the Keystone pipeline.

Let's consider just where the notion of Climate Change denial originated.

In one of the first attempts by industry to influence public opinion on climate change, a 1998 proposal (later posted online by Greenpeace was circulated among U.S. opponents of a treaty to fight global warming, including both industry and conservative political groups, in an effort to influence public perception of the extent of the problem. Written by a public relations specialist for the American Petroleum Institute and then leaked to The New York Times, the memo described, in the article's words, a plan "to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases." Cushman quoted the document as proposing a US$ 5,000,000 multi-point strategy to "maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media and other key audiences," with a goal of "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom.'"

The Guardian reported that after the IPCC released its February 2007 report, the American Enterprise Institute offered British, American and other scientists $10,000, plus travel expenses to publish articles critical of the assessment. The institute, which had received more than $US 1.6 million from Exxon and whose vice-chairman of trustees was former head of Exxon Lee Raymond, sent letters that The Guardian said "attack the UN's panel as 'resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work' and ask for essays that 'thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs'." More than 20 AEI employees worked as consultants to the George W. Bush administration.

And let's consider that the Kochs and similar industrialists--who only care for profit--have been funding the various agencies and "institutes" that have offered the ONLY deniall under the pretense of scientific expertise. And the (automatic) charge that the various scientific bodies that are calling for immediate and significant action on Climate Change are "just like" the nefarious Kochs is utter bullshit.

As for your notion that sure, we might perish, but not the earth will be fine--bullshit. A nuclear war could--among other things--create a climate of "nuclear winter" which would entirely and permanently kill the basic delicate ecosystem. Just like Mars. Don't keep your head in the sand. Or up the GOP's ass.

WW

Amazing that LTS can only follow the money on one side of the equation.

Further it is typical of his Left leaning heros to scream from the mountain top, but when faced with a project that would actually help they just redirect their screaming.

See Teddy Kennedy and the Cape Wind project that he repeatedly had squashed or Nancy P and solar projects.

Papa Willie wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:

Just fucking brutal...

Wow, you finally found some stupid youtube video to turn into a GIF that was actually funny. What did it take you, only 20 tries?

Left Seater wrote:Amazing that LTS can only follow the money on one side of the equation.

Further it is typical of his Left leaning heros to scream from the mountain top, but when faced with a project that would actually help they just redirect their screaming.

See Teddy Kennedy and the Cape Wind project that he repeatedly had squashed or Nancy P and solar projects.

What, is there no slithering beg-off you won't take? Is there no weaseling fake equivocation you won't attempt? Are you not in fact the most slime-covered little rat in the history of this palsied forum?

Look, the basic facts are right there. The Denialists of Climate Change are absolute frauds. Paid shills and cowering Christers. Frankly, there's no use pounding your tired passive weak-hammed mewling smears and cat-calls. You're an embarrassment. And let's not forget that your supposed aviation expertise has similarly been stomped like the Washington Generals...right here, asshole...http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/inde ... 20969...as far as your shameless insistence on the official story of the 9/11 pentagon attack.

Here hangs fakeseater, just a creep, just a bleater...

You mean Franklin Graham, right? Or do you mean the sleazy fraud, fakeseater? Be clear.

Excuse me? pops, this entire subject is about greed, period. it's basically the rapacious greed of the kochs, who are already one of the richest corporations in the nation, but are dead set on multiplying that wealth at the direct expense of the populace. Theirs is the utterly noxious and toxic philosophy of greed spelled out by the drastic fraud, Ayn Rand, and echoed by the so-called "neo-liberal" movement of fuckstains like Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan, and the current consortium of congressional whores like Mitch McConell, etc. The stunning and extremely dangerous shift of wealth in the past twenty years is a clear indication of the dire success of these greed barons, and with the crowning achievement of the Citizens United ruling by the radical activist right-wing Supreme Court, the prospects for fairness and rational social policy, let alone a nation characterized by a compassionate progressive sensibility are in doubt.

Another drive by LTS.

If your really believe the global warming "scientists", where is your outrage towards people like Ted Kennedy and Nancy P who allegedly agree with your position, but have done nothing of substance to help. In fact they actively worked against "green" energy projects in their districts.

Not to change the subject, but, I met my new boss the other day. He was in DC on 9-11. He WATCHED a big fukking plane fly into the pentagon. I asked him if he was certain it was a plane and not some sort of missile. He looked at me kind of funny. I then explained about certain morons on the interweb claiming it was a missile. He assured me it was a plane.

Just another christer/koch shill, i guess.

Yeah..?...guess what?...He's lying and so are you...

As you've noticed, the fakeseat troll has offered nothing in regards to the complete takedown of his "expertise" as a pilot. Nothing. And he won't. Just like you won't dare propose ONE single part of the 9/11 official story that can stand up to basic scrutiny. Not a single one will be forwarded. Or what? That's how utterly pathetic you are. But..more, you can't even mention the letters TPP...such is your deep-fried Koch conditioning. As for the subject of the earth's ecosystem and our proper duty as actual sentient partners. Who are you? What are you? You should deal with this first before presuming to offer any sort of rote bullshit. C'mon!

And you've been hiding...as long as you can...tick tick...

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Yeah..?...guess what?...He's lying and so are you...

As you've noticed, the fakeseat troll has offered nothing in regards to the complete takedown of his "expertise" as a pilot. Nothing. And he won't.

This from someone who can't even operate google well enough to find a definition of a faring.

Your pilots for 911 truth has plenty of holes as well. 88 has posted plenty of the inaccuracies found in their claims. Further they mix and match data as they like. Further they base everything off of the EAir crash. The stresses on that plane are not comparable to 9/11 as there was a fight for control of the EAir flight with the controls being pushed to opposite ends by each pilot.

Carry on troll, just don't expect an answer for everyone of your short bus theories.

Left Seater wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Yeah..?...guess what?...He's lying and so are you...

As you've noticed, the fakeseat troll has offered nothing in regards to the complete takedown of his "expertise" as a pilot. Nothing. And he won't.

This from someone who can't even operate google well enough to find a definition of a faring.

Your pilots for 911 truth has plenty of holes as well. 88 has posted plenty of the inaccuracies found in their claims. Further they mix and match data as they like. Further they base everything off of the EAir crash. The stresses on that plane are not comparable to 9/11 as there was a fight for control of the EAir flight with the controls being pushed to opposite ends by each pilot.

Carry on troll, just don't expect an answer for everyone of your short bus theories.

Bullshit. Neither you nor SS will go anywhere near the piece. There was a "fight for control"? Really? And upon what do you base this total imaginary scenario? And how do you account for a airliner fitting into the very small hole and disappearing? Oh, that's right, you can't. And haven't. And you are a total fraud and you know it.

Papa Willie wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:And you've been hiding...as long as you can...tick tick...

To the contrary - I've produced a myriad of realistic, non-cherry picked facts in this thread that throw you and your shit theories to the wind. People as ignorant as you would be better off if you were starved to death.

More total bullshit. All you--and the other denialists--have rolled out are scripted bullet points from a variety of Koch funded sources. Those sources and the amounts paid are on record. As are the actual reputable scientific bodies who comprise the 99% of experts insisting on the reality of Climate Change and the need to take serious action.

You are like toxic clams, burrowed deep in foul sludge.