The Destructive Behavior of Climate Alarmists

I take it you did not review the text of the paper, which was provided in the link. Too bad. Your conclusion is a mere expression of prejudice and betrays your ignorance of the topic under discussion..

 

Let's go over what you're running from, using your usual insults.

http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/...ng-scientific-consensus/#sthash.7O4otojA.dpbs
---
The PCF08 authors decided that when “quantifying the consensus” (by counting publications), a scientific paper could only be classified as a “cooling” paper if it projected that future temperatures would (continue to) decline, or that a “full-fledged ice age was imminent.” Papers published during the arbitrarily chosen 1965-’79 era that affirmed the climate had already been cooling for decades, that this cooling wasn’t a positive development, and/or that the effects of CO2 on climate were questionable or superseded by other more influential climate change mechanisms … were not considered worthy of classification as a “cooling” paper, or as a paper that disagreed with the claimed “consensus” that said the current (1960s-’70s) global cooling will someday be replaced by CO2-induced global warming.
---

Your heroes decided that if a paper said there had been past cooling, that meant the paper predicted future cooling. Even if it didn't predict future cooling.

Your heroes are wildly dishonest.

 

Sorry, but that's your very own falsehood. Here's what they said.
". . . Of course, the global cooling scare during the 1970s was not narrowly or exclusively focused upon what the temperatures might look like in the future, or whether or not an ice age was “imminent”. It was primarily about the ongoing cooling that had been taking place for decades, the negative impacts this cooling had already exerted (on extreme weather patterns, on food production, etc.), and uncertainties associated with the causes of climatic changes. . . . "

But this is really just your attempt to deflect from the subsequent review to correct the record.
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347966094_The_1970s_Global_Cooling_Consensus_was_not_a_Myth)

 

I don't use politics which is something you just made up as I continually concentrate on the climate stuff and the evidence/data that is behind it.

FACT: You have CONSTANLY ignored published science papers here with sneering prejudice.

FACT: You never debate in good faith it is always nasty and confrontational is what you offer.

FACT: you have completely avoided this article LINK because you are TERRIFIED of the base evidence provided which warmist/alarmists have by a 100% rate avoided the CONTENT of the article and after 750+ postings across two forums.

 

What claim? Where? By whom? The consensus in the 1970s -- which climate realists accept and CO2 kooks deny -- was that the climate HAD cooled, not that it would continue to cool. There was only a concern in some quarters that it could continue to cool.

Given the cyclical nature of climate variation, it's not surprising that after a cooling phase, the consensus would tilt towards warming no matter what the cause.

It seems to be a false "denier" claim that you either misread or made up.

 

This is really stupid.
Oxford Climate Activists Setting Up Illegal Roadblocks?
Eric Worrall
A shocking video has emerged of anti-vehicle activists illegally blocking a road in Oxford, to enforce their version of low traffic rules. . . .

 

No, that is a bald falsehood not in any way supported by the quoted passage.

We have reached maximum irony.

 

Ruh-roh. You're talking sense. Your pals here won't like that. They've been claiming there was a universal consensus in the 1970s that the climate would continue to cool.

 

The OP was a weird political rant, which was followed by a long series of weird political rants, some coming from you.

I'm kind of insulted by the poor quality of your attempted deception here. You're just phoning it in. Is everything okay?

For some reason, you want to highlight your personal vendetta against me. Do you think it scores you points with your political pals? After all, it is only about the politics with you. Your posts demonstrate that.

Just understand that reality doesn't care about your politics. The earth will continue to warm strongly, regardless of what you think. With El Nino arriving, the new high temp record will be broken soon. Have you prepared the propaganda to explain that?

 

That is a falsehood.

 

Or yours. Or your CO2-centered climate theory, or how many organizations, papers, journals, governments, and other politically controllable "authorities" endorse it.

No, that's already known to be false, as the earth could only "continue" to warm strongly if it were already warming strongly, and it indisputably isn't. It also won't, unless the sun unexpectedly becomes more active again, regardless of what you think or what your proved-false theory says.

A new high temperature record is easily arranged by increasing the under-correction for the effect of heat-related human activities other than CO2 emissions. It's a lot harder to melt arctic sea ice that is falsely and absurdly claimed to be vanishing -- but is somehow no less extensive than it was 80 years ago, when the first known one-season transit of the Northwest Passage was achieved.

 

Who claimed that? Where?

 

Your post avoided everything I stated with a lot of word salad, try better.

I don't use politics which is something you just made up as I continually concentrate on the climate stuff and the evidence/data that is behind it.

FACT: You have CONSTANLY ignored published science papers here with sneering prejudice. You didn't deny it

FACT: You never debate in good faith it is always nasty and confrontational is what you offer. You didn't deny it

FACT: you have completely avoided this article LINK because you are TERRIFIED of the base evidence provided which warmist/alarmists have by a 100% rate avoided the CONTENT of the article and after 750+ postings across two forums.

You have ALWAYS avoided it because you KNOW you can't counter it.

You didn't deny it

 

A fib of that caliber would worked better on a thread that wasn't entirely political rants from you and your side, as this thread is. You need to be more intelligent about where you put your lies.

Nah, I haven't ignored any papers. That's a story you make up so you can run from the actual discussion.

I point out that your papers fall into one of 3 categories:

1. Big ol' denier fakes, published in fake denier fraud-journals.

2. Papers that simply don't say what you claim they say.

3. Papers that are correct, but not relevent to the topic. For example, papers pointing to past warming fall into that category, and you post scads of them. And nobody cares, because everyone agrees climate warmed in the past.

No one is ever obligated to spend days refuting a Gish Gallop of crap, the only tactic you can use. If you could make a cogent point, you wouldn't need a Gish Gallop of crap. You could just make one strong point and support it. But you can't, and you know it, so you unleash the avalanche of nonsense and then claim victory.

Says the one who relies on entirely sleaze, insults, and a personal vendetta to deflect away from any discussion of the science. Look at you here. You're actually bragging about stalking me across multiple boards.

Has your "YOU MUST REFUTE EVERY PART OF MY PROPAGANDA LINK OR I WIN?" tactic ever convinced anyone that's not in your cult?

Let me trigger you hard now, by using your standard tactic against you.

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Refute every single argument there, or, by your own standards, I win.

After you do that, I'll link to the IPCC, which has thousands of references, and you'll be required to refute them all, or you have to admit I win. Again, by your own standards. You set those rules, not me.

 

Emitting smoke to cover your retreat. I have concluded that you are immune to embarrassment.

 

He didn't address a single published paper we posted in the thread while he screams against them despite no indication, he read any of it while he continues to promote a falsehood that I am political but after two falsehoods with ZERO quotes to support his claim it is clear he is indeed retreating in his blubbering style.

The man doesn't know how to debate he doesn't know how to be honest either.

 

Alarmist overreach.
Luxury Beliefs And Energy Policy: The Fatal Conceit
Guest Blogger
Today’s luxury belief of choice, net zero and the climate crusade, seems to be coming apart in front of our very eyes. . . .

 

Whining about protesters is NOT a valid methodology for assessing the validity of any position on climate.

In fact, America BEGAN as a protest.

And we have speech rights.

Various tactics may be illegal or chargeable offenses, but that has always been the case.

Again, measuring issues by the behavior of protesters is just plain IGNORANCE.

 

"In just a few years, an alarming new trend has gone viral. The “classic” green climate warriors like Greenpeace and the WWF are rapidly being outflanked and overtaken by much more radical groups who have given themselves frightening names such as “Extinction Rebellion” or “Last Generation”. Instead of taking to the streets simply placards and banners, these “activists” are swarming out in small groups armed with superglue, mashed potatoes or tomato soup. Their intention is to break the law in spectacular ways, without regard for the damages or consequences caused to others. Their indiscriminate attacks have targeted airports, artworks, museums, offices or the premises of ministries or administrations.

Claim the ends justify the means

But their favorite tactic is causing traffic jams by gluing themselves to the asphalt, forcing people to lose time and money or to even miss cancer treatments, court hearings and police deadlines for probation exemptions. In one recent case in Berlin, such a blockade had fatal consequences. After an accident, emergency rescue services could not reach a woman who had been caught under a truck in time. The victim suffered serious injuries before she died. Notwithstanding such events, the people causing the mayhem have shown no remorse and maintain that climate change dangers are so urgent that they are mandated to take action no matter how severely they interfere with other people’s lives.. . . ."

 

Environmental knowledge is inversely associated with climate change anxiety
Guest Blogger
“The degree of one’s emotions varies inversely with one’s knowledge of the facts, the less you know the hotter you get.”

Hannes Zacher & Cort W. Rudolph

Climatic Change volume 176, Article number: 32 (2023)

Abstract
This study tests the hypotheses that overall environmental knowledge and climate-specific knowledge are inversely related to climate change anxiety, such that people who know more (less) about the environment in general, and about climate in particular, are less (more) anxious about climate change. Time lagged data were collected from N = 2,066 individuals in Germany. Results showed that, even after controlling for demographic characteristics, personality characteristics, and environmental attitudes, overall environmental knowledge and climate-specific knowledge were negatively related to climate change anxiety (both B = -.09, p < .001).

 

Asked and answered.

 

This is still no more than whining about a form of protest.

We have freedom of speech.

 

Speech is not the issue. Behavior is.

 

He didn't read the articles which is why his replies are empty.

 

I see the deniers here didn't even attempt to refute my link to Skeptical Science.

That means, by their own standards, they are admitting that they have no arguments, that they can't debate, and that they're just screaming empty personal attacks. Sucks for them to be hoisted on your own petards. Thanks for playing, and we have some lovely parting gifts for you, including our Political Forum home game.

This is just one reason why it's so good to be on the rational side. We can state a point clearly and then back it up, so we do. The data agrees with us, so we can simply point to the data. We don't need to deflect with Gish Gallops of garbage. Since we always follow the data wherever it goes, we don't need to make up excuses about why the data contradics us. We don't need to mangle reality when we win by pointing at reality.