A new thread for climate science deniers to post their non scientific facts (updarted 5/23/16)

A new thread for climate science deniers to post their non scientific facts (updarted 5/23/16)

It seems like these boards have been flooded with threads showing AGW is real and needs to be addressed. Whenever a denier gives their theories they get shouted down just because they are unable to come up with anything scientific. I have decided to start a thread for them to share their ideas. Please no science from AGW zealots. You guys ruin an interesting discussion. BrianH, Ram and Warrentt should be great contributors.

Some of the things I have learned.

1. CO2 is good for the environment. It allows plants to grow.
2. Corral turns into sand and allows land masses to rise
3. CO2 levels were 10 times higher in the distant past before man inhabited the earth. No man died off as a result.
4. Al Gore has no understanding of global warming. He just knows how to draw hockey sticks.
5. Coal gets burnt to CO2 which is good for plants see 1. Above
6. The earth was 10 times as hot around the same time that CO2 levels were high and no humans died.
7. Venus has higher CO2 levels so global warming occurs naturally.

Just posted a few points. Come on guys help me out

New additions

1. Leo De caprio who received an award is a hypocrite
2. We are coming out of the Little Ice Age. The earth warms when it comes out of ice ages. I believe the earth warms and cools, warms and cools, and will continue to do so for a very long time with or without humans.
3. Because there are bigger threat to the human existence that is outside of your control.
4. Big earthquake, volcanoes, tsunami can happen anytime and human can't do shit about it.
5. What happen to the ozone scared? Wasn't that the main push behind AGW a while back.
6. Those who think like you DON'T own climate science! I've mentioned several real atmospheric scientists in this forum. The likes of you just cover your ears and go, "lalalalalalala."
7.Nobody has debunked Lindzen!Nobody has debunked Spencer!Nobody has debunked the late great Gray!Nobody has debunked Christy!Nobody has debunked Landsea!Nobody has debunked Michaels!Nobody has debunked Keen!Nobody has debunked Singer!Nobody has debunked the late great Carter!Nobody has debunked Clark!Nobody has debunked Easterbrook!

SCCRENDO | 20. Mai 2016

New fact I have learned today from BrianH today

"And has the egregiously fiddled data to prove it"

Dramsey | 21. Mai 2016

How about this one: people with carbon footprints a thousand times larger than mine keep winning environmental awards.

You know, like this one.

It's both a fact and non-scientific! Frist!

RedShift | 21. Mai 2016


He (through his fund) donated $15M to environmental causes. You?

Its laughable, how hypocritical you folks are: any one fighting for a better environment must go around by walking or bicycle. Rest can continue crapping all over, just because they don't believe the environment is getting bad.
Freakin clowns.

RedShift | 21. Mai 2016

Sorry about the 'clowns' comment. That was too harsh.

Dramsey | 22. Mai 2016

No, no...say what you mean. Why, I just called Phi much worse names!

So, how does this work? I can pump as much CO2 as I want into the air if I give some organization enough money? Is there a $-per-ton-of-CO2 metric, and, if so, what is it? Is this like the "carbon offset" market a few years ago (and whatever happened to that?) Or is it like buying indulgences from the Catholic church back in the Middle Ages?

But seriously: if you believe that putting CO2 into the atmosphere is bad, how can there be any excuse for it? And it's not just Leo: virtually every famous environmental advocate does this shit. Every time there's one of these "environmental conferences"where the obscenely rich and famous get together with government factotums-- generally in fleets of private jets at exotic locales-- you should think:

I'll believe there's a problem when the people who tell me there's a problem start acting as if there's a problem.

RedShift | 22. Mai 2016


He isnt putting as much CO2 as he can because he is contributing to combat global warming. He is living his
Iifestyle. He isn't living by your standards for those fighting global warming, and that's sad. What's worse is you want to hold them to a standard while not caring about the cause.

SCCRENDO | 22. Mai 2016

@ramsey. As Redshift says. When everyone starts addressing the environment there will be no more need for awards

Dramsey | 22. Mai 2016

Here's the dictionary definition of "hypocrisy":

The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

Can one of you morally superior folks, who knows that the kilotons of CO2 Leo's profligate lifestyle spews into the air don't count because, well, he gives money to some organization, explain how Leo is not a hypocrite? Has anyone here ever taken a course in logic or epistemology? OR EVEN SEMANTICS?

(As an aside, if you wonder why so many people like me think AGW is bullshit, stuff like this is why.)

SCCRENDO | 22. Mai 2016

@Dramsey. None of us live perfectly green lives. Elon also flies all over the place. One would wish that we could all change our lives with immediate effect. These people are making major contributions. Air travel does need to be addressed and hopefully will be in time. The idea behind the green movement is to improve lives and not damage the economy in the process. So I reckon for the moment jet travel will continue. Are you upset about the fact he got the award or the fact he flew over to receive it?
People think the movement is BS because they have been brainwashed that way

RedShift | 22. Mai 2016

Hey Ramsey,

If you need Leo De Caprio to be perfect before your highness decides to BELIEVE in AGW, then let me tell you - you didnt want to believe in the first place. You can invent a million excuses not to believe. I personally don't care what a Hollywood actor does. I care whether AGW is occuring, and choose to act on it.

Anyway, who the frack cares whether you believe in this or not? I have given up convincing any conservative that they should believe in scientific, expert consensus. You don't wanna believe? Fine, it's a free country.

SCCRENDO | 22. Mai 2016

@redshift. This is why I created this thread. It's to allow deniers to give reasons why we should ignore AGW. No science needed. Ramsey has just added another reason.


MitchP85D | 22. Mai 2016

Leo can fly all the private jets he wants to. For 15 years of my life, I provided flight weather briefs to the pilots who flew those jets. What Dramsey and I object to is Leo telling the construction worker he can't buy a pick up truck. If he does buy one, the likes of Leo want him to PAY a penalty for it! Yes, I agree. That is blatant hypocrisy!

SCCRENDO | 22. Mai 2016

Doing know the full story but I will concede that their could be some hypocrisy involved.
So I will add Hypocrisy to the list of reasons you guys don't believe in global warming

MitchP85D | 22. Mai 2016

SCCRENDO, we are coming out of the Little Ice Age. The earth warms when it comes out of ice ages. I believe the earth warms and cools, warms and cools, and will continue to do so for a very long time with or without humans.

warren_tran | 23. Mai 2016

Because there are bigger threat to the human existence that is outside of your control.

1. Big meteor/asteroid can impact the earth. Human doesn't have any system to prevent that 100%.
2. Big earthquake, volcanoes, tsunami can happen anytime and human can't do shit about it.

What happen to the ozone scared? Wasn't that the main push behind AGW a while back.

RedShift | 23. Mai 2016


What Leo or anyone does is irrelevant if you believe in the science. You, Ramsey and the rest of conservative bunch don't get to have say about what folks fighting for a lean environment do. First, demonstrate that you believe in science, then a desire to do something about it, then you can criticize all you want.

Until then, keep your EXCUSES not to believe, to yourselves. No one gives a shyte.

warren_tran | 23. Mai 2016

Why should we believe in hypocrite? That is the stupidest argument is we should listen to those who do exact opposite of what they say.

SCCRENDO | 23. Mai 2016

Thanks Mitch and Warrentt. Just added your comments. Warrentt. I think ozone is different. It's O3. It was a hole in the atmosphere due to fluorocarbons. Excess radiation rather than heat was coming through. Banning fluorocarbons seemed to help.
I promised no science on this site so I won't debate it but here is a link to understanding ozone.

RedShift | 23. Mai 2016


Missed my point entirely. If you must listen to Leo to make up your mind, you never were interested in believing. There are an overwhelming majority of climate scientists saying AGW is real, and you are feverishly inventing excuses not to believe. So, go pound sand, no one cares whether you believe or not.

Cant make it any simpler than that.

Mike83 | 23. Mai 2016

Not knowing Leo's Carbon footprint I don't believe gossip means much except to the childish uneducated individuals. I do believe he owns Teslas and contributes to projects reducing Global Warming. Gossip must be another reason that deniers use as facts along with convoluted logic.

MitchP85D | 23. Mai 2016

Hey RedShift, are you liberals the sole owners of science? Is that what you really think? Allow me to break it to you. Those who think like you DON'T own climate science! I've mentioned several real atmospheric scientists in this forum. The likes of you just cover your ears and go, "lalalalalalala."

SCCRENDO | 23. Mai 2016

Thanks Mitch. Added you comment to the list.

RedShift | 23. Mai 2016


No one owns science. There are several more tims people have debunked your blue eyed boys. You have never responded. Who has gone lalala now?

Its not a battle between liberals and cons. Its about whether you believe in majority scientific opinion and are willing to do something about it. If you answered no to both above, you know where you stand. All I am saying is, I don't care to change your mind, and care even less about what qualms you might have about people fighting for a better environment and their jet setting ways. Don't care a damn.

MitchP85D | 24. Mai 2016

Nobody has debunked Lindzen!

Nobody has debunked Spencer!

Nobody has debunked the late great Gray!

Nobody has debunked Christy!

Nobody has debunked Landsea!

Nobody has debunked Michaels!

Nobody has debunked Keen!

Nobody has debunked Singer!

Nobody has debunked the late great Carter!

Nobody has debunked Clark!

Nobody has debunked Easterbrook!

Reshift, care to tell me WHO has? Just saying "the science" won't cut it! That's a copout!

SCCRENDO | 24. Mai 2016

@Mitch. I know in this thread I said we would not require science but I'm not familiar with the guys you mention. Would you mind posting links for me. Btw I added your last statement verbatim

RedShift | 24. Mai 2016


I dont have time to go thru all, but you yourself admitted that Gray was wrong to predict weak cooling.

Also, the standard you hold for 'not having been debunked' is super suspect, as ot comes fom a conservative such as yourself. Many probably never published peer reviewed papers, but posted authentic sounding youtube videos or video battles which you obviously believed your side 'won'.

If they havent been debunked, its because they dont have enough credibility to be given much attention to, in all probability.

bb0tin | 24. Mai 2016

I have already provided links debunking some of your mentioned people on this forum. The links were even posted as a direct response to your posts.
You said that 'Nobody has debunked' them. I am prepared to bet that they have been debunked, multiple times.
Propose a bet and I will almost certainly accept it. But you will not. You are an ignorant, forgetful, incorrect, lying coward, and demonstrate it more each day.

SCCRENDO | 24. Mai 2016

@bb0tin. No scientific debunking or science allowed on this thread. I am looking for anything from the denier crowd. So far I have been underwhelmed.

MitchP85D | 24. Mai 2016

How in the hell are we going to agree on who was debunked? The only thing you will be able to do is to find some obscure nit-pick thing. And there you go again with your stupid-ass bet crap!

RedShift, only with HadCrut data can you make a case Gray was "wrong."

SCC, since you are one of the more level-headed ones here, I would like for you to check out Dr. Richard Lindzen's "Global Warming, Lysenkoism and Eugenics." Just google it, and it will take you right there. He authoritatively describes how politics has corrupted science. And that it has been happening for a very long time.

bb0tin | 24. Mai 2016

In my defense MitchP85D would never propose a bet so I would not need to provide any evidence.

compchat | 24. Mai 2016

Leo De Caprio is a bit of a hypocrit...flying his private jet from Europe to LA and back again simply to pick up an award. How many pounds of C02 did that jet expell into the atmosphere. If he's going to preach it he should live it. Next time, Leo, take a commercial airline or better yet have the award shipped to you. I thought Leo died on the Titanic.

compchat | 24. Mai 2016

Sorry story says New York.

SCCRENDO | 24. Mai 2016

@Mitch. Sorry but I'm not going to sit through a 56 min video. The articles I linked to are much the same. I addressed this in the thread that BrianH popped up with. The Medieval "heat wave" and the accuracy of measurements have all been addressed and debunked. This is the the main theme of the denial. Sen Ted Cruz is his strong advocate and there is a religious quote at the top. Enough said. But here is the link anyway
Global Warming, Lysenkoism and Eugenics.

SCCRENDO | 24. Mai 2016
MitchP85D | 25. Mai 2016

The MWP and LIA have not been debunked by anybody!

SamO | 25. Mai 2016

MWP debunked by everyone

LIA debunked debunked by everyone


You'll walk over, but you'll limp back - with that weak sauce.

MitchP85D | 25. Mai 2016

Oh, yeah. skeptical science. What a joke!

SamO | 25. Mai 2016

Such a sad loser you are. :-(

bb0tin | 25. Mai 2016

I can provide several other debunkings from published climate scienctists.
If you think that I cannot, then propose a bet.
You will not do so because you do not believe what you post.

MitchP85D | 26. Mai 2016

Put a name to the scientist(s) who debunked MWP and LIA.

SCCRENDO | 26. Mai 2016

@Mitch. Too many to mention. Remember it's 97% (perhaps 99%) of scientists compared to the 10 you know that are supported by Ted Cruz. If you bother to look at the links that Samo posted (which I have previously posted as well), there are multiple references and even an intellectual discussions that follows. Unfortunately the link you sent me too is one guy afilliated with a questionable group that doctored a couple graphs. It's all easily refuted in the links that Samo has shown.

bb0tin | 26. Mai 2016

If you propose a bet which I accept, then I will provide not only the names but links to the debunkings.
Go on, propose a bet. Don't be a coward. Stand behind your words.

MitchP85D | 26. Mai 2016

Skeptical science has debunked nothing from Anthony Watts.

SCCRENDO | 26. Mai 2016

@Mitch. Don't know Watts? Provide us a link to Watts so we can debunk

bb0tin | 26. Mai 2016

You have not proposed a bet but continue to spout your incorrect rubbish. Do you think that by repeating the same falsehoods that they will magically become true? Stand behind your proclamations. Don't be a coward.

MitchP85D | 26. Mai 2016

OK, try this you global warming worshippers:

google Medieval Warm Period - Encyclopedia Britannica

You will get the most unbiased, straight down the middle explanation of the MWP that you will ever find. There is no pro or con AGW slant.

Any of you want to try it? Something tells me you don't want to look at it.

bb0tin | 26. Mai 2016

There you go again, except this time you have made patently vacuous statements.
Propose a bet that I don't want to look at it. LOL.

SCCRENDO | 27. Mai 2016

@Mitch. Just copied and pasted from Brittanica for you

Possible causes
Many scientists arguing for the existence of the MWP have noted that the interval was characterized by an increase in incoming solar radiation paired with a relative absence of volcanic activity. (Aerosols expelled from volcanic eruptions have been shown to block a portion of incoming sunlight.) The combination of both phenomena would contribute to an increase in air temperatures. Some scientists have also attributed warmer air temperatures in the North Atlantic region to the delivery of warmer seawater (heated by solar radiation unimpeded by volcanic aerosols) by the Gulf Stream and other currents.

"Role in the modern climate debate
The climate conditions of the MWP are often compared to those of the late 20th and early 21st centuries in arguments over the causes and potential effects of modern climate trends. The MWP is frequently cited by global warming skeptics as evidence that the consequences of global warming are not all negative, especially as they relate to agricultural production. Because several sources note that temperatures during the MWP were even warmer than today, many skeptics claim that continued warming in modern times will likely bring increased prosperity at least to northern regions. In contrast, some global warming advocates maintain that analysis of the MWP adds little to the climate debate, since the climate variability of the interval can be explained by changes in large-scale climate patterns, such as El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the NAO, rather than by changes brought on by human beings. Other global warming advocates argue that a return to conditions similar to the MWP would not be a benefit to all, as temperature increases might make some regions more pleasant and prosperous while reducing agricultural productivity in others."

Absolutely supports our point. There is some benefit to global warming including some agriculture, better weather in certain parts etc. Nobody disputes this. But the adverse affects far outweigh the risk which include sea level rise, flooding, change in the biome, climate change, changes in weather patterns. Also long term starvation due to some detriment to agriculture particularly in 3rd world countries etc.

Need to look at and understand the full picture. AGW deniers just cherry pick isolated facts as a source for denial

MitchP85D | 27. Mai 2016

Good job SCC, you looked at. What was good about the write-up is that it presented both sides. As predictable, you only wanted to pay attention to what supported your side of the AGW argument.

SCCRENDO | 27. Mai 2016

No Mitch. This was the summary that I posted. The link Samo posted and I have previously posted pretty much refutes the medieval warming period argument. For your benefit I will post it again. If you read it you will see that there is honest debate at the end as to the meaning of the data