We’ve lost sight of the most important rule in debating science
Ethan Siegel

What reason or empirical evidence would push you off your religious warmer faith?

you think the Big Bang never happened,

you think that humans are not the result of evolution and natural selection,

you think that vaccines are ineffective for preventing disease,

you think that there are chemicals released by airplanes that make the population more docile,

you think that water fluoridation is mass-poisoning all those who ingest it,

That you place — or you think that climate change and global warming are not happening or caused by humans, in the same category as the first five proves your religious bias.

Climate changes all the time. In fact climate is defined by change in large scale spatial and temporal weather pasterns. 100% (not the totally fallacious 97 bullshit LIE) of scientists know that CO2 is a WEAK GH gas — that humans emit billions of tons of the stuff into the atm — ergo humans contribute to warmth, or it is highly probable that the earth would be cooler than it currently is if humans did not exist. I know this to 99.99% certainty and yet I am a denier — Pat More, Bojn Lumborg, Michael Crichton (RIP), and ALL rational people know this and are also deniers. Even Roger Revelle the grandfather of the science that subsequently transformed into faith based perfidy turned DENIER before his death. Piers Corbyn is the only scientist I can think of that holds CO2 as meaningless and his record of forecast not hindcast is far better than Gore, Hansen, Mann, and the rest of warmer sophists,

Before a consensus can even be established or GRAND faith based claim accepted or rejected = it must be defined. How can one state what would knock one off his position if his position is formed on a claim with no even obscure boundaries? What do these so called authorities agree on and since when does an argument from authority have ANYTHING to do with science?

Since warmer zealots won’t define their religion = I will do it for them.

To be a non skeptic or something other than an infidel you must believe ALL of the following

  1. That the mean global temp can even be defined. That it can be accurately measured in real time and past time through a proxy record and it has been done in an honest and trustworthy manner (despite UEA climategate and multiple scandals).
  2. That the mean temp is warming and that this can be defined scientifically — for example warmer than 5 min ago — 18 years ago — since the recession of the Maunder Minimum — the Roman warm period — the last glaciation and warmer where = one inch off the ground — at the top of the troposphere — at the surface of the ocean — at the poles or equator- in the center of urban heat islands etc. Has this even been defined with a null hypothesis and proven (= NO)?
  3. That the warming is due to increase in the the weak GH gas CO2 from 285 ppm to 400 ppm even though the UNcontested temp graph shows no good correlation between the two beyond they are both higher over the past century plus. And that IPCC admits that water vapor is at least 90% of the GH (CO2 is likely 3.5% of the GH).
  4. That the CO2 increase is man caused even though we KNOW from high school chem that warmth leads gas to defuse out of liquid/water/ocean. And that IPCC admits only 4% of annual CO2 emission is anthropogenic. We KNOW warmth leads CO2 atm increase not the opposite.
  5. That this extra warmth will cause a climate catastrophe even though all evidence suggests that vegetation and crop growth are up due to the extra plant food CO2 in the atm and extra moisture from extra warmth. And that life and humans have always thrived in warm rather than cold climate
  6. That this climate catastrophe can be prevented by our voting for Liberal Despots. That these beneficent kings can FIX the unbroken weather by further restricting our freewill even though China and most of the emerging world (= way over 50% of anthropogenic emission) will not cooperate.
  7. That the best way we can avert disaster does not include a wide spread turn to near zero GH nukes. In other words the only solutions to the non problem also must make Al Gore richer and Liberals more powerful.

According to a proper definition of global warming = are you a skeptic or a sheeple idiot? BTW the only science is skeptical science and only scientist a skeptical one.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.