Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by sneuman

Why are you putting "cite" in quotes?

Because it was not what I had done:

cite (saɪt)
vb (tr)
1. to quote or refer to (a passage, book, or author) in substantiation as an authority, proof, or example
2. (Military) to mention or commend (a soldier, etc) for outstanding bravery or meritorious action
3. (Law) to summon to appear before a court of law
4. to enumerate: he cited the king's virtues.
[C15: from Old French citer to summon, from Latin citāre to rouse, from citus quick, from ciēre to excite]
ˈcitable ˈciteable adj ˈciter n

I'd asked for an opinion, which is not citing.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Because it was not what I had done:

cite (saɪt)
vb (tr)
1. to quote or refer to (a passage, book, or author) in substantiation as an authority, proof, or example
2. (Military) to mention or commend (a soldier, etc) for outstanding bravery or meritorious action
3. (Law) to summon to appear before a court of law
4. to enumerate: he cited the king's virtues.
[C15: from Old French citer to summon, from Latin citāre to rouse, from citus quick, from ciēre to excite]
ˈcitable ˈciteable adj ˈciter n

I'd asked for an opinion, which is not citing.

Well then, I see the "point" you're trying to make, but there's no need to put it in "quotes."

Perhaps you weren't the one who cited the petition -- but others have, here.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by sneuman

Well then, I see the "point" you're trying to make, but there's no need to put it in "quotes."

Perhaps you weren't the one who cited the petition -- but others have, here.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

[senormechanico]

Whaddya know?

A bit of non bias !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c4XPVPJwBY

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Whaddya know?

A bit of non bias !!

The UN Panel reviewer mentioned in that video:

Most Credible Climate Skeptic Not So Credible After All | Mother Jones
"[Dr. Patrick J.] Michaels' credibility on climate is called into question by a trove of documents from a 2007 court case that attracted almost no scrutiny at the time. Those documents show that Michaels has financial ties to big energy interests—ties that he's worked hard to keep secret."

Another of the three names, Dr. Richard Lindzen apparently taking money from the Koch-funded Heartland Institute: https://www.heartland.org/richard-lindzen

[senormechanico]

sneuman,

Did you even bother to watch it or do you follow the obama model?

"I don't know all the facts, but the police acted stupidly..."

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

sneuman,

Did you even bother to watch it or do you follow the obama model?

"I don't know all the facts, but the police acted stupidly..."

Yes, I watched it. Hence the reason I knew the names being cited.

[senormechanico]

How about discussing the facts presented instead of who made it?

[conachair]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

How about discussing the facts presented instead of who made it?

Others have done that already.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DFypd5NGS8

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Whaddya know?

A bit of non bias !!

Very entertaining until you start putting brain into gear and check not just some things he says but many things he says. As others have already posted some of the rebuffs, I won't bother.

But 48 pages.

[roverhi]

Originally Posted by sneuman

The UN Panel reviewer mentioned in that video:

Most Credible Climate Skeptic Not So Credible After All | Mother Jones
"[Dr. Patrick J.] Michaels' credibility on climate is called into question by a trove of documents from a 2007 court case that attracted almost no scrutiny at the time. Those documents show that Michaels has financial ties to big energy interests—ties that he's worked hard to keep secret."

Another of the three names, Dr. Richard Lindzen apparently taking money from the Koch-funded Heartland Institute: https://www.heartland.org/richard-lindzen

Typical response from a true believer, don't refute the facts, attack the person. I guess we should not believe the mythical 97% of supposed climate change believers because they get their money from lily white sources like Tom Steyr, George Soros, government grants and other tainted non profits.

Yes climate change is true, it may be sunny, it may rain tomorrow, there will be droughts and rainy periods, storms will happen, nice weather may prevail. The environment is in a constant state of flux and has been for a few billion years. That is except here in Hawaii where it's just another lousy day in paradise every day. I remember back in the '80s when global warming was the new delusion, the Seattle paper posted what the City would like in 40 years with the rise of the waters from melting ice caps. Strange, the sea level today is virtually unchanged from what it was then. It's the conceit of man that we assume the conditions today are what they have been and always will be and that we are causing any change.

That's not to say that we shouldn't waste things. Just that our efforts to stop certain 'pollutants' should be in line with our ability to change things. By the way that's virtually nil without a major die off and even then, would have very little effect. If you serious believe that CO2 is a dire threat then you should be offering your home to the nuclear industry so they can build a power plant there. Nuclear is the only viable non CO2 producing means to provide the energy that we need.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by roverhi

Typical response from a true believer, don't refute the facts, attack the person. I guess we should not believe the mythical 97% of supposed climate change believers because they get their money from lily white sources like Tom Steyr, George Soros, government grants and other tainted non profits.

Yes climate change is true, it may be sunny, it may rain tomorrow, there will be droughts and rainy periods, storms will happen, nice weather may prevail. The environment is in a constant state of flux and has been for a few billion years. That is except here in Hawaii where it's just another lousy day in paradise every day. I remember back in the '80s when global warming was the new delusion, the Seattle paper posted what the City would like in 40 years with the rise of the waters from melting ice caps. Strange, the sea level today is virtually unchanged from what it was then. It's the conceit of man that we assume the conditions today are what they have been and always will be and that we are causing any change.

That's not to say that we shouldn't waste things. Just that our efforts to stop certain 'pollutants' should be in line with our ability to change things. By the way that's virtually nil without a major die off and even then, would have very little effect. If you serious believe that CO2 is a dire threat then you should be offering your home to the nuclear industry so they can build a power plant there. Nuclear is the only viable non CO2 producing means to provide the energy that we need.

It's also a typical response from a 'true denier' to take aim at those raising the credentials of the supposed scientists. When it comes to something so complex as 'climate' then 'credentials and credibility' are exceptionally important. In fact 'credentials and credibility' are exceptionally important with any science, which is why Creationists are mocked so strongly. No 'cred'.

[Reefmagnet]

The mantra is attack the denier, or prattle on about 97% consensus. It's in the alarmist's playbook. On the latter, if you can't trust the Wall Street Journal, who can you trust?
Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer: The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' - WSJ

But it's understandable. When, after a quarter of a century, the IPCC still cannot declare that MMGW is an absolute certainty, what else is there?

More "propoganda":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4

And I'm pretty sure I've been channelling this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEPW_P7GVB8

My conclusion that is that if you want the truth on climate change the best guy to ask is either a geologist or a paleontologist. For proof, I offer the City of Venice. Forget sinking islands. This is one place with a long recorded history and is very susceptible to sea level rise. I figured that if sea level was rising 10 feet per century, this is the first place it would devastate.

Venice Is Slowly Sinking | Venice Sea Level Rise & Flooding

Returning to the lion's den

Check out this IPCC video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yiTZm0y1YA

Notice what is NOT said, not what is said.
Notice when you stop it at the 2:01 minute mark (but be quick although if not just check out below) do you notice something odd? Hint: Which line leads the other (yellow is temp)?

[roverhi]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

It's also a typical response from a 'true denier' to take aim at those raising the credentials of the supposed scientists. When it comes to something so complex as 'climate' then 'credentials and credibility' are exceptionally important. In fact 'credentials and credibility' are exceptionally important with any science, which is why Creationists are mocked so strongly. No 'cred'.

You say credentials are important but all you do is condemn by association. Just because someone is funded by an organization does not make their findings wrong. You attack their source of income but not their science.