Climategate

@metal-brain said
No, you were told there is a consensus of scientists, not climate scientists.
That is how they mislead you. They knew you would confuse the two and that is exactly what you did.

"No, you were told there is a consensus of scientists, not climate scientists."
I read between the lines because i am not a bloody moron. Nobody thinks, when talking about "consensus on climate change" that it includes all scientists from all fields.

"They knew you would confuse the two and that is exactly what you did."
You think the reason i or anyone else trust scientists on global warming is that we were under the impression that some mathematician who never opened a climate book or done a test even remotely connected with climate is also on board?

I know, I know, you won’t miss me. But I see absolutely no percentage in writing about climate, or trying to control it. Or what people think about it. Help me, Rhonda.

@zahlanzi said
"No, you were told there is a consensus of scientists, not climate scientists."
I read between the lines because i am not a bloody moron. Nobody thinks, when talking about "consensus on climate change" that it includes all scientists from all fields.

"They knew you would confuse the two and that is exactly what you did."
You think the reason i or anyone else trust scie ...[text shortened]... ho never opened a climate book or done a test even remotely connected with climate is also on board?

You cannot prove it because you are wrong.
I encourage you to try though. Failing is the only thing that will convince you.

"You think the reason i or anyone else trust scientists on global warming"

You did it again. You said scientists instead of climate scientists. You are still confusing the two and you expect me to believe you always detected the difference? I know this must be hard for you, but you have been mislead and lied to. It isn't your fault you believed such widespread misinformation from so many different sources. It is human nature. I posted this link for you already but you should stop getting angry and read it. You will understand why people are so dogmatic and believe even absurd things they hear said enough times from different sources.

https://www.livescience.com/1956-study-gossip-trumps-truth.html

A lot of people still will not let go of dark matter. Dark matter alone cannot explain how stars rotate in a galaxy. A whole field of theory was created to attempt to explain it. It is called modified newtonian dynamics (MoND theory) and astrophysicists are finally starting to come around to accept the laws of gravity are incomplete. You explain to me why there are so many that still cling to dark matter theory alone despite the fact that it is obviously wrong. Is it because they heard about dark matter so much from so many different people they just cannot accept it is wrong? I think so, but how long will it take before you stop hearing this false info enough that you finally stop being so dogmatic?

Climategate proves people have lied and manipulated data shamelessly. Be sure to read the end of that article I posted so you know why that seldom changes people's minds when they find out. It is human nature. Logic should indicate the source should be heavily scrutinized. Only half of all people do. That is quite amazing in a pessimistic way.

Half of all people are just like you. It is statistically proven. I just cannot explain why because I am the other half. Can you tell me why?

@metal-brain said
You cannot prove it because you are wrong.
I encourage you to try though. Failing is the only thing that will convince you.

"You think the reason i or anyone else trust scientists on global warming"

You did it again. You said scientists instead of climate scientists. You are still confusing the two and you expect me to believe you always detected the difference? I ...[text shortened]... is statistically proven. I just cannot explain why because I am the other half. Can you tell me why?

"You did it again. You said scientists instead of climate scientists."
I (reasonably if talking to anyone but you) did not find the need to add "climate" everytime i mention scientists on climate change talks. I didn't even consider some imbecile would assume i am including scientists who have nothing to do with climate and have the same authority to speak on it as a plumber or an elementary school music teacher or an actor.

Do you understand that it's exhausting arguing with you? Do you understand that you cling to most things one would assume to be evident and not worth mentioning when talking to anyone else?

What's next on the docket when discussing climate change with you (i am exaggerating to make a point, i plan to avoid you as much as possible)? Do i need next time to explain weather to you? What is carbon?
It's rhetorical, don't answer. One doesn't argue with the drunken hobo.

@divegeester said
You are wasted here; your knowledge and skills would be best employed in advising the global scientific community.

No, he's just wasted.

24/7.

@zahlanzi said
"You did it again. You said scientists instead of climate scientists."
I (reasonably if talking to anyone but you) did not find the need to add "climate" everytime i mention scientists on climate change talks. I didn't even consider some imbecile would assume i am including scientists who have nothing to do with climate and have the same authority to speak on it as a plumbe ...[text shortened]... er to you? What is carbon?
It's rhetorical, don't answer. One doesn't argue with the drunken hobo.

You failed to prove it again. Are you even trying?

@metal-brain said
You failed to prove it again. Are you even trying?

"Are you even trying?"
No, what part of "you shouldn't argue with the drunken hobo of the forum" are you missing?

@zahlanzi said
"Are you even trying?"
No, what part of "you shouldn't argue with the drunken hobo of the forum" are you missing?

In other words, you tried and failed and now you are throwing a temper tantrum. You fell for the consensus lie.

@metal-brain said
In other words, you tried and failed and now you are throwing a temper tantrum. You fell for the consensus lie.

Sure, buddy. Whatever you say

@metal-brain said
In other words, you tried and failed and now you are throwing a temper tantrum. You fell for the consensus lie.

zalooney posted a thread on a Trump supporting hispanic, he couldn't understand that there could be such a thing. When I pointed out the racism of that view he put me on the silent treatment, and it's been that way ever since.

I hope that one day you achieve that level.

Or it could've been when I manipulated him into punctuating with capitals, remember his stupid all lower case shtick, more puerile and childish than sonhouses occasional abuse of the shift key.

@zahlanzi said
Sure, buddy. Whatever you say

As if you don't have any desire to prove me wrong if you could.

There is no consensus of climate scientists that man is the main cause of global warming. 97% of them think it is a factor. That is all. Some of those 97% think that factor is negligible. You were mislead into thinking it was more than a mere factor and nothing more.

Don't feel bad though. A lot of people fell for it. It is a widespread myth that will not die because of years of propaganda from the corporate news media. They also will not inform people that the ice core samples proved CO2 lagged behind temperatures. That would make it evident that Al Gore lied to us all and convinced people of a backwards cause and effect.

There never was any proof that CO2 causes global warming. Maurice Strong and the Rockefellers started the global warming movement. Big oil started the global warming movement. Al Gore lied and gave us a reverse cause and effect to keep it going.

Why do you trust big oil and their liars? You are back to trusting liars again. Is it logical to think you are getting the truth from those that have a history of lying to you? Why do 50% of all people accept the word of known liars?

https://www.livescience.com/1956-study-gossip-trumps-truth.html

Propaganda is effective for a reason. They take advantage of human nature and they have it down to a science.

https://psychology-spot.com/illusory-truth-effect/

Figuratively speaking, they drilled it into your head. Now the truth seems absurd to you. The truth sounds strange because you were indoctrinated with a fiction.

https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/6/1/38/114468/Repetition-Increases-Perceived-Truth-Even-for

@metal-brain said
You cannot prove it because you are wrong.
I encourage you to try though. Failing is the only thing that will convince you.

"You think the reason i or anyone else trust scientists on global warming"

You did it again. You said scientists instead of climate scientists. You are still confusing the two and you expect me to believe you always detected the difference? I ...[text shortened]... is statistically proven. I just cannot explain why because I am the other half. Can you tell me why?

Oh, shut up you 💩4🧠!
If you’re talking about climate change and you’re referring to scientists, it’s inherent you’re talking about scientists that have something to do with climate, the enironement, etc. It would be a tautology to constantly refer to them as climate scientists.

The only time you’d mention what sort of scientist or expert someone is, is when he’s from another field altogether.

So, like an historian or virologist… if they’re talking about climate change.

Numb nuts. Get a fukking grip.

@shavixmir
Figuratively speaking, they drilled it into your head. Now the truth seems absurd to you. The truth sounds strange because you were indoctrinated with a fiction.

https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/6/1/38/114468/Repetition-Increases-Perceived-Truth-Even-for

@metal-brain said
@shavixmir
Figuratively speaking, they drilled it into your head. Now the truth seems absurd to you. The truth sounds strange because you were indoctrinated with a fiction.

https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/6/1/38/114468/Repetition-Increases-Perceived-Truth-Even-for

The truth is that you have no idea what life is really like. Step out of your bedroom and get some sunshine.

@shavixmir
Are you blaming CO2 on glaciation during the late Ordovician-Silurian? This contradicts the hypothesis that CO2 causes global warming.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/1999PA900021

Can you resolve your contradiction? Yes or no?