Weather is not climate

your problem is that people are running door to door in the stinging cold and are wondering about all the chicken little “sky is falling” hysteria and so are questioning the validity and pertinence of what massive carbon taxes wil fix.

Still that one faithful little altar boy… lol

So unless you have another government funded person jacking you off, your opinion doesn’t count. Got it.

Peer review is a useless practice when you set aside criteria as to who is allowed to review your paper. I just reviewed their work and found it lacking… but that doesn’t count because I don’t get a government check and don’t have the right title…

Facts are facts and the fact is the clime is ALWAYS changing and this automatic dismissal of an opinion based on lack of pedigree is just stupidity in action. You go ahead and kiss the ring, I’ll deal in facts, logic and reason.


The climate has been warming in the past few decades, but there is nothing to prove it is solely, mostly, or even anything to do with man-made activity. ‘Correlation is not causation’ is a basic scientific mantra that the climate change community has forgotten. It has been replaced by the ‘scientific consensus’. One should be wary of a consensus upon which thousands of science and environmental jobs rely - few like to kill the golden goose.

There is a major problem with measurements. Temperature records from the past were inferred from tree rings. Today we measure temperate with extremely sensitive thermometers. It’s like looking at the climate by eye, and then switching to a x1000 zoom microscope and declaring its vastly different. Resolution will affect interpretation.

The climate change community curve fit their models and dubiously manipulated their data for at least one model. None of the climate change community’s models have been able predicted the future accurately. The ability to predict is a measure of the effectiveness of that model, if it can’t predict it’s not good.

There has also not been an adequate explanation for why the earth was considerably warmer in the past, and why this isn’t just another natural warming cycle.

Most worrying, however, is the denying that there is any rational case to be skeptical - with some suggesting denial should be a crime. I’m skeptical of man-made climate change, yet I’m very pro-environment.

1 Like

Ish… I love that … Hashtag!

Yeah… borrowed it from that shaving commercial. Did you see it?
You will love it.

All climate scientist are government employees? Interesting.

Never said they were all government employees. Said they are government funded.

They are all government funded? Interesting

But seriously, no interest in debating the topic, just want to throw out one liners and run. Just tells me you haven’t even looked at the data, you’re just believing in the crap pushed at you and believing it. You didn’t even attempt to answer a single question I offered up. I’m just supposed to take it on faith because my opinion isn’t “peer reviewed”. Arguing from a position of authority rather than evidence is a terrible way to win an argument. I don’t care that they’re called climate scientists, I care what the data says and the truth is that we don’t know what drives climate change beyond a multitude of causes and we have no clue how to weigh those yet. None of the models or predictions are accurate so I’m not willing to let these morons destroy the economy in order to “save us”.

1 Like

I don’t debate topics scientific in nature. I leave that up to the PHDs. I believe in their work and the scientific method. Science is never settled so if the consensus changes then I’ll be right there with them.

Bottom line you all are operating off of political talking points. I am operating from scientific research done by smart people.

Are you just going to keep making stupid comments or would you like to argue a point?

Let’s start here:

Is there other funding? Possibly… but prove your case. I have yet to see a single climate scientist that’s privately funded arguing for higher taxes and carbon emissions regulations. Doesn’t mean they’re not there but every time I see one running his mouth, you look him/her up and find out there’s a government grant in place. Show me the list of the ones that aren’t getting a grant, working for a public university or are on a payroll somewhere tied to taxes. . . I’ll wait.

The consensus is a lie. Even if it WAS a “consensus”, it still means nothing if the facts disagree. How many times has science come to a consensus only to find out they’re wrong?

1 Like

What part of the scientific method does concensus fall under? I can’t seem to find it.


They arnt using the scientific method, dude. They are all working off of a hypothesis that is not supported by measurements or analysis or modeling.

And if you ever were a peer reviewer for a refereed journal you would not be so awe struck at the process.


The religious method… just have faith dude. It’s real. Trust them.

1 Like

Well it is supported. Just not by any models, stats, or facts that haven’t been altered to specifically meet the burden of proving their false narrative. It’s amazing what the power of the government purse can accomplish.

Except those in the concensus don’t even believe it. That’s why they keep falling back on the “concensus” to defend it.

1 Like

Many times. But not because of a conspiracy driven forum dweller. Scientific change comes by challenging the work of others by developing a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis and having it peer reviewed.

Do you believe Einstein’s Theory of Relativity? Why?

I’ve linked data in droves in the past, it’s simply ignored. These idiots have no interest in changing their opinion, they just claim consensus and tell you to shut up and some people are stupid enough to buy it.

1 Like