Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Warmist loon avoiding my statements
#1
I had a delicious run in with a new warmist troll over at WUWT blog,where he NEVER addresses my contention that the IPCC failed in their prediction/projections of Per Decade warming trends, thus by itself invalidate the AGW hypothesis.

Here is a sample of the conversation,take note on how he dodges and deflects,employing the boring fallacies in the process"

The thread is, Attributing Hurricane Harvey to climate change is ‘murky science’

The warmist loon is, Ivankinsman. His words are in ITALICS form.

I wrote to start off with this,


Quote:ivankinsman,
the IPCC has been wrong on many things since 1990,funny you don’t realize it.
This makes you very ignorant,since some of the failures have been known for YEARS!

His reply,


Quote:Keeping on dreaming my friend. IPCC 201t Paris climate agreement best thing since sliced bread.

See how he completely dodges my statement? No challenge or counterpoint offered,just a lame mention of Paris Climate baloney.



Skipping a post I made to badger him,is my next line of attack to expose his shallow reply,


Quote:ivankinsman writes,
“When people start talking about ‘ignorance’ I switch off because they are immediately moving into the realm of generalisations.”

actually you made my case since I gave you something to answer,but didn’t.
“the IPCC has been wrong on many things since 1990,funny you don’t realize it.
This makes you very ignorant,since some of the failures have been known for YEARS!”
Your stupid reply is a classic DODGE!

“Keeping on dreaming my friend. IPCC 201t Paris climate agreement best thing since sliced bread.”

You are pathetic,to be that ignorant of well known IPCC predictive/projective failures. It is clear you don’t know.

His reply,


Quote:Ok let’s start off with some basic information for your education and then I’ll send you some more once you have absorbed this:

http://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-wo...it-matters
[/url]

I
write,


Quote:I see that ivankinsman wants to avoid answering my statement about IPCC prediction/projection failures.
He writes in a condescending tone about stuff I have known about for years,he doesn’t seem to realize,that I have been on this stuff for THIRTY FIVE years now.

“Ok let’s start off with some basic information for your education and then I’ll send you some more once you have absorbed this:”

This man is fast becoming the latest warmist loon troll,because he has already TWICE avoided my statement about IPCC failures,will he do it a third time?

I wrote,
“the IPCC has been wrong on many things since 1990,funny you don’t realize it.
This makes you very ignorant,since some of the failures have been known for YEARS!”

Your continued dodging my statement, indicates that you don’t want face it.


He comes back with a tortured rationalization over long known IPCC predictive failures,which he still doesn't address.


Quote:Susettommy – no one is infallible – neither you, me, Bill Clinton, Alan Greenspan, or the IPCC, especially when it comes to subject of climate. However, what is important is that the IPCC contains the largest body of climate experts – basically a brain bank – on what can be expected from unchecked AGW and here it is in black and white:

“The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report from 2013 made a more realistic estimate of what might happen, and what the temperature outcome would be.

In the IPCC’s most pessimistic scenario, where the population booms, technology stagnates, and emissions keep rising, the atmosphere gets to a startling 2,000 ppm by about 2250. (All the IPCC scenarios presume that mankind’s impact on the atmosphere levels out by 2300.) That gives us an atmosphere last seen during the Jurassic when dinosaurs roamed, and causes an apocalyptic temperature rise of perhaps 9 degrees C (16°F).

In the next-most-pessimistic scenario, emissions peak around 2080 and then decline, leading to an atmosphere of about 700 ppm and probable temperature increases of more than 3 degrees C.

In the most optimistic scenario, where emissions peak now (2010-2020) and start to decline, with humans actually sucking more carbon out of the air than they produce by 2070, the atmosphere dips back down below 400 ppm somewhere between 2100 and 2200 and the temperature increase is held under 1 degrees C in the long term."

You understand why I call him a warmist loon,he is avoiding the failures of the AGW hypothesis,by dodging post diversionary babble. Refuses to address the IPCC failures ccompletely.

My reply,


Quote:It appears that a new warmist troll is now deflecting from my specific statement about numerous predictive/projection failures,with this terrible attempt to rationalize away their failures. He has avoided my statement THREE times now.

He writes desperately,

“Susettommy – no one is infallible – neither you, me, Bill Clinton, Alan Greenspan, or the IPCC, especially when it comes to subject of climate. However, what is important is that the IPCC contains the largest body of climate experts – basically a brain bank – on what can be expected from unchecked AGW and here it is in black and white:”

This is stupid baloney,since their prediction/projection failures are fully based on the AGW conjecture,which means it has failed the test. It failed a number of times too,which means the AGW conjecture is INVALIDATED!

The 1990 to 2007 IPCC reports made the SAME temperature projections, that have been waaaay toooo high,every time. They have been wrong for 27 years now. They are STILL wrong today!

He writes this babble,since he doesn’t know what the Scientific Method is,doesn’t know that it doesn’t meet the falsification criteria. You are too ignorant to know why this 2013 IPCC report is CRAP!

Ivan the ignorant troll writes,

“The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report from 2013 made a more realistic estimate of what might happen, and what the temperature outcome would be.

In the IPCC’s most pessimistic scenario, where the population booms, technology stagnates, and emissions keep rising, the atmosphere gets to a startling 2,000 ppm by about 2250. (All the IPCC scenarios presume that mankind’s impact on the atmosphere levels out by 2300.) That gives us an atmosphere last seen during the Jurassic when dinosaurs roamed, and causes an apocalyptic temperature rise of perhaps 9 degrees C (16°F).
In the next-most-pessimistic scenario, emissions peak around 2080 and then decline, leading to an atmosphere of about 700 ppm and probable temperature increases of more than 3 degrees C.

In the most optimistic scenario, where emissions peak now (2010-2020) and start to decline, with humans actually sucking more carbon out of the air than they produce by 2070, the atmosphere dips back down below 400 ppm somewhere between 2100 and 2200 and the temperature increase is held under 1 degrees C in the long term.”

Ivan, doesn’t realize their EARLIER emission scenarios/temperature increase predictions/projections have ALL been utter failures, yet thinks their latest wild guesses is suddenly better, despite they haven’t change their delusional future scenarios projections much since 1990. It is stupid to be hanging onto wild guesses,that have been wrong for 27 years.

The previous four reports have been shown to be failures on the PER DECADE warming trends.All four previous reports say it should warm around .3C per decade,based on the Business as usual scenario,but it has ALWAYS been below .20C per decade,while the more accurate Satellite data around .13C per decade.
This alone destroys the AGW hypothesis. It is time to abandon it.

Making far into the future wild guesses,then saying this is credible science stuff, is indicative of science illiteracy, since the NULL hypothesis,The Scientific Method and Falsification are being abandoned for pseudoscience.

He tried to spank me over the Yale article,but he is so ignorant of the topic (Nicola Jones,hopes you are.It is how she can get away with it) that he doesn’t know she LIED about CO2 levels of the past,that she left out a lot things about the Molecule CO2,what it does and doesn’t do. That most of what she says is IRRELEVANT!

Being profoundly ignorant of the topic is why you can’t answer me directly,since you simply don’t know. Seen your article before,plus many other highly misleading dishonest warmist garbage over the years. I am well aware of the pitiful warmist beliefs,most of it disconnected to reality.

It goes on with more of the same,he simply refuses to face the reality that his warmist beliefs are BUNK!

He make clear he will not face it,by this latest consensus fallacy deflection silliness. It is clear he has NOTHING to counter me with.


Quote:Time and time again I have to show sceptics such as yourself the list of 175 countries that profoundly disagree with you (and it seems POTUS and the head of the EPA) on the issue of AGW. For these countries this is not a politicised issue – they have looked at the science, the evidence laid before them and have committed themselves to an action plan to mitigate AGW with or without the USA (although the governors, mayors and businesses who are acting independently deserve a huge slap on the back for their efforts):

http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment...ingatures/

My reply,


Quote:Now Ivan the troll, is running away from addressing my statement about IPCC failures,as he has done FOUR times now. He is clearly a science illiterate,because can’t address one of the main pillars of the IPCC AGW based claim about projected warm forcing scenarios.

He instead chose to employ the consensus fallacy,despite that I was willing to discuss what the IPCC said about temperature projections, the very thing he avoids,what his “consensus” actually believes in.

Ha ha ha………

His next reply,shows his facade quickly dropping with this idiotic deep in the abyss babbling comment,He suddenly admits he doesn't know anything much about the topic,he is an obvious lemming warmist moron drone,who follows other lemming warmist drones ,parroting the idiotic CO2 is killing us paradigm they get from the Media and dishonest warmist liars.

He is a lover of the irrational,believer in the warmist cult.


Quote:The science is proven my friend (and there is no way I claim to be a climate scientist or anything close) so I am not going to dispute it with you.
What I am going to do, though, is show the broad INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS on what action needs to be and is already being taken to mitigate the impact of AGW:

Organisation: C40 is a network of the world’s megacities committed to addressing climate change.

Acting both locally and collaboratively, C40 cities are having a meaningful global impact in reducing both greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks. C40 brings together a unique set of assets and creates a shared sense of purpose. C40 offers cities an effective forum where they can collaborate, share knowledge and drive meaningful, measurable and sustainable action on climate change.
Link: http://www.c40.org/

Business: Mars

‘We’re trying to go all in’: Chocolate giant Mars pledges $1 billion to fight climate change
Link: http://www.businessinsider.com/mars-clim...017-9?IR=T
[url=http://www.businessinsider.com/mars-climate-change-investment-global-warming-sustainability-plan-greenhouse-gas-2017-9?IR=T]
my reply

Quote:Ivan,once again avoids discussing known IPCC projection failures,he is apparently going to ignore them completely,to maintain his climate cult status.
He writes like a man who has no idea what an ignorant fool he is:

“The science is proven my friend (and there is no way I claim to be a climate scientist or anything close) so I am not going to dispute it with you.
What I am going to do, though, is show the broad INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS on what action needs to be and is already being taken to mitigate the impact of AGW:..”

I am the one who tried talk about FAILED science projections based on the IPCC reports,while this warmist turd wants to avoid it totally,yet thinks the science (what ever that is) is proven.

To sum it up, Ivan is into the following nonsense,:

Consensus fallacy
Science is settled absurdity
Push political solutions on unverified modeling scenarios
Avoid discussing anything
IPCC Reports is his religion

Ivan, cheerfully admits he is has no science literacy, yet thinks the science is proven,while he is profoundly ignorant of the same science he defends.

Pathetic!

That was my last reply to him in the thread.

He made another post that I didn't reply as he used an irrelevant qualification fallacy. He had strayed so far from the initial discussion,that I wondered if he would  fall off the edge of the Twilight Zone..........
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)