U.N. About Climate Change: World Must Take 'Unprecedented' Steps To Avert Worst Effects

[Rod Van Mechelen + 1]

Those refuting the IPCC Report and the 97% consensus are correct. Climate changes, always has. Sacrificing virgins to the weather gods or our standard of living to Al Gore won't change that. Global warming ended in 1998. Global cooling began in 2015, with the beginning of the Grand Solar Minimum. We are now entering a prolonged cold spell, which the AGW alarmists will twist around to attribute to human activity and greenhouse gasses. But keep in mind that CO2 is a trace gas, and that water vapor comprises 95 percent of the greenhouse gases and accounts for 75 percent of the greenhouse effect.

[Dennis Coyne + 82]

6 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Warning! Civilization at Risk, Crisis by 2040 (And Other Nonsensical Climate BS)

The amount of climate scaremongering in the past few weeks is stunning. And it's all pure bullshit.

Check out these headlines.

Wall Street Journal: U.N. Panel Warns Drastic Action Needed to Stave Off Climate Change

New York Times: Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040

 

The Intercept: FOSSIL FUELS ARE A THREAT TO CIVILIZATION, NEW U.N. REPORT CONCLUDES

Earther: We Have a Decade to Prevent a Total Climate Disaster

MarketWatch: Drastic action needed to prevent climate catastrophe, U.N. panel warns

Daily Caller: AL GORE: ‘WE’RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME’ ON GLOBAL WARMING

Q&A

Q.What do all of those headline have in common?

A. They are all based on the same study. The study is riddled with huge numbers of blatant errors making the study for lack of better words, pure bullshit.

Riddled With Errors

Watts Up With That reports BOMBSHELL: audit of global warming data finds it riddled with errors

 

• Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in Columbia spent three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80 degrees C. One town in Romania stepped out from summer in 1953 straight into a month of Spring at minus 46°C. These are supposedly “average” temperatures for a full month at a time. St Kitts, a Caribbean island, was recorded at 0°C for a whole month, and twice!
• Sea surface temperatures represent 70% of the Earth’s surface, but some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km inland. Others are in harbors which are hardly representative of the open ocean.
• The dataset starts in 1850 but for just over two years at the start of the record the only land-based data for the entire Southern Hemisphere came from a single observation station in Indonesia. At the end of five years just three stations reported data in that hemisphere. Global averages are calculated from the averages for each of the two hemispheres, so these few stations have a large influence on what’s supposedly “global”.
• According to the method of calculating coverage for the dataset, 50% global coverage wasn’t reached until 1906 and 50% of the Southern Hemisphere wasn’t reached until about 1950.
• In May 1861 global coverage was a mere 12% – that’s less than one-eighth. In much of the 1860s and 1870s most of the supposedly global coverage was from Europe and its trade sea routes and ports, covering only about 13% of the Earth’s surface. To calculate averages from this data and refer to them as “global averages” is stretching credulity.
• When a thermometer is relocated to a new site, the adjustment assumes that the old site was always built up and “heated” by concrete and buildings. In reality, the artificial warming probably crept in slowly. By correcting for buildings that likely didn’t exist in 1880, old records are artificially cooled. Adjustments for a few site changes can create a whole century of artificial warming trends.
• Data prior to 1950 suffers from poor coverage and very likely multiple incorrect adjustments of station data. Data since that year has better coverage but still has the problem of data adjustments and a host of other issues mentioned in the audit.
• Another implication is that the proposal that the Paris Climate Agreement adopt 1850-1899 averages as “indicative” of pre-industrial temperatures is fatally flawed. During that period global coverage is low – it averages 30% across that time – and many land-based temperatures are very likely to be excessively adjusted and therefore incorrect.

Complex Systems Reduced to Single Variable

...

• Cherry picking is always an issue. Thus, there has been a recent claim that Greenland ice discharge has increased, and that warming will make it worse. Omitted from the report is the finding by both NOAA and the Danish Meteorological Institute that the ice mass of Greenland has actually been increasing. In fact both these observations can be true, and, indeed, ice build-up pushes peripheral ice into the sea.
• Misrepresentation, exaggeration, cherry picking, or outright lying pretty much covers all the so-called evidence.

Lindzen's entire speech is much needed and worth reading. Simply because the IPCC names its process as science, does not make it science.

Tom,

Lindzen is a distinct minority and has not had any important peer reviewed publications in years.

Wattsup is a blog which is riddled with misinformation, the IPCC contains the mainstream thinking of hundreds (maybe thousands, I have not counted) of leading climate scientists and is backed up by thousands of peer reviewed publications in major science journals.

 

As I have said before, read the research, if you disagree cite peer reviewed literature that refutes the findings of mainstream climate science, you will be famous.

Just because Lindzen or others claim all other scientists are wrong, does not make it so, just as a claim by Lindzen that the Earth is flat (there are blogs on this as well) does not make it so.

[Dennis Coyne + 82]

44 minutes ago, Rod Van Mechelen said:

Those refuting the IPCC Report and the 97% consensus are correct. Climate changes, always has. Sacrificing virgins to the weather gods or our standard of living to Al Gore won't change that. Global warming ended in 1998. Global cooling began in 2015, with the beginning of the Grand Solar Minimum. We are now entering a prolonged cold spell, which the AGW alarmists will twist around to attribute to human activity and greenhouse gasses. But keep in mind that CO2 is a trace gas, and that water vapor comprises 95 percent of the greenhouse gases and accounts for 75 percent of the greenhouse effect.

Rod,

Yes CO2 is a trace gas and water vapor causes much of the green house effect, the science behind the increase in atmospheric CO2 causing warming is well understood.  A warmer atmosphere holds more moisture, so increased CO2 causes the warmer atmosphere, leading to more water vapor leading to more warming, this has been understood since 1979.  Google Charney report.  The "Cooling" you are talking about has little to do with changes in solar activity (the changes in solar output are quite small) and more to due with Oceanic cycles, particularly ENSO, which was at a peak in 2015 as far as the warm end of this erratic cycle.  Global warming is a long term effect, from 1979 to 2017 the rate of warming was at 1.85 C per century, the World has warmed about 1 C so far from the 1850 to 1900 average temperature, over land the average warming has been higher (roughly 1.5 C on average), another 0.5 C for Global warming is likely to be a problem, the report suggests 2 C of warming would be a serious problem and we should aim for 1.5 C of warming.  Fossil fuels are likely to peak and become very expensive in any case, so we might as well start working on solutions.

[Dennis Coyne + 82]

Tom also consider, that a small sample of points from around the globe can give a reasonable estimate of the Global average temperature, many of the data sets start with 1880 due to poor coverage, see Marcott et al 2013 for a discussion of data coverage. Or see

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

There is a link to the paper in that post

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198

Also the figure below is from a post by Marcott et al at Real Climate (run by mainstream climate scientists) linked above:

"We can illustrate this concept with temperature anomaly data based on instrumental records for the past 130 years from the National Climatic Data Center (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php#anomalies). Over this time interval, an increase in the global average temperature is documented by thermometer records, rising sea levels, retreating glaciers, and increasing ocean heat content, among other indicators. Yet if we plot temperature anomaly data since 1880 at the same locations as the 73 sites used in our paleotemperature study, we see that the data are scattered and the trend is unclear. When these same 73 historical temperature records are averaged together, we see a clear warming signal that is very similar to the global average documented from many more sites (Figure 1). Averaging reduces local noise and provides a clearer perspective on global climate. "

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

@Dennis Coyne I appreciate your efforts at trying to convince me in a rational and calm manner.  Refreshing actually.

I'm pretty much a dyed in the wool skeptic about many, many things, and not just the current prevailing idea that climate change is directly caused by humans.

Coincidence that you mention Flat Earthers, they amuse me endlessly.  Matter of fact I'm trying to piece together my first blog post here on Oil Price forum.  Maybe I'll be able to get around to finishing it this weekend, it will probably be longer than my usual postings.  @CMOP @Marina Schwarz

Here's the tentative title and first sentence of my eventual blog post (it's about climate change)

Flat Earth Climate Change Thetans

Ever try to reason with an annoyed mob of Flat Earthers who are upset with your obstinate refusal to believe?

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

16 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

@Dennis Coyne I appreciate your efforts at trying to convince me in a rational and calm manner.  Refreshing actually.

I'm pretty much a dyed in the wool skeptic about many, many things, and not just the current prevailing idea that climate change is directly caused by humans.

Coincidence that you mention Flat Earthers, they amuse me endlessly.  Matter of fact I'm trying to piece together my first blog post here on Oil Price forum.  Maybe I'll be able to get around to finishing it this weekend, it will probably be longer than my usual postings.  @CMOP @Marina Schwarz

Here's the tentative title and first sentence of my eventual blog post (it's about climate change)

Flat Earth Climate Change Thetans

Ever try to reason with an annoyed mob of Flat Earthers who are upset with your obstinate refusal to believe?

The earth IS flat where I live, although I have noticed that it seems to curve the further away you go.  Good thing I'm in the middle.

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

22 hours ago, Epic said:

First, I think you have failed to realize that the United States of America is not a democracy...it is a Republic.  My advice to you in this area would be to spend a bit more time on history.  Start with the Pledge of Allegiance.  The first line should be clear enough.

Second, in the 48%, you are including all of the votes cast by illegal immigrants and dead people.  Use logic: why do they ID someone who buys cough syrup but not when that person votes?  

 

I think you have failed to realize the founding fathers of my country designed the United States to be a Democracy within a Republic and founded this country as a liberal one not a conservative one. So take your own advise on history, I have to warn you, I am a true patriot and history buff so have your facts strait before you take me on. For example, for all the conservative bluster about voter fraud, republicans are the ones who have opposed manual recounts, and the ones that have occurred have almost always resulted in MORE liberal votes not fewer. The real voter fraud is the active attempts by republicans to disenfranchise Democratic voters. That is so far against American ideals as to be almost treason. Add in how republicans drive up the national debt when in power and fight liberal attempts to bring it down, and the republican opposition to combating climate change even as they finally begin to acknowledge that it is real and human caused. If you claim to be a conservative in America now, you are claiming to be against America and most humanity in general. 

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

On 10/15/2018 at 3:23 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Accusing me of being a "bought and paid for liar."   Really?  You are not helping yourself here.

Here is a response to your so-called "fact" about the 97% of scientists agree hohum.  From Forbes, which is Mainstream Media, so you as an apparent True Believer in MSM will be hard pressed to dispute this.

I'm going to quote a large chunk of the Forbes article, for lurkers who are too lazy to click on the link (the link has some explanatory graphics).  Please pay attention to the end section:

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

If you’ve ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you’ve probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?

The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual–and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.

Here are two questions to ask anyone who pulls the 97% trick.

1. What exactly do the climate scientists agree on?

Usually, the person will have a very vague answer like “climate change is real.”

Which raises the question: What is that supposed to mean? That climate changes? That we have some impact? That we have a large impact? That we have a catastrophically large impact? That we have such a catastrophic impact that we shouldn’t use fossil fuels?

What you’ll find is that people don’t want to define what 97% agree on–because there is nothing remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use.

It’s likely that 97% of people making the 97% claim have absolutely no idea where that number comes from.

If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause–that is, that we are over 50% responsible. The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.

Even if 97% of climate scientists agreed with this, and even if they were right, it in no way, shape, or form would imply that we should restrict fossil fuels–which are crucial to the livelihood of billions.

Because the actual 97% claim doesn’t even remotely justify their policies, catastrophists like President Obama and John Kerry take what we could generously call creative liberties in repeating this claim.

On his Twitter account, President Obama tweets: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Not only does Obama sloppily equate “scientists” with “climate scientists,” but more importantly he added “dangerous” to the 97% claim, which is not there in the literature.

This is called the fallacy of equivocation: using the same term (“97 percent”) in two different ways to manipulate people.

John Kerry pulled the same stunt when trying to tell the underdeveloped world that it should use fewer fossil fuels:

And let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind that the science is absolutely certain. . . 97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible. . . . . they agree that, if we continue to go down the same path that we are going down today, the world as we know it will change—and it will change dramatically for the worse.

In Kerry’s mind, 97% of climate scientists said whatever Kerry wants them to have said.

Bottom line: What the 97% of climate scientists allegedly agree on is very mild and in no way justifies restricting the energy that billions need.

But it gets even worse. Because it turns out that 97% didn’t even say that.

Which brings us to the next question:

2. How do we know the 97% agree?

To elaborate, how was that proven?

Almost no one who refers to the 97% has any idea, but the basic way it works is that a researcher reviews a lot of scholarly papers and classifies them by how many agree with a certain position.

Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

It’s time to revoke that license.

You stilI haven't gotten to my point that THERE IS NO OTHER VIABLE EXPLINATION, your side hasn't even tried to offer one. The only deflection they have to use is simply refusal and denial just like you. 

As far as that Forbes article goes, I will take the opinion of NASA over that of Forbes even during the trump administration they admit the 97% number is real. There is a reason we should listen to experts instead of those who just happen to agree with us. Try some independent thinking for a change instead of just repeating the misdirection and lies.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[Dennis Coyne + 82]

Tom,

The climate of the earth has of course been changing for millions of years, though we don't have very accurate measurements of atmospheric composition or temperature before persistant ice sheets formed on Antarctica.  The best Global Temerature reconstructions go back to about  22,000 BP (Shakun et al 2012, Marcott et al 2013.  Human civilization began during the Holocene which began about 11,000 years ago.  Over the past few centuries human population has grown very quickly and supporting 7 to 10 billion humans requires a stable climate to support agriculture.  

Consider the following simple model presented by Paul Pukite at his blog.

http://contextearth.com/2013/10/26/csalt-model/

I have reproduced many of the results of this model using Aerosol data from NASA, temperature data from Berkeley Earth, and solar, length of day and ENSO data, as well as atmospheric CO2 data (measurements and ice core data before 1951.  This simple model accounts for temperature pretty well, and supports the hypothesis that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere accounts for most of the warming from 1870 to 2015.  Chart below compares a CSALT Model with BEST Land Ocean Global Temperature data.  Note that this is a very simple model just using a linear least squares regression on several variables, far less sophisticated than the Global Climate models used by climate scientists.  Just something a non-expert could use to possibly confirm that the scientists are on the right track.  (The Earth is not flat after all.    )

Edited October 16, 2018 by Dennis Coyne

[Epic + 390]

1 hour ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

founded this country as a liberal one not a conservative one

Do you have a source for this?  (since you are a history buff, I would imagine it would not be too difficult for you to quote it for me). 

 

1 hour ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

I have to warn you, I am a true patriot and history buff so have your facts strait before you take me on.

Calm down!  I am not questioning your patriotism, nor am I trying to challenge you.  I simply seek the truth.  If you have it and I do not, then I humbly ask for you to share it with me.  I also ask that you at least listen to the facts with an open mind as I present them.  I make mistakes, and when I do, I want you to correct them.  And I will return the favor.  For instance, I'll start with this:

1 hour ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

republicans drive up the national debt when in power and fight liberal attempts to bring it down

^This is factually incorrect.  Obama, the 44th president (and who is not a republican) added more to the national debt than than ALL 43 previous presidents combined!

 

1 hour ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

your side hasn't even tried to offer one

Last time I checked, this was the United States, not the Divided States.  Why are you trying to force people into sides?  Don't we all simply desire the truth?  

 

1 hour ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

The real voter fraud is the active attempts by republicans to disenfranchise Democratic voters.

Again, why do you try to force people into "sides"?  Politics is not meant to be "republican vs democrat."  There are bad democrats, just as there are good ones.  And the same goes for republicans.  The good ones seek out the truth, whereas the bad ones have been deceived, bribed, or in some other way have become corrupted.  Keep the good.  Get rid of the bad.  ...that is the essence of politics.   To claim that all republicans are bad (as you seem to be doing by establishing "sides") is rather quite racist (in a sense).  

1 hour ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

If you claim to be a conservative in America now, you are claiming to be against America and most humanity in general.

^This is the type of claim that requires some explanation, as well as quoted sources to support that explanation, because without such, its sounds a bit crazy.  I mean, you make it sound like conservatives need to be rounded up and sent to the Gulag...or at least, that their right to vote should be stricken in order to protect the rest of humanity, which, I'd like to point out is in direct contradiction to this statement that you made:

1 hour ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

The real voter fraud is the active attempts by republicans to disenfranchise Democratic voters. That is so far against American ideals as to be almost treason.

So on one hand, you seem to be suggesting that conservatives should be denied the right to vote because they are treasonous people who are against America (and even most of humanity), but on the other hand, you suggest that it is treasonous to deny someone the right to vote.  Of course, contradictory statements like these can only logically be made by individuals you are, in fact, crazy, which is also why I mentioned that your statement sounded a bit crazy (at least without the explanation and sources to clarify why it is not, after all, a contradictory statement).  Now, I'd also like to point out that I am not, in fact, calling you crazy.  Rather, I am simply trying to point out the importance of supporting one's statements with facts, logic, and independent sources.

[Dennis Coyne + 82]

http://berkeleyearth.org/data/

Chart from 12 month average of monthly land ocean data, below. For Jan 1979 to Feb 2018, the linear trend has been 1.87 C per century rate of annual increase in Global Land Ocean average temperature anomaly relative to the 1951-1980 mean.  For those that believe we now have global cooling (since 2016), they would have thought this was also the case in 1981,1983, 1988, 1993, 1995, 1998, 2002, 2004, 2007, and 2010. Perhaps 2016 will be the year that the new ice age begins, I am skeptical.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

6 hours ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

I think you have failed to realize the founding fathers of my country designed the United States to be a Democracy within a Republic and founded this country as a liberal one not a conservative one. So take your own advise on history, I have to warn you, I am a true patriot and history buff so have your facts strait before you take me on. For example, for all the conservative bluster about voter fraud, republicans are the ones who have opposed manual recounts, and the ones that have occurred have almost always resulted in MORE liberal votes not fewer. The real voter fraud is the active attempts by republicans to disenfranchise Democratic voters. That is so far against American ideals as to be almost treason. Add in how republicans drive up the national debt when in power and fight liberal attempts to bring it down, and the republican opposition to combating climate change even as they finally begin to acknowledge that it is real and human caused. If you claim to be a conservative in America now, you are claiming to be against America and most humanity in general. 

Wow.  

I've run into fanatical climate change true believers who blindly and unquestioningly believe the "humans are destroying the earth with climate change" dogma.  Very similar unquestioning zealots to the "keep oil in the ground" and "oil pipelines are evil" mobs.  And Antifa mobs.

It is apparent that I will never be able to break through this type of unquestioning NPC programming.

 

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

10 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

@Dennis Coyne I appreciate your efforts at trying to convince me in a rational and calm manner.  Refreshing actually.

I'm pretty much a dyed in the wool skeptic about many, many things, and not just the current prevailing idea that climate change is directly caused by humans.

Coincidence that you mention Flat Earthers, they amuse me endlessly.  Matter of fact I'm trying to piece together my first blog post here on Oil Price forum.  Maybe I'll be able to get around to finishing it this weekend, it will probably be longer than my usual postings.  @CMOP @Marina Schwarz

Here's the tentative title and first sentence of my eventual blog post (it's about climate change)

Flat Earth Climate Change Thetans

Ever try to reason with an annoyed mob of Flat Earthers who are upset with your obstinate refusal to believe?

Once again you deflect when confronted with facts. No debate offered, you just cry "no, prove it" Climate change is real. Start doing something about it and stop being part of the problem.

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

6 hours ago, Epic said:

Do you have a source for this?  (since you are a history buff, I would imagine it would not be too difficult for you to quote it for me). 

 

Calm down!  I am not questioning your patriotism, nor am I trying to challenge you.  I simply seek the truth.  If you have it and I do not, then I humbly ask for you to share it with me.  I also ask that you at least listen to the facts with an open mind as I present them.  I make mistakes, and when I do, I want you to correct them.  And I will return the favor.  For instance, I'll start with this:

^This is factually incorrect.  Obama, the 44th president (and who is not a republican) added more to the national debt than than ALL 43 previous presidents combined!

 

Last time I checked, this was the United States, not the Divided States.  Why are you trying to force people into sides?  Don't we all simply desire the truth?  

 

Again, why do you try to force people into "sides"?  Politics is not meant to be "republican vs democrat."  There are bad democrats, just as there are good ones.  And the same goes for republicans.  The good ones seek out the truth, whereas the bad ones have been deceived, bribed, or in some other way have become corrupted.  Keep the good.  Get rid of the bad.  ...that is the essence of politics.   To claim that all republicans are bad (as you seem to be doing by establishing "sides") is rather quite racist (in a sense).  

^This is the type of claim that requires some explanation, as well as quoted sources to support that explanation, because without such, its sounds a bit crazy.  I mean, you make it sound like conservatives need to be rounded up and sent to the Gulag...or at least, that their right to vote should be stricken in order to protect the rest of humanity, which, I'd like to point out is in direct contradiction to this statement that you made:

So on one hand, you seem to be suggesting that conservatives should be denied the right to vote because they are treasonous people who are against America (and even most of humanity), but on the other hand, you suggest that it is treasonous to deny someone the right to vote.  Of course, contradictory statements like these can only logically be made by individuals you are, in fact, crazy, which is also why I mentioned that your statement sounded a bit crazy (at least without the explanation and sources to clarify why it is not, after all, a contradictory statement).  Now, I'd also like to point out that I am not, in fact, calling you crazy.  Rather, I am simply trying to point out the importance of supporting one's statements with facts, logic, and independent sources.

For our founding fathers, make sure you read the whole thing and not just the parts you like.

http://factmyth.com/factoids/americas-founding-fathers-were-liberals/

As for everything else, first you prove that Hilary Clinton only beat trump by votes from illegal immigrants and dead people.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

22 minutes ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

Once again you deflect when confronted with facts. No debate offered, you just cry "no, prove it" Climate change is real. Start doing something about it and stop being part of the problem.

I can't prove a negative.

And I'm amused by the insistence of unquestioning belief in the Gospel of Climate Change is Solely Caused by Humans.

 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

29 minutes ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

Once again you deflect when confronted with facts. No debate offered, you just cry "no, prove it" Climate change is real. Start doing something about it and stop being part of the problem.

Stop crying, Tom.  From where I sit, I thought it was someone else doing the crying, but now we know so cut it out.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

7 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Stop crying, Tom.  From where I sit, I thought it was someone else doing the crying, but now we know so cut it out.

No worries, Dan.  I spent a decade trying to reason with cultists, and it is a lost cause.  I find the willfully blind unquestioningness highly amusing.  And I'm laughing about the efforts to get me stop questioning and become a True Believer convert.

Science !  Believe it because it's true !  Eleventy ! !

 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

No worries, Dan.  I spent a decade trying to reason with cultists, and it is a lost cause.  I find the willfully blind unquestioningness highly amusing.  And I'm laughing about the efforts to get me stop questioning and become a True Believer convert.

Science !  Believe it because it's true !  Eleventy ! !

 

But aren't you worried about when they get LOUDER and more insistent?  Willpower, my friend, willpower!  I will prey (yes, E) to the refrigerator for your unspoilt meat!  If that doesn't work, I'll prey to Joe Pesci, because Joe Pesci gets things done!  But you already know that, don't you?

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

But aren't you worried about when they get LOUDER and more insistent?  Willpower, my friend, willpower!  I will prey (yes, E) to the refrigerator for your unspoilt meat!  If that doesn't work, I'll prey to Joe Pesci, because Joe Pesci gets things done!  But you already know that, don't you?

I already know the more that I resist the louder the insistence toward unquestioning belief and calls to conformity will likely grow.

And I find that amusing : )    Your mileage may vary.

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 hour ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

Start doing something about it and stop being part of the problem.

Guilty as charged, I've been pretty active lately, although I have to behave myself on this forum : )

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

I can't prove a negative.

And I'm amused by the insistence of unquestioning belief in the Gospel of Climate Change is Solely Caused by Humans.

 

 

You haven't bothered to try to dispute anything you liar. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 minute ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

You haven't bothered to try to dispute anything you liar. 

Because I'm laughing too hard.

And you keep calling me a liar.  ROFL

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

3 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Wow.  

I've run into fanatical climate change true believers who blindly and unquestioningly believe the "humans are destroying the earth with climate change" dogma.  Very similar unquestioning zealots to the "keep oil in the ground" and "oil pipelines are evil" mobs.  And Antifa mobs.

It is apparent that I will never be able to break through this type of unquestioning NPC programming.

 

You show your own reflection. It just bothers you that your dogma is no longer unopposed. 

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

2 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Because I'm laughing too hard.

And you keep calling me a liar.  ROFL

Because you are. You are no longer unopposed.

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

No worries, Dan.  I spent a decade trying to reason with cultists, and it is a lost cause.  I find the willfully blind unquestioningness highly amusing.  And I'm laughing about the efforts to get me stop questioning and become a True Believer convert.

Science !  Believe it because it's true !  Eleventy ! !

 

More lies, don't you get tired of it.