quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150917110002.htm
More sophisticated and appropriate statistical work demonstrates the supposed Warming Pause, and the following politically charged discussion, was an artifact of inappropriate initial assumptions of data analysis. Review and re-analysis of the important studies with more realistic basic assumptions supports the existing Global Warming climate models well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Joether:When I read that document, I understand not just the English words, but the underlying meaning those words convey within science. How many of the deniers are understanding, that, which exists under the surface of the document? Fewer than 0.001% of those readers. An that 0.001% will not be swayed, since it undermines their political agendas....

Me:

Cited proof of this, please?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
When I read that document, I understand not just the English words, but the underlying meaning those words convey within science...

If your interested in the whole document, your local library could obtain it:

Or if you're not illiterate, you can just click on the link and download it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Joether:When I read that document, I understand not just the English words, but the underlying meaning those words convey within science. How many of the deniers are understanding, that, which exists under the surface of the document? Fewer than 0.001% of those readers. An that 0.001% will not be swayed, since it undermines their political agendas....

Me:

Cited proof of this, please?

Cite proof of what?

If you understood the science and were actually human, you would be alarmed. If you understood the science and were not human, you would not be alarmed. Most of the deniers (including all the ones on this forum) might be human, but do not have even a basic understanding of science let alone a full understanding of the advanced concept known as 'Theory of Climate Change'.

Its like the Iran deal as a metaphor. At just 159 pages in length, most of the same people that deny Climate Change deny the Iran deal. Yet, how many actually read all 159 pages to understand with it "is" and "is not"? None of them. All their information and views comes from other people. In other words, these deniers are told what to think because others do not think they are intelligent or educated to do so for themselves. Manipulating an ignorant person into doing something is not hard. Manipulating a stupid person into doing something is hot hard. How hard is it to manipulate an ignorant and stupid person? They are against the Iran deal yet, do not know why they are against it; only that 'The Party' wishes them to be against it.

I have no problem with a skeptic when it comes to Climate Change. The difference between a skeptic and denier is the first actually understands the advance scientific concepts being studied. They agree that Climate Change is taking place. They agree mankind is the cause. They are debating with sciences 'what to do about the situation' both short and long term. A denier does not have a clue what they are babbling about. They see words and assume one thing, when those words mean something else. Deniers will comb the internet for anything to justify their position. Often the material they find has already been debunked or does not really apply. So people have to spend time, explaining it to someone whom for all any of us knows, suffers from paranoia or schizophrenia, and therefore, will not accept correct and good information.

There are deniers whom understand Climate Change (a very small percentage). Their motives for being against the whole thing is because it cuts into their profits. The Oil & Gas Industry employs many thousands of scientists whom have a financial motivation to spread bullshit onto the ignorant masses in the nation. If given the choice, which would you rather have:

A ) Clean water, clean soil, clean air, very little to any pollution (air, water, soil)
B ) Someone else making millions of dollars while you by bottled water because your water is contaminated

Deniers push for 'option B' unwittingly while stating they want 'option A'. If to get 'option A' means a few thousand people I don't know, not getting their millions? Tough Shit! There are billions of people on the planet that would rather have Option A.

Did you look through any of the links?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Joether:When I read that document, I understand not just the English words, but the underlying meaning those words convey within science. How many of the deniers are understanding, that, which exists under the surface of the document? Fewer than 0.001% of those readers. An that 0.001% will not be swayed, since it undermines their political agendas....

Me:

Cited proof of this, please?

Cite proof of what?

If you understood the science and were actually human, you would be alarmed. If you understood the science and were not human, you would not be alarmed. Most of the deniers (including all the ones on this forum) might be human, but do not have even a basic understanding of science let alone a full understanding of the advanced concept known as 'Theory of Climate Change'.

Its like the Iran deal as a metaphor. At just 159 pages in length, most of the same people that deny Climate Change deny the Iran deal. Yet, how many actually read all 159 pages to understand with it "is" and "is not"? None of them. All their information and views comes from other people. In other words, these deniers are told what to think because others do not think they are intelligent or educated to do so for themselves. Manipulating an ignorant person into doing something is not hard. Manipulating a stupid person into doing something is hot hard. How hard is it to manipulate an ignorant and stupid person? They are against the Iran deal yet, do not know why they are against it; only that 'The Party' wishes them to be against it.

I have no problem with a skeptic when it comes to Climate Change. The difference between a skeptic and denier is the first actually understands the advance scientific concepts being studied. They agree that Climate Change is taking place. They agree mankind is the cause. They are debating with sciences 'what to do about the situation' both short and long term. A denier does not have a clue what they are babbling about. They see words and assume one thing, when those words mean something else. Deniers will comb the internet for anything to justify their position. Often the material they find has already been debunked or does not really apply. So people have to spend time, explaining it to someone whom for all any of us knows, suffers from paranoia or schizophrenia, and therefore, will not accept correct and good information.

There are deniers whom understand Climate Change (a very small percentage). Their motives for being against the whole thing is because it cuts into their profits. The Oil & Gas Industry employs many thousands of scientists whom have a financial motivation to spread bullshit onto the ignorant masses in the nation. If given the choice, which would you rather have:

A ) Clean water, clean soil, clean air, very little to any pollution (air, water, soil)
B ) Someone else making millions of dollars while you by bottled water because your water is contaminated

Deniers push for 'option B' unwittingly while stating they want 'option A'. If to get 'option A' means a few thousand people I don't know, not getting their millions? Tough Shit! There are billions of people on the planet that would rather have Option A.

Did you look through any of the links?

You pompous twit. Cite your proof that fewer than one percent of the deniers understand the words. Give a source that backs up your statement as anything more than your arrogant opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Joether:When I read that document, I understand not just the English words, but the underlying meaning those words convey within science. How many of the deniers are understanding, that, which exists under the surface of the document? Fewer than 0.001% of those readers. An that 0.001% will not be swayed, since it undermines their political agendas....

Me:

Cited proof of this, please?

Cite proof of what?

If you understood the science and were actually human, you would be alarmed. If you understood the science and were not human, you would not be alarmed. Most of the deniers (including all the ones on this forum) might be human, but do not have even a basic understanding of science let alone a full understanding of the advanced concept known as 'Theory of Climate Change'.

Its like the Iran deal as a metaphor. At just 159 pages in length, most of the same people that deny Climate Change deny the Iran deal. Yet, how many actually read all 159 pages to understand with it "is" and "is not"? None of them. All their information and views comes from other people. In other words, these deniers are told what to think because others do not think they are intelligent or educated to do so for themselves. Manipulating an ignorant person into doing something is not hard. Manipulating a stupid person into doing something is hot hard. How hard is it to manipulate an ignorant and stupid person? They are against the Iran deal yet, do not know why they are against it; only that 'The Party' wishes them to be against it.

I have no problem with a skeptic when it comes to Climate Change. The difference between a skeptic and denier is the first actually understands the advance scientific concepts being studied. They agree that Climate Change is taking place. They agree mankind is the cause. They are debating with sciences 'what to do about the situation' both short and long term. A denier does not have a clue what they are babbling about. They see words and assume one thing, when those words mean something else. Deniers will comb the internet for anything to justify their position. Often the material they find has already been debunked or does not really apply. So people have to spend time, explaining it to someone whom for all any of us knows, suffers from paranoia or schizophrenia, and therefore, will not accept correct and good information.

There are deniers whom understand Climate Change (a very small percentage). Their motives for being against the whole thing is because it cuts into their profits. The Oil & Gas Industry employs many thousands of scientists whom have a financial motivation to spread bullshit onto the ignorant masses in the nation. If given the choice, which would you rather have:

A ) Clean water, clean soil, clean air, very little to any pollution (air, water, soil)
B ) Someone else making millions of dollars while you by bottled water because your water is contaminated

Deniers push for 'option B' unwittingly while stating they want 'option A'. If to get 'option A' means a few thousand people I don't know, not getting their millions? Tough Shit! There are billions of people on the planet that would rather have Option A.

Did you look through any of the links?

You pompous twit. Cite your proof that fewer than one percent of the deniers understand the words. Give a source that backs up your statement as anything more than your arrogant opinion.

Explain the Theory of Climate Change and all the information currently known and understood that relates to it from a scientific point of view.....

That means....YOUR WORDS. Not a cut/paste job, or links here or there. The full understanding of what this theory explains and how it effects the world around us. Because, then when you fail the challenge, I can ask all the other conservatives whom are deniers on here, like Kirata for example. And they will fail the challenge as well. That would lend quite heavily to the proof you need to show my remark is quite consistent with mainstream America.

If you understood the Theory of Climate Change and all the current evidence known, you would understand two things without complaint: 1 ) Climate Change is taking place, and 2 ) Mankind has been the primary cause of it. That you do not understand Climate Change tells me you either do not understand the scientific knowledge, or wishing to keep profiting from the planet's destruction.