ADVERTISEMENT

Climate Alarmist are Liars

Dude, this is drivel. If you are swallowing this, then let me warn you up front. Those emails from Africa where they are trying to give you millions of dollars to "hold" for them? They are actually fake. The science is pretty settled on this despite what people are telling you.

I mean I know this guy is a "Full time cyclist for all my local transportation, for the past 40 years" but he just doesn't seem to have the expertise in climate science that it would take to dispute, you know, REAL SCIENTISTS.

97% of Climate scientists believe that the earth is heating up and that human contributions are driving this change. Now, where did that 97% come from? That number comes from an exhaustive literature review of literally THOUSANDS of research articles in scientific journals written by tens of thousands of climate experts with actual PhDs in CLIMATE science. Where a conclusion to the question above is drawn, 97% of those people come down firmly on the side of human caused global warming.

And this guy is saying that thousands and thousands of PhDs who have literally dedicated their lives to finding the truth about the world we live in are all lying to us. Really? Is that more likely or is it more likely that THIS guy (and the energy company funded climate deniers) is the one that's mistaken/or corrupt?

Here are Tony Heller's credentials (written by himself):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BS Geology, Arizona State University
Masters Electrical Engineering, Rice University
Boston University Geology
Northern Arizona University Computer Science
Colorado State University Computer Science
University of New Mexico Geochemistry

Lifelong environmentalist.
I testified at my first Congressional hearing in support of Wilderness in 1972.
I fought for the Clean Air and Water acts
Wilderness Ranger Cibola National Forest, New Mexico
Wilderness Ranger Santa Fe National Forest, New Mexico
Currently battling the City of Boulder, Colorado to stop development on the South Boulder Wetlands
Full time cyclist for all my local transportation, for the past 40 years

Teacher.
Science teacher, Athletic Director and Soccer Coach at Oak Creek Ranch School, Arizona
Math teacher at Phoenix Country Day School
Substitute teacher at Murphy School District, Phoenix Arizona
Computer instructor at Tomball College, Texas

Geologist.
Geothermal research at Los Alamos National Labs
Oil shale research at Los Alamos National Labs
Thermodynamic research of methane hydrates at Los Alamos National Labs
Volcano research at Los Alamos National Labs
Safety Analysis Report for the Permian Basin DOE nuclear waste disposal site
Volunteer curator Arizona Mineral Museum

Electrical Engineer
Compaq/SGI MIPS consortium design team
Power PC design team IBM/Apple/Motorola (Used in most game consoles over the last three decades, and PowerMacs)
Sandia Labs computer architect
Sandia Labs representative to Al Gore’s Bankers Trust key escrow consortium
Cyrix Media GX microprocessor design team manager
Raycer Graphics OpenGL graphics processor verification lead
Design manager Hitachi/ST SH5 microprocessor
Verification lead MemoryLogix microprocessor
Founder, design lead Visual Media video effects/editing software
OpenGL driver development ATI
Itanium/i7 design team Intel (very likely being used by you right now)
Sped up Helicos DNA sequencing algorithm by 50X
Sped up NCAR weather microphysics kernel by 500X
Ported NCAR’s radiative transfer model to GPU
Ported NCAR’s WRF weather model to Windows
Drone visualization and control software for the US military
Medical device control systems (under NDA)
Virtual reality visualization design (under NDA)
Radio control and visualization software (under NDA)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now assuming those things above are all true, he seems like a pretty smart guy. He has a BS in Geology and a Master's degree in Electrical Engineering. He has NO formal education in climate sciences. He has NO real experience doing research of any kind. This is like going to a Psychologist for your heart condition. The Psychologist MAY be really smart and he MAY even give you a correct diagnosis. But who are you going to believe, thousands of Cardiac specialists or the Psychologist? What if the Psychologist told you that all Cardiac Specialists are corrupt and are just telling you that you are sick to make money?

Follow the science man. I'm not experienced enough to follow what Heller is saying and evaluate whether it's true or not. I'm betting you aren't either. But I'm betting that whatever argument he's making, REAL climate scientists HAVE considered it and have still drawn their own conclusions. Can science be wrong? Absolutely. But it's more accurate more often than any other method we have.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: firegiver
Dude, this is drivel. If you are swallowing this, then let me warn you up front. Those emails from Africa where they are trying to give you millions of dollars to "hold" for them? They are actually fake. The science is pretty settled on this despite what people are telling you.

I mean I know this guy is a "Full time cyclist for all my local transportation, for the past 40 years" but he just doesn't seem to have the expertise in climate science that it would take to dispute, you know, REAL SCIENTISTS.

And this guy is saying that thousands and thousands of PhDs who have literally dedicated their lives to finding the truth about the world we live in are all lying to us. Really? Is that more likely or is it more likely that THIS guy (and the energy company funded climate deniers) is the one that's mistaken/or corrupt?

Here are Tony Heller's credentials (written by himself):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BS Geology, Arizona State University
Masters Electrical Engineering, Rice University
Boston University Geology
Northern Arizona University Computer Science
Colorado State University Computer Science
University of New Mexico Geochemistry

Lifelong environmentalist.
I testified at my first Congressional hearing in support of Wilderness in 1972.
I fought for the Clean Air and Water acts
Wilderness Ranger Cibola National Forest, New Mexico
Wilderness Ranger Santa Fe National Forest, New Mexico
Currently battling the City of Boulder, Colorado to stop development on the South Boulder Wetlands
Full time cyclist for all my local transportation, for the past 40 years

Teacher.
Science teacher, Athletic Director and Soccer Coach at Oak Creek Ranch School, Arizona
Math teacher at Phoenix Country Day School
Substitute teacher at Murphy School District, Phoenix Arizona
Computer instructor at Tomball College, Texas

Geologist.
Geothermal research at Los Alamos National Labs
Oil shale research at Los Alamos National Labs
Thermodynamic research of methane hydrates at Los Alamos National Labs
Volcano research at Los Alamos National Labs
Safety Analysis Report for the Permian Basin DOE nuclear waste disposal site
Volunteer curator Arizona Mineral Museum

Electrical Engineer
Compaq/SGI MIPS consortium design team
Power PC design team IBM/Apple/Motorola (Used in most game consoles over the last three decades, and PowerMacs)
Sandia Labs computer architect
Sandia Labs representative to Al Gore’s Bankers Trust key escrow consortium
Cyrix Media GX microprocessor design team manager
Raycer Graphics OpenGL graphics processor verification lead
Design manager Hitachi/ST SH5 microprocessor
Verification lead MemoryLogix microprocessor
Founder, design lead Visual Media video effects/editing software
OpenGL driver development ATI
Itanium/i7 design team Intel (very likely being used by you right now)
Sped up Helicos DNA sequencing algorithm by 50X
Sped up NCAR weather microphysics kernel by 500X
Ported NCAR’s radiative transfer model to GPU
Ported NCAR’s WRF weather model to Windows
Drone visualization and control software for the US military
Medical device control systems (under NDA)
Virtual reality visualization design (under NDA)
Radio control and visualization software (under NDA)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now assuming those things above are all true, he seems like a pretty smart guy. He has a BS in Geology and a Master's degree in Electrical Engineering. He has NO formal education in climate sciences. He has NO real experience doing research of any kind. This is like going to a Psychologist for your heart condition. The Psychologist MAY be really smart and he MAY even give you a correct diagnosis. But who are you going to believe, thousands of Cardiac specialists or the Psychologist? What if the Psychologist told you that all Cardiac Specialists are corrupt and are just telling you that you are sick to make money?

Follow the science man. I'm not experienced enough to follow what Heller is saying and evaluate whether it's true or not. I'm betting you aren't either. But I'm betting that whatever argument he's making, REAL climate scientists HAVE considered it and have still drawn their own conclusions. Can science be wrong? Absolutely. But it's more accurate more often than any other method we have.


This is incorrect. 97% of scientist do not believe man is causing it.

"Whenever you see a sentence including "scientists say", "97% of scientists", "experts say", "consensus", "settled science", "climate denial", etc., you know you are facing another line of propaganda, not worth the rag it's written on, conceived solely to scare you and make you feel responsible for whatever they want to accuse you of, with the sole purpose of making you accept quietly any tyrannical new laws meant to dispossess and enslave you."

This is from the comment section here

 
Last edited:
"Many current news stories start out with "Scientist Say"

It's an appeal to authority and the intent is to get you to turn off your brain and believe what they say"

 
  • Like
Reactions: hopefultiger13
"If we don't take action, then in 12 years we will have to explain why the world hasn't ended and come up with a new number," one UN scientist warned. "This is a very serious threat, and we urge everyone to hand control of the economy to the government immediately before we have no more time left to change the timeline again."

The scientific consensus is that roughly 10-12 years from now, the world will be flooded with new doomsday predictions. This can all be avoided if we overhaul the economy and become socialists, according to non-political, unbiased sciencey type guys.

"Should we not change our ways, our old predictions will melt, dangerously raising the chance of us having to move the goalposts again," said Al Gore. "Do you really want me to write another book, film another movie, and go on another tour in my private jet just because you dingbats couldn't be bothered to alter your lifestyles? I don't think so. Let's all get on board with this 12-year figure, or we'll have to push back the date again."

This is funny.

https://babylonbee.com/news/experts...they-change-the-dates-on-global-warming-again
 
This is incorrect. 97% of scientist do not believe man is causing it. This is the typical left wing argument because their followers subscribe to strength in numbers arguments. They know that people don't understand what CO2 does in the atmosphere or how it gets there so they make that argument that all the smart people believe man put it there.

Don't lie. Seriously.

This guy is good.


I'm not lying, I'm following the science. Here's a link to an ACTUAL REPUTABLE site you know, with REAL SCIENTISTS, not an electrical engineer with a website. Try NASA's opinion AND the opinion of 18 other scientific organizations.

Click

The main difference between you and me, is that I actually look stuff up and listen to the opinions of people who actually know what they are talking about. You see, I have no expertise in Climate Science, so I can't actually evaluate what Heller is saying. But I'm really good at looking things up in reputable journals where scientists (who DO know what they are talking about) conduct actual experiments to find answers to these sort of questions. You on the other hand pick a guy with NO CREDENTIALS to his name and tell me "he's good". How do you know? Do you have any scholarly work that Heller has done that give EVEN THE SLIGHTEST INDICATION that he knows what he's doing from a research standpoint? Spoiler Alert: There aren't any. Are YOU a climate expert? Do you do any research into climate sciences that would make me think that Heller is an expert? On that I have no idea. Please enlighten us all on how you know this guy is telling the truth and that I (and thousands and thousands of scientists) are lying.

Again, DON'T Believe me. I'm no expert. Go look up things by people who do know what they are talking about and have both credentials and real world experience in the subject. The above link is a great place to start. Google Scholar is another.
 
Last edited:
"Many current news stories start out with "Scientist Say"

It's an appeal to authority and the intent is to get you to turn off your brain and believe what they say"


I actually like this. This follows my point exactly. When you (or me) say "Scientists Say" it means absolutely nothing. Heller is a scientist with a degree in Geology and he says that all the other scientists are lying. Scientists say is absolutely accurate in this case. And it's FULL OF CRAP. There is PLENTY of unsettled science out there where there are contradictory results and no one knows the REAL answer. But scientist say <insert guesswork here>.

This is NOT on of those cases.

So you are making some sort of point where an electrical engineer is referencing an article in something called the "Weekly Australian" and trying to make a point about Climate Science? Really? I should just end this b/c you are making my point better than I can.
 
I'm not lying, I'm following the science. Here's a link to an ACTUAL REPUTABLE site you know, with REAL SCIENTISTS, not an electrical engineer with a website. Try NASA's opinion AND the opinion of 18 other scientific organizations.

Click

"The main difference between you and me, is that I actually look stuff up and listen to the opinions of people who actually know what they are talking about."

You see, I have no expertise in Climate Science, so I can't actually evaluate what Heller is saying. But I'm really good at looking things up in reputable journals where scientists (who DO know what they are talking about) conduct actual experiments to find answers to these sort of questions. You on the other hand pick a guy with NO CREDENTIALS to his name and tell me "he's good". How do you know? Do you have any scholarly work that Heller has done that give EVEN THE SLIGHTEST INDICATION that he knows what he's doing from a research standpoint? Spoiler Alert: There aren't any. Are YOU a climate expert? Do you do any research into climate sciences that would make me think that Heller is an expert? On that I have no idea. Please enlighten us all on how you know this guy is telling the truth and that I (and thousands and thousands of scientists) are lying.

Again, DON'T Believe me. I'm no expert. Go look up things by people who do know what they are talking about and have both credentials and real world experience in the subject. The above link is a great place to start. Google Scholar is another.

You don't know but you can tell who does know. Did I miss anything?

What you just admitted is that you don't know but trust those who you think do know.
 
Last edited:
I actually like this. This follows my point exactly. When you (or me) say "Scientists Say" it means absolutely nothing. Heller is a scientist with a degree in Geology and he says that all the other scientists are lying. Scientists say is absolutely accurate in this case. And it's FULL OF CRAP. There is PLENTY of unsettled science out there where there are contradictory results and no one knows the REAL answer. But scientist say <insert guesswork here>.

This is NOT on of those cases.

So you are making some sort of point where an electrical engineer is referencing an article in something called the "Weekly Australian" and trying to make a point about Climate Science? Really? I should just end this b/c you are making my point better than I can.

The purpose of this thread really isn't to discuss climate science. It's to point out the lies in the climate alarmists. We can do a thread on CO2 mass balance and greenhouse effects if you want. I can even source NASA data.

BTW the science man is just an engineer like me. Not a climate scientist
 
"If we don't take action, then in 12 years we will have to explain why the world hasn't ended and come up with a new number," one UN scientist warned. "This is a very serious threat, and we urge everyone to hand control of the economy to the government immediately before we have no more time left to change the timeline again."

The scientific consensus is that roughly 10-12 years from now, the world will be flooded with new doomsday predictions. This can all be avoided if we overhaul the economy and become socialists, according to non-political, unbiased sciencey type guys.

"Should we not change our ways, our old predictions will melt, dangerously raising the chance of us having to move the goalposts again," said Al Gore. "Do you really want me to write another book, film another movie, and go on another tour in my private jet just because you dingbats couldn't be bothered to alter your lifestyles? I don't think so. Let's all get on board with this 12-year figure, or we'll have to push back the date again."

This is funny.

https://babylonbee.com/news/experts...they-change-the-dates-on-global-warming-again

What’s your goal here? To get people to do more damage to the environment to prove a point?
 
  • Like
Reactions: firegiver
What’s your goal here? To get people to do more damage to the environment to prove a point?
He hates having the burden of responsibility so hes auditioning mental gymnastics to obfuscate his guilt.
 
What’s your goal here? To get people to do more damage to the environment to prove a point?

What would ever make you say that?

My goal is to get people to understand that CO2 is not a pollutant like the climate alarmist are saying. CO2 is natural and we need CO2 to sustain life. Every living thing produces CO2.

Have you ever wondered why climate alarmist discount CO2 from massive forest fires? It's because they consider that to be short carbon cycle. Well guess what? So is fossil fuel. It was created during the flood just 4400 years ago. We could literally burn all fossil fuel and not hurt the environment.
 
You don't know but you can tell who does know. Did I miss anything?

What you just admitted is that you don't know but trust those who you think do know.

YES!! What do you know about Medicine? What you know about construction? What do you know about architecture? Pick a profession that you don't know anything about. How do find someone good? You look at their credentials. Are they licenced? Do they belong to professional organizations in their field? What do others think of their work? You know this, because you do it all the time.

Again, if you have a heart condition WHAT DO YOU DO? Apparently you think running to the nearest registered nurse with a website is best? Or do you go to a cardiologist?
 
The purpose of this thread really isn't to discuss climate science. It's to point out the lies in the climate alarmists. We can do a thread on CO2 mass balance and greenhouse effects if you want. I can even source NASA data.

BTW the science man is just an engineer like me. Not a climate scientist

EXACTLY Man. EXACTLY. And I'm just a programmer/database guy. The purpose of this thread for me was to argue the point that another guy (just like you and me), ONE GUY (who is NOT an expert). Is making the argument that LITERALLY thousands and thousands of scientists that ARE experts in their field are systematically and intentionally lying their asses off. All the professional organizations that I linked above have FAKED all that science for decades to fool the world?

That is CRAZY man. crazy. But that's not the part that actually made me write all the above. There are crazy people everywhere, hell Sammy Watkins apparently thinks the world is flat. That doesn't particularly bother me.

You seem like a reasonable dude. But here you are, espousing some tin foil hat guy without a bit of evidence supporting a world wide conspiracy theory. And you believe him. Why on earth, would you believe this stuff over figuratively MOUNTAINS of scientific evidence to the contrary?
 
EXACTLY Man. EXACTLY. And I'm just a programmer/database guy. The purpose of this thread for me was to argue the point that another guy (just like you and me), ONE GUY (who is NOT an expert). Is making the argument that LITERALLY thousands and thousands of scientists that ARE experts in their field are systematically and intentionally lying their asses off. All the professional organizations that I linked above have FAKED all that science for decades to fool the world?

That is CRAZY man. crazy. But that's not the part that actually made me write all the above. There are crazy people everywhere, hell Sammy Watkins apparently thinks the world is flat. That doesn't particularly bother me.

You seem like a reasonable dude. But here you are, espousing some tin foil hat guy without a bit of evidence supporting a world wide conspiracy theory. And you believe him. Why on earth, would you believe this stuff over figuratively MOUNTAINS of scientific evidence to the contrary?

That's bull shit. I'm not saying anything crazy. You are just being an arrogant ass. As if you being a computer programmer makes you more qualified to validate sources than me. At least I understand chemistry and physics. I have at least challenged the so called science that doesn't add up. Like many who understand science say, there is no proof that CO2 levels are causing global temperature increases.

You are a sheep that believes what your people tell you to believe because it confirms you own political bias.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls
YES!! What do you know about Medicine? What you know about construction? What do you know about architecture? Pick a profession that you don't know anything about. How do find someone good? You look at their credentials. Are they licenced? Do they belong to professional organizations in their field? What do others think of their work? You know this, because you do it all the time.

Again, if you have a heart condition WHAT DO YOU DO? Apparently you think running to the nearest registered nurse with a website is best? Or do you go to a cardiologist?

This is a stupid argument. As if you can't challenge the underlying basis for a preposterous hypothesis just because are not a qualified subject matter expert only works in a court of law.

Far be it anyone think for themselves. We must all follow our master government at work here.
 
What would ever make you say that?

My goal is to get people to understand that CO2 is not a pollutant like the climate alarmist are saying. CO2 is natural and we need CO2 to sustain life. Every living thing produces CO2.

Have you ever wondered why climate alarmist discount CO2 from massive forest fires? It's because they consider that to be short carbon cycle. Well guess what? So is fossil fuel. It was created during the flood just 4400 years ago. We could literally burn all fossil fuel and not hurt the environment.
Oh shit we are talking with a flat earther if we are thinking some flood is relevant.
 
That's bull shit. I'm not saying anything crazy. You are just being an arrogant ass. As if you being a computer programmer makes you more qualified to validate sources than me. At least I understand chemistry and physics. I have at least challenged the so called science that doesn't add up. Like many who understand science say, there is no proof that CO2 levels are causing global temperature increases.

You are a sheep that believes what your people tell you to believe because it confirms you own political bias.

FYI, my BS degree is in Chemistry from Clemson. I understand Chemistry and Physics just fine (or did 30 years ago anyway). My masters degree is in Computer Science. I'd like you to just take a minute and go back and look at my posts. WHERE (please quote) did I say I was more qualified to validate the science than you? Quite the contrary, I said MULTIPLE times that I was not. I suggested once that you were no more qualified than me, but added the caviot that I didn't know you.

And again I ask you. Who are you (and the guy above) to "challenge the science"? He doesn't have the credentials to do that. And apparently neither do you (and neither do I). Show me the science. Where are these "many" that "say" these things. Where is their research experience? What's their education level? My point is again based on reviews of THOUSANDS of reputable climate scientists and thousands of scholarly articles that point to the conclusion that humans are at least partially to blame for climate change. But your opinion is that they are all lying. Any proof of that beyond an engineer with a website? Any scientific studies in reputable journals?

I don't have any people that tell me stuff about to support my political bias. I don't have any on climate change. If science shows that this is not happening, I'll gladly change my mind. I've got no dog in this fight. I might add something to the political bias part. You do seem to have one. But in this post you call me an ass and a sheep. That's right out of the Republican/Trump playbook. When you are losing the argument, attack the guy making it right?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rychek4
This is a stupid argument. As if you can't challenge the underlying basis for a preposterous hypothesis just because are not a qualified subject matter expert only works in a court of law.

Far be it anyone think for themselves. We must all follow our master government at work here.

No, it is not a stupid argument. And of course you can challenge a hypothesis w/o being an expert. That's not what you are doing here. Your thread is titled "Climate Alarmists are Liars". That's not challenging their opinions. That's calling them liars and saying that they are intentionally defrauding the entire world.

If thousands of experts in something state an opinion and I see something that doesn't add up to me, I assume that there's something that I don't understand, not that the thousands of experts are somehow involved in a world wide conspiracy .

And who is asking you not to think? Remember that these experts work for our government and governments all over the world. They work for non profits, private industry, and think tanks. On the contrary, I'm asking you to think. Is it more likely that all these experts are intentionally lying or that your engineer with his website is mistaken or lying? Seriously, which is more likely?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rychek4
No, it is not a stupid argument. And of course you can challenge a hypothesis w/o being an expert. That's not what you are doing here. Your thread is titled "Climate Alarmists are Liars". That's not challenging their opinions. That's calling them liars and saying that they are intentionally defrauding the entire world.

If thousands of experts in something state an opinion and I see something that doesn't add up to me, I assume that there's something that I don't understand, not that the thousands of experts are somehow involved in a world wide conspiracy .

And who is asking you not to think? Remember that these experts work for our government and governments all over the world. They work for non profits, private industry, and think tanks. On the contrary, I'm asking you to think. Is it more likely that all these experts are intentionally lying or that your engineer with his website is mistaken or lying? Seriously, which is more likely?

You are extremely naive if you think NASA is not motivated to find proof that climate change is caused by C02. This is their bread and butter.

What do you think would happen to their multi million dollar annual climate change budget if they determined there is nothing here?

BTW the engineer in the video is an expert at modeling and climate models.
 
You are extremely naive if you think NASA is not motivated to find proof that climate change is caused by C02. This is their bread and butter.

What do you think would happen to their multi million dollar annual climate change budget if they determined there is nothing here?

BTW the engineer in the video is an expert at modeling and climate models.

So everyone at NASA is lying? Got it. Their Budget is 21.5 billion dollars and according to the NASA site it spends more than a Billion studying the earth. Their job is to study the Earth and answer questions. NOT to promote any theory or agenda. So they gather a bunch of experts together and do a bunch of scientific study. Then they release their conclusions. Here's NASA's position:

"NASA’s role is to make observations of our Earth system that can be used by the public, policymakers and to support strategic decisions. Its job is to do rigorous science. However, the agency does not promote particular climate policies."

And I'd also like to point out that NASA would be FAR better served to have the science "unsettled" rather than take a position either way. If they say that climate change is happening and there's no doubt, why give them more money to study it? (they aren't offering solutions or policy) If they say that climate change is not happening and there's no doubt, why give them more money to study it? But if they say that they need more time/equipment/people to get a good answer, THEN you are talking about asking for more money.

And your take is that they are all lying because they will get more money if they lie? Thousands of scientist who have dedicated themselves to research and finding out the truth about the world we live in are all lying?

Or an engineer with a website is mistaken or lying? Again, which is more likely?

BTW Heller didn't mention that he was an expert and modeling and climate models in his credentials that he wrote himself. That's really curious. He's got a site that is named realclimatescience.com where he has a self written list of credentials which include:

Full time cyclist for all my local transportation, for the past 40 years AND
Science teacher, Athletic Director and Soccer Coach at Oak Creek Ranch School, Arizona

BUT he doesn't mention his expertise in ACTUAL climate science? RIght....

But hell, I could be wrong. Show me where his scholarly work is in building climate models. Where are his grant and funded research?
 
Last edited:
So everyone at NASA is lying? Got it. Their Budget is 21.5 billion dollars and according to the NASA site it spends more than a Billion studying the earth. Their job is to study the Earth and answer questions. NOT to promote any theory or agenda. So they gather a bunch of experts together and do a bunch of scientific study. Then they release their conclusions. Here's NASA's position:

"NASA’s role is to make observations of our Earth system that can be used by the public, policymakers and to support strategic decisions. Its job is to do rigorous science. However, the agency does not promote particular climate policies."

And I'd also like to point out that NASA would be FAR better served to have the science "unsettled" rather than take a position either way. If they say that climate change is happening and there's no doubt, why give them more money to study it? (they aren't offering solutions or policy) If they say that climate change is not happening and there's no doubt, why give them more money to study it? But if they say that they need more time/equipment/people to get a good answer, THEN you are talking about asking for more money.

And your take is that they are all lying because they will get more money if they lie? Thousands of scientist who have dedicated themselves to research and finding out the truth about the world we live in are all lying?

Or an engineer with a website is mistaken or lying? Again, which is more likely?

BTW Heller didn't mention that he was an expert and modeling and climate models in his credentials that he wrote himself. That's really curious. He's got a site that is named realclimatescience.com where he has a self written list of credentials which include:

Full time cyclist for all my local transportation, for the past 40 years AND
Science teacher, Athletic Director and Soccer Coach at Oak Creek Ranch School, Arizona

BUT he doesn't mention his expertise in ACTUAL climate science? RIght....

But hell, I could be wrong. Show me where his scholarly work is in building climate models. Where are his grant and funded research?

Tony Heller mentions in great length his experience with climate models here starting at 8 min mark.

 
Last edited:
FYI, my BS degree is in Chemistry from Clemson. I understand Chemistry and Physics just fine (or did 30 years ago anyway). My masters degree is in Computer Science. I'd like you to just take a minute and go back and look at my posts. WHERE (please quote) did I say I was more qualified to validate the science than you? Quite the contrary, I said MULTIPLE times that I was not. I suggested once that you were no more qualified than me, but added the caviot that I didn't know you.

And again I ask you. Who are you (and the guy above) to "challenge the science"? He doesn't have the credentials to do that. And apparently neither do you (and neither do I). Show me the science. Where are these "many" that "say" these things. Where is their research experience? What's their education level? My point is again based on reviews of THOUSANDS of reputable climate scientists and thousands of scholarly articles that point to the conclusion that humans are at least partially to blame for climate change. But your opinion is that they are all lying. Any proof of that beyond an engineer with a website? Any scientific studies in reputable journals?

I don't have any people that tell me stuff about to support my political bias. I don't have any on climate change. If science shows that this is not happening, I'll gladly change my mind. I've got no dog in this fight. I might add something to the political bias part. You do seem to have one. But in this post you call me an ass and a sheep. That's right out of the Republican/Trump playbook. When you are losing the argument, attack the guy making it right?

Since you understand chemistry, then you know that all organic carbon came from the atmosphere at one time. The problem with NASA's GISS model is the uncertainty in the data.

The purpose is to study man's contribution to climate change. That is their charter.


https://www.giss.nasa.gov/projects/gcm/

The GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4) is an estimate of global surface temperature change

The GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4) is an estimate of global surface temperature change. Graphs and tables are updated around the middle of every month using current data files from NOAA GHCN v4 (meteorological stations), and ERSST v5 (ocean areas), combined as described in our publications Hansen et al. (2010) and Lenssen et al. (2019). These updated files incorporate reports for the previous month and also late reports and corrections for earlier months.
 
Last edited:
You are extremely naive if you think NASA is not motivated to find proof that climate change is caused by C02. This is their bread and butter.
lol NASA is run by a Republican Senator from Alabama. If you don't know that, you shouldn't speak about it. Look up the SLS.
 
lol NASA is run by a Republican Senator from Alabama. If you don't know that, you shouldn't speak about it. Look up the SLS.

Doesn't matter. Also. Did Trump Purge Obama's personal? No. Obama set up GISS. Their mission is to study mans contribution to climate change.

I would love it if Trump scuttled that department. I can just hear the screams of calamity and calls for impeachment.
 
Doesn't matter.
It does matter, your point was that you can't trust NASA data. I agree they are politically motivated, for Senator Shelby and the Republicans. That should reinforce that their climate data is correct, not incorrect. If that doesn't matter to your point, then you aren't being honest in your argument.
 
It does matter, your point was that you can't trust NASA data. I agree they are politically motivated, for Senator Shelby and the Republicans. That should reinforce that their climate data is correct, not incorrect. If that doesn't matter to your point, then you aren't being honest in your argument.

I'm libertarian so I hold no party loyalty.

Many Republicans believe in the man made climate change groupthink farse.

The simple facts are that the climate models are based on assumptions that are necessary to explain the large uncertainties in the data. Thus, there is no proof that man is causing climate change and the government agency tasked to study the effects of man on the climate will never say so. They will always be open to the possibility and error on the conservative side aka safe side to protect their interests.
 
Hypothetically, even if we only have 12-120 years, it makes no difference. It makes no difference unless we invade China and India and force the cleanup then nothing will change. In our country, air and water are in as good a shape as it's ever been, except for Flint.
For the record, I'm a man-made climate change denier and simply believe that the climate has never been static, has always trended one way or the other. I'm old enough to remember the impending ice age.
 
The simple facts are that the climate models are based on assumptions that are necessary to explain the large uncertainties in the data. Thus, there is no proof that man is causing climate change
I see your understanding of statistics is either rudimentary or disingenuous.
 
I see your understanding of statistics is either rudimentary or disingenuous.

I would encourage anyone to push back and challenge government studies and models. You will see where they report the uncertanty in the data they use. Particularly the Carbon mass balance streams. I took uncertainty analsysis at Clemson and perform safety related instrument uncertainty calculations for a nuclear plant so go on about how you think I don't undertand statistics. At this point you are just grasping for straws.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: orangelvis
I would encourage anyone to push back and challenge government studies and models. You will see where they report the uncertanty in the data they use. Particularly the Carbon mass balance streams. I took uncertainty analsysis at Clemson and perform safety related instrument uncertainty calculations for a nuclear plant so go on about how you think I don't undertand statistics. At this point you are just grasping for straws.
You said that using assumptions means there is no proof. This is either wrong or disingenuous. High level statistics is always a matter of probability so you can say there is no proof, but you must know that probabilities are usually calculated in sigma's. So are you saying their is no proof, like the old theories vs. theorems intentionally disingenuous argument, or are you saying there is no math that show a high probability of man made climate change? I am not saying you are not smart, but your arguments here aren't backed by your stated background.

Am I grasping at straws? I hope it doesn't come across that way. I would hate to think a man schooled in statistics would make the "there is no proof argument".

I am surprised to see you make an appeal to authority argument. I expected we would keep this thread clear of logical fallacies.
 
Last edited:
I'm out...

As I've pointed out NUMEROUS times in this thread, Someone show me a good reason why I should believe an engineer (with NO CLIMATE CREDENTIALS WHATSOEVER) over thousands of scientist both on and off the government payrolls. The best answer seems to be that I'm a dumbass and all those scientists are lying because they have some sort of agenda. But apparently this ONE GUY doesn't.

Got ya... Tin Foil hats all around!

You know. If my boss were to die today, I would be almost certain to get her job. But if a fool proof plan to get her to retire today were to drop in my lap, I wouldn't do it. Because that would be wrong. I believe most people wouldn't do it either. I know that ALL people aren't like this, but I believe that MOST are. The idea that Thousands of people supposedly dedicated to finding out the truth of things have all decided to join some giant conspiracy to violate what they are supposedly looking for (the truth), is absolutely silly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rychek4
ADVERTISEMENT