M ore of Trump's pathological lies to the point of ridiculous

[Mountain Man]

That simply isn't the case MM. There is not sufficient evidence to contradict that hypothesis. In fact, there is so much evidence for it, it is only called a 'hypothesis' by those that are ignorant or unwilling to acknowledge said evidence.

^This is what denial looks like.

[shunyadragon]

Really, please try reading the thread.

You failed to respond I said: Please document cancer causes.

[tabibito]

That simply isn't the case MM. There is not sufficient evidence to contradict that hypothesis. In fact, there is so much evidence for it, it is only called a 'hypothesis' by those that are ignorant or unwilling to acknowledge said evidence.

Jim

That global warming is real is not a hypothesis - there is more than sufficient hard evidence to support the claim ... that global warming is caused by human activity has been shown false. That human activity contributes significantly to global warming is a hypothesis. That human activity contributes to global warming - evidence satisfactorily supports the claim.

[oxmixmudd]

That global warming is real is not a hypothesis - there is more than sufficient hard evidence to support the claim ... that global warming is caused by human activity has been shown false. That human activity contributes significantly to global warming is a hypothesis. That human activity contributes to global warming - evidence satisfactorily supports the claim.

At this point, it is clear that human activity is one of the primary contributors to the current warming trend. No one claims it is the only contributor.


Jim

[tabibito]

At this point, it is clear that human activity is one of the primary contributors to the current warming trend. No one claims it is the only contributor.


Jim

Not any more - no.

[oxmixmudd]

Not any more - no.

Since when was there a valid scientific claim human activity is the only contributor to global warming?
The planet has been in a warm inter-glacial period for over 10,000 years.


Jim

[tabibito]

Since when was there a valid scientific claim human activity is the only contributor to global warming?
The planet has been in a warm inter-glacial period for over 10,000 years.


Jim

Did someone say "valid?"
And past threads regarding climate change here will reveal that people were saying, "climate change is caused by humans: the science is in!"

And in the media - Remember the "by 2013 there will be no ice in the arctic" claim?

News Report dating to 2016

Yet in 2007, Prof Wadhams predicted that sea ice would be lost by 2013 after levels fell 27 per cent in a single year. However, by 2013, ice levels were actually 25 per cent higher than they had been six years before. In 2012, following another record low, Prof Wadhams changed his prediction to 2016.

The view was supported by Prof Maslowski, who in 2013 published a paper in the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences also claiming that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2016, plus or minus three years.

However, far from record lows, this year the Arctic has seen the quickest refreeze ever recorded ... The Danish Meteorological Institute said that refreezing is happening at the fastest rate since its daily records began in 1987.

Andrew Shepherd, professor of earth observation at the University of Leeds, said there was now "overwhelming consensus" that the Arctic would be free of ice in the next few decades ... Arctic Ocean will be effectively free of sea ice in a couple of decades should the present rate of decline continue.” (Note this is said after the then present 3 years of undecline.)

Prof Myles Allen, of Oxford University, added: “The Arctic was only predicted to be close to ice-free in September by mid-century.” (Redacted history - see above)

Prof Jonathan Bamber, of the University of Bristol “The signal of Arctic sea ice decline is possibly the clearest we have of climate change. That does not mean, by definition, it is manmade, but there is no question that sea ice volume has been declining, on average, over the last 40 years and that all the indications from climate data, satellite observations, etc, are that the decline will continue.”
Except for the past 3 years it had been shown that it wasn't continuing (though such aberrations are not to be unexpected).
The good professor doesn't even claim that the problem is man made - (but leaves open the question that it might be.)

All up - the Beaufort Sea was about 3 degrees centigrade warmer in 1850 than it is now. Arctic Sea ice extent is greater now than it was in 1850. Atmospheric CO2 levels in 1850 were higher than they are now.

[Roy]

Do you have stock in wind farms or something? Because you seem rather eager to downplay this. I cited a report from the Canadian government ...

Bovine faeces.

You cited a paper written by directors of the Society for Wind Vigilance.

Apparently without reading it.

[oxmixmudd]

Did someone say "valid?"
And past threads regarding climate change here will reveal that people were saying, "climate change is caused by humans: the science is in!"

And in the media - Remember the "by 2013 there will be no ice in the arctic" claim?

News Report dating to 2016

Yet in 2007, Prof Wadhams predicted that sea ice would be lost by 2013 after levels fell 27 per cent in a single year. However, by 2013, ice levels were actually 25 per cent higher than they had been six years before. In 2012, following another record low, Prof Wadhams changed his prediction to 2016.

The view was supported by Prof Maslowski, who in 2013 published a paper in the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences also claiming that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2016, plus or minus three years.

However, far from record lows, this year the Arctic has seen the quickest refreeze ever recorded ... The Danish Meteorological Institute said that refreezing is happening at the fastest rate since its daily records began in 1987.

Andrew Shepherd, professor of earth observation at the University of Leeds, said there was now "overwhelming consensus" that the Arctic would be free of ice in the next few decades ... Arctic Ocean will be effectively free of sea ice in a couple of decades should the present rate of decline continue.” (Note this is said after the then present 3 years of undecline.)

Prof Myles Allen, of Oxford University, added: “The Arctic was only predicted to be close to ice-free in September by mid-century.” (Redacted history - see above)

Prof Jonathan Bamber, of the University of Bristol “The signal of Arctic sea ice decline is possibly the clearest we have of climate change. That does not mean, by definition, it is manmade, but there is no question that sea ice volume has been declining, on average, over the last 40 years and that all the indications from climate data, satellite observations, etc, are that the decline will continue.”
Except for the past 3 years it had been shown that it wasn't continuing (though such aberrations are not to be unexpected).
The good professor doesn't even claim that the problem is man made - (but leaves open the question that it might be.)

All up - the Beaufort Sea was about 3 degrees centigrade warmer in 1850 than it is now. Arctic Sea ice extent is greater now than it was in 1850. Atmospheric CO2 levels in 1850 were higher than they are now.

That is a very bizarre post. Given that current c02 levels continue to rise and are now consistently above 400pm when they did not exceed 300ppm anytime in human history prior to the 20th century, i would say your post is likely just a hodge podge of various nutcase anti climate change propaganda. If you care to document your sources there might be a discussion in there somewhere.

Jim

[shunyadragon]

Did someone say "valid?"
And past threads regarding climate change here will reveal that people were saying, "climate change is caused by humans: the science is in!"

And in the media - Remember the "by 2013 there will be no ice in the arctic" claim?

News Report dating to 2016

Yet in 2007, Prof Wadhams predicted that sea ice would be lost by 2013 after levels fell 27 per cent in a single year. However, by 2013, ice levels were actually 25 per cent higher than they had been six years before. In 2012, following another record low, Prof Wadhams changed his prediction to 2016.

The view was supported by Prof Maslowski, who in 2013 published a paper in the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences also claiming that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2016, plus or minus three years.

However, far from record lows, this year the Arctic has seen the quickest refreeze ever recorded ... The Danish Meteorological Institute said that refreezing is happening at the fastest rate since its daily records began in 1987.

Andrew Shepherd, professor of earth observation at the University of Leeds, said there was now "overwhelming consensus" that the Arctic would be free of ice in the next few decades ... Arctic Ocean will be effectively free of sea ice in a couple of decades should the present rate of decline continue.” (Note this is said after the then present 3 years of undecline.)

Prof Myles Allen, of Oxford University, added: “The Arctic was only predicted to be close to ice-free in September by mid-century.” (Redacted history - see above)

Prof Jonathan Bamber, of the University of Bristol “The signal of Arctic sea ice decline is possibly the clearest we have of climate change. That does not mean, by definition, it is manmade, but there is no question that sea ice volume has been declining, on average, over the last 40 years and that all the indications from climate data, satellite observations, etc, are that the decline will continue.”
Except for the past 3 years it had been shown that it wasn't continuing (though such aberrations are not to be unexpected).
The good professor doesn't even claim that the problem is man made - (but leaves open the question that it might be.)

All up - the Beaufort Sea was about 3 degrees centigrade warmer in 1850 than it is now. Arctic Sea ice extent is greater now than it was in 1850. Atmospheric CO2 levels in 1850 were higher than they are now.

I believe oxmixmudd responded appropriately to this cut and paste unethical mix.

[JimL]

FWIU the largest percent of "lies" told by Trump according to a list concocted by the Washington Post revolved around his claim that he didn't collude with the Russians. Now that we know that was the truth the WaPo is refusing to remove them from his list of lies.

But then what do you expect from someone who... well,

Likewise, during the SOTU he said that a third ("one in three") of the women and girls illegally crossing the border end up getting sexually assaulted. Now according to Amnesty International the number is closer to 60% and one study even puts the number as high as 80%, but Politico and the Washington Post cited statistics indicating that the number is 31% so that they could call the claim false. Talk about your nitpicking. It is almost a given that every past president and every politician has used "one-third" or "one-half" rather than a specific fraction, and walked away without being fact-checked but with Trump rounding off like that gets called another lie.

Trump constantly screws up and exaggerates. For him, like your typical New Yorker from Queens or the Bronx, everything is the biggest, the best etc. (a characteristic also often associated with Texans) and he gets hammered for it as well.

The problem with Trumps lies is you. You're obviously stupid enough to believe them true. If you haven't recognised what a pathological liar Trump is by now, then you have a real problem.

[shunyadragon]

FWIU the largest percent of "lies" told by Trump according to a list concocted by the Washington Post revolved around his claim that he didn't collude with the Russians. Now that we know that was the truth the WaPo is refusing to remove them from his list of lies.

But then what do you expect from someone who... well,

Likewise, during the SOTU he said that a third ("one in three") of the women and girls illegally crossing the border end up getting sexually assaulted. Now according to Amnesty International the number is closer to 60% and one study even puts the number as high as 80%, but Politico and the Washington Post cited statistics indicating that the number is 31% so that they could call the claim false. Talk about your nitpicking. It is almost a given that every past president and every politician has used "one-third" or "one-half" rather than a specific fraction, and walked away without being fact-checked but with Trump rounding off like that gets called another lie.

Trump constantly screws up and exaggerates. For him, like your typical New Yorker from Queens or the Bronx, everything is the biggest, the best etc. (a characteristic also often associated with Texans) and he gets hammered for it as well.

Your using the same warped logic here Fundamentalist Creationists use in their phony science.