[The Spoon]

You hear that? Puppypower knows more about climate science than the actual climate scientists do. Either that, or actual climate scientists are in on a conspiracy.

Either that or they are in denial once again, as was seen in the cfc and ozone hole argument.

So who do you think discovered that a hole was present in the ozone layer with the causative agent being CFCs? An artists collective?

Who do you think is correct? You or a rabid badger?

Nicely antagonistic answer. Does not answer my question though.

[Origin]

Either that, or actual climate scientists are in on a conspiracy.

He knows it is a liberal conspiracy!

These reading s has been added to the modern average. This is a way to game the system. You scan the earth for high points and plant there.

Yep, all the climate scientists are all democrats.  Apparently universities will only allow liberals, commies and democrats into advanced climate studies.
I guess climate scientist hate the thought of free enterprise and prosperity and want to suppress the world economies for their own nefarious reasons.

That or puppypower is spouting more of his typical nonsense.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

You hear that? Puppypower knows more about climate science than the actual climate scientists do. Either that, or actual climate scientists are in on a conspiracy.

Either that or they are in denial once again, as was seen in the cfc and ozone hole argument.

So who do you think discovered that a hole was present in the ozone layer with the causative agent being CFCs? An artists collective?

Who do you think is correct? You or a rabid badger?

Nicely antagonistic answer. Does not answer my question though.

Mahhhhh, I am rubber though.

[Kryptid]

Either that or they are in denial once again,

Yes, the majority of those educated in science who acquire and analyze the evidence firsthand, worldwide, are in denial. Right...

[The Spoon]

You hear that? Puppypower knows more about climate science than the actual climate scientists do. Either that, or actual climate scientists are in on a conspiracy.

Either that or they are in denial once again, as was seen in the cfc and ozone hole argument.

So who do you think discovered that a hole was present in the ozone layer with the causative agent being CFCs? An artists collective?

Who do you think is correct? You or a rabid badger?

Nicely antagonistic answer. Does not answer my question though.

Mahhhhh, I am rubber though.

Yes, looking at what you post, I rather suspect that you are.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Yes, looking at what you post, I rather suspect that you are.

Gad zooks, you are a bounder Sirand no mistake, but I shall have satisfaction I say.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Either that or they are in denial once again,

Yes, the majority of those educated in science who acquire and analyze the evidence firsthand, worldwide, are in denial. Right...

Is the answer any person who has come to a bad scienceconclusion, has done bad science or has had a scientific boo boo is not a scientist ? If so I see your point, as scientific linkage is unasailable and is therefore impervious to incorrectness by definition. If on the other hand we bring in, let's say thalidomide, you will find it leaves a bad taste in the mouth sometimes. But I suspect your answer will be that because that was an  incorrect treatment, it is therefore not representative of science. In that case you are telling me the obvious. Right is right and wrong is wrong, but I already know that. Your linking of yourself to logic and fact without a defined position yourself is  nothing more than antagonism and egotism.

[Kryptid]

But I suspect your answer will be that because that was an  incorrect treatment, it is therefore not representative of science.

You won't be hearing me say that, fortunately. It's actually an excellent example of science: the ability to change position once better evidence is brought in. If there is significant evidence that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening, that roughly 97% consensus of climate scientists apparently haven't found it yet. It's not like one can blame it on some kind of political agenda either, as climate scientists worldwide are in consensus on it. If it was politically-motivated, you'd expect climate scientists in different countries to be in broad disagreement with each other because politics is varied across the planet.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

But I suspect your answer will be that because that was an  incorrect treatment, it is therefore not representative of science.

You won't be hearing me say that, fortunately. It's actually an excellent example of science: the ability to change position once better evidence is brought in. If there is significant evidence that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening, that roughly 97% consensus of climate scientists apparently haven't found it yet. It's not like one can blame it on some kind of political agenda either, as climate scientists worldwide are in consensus on it. If it was politically-motivated, you'd expect climate scientists in different countries to be in broad disagreement with each other because politics is varied across the planet.

What does that have anything to with being in denial ? Confirmation bias is a well known term applied in some senarios to people such as scientists who refuse to entertain the idea they are incorrect.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

But then again I suppose that's wrong too.

[Kryptid]

97% of the world's climate scientists are in denial? Really? To suggest that some subgroup of scientists are in denial would be one thing, but to say that climate scientists, internationally, with different cultural backgrounds overwhelmingly came to the same conclusion about climate change because of confirmation bias or denial stretches credibility. The data is there. The Earth has steadily been getting warmer since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

97% of the world's climate scientists are in denial? Really? To suggest that some subgroup of scientists are in denial would be one thing, but to say that climate scientists, internationally, with different cultural backgrounds overwhelmingly came to the same conclusion about climate change because of confirmation bias or denial stretches credibility. The data is there. The Earth has steadily been getting warmer since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Rather ambiguous and egotistical.

[Origin]

Rather ambiguous and egotistical

What Kryptid said was neither ambiguous nor egotistical.
As they say, "I don't think you know what that word means".

[Bored chemist]

What Kryptid said was neither ambiguous nor egotistical.

It might be ambiguous if you don't understand irony.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Rather ambiguous and egotistical

What Kryptid said was neither ambiguous nor egotistical.
As they say, "I don't think you know what that word means".

Egotistical, vain and biased

[Kryptid]

Rather ambiguous and egotistical

What Kryptid said was neither ambiguous nor egotistical.
As they say, "I don't think you know what that word means".

Egotistical, vain and biased

Feel free to explain your reasoning.

[Origin]

Egotistical, vain and biased

You claim that those words apply to someone for stating that climate scientist think man made global warming is real?  You really don't know what those words mean.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

You claim that those words apply to someone for stating that climate scientist think man made global warming is real?  You really don't know what those words mean.

Egotistical, vain and biased

[Kryptid]

Is it egotistical to say that the majority of biologists are probably not in denial if they are in agreement that evolution happens? Is it egotistical to say that the majority of astronomers are probably not in denial if they are in agreement that the closest star to the Sun is Proxima Centauri? Is it egotistical to say that the majority of geologists are probably not in denial if they are in agreement that the Earth is billions of years old? If not, why is it suddenly egotistical when it comes to climate scientists having a consensus about climate change?

I can tell you what actually is egotistical: armchair researchers thinking they know more about the climate than actual climate scientists.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Is it egotistical to say that the majority of biologists are probably not in denial if they are in agreement that evolution happens? Is it egotistical to say that the majority of astronomers are probably not in denial if they are in agreement that the closest star to the Sun is Proxima Centauri? Is it egotistical to say that the majority of geologists are probably not in denial if they are in agreement that the Earth is billions of years old? If not, why is it suddenly egotistical when it comes to climate scientists having a consensus about climate change?

I can tell you what actually is egotistical: armchair researchers thinking they know more about the climate than actual climate scientists.

Nope that is very ambiguous and diversive.

[Kryptid]

Nope that is very ambiguous

If you think that's ambiguous, then I don't know what else to tell you.

and diversive.

How? https://www.badasstoysforbadassboys.com/diversive.html