User talk:63.239.65.11

--Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Put-Downs
"This observation is due to the nature of your initial edits. Pull up a goat and try not to make trouble. We realize it is possible that you do not understand the nature of the site or our objectives." -Cosmikdebris, as of 18:42, 15 September 2015

I'm sorry, are you saying that I am "Unwelcome" here? By asking me to "Pull up a goat and try not to make trouble", aren't you basically trying to shush me as if I was some recalcitrant child?

Could you please explain which of my edits you had problems with and what your problems were? I read RationalWiki's guide for newcomers and community standards as well as the guide on what its articles are intended to be. All my edits so far have been been from a Scientific point of view with citable sources.63.239.65.11 (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, most contributors to this site agree with the vast majority of scientific opinion - and that is not argumentum ad populum - that AGW is a real phenomenon. You come along and, with no attempt to engage with the community, change the tone and meaning of the articles. This is straight vandalism - and would be even if you were right. If you want to change the articles then you will need to get consensus, not barge in. So, yeah, your initial edits have not endeared you to the community. And cherry picking from a few web sites doesn't make you "scientific". Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I apologize. I did not mean to be offensive or troublesome. I did not mean to "change the tone and meaning of the articles". Well, maybe the tone a little. Perhaps even allowing for the possibility that someone disagreeing the Scientific Consensus(TM) might have a valid disagreement? And I'm fine with you having the opinion that the Scientific Consensus(TM) is right and the Earth is warming. I also believe that the Earth is warming, just like it has been since the Little Ice Age. However, I do not agree with the hypothesis that the Earth is undergoing imminently catastrophic anthropogenic Global Warming. The articles I saw presented everybody who challenges the Scientific Consensus(TM) imminently catastrophic anthropogenic Global Warming as either idiots, "anti-science", in the pocket of Big Fossil Fuels, and/or are conservatives who just want to stop people from making laws that affect them. which is an ad Hominem attack.

What about the fact that in 2012 the outgoing head of the IPCC’s climate “science” panel, railroad engineer Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, publicly admitted that the world hadn't warmed in 17 years? That year, Hadley Centre/CRU records showed no warming for 18 years (v.3) or 19 years (v.4), and the RSS satellite dataset showed no warming for 23 years. Last year (2014), a new analysis of ‘the pause’ by Dr. Ross McKittrick in the Open Journal of Statistics showed they "compute[d] a hiatus length of 19 years, and in the lower tropospheric data we compute[d] a hiatus length of 16 years in the UAH series and 26 years in the RSS series.". And yes, I'm using different sources than you.

Two more links for you to look at: and

I have to go now, but I hope you won't just see me as some sort of wacko Conservative "denialist". I screwed up at first, but I'm trying to have a discussion. 63.239.65.11 (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * LOLWUWT did you say? MaillardFillmore (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry then for thinking that climate alarmists might try to change peoples' minds with facts and science. Instead it looks like they're once again going to have their opinions forced upon the public judicially. That'll show us!

Yes, did see this wiki's article on Global warming "denialism". I even saw the part with "The denial staircase".


 * slow clap*

Way to go, a collection of 12 different straw-man arguments andmis-representing skeptics objection to the ideas specifically proposed means rejection to taking any action. Most skeptics believe that it would be better to try and adapt to the changeing climate than trying to stop it from ever changing or "change it back". How about a matching list of climate alarmist arguments, such as: "Humans have changed the Earth's climate for the worse. We're all going to die from drowning/super-hurricanes/no clean water/burning up! Any year now! But you, yes you, can stop the impending doom of humanity! All you have to do is make some minor changes and then you, yes you, can help Save the World! (and maybe humanity also)!!!!! Act now or it'll be too late! Don't bother to read the fine print, the overwhelming majority of scientists believe this! And those doubters? Do not be swayed by their arguments, true believers! They are the false prophets scientists, and heretics! We are humanity's saviors! The oceans will recede and humanity will be safe from Manbearpig!!!!"

Also, I was looking and found this wiki's science_woo page. A line from it caught my attention: "Skeptics often ask, 'If your perpetual motion machine [electricity from renewable energy sources] is so [cheap and] good, why isn't it widely available?' And the reply is invariably, 'The oil/coal/nuclear industry/government[/conservatives/Anti-science trolls/Big-Fossil-Fuel-funded-climate-denial-complex is conspiring to suppress my invention. [their use]' But utility companies are required by law, in the U.S. and E.U., to buy back excess juice. So if their machine works, all they have to do is phase match their machine to the AC line with an inverter, sit back, and collect their payments. Also, the US government has such a strong interest in reducing the use of fossil fuels that it would jump at this [has been jumping at this], even as it violates the laws of thermodynamics, despite John Hutchison's claims to the contrary ." However, the cost of electricity from renewable energy plants remain higher than the market price for their electricity. So the government tries to force people to use it anyways by mandating its use, exempting it from regulations protecting wild animals, and subsidizing it by ever-increasing amounts to maintain parity with costs from fossil-fuel-derived electricity. I've been hearing for over two decades now how in "ten to twenty years" renewable energy would replace fossil fuels.