Pages:
Author

Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 47. (Read 636455 times)

legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
The study of the water cycle is called hydrology.  No, clouds and water vapor are not "constants"  Given that Alarmist Global Warming Hysteria predicts hurricanes, floods and droughts that should be obvious.  You asked strange things, got a serious response, and then started (again) criticizing.

I would like you to know, however that we are in agreement on the central issue.  Here is your statement exactly as you typed it.

Those fossil fuels have been burned at a high rate over a really short span of time when you look at the history of the world. It should surprise no one that such things would not seriously impact the climate.

Unfortunately, you can't get to be a Denier quite that easy.  You have to actually know some stuff and be able to discuss it rationally.

This "water cycle" is just a cycle.  The average effect is flat.  I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand, but the more bullshit you can throw out the easier it is to ignore the most basic question.  However, I can't state that basic question without paragraphs of ass-covering, because given in the most minor opportunity for you to trounce on something as wrong, you will undoubtedly do it. Solely to avoid the question

You guys don't want a real discussion.  It is ok. The rest of the intelligent educated populace sees you guys as loons and nothing ever changes my mind after my interactions.

That's just fine.  As part of my work I have a 150 year study of rain over different parts of the state.   Sooner or later you will likely realize that when you say things such as a "water cycle is just a cycle" you'll be called on it.  That will result in you having to think things out more precisely and clearly.  It will cause you to realize that you really don't know a lot about many things. 

The larger community sees guys like you as hysterical greenies that want to tell other people how to act but are pretty clueless about any actual facts.  So far you haven't really said anything, have you?

You tried to talk about something called Radiosity.  You were told you were making no sense.
You didn't even seem to understand the greenhouse theory and it's limitations.
Then you said that burning all that fossil fuel would likely not impact the climate.
And finally you have a claim that hydrology is just a cycle that doesn't affect climate.

How about we just lay that last one to rest, shall we? 

Climate is defined as 10 year decadal periods.  Many cycles of water's movement are well understood to occur in 60 to 80 year cycles (PDO, ADO, etc).  Therefore, water does affect climate.
sr. member
Activity: 405
Merit: 250
The study of the water cycle is called hydrology.  No, clouds and water vapor are not "constants"  Given that Alarmist Global Warming Hysteria predicts hurricanes, floods and droughts that should be obvious.  You asked strange things, got a serious response, and then started (again) criticizing.

I would like you to know, however that we are in agreement on the central issue.  Here is your statement exactly as you typed it.

Those fossil fuels have been burned at a high rate over a really short span of time when you look at the history of the world. It should surprise no one that such things would not seriously impact the climate.

Unfortunately, you can't get to be a Denier quite that easy.  You have to actually know some stuff and be able to discuss it rationally.

This "water cycle" is just a cycle.  The average effect is flat.  I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand, but the more bullshit you can throw out the easier it is to ignore the most basic question.  However, I can't state that basic question without paragraphs of ass-covering, because given in the most minor opportunity for you to trounce on something as wrong, you will undoubtedly do it. Solely to avoid the question

You guys don't want a real discussion.  It is ok. The rest of the intelligent educated populace sees you guys as loons and nothing ever changes my mind after my interactions.
sr. member
Activity: 405
Merit: 250
....
I am completely fine looking into what the 2 things you mention are, but I want a brief synopsis of why they demonstrate that 'greenhouse gasses' do not behave as expected . I don't want some description of some phenomena unless you can briefly explain to me why it counters the effect of CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses). ....
Has it occurred to you that nobody on this forum cares what "You Want?"

I'll briefly point out one of your logical errors.  You say "why they demonstrate that 'greenhouse gasses' do not behave as expected."

"As expected"   ?  By who?

If your "expectation," or that of those you have a religious faith in, is opposed to reality, that's not our problem, is it?  It's kind of yours problem.  Further, you would have to quantify that "as expected."  Exactly what does it mean?  If you think that "as expected" means some warming of the planet with increases in Co2, then state what amount of Co2 will cause a 1 degree C warming, and source that.



You find it worth telling me you don't care what I want and I am supposed to care?  You see how that works?

Ergo you're a fuckin' idiot.

Anyway, so more strawman.  The determination of the factor CO2 and greenhouse gasses play is a incredibly difficult question.  This what the denier's argument always boils down to.  A question so incredibly complicated that no one can answer it, only make attempts so therefore nothing else is valid.

So I guess you guys basically believe in manmade global warming, but you just discount it to such effect that it is irrelevant. That lets you embrace a portion of the accepted science without coming across as loons. You're still able to maintain your position and save face.

It is amazing how many word games you people play just to avoid the question that is key to the crux of the matter.
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
....
I am completely fine looking into what the 2 things you mention are, but I want a brief synopsis of why they demonstrate that 'greenhouse gasses' do not behave as expected . I don't want some description of some phenomena unless you can briefly explain to me why it counters the effect of CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses). ....
Has it occurred to you that nobody on this forum cares what "You Want?"

I'll briefly point out one of your logical errors.  You say "why they demonstrate that 'greenhouse gasses' do not behave as expected."

"As expected"   ?  By who?

If your "expectation," or that of those you have a religious faith in, is opposed to reality, that's not our problem, is it?  It's kind of yours problem.  Further, you would have to quantify that "as expected."  Exactly what does it mean?  If you think that "as expected" means some warming of the planet with increases in Co2, then state what amount of Co2 will cause a 1 degree C warming, and source that.

legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386

Nice avoiding the radiosity of CO2 etc.  Global warming has been known for some time due to measurable properties of gasses.  The skeptics never address this.  Never.  Yet they'll go on appealing to 'science'.

Ya don't think it's because they are laughing at you for using a word that does not even apply to gases?  Yep.  So darn it - those skeptics never address it.  They stick to using scientific terms and constructs.

Yeah.  Let's hear about that radiosity.  But hey, to be fair, you've already said you don't know much about the subject.  But then why the self righteous, moralistic, bigoted tone in arguments from ignorance?

Makes no sense.  Oh.  Wait.  It's WARMIST talking.  Yeah, I understand now.

Lol...

measurable properties of gasses....

The skeptics never address this....




What do you ACTUALLY KNOW about what skeptics address?  My impression is zero.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosity_(radiometry)

Do you understand why scientists have been warning about global warming for decades?  If not radiosity, what is the physics property that explains how the radiation spectrum interacts with gasses ? Does it not fall under radiosity?

I'm listening... little man.
Absorption and emission lines from gases create the radiation spectrum.  View a star through a gas cloud, the spectrum will have missing lines.  View the same cloud from the side, they will be emitted as spectral lines.

You appear to be struggling to find words to describe the phenomena called an atmospheric greenhouse effect.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/the-basics-of-the-greenhouse-gas-effect

Well I was struggling to answer the same question that you could not.  Does not seem like you grasped that.  I could have described the process, but I was wishing to use a single word to refer to it.  It seems like radiosity isn't used in that context by anything I see, but the concepts are very similar to a lay person.

None the less, you seem to understand the above to some extent.  So what part of the cause do you disagree with?

Cause?  If by this you mean the "greenhouse effect," that is a crude description of an atmospheric phenomena.  It does not take into account clouds, and water vapor.  Neither does it address the basic issue of radiation balance at the upper stratosphere.  Neither does it address the issue of the expansion of the atmosphere if and when that became "hotter."

As for your question "disagree with," I assume you have some idea that the words "greenhouse effect" are to be construed to be the "cause of global warming."  That's only a guess.  Some words that you didn't know are a cause of a phenomena that you don't understand and which has been "paused" for nineteen years?

The clouds and water vapor are a constant. Yes, they will be affect the climate but they're a constant. You guys like to throw in random stuff and appeal to science but never really go into detail about this stuff. I see it time and time again.  Your prose would have someone who isn't educated and intelligent give you credibility, but there really is little there.

So you believe in the science behind the basic argument of why global warming exists.  Can you tell me what has mitigated this and made it a non issue?

There is cynicism and then there is stupidity.  Those fossil fuels have been burned at a high rate over a really short span of time when you look at the history of the world. It should surprise no one that such things would not seriously impact the climate.

You guys always find one little thing and harp on it.  I'm not sure about the climate heating having paused for 19 years. There are many things that scientists attribute to the change that are already happening.  I'm sure some of these guys are wrong, but I highly doubt they're all wrong.

I can also show you how the previous month (well possibly Feb)  was the hottest month on record.
The study of the water cycle is called hydrology.  No, clouds and water vapor are not "constants"  Given that Alarmist Global Warming Hysteria predicts hurricanes, floods and droughts that should be obvious.  You asked strange things, got a serious response, and then started (again) criticizing.

I would like you to know, however that we are in agreement on the central issue.  Here is your statement exactly as you typed it.

Those fossil fuels have been burned at a high rate over a really short span of time when you look at the history of the world. It should surprise no one that such things would not seriously impact the climate.

Unfortunately, you can't get to be a Denier quite that easy.  You have to actually know some stuff and be able to discuss it rationally.
sr. member
Activity: 405
Merit: 250


Why on earth would 'clouds and water vapor be constant'?  That assertion makes no sense on almost any time scale or any conceptual model.

A vague conceptual understanding that radiative energy transmissions occur, and CO2 has some influence on it, and it can make earth hot is a start but is not really going to do it.  Going to have to move forward a little bit from here.

In addition to starting to consider things a little bit quantitatively, two concepts to appreciate next are 'infrared opacity' and 'radiative convective equilibrium.

Here's a relatively clear explanation:

https://youtu.be/rCya4LilBZ8?t=55m30s

This lecture does a good job of illustrating the total absurdity of the whole global climate change scam.



I *KNEW* I would get this sort of response.  I should have put "average" in there, but I'm sure you guys would still find some nonsense to avoid my point.  The average water vapor etc will be consistent in the short-term. It is like a climate change denier saying,

Quote from: 'Denier'
GLobal warming?  There are so many things to consider that have an effect on temperature.  Like if the sun is shining or not !

  I'm not going to spend too much time on you guys, because arguing with biases arising from mental defects is not what I consider productive.  I do hold out hope that you guys have something worth teaching me.

I am completely fine looking into what the 2 things you mention are, but I want a brief synopsis of why they demonstrate that 'greenhouse gasses' do not behave as expected . I don't want some description of some phenomena unless you can briefly explain to me why it counters the effect of CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses).

Actually I glanced at one of your videos.  1:30 hours of fighting a strawman.  No thanks.

Honestly, it is tedious even having discussions with you people.  You don't try to find the truth, you try to constanty justify why the other guy is wrong.  So if I put CO2, I'll get the 'You don't even know that CO2 is one of the weakest greenhouse gasses'.  So I have to constantly elaborate every little fucking thing. For that reason alone, I'd banned you guys off reddit if I were in charge.  Tedium.
legendary
Activity: 4690
Merit: 1276

The clouds and water vapor are a constant. Yes, they will be affect the climate but they're a constant.  You guys like to throw in random stuff and appeal to science but never really go into detail about this stuff. I see it time and time again.  Your prose would have someone who isn't educated and intelligent give you credibility, but there really is little there.

So you believe in the science behind the basic argument of why global warming exists.  Can you tell me what has mitigated this and made it a non issue?

There is cynicism and then there is stupidity.  Those fossil fuels have been burned at a high rate over a really short span of time when you look at the history of the world. It should surprise no one that such things would not seriously impact the climate.

You guys always find one little thing and harp on it.  I'm not sure about the climate heating having paused for 19 years. There are many things that scientists attribute to the change that are already happening.  I'm sure some of these guys are wrong, but I highly doubt they're all wrong.

I can also show you how the previous month (well possibly Feb)  was the hottest month on record.

Why on earth would 'clouds and water vapor be constant'?  That assertion makes no sense on almost any time scale or any conceptual model.

A vague conceptual understanding that radiative energy transmissions occur, and CO2 has some influence on it, and it can make earth hot is a start but is not really going to do it.  Going to have to move forward a little bit from here.

In addition to starting to consider things a little bit quantitatively, two concepts to appreciate next are 'infrared opacity' and 'radiative convective equilibrium.

Here's a relatively clear explanation:

https://youtu.be/rCya4LilBZ8?t=55m30s

This lecture does a good job of illustrating the total absurdity of the whole global climate change scam.

sr. member
Activity: 405
Merit: 250

Nice avoiding the radiosity of CO2 etc.  Global warming has been known for some time due to measurable properties of gasses.  The skeptics never address this.  Never.  Yet they'll go on appealing to 'science'.

Ya don't think it's because they are laughing at you for using a word that does not even apply to gases?  Yep.  So darn it - those skeptics never address it.  They stick to using scientific terms and constructs.

Yeah.  Let's hear about that radiosity.  But hey, to be fair, you've already said you don't know much about the subject.  But then why the self righteous, moralistic, bigoted tone in arguments from ignorance?

Makes no sense.  Oh.  Wait.  It's WARMIST talking.  Yeah, I understand now.

Lol...

measurable properties of gasses....

The skeptics never address this....




What do you ACTUALLY KNOW about what skeptics address?  My impression is zero.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosity_(radiometry)

Do you understand why scientists have been warning about global warming for decades?  If not radiosity, what is the physics property that explains how the radiation spectrum interacts with gasses ? Does it not fall under radiosity?

I'm listening... little man.
Absorption and emission lines from gases create the radiation spectrum.  View a star through a gas cloud, the spectrum will have missing lines.  View the same cloud from the side, they will be emitted as spectral lines.

You appear to be struggling to find words to describe the phenomena called an atmospheric greenhouse effect.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/the-basics-of-the-greenhouse-gas-effect

Well I was struggling to answer the same question that you could not.  Does not seem like you grasped that.  I could have described the process, but I was wishing to use a single word to refer to it.  It seems like radiosity isn't used in that context by anything I see, but the concepts are very similar to a lay person.

None the less, you seem to understand the above to some extent.  So what part of the cause do you disagree with?

Cause?  If by this you mean the "greenhouse effect," that is a crude description of an atmospheric phenomena.  It does not take into account clouds, and water vapor.  Neither does it address the basic issue of radiation balance at the upper stratosphere.  Neither does it address the issue of the expansion of the atmosphere if and when that became "hotter."

As for your question "disagree with," I assume you have some idea that the words "greenhouse effect" are to be construed to be the "cause of global warming."  That's only a guess.  Some words that you didn't know are a cause of a phenomena that you don't understand and which has been "paused" for nineteen years?

The clouds and water vapor are a constant. Yes, they will be affect the climate but they're a constant. You guys like to throw in random stuff and appeal to science but never really go into detail about this stuff. I see it time and time again.  Your prose would have someone who isn't educated and intelligent give you credibility, but there really is little there.

So you believe in the science behind the basic argument of why global warming exists.  Can you tell me what has mitigated this and made it a non issue?

There is cynicism and then there is stupidity.  Those fossil fuels have been burned at a high rate over a really short span of time when you look at the history of the world. It should surprise no one that such things would not seriously impact the climate.

You guys always find one little thing and harp on it.  I'm not sure about the climate heating having paused for 19 years. There are many things that scientists attribute to the change that are already happening.  I'm sure some of these guys are wrong, but I highly doubt they're all wrong.

I can also show you how the previous month (well possibly Feb)  was the hottest month on record.
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386

Nice avoiding the radiosity of CO2 etc.  Global warming has been known for some time due to measurable properties of gasses.  The skeptics never address this.  Never.  Yet they'll go on appealing to 'science'.

Ya don't think it's because they are laughing at you for using a word that does not even apply to gases?  Yep.  So darn it - those skeptics never address it.  They stick to using scientific terms and constructs.

Yeah.  Let's hear about that radiosity.  But hey, to be fair, you've already said you don't know much about the subject.  But then why the self righteous, moralistic, bigoted tone in arguments from ignorance?

Makes no sense.  Oh.  Wait.  It's WARMIST talking.  Yeah, I understand now.

Lol...

measurable properties of gasses....

The skeptics never address this....




What do you ACTUALLY KNOW about what skeptics address?  My impression is zero.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosity_(radiometry)

Do you understand why scientists have been warning about global warming for decades?  If not radiosity, what is the physics property that explains how the radiation spectrum interacts with gasses ? Does it not fall under radiosity?

I'm listening... little man.
Absorption and emission lines from gases create the radiation spectrum.  View a star through a gas cloud, the spectrum will have missing lines.  View the same cloud from the side, they will be emitted as spectral lines.

You appear to be struggling to find words to describe the phenomena called an atmospheric greenhouse effect.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/the-basics-of-the-greenhouse-gas-effect

Well I was struggling to answer the same question that you could not.  Does not seem like you grasped that.  I could have described the process, but I was wishing to use a single word to refer to it.  It seems like radiosity isn't used in that context by anything I see, but the concepts are very similar to a lay person.

None the less, you seem to understand the above to some extent.  So what part of the cause do you disagree with?

Cause?  If by this you mean the "greenhouse effect," that is a crude description of an atmospheric phenomena.  It does not take into account clouds, and water vapor.  Neither does it address the basic issue of radiation balance at the upper stratosphere.  Neither does it address the issue of the expansion of the atmosphere if and when that became "hotter."

As for your question "disagree with," I assume you have some idea that the words "greenhouse effect" are to be construed to be the "cause of global warming."  That's only a guess.  Some words that you didn't know are a cause of a phenomena that you don't understand and which has been "paused" for nineteen years?
sr. member
Activity: 405
Merit: 250

Nice avoiding the radiosity of CO2 etc.  Global warming has been known for some time due to measurable properties of gasses.  The skeptics never address this.  Never.  Yet they'll go on appealing to 'science'.

Ya don't think it's because they are laughing at you for using a word that does not even apply to gases?  Yep.  So darn it - those skeptics never address it.  They stick to using scientific terms and constructs.

Yeah.  Let's hear about that radiosity.  But hey, to be fair, you've already said you don't know much about the subject.  But then why the self righteous, moralistic, bigoted tone in arguments from ignorance?

Makes no sense.  Oh.  Wait.  It's WARMIST talking.  Yeah, I understand now.

Lol...

measurable properties of gasses....

The skeptics never address this....




What do you ACTUALLY KNOW about what skeptics address?  My impression is zero.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosity_(radiometry)

Do you understand why scientists have been warning about global warming for decades?  If not radiosity, what is the physics property that explains how the radiation spectrum interacts with gasses ? Does it not fall under radiosity?

I'm listening... little man.
Absorption and emission lines from gases create the radiation spectrum.  View a star through a gas cloud, the spectrum will have missing lines.  View the same cloud from the side, they will be emitted as spectral lines.

You appear to be struggling to find words to describe the phenomena called an atmospheric greenhouse effect.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/the-basics-of-the-greenhouse-gas-effect

Well I was struggling to answer the same question that you could not.  Does not seem like you grasped that.  I could have described the process, but I was wishing to use a single word to refer to it.  It seems like radiosity isn't used in that context by anything I see, but the concepts are very similar to a lay person.

None the less, you seem to understand the above to some extent.  So what part of the cause do you disagree with?
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386

Nice avoiding the radiosity of CO2 etc.  Global warming has been known for some time due to measurable properties of gasses.  The skeptics never address this.  Never.  Yet they'll go on appealing to 'science'.

Ya don't think it's because they are laughing at you for using a word that does not even apply to gases?  Yep.  So darn it - those skeptics never address it.  They stick to using scientific terms and constructs.

Yeah.  Let's hear about that radiosity.  But hey, to be fair, you've already said you don't know much about the subject.  But then why the self righteous, moralistic, bigoted tone in arguments from ignorance?

Makes no sense.  Oh.  Wait.  It's WARMIST talking.  Yeah, I understand now.

Lol...

measurable properties of gasses....

The skeptics never address this....




What do you ACTUALLY KNOW about what skeptics address?  My impression is zero.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosity_(radiometry)

Do you understand why scientists have been warning about global warming for decades?  If not radiosity, what is the physics property that explains how the radiation spectrum interacts with gasses ? Does it not fall under radiosity?

I'm listening... little man.
Absorption and emission lines from gases create the radiation spectrum.  View a star through a gas cloud, the spectrum will have missing lines.  View the same cloud from the side, they will be emitted as spectral lines.

You appear to be struggling to find words to describe the phenomena called an atmospheric greenhouse effect.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/the-basics-of-the-greenhouse-gas-effect
sr. member
Activity: 405
Merit: 250

Nice avoiding the radiosity of CO2 etc.  Global warming has been known for some time due to measurable properties of gasses.  The skeptics never address this.  Never.  Yet they'll go on appealing to 'science'.

Ya don't think it's because they are laughing at you for using a word that does not even apply to gases?  Yep.  So darn it - those skeptics never address it.  They stick to using scientific terms and constructs.

Yeah.  Let's hear about that radiosity.  But hey, to be fair, you've already said you don't know much about the subject.  But then why the self righteous, moralistic, bigoted tone in arguments from ignorance?

Makes no sense.  Oh.  Wait.  It's WARMIST talking.  Yeah, I understand now.

Lol...

measurable properties of gasses....

The skeptics never address this....




What do you ACTUALLY KNOW about what skeptics address?  My impression is zero.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosity_(radiometry)

Do you understand why scientists have been warning about global warming for decades?  If not radiosity, what is the physics property that explains how the radiation spectrum interacts with gasses ? Does it not fall under radiosity?

I'm listening... little man.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
Obviously it's cooling down all the time:



Indeed.

I have it on good authority that around here it cools down every day.  As night approaches.

Lol...

blitzkrieg!
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
Obviously it's cooling down all the time:



Indeed.

I have it on good authority that around here it cools down every day.  As night approaches.

Lol...
hero member
Activity: 675
Merit: 514
Obviously it's cooling down all the time:

legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
...
I can't give you my work as I never had the rax data. What you gave me (a few hundreds of posts earlier) were plots of raw data not the numerical data.
But I can give you a work the worldwide wommunity consideres as rather reliable:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/


Of course I refute this xD

The tables of raw data were linked to.  However, regardless - they are readily available through your friend Google.

So apparently you just want to SAY you refute it.  You don't want to actually refute it with simple 8th grade math?

a work the worldwide wommunity


Indeed, the WOMMUNITY?

Again, easier to point and laugh at a typo than to actually debate.

And you're making (again and again) an incredible logical fallacy here. You're making a claim saying work done by NASA is false. THe burden of proof is on your shoulders not mine. If it's simple 8th grade math (I got no idea what that means I don't know what 8th grade is ^^) then just destroy Nasa results and show us your work.

I'm not even making a claim.  I have only repeated a generally accepted fact — that satellite temperature data shows no signfiicant warming in 19 years.  

The claims, exaggerations, and denials of information are all yours, buddy.  You are the one that refuses to prove your claim, for what reasons I can't imagine.  8th grade is five years prior to entering college.  You can't even seem to use that level of math to prove up your claims.

For example, here is a CBS article about "the pause."   Which you deny.  Denier.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-theory-may-help-explain-global-warming-pause/
legendary
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1251
...
I can't give you my work as I never had the rax data. What you gave me (a few hundreds of posts earlier) were plots of raw data not the numerical data.
But I can give you a work the worldwide wommunity consideres as rather reliable:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/


Of course I refute this xD

The tables of raw data were linked to.  However, regardless - they are readily available through your friend Google.

So apparently you just want to SAY you refute it.  You don't want to actually refute it with simple 8th grade math?

a work the worldwide wommunity


Indeed, the WOMMUNITY?

Again, easier to point and laugh at a typo than to actually debate.

And you're making (again and again) an incredible logical fallacy here. You're making a claim saying work done by NASA is false. THe burden of proof is on your shoulders not mine. If it's simple 8th grade math (I got no idea what that means I don't know what 8th grade is ^^) then just destroy Nasa results and show us your work.
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386

Nice avoiding the radiosity of CO2 etc.  Global warming has been known for some time due to measurable properties of gasses.  The skeptics never address this.  Never.  Yet they'll go on appealing to 'science'.

Ya don't think it's because they are laughing at you for using a word that does not even apply to gases?  Yep.  So darn it - those skeptics never address it.  They stick to using scientific terms and constructs.

Yeah.  Let's hear about that radiosity.  But hey, to be fair, you've already said you don't know much about the subject.  But then why the self righteous, moralistic, bigoted tone in arguments from ignorance?

Makes no sense.  Oh.  Wait.  It's WARMIST talking.  Yeah, I understand now.

Lol...

measurable properties of gasses....

The skeptics never address this....




What do you ACTUALLY KNOW about what skeptics address?  My impression is zero.
sr. member
Activity: 405
Merit: 250
oh, You Asked for a Global Conspiracy?  You mean that you presented a straw man argument. We've all seen that done before.  It gets you laughed at.  

See bolded above.  Answers itself.

Next.  Paragraph with key words Narcissist, history, marxist conspiracy, meta-critique, "deep ties to oil and gas."  Sounds like a bullshit paradigm.  

I notice you delicately tiptoe around any and all hard science.  That's quite revealing.

[Lunatic rambling snipped to keep on subject.]

Now, let's have a moment of truthiness.  What's your problem exactly with "Deep ties to oil and gas?"

Lets address this right here.

If you don't understand an argument that does not make it a strawman.  Whose fault is it for not understanding?  It could be either of us.

Let me try again.

Global warming skeptics/deniers  claim that it is all a big money driven ploy because the scientists need jobs.  Something like that.  I simply ask for one example of history where this has been true.  Where such an overwhelming ratio of actual scientists agree on something that is wrong, just because they need money/funding.  Coming up with the piltdown man or what have you is fine, but you seem to not understand the difference in magnitude and why those examples are laughable.  Eugenics??  ooook.

My problem with "deep ties to oil and gas" is that is shows an IMMEDIATE and DIRECT conflict of interest. Scientists have looked for the truth even when it isn't popular.  That is what Western science is built upon. Yes, you will be able to find countless counter-examples but NEVER an example of a conspiracy anywhere near the magnitude of what we see with the consensus on global warming.

It also isn't even strictly about money.  It is about wanting to not see themselves as the asshole thats fucking over the rest of the world. If one has a conscious and exists off an industry that fucks over the climate then they will always want to see themselves as not being a piece of shit. (Global warming isn't a reversible thing like a standard poison.  THis will be changing the climate for the forseeable future. It is a problem of a different class.) So there are other huge biases going on.  

It would be far more respectable if he was someone motivated by truth and not vested interests.

I'm not sure where you get I am ducking the hard science or whatever you said.  (don't care to reread your nonsense too much).  That is a common claim. I would like to read 1 source that has been written/reviewed and explains why the precepts of global warming are false. I'm far too smart to entertain the notion that I can do all the research myself.  So yes I am ducking it to some extent.

One last thing - Don't get so angry you break your keyboard showing everyone you are an "independent thinker".


Global warming skeptics/deniers  claim...


I don't think you even know what "global warming skeptics/deniers claim."  Your ignorance is being revealed each time you type.

Global warming isn't a reversible thing like a standard poison.  This will be changing the climate for the forseeable future. It is a problem of a different class.

My refutation of the 2006 estimates of co2 sensitivity refute your ridiculous alarmist beliefs.

I'm not sure where you get I am ducking the hard science ....I'm far too smart....yes I am ducking it ....
How about that.  You want to state truths about the science but duck and dodge learning or reading or thinking about the science.  


I would like to read 1 source that has been written/reviewed and explains why the precepts of global warming are false.


Nobody's stopping you except the illusions in your own head.  Why not start with three Big Lies?

A.  There was no Medieval Warm Period.
B.  There was no Little Ice Age.
C.  Climate over the last one or two thousand years, graphed, has a hockey stick shape.

And then there's that RADIOSITY, man.  Oh YEAH.  Do you light up green in the dark?  The new greenie RADIOSITY?

Nice avoiding the radiosity of CO2 etc.  Global warming has been known for some time due to measurable properties of gasses.  The skeptics never address this.  Never.  Yet they'll go on appealing to 'science'.

I'm not sure what you're going on about the big three lies.  One can look around to ample evidence of global warming coming about and it is about right on schedule with the majority of projections. More strawman bullshit.

I would like to see it laid out why global warming is made up, starting with the theories on what causes global warming.  I never see this.  Yet these same clowns will brow-beat everyone over some bits and pieces which they claim are true. (They may well be.)

The weed smoking reference is you floundering about.  Weren't you the one going on about the ad hominem attacks?
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
...
I can't give you my work as I never had the rax data. What you gave me (a few hundreds of posts earlier) were plots of raw data not the numerical data.
But I can give you a work the worldwide wommunity consideres as rather reliable:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/


Of course I refute this xD

The tables of raw data were linked to.  However, regardless - they are readily available through your friend Google.

So apparently you just want to SAY you refute it.  You don't want to actually refute it with simple 8th grade math?

a work the worldwide wommunity


Indeed, the WOMMUNITY?
Pages:
Jump to: