# Science denialism: The problem that just won’t go away



## orogenicman (Mar 8, 2015)

All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease.  Coincidence?

Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine



> Often in our culture, science is rendered disposable if it stomps on a cherished claim; faith trumps reality. This attitude is internally inconsistent: Atomic theory is OK when we use it to X-ray our teeth or build a nuclear power station, but invalid when it comes to assessing the age of the planet. Evolutionary insight is OK when it guides the production of our annual flu shot, but deniers refuse to let it tell them from whence they came. Science is the way forward, but not for people who don’t want to go forward.
> 
> More at the link.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Mar 8, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease.  Coincidence?
> 
> Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine
> 
> ...



Can deny science to their heart's content. Great thing about science is if it's wrong it gets changed. If it isn't, it doesn't. 

Climate deniers though are worse than just denying science in how they misrepresent facts as with claiming GW isn't happening because Antarctic sea ice is increasing. Which it is. But "sea ice" is seasonal and not contributing to sea level rise. "Land ice" however is. But they don't mention that.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 8, 2015)

We are on a roll in terms of geopolitical structuring since 2001..........NWO unless you aren't paying attention..........and they will get here via use of science as engineered by the big banks. Because post-industrial society must be planned for s0ns........and has been for well over a century........for Christsakes, brain-chip technology already exists.......just need to condition the people to think its normal. They are doing an outstanding job too.........


----------



## Mr. H. (Mar 8, 2015)

Why do Liberals deny the science of abortion, the science of the Keystone XL, the science of ethanol and the RFS mandate?


----------



## Tom Sweetnam (Mar 8, 2015)

You mean cook-the-booksalism don't you?


----------



## Pogo (Mar 8, 2015)

Mr. H. said:


> Why do Liberals deny the science of abortion, the science of the Keystone XL, the science of ethanol and the RFS mandate?



Isn't it a bit early in the day to be running science-of-ethanol experiments, H?


----------



## Freewill (Mar 8, 2015)

Here is the problem with any theory:


I see anti-global warming mentioned.  Which is just a way for people to argue without saying anything of substance.  Label a person anti or a denier and that is all it takes is some people's mind to win an argument.  Which i think everyone can agree is ludicrous.  Are people really anti-global warming or in reality not convinced there really is a problem?  I say the latter more then the former.  Why would anyone be anti anything?  Just to be contrary?  That again is ludicrous.

I saw Anti-evolution mentioned, again with the "anti" label.  But consider, if the knowledge of genes that Darwin had when he wrote his book is used then his own theory goes down in flames.  If we get right to it I seriously doubt if anyone is asked, do you believe in natural selection, I am thinking they will say of course we see that happening.  Then if asked if they believe in evolution the answer may not be as clear because the question is not clear.  Natural selection is observable thus believable.  But evolution is just a word it is not really a process per se.  In other words, what does someone mean when they say evolution?  Evolution of a specie through natural selection?  If so then if explained in that way I would think most would agree.  But Evolution as the vehicle of the creation of life on Earth and everything on the Earth, then there is a problem because it is impossible for the TOE to explain the creation of life.  So the blanket answer to evolution is no unless qualified which seldom do those who use words like anti and deniers seldom qualify.

What is even more ludicous is when those who accept whatever a "scientist" tells them use the term anti-science to describe those who don't.


----------



## Freewill (Mar 8, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease.  Coincidence?
> 
> Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine
> 
> ...



Ask yourself, if you were around with Einstein would you have argued with his position on a static universe?  Or would you ceded to him being an genius scientist?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 8, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease.  Coincidence?
> 
> Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine
> 
> ...



The use of the word 'denier' makes this article nothing more than left wing propaganda meant to demonize.  You have no science only the dogma of a lie meant to place all under socialism..  Two Words for you and your cult of anti-science left wing nut case people..  F**K OFF!


----------



## Pogo (Mar 8, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease.  Coincidence?
> ...



So that's your argument is it?  "Fuck off"?

Informative.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 8, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease.  Coincidence?
> 
> Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine
> 
> ...



The problem with you left wing nut jobs, well one of many, is that you don't actually know shit about science, you just know that this particular science agrees with you. In fact you can't stand science when it conflicts with you, such as forensic science when it proves that a young black thug tried to kill a cop.

People like me love science AND history. When you love science, you know how science works and you know science's history. When you know both of these things you know right away that climate change is most likely garbage.

Here's a little tidbit for you; historically science has been more wrong than right. Chew on that for a while.


----------



## S.J. (Mar 8, 2015)

Believe in our unproven theories or we will call you a denialist.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 8, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



TO idiot morons who think using the term "denier" is funny and thought provoking?  Demonizing those who do not share your point of view? Blocking publication of those who disagree? Telling people int he EPA who work there that if you dont believe to get the fuck out?  That's not science and what they present is not science.  SO YES... Fuck Off is appropriate!


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 8, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease.  Coincidence?
> ...



I agree, but also note the technique of lumping scepticism of the AGW hoax in with disbelief in evolution.  That's a propaganda meme designed to discredit AGW scepticism with guilt by association.  It totally ignores people like me who are stone cold believers in evolution but still reject AGW alarmism.  One of the main reasons I became a sceptic is the way AGW alarmist use so many logically fallacies and dishonest propaganda techniques to defend their claims.


----------



## Porker (Mar 8, 2015)

Pogo said:


> So that's your argument is it?  "Fuck off"?



That's one way to put it...


----------



## S.J. (Mar 8, 2015)

Porker said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > So that's your argument is it?  "Fuck off"?
> ...


I know it was an accident but you assigned pogo's statement to me, and that's just wrong in so many ways.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 8, 2015)

The big push today is the rewriting of the historical temperature record to give "proof" of their AGW agenda. Between that and the attempt to silence those who do not agree with their fallacy and propaganda., it is coming close to outright fighting because they will not defend their premise openly in debate. They use these terms so that they avoid having to provide proof of their fallacy and having to defend their positions when empirical evidence lays their crap waste.


----------



## Pogo (Mar 8, 2015)

S.J. said:


> Porker said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Now THAT, I agree with.  

Too bad.  You had a golden opportunity for glory.


----------



## Pogo (Mar 8, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I hear ya.  Rationality is always so convincing.  

Those emotional basket cases, they can uh... they can fuck off.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 8, 2015)

Mr. H. said:


> Why do Liberals deny the science of abortion, the science of the Keystone XL, the science of ethanol and the RFS mandate?


Those are strictly political, moral, or economic issues, not scientific.


----------



## Porker (Mar 8, 2015)

S.J. said:


> Porker said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


Fixed it. I don't know how that happened...but it did. Sorry about that and I agree with the above.


----------



## S.J. (Mar 8, 2015)

Porker said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Porker said:
> ...


Thanks, Porker.  The last thing in the world I want is to be associated with ANYTHING that fuckwad says.    No offense, pogo.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 8, 2015)

PredFan said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease.  Coincidence?
> ...



I am a published geologist with 20+ years of field experience.  You?


----------



## Pogo (Mar 8, 2015)

S.J. said:


> Porker said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



That's as it should be, since you'd find a way to twist it into "demographics are racist" or "George Bush shot JFK" or some such claptrap.


----------



## Pogo (Mar 8, 2015)

Porker said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > So that's your argument is it?  "Fuck off"?
> ...



Indeed it is.  That's the whole point -- that there might be _another_ way.

For instance you could say "climate change is bullshit because George Bush shot JFK on Fox News, and that's racist".
Wouldn't make much sense but that doesn't stop some of us.

Or you could bust a mental nut to actually make a cogent rational argument.  There's another way.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 8, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



It is not a demonization to call a denier a denier.  It is a statement of fact.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 8, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


PREDFAN?

He's a rightwing partisan hack, conservative ideologue, and demagogue.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 8, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Do note that your favorite denier scientist, Roy Spencer, is a creationist.  The techniques used by AGW deniers and creationists are virtually identical.  The analogy is appropriate.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 8, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



It's demonization.  Do we call people who don't believe bigfoot exists "deniers?"


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 8, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Non-sequitur.  Big foot doesn't exist.  Global warming demonstrably does exist.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 8, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



What "techniques" are those, like pointing out your reasoning is flawed?  And if AGW was a total fraud, what technique would a skeptic use to point it out that you would find acceptable?

BTW, plenty of other skeptics put no stock in creationism.  Is it your contention that if one researcher upholds a theory you disagree with, that taints the whole bunch?


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 8, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



ROFL!  In other words, the only difference between a "denier" and a legitimate sceptic is whether you believe the proposition in question is true or not.  I'll bet you even believe that's a sound argument.  During the Middle Ages they used similar logic to justify burning heretics at the stake.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 8, 2015)

Use of the word "denier" is a dead giveaway that the user is a member of a cult with no real interest in science or the scientific method. Real scientists are skeptics and constantly seek ways to demonstrate a theory is false or fails to fully explain a phenomenon. Cult members would call a scientist a "denier" for daring to question the cult beliefs.

100 years after relativity it could still fail as a theory -- but not the cult worship known as manmade global climate change

That's the difference between science and cult


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 8, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



No the whole bunch taint themselves with or without Roy Spencer's help.  The fact that you folks hang on to his every word speaks volumes about where you people are coming from.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 8, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



In your view, they "taint" themselves only by expressing skepticism of your AGW dogma.  They are heretics, in every sense of the word.  Therefor you condemn them.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 8, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Not at all.  You people like to think of yourselves as skeptics.  You are not.  You are right wing political hacks walking in lock step with your petrochemical minders.  Ergo, you are a denier.  Congratulations.


----------



## Freewill (Mar 8, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



And why do you think anyone posting on this board gives a crap about the oil companies?  The reverse could be said, the GW fear mongers are democrat communist hacks wishing to ride GW to a dictatorship.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 8, 2015)

Freewill said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Right.  That explains the Republicans who accept that AGW is real.  Oh wait...

The fact that you believe it is a right versus left issue is all the evidence I need to demonstrate that it isn't and never really was about the science.


----------



## Freewill (Mar 8, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You are right, it isn't about science it is about politics, glad we can agree.  I could use a little more warmth, cold, not so much.


----------



## JoeMoma (Mar 8, 2015)

What I want to know is what happen to those predictions about how warm the climate is suppose to be today that were made 15 or so years ago based on the global warming models?  

Yes the climate is changing; it always has!  That being said, the sky isn't falling!


----------



## PredFan (Mar 8, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I'm a medical professional and researcher with 32 years experience and 50 years of loving science and history. Care to address my post?


----------



## PredFan (Mar 8, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Who has proven you wrong every single time? Bitter much?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 8, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


LEFT WING LIBERAL IDEOLOGUE STRATEGY USED BY SAUL ALYNISKY. This should really come as no surprise..


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Use of the word "denier" is a dead giveaway that the user is a member of a cult with no real interest in science or the scientific method. Real scientists are skeptics and constantly seek ways to demonstrate a theory is false or fails to fully explain a phenomenon. Cult members would call a scientist a "denier" for daring to question the cult beliefs.
> 
> 100 years after relativity it could still fail as a theory -- but not the cult worship known as manmade global climate change
> 
> That's the difference between science and cult


And the public isn't supposed to know what the scientist do that's all supposed to just be for scientist, so screw the public. Yep the organicman just told me that.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 8, 2015)

The title of this thread is very wrong. It isn't science denialism, it is man made climate change denialism.

If it was truly science fact, why the lies, corruption, fraud, coercion, intimidation, and dirty word-play like the thread title? Why not let the science speak for itself? Well the answer is that it is not science, it's politics.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 8, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Notice that you sidestepped my question about how you distinguish a legitimate skeptic from a "denier."  That's because there is no way for you to distinguish them.   AGW cult followers simply label anyone who questions your dogma to be a "denier" (heretic).  You use exactly the same methods as the Spanish Inquisition.  If the science genuinely settled as you claim, then you could rattle off a series of experiments and mathematical proofs that demonstrate the validity of the theory of AGW.  You can't do that so you resort to ad hominem arguments and countless other sleazy rhetorical maneuvers to delude your audience.   The fact that you refuse to engage in honest debate shows that you know your claims have big holes in them.  Pretending they don't exist is not what someone who believes in science would do.


----------



## boedicca (Mar 8, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease.  Coincidence?
> 
> Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine
> 
> ...





What you call Science Denialism is actually rational skepticism of the Liberal PC Orthodox Religion that the Progs try to shove down the throats of others against their will.


----------



## rdean (Mar 8, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease.  Coincidence?
> ...



antarctic sea ice increasing - Google Search

Scientists say Antarctic sea ice has grown because global warming has changed antarctic winds and the ocean heating up has created record precipitation as also evidenced by the North American winter snowfalls that grow larger every year.

Right wingers think because snow is cold, climate change must be a lie.  Course, they don't understand that the increase in snow is actually evidence of the oceans heating up creating even more precipitation.   Snow is cold so it can't be because of an increase in heat.  

It's that kind of simplistic thinking that suggests to the rest of the world right wingers are simpletons.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 8, 2015)

rdean said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Yeah, we know.  No matter what happens, it's because of global warming.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 8, 2015)

rdean said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



There in your post we see the scam working.

If there is no ice....global warming.
If there is ice......global warming
Snow?..... Global warming,
No snow?..... Global warming.
Rain?..... Global warming.
Drought? .....Global warming.


----------



## S.J. (Mar 8, 2015)

Pogo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Porker said:
> ...


No twisting needed, your own words, moron.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 8, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



SO being a bigot is ok if your an alarmist..  got it..


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 9, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Wow, applying your own definitions of terms, are you?  Oh dear.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 9, 2015)

So, we have a whole bunch of flap-yappers claiming degrees, then stating that they know more about science than the scientists. Yet we see from their posts that they are bone ignorant of science. Like ol' Billy Boob with his excited molecules from the sun. 

Well, kiddies, this is how it is. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. As the consequences of the warming become increasing apparent, their are people that are going to be held accountable for their lies. And that accounting will be political and economic. And not to your liking.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 9, 2015)

PredFan said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


Yes, I'll address your post. No, you do not love science. In fact, you detest it. Otherwise you would recognize the evidence that has been presented. You love politics, and would place the 'way things ought to be' above reality. From your posts, you are damned ignorant of science. You never back your silly flap-yap with links to peer reviewed articles, just make statements and expect us to accept that. Your true peer level is Billy Boob and Frankie Boy.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 9, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> So, we have a whole bunch of flap-yappers claiming degrees, then stating that they know more about science than the scientists. Yet we see from their posts that they are bone ignorant of science. Like ol' Billy Boob with his excited molecules from the sun.
> 
> Well, kiddies, this is how it is. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. As the consequences of the warming become increasing apparent, their are people that are going to be held accountable for their lies. And that accounting will be political and economic. And not to your liking.


Well real scientists test theories correct?  So in the world of your scientists, have they tested what adding PPM of CO2 will do to temperatures?  hmmmm, if so, you fail to present them.  Those would be your scientists, the ones way smarter than average human beings who are asking that they provide them to believe them.  Hmmmm, now why would that be, well perhaps it is other scientists who state things that don't align with your scientists.  So, merely show us the experiments and we'll be better to agree or not with their hypothesis..  See, you have failed in every forum thread to present that.  Repeating past mumbo jumbo is meh!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 9, 2015)

The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2015 is +0.30 deg. C, down a little from the January 2015 value of +0.35 deg. C (click for full size version):




UAH Global Temperature Update for Feb. 2015 0.30 deg. C Roy Spencer PhD

*Yep. Added CO2, 280 ppm to 400+ ppm, and look at what has happened. For February, 0.30, higher than at any time prior to 1997. My scientists are the people that make up the members of the Scientific Societies. So link me to a scientific society that states AGW is incorrect. You cannot do it because there are none, not even in Outer Slobovia.*


----------



## jon_berzerk (Mar 9, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > So, we have a whole bunch of flap-yappers claiming degrees, then stating that they know more about science than the scientists. Yet we see from their posts that they are bone ignorant of science. Like ol' Billy Boob with his excited molecules from the sun.
> ...




wont happen man made global warming is mostly faith based 

they will rely on  people like mythbusters to present the key findings  as proof 

--LOL


----------



## jc456 (Mar 9, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2015 is +0.30 deg. C, down a little from the January 2015 value of +0.35 deg. C (click for full size version):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I completely agree with you, it is why those who don't buy into the farse, have to be independent.  And those like Judith Curry, who heads the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, states differently today than your societies.  Now, she is a scientist.

Edit: oh, still you haven't provided an experiment.  Why is that?  Don't you wish to have a discussion or are you one that feels we can't because your opinions in group think tanks out weigh others who disagree.  That, btw, isn't how science actually works.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 9, 2015)

At this stage of the game, the only thing in question is which form of mental illness or personality disorder afflicts each particular denier.

With jc, we obviously have a histrionic personality disorder. He can't bear not being the center of attention.

Other commonly seen issues in deniers are:

Narcissism -- "I am incapable of error, as I know better than the rest of the world."

Paranoia -- "It's a conspiracy!"

Antisocial personality disorder-- "Fuck You!"

Schizophrenia -- "My voices told me what you what you really believe!"

Sociopathy -- "Repeating debunked lies for my cause is justified!"


----------



## Nosmo King (Mar 9, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease.  Coincidence?
> ...


Back in the early days of the tobacco fight, industry mavens considered the threat from accidental fire.  The tobacco industry spokesmen determined that matches and lit cigarettes did not cause fires, couches and sofas did.  So we got flame retardant fabrics as a result.  But, that flame retardant turned out to be hazardous to humans.  c'est l'gare!


----------



## jc456 (Mar 9, 2015)

mamooth said:


> At this stage of the game, the only thing in question is which form of mental illness or personality disorder afflicts each particular denier.
> 
> With jc, we obviously have a histrionic personality disorder. He can't bear not being the center of attention.
> 
> ...


and there it is!! How lovely you showed up with your nonsense.  Typical time of day for you to add your worthless drivel.  Now go report me and feel good about what you accomplished.  Which is nothing.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 9, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


hmmmmm strawman alert!!!!!


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 9, 2015)

mamooth said:


> At this stage of the game, the only thing in question is which form of mental illness or personality disorder afflicts each particular denier.
> 
> With jc, we obviously have a histrionic personality disorder. He can't bear not being the center of attention.
> 
> ...



Trying to paint the opponents of the regime as having mental problems was a favorite technique of the former Soviet Union.  Yeah, that's the way to lend credibility to the AGW scam:  use the same tactics as a totalitarian police state!


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 9, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > So, we have a whole bunch of flap-yappers claiming degrees, then stating that they know more about science than the scientists. Yet we see from their posts that they are bone ignorant of science. Like ol' Billy Boob with his excited molecules from the sun.
> ...



Pretending the question you've asked 100 times hasn't already been answered at least 50 times is not only disingenuous, it is just another symptom of your denialism.  Explain to the rest of us why you would continue to support the efforts of the petroleum industry in this matter knowing that they are lying?  What is YOUR motive?


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 9, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



How is that a straw man?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 9, 2015)

Can you imagine Newton telling Einstein he was a "gravity Denier" that's how stupid the AGWCult it


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 9, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > So, we have a whole bunch of flap-yappers claiming degrees, then stating that they know more about science than the scientists. Yet we see from their posts that they are bone ignorant of science. Like ol' Billy Boob with his excited molecules from the sun.
> ...



Yeah they showed us charts with CO2 but no temperature axis.  How can you not be convinced???


----------



## jc456 (Mar 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


yeah right.  you act like i'm the only one asking for it.  So what you're saying is that we all are blind?  Well you know what I say to that right? You know you haven't and let's stop playing games.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


hahahahahaaha right?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 9, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


they have never provided an experiment that shows what we asked. NEVER!


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 9, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You are acting like I care.  Take a class.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


I don't care if you care or not.  It is puzzling why you would come to a message board if you don't wish to participate in a discussion.  Kind of like meaningless dude.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 9, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



This is my thread, bubba.  And so far, as is usual, you have participated nothing to the discussion.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


so interesting, you create a thread antagonizing a group,. I am a skeptic looking for answers, you don't think I deserve them.hmmmmmmmmmmm, who's the denier?


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 9, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You?  A skeptic?  Bwhahahahahahahahaha!


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You, a scientist?

*BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!*


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Notice that you still haven't answered my question about how you tell a skeptic from a "denier."    Why is that, Mr. "Science?"


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Obviously you didn't read the OP.  Oh dear.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Mar 9, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




is that earth type co2 

or 

mars type c02


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 9, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Off topic.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Yes I did.  It doesn't explain the distinction.  Your claim that their arguments are "fallacious" means you think their conclusions are falls.  They are not logical fallacies.  Even bonafide scientists often advance arguments that turn out to be false.

The bottom line is that the only thing distinguishing a "denier" from a skeptic is the fact that you disagree with the former.

You're a crank and a cult member, in other words.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 9, 2015)

Pattycake, you are an ignoramous. And a bit stupid to boot.

The scientists have published their evidence in peer reviewed journals and shown clear evidence for the role of the GHG's in the warming we are experiancing. The denial and the push to silence the scientists by 'Conservatives' is a farce that is making America look totally stupid to the rest of the world.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



And you need to stay on topic and stop your trolling, or you will be reported.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Feel free to report me, dumbass. 

Still not answering the question.  Don't think anyone hasn't noticed you running away with your tail between your legs like a scared little puppy


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 9, 2015)

Pattycake, when are you going to present evidence supporting your opinions? All you present at present is flap-yap.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 9, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Pattycake, when are you going to present evidence supporting your opinions? All you present at present is flap-yap.


I'm not required to prove a negative, Mr. "science."  Pointing out the flaws in your claims is all the proof needed.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Mar 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




certainly not


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 9, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



Erm, the topic is :  Science denialism.

Your turn.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Mar 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




yeah take it up with oldie rocks who made the claim several posts ago ya crank


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 9, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



I am responding to you since you saw fit to respond to one of my posts with off topic drivel.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Mar 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




it is a free country


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 9, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



Perhaps you too should read the forum rules.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Mar 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




take it up with oldie rocks


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 9, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



Off topic.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Mar 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




stuff it up yours 

i didnt respond to your post in the first place


----------



## jc456 (Mar 10, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


which post number did he respond to you?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 10, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


your thread, and this is all you got.  I can only suppose your bwhahahahahaahaha was while your were looking in a mirror.  Well If I don't agree with the science you provide, what does that mean to you?


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Pattycake, you are an ignoramous. And a bit stupid to boot.
> 
> The scientists have published their evidence in peer reviewed journals and shown clear evidence for the role of the GHG's in the warming we are experiancing. The denial and the push to silence the scientists by 'Conservatives' is a farce that is making America look totally stupid to the rest of the world.



The journals are PAL reviewed, not peer reviewed, meaning only those who endorse the whole AGW scam are on the reviewing boards of the journals.  It's a small tightly knit group of AGW cult members.  Being published in a journal means almost nothing.

Being right is more important that what a gang of leftwing intellectual turds think about America.  Those countries are all going broke paying for the "green energy" scam.  Excuse me if I experience no desire to follow the lemmings over the cliff.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Pattycake, you are an ignoramous. And a bit stupid to boot.
> ...



Right.  They should allow diesel mechanics to "peer review" those pesky science papers, because damn, this is a democracy!  Oh wait...


----------



## Votto (Mar 10, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease.  Coincidence?
> 
> Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine
> 
> ...



What irritates me is that global warming alarmists insist that it should no longer be called global warming.  Instead, it should be called climate change.  That way all bad weather, especially nasty cold spells, can be blamed on carbon emissions.

In the interim, though, they continually point to higher temperatures around the globe.  So it still is really global warming, isn't it?

And then there is the political aspect to all this.  The only game in town is cap and trade to deal with the situation, which science has repeatedly shown is not a suitable solution to the problem, if it even is a problem, to substantially reduce carbon emissions.

The whole movement is a cluster.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 10, 2015)

The AGWCult are anti-science. Science is not done by consensus, that's how cults operate


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 10, 2015)

Votto said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease.  Coincidence?
> ...



Movement?  It is not a movement.  And cap and trade is NOT the only deal in town.  Alternative energy, electric transportation, and many other technologies are all on the table.  But none of it will matter if we don't all get on board and agree that there is a problem, and then work to rectify it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Your belief the so-called "peer review" proves their theories are correct is what's in question here.  The process is fatally flawed and subject to corruption.  It proves virtually nothing.  Democracy has no place in science.  Truth isn't subject to majority rule.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 10, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


So, let's open up all of the research and let those who have questions get answers and let's move forward.  Why does your side repeatedly stand in the way of progress?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Mar 10, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...




it is obvious that i did not respond to his post --LOL


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 10, 2015)

Here is the present problem. The current weather and events in the Arctic are proving that the scientists were correct, abeit far too conservative. And the denialists have zero evidence, so their only choice is to turn up the volume on the lies and flap yap. Gonna get real ugly before the events are extreme enough that the general public realizes what assholes the denialists are. So, in the meantime, those of us that have been following the events and evidence for decades, need to keep pointing out the lies.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 10, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Here is the present problem. The current weather and events in the Arctic are proving that the scientists were correct, abeit far too conservative. And the denialists have zero evidence, so their only choice is to turn up the volume on the lies and flap yap. Gonna get real ugly before the events are extreme enough that the general public realizes what assholes the denialists are. So, in the meantime, those of us that have been following the events and evidence for decades, need to keep pointing out the lies.



incorrect:

The current weather (climatic) conditions are due to the ADO and PDO shift to cold. This currently observed condition was seen in 1883, 1934, 1972, and today.. It is a cyclical cycle, not man made anything.

Why do alarmists make fools of themselves by not checking history before inserting their foot?


----------



## Treeshepherd (Mar 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Your belief the so-called "peer review" proves their theories are correct is what's in question here. The process is fatally flawed and subject to corruption. It proves virtually nothing. Democracy has no place in science. Truth isn't subject to majority rule.



My favorite peer consensus was the Piltdown Man. "The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleoanthropological hoax ever to have been perpetrated."-wiki
Piltdown Man - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
It was a poorly crafted hoax purported to be an archeological 'discovery', with an ape jawbone fused to a human skull. It fit the theory of the missing link, and the scientific community was completely blinded by confirmation bias. It took 40 years for the hoax to be exposed. There should have been more people asking questions instead of just being acceptors. 

It happens all the time in science. It took decades for the theory of gradual evolution to succumb to staggered evolution. Confirmation bias blinded scientists to the purpose of so-called junk DNA. I think that AGW is the Piltdown Man of the 21st century. 

I actually have zero problem with the climate. It's been beautiful. I see no compelling evidence of radical sea level rises. We have much larger environmental problems than CO2 levels.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 10, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



And as always, you are dead wrong.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 10, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Most medical professionals are applied scientists, not hard or research scientists.  What professional papers have you published, and in what journals?  What do any of them tell us about atmospheric science?


----------



## asterism (Mar 10, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2015 is +0.30 deg. C, down a little from the January 2015 value of +0.35 deg. C (click for full size version):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Serious question:

I'm a data analyst by education and I see a clear upward trend in this time period.  I also have seen enough actual raw data from UAH to more or less "trust" the source.  Even considering 1998 as an outlier and allowing for some natural variance, why doesn't this data show a direct correlation between the temperature increase and the increase in CO2 concentration?


----------



## Crick (Mar 10, 2015)

Noise.  Because the radiative forcing from CO2 is easily overborne by half a dozen other, transient phenomena.  In the long run, however, CO2 is consistent and consistently increasing while transients are transient: noise.


----------



## Votto (Mar 10, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Ok genius, come up with a viable alternative that will sell itself.  

Until then, we have the Al Gores of the world wanting our tax dollars to save the world.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 10, 2015)

rdean said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Who couldn't love this shit??!!! The Antarctic ice is growing which is clearly a sign of global warming!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 10, 2015)

The mental cases have spun it a million different ways...............but still, its not mattering >>

More Proof the skeptics are WINNING US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## asterism (Mar 10, 2015)

Crick said:


> Noise.  Because the radiative forcing from CO2 is easily overborne by half a dozen other, transient phenomena.  In the long run, however, CO2 is consistent and consistently increasing while transients are transient: noise.



So then what's the significance of 2014 being the "hottest year on record" if it's just part of the noise?  Serious question, I'm trying to figure this out from a data perspective.

The trend is clear (at least for the last 40 years) but the data doesn't seem to match the conclusions so I must be missing something.


----------



## rdean (Mar 10, 2015)

PredFan said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...


The world is a BIG place and the GOP have tiny minds.

Where there is drought, there is no ice.

Where there is snow, there is way, way too much.

Just as scientists predicted.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 10, 2015)

asterism said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2015 is +0.30 deg. C, down a little from the January 2015 value of +0.35 deg. C (click for full size version):
> ...



The CMIP5 latest version is over estimating warming by over 30W/M^2.  Look for major changes in this graph when the error is corrected and the positive bias applied to the graph is removed. 

Source


----------



## rdean (Mar 10, 2015)

My theory is that the GOP denies science because they have nothing else to do.  Educated immigrants take the jobs Republicans aren't qualified for and migrant workers take the ones the GOP is too lazy, too fat and too old for.  That leaves them time to be anti education and deny science.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 10, 2015)

asterism said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Noise.  Because the radiative forcing from CO2 is easily overborne by half a dozen other, transient phenomena.  In the long run, however, CO2 is consistent and consistently increasing while transients are transient: noise.
> ...



38% confidence....  

The noise is so great and the rise in the hundredths of a degree (which is clearly within the MOE) that there is little or no confidence in this.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 10, 2015)

rdean said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 10, 2015)

Progressives wants to silence scientific debate because like everything else they do, they lose in the arena of ideas; they can only win through force


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 10, 2015)

Billy........bookmark this vid and when you have a couple of hours, take a listen. Your jaw will hit the floor.........puts all this global warming bull shit so much more into focus because you get a deep understanding of the motivation for this scam.................all of these dopes have zero understanding of this. They really think it is about science and scientific findings!! Brave New World is in full operational mode and the Stoopids are all in and are long since beyond gone............and will be the first ones to be falling all over themselves to get brain chipped


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 10, 2015)

Votto said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...



How about the fact that solar energy output is projected to double in the U.S. in two years (barring the GOP pulling the plug for their Koch buddies)?  Or the fact that more and more automobile manufacturers are pushing out more hybrids and electric cars?  Or the fact that Toyota just started mass producing the first hydrogen cell car.  The changes are not coming.  They are here.  Get used to it.


----------



## asterism (Mar 10, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Are hybrids actually more energy efficient?  They burn less gas but they also take a much larger amount of energy to produce.  I recently bought a hybrid and I like it, twice the average MPG as my other cars.  But I'm not sure a 7 year lifetime for a big ass battery is better for the planet from a carbon perspective.  Those batteries take a whole lot of energy to produce.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 11, 2015)

asterism said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...



And are recyclable.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 11, 2015)

From bauxite to aluminum is very energy intensive. From aluminum scrap to aluminum is not. Same for the batteries.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Mar 11, 2015)




----------



## asterism (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Does the recycling process save energy or just materials?  There is a difference.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 11, 2015)

Ask me if I am a socialist, the answer is yes. Ask me if I am a capitalist, the answer is yes. These are not mutually exclusive systems. We, and every other first world nation, use both. That you people somehow believe they are exclusive is merely indictutive of your lack of knowledge about how the world really works.


----------



## asterism (Mar 11, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> From bauxite to aluminum is very energy intensive. From aluminum scrap to aluminum is not. Same for the batteries.



Has this issue been studied or is it just an assumption?  I'd like to think that the new technology is better overall, but I've not found much information about quantifiable results.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Mar 11, 2015)

skookerasbil said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...


--LOL

true 

--LOL


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 11, 2015)

asterism said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



It does both. By recycling materials, you not only are saving resources, but saving most of the energy that would be needed to make the same refined product from raw ore.  It takes much less energy and raw material to recycle a battery than it does to make a new one from scratch.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 11, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Here is the present problem. The current weather and events in the Arctic are proving that the scientists were correct, abeit far too conservative. And the denialists have zero evidence, so their only choice is to turn up the volume on the lies and flap yap. Gonna get real ugly before the events are extreme enough that the general public realizes what assholes the denialists are. So, in the meantime, those of us that have been following the events and evidence for decades, need to keep pointing out the lies.[/QUOTE


Based on what?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 11, 2015)

Crick said:


> Noise.  Because the radiative forcing from CO2 is easily overborne by half a dozen other, transient phenomena.  In the long run, however, CO2 is consistent and consistently increasing while transients are transient: noise.


Meaning CO2 doesn't matter.


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science)


Anti-evolution is a religious issue.  I don’t see what that has to do with other issues.

Global warming has no clear science answer, only questions.  Even the proponents can’t decide what it means as they call it “climate change.”  When you can answer the basic questions, come back:

1)  Is it “warming” or climate change?

2)  Is it caused by man?

3)  What is the long term impact?  The earth is a very dynamic thing, even if it is real and it is man made, you cannot do a linear extrapolation of the effects, the earth is very resilient

4)  Why do the so called believers propose nothing that would actually counter global warming?  They propose things like sending trillions to the poor while exempting the biggest polluters like China.  Say what?

5)  Why do the so called believers use it as a partisan hammer?  I mean seriously, if you believe the ice caps will melt and the land will become sea, would you not reach out to your opponents instead of using it as a hammer to crush them?

My sister is the black sheep of the family.  She’s a … liberal.  She also has a PhD in Math, her area of expertise is theoretical statistics.  She’s also active in environmental causes, such as having done a stint as treasurer in her local Audubon Society.

She estimates it would take 100-150 years to gather statistically significant data to prove global warming.  She and I actually agree on that issue, one of few.  Global warming is not proven, it makes a lot more sense to take reasonable precautions anyway.


But until those like you who want to use it to attack your political enemies (re-read your post) stop using for that reason, nothing productive will come out of it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 11, 2015)

kaz said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science)
> ...



You're asking reasonable, scientific questions of a EnviroMarxist Cult. I don't expect any sane or reasonable responses


----------



## asterism (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Is there any proof of this energy savings?  I haven't been able to find any.  The DOE certainly doesn't mention energy savings at all.

Alternative Fuels Data Center Batteries for Hybrid and Plug-In Electric Vehicles


----------



## Treeshepherd (Mar 11, 2015)

kaz said:


> 3) What is the long term impact? The earth is a very dynamic thing, even if it is real and it is man made, you cannot do a linear extrapolation of the effects, the earth is very resilient
> 
> 5) Why do the so called believers use it as a partisan hammer? I mean seriously, if you believe the ice caps will melt and the land will become sea, would you not reach out to your opponents instead of using it as a hammer to crush them?



3) Impossible to say. There's no doubt that a 40% increase in CO2 levels has some effect. Not all the effects are negative (rainforest grows faster), but there's also the possibility that the overall effect is negligible. If you changed the salt content of your soup from 330 parts per million to 400 ppm, you wouldn't taste any difference. Larger factors are at play, like that gigantic burning sphere up in the sky that's 1.3 million times bigger than earth.

5) I see AGW as more of a budget hammer. Just look at the budgets of NASA, NOAA and the EPA, and you find that they increasingly use AGW as a justification. Even the Pentagon has begun to use AGW in their budget proposals, arguing that climate change is a destabilizing factor in global order. AGW is a meal ticket. I'm being Captain Obvious here, but clearly some people don't get that yet.


----------



## IanC (Mar 11, 2015)

It seems like the middle of the road posters have abandoned this forum, leaving only the extremists from either side to fling pooh at each other from the safety of their immutable positions.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Hey nut job, this shows exactly how little you know. I don't claim to be an expert in atmospheric science. If you actually read my post you would know that that is irrelevant. You are a believer and I do not expect you have the knowledge, maturity and intellectual honesty to ever admit you are wrong so I am done caring. Remain ignorant. My post is for those who are not ideologues and want to know the truth.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease.  Coincidence?
> 
> Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine
> 
> ...






Pogo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



The problem that won't go away is that fraud is not science. Bullying people to keep silence about fraud is not knowledge.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 11, 2015)

asterism said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



Nissan recycles over 97% of their waste, at a profit.

Nissan Recovers 97 of Auto Shredder Residue Environmental Leader Environmental Management Sustainable Development News



> Nissan recovered 112,507.2 tons of the 115,741.4 tons of automobile shredder residue (ASR) collected from 533,836 vehicles in Japan in fiscal year 2013 — an amount that represents a recovery ratio of 97.2 percent — according to the automaker.
> 
> This means Nissan has achieved the Japan Automobile Recycling law ASR recovery target rate of 70 percent by FY2015 for eight consecutive years.
> 
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 11, 2015)

PredFan said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Neither do any of you rightwingnut types.  And yet here you all are trying to convince everyone that you know more about climate change than the scientists who actually are experts in atmospheric science.  Go figure.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 11, 2015)

kaz said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science)
> ...



Deniers use the exact same anti-science arguments and rhetoric as anti-evolutionists (and most are conservatives - as if you didn't know.  That is what it has to do with "other issues".



> Global warming has no clear science answer, only questions.



See below...



> Even the proponents can’t decide what it means as they call it “climate change.”  When you can answer the basic questions, come back:
> 
> 1)  Is it “warming” or climate change?



Yes.



> 2)  Is it caused by man?



Yes.



> 3)  What is the long term impact?  The earth is a very dynamic thing, even if it is real and it is man made, you cannot do a linear extrapolation of the effects, the earth is very resilient.



Rising sea levels, increased long-term regional droughts, increased regional rainfall, flooding, and more intense storms, melting ice caps and glaciers, possible release of methane clathrates in the oceans and arctic permafrost, melting permafrost, increased human migrations as a result of all of the above, possible/likely water wars, economic distress for many nations, etc., etc., etc.  The Earth?  It'll keep on doing what it does.  Not that we'll be around to see it.  Why?  Because people aren't as resilient as the Earth.



> 4)  Why do the so called believers propose nothing that would actually counter global warming?  They propose things like sending trillions to the poor while exempting the biggest polluters like China.  Say what?



We've been saying for years what needs to happen.  If you haven't been listening, who's fault is that?  As for China, they have agreed to reduce emissions and the heavy pollution they are emitting as well.  You didn't know this?  Huh.



> 5)  Why do the so called believers use it as a partisan hammer?  I mean seriously, if you believe the ice caps will melt and the land will become sea, would you not reach out to your opponents instead of using it as a hammer to crush them?



Why?  Because you get what you give, pal.



> My sister is the black sheep of the family.  She’s a … liberal.



That's just sad - that you would consider your own sister a "black sheep" for expressing her 1st amendment rights.  You should be ashamed.



> She also has a PhD in Math, her area of expertise is theoretical statistics.  She’s also active in environmental causes, such as having done a stint as treasurer in her local Audubon Society.
> 
> She estimates it would take 100-150 years to gather statistically significant data to prove global warming.  She and I actually agree on that issue, one of few.  Global warming is not proven, it makes a lot more sense to take reasonable precautions anyway.



Right.  So why doesn't she publish her "professional" findings.  Then you can post a link to it right here.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 11, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease.  Coincidence?
> ...



When you publish your "professional" findings about climate change in a peer reviewed scientific publication, you will have my ear.  Until then, frag off.


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Are you for real?  I’m teasing, Orgasm.  Grow up.  You must just be a joy to know.  We're buds, chillax


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> ”kaz” said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, amorous guy, as a member of neither of the two pathetic major parties, you both do this, stop whining and pointing fingers.  It starts with both sides owning up to your own behavior.

And you demonstrated the point of my point.  You don’t believe in global warming.  When asked why you just attack your opponents, you point fingers.  If you actually believed this was a cataclysmic event, you would find past your eight year old blame game.  Yet you revel in it.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 11, 2015)

kaz said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



You call your own sister a "black sheep", and then tell me to grow up?  Why don't you invite her into this conversation (that'll be fun)?


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




This is classic.  You, the self professed expert in everything.  Yet then you come back with this:





orogenicman said:


> > She also has a PhD in Math, her area of expertise is theoretical statistics.  She’s also active in environmental causes, such as having done a stint as treasurer in her local Audubon Society.
> >
> >
> > She estimates it would take 100-150 years to gather statistically significant data to prove global warming.  She and I actually agree on that issue, one of few.  Global warming is not proven, it makes a lot more sense to take reasonable precautions anyway.
> ...




So here you go, Orgasm, then why don’t you publish your professional findings?  Then you can post a link to it here.  Wow.    I'm not the first to call you a pompous ass, am I?


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Seriously, you need a stickectomy, Orgasm. 

My father and mother and everyone I know in their families were conservatives, my brother and I are libertarians.  She’s the black sheep.  Her answer to that BTW is yeah and she’s proud of it.  She doesn’t have the stick rammed up her ass that you do.  We're buds, we agree to disagree.  It must be very unpleasant in the Orgasm household


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 11, 2015)

kaz said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > ”kaz” said:
> ...



It starts when the deniers stop spreading lies about the science and start cooperating to fix the problem.  I believe in global warming like I believe in evolution, like I believe in the theory of flight, like I believe in the theory of relativity.  I believe because I have the training to understand that it is real, to see that the evidence is overwhelming, and what that means for our future, and that of our children.  When you realize, like I do, that we simply cannot continue to pump 30+ billion tons of ghgs into the atmosphere every year and not expect severe consequences, then perhaps you will stop your own silly denier games and get to the task of helping the rest of us find reasonable solutions.


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> I believe in global warming like I believe in evolution, like I believe in the theory of flight, like I believe in the theory of relativity.



Flight isn't a theory since it's proven by empirical data.  Relativity is consistent with what we know so far.  Global warming is pure long term extrapolation based on short term data with heavy reliance on assumed causes, those three are all completely different


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 11, 2015)

kaz said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



I am published, but in the journal of Invertebrate paleontology.  Now mind you, my publication isn't on climate change, but it does describe Middle Mississippian paleoclimate.  And understanding past climate is a part of the equation, dude.  By the way, I never claimed to be an expert in "everything".  But I am a geologist so I do have more advanced knowledge of the Earth than the guy on the street (and most of the people posting here).


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 11, 2015)

kaz said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > I believe in global warming like I believe in evolution, like I believe in the theory of flight, like I believe in the theory of relativity.
> ...



Flight is a fact.  The theory of flight is what gives us airplanes, dude.  Anthropogenic global warming is a fact.  Climate science has not only demonstrated this fact, it has also discovered it's cause, a cause which is consistent with what we know.  So no, they are not completely different.  If they were, every nation on the planet, and every scientific institution on the planet wouldn't agree with me and disagree with you.


----------



## rdean (Mar 11, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Progressives wants to silence scientific debate because like everything else they do, they lose in the arena of ideas; they can only win through force


A 6 thousand year old earth and evolution is a lie and vaccines cause autism are NOT "scientific debate".  They are bad jokes.


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> I am published, but in the journal of Invertebrate paleontology.  Now mind you, my publication isn't on climate change, but it does describe Middle Mississippian paleoclimate.  And understanding past climate is a part of the equation, dude.  By the way, I never claimed to be an expert in "everything".  But I am a geologist so I do have more advanced knowledge of the Earth than the guy on the street (and most of the people posting here).


I didn’t mean why don’t you get published on anything, I meant on this since you state your beliefs which are not proven by science as fact.  You don’t know that from knowing about invertebrate paleoclimates and knowing the climate in different eras doesn’t establish any cause and effect knowledge of current climate, it’s irrelevant.


I was a math major and I am well aware of how inaccurate extrapolation is in general, and how completely foolhardy long term extrapolation based on short term data is.  Liner extrapolation for the earth would be absurd, and how can you even form another model based on so little data other than pure guessing?


You believe in climate change just like conservative Christians believe in creationism, pure faith


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 11, 2015)

kaz said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Tell her that you are telling strangers on the internet that she is the black sheep of your family, then let's see how long that stick grows out of her arse.  My family is rather fun, partially because they trust that I won't single any of them out on the internet as a "black sheep".


----------



## rdean (Mar 11, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the present problem. The current weather and events in the Arctic are proving that the scientists were correct, abeit far too conservative. And the denialists have zero evidence, so their only choice is to turn up the volume on the lies and flap yap. Gonna get real ugly before the events are extreme enough that the general public realizes what assholes the denialists are. So, in the meantime, those of us that have been following the events and evidence for decades, need to keep pointing out the lies.[/QUOTE
> ...


Science.

Do keep up.


----------



## rdean (Mar 11, 2015)

kaz said:


> I didn’t mean why don’t you get published on anything, I meant on this since you state your beliefs which are not proven by science as fact.  You don’t know that from knowing about invertebrate paleoclimates and knowing the climate in different eras doesn’t establish any cause and effect knowledge of current climate, it’s irrelevant.
> 
> 
> I was a math major and I am well aware of how inaccurate extrapolation is in general, and how completely foolhardy long term extrapolation based on short term data is.  Liner extrapolation for the earth would be absurd, and how can you even form another model based on so little data other than pure guessing?
> ...


Except climate change has evidence.


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Flight isn't a theory since it's proven by empirical data.  Relativity is consistent with what we know so far.  Global warming is pure long term extrapolation based on short term data with heavy reliance on assumed causes, those three are all completely different
> ...




OK, now I’m calling bullshit to that you are published in anything.  You don’t know what empirical data is.  You are being snotty and repeating back to me what I told you, that flight is proven fact.




orogenicman said:


> Anthropogenic global warming is a fact.  Climate science has not only demonstrated this fact, it has also discovered it's cause, a cause which is consistent with what we know.  So no, they are not completely different.  If they were, every nation on the planet, and every scientific institution on the planet wouldn't agree with me and disagree with you.



Now we’re into your religious beliefs, amorous guy.  Everyone in the scientific community doesn’t believe with you and they endlessly keep coming up with data that contradicts global warming.  Also, note nowhere did I say global warming isn’t correct, I just said correctly it is unproven.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No dumbass. How did you get to be a published scientist when you have obvious reading comprehension problems?


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2015)

rdean said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > I didn’t mean why don’t you get published on anything, I meant on this since you state your beliefs which are not proven by science as fact.  You don’t know that from knowing about invertebrate paleoclimates and knowing the climate in different eras doesn’t establish any cause and effect knowledge of current climate, it’s irrelevant.
> ...



Evidence is not proof.  I believe in evolution, but as a theory it has more holes than a sieve


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 11, 2015)

kaz said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > I am published, but in the journal of Invertebrate paleontology.  Now mind you, my publication isn't on climate change, but it does describe Middle Mississippian paleoclimate.  And understanding past climate is a part of the equation, dude.  By the way, I never claimed to be an expert in "everything".  But I am a geologist so I do have more advanced knowledge of the Earth than the guy on the street (and most of the people posting here).
> ...



Actually, they are.



> You don’t know that from knowing about invertebrate paleoclimates and knowing the climate in different eras doesn’t establish any cause and effect knowledge of current climate, it’s irrelevant.



Erm, if you want to show long term trends in climate, as well as causes of climate change, you must know paleoclimates.  My work has added to that database.



> I was a math major and I am well aware of how inaccurate extrapolation is in general, and how completely foolhardy long term extrapolation based on short term data is.  Liner extrapolation for the earth would be absurd, and how can you even form another model based on so little data other than pure guessing?
> 
> 
> You believe in climate change just like conservative Christians believe in creationism, pure faith



Well, then,  pull up some of your mathematical work refuting climate change, and let's compare notes, shall we?  By the way, global warming is not linear, and I know of no one who says it is.  Relegating climate science to a religion?  That is exactly what creation say about evolution.  Are you sure you aren't a creationist?  You do realize the Earth is a lot older than 10,000 years, right?  RIGHT?


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 11, 2015)

PredFan said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Erm, what?  What are you "no dumbass" (ing) about?  I asked you no question.


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Well, then,  pull up some of your mathematical work refuting climate change, and let's compare notes, shall we?  By the way, global warming is not linear, and I know of no one who says it is.  Relegating climate science to a religion?  That is exactly what creation say about evolution.  Are you sure you aren't a creationist?  You do realize the Earth is a lot older than 10,000 years, right?  RIGHT?




For someone who claims to have been published, you are an awful reader.


1)  I have never said global warming is wrong, I said it’s not proven


2)  We have at most a few decades data on global warming, having thousands of years of data on non-global warming data is useful as a comparison, but it doesn’t mean we have more than a few decades of the effect of man on the climate, and the long term data shows constant change further demonstrating the difficulty of extrapolating on short term data


3)  I did not say the extrapolation was linear, what I said was that if it’s not linear, that makes trying to extrapolate it based on short term data even more preposterous


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 11, 2015)

kaz said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Yes, flight is a proven fact.  But knowing it is a fact doesn't explain it.  You can't build an airplane simply because you know that birds can fly.  You must have a working theory that explains the phenomenon before you jump off that barn with flight feathers strapped to your arms.  

Theory of Flight




orogenicman said:


> Anthropogenic global warming is a fact.  Climate science has not only demonstrated this fact, it has also discovered it's cause, a cause which is consistent with what we know.  So no, they are not completely different.  If they were, every nation on the planet, and every scientific institution on the planet wouldn't agree with me and disagree with you.





> Now we’re into your religious beliefs, amorous guy.  Everyone in the scientific community doesn’t believe with you and they endlessly keep coming up with data that contradicts global warming.  Also, note nowhere did I say global warming isn’t correct, I just said correctly it is unproven.



Name a scientific institution that doesn't recognize the fact of AGW.  Name one nation that has released a statement denying AGW.  It isn't the scientific community that denies AGW.  That tag goes to people bought out by the petrochemical industry and their conservative minions who don't know any better or else are also bought out.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 11, 2015)

kaz said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Well, then,  pull up some of your mathematical work refuting climate change, and let's compare notes, shall we?  By the way, global warming is not linear, and I know of no one who says it is.  Relegating climate science to a religion?  That is exactly what creation say about evolution.  Are you sure you aren't a creationist?  You do realize the Earth is a lot older than 10,000 years, right?  RIGHT?
> ...



But then, nothing in science is proven.  So what's your point?



> 2)  We have at most a few decades data on global warming, having thousands of years of data on non-global warming data is useful as a comparison, but it doesn’t mean we have more than a few decades of the effect of man on the climate, and the long term data shows constant change further demonstrating the difficulty of extrapolating on short term data.



We have detailed data on global climate that goes back at least 2 million years.  We have warehouses of that data in the form of miles of ice cores.  Every time a geologist describes a sedimentary rock outcrop, he is adding to our knowledge of the Earth's paleoclimate, both in space and time.  I know exactly what the climate was like, for instance, in Kentucky, 375 million years ago.




> 3)  I did not say the extrapolation was linear, what I said was that if it’s not linear, that makes trying to extrapolate it based on short term data even more preposterous



When you see regular cycles in the climate that goes back 400,000 years, and then see a huge jump that started 150 years ago (at the beginning of the industrial age) up to the present that looks like nothing we see in the record of the previous 200,000 years, it becomes pretty obvious that the cycle is not natural (as well as not based on "short term data").


----------



## PredFan (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> [Name a scientific institution that doesn't recognize the fact of AGW.  Name one nation that has released a statement denying AGW.  It isn't the scientific community that denies AGW.  That tag goes to people bought out by the petrochemical industry and their conservative minions who don't know any better or else are also bought out.



Any institution that claims it's "fact" isn't a credible institution


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 11, 2015)

kaz said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > [Name a scientific institution that doesn't recognize the fact of AGW.  Name one nation that has released a statement denying AGW.  It isn't the scientific community that denies AGW.  That tag goes to people bought out by the petrochemical industry and their conservative minions who don't know any better or else are also bought out.
> ...



Well then, Mr. credible, according to your logic, that would necessarily include every major scientific institution on the planet.  Care to rephrase your statement?


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> We have detailed data on global climate that goes back at least 2 million years




Yes, with endless changes that whole time.  And we have a few decades of allegedly man made global warming to compare to that.  And you think it’s even possible to do that and establish as fact that global warming is true, it is caused by man and you can accurately predict the impact that is going to have going forward?

What you have proven is you are full of shit, you were never published in anything because that would have required a peer review and frankly, my woody man, they would have laughed at you with that logical capability


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 11, 2015)

kaz said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > We have detailed data on global climate that goes back at least 2 million years
> ...



Nowhere in that record do we see the huge changes in both temperatures and ghg concentrations that we have seen from the last 150 years.  That is a change we've not seen before. I not only think that we can determine the cause, I think we have already made that determination.  Moreover, we are already seeing its impact all across the globe.

By the way, I am one of these three authors:

CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You haven’t shown any that "major scientific institution" has stated global warming is “fact” or that it being man made is “fact” or that your predictions are “fact.”  You don’t know what “fact” means in science, again belying your ridiculous claim you were published


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 11, 2015)

kaz said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Read it and weep:

American Geophysical Union Releases Revised Position Statement on Climate Change AGU Newsroom

If you need more, I can supply their statements as well.


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Thanked you for the article, I will read it.  No sarcasm or disrespect intended in that.

And you realize you just completely contradicted that it is "fact?"


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Weep about what?   That is a POSITION PAPER.  Do you seriously not know the difference between a position and a statement of finding of fact?


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 11, 2015)

kaz said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Their position paper is based on all of the data that has been published, particularly in their own publication.  They are, after all, a major scientific organization.  Do I need to hold your hand while you read it?



> WASHINGTON, DC—The American Geophysical Union today released a revised version of its position statement on climate change. Titled “Human-induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action,” the statement declares that “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” AGU develops position statements to provide scientific expertise on significant policy issues related to Earth and space science. These statements are limited to positions that are within the range of available geophysical data or norms of legitimate scientific debate.
> 
> ”AGU has a responsibility to help policy makers and the public understand the impacts our science can have on public health and safety, economic stability and growth, and national security,” said Gerald North, chair of AGU’s Climate Change Position Statement Review Panel. ”Because our understanding of climate change and its impacts on the world around us has advanced so significantly in the last few years, it was vitally important that AGU update its position statement. The new statement is more reflective of the current state of scientific knowledge. It also calls greater attention to the specific societal impacts we face and actions that can diminish the threat.”
> 
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 11, 2015)

kaz said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



You are welcome.

They are flat out stating “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.”  What part of this do you not understand?


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Do you know the difference between a position paper and a fact?  You kept claiming they say it is fact.  And you're a lot more impressed with liberal academics making self serving determinations of opinion than I am


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



What about that is their position, not a proven scientific fact do you not understand?


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 11, 2015)

kaz said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Did you even bother to see who signed it?  Those people are not Joe Blow on the street.  They are 14 of the most respected Earth scientists anywhere.  And dude, scientists don't publish such position statements on a whim, and they certainly don't do it for political purposes.


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Actually, who they are supports my point they don’t view it as “fact” since they wrote a “position paper” on it, you don’t write position papers on proven fact.


And there is a big range between “whim” and "fact", a very big range.  Those aren’t the only choices.


That they believe something is happening with the climate is reasonable, you are just taking what is established and isn’t and cause and effect way, way too far


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 11, 2015)

kaz said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Are you serious?  Nearly every major scientific institution has published such position statements.  They do it when they believe it is important to get across to the public that the results of ongoing research are very important.  Quit hedging your bets and admit that it is real, and we are largely the cause.  The science is there.  It is not ambiguous.


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You kept saying they said it was "fact."   You now admit that isn't so?


----------



## rdean (Mar 11, 2015)

kaz said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


No it doesn't.


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2015)

rdean said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Oops, guess I was wrong then  Thanks for clarifying that.

You don't know what you're talking about, but maybe at your 3rd grade level of understanding it's beyond your capability anyway


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 11, 2015)

*2012 AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

How is climate changing?*

Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence.  Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901─2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land. In the U.S., most of the observed warming has occurred in the West and in Alaska; for the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century.
........................................................................................................................

 Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation. While large amounts of CO2 enter and leave the atmosphere through natural processes, these human activities are increasing the total amount in the air and the oceans. Approximately half of the CO2 put into the atmosphere through human activity in the past 250 years has been taken up by the ocean and terrestrial biosphere, with the other half remaining in the atmosphere. Since long-term measurements began in the 1950s, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Having been introduced into the atmosphere it will take a thousand years for the majority of the added atmospheric CO2 to be removed by natural processes, and some will remain for thousands of subsequent years.

*Pretty definative statement as to whether global warming is a fact, and to the causes of that warming. American Meteorological Society*


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 11, 2015)

*The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

Position Statement*
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.
.............................................................................................................................
Given the knowledge gained from paleoclimatic studies, several long-term causes of the current warming trend can be eliminated. Changes in Earth’s tectonism and its orbit are far too slow to have played a significant role in a rapidly changing 150-year trend. At the other extreme, large volcanic eruptions have cooled global climate for a year or two, and El Niño episodes have warmed it for about a year, but neither factor dominates longer-term trends.  Extensive efforts to find any other natural explanation of the recent trend have similarly failed.

As a result, greenhouse gas concentrations, which can be influenced by human activities, and solar fluctuations are the principal remaining factors that could have changed rapidly enough and lasted long enough to explain the observed changes in global temperature. Although the 3rd (2001) IPCC report allowed that solar fluctuations might have contributed as much as 30% of the warming since 1850, subsequent observations of Sun-like stars (Foukal et al., 2004) and new simulations of the evolution of solar sources of irradiance variations (Wang et al., 2005) have reduced these estimates. The 4th (2007) IPCC report concluded that changes in solar irradiance, continuously measured by satellites since 1979, account for less than 10% of the last 150 years of warming.  Throughout the era of satellite observation, during periods of strong warming, the data show little evidence of increased solar influence (Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011; Lean and Rind, 2008).

*The Geological Society of America. Again, pretty flat statement of cause and effect.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 11, 2015)

American Chemical Society

“Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and absorbing aerosol particles.” (IPCC, 2007) “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.” (NRC, 2010a) “The potential threats are serious and actions are required to mitigate climate change risks and to adapt to deleterious climate change impacts that probably cannot be avoided.” (NRC, 2010b, c)

This statement reviews key probable climate change impacts and recommends actions required to mitigate or adapt to current and anticipated consequences.  

*The American Chemical Society. How many more definitive statements would like me to show you from major Scientific Societies around the world?*


----------



## jc456 (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


In short, bs


----------



## jc456 (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


And more bs. You are sure full of it today. I bet your eyes are brown


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 11, 2015)

Damn, JC, you guys are just about as dumb as they come. When you have all of the Scientific Societies, all of the National Academies of Science, and all of the major Universities in the world stating that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger, but you are stating that your uneducated opinion trumps their decades of study, you come off looking like real fools.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 11, 2015)

rdean said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > I didn’t mean why don’t you get published on anything, I meant on this since you state your beliefs which are not proven by science as fact.  You don’t know that from knowing about invertebrate paleoclimates and knowing the climate in different eras doesn’t establish any cause and effect knowledge of current climate, it’s irrelevant.
> ...


Of what and where?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 11, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Damn, JC, you guys are just about as dumb as they come. When you have all of the Scientific Societies, all of the National Academies of Science, and all of the major Universities in the world stating that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger, but you are stating that your uneducated opinion trumps their decades of study, you come off looking like real fools.


Dude I will stand in front of everyone of them and ask where's the Experiment.  Name a day and I'll schedule that confrontation. Bring it socks


----------



## jc456 (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


So, that was a factual comment.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 No, they do for additional moneyyyyyy


----------



## jc456 (Mar 11, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> American Chemical Society
> 
> “Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and absorbing aerosol particles.” (IPCC, 2007) “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.” (NRC, 2010a) “The potential threats are serious and actions are required to mitigate climate change risks and to adapt to deleterious climate change impacts that probably cannot be avoided.” (NRC, 2010b, c)
> 
> ...


  Can you say bs? BS


----------



## jc456 (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


And the public stated prove it.


----------



## Crick (Mar 11, 2015)

kaz said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Might I suggest you get out a basic science book and read up on just what is a theory and what is a fact?  And then you can leave proofs to the mathematicians.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 11, 2015)

Crick said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Perhaps you should get a book and read up on what   Theory means.  It means you have an experiment that proves a hypothesis, now for the umpteenth hundred and 30th time show us the experiment!!!


----------



## asterism (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



But that's not batteries from hybrids and that's what I asked about.


----------



## Crick (Mar 11, 2015)

*Alternative Fuels Data Center Batteries for Hybrid and Plug-In Electric Vehicles*

*Recycling Batteries*
Electric drive vehicles are relatively new to the U.S. auto market, so only a small number of them have approached the end of their useful lives. As a result, few post-consumer batteries from electric drive vehicles are available, thus limiting the extent of battery-recycling infrastructure. As electric drive vehicles become increasingly common, the battery-recycling market will likely expand.

Widespread battery recycling would keep hazardous materials from entering the waste stream, both at the end of a battery's useful life, as well as during its production. Work is now under way to develop battery-recycling processes that minimize the life-cycle impacts of using lithium-ion and other kinds of batteries in vehicles. But not all recycling processes are the same:


*Smelting*: Smelting processes recover basic elements or salts. These processes are operational now on a large scale and can accept multiple kinds of batteries, including lithium-ion and nickel-metal hydride batteries. Smelting takes place at high temperatures, and organic materials, including the electrolyte and carbon anodes, are burned as fuel or reductant. The valuable metals are recovered and sent to refining so that the product is suitable for any use. The other materials, including lithium, are contained in the slag, which is now used as an additive in concrete.
*Direct recovery*: At the other extreme, some recycling processes directly recover battery-grade materials. Components are separated by a variety of physical and chemical processes, and all active materials and metals can be recovered. Direct recovery is a low-temperature process with minimal energy requirement.
*Intermediate processes*: The third type of process is between the two extremes. Such processes may accept multiple kinds of batteries, unlike direct recovery, but recover materials further along the production chain than smelting does.
Separation of different kinds of battery materials is often a stumbling block for the recovery of high-value materials. Therefore, battery design that takes disassembly and recycling in mind is important to the success of PEV sustainability. Standardization of batteries, materials, and cell design would also make recycling easier and more cost-effective.

See the report from Sandia National Laboratory: Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications_(PDF)_. http://www.rmi.org/Content/Files/Technical and feasible.pdf


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Pull the dam plug... If it cant stand on its own then its not reality.. The EU has pulled the plug and this year alone another 1,500 plus wind turbines now set unused and rusting.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 11, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...


Link?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 11, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


*GONE WITH THE WIND: 1 In 4 Wind Turbine Companies Went BUST In Last Two Years*




> *FTI Consulting reports that more than 120 wind industry suppliers have collapsed or gotten out of the wind business in the past two years. FTI notes that lagging economies and fears of having their subsidies taken away have wreaked havoc on wind-turbine suppliers.
> 
> According to FTI, 88 wind suppliers from Asia, 23 from Europe, and 18 from North America have failed or left the wind market as part of a “prolonged market contraction.” These 129 firms represent about a quarter of the roughly 500 companies making wind turbine components. Components “account for more than 95 percent of a wind turbine’s total cost,” reports CleanTechnica.
> 
> “The wind industry has been in the process of transformation since 2011 and the global wind supply chain is not matured yet,” said Feng Zhao, a director and head of the wind energy practice at FTI. “The exit/non-participation of so many suppliers delivers a dangerous signal to governments.”*


*

Ugly... Very ugly..*


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 11, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...



Using your model, much of the country wouldn't even have electricity today.  You really should look into the history of electricity in this country.  The EU has pulled the plug on alternative energy?  Clue - this is not make up shit Thursday.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 11, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Yes, this is the same right wing rag that published an article claiming that the Earth's rotation is the cause of global warming.  Very ugly indeed.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You mean about 3% of the country wouldn't have electricity.  The rest of us live in the city or in suburbs.  Even that 3% would have electricity, but it wouldn't come from the grid.  They would probably have propane powered generators or even wind energy!

The question you have to answer is why should families living in the ghetto be taxed so that rich famers can have very expensive power lines strung out to their property?


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I read the abstract, the article is $15.   Since it's not my subject, I don't think I'd get enough out of it to buy it.  All I can say though is that even if as you say you are describing a data point, that doesn't make you an expert still in modern climate change any more than being an expert in roads makes you an expert on cars


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



He got caught with his pants down on that one, turns out none of them state AGW is fact, they have a position that it's true.

It's odd a guy who writes on science and claims to be an expert in climate doesn't know what the scientific method is and what a "fact" is in science, he thinks if academics take a position that makes it a "fact."  Something they never say


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2015)

Crick said:


> Might I suggest you get out a basic science book and read up on just what is a theory and what is a fact?  And then you can leave proofs to the mathematicians.



Besides being snotty, I'm not sure what your point is.  Do you know what the scientific method is and how it pertains to "fact" in science?  If global climate change were "fact," then why did they write a position paper?  That makes no sense.  Though since you don't understand it, maybe not making sense and you not understanding it cancels each other out


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 12, 2015)

kaz said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



I didn't say I was an expert in modern climate change.  That said, I am an expert in determining paleoclimate from lithologic and paleobiological evidence, which does mean that I have more to say on climate change than most here.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 12, 2015)

kaz said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Might I suggest you get out a basic science book and read up on just what is a theory and what is a fact?  And then you can leave proofs to the mathematicians.
> ...



They and many others have published position papers on it because they want the public to know that they support the science, and dude, they support it because they know it has scientific merit.  You don't see them putting out position papers on denier arguments because they know those arguments DON'T have scientific merit.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You also said position papers represent "fact."  Do you know what the scientific method is and how that relates to that statement?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Electricity became a transformational technology under the Coolidge Administration


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



1)  You still haven't admitted you were wrong when you kept stating they claim it is "fact."  Man up and just say you were wrong on that

2)  The process of pointing at "position papers" isn't even.  Global warming is a large, multifaceted issue.  Anyone who claims global warming is fiction is as wrong as anyone who claims it is fact.  And clearly something is different.  The questions are to what extent climate has been impacted, to what extent that was caused by man and what the long term impact it.  Things happening counteract each other as well.  To what degree?  How will the earth adapt?  There are so many unknowns.  Position papers are positive positions of beliefs.  There have been many studies and papers countering aspects of global warming and showing flaws in studies supporting it.  You can't just count position papers and draw a conclusion that science says one thing, it doesn't.  The warming earth believers just sweep flaws under the rug and say they still believe it


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Not really.  That's like saying a historian understands physics because he wrote about the Michelson-Morley experiment.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 12, 2015)

kaz said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Oh please, get over yourself, already.  You know what the position paper said.  I know what it said.  Time to move on.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > You also said position papers represent "fact."  Do you know what the scientific method is and how that relates to that statement?
> ...



So no, you're not going to man up, got it


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 12, 2015)

kaz said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



You're asking for something that's physically impossible


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 12, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



If I were to take you into the field to an outcrop of Muldraugh limestone, what could you say about what it tells us about the climatic/environmental conditions at that locality at that particular time in Earth's geologic history?  Anything at all?  No?  That's because you don't know anything about geology, how to read the rocks and fossils.  I do.  That is my expertize.  Your expertize?  Wasting everyone's time.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



It's a good thing he didn't go into a real science


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 12, 2015)

kaz said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



So, in order to divert attention from the fact that the you are ignoring the fact that AGU has repeatedly affirmed the science of climate change (as has nearly every scientific organization on the planet), you deem that the important thing to do at this point is to split hairs.  I'm not surprised in the least.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Actually, my father was a geologist, so I know quite a bit about geology.  One thing I know is that knowing what the climate was like at a certain point in time doesn't mean you know what caused that climate.  You can look at pollen and determine what plants were growing at the time to determine the climate, but that doesn't tell you jack shit about what caused that climate.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You mean a bunch of political hacks in the AGU leadership affirmed AGW.  However, those people are beholden to government.  They would be biting the hand that feeds them if they attacked AGW.  The idea that the would ever come out against AGW is as believable as the existence of an honest politician.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 12, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Of course it doesn't.  You need more data spread out over time. Geology gives us that data.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 12, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



The AGU is beholden to government?  They're position hasn't changed since Bush was in office, and not all of the officers who signed the position papers are Americans.  That being the case, to who's government, exactly, are they beholden?


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Wrong.  Geology gives you a record of the climate.  It doesn't give you the cause of the climate.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Government in general.  All government bureaucrats support AGW because it means vast new revenues for them plus control over the hapless subjects (us).  Scientists are beholden to government bureaucrats ( permanent government employees), not politicians who come and go.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 12, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You don't know what you are talking about, which is par for you.  It can give you both.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


How does geology tell you the cause of the climate?


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 12, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Which has nothing to do with the AGU, which is NOT a government agency and doesn't rely on the government for anything.  I'm a geologist, and as a professional, have never relied on the government for anything.  Again, you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 12, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



So we don't end up splitting hairs as Kaz and I did earlier, define "the cause of climate".  Be specific.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



A lot of geologists work for the government or get project funding from the government.  I never claimed AGU was a government agency.  I said the leadership was composed mostly of toadies who lick bureaucrat butthole.  They aren't about to anger the bureaucrats who employ their members or supply them with funding.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



In other words, you can't explain how geology can determine the cause of climate.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


The scientific difference between fact and theory is "splitting hairs?"  DId you mention that in your paper?  You insisted they said it was “fact.”  Scientiststs.  That difference is not splitting hairs, it is huge.  Just man up and admit you were wrong.  They believe the theory, they don’t state it is fact.

“Climate change” as endorsed by scientists is shooting a rocket randomly into space.  One day it’s theorized it’s going to Jupiter, the next day it’s theorized it’s going to Saturn.  One day it will crash in the atmosphere the ext leave a crater the size of Texas.

Every time it changes, their view is well, it’s still going somewhere and it’s going to do something.  Or not.  It’s easy to believe in a theory you can constantly change what that belief means.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




And this is what makes me keep wondering about your claim to have written the paper you claim to have written.

How does data about climate we know was not effected  by man even if you have thousands or millions of years of data prove man affected climate when you have a few decades of data on climate that was potentially affected by man?  No matter how far you go with knowingly non-affected climate, that doesn’t expand the data you are trying to determine if it was affected by man.

You have to grasp the question if you are what you claim


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Um...he wasn't talking about you, he was talking about the people you cited.   I mean duh


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Say a study of 1 million men shows that 2.765% of them are gay.

Now you have 50 men, you want to know how many of them are gay.  Because of the small sample size, your margin of confidence is low.

If you expand your study to see how many out of 1.1 million men are gay, that doesn’t improve the accuracy of calculating accurately how many of the 50 are gay.


If your pool of 50 grows to 100, that does improve the odds of calculating more accurately how many of them are gay.

How do you not get this?


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 12, 2015)

kaz said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Global warming is not a theory.  It is an observational fact.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Government is government.  Bripat didn't say they were beholden to political heads, he said government.  Yeah, they get huge parts of their budget from government


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



At this point your use of the word "fact " a lie or you are a liar you work in science since you don't know that


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Government in general.  All government bureaucrats support AGW because it means vast new revenues for them plus control over the hapless subjects (us)
> ...



"U.S. government funding cuts & regulations threaten collaboration at scientific & technology meetings. Sign AGU’s letter & help your colleagues today: "

U.S. government funding cuts ... - American Geophysical Union AGU Facebook

Really?  Check out the petition on their facebook page...


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Horseshit.


----------



## rdean (Mar 12, 2015)

They're going to have a harder time of it:

Anti-science advocates are freaking out about Google truth rankings US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Well, why  not since they constantly change what it means?


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 12, 2015)

rdean said:


> They're going to have a harder time of it:
> 
> Anti-science advocates are freaking out about Google truth rankings US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



No, anyone who isn't a leftist is freaking out because we all know the ideological orientation of Larry Page and Sergey Brin.


----------



## Crick (Mar 12, 2015)

I am a leftist and I've never heard of either one of them.  Standby, I'll look them up and see if we might be able to settle your hysterical little asses down.  Standby...

Ahh, they are the founders of Google.  Well, in that case, I would say that they are so smart, it does't matter _what_ their political orientation might be.

You need to learn to trust your betters.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 12, 2015)

As Stephen Colbert used to point out, it's well-known that reality has a liberal bias, and therefore conservatives shouldn't trust reality.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 12, 2015)

kaz said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



This is the deception of the alarmists and bureaucrats.  When the general public finally gets a grasp of the science and what it actually means, they change the terms hoping to continue the deception..  Now why would a group of scientists need to change the meaning of the terms if the science was sound?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Answer the question or are you a liar?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


And has nothing to do with global or climate. What a tool.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 12, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Absolutely, it does.  The Muldraugh limestine represents a middle Mississippian aged mixed carbonate-siliciclastic tempestite-dominated ramp environment.  What does that mean?  It means that this formation was deposited in a shallow tropical environment dominated by frequent massive gale-force storms.  Today, the region in which we find this limestone is 38 degrees north of the equator.  Limestone reefs can only form 20 degrees north or south of the equator.  And so when this limestone was laid down, the region was within 20 degrees of the equator.  And so we know from studying these rocks, and the fossils they contain, that there have been major climatic changes not only at the time the rocks were deposited, but in the interval of time since.  And by studying the rocks that occur in the interval between then and now, we can fill in the gaps for what the climate was like.  It has everything to do with climate.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 12, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


What caused it? Was it that way in Russia or Australia ? Uh no


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 12, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The same conditions existed at the time in Scotland and Belgium.  You are missing the point, as usual.  When you figure it out, come back and we will talk further.


----------



## Tom Sweetnam (Mar 12, 2015)

Back 50 years ago when the US ranked #1 in science education, such spurious dismissives as "denial" and "denialist" would never see light of day. Now that the left has turned our educational system into the illiterate cesspool it is, where we now rank at the bottom of the industrialized world in science education, these Medieval  pitchfork & torchlight icons find ready sanctuary in the tiny pea brains of knuckle-draggers like Flopper and Pogo.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 13, 2015)

Tom Sweetnam said:


> Back 50 years ago when the US ranked #1 in science education, such spurious dismissives as "denial" and "denialist" would never see light of day. Now that the left has turned our educational system into the illiterate cesspool it is, where we now rank at the bottom of the industrialized world in science education, these Medieval  pitchfork & torchlight icons find ready sanctuary in the tiny pea brains of knuckle-draggers like Flopper and Pogo.



50 years ago, you didn't have right wing evangelical creationists and climate science deniers on school boards demanding that our schools "teach the controversy" and trying to get evolution and climate change removed from the curriculum.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 13, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> > Back 50 years ago when the US ranked #1 in science education, such spurious dismissives as "denial" and "denialist" would never see light of day. Now that the left has turned our educational system into the illiterate cesspool it is, where we now rank at the bottom of the industrialized world in science education, these Medieval  pitchfork & torchlight icons find ready sanctuary in the tiny pea brains of knuckle-draggers like Flopper and Pogo.
> ...



The Scopes trial happened about 90 years ago, moron.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 13, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Nope I get it, your term global isn't the whole earth. Got it!


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 13, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Tom Sweetnam said:
> ...



Wow, you don't get out much, do you?


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 13, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Nope, you don't get it.  When you do we'll talk again (or not).


----------



## jc456 (Mar 13, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


No, no I get it.  You like lies and think you are deceptive, but you're merely a liar.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 13, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You clearly don't understand anything about Earth science.  And so you resort to name calling like a child.  Poor pitiful you.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 13, 2015)

Tom Sweetnam said:


> Back 50 years ago when the US ranked #1 in science education, such spurious dismissives as "denial" and "denialist" would never see light of day. Now that the left has turned our educational system into the illiterate cesspool it is, where we now rank at the bottom of the industrialized world in science education, these Medieval  pitchfork & torchlight icons find ready sanctuary in the tiny pea brains of knuckle-draggers like Flopper and Pogo.



This is why Japan and China do not embrace the CO2 monster created by the socialist control mongers.  Their  brightest minds know it is a fraud and they want nothing to do with it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 13, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> You clearly don't understand anything about Earth science.  And so you resort to name calling like a child.  Poor pitiful you.



Now this one is funny coming from a person who calls names if you dont believe like he want you too... Denier! or was that LIAR!


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 13, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > You clearly don't understand anything about Earth science.  And so you resort to name calling like a child.  Poor pitiful you.
> ...



They all do, don't they?  And then they whine like little puppies who haven't been fed if you give them similar treatment.  That's why I love ridiculing liberals so much.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 13, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


No, I understand, you merely wish to lie.  And what name did I call you? Liar? It is what you do so I supposed you like being a liar. So for you it is a compliment.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 15, 2015)

In case anybody missed it...................seamlessly connecting the dots ( still jaw dropping stuff )




Most of the AGW crowd in here is frankly too naïve to realize they are getting their chains pulled daily, but there are a couple of AGW devotee's who know EXACTLY what has been going on.( the Plato whores)


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 15, 2015)

By the way........this whole "skeptics don't believe in science" and "Republicans are science stupid" crap is so fringe its laughable.

95%+ people aren't internet science geeks and are far more interested in the newest ghey app they can find for their iStoopidphones.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 27, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Tom Sweetnam said:
> ...



90 years ago evolution wasn't in school curriculums.  50 years ago it was.  Moron.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You sound like old rocks


----------



## PredFan (Apr 27, 2015)

The title of this thread is grossly misleading. We are not science deniers because we deny AGW. There is no real science in AGW.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 27, 2015)

PredFan said:


> The title of this thread is grossly misleading. We are not science deniers because we deny AGW. There is no real science in AGW.



And that claim is why you are a science denier.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 27, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > The title of this thread is grossly misleading. We are not science deniers because we deny AGW. There is no real science in AGW.
> ...



And that statement declared you to be an idiot. You can't claim to be a scientifically literate just because you believe in AGW.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 27, 2015)

PredFan said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



I agree.  But claiming that there is no science in climate change science demonstrates your scientific illiteracy.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


but cuz, we've been waiting for that there science evidence,and cuz, there ain't any.  how do you explain that if it is based on science?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

*"hostility towards science and intellectualism is ingrained within much of the country — and now, with the Republican primaries heating up, a carnival of clownish windbags will be competing with each other to prove who is the most hostile towards science and education, and boy will it be close*"


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)




----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> [
> 
> 90 years ago evolution wasn't in school curriculums.  50 years ago it was.  Moron.


These are the same morons of the Scopes Monkey trial....these are neo confederate losers.......


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)




----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

hahahahahaahahahahahahaha, and yet no science provided.  Zip nadda! Call me a denier all you like, but it is the warmer with the lies.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> hahahahahaahahahahahahaha, and yet no science provided.  Zip nadda! Call me a denier all you like, but it is the warmer with the lies.


its in the Bible.....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2015)

"Denier" is a Cult word, no real scientist ever uses it


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)




----------



## orogenicman (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Easy.  You are a denier.  End of story.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


>


Amazing graph! That says it all!


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

Other than 97 percent Scientific consensus about Global warming there is no science to Global warming


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2015)

"Einstein denied Newtons Law of Gravity" said no real scientist ever

"Newtonian Gravity was peer reviewed and has Consensus" said no real scientist ever


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2015)

"we keep trotting out the debunked 97% of scientists believe in Global Warming, because, what did you want us to do, show an experiment that demonstrates how a 120PPM increase in CO2 can do any of the things we allege?"  said the AGWCult


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> "we keep trotting out the debunked 97% of scientists believe in Global Warming, because, what did you want us to do, show an experiment that demonstrates how a 120PPM increase in CO2 can do any of the things we allege?"  said the AGWCult


Sure sure sure...its in the Bible...The Heartland Institute ?
A revealing interview with top contrarian climate scientists Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian
As for the American Meteorological Society (AMS) survey,only 13% of participants described climate science as their field of expertise. The Heartland Institute – the source of the story linked in the above quote by Christy – misrepresented the associated study so badly that the AMS executive director took the unusual step ofissuing a public reprimand against their behavior. Studies of climate science experts have again and again found a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming...................................
*Conspiracies and Biases*
When asked about data from government agencies contradicting their contrarian beliefs about the dangers associated with climate change, Christy said,

_NASA, NOAA, EPA, DOE, those are agencies. Agency leaders are appointed by the government, by the current administration. They do not represent objective independent scientific organizations. They can’t. They are appointed by the head. They try. People who come out with different views in their organizations are found to be squashed. There is an agenda in those agencies ... There are skeptics in NASA and NOAA, a good number. But they are quiet. They know in this administration, they don’t speak out._

This is an ironic answer given the recent revelations that scientists in Florida have beenbarred from using phrases like “climate change” and “global warming.”Similarly, the George W. Bush administration was accused ofcensoring government reports about climate change. It’s contrarians who have tried to squash inconvenient scientific research, not those who accept the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

*Heartland Institute and its NIPCC report fail the credibility test*

*Debunking the Heartland Institute's Efforts to Deny Climate ...*

*The Heartland Institute
A collection of links exposing the Heartland Institute’s bogus list of 500 skeptical scientists:


Distinguished Scientist Calls Heartland 500 List “Offensive and Wrong”
The Heartland Institute
Exposed: Fake List of 500 global warming skeptics scientist
500 Scientists with Documented Doubts – about the Heartland Institute?
Heartland Institute Spreads FUD & Lies About Global Warming
Heartland Institute deniers denied by ‘U’ profs
Top Scientists Demand Names Removed From Climate List
Heartland “500” Still Co-Authors
Heartland Institute publishes bogus list of 500 scientists who doubt anthropogenic climate change
The Heartland Institute’s “500 scientist” list
What if you held a conference, and no (real) scientists came?
Four hundred skeptics? Try 19
*


----------



## asterism (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


>



Why cherry pick 1973 - 2009?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

asterism said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


The Gish Gallop thread is somewhere else .... put up something anything that backs your silliness...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2015)

97% has been debunked more times than Lizzy Cheekbones fake Cherokee ancestory


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> 97% has been debunked more times than Lizzy Cheekbones fake Cherokee ancestory


Link...link....link


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > 97% has been debunked more times than Lizzy Cheekbones fake Cherokee ancestory
> ...



Popular Technology.net 97 Study Falsely Classifies Scientists Papers according to the scientists that published them

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer The Myth of the Climate Change 97 - WSJ

"*The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'*
*What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?"*

*Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring 97-Percent Consensus Claims*

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

why don't you post up the total number of scientist that were in that survey. and what the questions were?  Come now, let's just see what it is those folks who voted agreed on


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > hahahahahaahahahahahahaha, and yet no science provided.  Zip nadda! Call me a denier all you like, but it is the warmer with the lies.
> ...


and yet, still no scientific research provided.  Funny, my definition of science and yours are truly two different things.  Mine science states hypothesis are tested and conclusions reached, yet still no experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does to temperatures.  

Wow, you know how to move around on the internet and post up funny pictures.  Still isn't science pal!!!! If you're going to talk the talk, walk the walk.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


*WSJ's shameful climate denial: The scientific consensus is not a myth *

Joseph Bast is a "tobacco danger denialist" too

*Heartland Institute CEO Joe Bast has his own Tobacco-Cancer Denial Read to his Face*
VIDEO Heartland Institute CEO Joseph Bast eats his own words denying health impact of smoking cigarettes PolluterWatch


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

The same guy denying climate change denies that tobacco smoking is a health hazard...how scientific of the dude L:OL


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Wow, you know how to move around on the internet and post up funny pictures.  Still isn't science pal!!!! If you're going to talk the talk, walk the walk.


 You have been posting scientific links ? NOT


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> The same guy denying climate change denies that tobacco smoking is a health hazard...how scientific of the dude L:OL


strawman and not anything about the OP, post should be deleted. Give us the science that proves the point and the list of scientists and the questions they answered.  If you can't, you've failed.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

*Heartland Institute reprimanded *
Going to the Source for Accurate Information


*Going to the Source for Accurate Information*
November 27, 2013 ·
by *Keith L. Seitter*, AMS Executive Director

Earlier this week, the Heartland Institute appears to have sent an extensive e-mail blast with what is more or less a press release for a paper that will appear in an upcoming issue of _BAMS_ entitled “Meteorologists’ Views about Global Warming: A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members” (in full disclosure, I am a coauthor on this paper).  A disturbing aspect of this e-mail is that it seems some effort was placed in making it appear to have been sent by AMS.  It was sent from an e-mail account with AMS in the name (though not from the “ametsoc.org” domain) and featured the AMS logo prominently (used without permission from AMS).  Only in the fine print at the bottom was it clear that this apparently came from the Heartland Institute.  *The text of the e-mail reports results from the study far differently than I would, leaving an impression that is at odds with how I would characterize those results.*

If you got this Heartland Institute e-mail, or if you have read articles or blog posts related to this study, my suggestion is simple.  Rather than take someone else’s interpretation of the survey results, read the paper yourself and draw your own conclusions.  It is freely available here as an Early Online Release.

A difference between the AMS and some organizations is the transparency and scientific integrity with which we operate.  This survey was conducted to satisfy scientific curiosity on an important topic and the results are published for all to see.  This is the way science is meant to work.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, you know how to move around on the internet and post up funny pictures.  Still isn't science pal!!!! If you're going to talk the talk, walk the walk.
> ...


I don't need to.  I don't make any claim of doom and gloom.  The science isn't proven, never has.  Consensus, you can't prove, because you don't know what they're even talking about.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > The same guy denying climate change denies that tobacco smoking is a health hazard...how scientific of the dude L:OL
> ...


Link something scientific will you sailor boy repeating  your goofy opinions is not scientific


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


You make the claim scientific consensus is wrong and you are right ...show some proof


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I think  your post should be deleted as being  unscientific nonsense*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

*Tobacco Industry Apologist*
In prior work for the tobacco industry,*Joe Bast*"staunchly defended 'Joe Camel'," the mascot for Camel cigarettes.Naturewrites, "He is among the last public defenders of smoking and has argued that concerns about second-hand smoke are as bogus as those surrounding greenhouse gases."


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Heartland Institute reprimanded *
> Going to the Source for Accurate Information
> 
> 
> ...


did you even read what you posted?  26.3% responded.  26.3 freaking %.  Sorry pal but you fail again.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...





TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


hahahahahaha still no science.  Right, every post I post on yours should be deleted as well.  They are irrelevant to the OP.  You have violated the rules of the forum and I am calling you on it.  I was instructed to do so.

Again, post up the number of scientists and the questions they responded to.  Can you even do that?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)




----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Tobacco Industry Apologist*
> In prior work for the tobacco industry,*Joe Bast*"staunchly defended 'Joe Camel'," the mascot for Camel cigarettes.Naturewrites, "He is among the last public defenders of smoking and has argued that concerns about second-hand smoke are as bogus as those surrounding greenhouse gases."


has nothing to do with tobacco, irrelevant again. still not a post directed at the OP.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > *Heartland Institute reprimanded *
> ...


You did not read it pal  ..you fail they say what was attributed to them is not so


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


>


pretty picture, has absolutely no value to any discussion.  Still waiting on that list of scientists and the questions.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > *Tobacco Industry Apologist*
> ...


* so if a witness is impeached due to prior nonsense and lies he still get to keep credibility ? in wing nut world ...*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Your nonsense I use to send out more info


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


dude, 26.3% responded.  You realize what that means right?  73.7 didn't agree.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


irrelevant and is apples to oranges and still not a response to the OP.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


and absolutely no value to any discussion.  Again, you think you can merely talk a talk and not walk a walk.  nope.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Again, post up the number of scientists and the questions they responded to.  Can you even do that?


Figure 1.Response distribution to the question, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Source)


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> irrelevant and is apples to oranges and still not a response to the OP.


So its irrelevant he denies the science on tobacco use ? he is a paid charlatan


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

*the consensus project*


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Again, post up the number of scientists and the questions they responded to.  Can you even do that?
> ...


I swear, you all post such irrelevant data: from your own article:

"
suggests that only 58% of the general public
would answer yes to our question 2.
The two areas of expertise in the survey
with the smallest percentage of participants
answering yes to question 2 were
economic geology with 47% (48 of 103)
and meteorology with 64% (23 of 36).
It seems that the debate on the
authenticity of global warming and the
role played by human activity is_* largely
nonexistent*_ among those who understand
the nuances and scientific basis
of long-term
climate processes."


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*"It seems that the debate on the
authenticity of global warming and the
role played by human activity is largely
nonexistent among those who understand
the nuances and scientific basis
of long-term
climate processes."*

There is no debate Global warming is real


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> It seems that the debate on the
> authenticity of global warming and the
> role played by human activity is_* largely
> nonexistent*_ among those who understand
> ...


Your don't understand the statement you quoted. Let me interpret for you.
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is_* largely nonexistent*_ among [scientists] those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."
the phrase "_those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes_" is referring to the 97% scientists. In short, the article says the debate is nonexistent because the 97% scientists prevail over the 3%.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


>



How does atmospheric CO2 heat the ocean 700M deep?????????


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


there isn't one person who can deny that since the ice age the earth hasn't warmed.  Can't be.  what's your point?  It was your lousy post that proves my point!! And you wish to take it further?  Accept your fail and move on.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > It seems that the debate on the
> ...


ouch, man you're right, it is just nonexistent to every other human on the earth that isn't part of the 75.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> ouch, man you're right, it is just nonexistent to every other human on the earth that isn't part of the 75.


You still don't understand. The debate is nonexistent to those scientists. Every other human on earth can insult each other and call it a debate if they want, but it is a non-sequitur.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ouch, man you're right, it is just nonexistent to every other human on the earth that isn't part of the 75.
> ...


but it's the rest of the population which votes and decides what is important, and today, not so much is about climate because it's all a lie.  The earth proved the 75 wrong.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*You are an an anti science zealot ...*its in the Bible


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*he only one proved wrong is you* .,..its in the Bible


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


 How does The Heartland Institute spend the money that Koch brothers pay them ?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

The *"tobacco being dangerous to human health denialist" * *also denies human affected Climate change *but according to the numb nuts it should not affect his credibility and has nothing to do with the OP


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*"There is no ambiguity" on climate change, U.N. concludes*
Source: *CBS News*

COPENHAGEN, Denmark - Climate change is happening, it's almost entirely man's fault and limiting its impacts may require reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero this century, the U.N.'s panel on climate science said Sunday.

The fourth and final volume of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's giant climate assessment didn't offer any surprises, nor was it expected to since it combined the findings of three earlier reports released in the past 13 months.

But it underlined the scope of the climate challenge in stark terms. Emissions, mainly from the burning of fossil fuels, may need to drop to zero by the end of this century for the world to have a decent chance of keeping the temperature rise below a level that many consider dangerous. Failure to do so, which could require deployment of technologies that suck greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere, could lock the world on a trajectory with "irreversible" impacts on people, like altering the male-female ratio, and on the environment, the report said. Some impacts are already being observed, including rising sea levels, a warmer and more acidic ocean, melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice and more frequent and intense heat waves.

"*Science has spoken. There is no ambiguity in their message. Leaders must act. Time is not on our side," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said at the report's launch in Copenhagen.*

Read more:  There is no ambiguity on climate change U.N. concludes - CBS News


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

"*Science has spoken. There is no ambiguity in their message. Leaders must act. Time is not on our side," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said at the report's launch in Copenhagen.*

Read more:  There is no ambiguity on climate change U.N. concludes - CBS News

The above is a quote from UN Secretary General on human caused warming..Poll question

who do you think is likely correct on this issue

a)numb nuts Science deniers______

b) the UN Chief ______


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

so tell me how money fixes your problem?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

So climate change can no longer be denied – or ignored. The world is looking to the United States – to us – to lead. And that’s what we’re doing. We’re using more clean energy than ever before. America is number one in wind power, and every three weeks, we bring online as much solar power as we did in all of 2008. We’re taking steps to waste less energy, with more fuel-efficient cars that save us money at the pump, and more energy-efficient buildings that save us money on our electricity bills.

So thanks in part to these actions, our carbon pollution has fallen by 10 percent since 2007, even as we’ve grown our economy and seen the longest streak of private-sector job growth on record. We’ve committed to doubling the pace at which we cut carbon pollution, and China has committed, for the first time, to limiting their emissions. And because the world’s two largest economies came together, there’s new hope that, with American leadership, this year, the world will finally reach an agreement to prevent the worst impacts of climate change before it’s too late.

This is an issue that’s bigger and longer-lasting than my presidency. It’s about protecting our God-given natural wonders, and the good jobs that rely on them. It’s about shielding our cities and our families from disaster and harm. It’s about keeping our kids healthy and safe. This is the only planet we’ve got. And years from now, I want to be able to look our children and grandchildren in the eye and tell them that we did everything we could to protect it.



*Transcript*
Weekly Address Climate Change Can No Longer Be Ignored The White House


POTUS says "climate change can no longer be denied" and the US must lead to prevent danger ...Poll question

who has more credibility

a) POTUS ____________

b)numb nut barely literate Bible thumpin Koch snorting climate deniers_____


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

so tell me how money fixes your problem?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2015)

Did Obama lower the oceans?


This guy?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

*Insurance Companies Warn US to Prepare for (more) Climate Change*
A coalition of big insurance companies, consumer groups, and environmental advocates are urging the United States to overhaul its disaster policies in the face of increasingly extreme weather due to human-caused climate change.
...
One of the biggest climate risks is sea level rise, which has increased both the frequency and length of minor coastal flooding — also called “nuisance flooding.” Whereas nuisance flooding along the Atlantic, Gulf, and West Coasts only occurred less than once per year at any given location in the 1950s, it now occurs on average about once every three months, the report says.

In addition, periods of very heavy precipitation have increased in every region of the country except Hawaii since 1958, according to the National Climate Assessment. That’s been particularly bad in the Northeast and Midwest, which have seen 71 percent and 37 percent increases in very heavy precipitation, respectively.

While those projections may not be alarming to some, they are certainly red flags for the insurance industry — a business which is based almost solely on credible estimation of risk. And the risks are growing, the report notes — if global action on climate change is not taken, sea level rise is projected to increase anywhere from 8.4 inches to 6.6 feet above 1992 levels, according to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Risks of heavy precipitation, wildfires, and heat waves are also projected to increase.


Big Insurance Companies Are Warning The U.S. To Prepare For Climate Change ThinkProgress


In a related story, S&P says it will downgrade countries who stand to lose the most as global warming continues.

Meantime, Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services just issued a report saying that the credit ratings of sovereign countries would be affected by global warming. It pointed to Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, heavy flooding in Great Britain and the record cold temperatures this past winter in the United States, all of which caused economic damages and disrupted business practices.


Rift Widening Between Energy And Insurance Industries Over Climate Change - Forbes

Poll question

Who has more credibility on Global warming

a) A coalition of big insurance companies, consumer groups, and environmental advocates _____________

b) booger drooling Right wing anti Science zealots ____


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Did Obama lower the oceans?


No he did manage to lower your IQ though


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

Climate's changed before



It's the sun



It's not bad



There is no consensus



It's cooling



Models are unreliable



Temp record is unreliable



Animals and plants can adapt



It hasn't warmed since 1998



Antarctica is gaining ice



View All Arguments...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2015)

Does Obama plan to deal with Global Climate Warming Change in all 57 states at once?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Does Obama plan to deal with Global Climate Warming Change in all 57 states at once?


ask the talking snake...its in the Bible


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Did Obama lower the oceans?
> ...



Ahhh, boo fucking hoo for you

Lolz






Yeah, this is what I reduced Tyrone to.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Yeah, this is what I reduced .


*Inoculating against science denial*
*Posted on 27 April 2015 by John Cook*






Science denial has real, societal consequences. Denial of the link between HIV and AIDS led to more than 330,000 premature deaths in South Africa. Denial of the link between smoking and cancer has caused millions of premature deaths. Thanks to vaccination denial, preventable diseases are making a comeback.

Denial is not something we can ignore or, well, deny. So what does scientific research say is the most effective response? Common wisdom says that communicating more science should be the solution. But a growing body of evidence indicates that this approach can actually backfire, reinforcing people’s prior beliefs.

When you present evidence that threatens a person’s worldview, it can actually strengthen their beliefs. This is called the “worldview backfire effect”. One of the first scientific experiments that observed this effect dates back to 1975.

*Read more*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2015)

Denial is a Cult word


----------



## Marxist (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, this is what I reduced .
> ...


Remember evolution? Luckily, anyone who denies evolution these days is a verifiable idiot.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

*This is what I reduced Cruz-aider Frankfurter to.....incoherent racist posts *






CrusaderFrank said:


> .


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

Marxist said:


> Remember evolution? Luckily, anyone who denies evolution these days is a verifiable idiot.



That includes a lot of the G0P clown car candidates


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 27, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> 90 years ago evolution wasn't in school curriculums.  50 years ago it was.  Moron.



So the Scopes trial was in 1965?

Dayum, the shit you learn from leftists,....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2015)

Marxist said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Evolution makes less sense than Gullible Warming


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Evolution makes less sense than Gullible Warming


*
The Bible has a "talking snake" and here we have you  "posting schnook"*

Explainer the models that help us predict climate change


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

*I urge you talking snake posters and Bible thumpers to educate yourselves.....so you do not post stupid...*
 

*University offering free online course to demolish climate denial *
The University of Queensland’s course examines the science of climate science denial

University offering free online course to demolish climate denial Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

me thinks you have a climate change jones!!!!


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)




----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> me thinks you have a climate change jones!!!!


You seem to have a "talking snake Jane"


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

still nothing about the OP.  and still no list.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

tyrone jonesing


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

* Republican witness admits the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is real *
Congressional Republicans want to deny the expert consensus on human-caused global warming, but their witness Richard Tol told them it's real

Republican witness admits the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is real Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

*Pentagon Signals Security Risks of Climate Change - The ...*
*Immediate Risk to National Security Posed by Global Warming
Pentagon: Climate change a national security threat | TheHill
*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:


NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis
CRU direct surface temperature analysis
*Both trends are definitely and significantly up.* In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse empirical observations lead to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:


Satellite Data
Radiosondes
Borehole analysis
Glacial melt observations
Sea ice melt
Sea level rise
Proxy Reconstructions
Permafrost melt
*There is simply no room for doubt: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend.*


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

please post something of value.  you're getting boring.  nothing of fact, irrelevant data


----------



## Marxist (Apr 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


I truly hope you're not serious.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2015)

Consensus, another word no real scientist ever uses


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2015)

Marxist said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Marxist said:
> ...



Absolutely, 100% deadly serious.

The Theory of Evolution makes less than no sense and is a mathematical impossibility


----------



## Marxist (Apr 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Now I know you're a real quack.


----------



## SillyWabbit (Apr 27, 2015)

There's a positive perspective to take on all this: TV is only going to get more exciting, rapidly. Us couch potatoes are gonna have us some serious reailty TV to fill the End Days!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Absolutely, 100% deadly serious.
> 
> The Theory of Evolution makes less than no sense and is a mathematical impossibility



Evolution is a fact.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

*Duke Researcher Denounces Rush Limbaugh's "Ridiculous" Distortion Of His Global Warming Study *







Rush Limbaugh grossly distorted a new study from Duke University, claiming it shows that "there isn't any [global] warming going on." But one of its authors noted that the study actually confirms humans' role in driving global warming and said that Limbaugh's claim is "ridiculous." 

On the April 22 edition of his show, Limbaugh touted the Duke University study as "*ad news for the climate change crowd" and claimed the Duke researchers are part of a "consensus" of people who think "there isn't any warming going on." He went on to assert that the study, which examines temperature records over the past 1,000 years, shows that "there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that long-term warming over the next 100 years is going to be anything even noticeable, abnormal."

But the study itself said nothing of the sort. Rather, the study stated that, out of the range of warming projections outlined by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), temperature records suggest that at present time the "middle-of-the-road warming scenario" is more likely than the most severe warming projections. One of the study's authors, Duke doctoral candidate Patrick Brown, confirmed as much in an email to Media Matters, and called Limbaugh's assertion "ridiculous":

The idea that there 'isn't any warming' is ridiculous. Over the past century there are countless data sets indicating warming (weather stations, sea level, ice mass, ocean temperatures, etc.).

[...]

Our study shows that we are probably not on the worst-case IPCC scenario but that we may be on an IPCC middle-of-the road scenario. The IPCC does not make predictions they make hypothetical projections. So this result does not contradict the IPCC conclusions at all.*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely, 100% deadly serious.
> ...


It is a Scientific Theory....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2015)

Marxist said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Marxist said:
> ...



Inorganic atoms and molecules bumped around and formed amino acids and proteins and developed self awareness.

Yeah, right


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


and not all theories are correct.  You should really learn science.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely, 100% deadly serious.
> ...



Can you walk me through how atoms and molecules evolved to form single cell life?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


No a dude with a bushy beard got some water some dirt and put it together baked it and out came people...then he put them in a garden spot until a talking snake appeared and said to eat of a fruit the bushy bearded  entity had left conveniently in the Garden spot...the rest is history....hey we are all the product of incest.....  Adam and Eve kids procreated with one another .......


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



The Pythagorian theorem is very handy in spite of being a theorem


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Marxist said:
> ...


no, the ape thing is better.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> > Evolution is a fact.
> 
> 
> It is a Scientific Theory....



So is gravity.

Both are demonstrable and repeatable.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


a 2 + b 2 = c


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


and what does the snake say ....?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > > Evolution is a fact.
> ...


right................


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Inorganic atoms and molecules bumped around and formed amino acids and proteins and developed self awareness.
> 
> Yeah, right



That doesn't describe evolution.

The AIDS virus (HIV) mutating to avoid anti-bodies, anti-virals, and chemical therapy is evolution in action that can be observed in real time.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


didn't know the snake had that ability, so what did the snake say?  I'm curious, you must have heard him before....


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

and now for some Biblical Science


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Inorganic atoms and molecules bumped around and formed amino acids and proteins and developed self awareness.
> ...


holy crap are you on roll.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Marxist said:
> ...



You could have just said, "I have no idea. I just parrot whatever I'm told"


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> and now for some Biblical Science


still jonesing I see.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


nah, he likes to show off his internet skills on posting useless pictures.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Inorganic atoms and molecules bumped around and formed amino acids and proteins and developed self awareness.
> ...



So you want to avoid the question.  OK


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


he posts like the good troll he's supposed to be. Or better yet, He evolved into!!!!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Can you walk me through how atoms and molecules evolved to form single cell life?



Why?

It has nothing to do with evolution.

_Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection._

Evolution assumes the existence of life and does not explain how life began.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Can you walk me through how atoms and molecules evolved to form single cell life?
> ...


big word there troll, "assumes" Not sure but the word fact isn't present.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> nah, he likes to show off his internet skills on posting useless pictures.


You , on the other hand. prefer to highlight your short comings posting as though stupidity and ignorance were virtues...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So you want to avoid the question.  OK



You stated that you wanted to talk about evolution, not the creation of life. 

One is not the other.

Evolution is a fact, less sophisticated life forms have evolved over time into more sophisticated ones. Adaptation to environments is observable and well documented. The creation of life is irrelevant to the fact of this process.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Can you walk me through how atoms and molecules evolved to form single cell life?
> ...



So the "Theory of Evolution" only works in certain isolated instances?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So you want to avoid the question.  OK
> ...



None of that matters ...its like speaking Greek to the Chinese...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> big word there troll, "assumes" Not sure but the word fact isn't present.



You are confused.

Evolution does not work if there is no life.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So the "Theory of Evolution" only works in certain isolated instances?



Your statement makes no sense, it is not in context to what I posted.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


quit splitting hairs 57Frank


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > nah, he likes to show off his internet skills on posting useless pictures.
> ...



^ Racist


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So the "Theory of Evolution" only works in certain isolated instances?
> ...



You started by telling me "Evolution is a fact"

I asked you to explain how atoms and molecules evolved to form the first cell and you went off on a tangent


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> You started by telling me "Evolution is a fact"
> 
> I asked you to explain how atoms and molecules evolved to form the first cell and you went off on a tangent



Evolution is not concerned with how life was created - the tangent is yours.

Evolution is a fact, demonstrable and repeatable.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


The Chinese would adapt and actually have a conversation in Greek.  you fail.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > You started by telling me "Evolution is a fact"
> ...


nah, I don't think so.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


tell them of the talking snake...


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


nah that's your honor, it's your pet.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

funny how the evolution of man didn't make it to the US borders until Christopher Columbus.  The rest of the world was blessed in evolution, accept the US land mass.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


You are an anti Science ignoramus...


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


I had to communicate with you!


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


all I heard was the moron sounds of an ignoramus ....Urrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


then you heard me right!


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 27, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease.  Coincidence?
> 
> Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine
> 
> ...


The most concerning problem with science denialism is climategate denialism.

A bunch of very dishonest greedy people, claiming to be "scientists", mindfucked a bunch of  stupid people into giving them money. Lots of money! Not just other people's money, but their own money too.

That's how stupid the are!


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 27, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > 90 years ago evolution wasn't in school curriculums.  50 years ago it was.  Moron.
> ...



The scopes trial was 90 years ago, dufus.  Perhaps you should it look up to find out what the verdict was.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 27, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You're the one claiming it was 50 years ago, sploogy...


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 27, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease.  Coincidence?
> ...



All the while willfully ignoring the fact that the only crime that was committed was that somebody hacked government e-mail servers and then posted confidential e-mails on open internet servers for all the world to see.  So it is apparently okay if somebody violates international law and the privacy of citizens, but not for scientists to have confidential conversations about their trade.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 27, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> All the while willfully ignoring the fact that the only crime that was committed was that somebody hacked government e-mail servers and then posted confidential e-mails on open internet servers for all the world to see.  So it is apparently okay if somebody violates international law and the privacy of citizens, but not for scientists to have confidential conversations about their trade.



Translation, we got caught in outright fraud - but it's your fault for reading our conspiracy....


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 27, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



If you are having comprehension issues, then perhaps you should take some English classes, because - damn.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 27, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > All the while willfully ignoring the fact that the only crime that was committed was that somebody hacked government e-mail servers and then posted confidential e-mails on open internet servers for all the world to see.  So it is apparently okay if somebody violates international law and the privacy of citizens, but not for scientists to have confidential conversations about their trade.
> ...



Yes, you deniers certainly DID get caught in outright fraud.  None of your claims about the e-mails were true.  No climate scientists were prosecuted, much less charges filed.  It was a massive waste of time and money, and yet here you are singing the praises of the frauds who actually DID get caught - the deniers.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 27, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



To remind you of your stupidity.....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 27, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> If you are having comprehension issues, then perhaps you should take some English classes, because - damn.



You are having integrity issues, as always....


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 27, 2015)

PredFan said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease.  Coincidence?
> ...


Really? You love science? So, if your position is that man is not creating the present warming, link us some informatibe credible sources with evidence for your position.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 27, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Yes, you deniers certainly DID get caught in outright fraud.  None of your claims about the e-mails were true.  No climate scientists were prosecuted, much less charges filed.  It was a massive waste of time and money, and yet here you are singing the praises of the frauds who actually DID get caught - the deniers.



So it wasn't you fuckwad cultists who got caught? 

*“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Phil Jones (Climatic Research Unit)
University of East Anglia*_}

*"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate." 


"…Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…" *

_
Oh wait, you're lying again - you have no integrity.

Carry on...


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 27, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Not really.  I am having trolling issues, though.  You are a troll, and that is an issue.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 27, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, you deniers certainly DID get caught in outright fraud.  None of your claims about the e-mails were true.  No climate scientists were prosecuted, much less charges filed.  It was a massive waste of time and money, and yet here you are singing the praises of the frauds who actually DID get caught - the deniers.
> ...



That you would dredge up these long refuted lies of the deniers speaks to your utter lack of integrity.  What are you, anyway?  13, 14 years old?  Get a life.


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 27, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > All the while willfully ignoring the fact that the only crime that was committed was that somebody hacked government e-mail servers and then posted confidential e-mails on open internet servers for all the world to see.  So it is apparently okay if somebody violates international law and the privacy of citizens, but not for scientists to have confidential conversations about their trade.
> ...


Wait a minute... if you are saying that, aren't you a conspiracy theorist?


----------



## Agit8r (Apr 27, 2015)

Science denialism stems from a feeling of entitlement.  All such people care only that they enjoy the present, without any regard for the well being of future generations.

It is usually because they have learned mythology in place of rational morality.  One can only hope there minds will change over time, but if not, it is of little concern to proper society.  As there is no natural right to act in a manner that is noxious to all mankind, there is no need to consider their complaints in the least.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 27, 2015)

denialism is bankrolled by, among others  k0ch Indu$tries


----------



## Marxist (Apr 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Since you want to deny facts, let me educate you on evolution.
Human Evolution Evidence The Smithsonian Institution s Human Origins Program


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2015)

Marxist said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



Let's start with the basics, hmmmkay

How did atoms and molecules "evolve" to form the first cells


----------



## Marxist (Apr 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


It' typical of the uneducated to put forth such ridiculous arguments. One cannot answer currently how the first atoms formed, and atoms have nothing to do with evolution, this is what evolution is: *Evolution* is change in heritabletraits of biologicalpopulations over successive generations.[1] Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the level of species, individual organisms, and at the level of molecular evolution.[2]
It does not have to account for atoms, how atoms started, etc, etc.. That is a whole other thing entirely, but the big bang answers this. The molecules? 
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
How Did Life Start On Earth Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Network
Creatures from the Black Lagoon Lessons in the Diversity and Evolution of Eukaryotes
Much more on the subject.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 27, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease.  Coincidence?
> 
> Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine
> 
> ...



Same with the lead industry. For decades they argued it was safe. They even had scientists who testified it was safe. Ones on the payroll.


----------



## Marxist (Apr 27, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease.  Coincidence?
> ...


Same with a lot of things, right now, it appears to be coal/oil/etc...


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


We dont know exactly how and when life started but the first life didn't have oxygen. So eventually plants came and started putting oxygen in the air and today we need oxygen to live. 

Its very hard to explain but when you learn all the facts you realize people who deny evolution do so for bad reasons.


----------



## Marxist (Apr 27, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Marxist said:
> ...


Evolution has nothing to do with how life started anyways..


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 27, 2015)

Marxist said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Maybe. I mean it has to have something to do with it right? Amino acids, proteans the 4 common or basic elements dna. 

I dont know what I'm talking about. All I know is its fascinating.


----------



## Marxist (Apr 27, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


(You don't sorry, X.D.) But anyways, this is evolution: *Evolution* is change in heritabletraits of biologicalpopulations over successive generations.[1] Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the level of species, individual organisms, and at the level of molecular evolution.[2]
Nothing about explaining how the initial amino acids formed or anything, although we have explanations for that to.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 27, 2015)

Marxist said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


I was listening to dawkins explain how life started very basic and mutations occurred and being able to make copied or replicate or multiply then compete for space. I need to hear it again before I can explain it like he did.


----------



## Marxist (Apr 27, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


He was referring to single celled organisms.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



The first atoms formed out of the primordial plasma of subatomic particles that arose out of the big bang.  These atoms were hydrogen and helium.  All of the rest of the elements of the periodic table arose out of supernova explosions.  And frank, atoms don't evolve into cells.  Complex organic molecules eventually became cells by growth and stoichiometry.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Marxist said:
> ...



According to your theory atoms > molecule, now here comes the tricky part, amino acids (or proteins) magically align to form a functioning cell


----------



## Marxist (Apr 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Refer to the papers I've posted, and again, this isn't relevant to evolution.


----------



## IanC (Apr 27, 2015)

Evolution is a tool that changes life forms, no doubt. But it says very little about how the first spark of life came into being.


----------



## asterism (Apr 28, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Marxist said:
> ...



Are you saying that before plants there was no oxygen in the air?  I don't think that's accurate.  I seem to remember something about cyanobacteria.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 28, 2015)

asterism said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


What put oxygen in the air before life started? The first life on earth didn't breath oxygen. Oxygen would have been poison to them.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


----------



## PredFan (Apr 28, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Unlike you morons who think that all you have to do is accept AGW to feel superior, I actually am science literate and don't need to link to other people's thoughts and words. I know science, it has been my career for 32 years. I have the knowledge to think for myself.

One thing that you who don't know shit about science and therefor don't know is that I can't prove a negative. You need to prove that man is causing the warming. That is something that the AGW believers have so far failed to do.

It's one thing to blindly follow what others do and say, it's another to know enough about the subject to know if you are being taken for a ride. The important thing is that I not only know and love science, but I know and love history. When you know both, you know that AGW is a scam.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 28, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


They have proved it. Same way they have proved evolution is real.

What kind of science you know?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 28, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Prove that Bigfoot isn't real


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 28, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> You could have just said, "I have no idea. I just parrot whatever I'm told"



Look dude I edit my post and I answer as I please..you are to me a Bible thumping nut bag and I am not about to make you my editor ...comprende...,now get some Ice cream...put two scoops on a Bible...take  a photo ...call the photo "salvation a La Mode"


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 28, 2015)

PredFan said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease.  Coincidence?
> ...


God u dumb


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 28, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


You should say it first because you really dont know what you are talking about.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 28, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Here's a little tidbit for you; historically science has been more wrong than right. Chew on that for a while.


Here is a little bit of a tid bit for you thumpy...science is a process not a destination...moron..that is why evolution is called "the theory of evolution" not the ":fact of evolution"...so science has not been wrong it simply moved to another view after examining further data ...now if you think there is something that produces more benefits than science use it...its not gonna be religion I assure you thumpy....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 28, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > You could have just said, "I have no idea. I just parrot whatever I'm told"
> ...



Translation: "I don't know dick about anything, but I'm in a cool Cult that get to call people "DENIERS!!!!!""


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 28, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Translation: "I don't know dick about anything, but I'm in a cool Cult that get to call people "DENIERS!!!!!""


translation: "I am an entitled Bible thumper and a white man to boot...you have a lot of damn gall to have a different view than I do"....you are in a pretty cool cult too "the Bushy bearded White man God" cult


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 28, 2015)

asterism said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



No, it was blue-green algae the first started producing oxygen.


----------



## asterism (Apr 28, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



It wasn't plants.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Judging from your utter denial of climate change science, I question the truth of your claim.  And pregnant dude, even if it is true that you have some modicum of science education and experience, that does not make you an expert in climate change science or even in Earth Science.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Erm, cyanobacteria includes blue-green algae.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Denial is a cult word that no real scientist ever uses


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 28, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Translation: "I don't know dick about anything, but I'm in a cool Cult that get to call people "DENIERS!!!!!""
> ...



The white man God brought this country to the top of the heap in record time


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 28, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


so you are a Bachmannesque creationist, end-days-type 57Frank?


----------



## PredFan (Apr 28, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



No they haven't proved it. Shows how little you know. Oh, and yes, I know that evolution is fact. You fail all around.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 28, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


----------



## PredFan (Apr 28, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a little tidbit for you; historically science has been more wrong than right. Chew on that for a while.
> ...



No numbskull, if you knew anything at all, you would know that it has been flat out wrong before. 

I believe in evolution and I'm not religious. So yeah you fail all around.


----------



## Marxist (Apr 28, 2015)

PredFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


It is proven, you're just desperate to deny facts.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Wtf? Pregnant? It's PRED not Preg, you illiterate fuck. It is because of my knowledge of science and history, that I deny AGW.

In your ignorance, you cannot distinguish between Climate Change, AGW, and Global Warming. I doubt you have the knowledge and intelligence to even be discussing the subject. All you can do is cut and paste and repeat the lie that if you don't believe in AGW then you must hate science.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 28, 2015)

Marxist said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



No it isn't, nit wit.


----------



## Marxist (Apr 28, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


Every international scientific body disagrees with you, and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 28, 2015)

Marxist said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Marxist said:
> ...



Really, you should stop. You're embarassing yourself.


----------



## Marxist (Apr 28, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


Name one international scientific body that doesn't.


----------



## asterism (Apr 28, 2015)

Marxist said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Marxist said:
> ...



An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

PredFan said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



It was an intentional swipe, dude.  You know, like, you are making a pregnant argument.



> In your ignorance, you cannot distinguish between Climate Change, AGW, and Global Warming. I doubt you have the knowledge and intelligence to even be discussing the subject. All you can do is cut and paste and repeat the lie that if you don't believe in AGW then you must hate science.



Oh really?  And of course, you are published on the subject (or any scientific subject), right and so are an expert?  No?   Well alrighty then.  You were saying?


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

asterism said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



That doesn't mean it isn't true.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 28, 2015)

asterism said:


> An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.



That is a logical fallacy on your part. Some appeals to authority are logical fallacies. That does not mean all appeals to authority are logical fallacies.

If the authorities really are the experts in their field, it's not a logical fallacy. It's only a fallacy when you invoke people who don't have actual expertise in the field.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

mamooth said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
> ...



Like Anthony Watt,


----------



## Marxist (Apr 28, 2015)

asterism said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


Is an appeal to evidence also a fallacy?


----------



## asterism (Apr 28, 2015)

Marxist said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Marxist said:
> ...



No.


----------



## Marxist (Apr 28, 2015)

asterism said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...


You seem to think it is.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


dude, really show a link that shows there isn't something present.  Well dude, why don't you show the link that shows it does?  you know that one with the 120 PPM of CO2, got that one yet?  come on frisbee let's see it.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2015)

Agit8r said:


> Science denialism stems from a feeling of entitlement.  All such people care only that they enjoy the present, without any regard for the well being of future generations.
> 
> It is usually because they have learned mythology in place of rational morality.  One can only hope there minds will change over time, but if not, it is of little concern to proper society.  As there is no natural right to act in a manner that is noxious to all mankind, there is no need to consider their complaints in the least.


what??????

So you don't want people to have freedom of speech?  Is that what you're implying?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> [
> 
> That you would dredge up these long refuted lies of the deniers speaks to your utter lack of integrity.  What are you, anyway?  13, 14 years old?  Get a life.



Refuted lies....

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And people should believe you scumbags when you offer charts and graphs based on computer models?

Dude, you have ZERO integrity - none, not a smidgen.

Science is NOT the process of selecting a politically advantageous conclusion, then manipulating or outright fabricating data to support the preconception.

You offer dogma and faith, which has nothing to the do with the process of discovery that is real science.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


well did that happen?  Are you afraid of history?  What is your problem friend?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> denialism is bankrolled by, among others  k0ch Indu$tries


so?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2015)

Marxist said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Marxist said:
> ...


oh my gawd!!!!!!!! dude, you should be ashamed.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Marxist said:
> ...


so tell me, if you have no idea how life started how can you dispute someone's opinion or view?  how?


----------



## Marxist (Apr 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


We're disputing your view of evolution, not the formation of atoms, (big bang though)


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


how do you know?  That's a flippin bold ass statement to make.  You don't know who he is, again, you're just a terd on a message board stinking up the place with bullshit.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2015)

Marxist said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


you have no idea what my position is in evolution.  So how can you dispute me?  I merely asked a question you choose not to answer and instead throw a stone.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I wholeheartedly agree.  And that is exactly what deniers do.  Congratulations, we are getting somewhere.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



I take it you've been asleep for the past 6 years.  Oh dear.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2015)

Marxist said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I lost track of what was proven as fact.  What was again?


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that someone who claims to be a scientist and yet doesn't understand the first think about science is not telling the truth.  You for instance...


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2015)

PredFan said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


And can't admit he isn't science knowledgeable.  None of them.  yet they can insult your knowledge, it is who they are, scared rabbits dropping terds on a message board stinking it up with their bullshit.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



What knowledge, where?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Denier is a Cult word


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


dude, I've never ever once made a claim of being a scientist. I've even stated that my knowledge is slim.  But, I am a thought producing individual and I look at reality as a person who has knowledge of other things and I can interpret data since I do it for a living.  So, not sure why one needs to be a scientist to understand data.  Please provide me some context into why that is a requirement?  I also absorb others data and use logic.  And logic says to me, if you don't know where life begins, how can you claim finality of how it is?  Please explain that?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


are you a scientist? no you said so in a previous time and date.  You are a geologist if I remember correctly.  So how is it you're smarter than a scientist?


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Right.  So you have no expertize to come to any conclusions with regard to global warming, or the scientists who's life's work is the scientific study of the phenomenon.  So your only point in being here is to troll and disrupt the discussion.  Dude, we already knew this.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Geologists are scientists.  You didn't know this?  Huh.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Why?  I can read, I can learn.  I don't need to play baseball to watch and understand it.  what the hell is wrong with you?  Oh, I forgot, you lost your brain.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


no they're not, they'd be scientists.  Dude, nice try! fail.


----------



## IanC (Apr 28, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




I absolutely agree. There are many examples of this. Especially in paleo reconstructions and the latest fad of homogenizing global temp datasets to 'expectations'.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



A 2nd grader can read.  That doesn't mean he understand calculus or Proust.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 28, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a little tidbit for you; historically science has been more wrong than right. Chew on that for a while.
> ...



Dawkins said it well. Imagine people 500 years ago learning all at once everything we know now. Now imagine what we will know in 500 years. 

And correct all we will know more about god in 500 years is that he's been Mia for 2515 years and the end times are apon us.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You need to stop because you are making yourself look foolish.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

IanC said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I just noticed your sig from Michael Crichton, the man who gave us "Congo", the worst science fiction book in history.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



He happens to have the exact same credentials as Old Rocks


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


ok, I choose the wrong argument, yep you're right.  Here I found this from a job career website:

*"Definition and Nature of the Work*
Geologists are scientists who study the earth's crust to obtain an accurate picture of its structure, history, and composition. There are many practical uses for the science of geology. Geologists' findings are used in construction, in planning environmental protection measures, and in exploring for sources of coal, metals, petroleum, and natural gas. Geologists work for private industries, the federal government, colleges and universities, and museums.

There are several different kinds of geologists. Mineralogists, for example, study rocks, minerals, and precious stones. They classify them according to their composition and structure. Paleontologists work with biologists to determine what the world was like in prehistoric times. They study fossils and layers of rock. Engineering geologists help to determine where to construct dams, lay pipelines, and build roads. Some geologists also study ecology to incorporate protection of the environment in their work. Other geologists may work with geophysicists to predict earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

Most of the geologists in the United States work in private industry, with the majority employed in the petroleum and natural gas industry. These geologists help find new sources of oil and gas by collecting samples of rock and soil. They compare these samples with rock and soil found near known deposits of crude oil and natural gas. This helps them to select locations for new wells. Because offshore oil resources are one of the main energy supplies of the future, geologists' ability to examine samples taken from the ocean floors is becoming increasingly important. Samples of rock and soil may also be useful to geologists who search for sources of fresh water or deposits of valuable minerals and ores.

Another group of geologists in the United States are teachers or researchers in schools and colleges. In high schools they teach earth science and general science. In colleges most geologists teach introductory and advanced courses in geology. Some also instruct students in ecology and environmental studies. Geologists working for colleges usually divide their time between teaching and research."

So I don't see evolution expert or climate expert.  So,  how is it you're any different than I?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


I was wrong and admit it.  A geologist can call themselves what ever they want.  Scientist example.  Funny though.  It seems they think the word scientist makes them automatically knowledgeable in any science field.    How about data management, evolution.  Nope....


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Geologists are geoscientists.  That covers a lot of ground.  A degree in geology can take you to a career in paleontology, hydrogeology, environmental consulting, petroleum geology, engineering geology, or geophysics (as well as other sub-disciplines), depending on which track you want to take.  Some geologists, such as yours truly, have taken multiple tracks.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


But still don't see evolution or climate in there.  So again, why do you believe you are any smarter than me in those areas of discussion?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



How can a person like you ever sit on a jury? Without seeing the person commit murder with your own eyes, how will you decide? By looking at the mountains of evidence that all suggests evolution is real. In fact its pretty much a fact. Even the pope believes. Why dont you?


----------



## IanC (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...




Deflection? Why should we care about your taste in science fiction?


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Look, a physicist doesn't have to have any knowledge of geology to be a physicist.  Same for a chemist or a biologist.  But a geologist has to have a working knowledge of all three fields in order to conduct even basic geologic research, be it in the laboratory or in the field.  People think that geology is "rocks for jocks", but it is far more difficult than most people understand.  I've seen many students come into geology classes thinking it would be a breeze, only to drop it after the first two weeks.  I've seen chemistry students taking optical mineralogy sitting in class cross eyed with confusion.  Geology is the study of the Earth.  By default that includes the life on it as well as the atmosphere that surrounds it.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



It's not deflection, I just thought it odd to be quoting someone as being "knowledgeable" with regard to science, when most scientists see him as a hack.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


ever hear of evidence?  I'd be more scared to see you on a jury, you couldn't move along with the arguments, you'd choose a position and no matter the data or testimony by others, you'd berate them and call them all liars because they didn't agree with the position you take.  Funny thing reality when shown in full bloom.  You are a parrott, puppet and what ever other names are out there for someone too stupid to think for themselves and look at the actual evidence or lack of it.  Nope I'd be more liked.  I was once a foreman and found the defendant not guilty.  Not enough evidence.  I am consistent as hell brother.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Well appreciate the description. Ok, i'll give you life perhaps, but what and where does life begin is still unknown and to make any other declaration is flat out a lie.  So I ask again, if the start of life is unknown, then how can one argue against an opposing view? simple question. And climate is not understood, and to say otherwise doesn't make you a very good scientist IMO.  I don't think you could honestly tell me that science is ever settled if you are indeed a scientist.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> I wholeheartedly agree.  And that is exactly what deniers do.  Congratulations, we are getting somewhere.



Why do you say "deniers?" Isn't "infidel" the proper term?

You cultists with your absurd dogma are caught lying regularly.

Here are the top 10 lies by the Cult.

Top 10 Global Warming Lies That May Shock You - Forbes


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that someone who claims to be a scientist and yet doesn't understand the first think about science is not telling the truth.  You for instance...



True, and at first I was hesitant that pointing this out about you was rude.

Ah but grants are far too important to let a little thing like ethics get in the way...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 28, 2015)

All of you cultists have a duty to stop your carbon sins. When you sin against Gaia, she becomes angry and punishes the Earth with global warming, so the cultists have duty to stop carbon sinning; and I can help.

Ways to stop producing carbon dioxide

Stop breathing - When you exhale you release carbon dioxide

Dont drive - We all know how bad driving is

Don't live in a house/apartment/condo or any building that uses gas or electricity - Homes produce 2-3 times as much carbon as cars.

Don't wear shoes or any sort of clothing produced in a factory. Grow a cotton field and make your own clothes by hand.

Quit school - Those school buildings produce more carbon in a year then you do in 20 years.

Eat meat raw - Whether you're using gas or electric both produce carbon dioxide.

Turn off this monitor and computer - You hypocrite.

Don't use toilets, urinate or poo in your back yard.- The water to your house is cleaned and sent to your house using pumps that use electricity.

Stop exercising - Increasing your heart rate increases the amount of oxygen you take in and turn into carbon dioxide.

Die - Dying younger means you will do all of the above less. Living one year less means you will save the earth 8.4 tons of carbon dioxide every year you're not here!


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Look, there are many things we DO know and understand about life.  That necessarily limits the probabilities as to how life on Earth began.  For instance, it is a safe bet that it wasn't created out of clay by some magical sky daddy.  It is also a safe bet that this magical sky daddy didn't create the universe in 6 days.  Moreover, the fact that proteins necessary for life can spontaneous form in certain environments similar to those that existed on Earth many billions of years ago is just one indication of how life could have started.  It has also been discovered recently that certain types of DNA fragments can form spontaneously under the right conditions.  The fact that complex organic molecules requisite for life have been seen on comets, and even in stellar nurseries is yet another.  It is true that there is a lot we have yet discovered about how life began, but that is not a reason to ignore what we DO know, and from which we can make predictions for further testing.

Same for our climate.  It is a very complex, often chaotic system.  There are things we simply don't understand yet.  But that is no excuse to willfully ignore what we DO know and understand, the predictions we can make and test.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that someone who claims to be a scientist and yet doesn't understand the first think about science is not telling the truth.  You for instance...
> ...



<eyes roll>


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> All of you cultists have a duty to stop your carbon sins. When you sin against Gaia, she becomes angry and punishes the Earth with global warming, so the cultists have duty to stop carbon sinning; and I can help.
> 
> Ways to stop producing carbon dioxide
> 
> ...



Straw man.  And you call yourself a scientist.  HA!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Straw man.  And you call yourself a scientist.  HA!



Well, I follow the scientific method - you really wouldn't understand...


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Straw man.  And you call yourself a scientist.  HA!
> ...



You're right.  I don't understand how you could possibly call anything you've posted as following "the scientific method".  As far as I can tell, all you've done is to post insulting and incorrect denial talking points.  You've not presented anything that could remotely be considered science.


----------



## IanC (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




It is the intellect and interest that makes a scientist good at his field or someone else's. Ideas and hypotheses stand on their own merit, not by the credentials of those presenting them. Climate science has an unfortunate history of making poor statistical choices, especially over the last two decades. 

If climate science is settled, or even sound, why is there so much avoiding of debate?


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Science is not about debate teams, though scientists certainly do engage in debates.  You don't settle the science on internet political forums or in debate forums in general.  You settle it by conducting the observations and experiments and publishing your results in peer reviewed scientific journals where other scientists in the field can review the results, make comments, and test those conclusions with observations and experiments of their own.  Climate scientists have been doing this from the beginning of the field.  Deniers have, at best, a handful of such work to their credit, the majority of which have been rejected as either not meeting the requisite criteria, or have simply been refuted by others.  The vast majority of climate deniers are not scientists, and not even skeptics in the scientific sense.  The vast majority, and that includes the overwhelming denier population on this forum, are simply advancing their own political agenda.  Your argument is a lot like the creationist argument "teach the controversy".  And like creationists, you people expect scientists to treat as equals political pundants and others who aren't even in the field conducting any original research. Sorry, life doesn't work that way, and neither does science.


----------



## Marxist (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Just repost this everytime a denier tries to claim to know anything about science.


----------



## rdean (Apr 28, 2015)

Mr. H. said:


> Why do Liberals deny the science of abortion, the science of the Keystone XL, the science of ethanol and the RFS mandate?


Could you be a little more specific?


----------



## IanC (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




There early 2000's flipped the null hypothesis. No MWP or LIA. Ever since they have had to retreat. Or the warming of 0.2C per decade of warming (and much warmer in most projections) which is not in evidence.

It is not that skeptics deny CO2 influence, CO2 production, or warming in general. It is the wild eyed predictions that fail to happen that we deny.

Just because you guys are finding 'reasons' to claw back your doomsday scenarios that doesn't make you right. We were the ones predicting moderate changes, not you.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Who is "we", Ian?  I haven't seen you publish any results.  So what is it, exactly, that you are trying to take credit for?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


1. No skeptic is saying debates are settled on forums.
2. Experiments have not been presented so, asking for one shouldn't be such a big deal if scientist use experiments to establish position for publishing.
3.One doesn't adjust raw data to ensure success in a model.  how unscientific is that?  I'd really like to hear the answer to this one.
4.who gets to decide the requisite criteria if that is wrong?  oops they made a mistake.  Is a scientist big enough to admit an error.  Not in climatesville baby.
5. Skeptics know more than deniers, the deniers need to pay attention to observed conditions and stop fudging data, redundant I know.
6.Peer work, the good old boys club, a cult, need a membership to talk.  how flippin looney is that.  grow a pair and get on with the debate.
7. Warmer deniers know very little about climate science, and prove it daily on this forum.

edit *. Political agenda, what is it do skeptics believe is our advantage by having an opposing view.  what is it we gain?  What?  please what is so special that you believe we're after?

Thanks and have a nice day!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> [
> You're right.  I don't understand how you could possibly call anything you've posted as following "the scientific method".  As far as I can tell, all you've done is to post insulting and incorrect denial talking points.  You've not presented anything that could remotely be considered science.



What I post in these threads is mostly mocking you anti-science AGW cultists with your rigid dogma and disdain for curiosity and discovery. 

You are welcome to your silly little religion, and I will be happy to mock you for it.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Except that is exclusively where you deniers (you are NOT scientific skeptics) choose to settle the issue.



			
				jc said:
			
		

> 2. Experiments have not been presented so, asking for one shouldn't be such a big deal if scientist use experiments to establish position for publishing.



Experiments have been presented numerous times.  For you to declare that they haven't been presented is disingenuous, at best.



			
				jc said:
			
		

> 3.One doesn't adjust raw data to ensure success in a model.  how unscientific is that?  I'd really like to hear the answer to this one.



Wrong, and for you to continue to make this claim despite the numerous times you've been corrected on the matter demonstrates that you aren't interested in discussion.



			
				jc said:
			
		

> 4.who gets to decide the requisite criteria if that is wrong?



The scientists in the relevant field in question.  What?  You thought diesel mechanics should have a say in how climate science should be conducted?  Bhwhahahahaha!



			
				jc said:
			
		

> 5. Skeptics know more than deniers, the deniers need to pay attention to observed conditions and stop fudging data, redundant I know.



Skeptics involved in the science do know more than deniers.  And I agree that you deniers need to stop fudging data and misrepresenting the science if you want to be taken seriously.



			
				jc said:
			
		

> 6.Peer work, the good old boys club, a cult, need a membership to talk.  how flippin looney is that.  grow a pair and get on with the debate.



Next time you need brain surgery, you should hire a floor sweeper, because surely he knows as much about brain surgery as a real brain surgeon. <rolls eyes>



			
				jc said:
			
		

> 7. Warmer deniers know very little about climate science, and prove it daily on this forum.



Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## IanC (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




You post up your publications first.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Demonstrating that you aren't interested in discussion, but are merely trolling the forums, which is a violation of the rules.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I am not the one making silly claims like " *(w)e* were the ones predicting moderate changes, not you".


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No real scientist calls a skeptic a "DENIER"

A generation ago you lunatics were railing against Global Cooling, now you've changed to Global Warming, Manmade Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption and expect us to believe that the "Science is settled"

LOLz


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Demonstrating that you aren't interested in discussion, but are merely trolling the forums, which is a violation of the rules.



So we can add "discussion" to the long list of concepts you lack comprehension of, along with geology, oceanography, biology, etc....


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Demonstrating that you aren't interested in discussion, but are merely trolling the forums, which is a violation of the rules.
> ...



Bye.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


*1. No skeptic is saying debates are settled on forums. Except that is exclusively where you deniers (you are NOT scientific skeptics) choose to settle the issue.*
When did I say me?  Holy crap.

jc said:
*2. Experiments have not been presented so, asking for one shouldn't be such a big deal if scientist use experiments to establish position for publishing.
org says:
Experiments have been presented numerous times. For you to declare that they haven't been presented is disingenuous, at best.*
I have yet to see an experiment that proves that 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures.  Please, present one that you say was shown.  You can search back at least 18 months and find the request over and over again for that one experiment.  to date. naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

*jc said: 
3.One doesn't adjust raw data to ensure success in a model. how unscientific is that? I'd really like to hear the answer to this one.
org says:
Wrong, and for you to continue to make this claim despite the numerous times you've been corrected on the matter demonstrates that you aren't interested in discussion.*
Still haven't presented a graph with raw data. Never happened on this forum so not sure what you're smoking, but on here, naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

*jc said: 
4.who gets to decide the requisite criteria if that is wrong?
org says:
The scientists in the relevant field in question. What? You thought diesel mechanics should have a say in how climate science should be conducted?* Bhwhahahahaha!
.I see you can't answer that question, calls into question the legitimacy of the statement.

*jc said: 
5. Skeptics know more than deniers, the deniers need to pay attention to observed conditions and stop fudging data, redundant I know.
org says:
Skeptics involved in the science do know more than deniers. And I agree that you deniers need to stop fudging data and misrepresenting the science if you want to be taken seriously.*
Agree science skeptics are the ones to listen to, you and your deniers need to learn.  Valuable data available for you to experience and grow from.

*jc said:
6.Peer work, the good old boys club, a cult, need a membership to talk. how flippin looney is that. grow a pair and get on with the debate.
org says:
Next time you need brain surgery, you should hire a floor sweeper, because surely he knows as much about brain surgery as a real brain surgeon. <rolls eyes>*
I see you liked the good old boys reference, it makes me laugh. typical you don't have an answer.  you must agree it is a cult.

*jc said: 
7. Warmer deniers know very little about climate science, and prove it daily on this forum.
org says:
Thanks for proving my point.
*
Nice to see you agree your side denies.  It's a step in the right direction.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Tissue?


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

jc, learn to quote, or I won't bother responding.


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...


He pissed off a lot of idiots and scumbags.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc, learn to quote, or I won't bother responding.


corrected.  All you had to do was ask.


----------



## rdean (Apr 28, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


There was one article about global cooling a decade ago and it was debunked.

http://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-rewind-debunking-global-cooling-252326

And there were some laughed at opinion pieces.

Right wingers have been clinging to those ever since.  That's the extent of their data.  "Debunked".


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 28, 2015)

rdean said:


> There was one article about global cooling a decade ago and it was debunked.
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-rewind-debunking-global-cooling-252326
> 
> ...


We see this so many times. If there is a very newsworthy disclosure people will remember it for a long time. However if that disclosure is debunked, it is not front page headlines, and people will gloss over it and remain ignorant.


----------



## IanC (Apr 28, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > There was one article about global cooling a decade ago and it was debunked.
> ...




Absolutely correct. How often have we seen a press release come out for a new climate science paper which makes unsupported claims that are debunked in short order but the revised versions never get reported. Gergis2012, Marcott's recantation, and Steig's various Antacrtic papers come to mind.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 28, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You have used them interchangeably, they mean different things. But you aren't smart enough to know that.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



He's just not very bright. He thinks he is and his only qualification is that he believes in AGW. He can also cut and paste things other people have published. Not that he actually understands any of it.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


What data or testimony are you using to come to your conclusion?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 28, 2015)

rdean said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 A few years from now you'll be saying the same thing about global warming.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Quite on the contrary. Orogenicman is a published Geologist. I am but a millwright, and a student of geology. But both of us link to articles from peer reviewed journals, articles written by men who have spent decades studying this discipline. Whereas you people link to fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen. And take your spiels from an obese junkie on the AM radio.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 28, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 28, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



We choose not to follow the AGW fools off the cliff..  If the fools are geologist or not make no difference.. I dont follow fools.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 28, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You're such a dishonest fuck, but that's redundant. Consensus is not science. AGW is a Cult


----------



## IanC (Apr 28, 2015)

Orogenic, old rocks.

Geologist, student of geology.

Never heard from at the same time.

Very interesting. Hahahaha.

Did I mention the same phrasing, overlap of links...


----------



## Mr. H. (Apr 28, 2015)

rdean said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Why do Liberals deny the science of abortion, the science of the Keystone XL, the science of ethanol and the RFS mandate?
> ...


For you?


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Marcott's recantation?  Wow, you really have drunk deeply from the kool aid pitcher.

RealClimate Response by Marcott et al.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



You can't prove it by your posts.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

IanC said:


> Orogenic, old rocks.
> 
> Geologist, student of geology.
> 
> ...



WTF?  You people see Delvian vipers at every turn, don't you?  Take yer meds, Ian.


----------



## asterism (Apr 29, 2015)

IanC said:


> Orogenic, old rocks.
> 
> Geologist, student of geology.
> 
> ...



I've never heard Old Rocks talk about astronomy at all and Orogenicman posted an album of astrophotography images.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 29, 2015)

asterism said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Orogenic, old rocks.
> ...


A good observation. Now, for Ian, as for your observation that we Orogenicman and I use the same phrasing. When talking of geology or science, that might be so. However, much of my posts and attitude show the 50 years I have spent in sawmills, construction, and steel mills. 

So, Ian, instead of using the damnable tobacco industry strategy of trying to create doubt of other peoples data, why don't you present some data that shows that the GHGs don't have the affects that the physicists state that they do. And why don't you show us icecaps and a high percentage of existing glaciers that are gaining mass? Because the way you are presently argueing your case against AGW is just pissing in the wind. Little differant than Billy Boob or Just Crazy.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


most all of the data is faked.  And no one can produce an experiment that shows that adding 120 PPM of CO2 drives a temperature.  No one!!!  See in my logic, one needs to prove a point and if a point is not proven, then I find the point irrelevant.  Sea Rise, where, still no one has produced an area.  Arctic ice, nope.  See all of the warmers statements are all unjustified without evidence.  And funny, the links and evidence that has been produced is all faked and phoney.  Mann for instance, the dataset was used and showed the exact same results, well dah, if you use the same data, bad data, one would end up with the same results.  Doesn't take a rocket science major to know that.  Let's look at the unaltered data sets.  Give us that Mann.  nope, even took him to court and he wouldn't produce it.  It is my position based on lack of fact.  And I'm still not sure what money has to do with saving a planet anyway if it all were true.  Even though it isn't.  

So do you have evidence that supports that 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


huh?  what qualifies the peer review folks again?  Who are they again?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


socks, why not post an  experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures.  Let's call a spade a spade shall we.  You want to post this kind of strawman garbage then post up the experiment or stfu.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

jc456 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Real scientists, unlike you, JC (just crazy).


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 29, 2015)

jc456 said:


> socks, why not post an experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures. Let's call a spade a spade shall we. You want to post this kind of strawman garbage then post up the experiment or stfu.


This was beat to death in another thread. You know this can't be done in a laboratory. What you can do in a lab is show that GHGs have a "blanketing" effect and demonstrate GHG backscatter is viable.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > socks, why not post an experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures. Let's call a spade a spade shall we. You want to post this kind of strawman garbage then post up the experiment or stfu.
> ...



why can't it be done in a laboratory?

Why can't you show us the increase in temperature cause by an additional 120PPM of CO2

And we're being EXTREMELY generous with you, because we're asking for an INSTANTANEOUS addition of 120PPM in a CLOSED SYSTEM and you still can't show any "warming"


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


hmmmmm, kitten?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


who fake data to make money.  your point?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > socks, why not post an experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures. Let's call a spade a spade shall we. You want to post this kind of strawman garbage then post up the experiment or stfu.
> ...


if you completely fill a chamber with the gas?  uh, no.  let's put things in perspective, if you say it can't be done in a lab, so be it, make the statement and move on.  I have stated that many, many times on the forum, do you know no one else but you has made that statement.  Why?  What are they afraid of?  Oh yeah, making a claim they can't confirm in a lab experiment.  So, where do we go, we say oh, money will fix the problem?  If it wasn't for that, there may be more credibility, but to say someone has to pay money,  What the F is that about?  

So what you're saying is that there is no evidence to show that adding 120 PPM of CO2 to the atmosphere creates anymore global warming than naturally observed.  So how is it mans fault?   Oh and the beat goes on.  Nope my logical senses tell me the shit is all made up.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Frank, I take it he's saying they can't and in that vein, there is zero evidence to support any of the claim.  So we're correct in our logical conclusions.  Fake, fake, fake, fake.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > socks, why not post an experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures. Let's call a spade a spade shall we. You want to post this kind of strawman garbage then post up the experiment or stfu.
> ...


oh and the beat to death comment, is unjustified.  It was a request that has/was never produced.  So beat to death is inaccurate, not proven is what it is. just so we're clear. Oh and if there were that much CO2 in the atmosphere we'd be dead due to having no oxygen.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yeah, because climatology will make you a gazillion dollars, more even than those poor destitute Koch brothers.

At ease with the conspiracy theories, just crazy.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


I'm still waiting for your point.  You say you have scientific fact, let us see it.Why do you wish to keep people in the dark if you have the factual material?  You're one smart geologist/scientist. Still no point.

Oh, and what is my political agenda?  What is it you feel I'm trying to do other than get to the facts?


----------



## IanC (Apr 29, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > socks, why not post an experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures. Let's call a spade a spade shall we. You want to post this kind of strawman garbage then post up the experiment or stfu.
> ...




It's been 'beat to death' in numerous threads. The bottom line is that no experiment has been made public because any one that used increases in our normal range would show negligible results.

Run a test at 200,400,800,1600,3200... and graph the results. Does anyone doubt that many versions of this type of experiment have been done? Its exactly the type of thing university science majors do in first year. I fear the results would 'dilute the message'. trademark climate science


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Troll.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 29, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> why can't it be done in a laboratory?
> 
> Why can't you show us the increase in temperature cause by an additional 120PPM of CO2
> 
> And we're being EXTREMELY generous with you, because we're asking for an INSTANTANEOUS addition of 120PPM in a CLOSED SYSTEM and you still can't show any "warming"


An experiment that would make JC happy cannot be done in a lab. That was all covered in a previous thread called “post the experiment” Read it there.

In short to make jc happy the experiment would have to be done in a chamber miles high, with near absolute zero at the top of the chamber with simulated cross winds. Any experiment done in the lab would be smaller and require computational modeling to interpret the result to the real world, and you know how much deniers are upset about computational modeling.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


how? If anyone is a troll it is the poster who claims he has scientific facts and can't produce one of them.  That sir is definition of a troll.  Me, I have my points and still are valid at this very moment.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > why can't it be done in a laboratory?
> ...


huh?  What do you mean?  Ian posted what I'd like to see.  Do you say that that request is outrageous based on the claims?  Give me box like mythbusters had, take a reading.  increase the CO2 by 20 PPM and take a reading, add another 20 PPM and another and another.  Why is that sooooooo difficult to do?  What is it one is afraid of that drives a reaction of insanity?  Why do you need to be on a mountain or valley or on a boat at sea?  why, seems very simple to me.  Me, the fact there isn't one is my proof.  I will stand by my proof.  Which is the missing proof by those who claim that adding 120 PPM of CO2 causes a temperature increase.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > why can't it be done in a laboratory?
> ...



Denier is a Cult word


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > why can't it be done in a laboratory?
> ...


BTW, the next time you feel like making a statement of what I'd like, ask me and I'll tell you.  Don't post some fictional drivel.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 29, 2015)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


I might guess that most scientists understand modeling enough that they are satisfied in their predictions. If AGW is such a controversial cause, why don't you deniers find funding from the oil companies to demonstrate that CO2 does not cause increased warming. 

Yes, for you guys, it is also exactly the type of thing university science majors do in first year. Wouldn't you love it if a definitive experiment was published that showed AGW was all a farce? C'mon, do the experiment and post the experiment.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 29, 2015)

jc456 said:


> BTW, the next time you feel like making a statement of what I'd like, ask me and I'll tell you. Don't post some fictional drivel.


You already gave me your viewpoint. I'm just assuming that you meant what you said in the "post the experiment" thread.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 29, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Denier is a Cult word


So is Warmer. They are both words that are only 6 letters and easy to type.


----------



## hadit (Apr 29, 2015)

Instead of arguing over who has the bigger shwartz, why don't we do something constructive and take steps to deal with the coming heat wave/ice age?  There is no one on the planet with an above room temperature IQ who thinks that forcing Americans to ride bicycles instead of driving cars is going to do anything to change global temperatures, so why waste energy arguing about it?  Pull Algore out of his private jet, sell his mansion and have him move into a normal house.  Repeat with every AGW acolyte who screams bloody murder about people's carbon footprint while spewing more carbon than the average small town.  It won't change global temps, but it would at least make them less hypocritical.  Then, since they're out of the way, put our minds to getting ready for change, because it's going to happen one way or the other.  We can't stop it.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 29, 2015)

jc456 said:


> huh? What do you mean? Ian posted what I'd like to see. Do you say that that request is outrageous based on the claims? Give me box like mythbusters had, take a reading. increase the CO2 by 20 PPM and take a reading, add another 20 PPM and another and another. Why is that sooooooo difficult to do? What is it one is afraid of that drives a reaction of insanity? Why do you need to be on a mountain or valley or on a boat at sea? why, seems very simple to me. Me, the fact there isn't one is my proof. I will stand by my proof. Which is the missing proof by those who claim that adding 120 PPM of CO2 causes a temperature increase.


In laboratory conditions, science already know how back scattering works. These types of absorption experiments were done long ago. Exponential attenuation of radiation is well known.  

(Warning. Extreme hyperbole) Asking for a lab experiment of this sort is like piling a bunch of one inch cubes, and checking that the height of the pile is equal to the number of blocks times one inch. Legitimate scientists don't want to waste their time. As ionc said, why hasn't a university student done it, if you guys have such a stake in it.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > huh? What do you mean? Ian posted what I'd like to see. Do you say that that request is outrageous based on the claims? Give me box like mythbusters had, take a reading. increase the CO2 by 20 PPM and take a reading, add another 20 PPM and another and another. Why is that sooooooo difficult to do? What is it one is afraid of that drives a reaction of insanity? Why do you need to be on a mountain or valley or on a boat at sea? why, seems very simple to me. Me, the fact there isn't one is my proof. I will stand by my proof. Which is the missing proof by those who claim that adding 120 PPM of CO2 causes a temperature increase.
> ...


sure it is. Wow I really thought you had some potential and then you fall into the normal warmer rants.  Models.  I don't want a model that has already failed to show me what isn't going to happen although they think it might.  Sorry.  Oh, BTW, the solution to the warmer rant is to ask for money.  For what?  What will the money do?  I've been waiting for those details as well.  To make accusations and have zero backing calling humans out for something you have no proof of said accusation is fraud.  Anytime you feel you really give a shit about this then you just start posting about things that are logical and actually follow science.

BTW, if the scientist already know the backscatter, then show it, why are you opposed to validating a claim?  What is the fear here?


----------



## IanC (Apr 29, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




Hahahaha. I guess your true colors are coming out now, eh?

I'm a big oil funded denier? Hahahaha.

How typical of you bozos. It doesn't matter how often you are told what the skeptic's position is, you always fall back on straw man arguments and ad hominem.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I knew you had nothing.  common warmer failure.  WINNING


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 29, 2015)

IanC said:


> Hahahaha. I guess your true colors are coming out now, eh?
> 
> I'm a big oil funded denier? Hahahaha.


You are reading way to much into what I said.


IanC said:


> How typical of you bozos. It doesn't matter how often you are told what the skeptic's position is, you always fall back on straw man arguments and ad hominem.


Straw man? Ad hominem? Seems like you are creating the straw man and attacking me. Yes, I agree I sounded cynical, but I bet there is a lot of potential money available for a university student experiment. I can not see the government being interested in funding it because they already have the consensus they need. But I really can see some sort of denial institution wanting to prove that once and for all that an increased CO2 density will not increase GW. This is serious question that you should consider. Maybe a state grant would work. Why hasn't that been done?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Hahahaha. I guess your true colors are coming out now, eh?
> ...


dude, so you say that a claim not backed by evidence is my job to prove?  Are you fnn insane.  You wish to make a claim, prove it.  It isn't my job to prove something doesn't happen, it is yours and your pals to show it does.  again, why does the government solution start with asking for money?


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



You are the one questioning whether or not CO2 in the atmosphere is truly a greenhouse gas.  It's your question.  You go find the answer, if you dare.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


huh?  Gawd the mis representation by you warmers is unprecedented.  What is my position?  I have explained to you and every other warmer on here my position.  It is in here probably over a thousand times.  Show me that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures.  I'm waiting.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


not at all. it just doesn't have the magic powers you all think it has.

oh and still not proven.  BTW, where are those scientific facts at?


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



If you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then you have your answer.  tada.  As you were.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 29, 2015)

jc456 said:


> sure it is. Wow I really thought you had some potential and then you fall into the normal warmer rants. Models. I don't want a model that has already failed to show me what isn't going to happen although they think it might. Sorry. Oh, BTW, the solution to the warmer rant is to ask for money. For what? What will the money do? I've been waiting for those details as well. To make accusations and have zero backing is calling humans out for something you have no proof of said accusation is fraud. Anytime you feel you really give a shit about this then you just start posting about things that are logical and actually follow science.


Wow, that's some of stream of consciousness ranting. I don't know what your are looking for.

I said this in one of my earliest posts, I disagree with CAGW. That's not my style. I believe there is truth to GW, but I may change my mind after 20 more years of new data. I am mildly skeptical of AGW. I believe that CO2 will cause warming but I have no idea how much or how little. The one thing I very strongly oppose is slinging crap back and forth between two polarized sides that continue to read way too much in each others posts. I am in the middle ground, so don't try to read zealotry into my posts. I am interested in the science and not the politics. If people bastardize the science like SSDD did, I will call them on it, but that does not mean I'm a warmer in the fullest sense. I don't care about your skepticism as long as you represent it fairly. This message is for ianc too.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


nope sorry.  anyway, I know you have zero scientific facts so tada!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > sure it is. Wow I really thought you had some potential and then you fall into the normal warmer rants. Models. I don't want a model that has already failed to show me what isn't going to happen although they think it might. Sorry. Oh, BTW, the solution to the warmer rant is to ask for money. For what? What will the money do? I've been waiting for those details as well. To make accusations and have zero backing is calling humans out for something you have no proof of said accusation is fraud. Anytime you feel you really give a shit about this then you just start posting about things that are logical and actually follow science.
> ...


post 589, your post flinging pooh around like crazy.  so, you are just another typical left wing loser with no proof of any climate issue.  Thanks for the validation to that.

oh, and, why is money the solution to the supposed problems?


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I have at least one fact, one we both agree on - CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  Next.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


you can prove that CO2 absorbs and emits? let's see the proof. that  doesn't make your point s0n.  Still waiting on the scientific facts that proves that CO2 influences temperatures.

BTW, greenhouse gases: The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.  With which CO2 is the least amount, so tell me how dangerous it is?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 29, 2015)

jc456 said:


> post 589, your post flinging pooh around like crazy. so, you are just another typical left wing loser with no proof of any climate issue. Thanks for the validation to that.


This is post 589 you are referring to:


Wuwei said:


> I might guess that most scientists understand modeling enough that they are satisfied in their predictions. If AGW is such a controversial cause, why don't you deniers find funding from the oil companies to demonstrate that CO2 does not cause increased warming.
> 
> Yes, for you guys, it is also exactly the type of thing university science majors do in first year. Wouldn't you love it if a definitive experiment was published that showed AGW was all a farce? C'mon, do the experiment and post the experiment.


I'm sorry I was a bit glib in mentioning oil companies. I was serious and not making a stab. It's similar to pharmaceutical companies funding research in their interests. You are reading too much into it. 

My post pales in comparison to you calling me a typical left wing loser.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > post 589, your post flinging pooh around like crazy. so, you are just another typical left wing loser with no proof of any climate issue. Thanks for the validation to that.
> ...


you get the jab due to the jab.  you don't wish to do something and do it.  It makes you no different than the loser lefts whose only defense is to ridicule and insult.  I read in it what was meant by it.  I'm happy to have a nice calm discussion and to articulate back and forth.  But call me a name, tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about and that goes out the door s0n. I ask but one thing and that one thing is unavailable by your own admission.  So? I don't blindly believe because someone says I have to.  I never will be that person.  I have nothing to defend either, I have made no claim.  I merely request those who do to support it.  Why does that make me a denier?  Your word.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 29, 2015)

jc456 said:


> you can prove that CO2 absorbs and emits? let's see the proof. that  doesn't make your point s0n.  Still waiting on the scientific facts that proves that CO2 influences temperatures.
> 
> BTW, greenhouse gases: The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.  With which CO2 is the least amount, so tell me how dangerous it is?


You question CO2 absorbing and emitting and then refer to water vapor. You have to realize that water vapor is the primary GHG. Do you also question H2O absorbing and emitting radiation? If not, then what's your point. If so then why are the two GHGs different?


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



So you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas until you don't?  Hmm.

To answer your question (pay close attention because I am not going to repeat this):

Common Climate Misconceptions Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Yale Climate Connections



> Understanding the carbon cycle is a key part of understanding the broader climate change issue. But a number of misconceptions floating around the blogosphere confuse basic concepts to argue that climate change is irrelevant because of the short residence time of carbon molecules in the atmosphere and the large overall carbon stock in the environment.
> 
> It turns out that while much of the “pulse” of extra CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere would be absorbed over the next century if emissions miraculously were to end today, about 20 percent of that CO2 would remain for at least tens of thousands of years.
> 
> ...


----------



## IanC (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




You are a liar. 

I'll make a wager. If you can find a quote of mine that says that I'll leave the MB for a month. If you cannot, then you leave for a second. But you have to announce why you are leaving. Care to take my wager?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?



Do you claim CO2 forms a physical barrier to convection, or that convection is even relevant to surface and tropospheric temperatures? 

Why should anyone take your religion more seriously than one alluding to giant fish swallowing men? Seriously?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > you can prove that CO2 absorbs and emits? let's see the proof. that  doesn't make your point s0n.  Still waiting on the scientific facts that proves that CO2 influences temperatures.
> ...


because CO2 is but .04% of the make up of the atmosphere. It has increased in the atmosphere, no denial, but it has done zilch to temperatures.  Water Vapor does more to temperatures.  Can be proven at night.  The fact is that CO2 is not a boogeyman.  Hasn't been proved.  No reason to have a discussion on a gas that has no influences, and yet here we are. You then ask me why not water vapor?  good question.  why not? Water vapor comes out of the ground and oceans.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Erm, what?  I wasn't responding to you.  I was responding to jc456.  Check the post again.


----------



## IanC (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




Sorry, I clicked on an alert that said you quoted one of my posts. I didn't realize it was an imbedded comment.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > you can prove that CO2 absorbs and emits? let's see the proof. that  doesn't make your point s0n.  Still waiting on the scientific facts that proves that CO2 influences temperatures.
> ...



What was water vapors PPM last year, 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 150 years ago?

Any data at all?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


nice, applaud.  Now, see, this is exactly my point.  This is not proof of how CO2 behaves.  It is someones conclusion built off of some physical study.  Sorry, I need evidence, a test that actually proves all of this.  I appreciate your time in pulling all of this.  Curious, it didn't take you long, seems you had a template folder from which you drew from. 

But alas, sorry, I don't buy it.  And until someone of your type can, it isn't factually correct.  See history tells us all that the atmosphere once held over 1000PPM of CO2 and was quite healthy.  History fails your graphs and pictures.  Also, why is there still Arctic ice and Antarctic ice.  We were supposed to be ice free in the summers in the Arctic by the early 2000s.  what happened?  Mean old CO2 didn't comply with the predictions.  And finally again, why is it money is the solution to your problem?


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



No problems.  I've probably done it myself.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



With this kind of baseless stubbornness, you no doubt failed every science class you ever took, assuming that you ever took one.  You have your answer.  I'm done here.


----------



## IanC (Apr 29, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Hahahaha. I guess your true colors are coming out now, eh?
> ...




I will go through this once again.

Skeptics believe that doubling CO2 increases surface temp by roughly 1C, if everything else remains unchanged. Simple calculation from known radiative properties. 

Most consensus climate models of the last 30 years multiply that 1C times three. This is where skeptics veer away from consensus. We believe feedbacks are much less positive and may even ultimately be slightly negative, as most stable systems are.

In the 80's and 90's coincidental natural factors seemed to buttress consensus opinion and it became hardened into fact in many people's minds. Since then natural factors have not cooperated but CO2 theory continues unabated with more and more ad hoc excuses rather than rethinking the assumption and hypothesis and adjusting it to reality.

As far as experiments go, there should be no feedbacks but there are likely confounding physical processes that would attenuate the warming. The Mythbuster's experiment should have shown something like 7C warming for 7 doublings compared to the control. It did not. I am sure a better designed experiment would increase the findings but I have my doubt's that any but the finest of designs would be able to detect an increase of 120 ppm from 280-400. You stated that even more CO2 should have been added to match the total CO2 in a column of air 3x3 ft. But you ignored the amount that would be necessary to make a realistic control. You also ignored my point that it is the relative amounts (logarithmically) that change the temp not the absolute value.

I think for myself, and extraordinary claims must be backed up by evidence not appeals to authority.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 29, 2015)

jc456 said:


> because CO2 is but .04% of the make up of the atmosphere. It has increased in the atmosphere, no denial, but it has done zilch to temperatures. Water Vapor does more to temperatures. Can be proven at night. The fact is that CO2 is not a boogeyman. Hasn't been proved. No reason to have a discussion on a gas that has no influences, and yet here we are. You then ask me why not water vapor? good question. why not? Water vapor comes out of the ground and oceans.


The point I was making  is that the physics behind the H2O and CO2 is identical. Namely backscatter from the vibration modes of the molecules. If one backscatters, so does the other.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 29, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


I have no idea.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I can't agree with you here.  There is no reason to suppose that feedbacks will remain stable to slightly negative going forward, particularly given the fact that the Arctic, where there are plenty of ghgs stored in the permafrost, is warming at a much higher rate than anywhere else, and given the fact that the oceans are warming (and generating ever expanding dead zones). And I won't even go into the potential for biospheric disaster should the methane clathrates ever thaw in significant amounts (which is a distinct possibility).  Moreover, since you agree that the Earth is warming, why would you conclude that it's climate systems are stable?



			
				Ianc said:
			
		

> In the 80's and 90's coincidental natural factors seemed to buttress consensus opinion and it became hardened into fact in many people's minds. Since then natural factors have not cooperated but CO2 theory continues unabated with more and more ad hoc excuses rather than rethinking the assumption and hypothesis and adjusting it to reality.



The reality is that even if one admits to the so-called hiatus, the Earth has not cooled.  It is still out of balance.  And given the increasing concentrations of ghgs in the atmosphere, I see no reason to assume that it will become balanced any time soon.  So what, exactly, do you believe needs adjusting?



			
				Ianc said:
			
		

> As far as experiments go, there should be no feedbacks but there are likely confounding physical processes that would attenuate the warming.



Why should there be no feedback?  The models show it to be so.  And given, as I pointed out above, the current thawing of the Arctic that shows no sign of abating, there is no reason  to assume that feedbacks aren't an issue.  Yes, there are, and likely will be future confounding physical processes that could attenuate the warming.  Volcanism is an obvious one.  I for one am interested in learning how many tons of aerosols were emitted into the upper atmosphere from the recent Chilean eruption.  No figures on that one yet.  But how much any future attenuation there will be is, for now, only speculation, since it cannot be predicted in advance.



			
				ianc said:
			
		

> The Mythbuster's experiment should have shown something like 7C warming for 7 doublings compared to the control. It did not. I am sure a better designed experiment would increase the findings but I have my doubt's that any but the finest of designs would be able to detect an increase of 120 ppm from 280-400. You stated that even more CO2 should have been added to match the total CO2 in a column of air 3x3 ft. But you ignored the amount that would be necessary to make a realistic control. You also ignored my point that it is the relative amounts (logarithmically) that change the temp not the absolute value.



I have no comment on this since I haven't kept up with the experiment.



			
				Ianc said:
			
		

> I think for myself, and extraordinary claims must be backed up by evidence not appeals to authority.



I agree.  Having said that, science doesn't appeal to authority, because there are no authorities in science; only fallible experts.  But hey, they are the best we've got.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 29, 2015)

IanC said:


> The Mythbuster's experiment should have shown something like 7C warming for 7 doublings compared to the control. It did not. I am sure a better designed experiment would increase the findings but I have my doubt's that any but the finest of designs would be able to detect an increase of 120 ppm from 280-400. You stated that even more CO2 should have been added to match the total CO2 in a column of air 3x3 ft. But you ignored the amount that would be necessary to make a realistic control.


You can't compare .04% of CO2 in a 3 foot box with the same .04% of CO2 in several dozen miles of atmosphere. The effect would be too small to observe. The MythBusters experiment was not even attempting to illustrate what 120 ppm would do. That is your quest, not theirs. They just wanted to show a “blanketing” effect, which they did. However, if their goal was the same as yours, then yes they should have had at least one control box with the appropriate amount of CO2 about 120/400 less. But that would not tell you what you want to know. See below.


IanC said:


> You also ignored my point that it is the relative amounts (logarithmically) that change the temp not the absolute value.


No, it is the relative amounts (logarithmically) that change the *radiation *at the end of a column of an absorber. Centuries ago Herr WhatsHisName measured the logarithmic *saturation* of CO2 in a column although he didn't understand exactly what he was measuring.

If you want to relate an experiment to atmospheric physics you really have to realize that equilibrium requires that the warmth of the earth be radiated largely by what's at the TOA, which is affected by everything on down. Since CO2, CH4, H2O, etc saturate very easily, the only way the GHGs allow radiation to escape to space is where it becomes thin enough so that the logarithmic relation does not completely block it. That is very high in the atmosphere where it is very cold. The Stefan Boltzman law does not allow much radiation to escape. That cold radiation is what causes the GHGs to become a good blanket.

If you put more CO2 or other GHGs in the atmosphere the density becomes richer, and pushes the mean TOA radiation point to higher and colder levels. The colder levels along with the S-B law is what causes less radiation to escape with an increased level of CO2. That in turn causes a warmer earth.  

That is why I earlier said you need a very tall experiment with liquid helium temperatures at the top of the column.
The concept is not obvious. It is covered at
Simple Models of Climate
It is a long read, sometimes difficult, but it is essential to understand if you want to argue the science.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 29, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> I might guess that most scientists understand modeling enough that they are satisfied in their predictions. If AGW is such a controversial cause, why don't you deniers find funding from the oil companies to demonstrate that CO2 does not cause increased warming.
> 
> Yes, for you guys, it is also exactly the type of thing university science majors do in first year. Wouldn't you love it if a definitive experiment was published that showed AGW was all a farce? C'mon, do the experiment and post the experiment.



Too funny... Your models overestimate warming by 600%. Your modes do not match reality in any form.  The models have all failed empirical review.  Your so busy looking at your computer screen and models you forget to do real science and look out the dam window and OBSERVE.. 

Your models have all failed the last step in falsification of a hypothesis, PREDICTION.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 29, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > huh? What do you mean? Ian posted what I'd like to see. Do you say that that request is outrageous based on the claims? Give me box like mythbusters had, take a reading. increase the CO2 by 20 PPM and take a reading, add another 20 PPM and another and another. Why is that sooooooo difficult to do? What is it one is afraid of that drives a reaction of insanity? Why do you need to be on a mountain or valley or on a boat at sea? why, seems very simple to me. Me, the fact there isn't one is my proof. I will stand by my proof. Which is the missing proof by those who claim that adding 120 PPM of CO2 causes a temperature increase.
> ...



What a bunch of bull shit..

The only hyperbole here is your AGW drivel that has bee shown fraud and deceit..  What is sad are the number of cult members who will say anything a lie to keep the lie alive..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 29, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The Mythbuster's experiment should have shown something like 7C warming for 7 doublings compared to the control. It did not. I am sure a better designed experiment would increase the findings but I have my doubt's that any but the finest of designs would be able to detect an increase of 120 ppm from 280-400. You stated that even more CO2 should have been added to match the total CO2 in a column of air 3x3 ft. But you ignored the amount that would be necessary to make a realistic control.
> ...




And this is where modelers fail.  Convection and water vapor are not hindered by an increase of CO2. TOA measurements show that when water vapor is thinner it radiates faster.  The earth has been lowering its water content relative to warming (its called a paradoxical presentation) in direct opposition to what is claimed by modelers and the IPCC.

The so called 'positive relationship' between water vapor and CO2 has been shown not to exist in our open atmosphere. The so called coupling has been shown incorrect by empirical evidence.


----------



## Kosh (Apr 29, 2015)

This thread is a perfect example of who truly hates science..

That would be the AGW cult.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 30, 2015)

Kosh said:


> This thread is a perfect example of who truly hates science..
> 
> That would be the AGW cult.


Nah


----------

