AGW Question

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Their theroys FAILED. The math doesn't add up., the models fail without question showing that they do not understand the system, Nor how to correctly model it.
IN other words, THEY ARE CLUELESS ABOUT THE EARTHS CLIMATE SYSTEMS and their proclamations are BULL SHIT!!

You present members of USMB with a difficult choice: Your opinions, or the opinions of the world scientific community.

Well lets see if the little MEM fuck-tard can answer the basic premise of CAGW...

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

The IPCC in AR1, AR2, AR3, AR4 and AR5 can not defend their theroy becasue it can not pass empirical review.

DEFEND YOUR POSITION with empirical evidence or STFU!

Nice charts. Did you design any yourself?

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

You like being a pivot man in a circle jerk. You go round and round and never answer the question while baiting others to say something you can use against them.

The AGW theroy and its so called supporting evidence wont pass a court of law's discovery process and physical review with cross examination. NO legitimate court would place itself in the cross hairs of this without many professionals to advise it on the scientific veracity, not the AGW premise itself. There has been so much corruption of the science it wont pass muster and that is easily proved.

Climate Scientists have reached a consensus on the Global Warming data. Scientific theories are not legal arguments. You claim a corruption in the sciences, yet you cannot show evidence to back up your claims -- not evidence that would "pass a court of law's discovery process and physical review with cross examination."

Why do you attack the science? Be truthful

Too funny;

You use consensus as if it means something in science. Consensus is a political term and not one reputable scientist use. Your like the Catholic Church who said the sun circled the earth and that the earth was flat.. Their "consensus" was wrong as it is today also.. But hey, your in a cult...

Like denier!, consensus is a cult word

There can be a scientific consensus against a new theory. Saying their is a consensus,, is not saying the consensus equals truth. But, and here is where you stumble, Einstein had a theory that went against the scientific consensus, but as it was tested the scientific consensus came around to his theory.

Now, unlike Einstein, you people are NOT putting forth a new theory, you are railing against a new theory. The idea that the consensus is always on one side or the other is a faulty premise, people like you always start out with. So in the end, any and all conclusions you come to will always be based on the use of faulty logic.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Too funny;

You use consensus as if it means something in science. Consensus is a political term and not one reputable scientist use. Your like the Catholic Church who said the sun circled the earth and that the earth was flat.. Their "consensus" was wrong as it is today also.. But hey, your in a cult...

What is funnier, and yet truly sad, is that you believe a consensus in the scientific community is worthless. You are the one who like the Catholic Church feels threatened (because you were told to be by the noise machine). You actually compare a consensus in the Church , to a consensus within the scientific community?

Of course reputable scientists use the term 'consensus' on what the leading science theorizes and predicts. This does not mean they are against testing the theories behind the consensus. So your statement that "Consensus is a political term and not one reputable scientist" uses, is moronic on the face of it. The way you keep insisting on misrepresenting (if not misrepresenting, then you must be totally ignorant) how the term consensus is being used when discussing a scientific consensus, is troubling. Like the Church of old, you have a belief that when challenged, you will purposefully (hopefully not ignorantly) defend in the face of all evidence to the contrary

Lots of bull shit and no evidence... Libtard antiscience deflection...

MEM cant even answer the basic premise of CAGW and why it failed empirical review.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You like being a pivot man in a circle jerk. You go round and round and never answer the question while baiting others to say something you can use against them.

The AGW theroy and its so called supporting evidence wont pass a court of law's discovery process and physical review with cross examination. NO legitimate court would place itself in the cross hairs of this without many professionals to advise it on the scientific veracity, not the AGW premise itself. There has been so much corruption of the science it wont pass muster and that is easily proved.

Climate Scientists have reached a consensus on the Global Warming data. Scientific theories are not legal arguments. You claim a corruption in the sciences, yet you cannot show evidence to back up your claims -- not evidence that would "pass a court of law's discovery process and physical review with cross examination."

Why do you attack the science? Be truthful

Too funny;

You use consensus as if it means something in science. Consensus is a political term and not one reputable scientist use. Your like the Catholic Church who said the sun circled the earth and that the earth was flat.. Their "consensus" was wrong as it is today also.. But hey, your in a cult...

Like denier!, consensus is a cult word

There can be a scientific consensus against a new theory. Saying their is a consensus,, is not saying the consensus equals truth. But, and here is where you stumble, Einstein had a theory that went against the scientific consensus, but as it was tested the scientific consensus came around to his theory.

Now, unlike Einstein, you people are NOT putting forth a new theory, you are railing against a new theory. The idea that the consensus is always on one side or the other is a faulty premise, people like you always start out with. So in the end, any and all conclusions you come to will always be based on the use of faulty logic.

More "BE CAUSE WE SAID SO" bull shit.... and once again the empirical evidence calls you out a liar.. And you choose to ignore the real evidence... Why?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Their theroys FAILED. The math doesn't add up., the models fail without question showing that they do not understand the system, Nor how to correctly model it.
IN other words, THEY ARE CLUELESS ABOUT THE EARTHS CLIMATE SYSTEMS and their proclamations are BULL SHIT!!

You present members of USMB with a difficult choice: Your opinions, or the opinions of the world scientific community.

Well lets see if the little MEM fuck-tard can answer the basic premise of CAGW...

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

The IPCC in AR1, AR2, AR3, AR4 and AR5 can not defend their theroy becasue it can not pass empirical review.

DEFEND YOUR POSITION with empirical evidence or STFU!

Nice charts. Did you design any yourself?

Links were embedded moron.. The graphs also clearly state where they are from. Now why would you focus on that rather than the facts presented? That s right, your trying to discredit rather than debate the facts... More Libtard deflection..

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Billy_Bob, you should probably take a good, hard, close look at your avatar

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy_Bob, you should probably take a good, hard, close look at your avatar

Maybe you should take a good hard look at the real facts and not your broken modeling programs.. and quit whining and lying.. And for once actually debate and answer the question, with empirical evidence, rather than your personal attacks.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Billy_Bob, you should probably take a good, hard, close look at your avatar

Maybe you should take a good hard look at the real facts and not your broken modeling programs.. and quit whining and lying.. And for once actually debate and answer the question, with empirical evidence, rather than your personal attacks.

Are you a climate scientist? And Billy_Bob, if you want to speak about personal attacks, I suggest you probably take a good, hard, close look at your posts.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy_Bob, you should probably take a good, hard, close look at your avatar

Maybe you should take a good hard look at the real facts and not your broken modeling programs.. and quit whining and lying.. And for once actually debate and answer the question, with empirical evidence, rather than your personal attacks.

Are you a climate scientist? And Billy_Bob, if you want to speak about personal attacks, I suggest you probably take a good, hard, close look at your posts.

Yes, I am!

I will let you run around in circles... It's amusing to watch you duck, dodge, shuck and jive.

Until you produce something of value, were done troll.

 

[PK1]

... Einstein ...
... AGW ...
the difference between science and the occult

---
I hope you are not a scientist; you obviously know little about scientific methods, theories, and their variances across scientific disciplines.

People like you must be flabbergasted with thoughts like "We can land on the moon and return, yet we can't even predict the weather 3 days out, or predict which person becomes a murderer, etc".

Unless you understand the scientific details (& philosophy of science) behind scientific investigations in particular fields, you would be literally stupid to claim their research is flawed, let alone quacking "cult".

If your conspiracy theorists want to actually make a dent with your claims, have your alternative hypotheses or data interpretations vetted thru established NAS-type scientists in their field (climatology or very similar) and any disputes can be openly cross-examined & reviewed, like in a court of law. Go ahead and use your preferred real scientists to represent your views.

Using this forum for your anti-AGW rants only reinforces your cultish views.
.

 

[PK1]

Billy_Bob, you should probably take a good, hard, close look at your avatar

Maybe you should take a good hard look at the real facts and not your broken modeling programs.. and quit whining and lying.. And for once actually debate and answer the question, with empirical evidence, rather than your personal attacks.

Are you a climate scientist? And Billy_Bob, if you want to speak about personal attacks, I suggest you probably take a good, hard, close look at your posts.

Yes, I am!

I will let you run around in circles... It's amusing to watch you duck, dodge, shuck and jive.

Until you produce something of value, were done troll.

---
You are a climate scientist?
Please cite a published journal article that represents your research & interpretation ...
.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

... Einstein ...
... AGW ...
the difference between science and the occult

---
I hope you are not a scientist; you obviously know little about scientific methods, theories, and their variances across scientific disciplines.

People like you must be flabbergasted with thoughts like "We can land on the moon and return, yet we can't even predict the weather 3 days out, or predict which person becomes a murderer, etc".

Unless you understand the scientific details (& philosophy of science) behind scientific investigations in particular fields, you would be literally stupid to claim their research is flawed, let alone quacking "cult".

If your conspiracy theorists want to actually make a dent with your claims, have your alternative hypotheses or data interpretations vetted thru established NAS-type scientists in their field (climatology or very similar) and any disputes can be openly cross-examined & reviewed, like in a court of law. Go ahead and use your preferred real scientists to represent your views.

Using this forum for your anti-AGW rants only reinforces your cultish views.
.

But you chose no to answer the simple question in the OP

Why's that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You like being a pivot man in a circle jerk. You go round and round and never answer the question while baiting others to say something you can use against them.

The AGW theroy and its so called supporting evidence wont pass a court of law's discovery process and physical review with cross examination. NO legitimate court would place itself in the cross hairs of this without many professionals to advise it on the scientific veracity, not the AGW premise itself. There has been so much corruption of the science it wont pass muster and that is easily proved.

Climate Scientists have reached a consensus on the Global Warming data. Scientific theories are not legal arguments. You claim a corruption in the sciences, yet you cannot show evidence to back up your claims -- not evidence that would "pass a court of law's discovery process and physical review with cross examination."

Why do you attack the science? Be truthful

Too funny;

You use consensus as if it means something in science. Consensus is a political term and not one reputable scientist use. Your like the Catholic Church who said the sun circled the earth and that the earth was flat.. Their "consensus" was wrong as it is today also.. But hey, your in a cult...

Like denier!, consensus is a cult word

There can be a scientific consensus against a new theory. Saying their is a consensus,, is not saying the consensus equals truth. But, and here is where you stumble, Einstein had a theory that went against the scientific consensus, but as it was tested the scientific consensus came around to his theory.

Now, unlike Einstein, you people are NOT putting forth a new theory, you are railing against a new theory. The idea that the consensus is always on one side or the other is a faulty premise, people like you always start out with. So in the end, any and all conclusions you come to will always be based on the use of faulty logic.

"Consensus" is a Cult word.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Martin, you're talking with a trio of hard core conspiracy cultists. If you want to amuse yourself with them, have fun. Just understand that attempting reason will have no effect on people who have proudly abandoned reason. They only understand that you're an enemy of their cult, and therefore they hate you.

mamooth
I am not debating the science with them. Why would I? They're not climate scientists, and neither am I.

How could you! You have absolutely no lab work, what would you "debate"?

Oh that's so clever too! And the first time we've run into an AGWCultist who posts that he has "Consensus!" instead of debating

 

[PK1]

... Einstein ...
... AGW ...
the difference between science and the occult

---
I hope you are not a scientist; you obviously know little about scientific methods, theories, and their variances across scientific disciplines.

People like you must be flabbergasted with thoughts like "We can land on the moon and return, yet we can't even predict the weather 3 days out, or predict which person becomes a murderer, etc".

Unless you understand the scientific details (& philosophy of science) behind scientific investigations in particular fields, you would be literally stupid to claim their research is flawed, let alone quacking "cult".

If your conspiracy theorists want to actually make a dent with your claims, have your alternative hypotheses or data interpretations vetted thru established NAS-type scientists in their field (climatology or very similar) and any disputes can be openly cross-examined & reviewed, like in a court of law. Go ahead and use your preferred real scientists to represent your views.

Using this forum for your anti-AGW rants only reinforces your cultish views.
.

But you chose no to answer the simple question in the OP
Why's that?

---
Huh?
I did not provide an answer to your confirmation-biased Q because I am not a climate scientist and i do NOT know the detailed theoretical issues to suppose if they "suppose".

In other simpler words, for the simple Y/N minded, my honest answer is ... I don't know
.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

... Einstein ...
... AGW ...
the difference between science and the occult

---
I hope you are not a scientist; you obviously know little about scientific methods, theories, and their variances across scientific disciplines.

People like you must be flabbergasted with thoughts like "We can land on the moon and return, yet we can't even predict the weather 3 days out, or predict which person becomes a murderer, etc".

Unless you understand the scientific details (& philosophy of science) behind scientific investigations in particular fields, you would be literally stupid to claim their research is flawed, let alone quacking "cult".

If your conspiracy theorists want to actually make a dent with your claims, have your alternative hypotheses or data interpretations vetted thru established NAS-type scientists in their field (climatology or very similar) and any disputes can be openly cross-examined & reviewed, like in a court of law. Go ahead and use your preferred real scientists to represent your views.

Using this forum for your anti-AGW rants only reinforces your cultish views.
.

But you chose no to answer the simple question in the OP
Why's that?

---
Huh?
I did not provide an answer to your confirmation-biased Q because I am not a climate scientist and i do NOT know the detailed theoretical issues to suppose if they "suppose".

In other simpler words, for the simple Y/N minded, my honest answer is ... I don't know
.

So, if you don't even know the Theory, why are you arguing for it?

 

[jc456]

Martin, you're talking with a trio of hard core conspiracy cultists. If you want to amuse yourself with them, have fun. Just understand that attempting reason will have no effect on people who have proudly abandoned reason. They only understand that you're an enemy of their cult, and therefore they hate you.

And still no explanation at where the extra heat is since LWIR is down. How can you have more back radiation then comes from. Can you say, oh oh oh it's magic?

 

[jc456]

Too funny;

You use consensus as if it means something in science. Consensus is a political term and not one reputable scientist use. Your like the Catholic Church who said the sun circled the earth and that the earth was flat.. Their "consensus" was wrong as it is today also.. But hey, your in a cult...

What is funnier, and yet truly sad, is that you believe a consensus in the scientific community is worthless. You are the one who like the Catholic Church feels threatened (because you were told to be by the noise machine). You actually compare a consensus in the Church , to a consensus within the scientific community?

Of course reputable scientists use the term 'consensus' on what the leading science theorizes and predicts. This does not mean they are against testing the theories behind the consensus. So your statement that "Consensus is a political term and not one reputable scientist" uses, is moronic on the face of it. The way you keep insisting on misrepresenting (if not misrepresenting, then you must be totally ignorant) how the term consensus is being used when discussing a scientific consensus, is troubling. Like the Church of old, you have a belief that when challenged, you will purposefully (hopefully not ignorantly) defend in the face of all evidence to the contrary

What evidence? Funny you posted such a word that can't be backed up. Classic denier cult response. Let me take a moment and laugh!

 

[PK1]

... Einstein ...
... AGW ...
the difference between science and the occult

---
I hope you are not a scientist; you obviously know little about scientific methods, theories, and their variances across scientific disciplines.

People like you must be flabbergasted with thoughts like "We can land on the moon and return, yet we can't even predict the weather 3 days out, or predict which person becomes a murderer, etc".

Unless you understand the scientific details (& philosophy of science) behind scientific investigations in particular fields, you would be literally stupid to claim their research is flawed, let alone quacking "cult".

If your conspiracy theorists want to actually make a dent with your claims, have your alternative hypotheses or data interpretations vetted thru established NAS-type scientists in their field (climatology or very similar) and any disputes can be openly cross-examined & reviewed, like in a court of law. Go ahead and use your preferred real scientists to represent your views.

Using this forum for your anti-AGW rants only reinforces your cultish views.
.

But you chose no to answer the simple question in the OP
Why's that?

---
Huh?
I did not provide an answer to your confirmation-biased Q because I am not a climate scientist and i do NOT know the detailed theoretical issues to suppose if they "suppose".

In other simpler words, for the simple Y/N minded, my honest answer is ... I don't know
.

So, if you don't even know the Theory, why are you arguing for it?

---
Unlike you, i understand the general modern scientific process, and if the established scientists in their field have a consensus view, albeit theoretical, i give them a lot of credibility.

I am not "arguing for" AGW theories, i am arguing against the anti-science views by those who disagree based on their political & financial preferences.
.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

... Einstein ...
... AGW ...
the difference between science and the occult

---
I hope you are not a scientist; you obviously know little about scientific methods, theories, and their variances across scientific disciplines.

People like you must be flabbergasted with thoughts like "We can land on the moon and return, yet we can't even predict the weather 3 days out, or predict which person becomes a murderer, etc".

Unless you understand the scientific details (& philosophy of science) behind scientific investigations in particular fields, you would be literally stupid to claim their research is flawed, let alone quacking "cult".

If your conspiracy theorists want to actually make a dent with your claims, have your alternative hypotheses or data interpretations vetted thru established NAS-type scientists in their field (climatology or very similar) and any disputes can be openly cross-examined & reviewed, like in a court of law. Go ahead and use your preferred real scientists to represent your views.

Using this forum for your anti-AGW rants only reinforces your cultish views.
.

But you chose no to answer the simple question in the OP
Why's that?

---
Huh?
I did not provide an answer to your confirmation-biased Q because I am not a climate scientist and i do NOT know the detailed theoretical issues to suppose if they "suppose".

In other simpler words, for the simple Y/N minded, my honest answer is ... I don't know
.

So, if you don't even know the Theory, why are you arguing for it?

---
Unlike you, i understand the general modern scientific process, and if the established scientists in their field have a consensus view, albeit theoretical, i give them a lot of credibility.

I am not "arguing for" AGW theories, i am arguing against the anti-science views by those who disagree based on their political & financial preferences.
.

Again, "Consensus" is a cult word, it's not a word used in science