AGW Question

[Martin Eden Mercury]

"Consensus" is a Cult word.

Where? In your Funk and Wagnall?

 

[jc456]

"Consensus" is a Cult word.

Where? In your Funk and Wagnall?

No yours, it's your word. BTW, can you say evidence?

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

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

I'm of the opinion that yourself, PK1, an others would argue for much science you all don't know the theories of.

Before man landed on the Moon, it was all theoretical over how it would all pan out, and how they would get back to the ship, and then make it back home -- safely. I have to wonder if you would have been (or were?), one of those who were saying it was crazy, and could not be done, because after all, there were one or two scientists who did not agree with the scientific consensus on the possibilities and theories.

 

[jc456]

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

I'm of the opinion that yourself, PK1, an others would argue for much science you all don't know the theories of.

Before man landed on the Moon, it was all theoretical over how it would all pan out, and how they would get back to the ship, and then make it back home -- safely. I have to wonder if you would have been (or were?), one of those who were saying it was crazy, and could not be done, because after all, there were one or two scientists who did not agree with the scientific consensus on the possibilities and theories.

Correct, they tested and came up with a solution. Please post the evidence you claim for CO2.

 

[PK1]

---
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

---
Again, you are exposing your ignorance about science ...

Scientific consensus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

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

Of course it is. It is used in science, but not in the way you keep insisting others say it is. Like a little pathetic puppy with a chew toy, you refuse to left go because your run on instinct rather than reason.

In my writing, I often refer to the scientific consensus, which is the collective opinion and judgement of scientists in a particular field of study. This consensus implies general agreement, though disagreement is limited and generally insignificant.

Developing and supporting a scientific consensus

===

When the work being reviewed can be repeated and confirmed, then the scientific community is likely to reach consensus (agreement) and accept the findings and explanations as valid. If, on the other hand, scientists cannot confirm or validate the research, then those explanations or ideas are likely to be challenged, or even rejected. Challenges may also include proposing alternative hypotheses or explanations. The author–scientist may then test these new alternative hypotheses, or he or she may supply additional evidence to support his or her claims. The final goal of the process, however, is not to disagree but to revise the explanation so that the scientific community can reach a shared agreement (consensus).

Climate Science Investigations South Florida - The Nature of Science
​

So you see, no one is saying a consensus is a scientific tool used in experiments. Everyone but the chew toy mutts, are using the term in place of a not as useful term -- agreement. The distinctions of the use of words may be lost on you, when ideology and spoon fed talking pints corrupt the mind.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Please post the evidence you claim for CO2.

What do I claim regarding CO2?

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

"Consensus" is a Cult word.

Where? In your Funk and Wagnall?

No yours, it's your word. BTW, can you say evidence?

Actually, in a post or two above this one, I prove -- scientifically, that it is used in science, just not in the way you keep insisting others are using it.

Whether you know it or not, your media have spoon fed you a Super Sized Dose of Deflection, mixed with Lunacy

 

[jc456]

Please post the evidence you claim for CO2.

What do I claim regarding CO2?

Your argument

 

[jc456]

"Consensus" is a Cult word.

Where? In your Funk and Wagnall?

No yours, it's your word. BTW, can you say evidence?

Actually, in a post or two above this one, I prove -- scientifically, that it is used in science, just not in the way you keep insisting others are using it.

Whether you know it or not, your media have spoon fed you a Super Sized Dose of Deflection, mixed with Lunacy

Sorry son, that's a made up word.

 

[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.
.

Asking questions, asking for evidence is the new "Anti-science"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Of course it is. It is used in science, but not in the way you keep insisting others say it is. Like a little pathetic puppy with a chew toy, you refuse to left go because your run on instinct rather than reason.

In my writing, I often refer to the scientific consensus, which is the collective opinion and judgement of scientists in a particular field of study. This consensus implies general agreement, though disagreement is limited and generally insignificant.

Developing and supporting a scientific consensus

===

When the work being reviewed can be repeated and confirmed, then the scientific community is likely to reach consensus (agreement) and accept the findings and explanations as valid. If, on the other hand, scientists cannot confirm or validate the research, then those explanations or ideas are likely to be challenged, or even rejected. Challenges may also include proposing alternative hypotheses or explanations. The author–scientist may then test these new alternative hypotheses, or he or she may supply additional evidence to support his or her claims. The final goal of the process, however, is not to disagree but to revise the explanation so that the scientific community can reach a shared agreement (consensus).

Climate Science Investigations South Florida - The Nature of Science
​

So you see, no one is saying a consensus is a scientific tool used in experiments. Everyone but the chew toy mutts, are using the term in place of a not as useful term -- agreement. The distinctions of the use of words may be lost on you, when ideology and spoon fed talking pints corrupt the mind.

Consensus and denier are the secret handshake words of the AGWCult. They're used in lieu of the words evidence and experiments

Observe

Q. Where is the evidence that CO2 causes global warming, climate change or whatever you call it today?

A. DENIER!!! we have consensus!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

... 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.
.

CAGW is a political hoax designed to deprive America of its ability to feed, cloth, house, and operate outside socialist, top down, command and control, one world government.

Otmar Edenhofer said quite clearly:

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

According to the Media Research Center, Edenhofer was “co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, ‘Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.’

If you read the German paper NZZ and the interview in full, its very enlightening as to the real agenda behind the Global Warming Scam.

Here is a secondary source in English

 

[PK1]

---
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.
.

Asking questions, asking for evidence is the new "Anti-science"

---
You are not making sense.
Regarding science, you should quit while you are not too far removed from reality ... and associated with lunacy.
.

 

[Billy_Bob]

... 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
.

And you question my qualifications, yet you do not posses the skill set to make any determination, while demanding evidence of my degree's......

I presented verifiable and repeatable facts to MEM and he has done everything to duck and dodge the questions the observations of empirical evidence create, which show the CAGW premise false.

Its rather funny you also choose to attack my credentials and not the empirical evidence I provided. The evidence is what is up for debate. Can you provided empirical evidence which shows your position true that is not a fantasy model? Or are you simply here to accept your so called consensus, use no cognitive thought or critical thinking skills and spew the agenda?

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.
.

Asking questions, asking for evidence is the new "Anti-science"

---
You are not making sense.
Regarding science, you should quit while you are not too far removed from reality ... and associated with lunacy.
.

I think you should take your own advice...

 

[PK1]

---
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.
.

CAGW is a political hoax designed to deprive America of its ability to feed, cloth, house, and operate outside socialist, top down, command and control, one world government.

Otmar Edenhofer said quite clearly:

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

According to the Media Research Center, Edenhofer was “co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, ‘Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.’

If you read the German paper NZZ and the interview in full, its very enlightening as to the real agenda behind the Global Warming Scam.

Here is a secondary source in English

---
I thought we were discussing the scientific merit of climate science.
Now you are diverting to your conspiracy theory about why there is a consensus in the scientific field? LOL.

Do you understand the differences between climate science, environmental policy, and climate-economic policy?
Apparently not.

You are definitely revealing your fear of losing some of your pocketbook moola to compensate for shared blame in causing the Earth some harm!
Nothing to do with the science.
.

 

[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
.

And you question my qualifications, yet you do not posses the skill set to make any determination, while demanding evidence of my degree's......

I presented verifiable and repeatable facts to MEM and he has done everything to duck and dodge the questions the observations of empirical evidence create, which show the CAGW premise false.

Its rather funny you also choose to attack my credentials and not the empirical evidence I provided. The evidence is what is up for debate. Can you provided empirical evidence which shows your position true that is not a fantasy model? Or are you simply here to accept your so called consensus, use no cognitive thought or critical thinking skills and spew the agenda?

---
I do not pretend to be a climate scientist.
You are a climate scientist?
Why did you not respond to my post #91? Cannot?

Again ...
Please cite a published journal article that represents your research & interpretation ...
.

 

[jc456]

... 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
.

And you question my qualifications, yet you do not posses the skill set to make any determination, while demanding evidence of my degree's......

I presented verifiable and repeatable facts to MEM and he has done everything to duck and dodge the questions the observations of empirical evidence create, which show the CAGW premise false.

Its rather funny you also choose to attack my credentials and not the empirical evidence I provided. The evidence is what is up for debate. Can you provided empirical evidence which shows your position true that is not a fantasy model? Or are you simply here to accept your so called consensus, use no cognitive thought or critical thinking skills and spew the agenda?

---
I do not pretend to be a climate scientist.
You are a climate scientist?
Why did you not respond to my post #91? Cannot?

Again ...
Please cite a published journal article that represents your research & interpretation ...
.

One doesn't need to be to simply ask a question. And funny, those who believe the bs can't answer simple questions.

 

[Billy_Bob]

... 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
.

And you question my qualifications, yet you do not posses the skill set to make any determination, while demanding evidence of my degree's......

I presented verifiable and repeatable facts to MEM and he has done everything to duck and dodge the questions the observations of empirical evidence create, which show the CAGW premise false.

Its rather funny you also choose to attack my credentials and not the empirical evidence I provided. The evidence is what is up for debate. Can you provided empirical evidence which shows your position true that is not a fantasy model? Or are you simply here to accept your so called consensus, use no cognitive thought or critical thinking skills and spew the agenda?

---
I do not pretend to be a climate scientist.
You are a climate scientist?
Why did you not respond to my post #91? Cannot?

Again ...
Please cite a published journal article that represents your research & interpretation ...
.

Debate the data I posted. I am not your puppet bitch and I am not the point or topic of debate.

This is the problem with left wing nut bags such as yourself. You want to discredit those who disagree with you on a professional basis to shut them up. I won't play your childish games.