AN Open Challenge for my AGW Friends....

[Sunsettommy]

I've got a friend with a small farm that's in need of fertilizer. If you don't mind...

I don't know about anyone else here, but I am ABSOLUTELY convinced that after "quiet time in hospitals" the rest of this post is completely manufactured bullshit. And I suspect you weren't in hospital for any physiological reasons.

Then you can't answer his simple request.

Snicker......

 

[Sunsettommy]

Got it. You want to ignore the facts accepted by every major scientific community in the world in favor of anonymous people on the internet who believe listening to 2 hours of Glen Beck is considered "doing their own research" Now, that's funny, I don't care who you are.

You can't answer his him either just evasive word salad.

 

[Sunsettommy]

As you have been told on multiple occasions, with multiple supporting references linked, appeals to REAL authorities on the subject(s) of their expertise ARE VALID. The only reason you bring it up because, as several posters have pointed out, the real experts on this topic all say you are filled to your very tippy-top with SHIT.

You are batting Zero so far.....

 

[Billy_Bob]

Every textbook you ever opened was an appeal to authority. Do they all fail? Your instructors. Your adviser. All fail?

You miss the point of why we teach from textbooks. They are meant to be a guide, and they are not infallible. I teach students to think critically about what they read. IF they do not agree they investigate it and come to a logical conclusion as to the veracity of the claims made. It's called CRITICAL THINKING AND EVALUATION.

IF you teach that the text books are gospel, you are the problem. The science is NEVER settled. Those who think it is, are the problem in science as their minds are then closed to potential failures and new points of view.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Every textbook you ever opened was an appeal to authority. Do they all fail? Your instructors. Your adviser. All fail?

Strike Two in evading his request in post #1.

 

[Oddball]

I have already explained how this is a logic fallacy argument which fails. As you already explained in another thread, you are not a scientist, only a propogandist for the authorities you cite. My reply below to this confession still stands.

"You are driving a political narrative for control... Thanks for admitting this.. This isn't a scientific discussion as your having a political one devoid of science."

Your appeal to authority, devoid of facts, fails.

I literally can't read his posts without hearing Morty's adolescent crackling falsetto voice....Apropos AF...Makes me chuckle all day long.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The fact is that every scientific community in the world says you are full of shit. I have to accept their expertice on the subject.

My my you have offered nothing but word salad...... meanwhile you have dodged this several times now:

My challenge is this: Bring me the names of models and how they included natural forcings and land use changes in them. Feel free to post links to these models/modelers and their sources. Then explain how they ruled out these natural factors and land use changes which affect the global average of temperature.

Do not appeal to authority. I want facts and data only.

 

[Billy_Bob]

My my you have offered nothing but word salad...... meanwhile you have dodged this several times now:

As I feared when I made this thread, they are just spouting talking points and they have no real knowledge of the CAGW Hypothesis or why there is major dissent in the scientific community. Even when I post evidence of the modeling failures, they bring nothing to the table. It's actually a sad thing to see such willful ignorance on display. It makes me think these people will believe anything they are told to believe, that's a scary thing in and of itself.

 

[Sunsettommy]

As you have been told on multiple occasions, with multiple supporting references linked, appeals to REAL authorities on the subject(s) of their expertise ARE VALID. The only reason you bring it up because, as several posters have pointed out, the real experts on this topic all say you are filled to your very tippy-top with SHIT.

Yawn you can't answer his simple request just come back with useless fallacies and no science evasions.

My challenge is this: Bring me the names of models and how they included natural forcings and land use changes in them. Feel free to post links to these models/modelers and their sources. Then explain how they ruled out these natural factors and land use changes which affect the global average of temperature.

Do not appeal to authority. I want facts and data only.

The request is proving to be difficult for you to handle maybe you should retire from the thread.

You are batting zero in the thread.

 

[westwall]

Don't mention the fact that my views are contrary to every scientific institution on the planet.

Ummmmm, that's an appeal to authority, and a logic fail.

 

[westwall]

Got it. You want to ignore the facts accepted by every major scientific community in the world in favor of anonymous people on the internet who believe listening to 2 hours of Glen Beck is considered "doing their own research" Now, that's funny, I don't care who you are.

What "facts" do you speak of? Computer models aren't facts.

Or do you not understand what a fact is?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Don't mention the fact that my views are contrary to every scientific institution on the planet.

So sayeth the Flat Earth Society

 

[Sunsettommy]

Every textbook you ever opened was an appeal to authority. Do they all fail? Your instructors. Your adviser. All fail?

Your prejudice is your prison which tells everyone else your hostility to this simple request that irrationally angers you:

My challenge is this: Bring me the names of models and how they included natural forcings and land use changes in them. Feel free to post links to these models/modelers and their sources. Then explain how they ruled out these natural factors and land use changes which affect the global average of temperature.

Do not appeal to authority. I want facts and data only.

You are evading it over and over and over getting angrier because you are being exposed as being unable to answer it.

No one forced you to make a fool of yourself in public you are free to leave the thread.

 

[Oddball]

Ummmmm, that's an appeal to authority, and a logic fail.

Already went through that today.

Basically got "Yeah, well these are super-duper high test experts".

The warmers don't GAF.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I've got a friend with a small farm that's in need of fertilizer. If you don't mind...

I don't know about anyone else here, but I am ABSOLUTELY convinced that after "quiet time in hospitals" the rest of this post is completely manufactured bullshit. And I suspect you weren't in hospital for any physiological reasons.

Consensus > Facts, right?

 

[westwall]

Already went through that today.

Basically got "Yeah, well these are super-duper high test experts".

The warmers don't GAF.

Yes, they are astonishingly vacuous, aren't they?

 

[Billy_Bob]

What "facts" do you speak of? Computer models aren't facts.

Or do you not understand what a fact is?

That fact seems to have escaped most people today. They cannot discern the difference between empirical fact and modeled fantasy.

 

[HeyNorm]

Okay. I just wanted to start the thread out by making every reader contemplate the fact that every scientific institution on Earth disagrees with you. Have fun with your thread.

And if true, not a damn thing can be done about it because most of what you fear the most is controlled by China and India. If the entire rest of the world went 100% dark, it would have any effect.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The fact is that every scientific community in the world says you are full of shit. I have to accept their expertice on the subject.

The fact is that every Liberal run community in the world says you are full of shit. I have to accept their expertise on the subject.

I have too because they know everything!!!!!!

 

[BULLDOG]

Feel free to bring one to discuss.

Dr Roy Spencer did 73 of the models. They were primed will all the same data then allowed to run from 1979 and checked against empirical data. They all failed. To date, that failure remains a problem with climate modeling. Why do they persist in not fixing the models?

View attachment 857677

What a dumb ass. You demand models not supplied by scientists, but then offer a model supplied by another nutbag that nobody ever heard of. You are a phony, and even worse than that, you are a phony MAGA.