AN Open Challenge for my AGW Friends....

[jc456]

People post links to scientists and institutions here all of the time that dispute man made climate change. If you have ignored all of them and are too lazy to use the search function to start there or search the web, then why should I care about my "credibility" to you?

Heartland institute

 

[BULLDOG]

That would be great if you actually understood what they were saying and it made enough sense to you that you could discuss it intelligently, but you can't. So when I ask how their estimate of radiative forcing of CO2 compares to their estimate of feedback from CO2, you have no idea what I am asking and can't understand why it is an important point.

Believe it or not, not everybody is a competent climate scientist. and it's doubtful that either you or I will be investing the time to become one.

 

[BULLDOG]

The previous interglacial periods were 2C warmer with 26 ft higher seas and 120 ppm less CO2 than today. Credibility says that our present climate is well within the normal range of temperature for an interglacial period.

Where did you get those numbers?

 

[BULLDOG]

People post links to scientists and institutions here all of the time that dispute man made climate change. If you have ignored all of them and are too lazy to use the search function to start there or search the web, then why should I care about my "credibility" to you?

Not my job. If you have information to present, then present it.

 

[toobfreak]

Not my job. If you have information to present, then present it.

It was your question. Not your job to reasearch out answers to your own questions to seek both sides of important issues? No wonder you are so ignorant. You actually expect the world to prove everything to you while you stand on one foot.

 

[BULLDOG]

Heartland institute

The heartland Institute was started in 1984 to defend Philip Moris from charges of cigarettes causing cancer. Their claim was that smoking is not a problem. Can you say unethical crazies?

Heartland Institute - TobaccoTactics

Founded in Chicago in 1984, the Institute initially concentrated on influencing public policy at a local level but has grown in size and ambition. In 2019 it reported a full-time staff of 39 and described itself as “an action tank as well as a think tank”. Its objective is to “discover, develop...

tobaccotactics.org

 

[BULLDOG]

It was your question. Not your job to reasearch out answers to your own questions to seek both sides of important issues? No wonder you are so ignorant. You actually expect the world to prove everything to you while you stand on one foot.

see #86

 

[toobfreak]

to defend Philip Moris from charges of cigarettes causing cancer.

Overeating causes cancer. Stress causes cancer. Half the crap in your food causes cancer.

Their claim was that smoking is not a problem.

Ask George Burns.
Chain smoked cigars till the age of 100.

 

[toobfreak]

see #86

Not my job. If you have information to present, then present it.

 

[BULLDOG]

Overeating causes cancer. Stress causes cancer. Half the crap in your food causes cancer.


Ask George Burns.
Chain smoked cigars till the age of 100.


View attachment 858111

If you're tying to say tobacco isn't harmful, you are dumber than I thought. Oh well. we knew MAGAs were crazy a long time ago.

 

[toobfreak]

If you're tying to say tobacco isn't harmful

I'm saying that the universe is full of stuff that is harmful. Did you know that you can die just from drinking too much water? Yet, 99.9% of the stuff out there that is harmful is not regulated and attacked vociferously by the government. Point being that nothing is intrinsically harmful if used with common sense and moderation, just as a society or institution that tries to defend reasonable tobacco use does not mean everything coming from them is invalid and worthless.

Harmfulness of tobacco is largely based on CIGARETTES, and cigarettes are garbage floor sweepings with added chemicals.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm saying that the universe is full of stuff that is harmful. Did you know that you can die just from drinking too much water? Yet, 99.9% of the stuff out there that is harmful is not regulated and attacked vociferously by the government. Point being that nothing is intrinsically harmful if used with common sense and moderation, just as a society or institution that tries to defend reasonable tobacco use does not mean everything coming from them is invalid and worthless.

Harmfulness of tobacco is largely based on CIGARETTES, and cigarettes are garbage floor sweepings with added chemicals.

You are free to believe anything you choose, no matter how stupid it is.

 

[toobfreak]

You are free to believe anything you choose, no matter how stupid it is.

I believe you are the smartest person on the planet.

 

[jc456]

I'm saying that the universe is full of stuff that is harmful. Did you know that you can die just from drinking too much water? Yet, 99.9% of the stuff out there that is harmful is not regulated and attacked vociferously by the government. Point being that nothing is intrinsically harmful if used with common sense and moderation, just as a society or institution that tries to defend reasonable tobacco use does not mean everything coming from them is invalid and worthless.

Harmfulness of tobacco is largely based on CIGARETTES, and cigarettes are garbage floor sweepings with added chemicals.

Let’s thank god, they’d be after all your dimes

 

[Crick]

So, no one has taken up Billy Boy's challenge. What an incredible surprise.

 

[Crick]

The challenge was for YOU to present models which I can evaluate.

Evaluate this you lying fool

CMIP6 Homepage

pcmdi.llnl.gov

My own research has shown no model capable of long term climactic prediction. The ball is in your court... GO!

I'm wondering how you know that they are incapable of long term prediction without already knowing what will happen? Let me guess. To fail your evaluation, a model has to show that continued increases in CO2 levels lead to increased warming.

How about you show us a model that can hindcast the last century WITHOUT AGW.

 

[jc456]

Evaluate this you lying fool

CMIP6 Homepage

pcmdi.llnl.gov

I'm wondering how you know that they are incapable of long term prediction without already knowing what will happen? Let me guess. To fail your evaluation, a model has to show that continued increases in CO2 levels lead to increased warming.

How about you show us a model that can hindcast the last century WITHOUT AGW.

It’s called historical records!!

 

[Sunsettommy]

So, no one has taken up Billy Boy's challenge. What an incredible surprise.

That includes YOU and Bulldog.

Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!

That was so easy you just walked into a hard right punch.

Most people here are sane and rational to know the models are overblown junk which is why they don't respond to the challenge whereas YOU and Bulldog does believe in them but so far ..... he he .... ha ha ha...

 

[jc456]

That includes YOU and Bulldog.

Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!

That was so easy you just walked into a hard right punch.

Most people here are sane and rational to know the models are overblown junk which is why they don't respond to the challenge whereas YOU and Bulldog does believe in them but so far ..... he he .... ha ha ha...

exactly

 

[ding]

Believe it or not, not everybody is a competent climate scientist. and it's doubtful that either you or I will be investing the time to become one.

I've been studying paleoclimates for over 20 years. You?