Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[SAT]

This is exactly why the ignorant need to keep their grimy little political fingers out of science.

Popper's philosophy was totally accepted by the scientific community to keep exactly this sort of shit out of science for exactly this reason.

Then we have the political hacks and the postmodern shits who attempt to soil it on a regular basis.

If one doesn't have the aptitude to understand even the elementary basics of the fundamental philosophy of science, they need to stay the fuck away from it for the good of science.

And, for the sake of their own pride, if they have any.

You cannot believe that you're fooling anyone with this post.

Rolling Thunder schooled you on your complete misunderstanding of correlation, and you blew it off like you were a blind man.

The OP is about a man who went into this TRYING to disprove human caused global warming, and now, as the OP says, he is eating crow.

The earth is unquestionably in a warming trend, and that trend is virtually certainly caused by greenhouse gases, which are the result of human activity.

Denial time is over. Let's work on the problem, and stop pretending that what you're engaged in is anything other than politics.

 

[SAT]

Told ya hes a konradv clone... I can smell them a mile away.. it smells of hair gel and clearasil every time he makes a new one... He can change his name and his arguments but his style remains the same. Notice he gets perpetually more ignorant with each post? Soon he will break down into calling you a dummy-dumb-head and stomp off..

You need to stop saying this. It's wrong, and it's beside the point. Please check with an administrator for verification.

NOPE its my opinion based on what i see.. Its what i think you are, and matter of fact you telling me its besides the point makes it even stronger in my mind.. being a coward is lame, being a coward with multiple identities in a web forum is even worse... Not sure but I don't know of any rules against my opinion that you're a clone..

I'm sure that this particular delusion has plenty of company.

If you ever decide to test your theory out, ask an administrator.

 

[Si modo]

This is exactly why the ignorant need to keep their grimy little political fingers out of science.

Popper's philosophy was totally accepted by the scientific community to keep exactly this sort of shit out of science for exactly this reason.

Then we have the political hacks and the postmodern shits who attempt to soil it on a regular basis.

If one doesn't have the aptitude to understand even the elementary basics of the fundamental philosophy of science, they need to stay the fuck away from it for the good of science.

And, for the sake of their own pride, if they have any.

You cannot believe that you're fooling anyone with this post.

Rolling Thunder schooled you on your complete misunderstanding of correlation, and you blew it off like you were a blind man.

The OP is about a man who went into this TRYING to disprove human caused global warming, and now, as the OP says, he is eating crow.

The earth is unquestionably in a warming trend, and that trend is virtually certainly caused by greenhouse gases, which are the result of human activity.

Denial time is over. Let's work on the problem, and stop pretending that what you're engaged in is anything other than politics.

The fact that you think correlation is causation is enough to indicate that you are but one of the targets of my post.

And, when you and other posters post no science and think you have, definitely you are the target of that post.

You are one of several enemies of science who denies even the elementary basics of it.

 

[SAT]

This is exactly why the ignorant need to keep their grimy little political fingers out of science.

Popper's philosophy was totally accepted by the scientific community to keep exactly this sort of shit out of science for exactly this reason.

Then we have the political hacks and the postmodern shits who attempt to soil it on a regular basis.

If one doesn't have the aptitude to understand even the elementary basics of the fundamental philosophy of science, they need to stay the fuck away from it for the good of science.

And, for the sake of their own pride, if they have any.

You cannot believe that you're fooling anyone with this post.

Rolling Thunder schooled you on your complete misunderstanding of correlation, and you blew it off like you were a blind man.

The OP is about a man who went into this TRYING to disprove human caused global warming, and now, as the OP says, he is eating crow.

The earth is unquestionably in a warming trend, and that trend is virtually certainly caused by greenhouse gases, which are the result of human activity.

Denial time is over. Let's work on the problem, and stop pretending that what you're engaged in is anything other than politics.

The fact that you think correlation is causation is enough to indicate that you are but one of the targets of my post.

And, when you and other posters post no science and think you have, definitely you are the target of that post.

You are one of several enemies of science who denies even the elementary basics of it.

Please give us the post where I said that correlation is causation.

 

[Si modo]

You cannot believe that you're fooling anyone with this post.

Rolling Thunder schooled you on your complete misunderstanding of correlation, and you blew it off like you were a blind man.

The OP is about a man who went into this TRYING to disprove human caused global warming, and now, as the OP says, he is eating crow.

The earth is unquestionably in a warming trend, and that trend is virtually certainly caused by greenhouse gases, which are the result of human activity.

Denial time is over. Let's work on the problem, and stop pretending that what you're engaged in is anything other than politics.

The fact that you think correlation is causation is enough to indicate that you are but one of the targets of my post.

And, when you and other posters post no science and think you have, definitely you are the target of that post.

You are one of several enemies of science who denies even the elementary basics of it.

Please give us the post where I said that correlation is causation.

Almost every post until I posted the USPS graph.

Now, go study up on basic scientific principles and philosophy, then try to participate.

You are making a fool of yourself. I understand that you believe, but that has everything to do with religion and nothing to do with science.

 

[SAT]

The fact that you think correlation is causation is enough to indicate that you are but one of the targets of my post.

And, when you and other posters post no science and think you have, definitely you are the target of that post.

You are one of several enemies of science who denies even the elementary basics of it.

Please give us the post where I said that correlation is causation.

Almost every post until I posted the USPS graph.

Now, go study up on basic scientific principles and philosophy, then try to participate.

You are making a fool of yourself.

Then you'll have no trouble linking to a post where I say "correlation is causation".

Go on.

 

[Si modo]

Please give us the post where I said that correlation is causation.

Almost every post until I posted the USPS graph.

Now, go study up on basic scientific principles and philosophy, then try to participate.

You are making a fool of yourself.

Then you'll have no trouble linking to a post where I say "correlation is causation".

Go on.

Good grief.

Now, where is that science I asked for that should put all this to rest - the science demonstrating the magnitude and significance of man made CO2 on any warming.

It's an easy thing to do, if you can.

Remember, though, what science is not.

If you can.

 

[SAT]

Almost every post until I posted the USPS graph.

Now, go study up on basic scientific principles and philosophy, then try to participate.

You are making a fool of yourself.

Then you'll have no trouble linking to a post where I say "correlation is causation".

Go on.

Good grief.

Now, where is that science I asked for that should put all this to rest - the science demonstrating the magnitude and significance of man made CO2 on any warming.

It's an easy thing to do, if you can.

Remember, though, what science is not.

If you can.

Post the link to a post where I said "correlation is causation".

 

[Si modo]

Then you'll have no trouble linking to a post where I say "correlation is causation".

Go on.

Good grief.

Now, where is that science I asked for that should put all this to rest - the science demonstrating the magnitude and significance of man made CO2 on any warming.

It's an easy thing to do, if you can.

Remember, though, what science is not.

If you can.

Post the link to a post where I said "correlation is causation".

To stop your silliness, because you clearly don't even know that is what you have been saying, we'll put this to rest. You specifically said correlation is not causation AFTER I told you it is not causation and AFTER I posted the USPS graph.

Now, if you want to discuss science, do so. Post the science demonstrating what you have been claiming - that the warming is caused by man made CO2.

Thanks.

 

[SAT]

Good grief.

Now, where is that science I asked for that should put all this to rest - the science demonstrating the magnitude and significance of man made CO2 on any warming.

It's an easy thing to do, if you can.

Remember, though, what science is not.

If you can.

Post the link to a post where I said "correlation is causation".

To stop your silliness, because you clearly don't even know that is what you have been saying, we'll put this to rest. You specifically said correlation is not causation AFTER I told you it is not causation and AFTER I posted the USPS graph.

Now, if you want to discuss science, do so. Post the science demonstrating what you have been claiming - that the warming is caused by man made CO2.

Thanks.

For the fourth time, please link to a post where I said "correlation is causation".

 

[Si modo]

Post the link to a post where I said "correlation is causation".

To stop your silliness, because you clearly don't even know that is what you have been saying, we'll put this to rest. You specifically said correlation is not causation AFTER I told you it is not causation and AFTER I posted the USPS graph.

Now, if you want to discuss science, do so. Post the science demonstrating what you have been claiming - that the warming is caused by man made CO2.

Thanks.

For the fourth time, please link to a post where I said "correlation is causation".

What part of my post confuses you?

 

[SAT]

To stop your silliness, because you clearly don't even know that is what you have been saying, we'll put this to rest. You specifically said correlation is not causation AFTER I told you it is not causation and AFTER I posted the USPS graph.

Now, if you want to discuss science, do so. Post the science demonstrating what you have been claiming - that the warming is caused by man made CO2.

Thanks.

For the fourth time, please link to a post where I said "correlation is causation".

What part of my post confuses you?

Please link to a post where I said "correlation is causation", or admit that you made an incorrect statement about me.

Either one is fine.

Thanks.

 

[Si modo]

For the fourth time, please link to a post where I said "correlation is causation".

What part of my post confuses you?

Please link to a post where I said "correlation is causation", or admit that you made an incorrect statement about me.

Either one is fine.

Thanks.

I just did admit as much.

Now, are you just going to play childish games, or talk science, if you can?

 

[SAT]

What part of my post confuses you?

Please link to a post where I said "correlation is causation", or admit that you made an incorrect statement about me.

Either one is fine.

Thanks.

I just did admit as much.

Now, are you just going to play childish games, or talk science, if you can?

No. You made some bullshit statement about what I said after your USPS graph instead of coming out and admitting that you were just plain wrong. You tried to pretend that the problem was that you were talking over my head. But the sentence above will do. You admit that I never said that "correlation is causation". Your rant about Popper was baseless. Thanks for the admission. It will not be forgotten.

Let's keep in mind that it's Rolling Thunder who schooled YOU on correlation and causation.

Now, you were going to explain what it was you wanted when you asked for "the science".

 

[Si modo]

Please link to a post where I said "correlation is causation", or admit that you made an incorrect statement about me.

Either one is fine.

Thanks.

I just did admit as much.

Now, are you just going to play childish games, or talk science, if you can?

No. You made some bullshit statement about what I said after your USPS graph instead of coming out and admitting that you were just plain wrong. You tried to pretend that the problem was that you were talking over my head. But the sentence above will do. You admit that I never said that "correlation is causation". Your rant about Popper was baseless. Thanks for the admission. It will not be forgotten.

Let's keep in mind that it's Rolling Thunder who schooled YOU on correlation and causation.

....

No, he didn't. What you imagine is not reality.

.... Now, you were going to explain what it was you wanted when you asked for "the science".

Once again, what I and most others want to see is the science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

It's not a difficult request, unless there isn't any.

Science is not a blog, not opinions, not some government agency's home page; it's science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The fifth bullet point. What is it that increasing amounts of greenhouse gases do?

To think that if we stopped putting CO2 into the atmosphere we'd see no changes in the environment is stupid.

True.

Did any of the bullet points say that if we stopped putting CO2 into the atmosphere we'd see no changes in the environment?

 

[SAT]

I just did admit as much.

Now, are you just going to play childish games, or talk science, if you can?

No. You made some bullshit statement about what I said after your USPS graph instead of coming out and admitting that you were just plain wrong. You tried to pretend that the problem was that you were talking over my head. But the sentence above will do. You admit that I never said that "correlation is causation". Your rant about Popper was baseless. Thanks for the admission. It will not be forgotten.

Let's keep in mind that it's Rolling Thunder who schooled YOU on correlation and causation.

....

No, he didn't. What you imagine is not reality.

.... Now, you were going to explain what it was you wanted when you asked for "the science".

Once again, what I and most others want to see is the science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

It's not a difficult request, unless there isn't any.

Science is not a blog, not opinions, not some government agency's home page; it's science.

Of course it's a difficult request.

We are on the internet. We make reasonable arguments, or attempt to make reasonable arguments, and we link to NASA data, or the EPA's home page, to back them up. You are no scientist, so where do you get off being so demanding?

You sit there, seeing the websites where the words are WRITTEN by scientists and by science writers, people who make a living in the field of science, and declare their words and charts and graphs insufficient.

Explain what you mean by "link to the science". Be clear in your request. Give an example. Show me that this is a serious question on your part, and not just an attempt to gum up the thread.

 

[SAT]

The fifth bullet point. What is it that increasing amounts of greenhouse gases do?

To think that if we stopped putting CO2 into the atmosphere we'd see no changes in the environment is stupid.

True.

Did any of the bullet points say that if we stopped putting CO2 into the atmosphere we'd see no changes in the environment?

Are you sure that your words are reflecting your actual thoughts?

 

[Si modo]

No. You made some bullshit statement about what I said after your USPS graph instead of coming out and admitting that you were just plain wrong. You tried to pretend that the problem was that you were talking over my head. But the sentence above will do. You admit that I never said that "correlation is causation". Your rant about Popper was baseless. Thanks for the admission. It will not be forgotten.

Let's keep in mind that it's Rolling Thunder who schooled YOU on correlation and causation.

....

No, he didn't. What you imagine is not reality.

.... Now, you were going to explain what it was you wanted when you asked for "the science".

Once again, what I and most others want to see is the science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

It's not a difficult request, unless there isn't any.

Science is not a blog, not opinions, not some government agency's home page; it's science.

Of course it's a difficult request.

We are on the internet. We make reasonable arguments, or attempt to make reasonable arguments, and we link to NASA data,
....

The NASA data demonstrates correlation. Correlation is not causation.

.... or the EPA's home page, to back them up.

....

The EPA's website is not science. Although, I imagine they link to some.

.... You are no scientist, so where do you get off being so demanding?

....

Actually, I am. So is Westhall. I think there may be others here, but I can't recall who they are off the top of my head.

The fact that you do not even know what science is is frightening, to be honest.

Just so you know, scientific journals publish science and those articles, letters, etc. are peer-reviewed. They contain a valid scientific question, and experimental plan, data, procedures used to obtain that data, results, addressed problems, conclusions with recommendations for additional work.

.... You sit there, seeing the websites where the words are WRITTEN by scientists and by science writers, people who make a living in the field of science, and declare their words and charts and graphs insufficient.

....

And you just lied about what I have posted. No where have I said that any peer-reviewed science is insignificant, unless it was subsequently falsified.

And, as I said before, scientists are human and have opinions. They certainly have a right to those opinions, but opinions are not science.

.... Explain what you mean by "link to the science". Be clear in your request. Give an example. Show me that this is a serious question on your part, and not just an attempt to gum up the thread.

I just explained it to you.

And, the fact that I did have to explain that to you is rather tragic.

 

[SAT]

And you just lied about what I have posted. No where have I said that any peer-reviewed science is insignificant, unless it was subsequently falsified.

Please show me where I posted that you said that peer reviewed science is insignificant.