Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[SAT]

How can climate instability cause mutually opposing conditions in the same geographic area. The accusations above are all peer reviewed papers put forth by the AGW cult.

Here is a short list for you with links to the papers....they are each one side of the same argument. Published by AGW supporters. This shows the unfalsifiable nature of AGW "theory".

Now, in your own words, tell us how we can explain these very problematic papers. And this is a very small number of what's out there. And you are correct, I'm not having a battle with you. You're having a battle with reality, and it's all of your own manufacture.


Amazon rainforests green-up with sunlight in dry season

Amazon forests did not green-up during the 2005 drought

Climate change and geomorphological hazards in the eastern European Alps

ingentaconnect Impact of a climate change on avalanche hazard

Effect of global warming on the length-of-day

Ocean bottom pressure changes lead to a decreasing length-of-day in a warming climate

If those articles read as you say, then it suggests that there's still debate within the scientific community about the effects-but not about the reality of AGW.

I don't think you even realize how idiotic what you just said is.

Then we are in the same boat.

 

[Si modo]

So you're in agreement that the Journal of Climatology exists.

Right?

Yes, that's what I said yesterday. WTF is this woman going on about. She won't even admit that papers exist purporting to show proof of AGW. She keeps saying if I can't give her a link to such papers, that my claims are false. And I said WTF? This woman is nuts, desperate, drunk, or possibly all three.

You do agree that there is such a publication, and that there are other such publications, right?

You said you have a paper.

Provide the citation.

 

[Si modo]

If those articles read as you say, then it suggests that there's still debate within the scientific community about the effects-but not about the reality of AGW.

I don't think you even realize how idiotic what you just said is.

Then we are in the same boat.

What about the falsifiability?

You didn't read a thing, yet you commented.

Hmmmmm.

 

[SAT]

I don't think you even realize how idiotic what you just said is.

Then we are in the same boat.

What about the falsifiability?

You didn't read a thing, yet you commented.

Hmmmmm.

Yes, I took a page from your book. I commented without reading the links.

 

[SAT]

Yes, that's what I said yesterday. WTF is this woman going on about. She won't even admit that papers exist purporting to show proof of AGW. She keeps saying if I can't give her a link to such papers, that my claims are false. And I said WTF? This woman is nuts, desperate, drunk, or possibly all three.

You do agree that there is such a publication, and that there are other such publications, right?

You said you have a paper.

Provide the citation.

No, I didn't say that I had "a paper". I said that such papers exist. You said that unless I could give you a link, they didn't. And I thought

 

[Si modo]

Yes, that's what I said yesterday. WTF is this woman going on about. She won't even admit that papers exist purporting to show proof of AGW. She keeps saying if I can't give her a link to such papers, that my claims are false. And I said WTF? This woman is nuts, desperate, drunk, or possibly all three.

You do agree that there is such a publication, and that there are other such publications, right?

You said you have a paper.

Provide the citation.

No, I didn't say that I had "a paper". I said that such papers exist. You said that unless I could give you a link, they didn't. And I thought

You can SAY that all you want.

 

[Si modo]

Then we are in the same boat.

What about the falsifiability?

You didn't read a thing, yet you commented.

Hmmmmm.

Yes, I took a page from your book. I commented without reading the links.

I've seen the same tired links for some time, now.

You can assume and say anything you want. It becomes credible if you actually support it.

Just saying.

 

[SAT]

There are many peer-reviewed articles that purport to demonstrate a link between human activity and global warming

Is that true?

There are many peer-reviewed articles that purport to demonstrate a link between human activity and global warming

Is that true?

Provide them, I and others will examine them, and see if the science supports your interpretation of what you think they say.

Otherwise your saying that's what they say and that they exist is cheap talk.

It's called burden. It's yours.

Your burden, at the moment, is to answer yes or no to my question.

How would I answer a question with an unsupported premiss?

Here's a similar question for you: Why do you hate America?

You must not understand the meaning of the word similar. Your question is an attempt at a personal attack. I am soliciting information from you.

I believe that there are numerous peer reviewed journal articles showing a link between human activity and global warming.

I am asking you to confirm or deny that there are numerous peer reviewed journal articles supporting a link between human activity and global warming.

Alternatively, say "I don't know".

Then we'll move on.

How would I answer a question with an unsupported premiss?

Here's a similar question for you: Why do you hate America?

You must not understand the meaning of the word similar. Your question is an attempt at a personal attack. I am soliciting information from you.

I believe that there are numerous peer reviewed journal articles showing a link between human activity and global warming.

I am asking you to confirm or deny that there are numerous peer reviewed journal articles supporting a link between human activity and global warming.

Alternatively, say "I don't know".

Then we'll move on.

You are "soliciting" a yes or no from me with a question that has an unsupported premise. That premise is in actually your unsupported claim: "There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused."


Asking questions with unsupported premises is not a clever way to attempt to shift your burden.

You are "soliciting" a yes or no from me with a question that has an unsupported premise. That premise is in actually your unsupported claim: "There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused."

Asking questions with unsupported premises is not a clever way to attempt to shift your burden.

At this point, we are not discussing the credibility of the articles. We are discussing their existence. [I made that clear in an earlier post.] Don't be nervous.

Are there such articles? Again, I am not asking if these article prove what they purport to prove. I am asking if such articles exist.

Again, yes, no, or I don't know are the choices.

You are "soliciting" a yes or no from me with a question that has an unsupported premise. That premise is in actually your unsupported claim: "There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused."

Asking questions with unsupported premises is not a clever way to attempt to shift your burden.

At this point, we are not discussing the credibility of the articles. We are discussing their existence. [I made that clear in an earlier post.] Don't be nervous.

Are there such articles? Again, I am not asking if these article prove what they purport to prove. I am asking if such articles exist.

Again, yes, no, or I don't know are the choices.

It is not my burden to show them nor is it my burden to tell you they exist.

I will say, I have seen no science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

You claim you have. You want me to provide them, though. The burden is not mine. Cheap talk does not stand true if someone doesn't shoulder your burden, either.

That would be like me saying that you are a moron. You, naturally, would ask me to support that claim. Then, I would ask you if you admit that there are posts of yours clearly demonstrating that you are a moron.

Or, do you still want me to prove a void?

How old are you? I am just curious - no offense.

It is not my burden to show them nor is it my burden to tell you they exist.

I will say, I have seen no science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

You claim you have. You want me to provide them, though. The burden is not mine. Cheap talk does not stand true if someone doesn't shoulder your burden, either.

That would be like me saying that you are a moron. You, naturally, would ask me to support that claim. Then, I would ask you if you admit that there are posts of yours clearly demonstrating that you are a moron.

Or, do you still want me to prove a void?

How old are you? I am just curious - no offense.

I am not asking you to show them to me. I am asking you to admit that they exist.

Do these articles exist?

Yes, no, or I don't know are the choices.

It is not my burden to show them nor is it my burden to tell you they exist.

I will say, I have seen no science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

You claim you have. You want me to provide them, though. The burden is not mine. Cheap talk does not stand true if someone doesn't shoulder your burden, either.

That would be like me saying that you are a moron. You, naturally, would ask me to support that claim. Then, I would ask you if you admit that there are posts of yours clearly demonstrating that you are a moron.

Or, do you still want me to prove a void?

How old are you? I am just curious - no offense.

I am not asking you to show them to me. I am asking you to admit that they exist.

Do these articles exist?

Yes, no, or I don't know are the choices.

Do you admit that there are posts of yours that clearly demonstrate that you are a moron?

Yes, No, or I don't know are the choices.







BTW. Have you noticed that you have yet to discuss actual science?

I am not asking you to show them to me. I am asking you to admit that they exist.

Do these articles exist?

Yes, no, or I don't know are the choices.

Do you admit that there are posts of yours that clearly demonstrate that you are a moron?

Yes, No, or I don't know are the choices.







BTW. Have you noticed that you have yet to discuss actual science?

Do such peer reviewed articles exist?

Yes, no, or I don't know are the choices.

Please, no more attempts to distract and divert.

Do such articles exist?

Do you admit that there are posts of yours that clearly demonstrate that you are a moron?

Yes, No, or I don't know are the choices.







BTW. Have you noticed that you have yet to discuss actual science?

Do such peer reviewed articles exist?

Yes, no, or I don't know are the choices.

Please, no more attempts to distract and divert.

Do such articles exist?

The fact that you cannot even recognize shifting the burden is amazing.

When you can understand the basics, try again.

State something, support it. That's the starting gate. It always is.

The fact that you cannot even recognize shifting the burden is amazing.

When you can understand the basics, try again.

State something, support it. That's the starting gate. It always is.

So you've been gassing on in this thread for days and for pages, and you don't even know if there are peer reviewed articles that claim that global warming is human caused.

That is an incredible admission.

The fact that you cannot even recognize shifting the burden is amazing.

When you can understand the basics, try again.

State something, support it. That's the starting gate. It always is.

So you've been gassing on in this thread for days and for pages, and you don't even know if there are peer reviewed articles that claim that global warming is human caused.

That is an incredible admission.

I haven't admitted to much of anything.

You aren't ready to discuss science. That can't be more clear.

When you are, you know what to do.

So you've been gassing on in this thread for days and for pages, and you don't even know if there are peer reviewed articles that claim that global warming is human caused.

That is an incredible admission.

I haven't admitted to much of anything.

You aren't ready to discuss science. That can't be more clear.

When you are, you know what to do.

You haven't admitted to much, that is true.

The reason for that? You don't know much.

I've seen some excellent posts in this thread, from folks who clearly understand science. Your answers to their posts are non-responsive, every single time.

I've asked you some really simple questions, such as "Is the Earth getting warmer", and "Are there articles that purport to show that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity", and you wiggle like a worm on a hook.

So, your answer to "Are there journal articles-peer reviewed journal articles-on human caused global warming", your answer is "I don't know".

OK, I'll fill you in.

There are many such peer reviewed articles.

So my next questions is, can you show any peer reviewed articles rebutting AGW?

I look forward to your answer.

I haven't admitted to much of anything.

You aren't ready to discuss science. That can't be more clear.

When you are, you know what to do.

You haven't admitted to much, that is true.

The reason for that? You don't know much.

I've seen some excellent posts in this thread, from folks who clearly understand science. Your answers to their posts are non-responsive, every single time.

I've asked you some really simple questions, such as "Is the Earth getting warmer", and "Are there articles that purport to show that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity", and you wiggle like a worm on a hook.

So, your answer to "Are there journal articles-peer reviewed journal articles-on human caused global warming", your answer is "I don't know".

OK, I'll fill you in.

There are many such peer reviewed articles.

So my next questions is, can you show any peer reviewed articles rebutting AGW?

I look forward to your answer.

Dayum! It wants me to prove a void again!

You haven't admitted to much, that is true.

The reason for that? You don't know much.

I've seen some excellent posts in this thread, from folks who clearly understand science. Your answers to their posts are non-responsive, every single time.

I've asked you some really simple questions, such as "Is the Earth getting warmer", and "Are there articles that purport to show that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity", and you wiggle like a worm on a hook.

So, your answer to "Are there journal articles-peer reviewed journal articles-on human caused global warming", your answer is "I don't know".

OK, I'll fill you in.

There are many such peer reviewed articles.

So my next questions is, can you show any peer reviewed articles rebutting AGW?

I look forward to your answer.

Dayum! It wants me to prove a void again!

You cannot read. I'm asking for a link to a peer reviewed article that rebuts AGW.

I'm not asking you to prove it yourself.

Do you grasp the difference?

put up or shut up, fuckwit.

i've claimed nothing.

thanks for playing

If you're trying to help si, post some peer-reviewed denier articles.

Thanks.

And you are still asking a negative be proved.

Amazing.

You are a moron. Until you prove that you are not, it stands as true.

Good grief.

Ask for science and you get blogs.

Show us how it's done. Please link to a peer reviewed journal article that rebuts AGW.

Thanks.

Rebut what?

And you are still asking a negative be proved.

Amazing.

You are a moron. Until you prove that you are not, it stands as true.

No, no, no. I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking that you link to an article. You are not capable of proving anything, and I wouldn't dream of further taxing your abilities. I'm just asking you to provide a link.

Here are some of the posts where I simply asked you to agree that there are articles that purport to show proof of AGW.

Over and over, you refused to even admit the existence of such articles.



Was the problem that you didn't know the meaning of the word "purport"?

 

[Si modo]

There are many peer-reviewed articles that purport to demonstrate a link between human activity and global warming

Is that true?

Provide them, I and others will examine them, and see if the science supports your interpretation of what you think they say.

Otherwise your saying that's what they say and that they exist is cheap talk.

It's called burden. It's yours.

And you are still asking a negative be proved.

Amazing.

You are a moron. Until you prove that you are not, it stands as true.

No, no, no. I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking that you link to an article. You are not capable of proving anything, and I wouldn't dream of further taxing your abilities. I'm just asking you to provide a link.

Here are some of the posts where I simply asked you to agree that there are articles that purport to show proof of AGW.

Over and over, you refused to even admit the existence of such article.

My claim is that there is no science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Let's see if you can figure it out.

I even bolded the pertinent word.

 

[SAT]

What about the falsifiability?

You didn't read a thing, yet you commented.

Hmmmmm.

Yes, I took a page from your book. I commented without reading the links.

I've seen the same tired links for some time, now.

You can assume and say anything you want. It becomes credible if you actually support it.

Just saying.

They seem to be abstracts. Not the articles. How about that.

 

[Si modo]

Yes, I took a page from your book. I commented without reading the links.

I've seen the same tired links for some time, now.

You can assume and say anything you want. It becomes credible if you actually support it.

Just saying.

They seem to be abstracts. Not the articles. How about that.

When you provide an abstract, I will look at it.

 

[SAT]

My claim is that there is no science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Let's see if you can figure it out.

I even bolded the pertinent word.

I see that you realized you got off the beam last night.

You do admit that there is science that purports to show AGW.

Can you explain why exactly the almost the entire climatology community misunderstands the philosophy of science, while you, a technician, grasp it?

Any guesses? Conjectures? Theories?

 

[SAT]

I've seen the same tired links for some time, now.

You can assume and say anything you want. It becomes credible if you actually support it.

Just saying.

They seem to be abstracts. Not the articles. How about that.

When you provide an abstract, I will look at it.

Oh, another sea change!!!! Last night, you wanted to look at the SCIENCE. Now you're content with a mere abstract. But an abstract won't have the actual DATA, so how are you going to wow us with your skillz?

Global Warming and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent

 

[del]

the stupid is strong in this one.

 

[Si modo]

the stupid is strong in this one.

Amazing.

 

[Si modo]

They seem to be abstracts. Not the articles. How about that.

When you provide an abstract, I will look at it.

Oh, another sea change!!!! Last night, you wanted to look at the SCIENCE. Now you're content with a mere abstract. But an abstract won't have the actual DATA, so how are you going to wow us with your skillz?

Global Warming and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent

So, you think that abstract (and the subsequent paper itself) supports your claim that warming is due to man made CO2.

Stunning.

 

[SAT]

the stupid is strong in this one.

You haven't made a single post in this thread that was anything other than stupid. Your contribution has been nothing but tired, baseless insults-no useful information, no well-thought out arguments, nothing. Big fat zero.

 

[SAT]

When you provide an abstract, I will look at it.

Oh, another sea change!!!! Last night, you wanted to look at the SCIENCE. Now you're content with a mere abstract. But an abstract won't have the actual DATA, so how are you going to wow us with your skillz?

Global Warming and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent

So, you think that abstract (and the subsequent paper itself) supports your claim that warming is due to man made CO2.

Stunning.

THIS is your contribution? More sneering? You asked for the science, you claimed you could read the article if I gave you the information, and you're back in a few minutes with absolutely nothing of substance to say? Talk about epic fail.

Comment on the SCIENCE. The SCIENCE you demanded has been brought to you. Now say something about the SCIENCE and not about the poster.

 

[RollingThunder]

the stupid is strong in this one.

Yeah, we know, everybody is saying that about you. Bold of you though to admit it so forthrightly. Most of the other denier cultists won't admit that they are total retards but you have the courage to be honest. Congratulations on being an honest idiot.

 

[daveman]

LOL.

There is a consensus that evolution has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen on earth as long as there is life here.

There is a consensus that GHGs increase heat on the surface of the earth in accordance with the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. There is a consensus that we are rapidly increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere.

There is a consensus among those with a brain that Sis is a lying political troll. All that flap yap without a single referance to real science is just deflection from the fact that you cannot present a single bit of real science to support your political postitions.

So says the wannabe internet scientist who didn't finish college about the professional working scientist.

Dumbass.