Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm trying to understand why its impossible for you to conduct experiments based upon your theory.No, I'm not saying that. If I wanted to say it, I would have said it. No need for you to lie.
No, I'm not saying that. If I wanted to say it, I would have said it. No need for you to lie.
I will answer my own question. Estimated Climate Sensitivities fall into two clusters. one cluster is formed by papers based on real world data, the other cluster is based on computer model output. if they gave a figure that matched the models then they would have to explain why the real world papers were ignored. if they gave a figure that lay in between (or heaven forbid, matched) the real world data models, then they would have to explain why they were still projecting out to 2100 temperature increases that only exist within climate models. so instead they increased the range, dropped the best central estimate, and have 'plausible deniability' that just about any figure will be 'consistent with' their findings.
No, I'm not saying that. If I wanted to say it, I would have said it. No need for you to lie.
When he says "it can't be both, he's not lying. He's demonstrating his ignorance.
No, I'm not saying that. If I wanted to say it, I would have said it. No need for you to lie.
When he says "it can't be both, he's not lying. He's demonstrating his ignorance.
You're actually dumb enough to think a single experiment in a test tube can reproduce the whole earth?
That's what I mean about the question being obviously stupid.
Woo, woo, woo....What are you saying?
Woo, woo, woo....What are you saying?
That DenierBall (a variation of CalvinBall) is pointless.
And given how the world regards your side as a pack o' kooks, I don't have to play. I'll walk away, and you'll still be thought of as kooks.
Woo, woo, woo....What are you saying?
That DenierBall (a variation of CalvinBall) is pointless.
And given how the world regards your side as a pack o' kooks, I don't have to play. I'll walk away, and you'll still be thought of as kooks.
So you're not going to post your experiment?
even if an experiment was devised with enough precision and accuracy to produce some portion of the 1-1.2C warming per doubling of CO2, would that be a 'victory' for the skeptics or the warmers?
the skeptical position is not that there is no change from increased CO2, only that the exaggerated claims of 2-6C warming this century are ridiculously improbable. this millenium has crushed all of the warmers wild predictions.
it is time to go back to the drawing board and redesign models with more realistic assumptions rather than continue to hope and pray that some gigantic resurgence of warming will reverse the fortunes of the doomsayers.
even if an experiment was devised with enough precision and accuracy to produce some portion of the 1-1.2C warming per doubling of CO2, would that be a 'victory' for the skeptics or the warmers?
the skeptical position is not that there is no change from increased CO2, only that the exaggerated claims of 2-6C warming this century are ridiculously improbable. this millenium has crushed all of the warmers wild predictions.
it is time to go back to the drawing board and redesign models with more realistic assumptions rather than continue to hope and pray that some gigantic resurgence of warming will reverse the fortunes of the doomsayers.
IMO, both win. We get our evidence we've been arguing for and the warmers get satisfaction they were right if the results back their claim.
However, since none have been provided, I can only conclude the tests performed did not back the claims in those labatory set ups. I personally believe there is no evidence to support the claim.
even if an experiment was devised with enough precision and accuracy to produce some portion of the 1-1.2C warming per doubling of CO2, would that be a 'victory' for the skeptics or the warmers?
the skeptical position is not that there is no change from increased CO2, only that the exaggerated claims of 2-6C warming this century are ridiculously improbable. this millenium has crushed all of the warmers wild predictions.
it is time to go back to the drawing board and redesign models with more realistic assumptions rather than continue to hope and pray that some gigantic resurgence of warming will reverse the fortunes of the doomsayers.
IMO, both win. We get our evidence we've been arguing for and the warmers get satisfaction they were right if the results back their claim.
However, since none have been provided, I can only conclude the tests performed did not back the claims in those labatory set ups. I personally believe there is no evidence to support the claim.
I am sure that the experiment has been performed many times. it is exactly the type of thing that university science majors do in first year. my son built a cloud chamber in first year (with 50's era picnic chinaware as the radioactive source, hahaha). quartz enclosures and varying amounts of CO2 would not be a problem. the results would not be a smoking gun though. a finding of less than a degree of warming would be disappointing to say the least. and we all know what happens to disappointing findings in climate science, dont we?
Seriously, what are you kooks babbling about? You appear to be speaking in some denier code that normal people can't understand unless they bang their heads against a brick wall.
Given how it seems nobody else has informed you all of how crazy you all sound, it keeps falling to me to do so. You're just cultists chanting mantras to each other. Nobody outside of your cult cares. If you want the world to stop laughing at you, you need to stop babbling and start doing science. But I'm not hopeful. Your cult identity clearly gives you all emotional satisfaction that you value dearly, hence you don't want to change the status quo.
Seriously, what are you kooks babbling about? You appear to be speaking in some denier code that normal people can't understand unless they bang their heads against a brick wall.
Given how it seems nobody else has informed you all of how crazy you all sound, it keeps falling to me to do so. You're just cultists chanting mantras to each other. Nobody outside of your cult cares. If you want the world to stop laughing at you, you need to stop babbling and start doing science. But I'm not hopeful. Your cult identity clearly gives you all emotional satisfaction that you value dearly, hence you don't want to change the status quo.
