Global Warming in a Few Slides

[RDD_1210]

In a nutshell you don't believe them and you don't know why.

I don't believe them because I am an intelligent human being who is capable of looking at all of the evidence and reaching a logical conclusion. If the evidence supported AGW then I would admit it, but it does not.

as to someones muslim comment, NASA has been assigned a task to work on muslim outreach, clearly right from their mission statement

Ok so lay it out or is it a secret? What evidence have you seen to dismiss the entire space programs known as NASA?

He must have some extremely compelling evidence that refutes over 200 international scientific organizations who agree on the evidence of man made global warming. I mean, he tells us he is an intelligent logical person who bases his opinion on data, so he must have something amazing to share with us that helped shaped his well-formed opinion.

 

[Redfish]

In a nutshell you don't believe them and you don't know why.

I don't believe them because I am an intelligent human being who is capable of looking at all of the evidence and reaching a logical conclusion. If the evidence supported AGW then I would admit it, but it does not.

as to someones muslim comment, NASA has been assigned a task to work on muslim outreach, clearly right from their mission statement

How the hell can you say you're intelligent and in the same breath pretend that there is not overwhelming evidence that man does in fact have an impact on global climate change? There are countless of international scientific organizations who agree that the evidence is there to support this claim and you discount ALL of it, because you think that every one of them has a hidden agenda. And you call yourself intelligent and logical. That's fucking breath taking.

bullshit, there is evidence that man has and is polluting the planet. there is no evidence that that polution causes climate change. There is however, evidence that sunspots and deviations in the radiation levels from the sun have caused climate changes. you fools attempt to equate the acts of man with the power of the sun, it is asinine at best.

how did man cause the last ice age? how did man cause the demise of the dinosaurs? how did man cause continental drift? how cid man cause volcanoes to erupt? how did man cause earthquakes and hurricanes? how did man cause slight wobbles of the earth on its axis?

you spout talking points but have no grasp of any reality. you are a tool of those who would enslave you.

 

[westwall]

Big difference between slower warming and NO warming.

The slower warming is because of aerosols and ocean forcing the warmth into the depth.

Care to show us how you can have a bubble of warmth exist below the thermocline? There are significant physical laws that interfere with that little "theory".

 

[Redfish]

Big difference between slower warming and NO warming.

The slower warming is because of aerosols and ocean forcing the warmth into the depth.

go back to sleep matt, you are over your head here.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Do you even know what measureable means? Here's a hint...this ain't it...

"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1"

For something to be measurable it must be predictive (may doesn't count as a prediction, may is a word used by psychics the world over) it must have algorithms or empirical data that ANYONE can run, in other words it MUST BE REPEATABLE.

Try again.

So you don't believe in theories at all. Gravity, relativity, space etc all of it is bunk.

I have a PhD in geology silly person. All of those theories enjoy one thing that AGW "theory" doesn't, namely they have mathematical formulas that predict behaviors of objects when influenced by those phenomena. In other words you can figure out what the orbital path of a planet is using Newtonian physics modified by the Feynman constant.

You can calculate exactly how much fuel you need and the velocity required to escape Earths atmosphere based on the mass you are trying to lift using gravity constants and calculus.

Show me anything that is actually predictable to within 4 nines as regards AGW "theory".
They use "would", "could", "might", "possibly" etc. In other words they use the language of charlatans because they CAN'T predict anything. Worse yet, they actually claim that AGW can both cause more snow and less snow in winter. That it will cause more rain or less rain, etc. I have over 30 peer reviewed papers where AGW "theorists" take both sides of a prediction.

Do you even know what that means? Here's a hint, in the scientific method that is called an "untestable hypothesis". Look up what that means and the dictionary defines that as a PSEUDO-SCIENCE.

I'll let you google that term....

Global warming has mathematical formulas you just don't like them. Anything else? The reason they use "would, could and possibly" is because that's what THEORIES do. They aren't provable

the·o·ry
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA

noun, plural the·o·ries.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

According to you every theory that has ever existed existed because of Charlatans. I'm starting to wonder if I should've started with "What is a theory?" Because you have it all wrong. Theres the definition

 

[Redfish]

So you don't believe in theories at all. Gravity, relativity, space etc all of it is bunk.

I have a PhD in geology silly person. All of those theories enjoy one thing that AGW "theory" doesn't, namely they have mathematical formulas that predict behaviors of objects when influenced by those phenomena. In other words you can figure out what the orbital path of a planet is using Newtonian physics modified by the Feynman constant.

You can calculate exactly how much fuel you need and the velocity required to escape Earths atmosphere based on the mass you are trying to lift using gravity constants and calculus.

Show me anything that is actually predictable to within 4 nines as regards AGW "theory".
They use "would", "could", "might", "possibly" etc. In other words they use the language of charlatans because they CAN'T predict anything. Worse yet, they actually claim that AGW can both cause more snow and less snow in winter. That it will cause more rain or less rain, etc. I have over 30 peer reviewed papers where AGW "theorists" take both sides of a prediction.

Do you even know what that means? Here's a hint, in the scientific method that is called an "untestable hypothesis". Look up what that means and the dictionary defines that as a PSEUDO-SCIENCE.

I'll let you google that term....

Global warming has mathematical formulas you just don't like them. Anything else? The reason they use "would, could and possibly" is because that's what THEORIES do. They aren't provable

the·o·ry
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA

noun, plural the·o·ries.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

According to you every theory that has ever existed existed because of Charlatans. I'm starting to wonder if I should've started with "What is a theory?" Because you have it all wrong. Theres the definition

thanks for the definition. Theories are, according to your definition, unproven.

The reality of all this bullshit it that none of us will be around long enough to know who was right. Unless, you expect the ice caps to melt next month and flood every piece of land below 1000 feet above sea level.

when exactly, do you expect this man made catastrophe to happen? since you claim that all of your theories are accurate you should be able to predict within a range of 5-10 years when the earth will flood-------we'll be waiting.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So if Theories are unproven how reasonable is it to ask for proof?

Thank you, thank you...I'll be here all week

 

[westwall]

So you don't believe in theories at all. Gravity, relativity, space etc all of it is bunk.

I have a PhD in geology silly person. All of those theories enjoy one thing that AGW "theory" doesn't, namely they have mathematical formulas that predict behaviors of objects when influenced by those phenomena. In other words you can figure out what the orbital path of a planet is using Newtonian physics modified by the Feynman constant.

You can calculate exactly how much fuel you need and the velocity required to escape Earths atmosphere based on the mass you are trying to lift using gravity constants and calculus.

Show me anything that is actually predictable to within 4 nines as regards AGW "theory".
They use "would", "could", "might", "possibly" etc. In other words they use the language of charlatans because they CAN'T predict anything. Worse yet, they actually claim that AGW can both cause more snow and less snow in winter. That it will cause more rain or less rain, etc. I have over 30 peer reviewed papers where AGW "theorists" take both sides of a prediction.

Do you even know what that means? Here's a hint, in the scientific method that is called an "untestable hypothesis". Look up what that means and the dictionary defines that as a PSEUDO-SCIENCE.

I'll let you google that term....

Global warming has mathematical formulas you just don't like them. Anything else? The reason they use "would, could and possibly" is because that's what THEORIES do. They aren't provable

the·o·ry
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA

noun, plural the·o·ries.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

According to you every theory that has ever existed existed because of Charlatans. I'm starting to wonder if I should've started with "What is a theory?" Because you have it all wrong. Theres the definition

You're dancing there son. They don't exist. They have computer models that have been shown to be worse than random guessing. Do you have any idea how bad that makes them? There is not one piece of empirical data that supports AGW "theory". That's why ALL the warmest groups have backtracked and no longer even claim climate change, their new mantra is "global climate disruption".

You know wilder and "wider" extremes of weather. The problem, once again, is they can't show any wilder weather, nor can they show wider extremes. The fact is tornado frequency is down in direct opposition to the claim of the AGW supporters. The fact is hurricanes are likewise down in both frequency and force.

You see, I don't care about truth. That is the purview of religion. I care about facts, and the facts are in direct opposition to all the claims that are being made.

Period.