Let's see the evidence

[Crick]

No, you've presented "peer reviewed" studies that are based wholly on computer models.

In whole and in part - I have. But only a portion. Just yesterday I showed you a collection of empirical data all of which supports the mainstream AGW position. Did you miss that?

Any 1st year geology student can tell you that computer models are not facts.

Is that what you are? A first year geology student. Sounds about right. And you're struggling aren't you. Probably because you've got such a poor understanding of science and the scientific method. WHEN will you fucking idiots stop going on about FACTS and PROOF?

Further any scientist can show you that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove a theory correct, but you can prove a theory false.

My goodness, you got something right. Now how do you make that gibe with your demand for FACTS? So stupid!

No theory can be exhaustively tested under every possible condition. That's why you twits run the hell away from making any sort of prediction. If you predict your little theory can be falsified. That's what science does. It proves things WRONG. Not "right".

Wow. You must have taken your smart pill this morning. So, how has AGW been falsified?

If you had half the brains of an ant you would know this.

You don't recall our conversations on the falsification of AGW? You and several other claimed it couldn't be falsified and thus wasn't a properly formed hypothesis. I listed over a dozen ways it could be falsified. My recollection is that there was no answer on your part or anyone else's.

 

[Crick]

Crick- I see by my alerts you have still not answered my direct question.

I see by my senses and my brain that you still haven't presented any evidence to support your position and you still haven't identified the mystery fucking question you've got your panties in such a bind over. Get back to me when you grow up.

why dont you grow up and answer the question?

As soon as you tell me what it was. I went back through all your posts and I found nothing I had not already addressed. If you want to keep repeating "answer my question" for the next six months I can just go ahead and put you on ignore.

 

[IanC]

Crick- I see by my alerts you have still not answered my direct question.

I see by my senses and my brain that you still haven't presented any evidence to support your position and you still haven't identified the mystery fucking question you've got your panties in such a bind over. Get back to me when you grow up.

why dont you grow up and answer the question?

As soon as you tell me what it was. I went back through all your posts and I found nothing I had not already addressed. If you want to keep repeating "answer my question" for the next six months I can just go ahead and put you on ignore.

I could care less if you put me on ignore. answer the question.

 

[Crick]

What question?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let's see some repeatable laboratory evidence showing CO2 doesn't absorb infrared.

Let's see some evidence explaining how the radiative imbalance observed at the ToA could fail to raise the Earth's total heat content.

Let's see the evidence that greenhouse warming isn't responsible for the Earth being 33C warmer than a blackbody with the Earth's albedo ought to be. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere isn't responsible for the ocean's acidification. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that increasing temperatures and meltwater aren't responsible for the increase in the ocean's sea level seen in the last 50 years. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that the Earth isn't warming at a rate not seen in millions of years.

LET'S SEE A COHERENT, CONSISTENT THEORY AS TO WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE EARTH'S CLIMATE AS A RESULT OF RISING CO2 LEVELS THAT BOTH EXPLAINS THE OBSERVATIONS AND OBEYS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND THAT DOES NOT MAKE USE OF GREENHOUSE WARMING ACTING ON HUMAN GHG EMISSIONS.

See how anti-science the AGWCult is?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crick is on crack

 

[Crick]

See how anti-science the AGWCult is?

Explain, Frank.

 

[Crick]

Crick is on crack

Explain, Frank.

 

[Crick]

What question?

Eh?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

See how anti-science the AGWCult is?

Explain, Frank.

It's YOUR STUPID THEORY!! We've shown you its a failure supported only by peer reviewed computer models using altered data.

That it hasn't failed to your satisfaction is due to your cult membership

 

[Crick]

You've shown me no such thing Frank.

And that doesn't explain why you think the requests in my OP show me to be anti-science.

 

[jc456]

Crick- I see by my alerts you have still not answered my direct question.

I see by my senses and my brain that you still haven't presented any evidence to support your position and you still haven't identified the mystery fucking question you've got your panties in such a bind over. Get back to me when you grow up.

why dont you grow up and answer the question?

hahahahahaaha, him grow up? He'll never answer the question and I know you already knew that. Just for those who read this thread should know he'll never answer. he has no evidence of anything and why he retreated to this tactic. It failed, it failed badly, horribly and now he doesn't know how to recover. When someone post bullshit like this guy, it's darn near impossible to recover. The crickster is sunk.

 

[jc456]

If you think AR5 is based solely on models, then you have not read it.

You just pegged my BullShit meter... ALL of the predictions are due to climate modeling, every single one along with their failures..

God are you STUPID. Have you got some OTHER way to make a projection? Oh, of course. The DENIER method. Just fucking make it up.

And, again, if you think AR5 is nothing but projections, you still haven't read it.

What a fucking moron!

hey jack monkey if you think it is something other than models, show the page numbers where you believe supports your position. Otherwise, the posts have been made, why is it you need to see the posts again?

 

[Crick]

Don't you think that someone interested in this topic ought to take the time to read some of it? There are summary versions of almost all of it.

 

[Crick]

hey jack monkey if you think it is something other than models, show the page numbers where you believe supports your position. Otherwise, the posts have been made, why is it you need to see the posts again?

These are empirical data.

These are empirical data

These are empirical data

These are empirical data

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGWCult science = pointing at the Weather CnahhelChannel and blaming it on AGW

 

[CrusaderFrank]

hey jack monkey if you think it is something other than models, show the page numbers where you believe supports your position. Otherwise, the posts have been made, why is it you need to see the posts again?

These are empirical data.

These are empirical data

These are empirical data

These are empirical data

800,000 year data set demonstrating the failure of AGWCult theory: CO2 does not and never did drive temperature or force climate change

Not once in 800,00 year

AGW Theory Fails

 

[Crick]

Frank, between you and jc I'm just not certain who's the stupidest. But you keep working it like this and I bet you can take the cake.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Don't you think that someone interested in this topic ought to take the time to read some of it? There are summary versions of almost all of it.

You obviously haven't read IPCC AR5 or any of its so called supporting evidence which is pure conjectured modeling. Modeling that has been proven falsified and incorrect. To use your own phrase... GOD YOUR SO FUCKING STUPID... You have no evidence of anything except that your IPCC predictions have failed and that the models used are WRONG..

This is proof positive that you are NOT a scientist of any kind but simply a political hack.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, between you and jc I'm just not certain who's the stupidest. But you keep working it like this and I bet you can take the cake.

Crick, can you explain the 800,000 year data set making a mockery of your insane "Theory"

What is your "Theory" anyway, can you put it into a sentence?