More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[jc456]

It doesn't matter whether I can tell the difference or not. I've told you how the AGW cult defines them.

I rest my case. Congratulations.

really, you should rest your case. That weight you've been carrying of stupid has to be heavy. See, we see your stupid daily on here, it pours from you, so the case must be full. Please, rest that case of stupid and move on.

Excuse me, but I am not the one here denying what every scientific organization on the planet recognizes as fact. You are. So yes, I do rest my case.

here's another link. The Next Grand Minimum To examine the social and economic impacts of the next Grand Solar Minimum 8211 See About

abstract:
"Has the Sun gone to sleep?
Posted on November 16, 2014 by Russ Steele
Here is a BBC Video discussing the possibility of a Maunder Minimum:
Check out the video link HERE.
Following are excerpts from the video, thanks to Ice Age Now:
“Scientists are saying that the Sun is in a phase of ‘solar lull’ – meaning that it has fallen asleep – and it is baffling them.
“Something is happening to the solar activity on the surface of the sun: It’s declining…fast.
Whatever measurement you use, it’s coming down. Solar peaks are coming down.
“Richard Harrison is head of space physics at the Rutherford-Appleton laboratory in Oxfordshire. He says the rate at which solar activity is falling mirrors a period in the 17th century where sunspots virtually disappeared.
“The Maunder Minimum of course was period when we saw almost no sunspots for decades, and it was a really dramatic period when we saw really cold winters in the northern hemisphere, where you had a kind of a mini-ice age."

Give it up.

you really ought to, you can't make a point that sticks. LoSiNg

 

[jc456]

Still waiting for a link Orangeman.........

he doesn't understand science and why he is gullible. I bet he can't even spell gullible. I bet he can't spell science.

 

[orogenicman]

Still waiting for a link Orangeman.........

he doesn't understand science and why he is gullible. I bet he can't even spell gullible. I bet he can't spell science.

Really? Because of the three of us, (you, skooter, and myself), I am the only one with a real science degree. Try again, bubba.

 

[jc456]

Still waiting for a link Orangeman.........

he doesn't understand science and why he is gullible. I bet he can't even spell gullible. I bet he can't spell science.

Really? Because of the three of us, (you, skooter, and myself), I am the only one with a real science degree. Try again, bubba.

Well I'd take and turn it back in. You got cheated out of knowledge. Let me ask you one simple science question, does the science mandate a test of a hypothesis to form a theory?

Just curious if you know this answer or not.

 

[orogenicman]

Still waiting for a link Orangeman.........

he doesn't understand science and why he is gullible. I bet he can't even spell gullible. I bet he can't spell science.

Really? Because of the three of us, (you, skooter, and myself), I am the only one with a real science degree. Try again, bubba.

Well I'd take and turn it back in. You got cheated out of knowledge. Let me ask you one simple science question, does the science mandate a test of a hypothesis to form a theory?

Just curious if you know this answer or not.

It requires many tests (but also direct field observations when they are available) from multiple sources, like the thousands of scientists worldwide who are conducting climate change research.

 

[jc456]

Still waiting for a link Orangeman.........

he doesn't understand science and why he is gullible. I bet he can't even spell gullible. I bet he can't spell science.

Really? Because of the three of us, (you, skooter, and myself), I am the only one with a real science degree. Try again, bubba.

Well I'd take and turn it back in. You got cheated out of knowledge. Let me ask you one simple science question, does the science mandate a test of a hypothesis to form a theory?

Just curious if you know this answer or not.

It requires many tests (but also direct field observations when they are available) from multiple sources, like the thousands of scientists worldwide who are conducting climate change research.

Ok, so where is the testing? The one that shows the 120 PPM answer? So far it doesn't exist. So, how is it you feel I'm off my rocker, if you agree testing is part of the science? Sorry, you lost me there.

 

[orogenicman]

Still waiting for a link Orangeman.........

he doesn't understand science and why he is gullible. I bet he can't even spell gullible. I bet he can't spell science.

Really? Because of the three of us, (you, skooter, and myself), I am the only one with a real science degree. Try again, bubba.

Well I'd take and turn it back in. You got cheated out of knowledge. Let me ask you one simple science question, does the science mandate a test of a hypothesis to form a theory?

Just curious if you know this answer or not.

It requires many tests (but also direct field observations when they are available) from multiple sources, like the thousands of scientists worldwide who are conducting climate change research.

Ok, so where is the testing? The one that shows the 120 PPM answer? So far it doesn't exist. So, how is it you feel I'm off my rocker, if you agree testing is part of the science? Sorry, you lost me there.

Testing is part of science. It is not the only part of science. I don't know what you are talking about wrt this 120ppm deal. I don't feel that you are off your rocker. I don't believe you had a rocker to begin with.

 

[jc456]

he doesn't understand science and why he is gullible. I bet he can't even spell gullible. I bet he can't spell science.

Really? Because of the three of us, (you, skooter, and myself), I am the only one with a real science degree. Try again, bubba.

Well I'd take and turn it back in. You got cheated out of knowledge. Let me ask you one simple science question, does the science mandate a test of a hypothesis to form a theory?

Just curious if you know this answer or not.

It requires many tests (but also direct field observations when they are available) from multiple sources, like the thousands of scientists worldwide who are conducting climate change research.

Ok, so where is the testing? The one that shows the 120 PPM answer? So far it doesn't exist. So, how is it you feel I'm off my rocker, if you agree testing is part of the science? Sorry, you lost me there.

Testing is part of science. It is not the only part of science. I don't know what you are talking about wrt this 120ppm deal. I don't feel that you are off your rocker. I don't believe you had a rocker to begin with.

So you haven't been following the board this past year? The proof that adding 120 PPM of CO2 causes temperature changes. Do you have that, seen that?

 

[orogenicman]

Really? Because of the three of us, (you, skooter, and myself), I am the only one with a real science degree. Try again, bubba.

Well I'd take and turn it back in. You got cheated out of knowledge. Let me ask you one simple science question, does the science mandate a test of a hypothesis to form a theory?

Just curious if you know this answer or not.

It requires many tests (but also direct field observations when they are available) from multiple sources, like the thousands of scientists worldwide who are conducting climate change research.

Ok, so where is the testing? The one that shows the 120 PPM answer? So far it doesn't exist. So, how is it you feel I'm off my rocker, if you agree testing is part of the science? Sorry, you lost me there.

Testing is part of science. It is not the only part of science. I don't know what you are talking about wrt this 120ppm deal. I don't feel that you are off your rocker. I don't believe you had a rocker to begin with.

So you haven't been following the board this past year? The proof that adding 120 PPM of CO2 causes temperature changes. Do you have that, seen that?

So you haven't been following the board this past year? See how that works? That you are a greenhouse gas denier is your problem, not mine.

 

[skookerasbil]

Still waiting for a link Orangeman.........

he doesn't understand science and why he is gullible. I bet he can't even spell gullible. I bet he can't spell science.

Really? Because of the three of us, (you, skooter, and myself), I am the only one with a real science degree. Try again, bubba.

Well s0n.....we're all real impressed with all of your science degree's!!!!


Now.....how about a link to show us all where the "climate science" science is mattering in the real world???!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

Yep ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh ( takes toke of ciggy in classic Denis Leary fashion )

So Orangeman.............where is that link s0n???

 

[jc456]

Well I'd take and turn it back in. You got cheated out of knowledge. Let me ask you one simple science question, does the science mandate a test of a hypothesis to form a theory?

Just curious if you know this answer or not.

It requires many tests (but also direct field observations when they are available) from multiple sources, like the thousands of scientists worldwide who are conducting climate change research.

Ok, so where is the testing? The one that shows the 120 PPM answer? So far it doesn't exist. So, how is it you feel I'm off my rocker, if you agree testing is part of the science? Sorry, you lost me there.

Testing is part of science. It is not the only part of science. I don't know what you are talking about wrt this 120ppm deal. I don't feel that you are off your rocker. I don't believe you had a rocker to begin with.

So you haven't been following the board this past year? The proof that adding 120 PPM of CO2 causes temperature changes. Do you have that, seen that?

So you haven't been following the board this past year? See how that works? That you are a greenhouse gas denier is your problem, not mine.

how do you reach that statement from me asking you for a lab experiment? Hmmm... seems you're avoiding the post and really don't have an experiment that you, with a science degree, states is part of the science. so S0n, where is that experiment? Got a link?

 

[orogenicman]

It requires many tests (but also direct field observations when they are available) from multiple sources, like the thousands of scientists worldwide who are conducting climate change research.

Ok, so where is the testing? The one that shows the 120 PPM answer? So far it doesn't exist. So, how is it you feel I'm off my rocker, if you agree testing is part of the science? Sorry, you lost me there.

Testing is part of science. It is not the only part of science. I don't know what you are talking about wrt this 120ppm deal. I don't feel that you are off your rocker. I don't believe you had a rocker to begin with.

So you haven't been following the board this past year? The proof that adding 120 PPM of CO2 causes temperature changes. Do you have that, seen that?

So you haven't been following the board this past year? See how that works? That you are a greenhouse gas denier is your problem, not mine.

how do you reach that statement from me asking you for a lab experiment? Hmmm... seems you're avoiding the post and really don't have an experiment that you, with a science degree, states is part of the science. so S0n, where is that experiment? Got a link?

Do you? My money says that you don't. And that you haven't bothered to try to find out for yourself. You are so convinced that all the scientists are either wrong or in cahoots that you have ignored months worth of posts by myself and others on the subject. Moreover, I don't have to prove anything to you. The science is there. if you believe it isn't, it is on YOU to prove that it isn't. That's the way science works. if you have a problem with that, tough titties.

 

[jc456]

Ok, so where is the testing? The one that shows the 120 PPM answer? So far it doesn't exist. So, how is it you feel I'm off my rocker, if you agree testing is part of the science? Sorry, you lost me there.

Testing is part of science. It is not the only part of science. I don't know what you are talking about wrt this 120ppm deal. I don't feel that you are off your rocker. I don't believe you had a rocker to begin with.

So you haven't been following the board this past year? The proof that adding 120 PPM of CO2 causes temperature changes. Do you have that, seen that?

So you haven't been following the board this past year? See how that works? That you are a greenhouse gas denier is your problem, not mine.

how do you reach that statement from me asking you for a lab experiment? Hmmm... seems you're avoiding the post and really don't have an experiment that you, with a science degree, states is part of the science. so S0n, where is that experiment? Got a link?

Do you? My money says that you don't. And that you haven't bothered to try to find out for yourself. You are so convinced that all the scientists are either wrong or in cahoots that you have ignored months worth of posts by myself and others on the subject. Moreover, I don't have to prove anything to you. The science is there. if you believe it isn't, it is on YOU to prove that it isn't. That's the way science works. if you have a problem with that, tough titties.

why not just say you don't have one. Isn't that simpler than looking like you're scrambling all over the place to avoid the subject? You Lose, that's fine, see, if the science was indeed science, then there would be an experiment that demonstrates how 120 PPM of CO2 added to existing 280 PPM can add heat to the atmosphere or surface. And s0n, I have looked all over and I did find one, Herr Koch 1901, scientist, who proved that adding CO2 after saturation, does not increase temperatures. So, feel free again, to prove Herr Koch's experiment wrong. It isn't up to me to prove my own find as wrong. It is up to you! ready set go!!!

 

[orogenicman]

Testing is part of science. It is not the only part of science. I don't know what you are talking about wrt this 120ppm deal. I don't feel that you are off your rocker. I don't believe you had a rocker to begin with.

So you haven't been following the board this past year? The proof that adding 120 PPM of CO2 causes temperature changes. Do you have that, seen that?

So you haven't been following the board this past year? See how that works? That you are a greenhouse gas denier is your problem, not mine.

how do you reach that statement from me asking you for a lab experiment? Hmmm... seems you're avoiding the post and really don't have an experiment that you, with a science degree, states is part of the science. so S0n, where is that experiment? Got a link?

Do you? My money says that you don't. And that you haven't bothered to try to find out for yourself. You are so convinced that all the scientists are either wrong or in cahoots that you have ignored months worth of posts by myself and others on the subject. Moreover, I don't have to prove anything to you. The science is there. if you believe it isn't, it is on YOU to prove that it isn't. That's the way science works. if you have a problem with that, tough titties.

why not just say you don't have one. Isn't that simpler than looking like you're scrambling all over the place to avoid the subject? You Lose, that's fine, see, if the science was indeed science, then there would be an experiment that demonstrates how 120 PPM of CO2 added to existing 280 PPM can add heat to the atmosphere or surface. And s0n, I have looked all over and I did find one, Herr Koch 1901, scientist, who proved that adding CO2 after saturation, does not increase temperatures. So, feel free again, to prove Herr Koch's experiment wrong. It isn't up to me to prove my own find as wrong. It is up to you! ready set go!!!

I don't have to have one. It is that simple, dumbass. The greenhouse effect is long established science. You might as well argue that the Earth is flat for all I care. And you'd look just as stupid as you do now.

 

[IanC]

Ok, so where is the testing? The one that shows the 120 PPM answer? So far it doesn't exist. So, how is it you feel I'm off my rocker, if you agree testing is part of the science? Sorry, you lost me there.

Testing is part of science. It is not the only part of science. I don't know what you are talking about wrt this 120ppm deal. I don't feel that you are off your rocker. I don't believe you had a rocker to begin with.

So you haven't been following the board this past year? The proof that adding 120 PPM of CO2 causes temperature changes. Do you have that, seen that?

So you haven't been following the board this past year? See how that works? That you are a greenhouse gas denier is your problem, not mine.

how do you reach that statement from me asking you for a lab experiment? Hmmm... seems you're avoiding the post and really don't have an experiment that you, with a science degree, states is part of the science. so S0n, where is that experiment? Got a link?

Do you? My money says that you don't. And that you haven't bothered to try to find out for yourself. You are so convinced that all the scientists are either wrong or in cahoots that you have ignored months worth of posts by myself and others on the subject. Moreover, I don't have to prove anything to you. The science is there. if you believe it isn't, it is on YOU to prove that it isn't. That's the way science works. if you have a problem with that, tough titties.

I have certainly looked, and there is no working experiment that shows any warming for 120ppm CO2. because it is such a simple experiment I am sure it has been done but with unsatisfactory results. even with experimetns that have many multiples of 120 ppm the results are often weak, and fraud was used to make the case seem stronger. the Gore/Nye experiment comes to mind.

 

[jc456]

So you haven't been following the board this past year? The proof that adding 120 PPM of CO2 causes temperature changes. Do you have that, seen that?

So you haven't been following the board this past year? See how that works? That you are a greenhouse gas denier is your problem, not mine.

how do you reach that statement from me asking you for a lab experiment? Hmmm... seems you're avoiding the post and really don't have an experiment that you, with a science degree, states is part of the science. so S0n, where is that experiment? Got a link?

Do you? My money says that you don't. And that you haven't bothered to try to find out for yourself. You are so convinced that all the scientists are either wrong or in cahoots that you have ignored months worth of posts by myself and others on the subject. Moreover, I don't have to prove anything to you. The science is there. if you believe it isn't, it is on YOU to prove that it isn't. That's the way science works. if you have a problem with that, tough titties.

why not just say you don't have one. Isn't that simpler than looking like you're scrambling all over the place to avoid the subject? You Lose, that's fine, see, if the science was indeed science, then there would be an experiment that demonstrates how 120 PPM of CO2 added to existing 280 PPM can add heat to the atmosphere or surface. And s0n, I have looked all over and I did find one, Herr Koch 1901, scientist, who proved that adding CO2 after saturation, does not increase temperatures. So, feel free again, to prove Herr Koch's experiment wrong. It isn't up to me to prove my own find as wrong. It is up to you! ready set go!!!

I don't have to have one. It is that simple, dumbass. The greenhouse effect is long established science. You might as well argue that the Earth is flat for all I care. And you'd look just as stupid as you do now.

Well if you are indeed a person with a science degree, and believe in the greenhouse effect, wouldn't it make sense to actually understand it? Seems s0n, you don't. I'm fine with you not proving your point, points, then get off of here and enjoy your life. However, if you feel the need to be here and addressing me, I want the experiment that disproves the one I mentioned. BTW, I'm not the only one asking for said experiment. Ian just asked you. So you will find, that if you choose to march down the path you are, you should be prepared to address the posts that come your way. See preaching for the intent of preaching isn't what we all believe. We demand proof.

 

[orogenicman]

Testing is part of science. It is not the only part of science. I don't know what you are talking about wrt this 120ppm deal. I don't feel that you are off your rocker. I don't believe you had a rocker to begin with.

So you haven't been following the board this past year? The proof that adding 120 PPM of CO2 causes temperature changes. Do you have that, seen that?

So you haven't been following the board this past year? See how that works? That you are a greenhouse gas denier is your problem, not mine.

how do you reach that statement from me asking you for a lab experiment? Hmmm... seems you're avoiding the post and really don't have an experiment that you, with a science degree, states is part of the science. so S0n, where is that experiment? Got a link?

Do you? My money says that you don't. And that you haven't bothered to try to find out for yourself. You are so convinced that all the scientists are either wrong or in cahoots that you have ignored months worth of posts by myself and others on the subject. Moreover, I don't have to prove anything to you. The science is there. if you believe it isn't, it is on YOU to prove that it isn't. That's the way science works. if you have a problem with that, tough titties.

I have certainly looked, and there is no working experiment that shows any warming for 120ppm CO2. because it is such a simple experiment I am sure it has been done but with unsatisfactory results. even with experimetns that have many multiples of 120 ppm the results are often weak, and fraud was used to make the case seem stronger. the Gore/Nye experiment comes to mind.

So what you are saying is that you've conducted an exhaustive search of every science journal available going back 100 years or more and found no such experiment. I have a doubt.

 

[jc456]

So you haven't been following the board this past year? The proof that adding 120 PPM of CO2 causes temperature changes. Do you have that, seen that?

So you haven't been following the board this past year? See how that works? That you are a greenhouse gas denier is your problem, not mine.

how do you reach that statement from me asking you for a lab experiment? Hmmm... seems you're avoiding the post and really don't have an experiment that you, with a science degree, states is part of the science. so S0n, where is that experiment? Got a link?

Do you? My money says that you don't. And that you haven't bothered to try to find out for yourself. You are so convinced that all the scientists are either wrong or in cahoots that you have ignored months worth of posts by myself and others on the subject. Moreover, I don't have to prove anything to you. The science is there. if you believe it isn't, it is on YOU to prove that it isn't. That's the way science works. if you have a problem with that, tough titties.

I have certainly looked, and there is no working experiment that shows any warming for 120ppm CO2. because it is such a simple experiment I am sure it has been done but with unsatisfactory results. even with experimetns that have many multiples of 120 ppm the results are often weak, and fraud was used to make the case seem stronger. the Gore/Nye experiment comes to mind.

So what you are saying is that you've conducted an exhaustive search of every science journal available going back 100 years or more and found no such experiment. I have a doubt.

yes!!!

And if you wish to doubt me, then just provide the one I missed.