More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[skookerasbil]

More k00k losing >>>>

re: The Phillipine Typhoon



Storm expert Brian McNoldy of U. of Miami: ‘We don’t get to pick and choose which storms are enhanced by a warmer climate and which ones aren’t’

Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.: ’Philippine Met Service predicted max 18 ft surge from Typhoon Haiyan. So Anderson Cooper’s [show] of CNN ‘off by 22-32 ft’

Philippine Met Service: ‘Some of the reports of wind speeds were exaggerated’

Real Science website: Media incorrect to claim The Most ‘Powerful Hurricane Ever’ — Haiyan Was Only A Category 4 at Landfall – ‘Weather officials said Haiyan had sustained winds of 147 mph…By those measurements, Haiyan would be comparable to a strong Category 4 hurricane in the U.S., nearly in the top category, a 5.’

Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue: ’Over past 1,000 years, Philippines have been hit by 10-20 thousand tropical cyclones. Don’t be so arrogant to believe man caused Haiyan.’

Maue: ‘Amazing how bad media/news information is on Haiyan: ‘strongest storm ever recorded’ — No independent fact checking. Just rely on a blog’






Even better........nutty-ass George Clooney stating skeptics are "stupid". Hollyweird FTMFW!!


Storm expert Brian McNoldy of U. of Miami: ‘We don’t get to pick and choose which storms are enhanced by a warmer climate and which ones aren’t’

 

[skookerasbil]

And more fodder that windmills are gay >>>>

Windmills: 600,000, Bats: 0. Time for a New Game?



Bats are part of the ecosystem.........an important part of natural misquito control........not at all important to the k00ks who want to use renewables to screw the economy and make the middle class a flock of sheep via wealth redistribution. Indeed.......the first rule of thumb for the climate k00ks is to destroy the capitalistic system.

 

[skookerasbil]

more losing >>>

Germany cuts wind subisdies........because they've realized that its causing an economic mess!!!! Oooooops........who couldn't see this coming??


German coalition draft agreement calls for wind energy cuts | Reuters

 

[PMZ]

What do you call someone who cheerleads for losing?

 

[RollingThunder]

What do you call someone who cheerleads for losing?

See post #1140 on previous page. The one that tears the kookster a new one. The one he wants to ignore since it illustrates how little he knows about science.

 

[PMZ]

What do you call someone who cheerleads for losing?

See post #1140 on previous page. The one that tears the kookster a new one. The one he wants to ignore since it illustrates how little he knows about science.

They have been beaten on every front. The only thing that they have going is their resistance to learning. There is no force on earth capable of overcoming that.

 

[flacaltenn]

If only warmers could read and understand their own LARGE FONT posts...

If only denier cult dingbats like you could understand how badly you've been duped by the propagandists working for the fossil fuel industry, you might begin to grasp that your little cult of reality denial is on a par with the Flat Earth Society.

What part of "the science is settled" is validated by that definition?

Pretty much all of modern science; all of the modern scientific theories that are now virtually universally accepted by the world scientific community. Examples of such accepted, "settled" theories include:
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Theory of General Relativity
Evolution and Natural Selection
Archimedes' Buoyancy Principle
The Laws of Thermodynamics
Newton's Three Laws of Motion
Universal Law of Gravitation
Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion
Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion
Big Bang Theory

"The currently accepted theory of" AGW "is simply the best explanation for" the observed warming and climate changes, the melting ice, etc. "among all available alternatives."

"Its" (AGW theory)"status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available" (there are no other theories that can explain the observed phenomena) "and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory" (no other viable theories have appeared) "or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory" (no new evidence has successfully challenged AGW theory).

"Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others" = AGW theory - worldwide scientific consensus on its validity.

Scientific opinion on climate change

And the one thing thats missing from that piece is that amongst competing theories, those that give wrong answers and predictions, are never "the best competing theory". DEMONSTRATING THAT a particular theory has poor performance never obligates you to produce an immediate better choice of theory.

I think you've got something missing from your brain, fecalhead. AGW theory delivers good results and accurate predictions. This almost universally acknowledged in the worldwide scientific community. It is pretty much only in your bamboozled cult of reality deniers and fossil fuel industry stooges that this is denied. In spite of all your absurd posturing and handwaving and all of your hallucinatory myths, you have never "DEMONSTRATED" any significant flaws in AGW theory. Real scientists laugh at your delusional, scientifically ignorant, politically motivated denier nonsense.

You fail to read and comprehend the very crap you post. To post a list of Theories as "settled" after reading and choosing to post the statements ...............

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science.

............. is just mind-boggling incompetent. Especially since the ones you listed have each had a MODIFYING EFFECT on some others in your list. Do you understand what I just said? How silly do you feel not realizing how Relativity CHANGED the scope and effect of Newtons Laws? or that Heisenberg had modifying influences on the Thermo laws?

How many daily function assistants do you require to get thru the day?? Do you have a service animal or an ankle bracelet to keep you from wandering off?

 

[PMZ]

If only warmers could read and understand their own LARGE FONT posts...

If only denier cult dingbats like you could understand how badly you've been duped by the propagandists working for the fossil fuel industry, you might begin to grasp that your little cult of reality denial is on a par with the Flat Earth Society.






Pretty much all of modern science; all of the modern scientific theories that are now virtually universally accepted by the world scientific community. Examples of such accepted, "settled" theories include:
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Theory of General Relativity
Evolution and Natural Selection
Archimedes' Buoyancy Principle
The Laws of Thermodynamics
Newton's Three Laws of Motion
Universal Law of Gravitation
Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion
Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion
Big Bang Theory

"The currently accepted theory of" AGW "is simply the best explanation for" the observed warming and climate changes, the melting ice, etc. "among all available alternatives."

"Its" (AGW theory)"status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available" (there are no other theories that can explain the observed phenomena) "and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory" (no other viable theories have appeared) "or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory" (no new evidence has successfully challenged AGW theory).

"Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others" = AGW theory - worldwide scientific consensus on its validity.

Scientific opinion on climate change








I think you've got something missing from your brain, fecalhead. AGW theory delivers good results and accurate predictions. This almost universally acknowledged in the worldwide scientific community. It is pretty much only in your bamboozled cult of reality deniers and fossil fuel industry stooges that this is denied. In spite of all your absurd posturing and handwaving and all of your hallucinatory myths, you have never "DEMONSTRATED" any significant flaws in AGW theory. Real scientists laugh at your delusional, scientifically ignorant, politically motivated denier nonsense.

You fail to read and comprehend the very crap you post. To post a list of Theories as "settled" after reading and choosing to post the statements ...............

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science.

............. is just mind-boggling incompetent. Especially since the ones you listed have each had a MODIFYING EFFECT on some others in your list. Do you understand what I just said? How silly do you feel not realizing how Relativity CHANGED the scope and effect of Newtons Laws? or that Heisenberg had modifying influences on the Thermo laws?

How many daily function assistants do you require to get thru the day?? Do you have a service animal or an ankle bracelet to keep you from wandering off?

Science began as curiosity about the things that our senses observed. As they were explained, technology expanded our senses beyond their inate capabilities. Into the very large and very small and future and past. There, we founds world's different than at our scale and time. Very little of science changed at our scale.

Science is built on science. If there were no reliable foundation of stable knowledge it couldn't have been built.

That's why deniers make no progress. They deny the foundation in order to deny the current climate science.

 

[westwall]

If only warmers could read and understand their own LARGE FONT posts...

If only denier cult dingbats like you could understand how badly you've been duped by the propagandists working for the fossil fuel industry, you might begin to grasp that your little cult of reality denial is on a par with the Flat Earth Society.

What part of "the science is settled" is validated by that definition?

Pretty much all of modern science; all of the modern scientific theories that are now virtually universally accepted by the world scientific community. Examples of such accepted, "settled" theories include:
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Theory of General Relativity
Evolution and Natural Selection
Archimedes' Buoyancy Principle
The Laws of Thermodynamics
Newton's Three Laws of Motion
Universal Law of Gravitation
Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion
Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion
Big Bang Theory

"The currently accepted theory of" AGW "is simply the best explanation for" the observed warming and climate changes, the melting ice, etc. "among all available alternatives."

"Its" (AGW theory)"status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available" (there are no other theories that can explain the observed phenomena) "and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory" (no other viable theories have appeared) "or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory" (no new evidence has successfully challenged AGW theory).

"Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others" = AGW theory - worldwide scientific consensus on its validity.

Scientific opinion on climate change

And the one thing thats missing from that piece is that amongst competing theories, those that give wrong answers and predictions, are never "the best competing theory". DEMONSTRATING THAT a particular theory has poor performance never obligates you to produce an immediate better choice of theory.

I think you've got something missing from your brain, fecalhead. AGW theory delivers good results and accurate predictions. This almost universally acknowledged in the worldwide scientific community. It is pretty much only in your bamboozled cult of reality deniers and fossil fuel industry stooges that this is denied. In spite of all your absurd posturing and handwaving and all of your hallucinatory myths, you have never "DEMONSTRATED" any significant flaws in AGW theory. Real scientists laugh at your delusional, scientifically ignorant, politically motivated denier nonsense.

"Opinion"

There's a saying about opinions.... now what was it???? Oh yeah, "opinions are like assholes....everyone's got one."

That's how valuable an opinion is. Opinions are not facts. Scientists deal in facts. When a scientist starts talking about opinions in favor of facts they have stopped being a scientist and become a political operative.

 

[PMZ]

If only warmers could read and understand their own LARGE FONT posts...

If only denier cult dingbats like you could understand how badly you've been duped by the propagandists working for the fossil fuel industry, you might begin to grasp that your little cult of reality denial is on a par with the Flat Earth Society.






Pretty much all of modern science; all of the modern scientific theories that are now virtually universally accepted by the world scientific community. Examples of such accepted, "settled" theories include:
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Theory of General Relativity
Evolution and Natural Selection
Archimedes' Buoyancy Principle
The Laws of Thermodynamics
Newton's Three Laws of Motion
Universal Law of Gravitation
Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion
Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion
Big Bang Theory

"The currently accepted theory of" AGW "is simply the best explanation for" the observed warming and climate changes, the melting ice, etc. "among all available alternatives."

"Its" (AGW theory)"status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available" (there are no other theories that can explain the observed phenomena) "and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory" (no other viable theories have appeared) "or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory" (no new evidence has successfully challenged AGW theory).

"Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others" = AGW theory - worldwide scientific consensus on its validity.

Scientific opinion on climate change

And the one thing thats missing from that piece is that amongst competing theories, those that give wrong answers and predictions, are never "the best competing theory". DEMONSTRATING THAT a particular theory has poor performance never obligates you to produce an immediate better choice of theory.

I think you've got something missing from your brain, fecalhead. AGW theory delivers good results and accurate predictions. This almost universally acknowledged in the worldwide scientific community. It is pretty much only in your bamboozled cult of reality deniers and fossil fuel industry stooges that this is denied. In spite of all your absurd posturing and handwaving and all of your hallucinatory myths, you have never "DEMONSTRATED" any significant flaws in AGW theory. Real scientists laugh at your delusional, scientifically ignorant, politically motivated denier nonsense.

"Opinion"

There's a saying about opinions.... now what was it???? Oh yeah, "opinions are like assholes....everyone's got one."

That's how valuable an opinion is. Opinions are not facts. Scientists deal in facts. When a scientist starts talking about opinions in favor of facts they have stopped being a scientist and become a political operative.

All facts start as opinions. Theories. Those that get supported by sufficient evidence get promoted to facts.

That's why denialism is opinion and climate science is full of facts with still some work to be done on certain theories.

 

[skookerasbil]

Global warming 'pause' may last for 20 more years and Arctic sea ice has already started to recover | Mail Online

What climate change? Fewer people than EVER believe the world is really warming up | UK | News | Daily Express


Gallup poll: Conservatives outnumber liberals - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1994041/


http://phys.org/news/2013-02-global-surveys-environmental.html



http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/01/report-show-un-admitting-solar-activity-may-play-significant-role-in-global/


10 predictions for the world's energy future » News » OPB



The Green Agenda


People Are Losing Hope For Green Energy - Business Insider


http://www.energytribune.com/74785/the-green-agenda-and-the-political-tipping-point#sthash.PgH2IeLy.dpbs



Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian


The ?ensemble? of models is completely meaningless, statistically | Watts Up With That?



The Fantasy of Extreme Weather | Behind The Black



Chronology of Extreme Weather



The Green Subsidy Job Loss Nexus - Energy TribuneEnergy Tribune



The models are wrong | Behind The Black



United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change









All of the above links simply supplement the sobering reality for the climate crusader k00ks as illustrated by THIS >>>









People outside the fringe understand fully what the graphic above means. It speaks for itself. It was generated by the Obama Environmental Information Agency in 2013. It tells us the future of energy production. It tells us the score in terms of fossil fuels continuing to play a HUGE role in energy production. It tells us that the hype about renewables is exactly that.......hype. It is exactly because costs matter to non-k00ks. It tells us, most importantly........that climate science isn't mattering in terms of impacting the real world. It is simply a compelling thing to debate on the internet.......nothing more.


It tells us..........the skeptics are winning!!!! ( click on links for further verification )

 

[Abraham3]

WTF is THAT? Skooks offering to take pivot?

 

[westwall]

If only denier cult dingbats like you could understand how badly you've been duped by the propagandists working for the fossil fuel industry, you might begin to grasp that your little cult of reality denial is on a par with the Flat Earth Society.






Pretty much all of modern science; all of the modern scientific theories that are now virtually universally accepted by the world scientific community. Examples of such accepted, "settled" theories include:
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Theory of General Relativity
Evolution and Natural Selection
Archimedes' Buoyancy Principle
The Laws of Thermodynamics
Newton's Three Laws of Motion
Universal Law of Gravitation
Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion
Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion
Big Bang Theory

"The currently accepted theory of" AGW "is simply the best explanation for" the observed warming and climate changes, the melting ice, etc. "among all available alternatives."

"Its" (AGW theory)"status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available" (there are no other theories that can explain the observed phenomena) "and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory" (no other viable theories have appeared) "or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory" (no new evidence has successfully challenged AGW theory).

"Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others" = AGW theory - worldwide scientific consensus on its validity.

Scientific opinion on climate change








I think you've got something missing from your brain, fecalhead. AGW theory delivers good results and accurate predictions. This almost universally acknowledged in the worldwide scientific community. It is pretty much only in your bamboozled cult of reality deniers and fossil fuel industry stooges that this is denied. In spite of all your absurd posturing and handwaving and all of your hallucinatory myths, you have never "DEMONSTRATED" any significant flaws in AGW theory. Real scientists laugh at your delusional, scientifically ignorant, politically motivated denier nonsense.

"Opinion"

There's a saying about opinions.... now what was it???? Oh yeah, "opinions are like assholes....everyone's got one."

That's how valuable an opinion is. Opinions are not facts. Scientists deal in facts. When a scientist starts talking about opinions in favor of facts they have stopped being a scientist and become a political operative.

All facts start as opinions. Theories. Those that get supported by sufficient evidence get promoted to facts.

That's why denialism is opinion and climate science is full of facts with still some work to be done on certain theories.

No, no they don't.

 

[RollingThunder]

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more credible and better evidence for some theories than others. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.

What part of "the science is settled" is validated by that definition?

Pretty much all of modern science; all of the modern scientific theories that are now virtually universally accepted by the world scientific community. Examples of such accepted, "settled" theories include:
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Theory of General Relativity
Evolution and Natural Selection
Archimedes' Buoyancy Principle
The Laws of Thermodynamics
Newton's Three Laws of Motion
Universal Law of Gravitation
Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion
Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion
Big Bang Theory

"The currently accepted theory of" AGW "is simply the best explanation for" the observed warming and climate changes, the melting ice, etc. "among all available alternatives."

"Its" (AGW theory)"status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available" (there are no other theories that can explain the observed phenomena) "and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory" (no other viable theories have appeared) "or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory" (no new evidence has successfully challenged AGW theory).

"Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others" = AGW theory - worldwide scientific consensus on its validity.

Scientific opinion on climate change

And the one thing thats missing from that piece is that amongst competing theories, those that give wrong answers and predictions, are never "the best competing theory". DEMONSTRATING THAT a particular theory has poor performance never obligates you to produce an immediate better choice of theory.

I think you've got something missing from your brain, fecalhead. AGW theory delivers good results and accurate predictions. This almost universally acknowledged in the worldwide scientific community. It is pretty much only in your bamboozled cult of reality deniers and fossil fuel industry stooges that this is denied. In spite of all your absurd posturing and handwaving and all of your hallucinatory myths, you have never "DEMONSTRATED" any significant flaws in AGW theory. Real scientists laugh at your delusional, scientifically ignorant, politically motivated denier nonsense.

You fail to read and comprehend the very crap you post. To post a list of Theories as "settled" after reading and choosing to post the statements ...............

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science.

............. is just mind-boggling incompetent. Especially since the ones you listed have each had a MODIFYING EFFECT on some others in your list. Do you understand what I just said? How silly do you feel not realizing how Relativity CHANGED the scope and effect of Newtons Laws? or that Heisenberg had modifying influences on the Thermo laws?

The article I posted was about the fact that there are no "proofs" in science, no "final proven knowledge". Retards like you, fecalhead, want to equate "settled science" with "proven science". Those terms don't mean the same thing. Well established scientific theories and laws are regarded as 'scientific facts'. Calling these facts 'accepted' or even 'settled' is accurate enough even though the basis of all science involves a willingness to modify or change even established theories if new data uncovers flaws in the theory. Unfortunately for the wacko myths of your cult of reality deniers, no such new data exists that would affect the scientific understanding of AGW.. The scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming is supported by mountains of evidence and the basic laws of physics. There is no viable evidence that challenges that theory or uncovers any flaws in that theory. Because you're so scientifically illiterate, ignorant and retarded, fecalhead, you've been easily duped by the clever propagandists working for the fossil fuel industry into believing otherwise. Actually, nobody with an IQ higher than room temperature would be duped by some of the crazy crap you routinely fall for. However, the world scientific community is not so easily fooled by that kind of deceptive propaganda so the world's scientists are in almost universal agreement on the validity of the theory of anthropogenic global warming. There are no scientific organizations of national or international standing who have a stated position that denies that scientific consensus on AGW or disputes the theory of AGW. There are no viable competing theories to explain the warming trend or the climate changes that can account for the physical evidence or the scientific data that has been gathered or get around the scientific understanding of the laws of physics governing the behavior of greenhouse gases.

The scientific theories and laws that I used as examples in my post are all still valid and universally accepted by modern scientists. Some of those theories and laws compliment and explain some other theory or law, like Newton's Three Laws of Motion did with Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion. Newton's three laws were not invalidated by Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Those laws still work and are used by everyone in almost all situations that don't involve objects moving at some large fraction of the speed of light. Newton's first law is unaffected by Relativity. Relativity is not only compatible with the third law, it's very closely related. The overall symmetry of special relativity, in which all places are fundamentally the same and any uniformly moving object can be treated as being at rest, actually implies Newton's third law. Relativity only slightly modified the second law, usually stated as F=ma, which implicitly assumes that the inertial mass m doesn't change as the object accelerates at rate a under force F, because Newton didn't realize the inertial mass changes significantly at very high (near light speed) velocities. Inertial mass does not perceptibly change at any natural velocities mankind has encountered on Earth or in our solar system. Locally, it is only in particle accelerators that this modification of the second law can be observed.

The Laws of Thermodynamics can be summed up like this: energy can't be created or destroyed, things tend to move from order to disorder, and the lower the temperature drops, the more disorderly things become. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle doesn't significantly change the Laws of Thermodynamics, it just theoretically indicates that entropy (third law) can't reduce the universe to absolute zero.

You made the delusional claim that the theories I used as examples "have each had a MODIFYING EFFECT on some others in" my list. That's not really true but even if it was, so what? Those theories are still valid and still used in science, even though a few of them have been refined and extended as science has achieved new insights into sub-atomic behavior and high energy physics. You really don't understand what is going on. Too bad you're such a dunce.

 

[skookerasbil]

Pretty much all of modern science; all of the modern scientific theories that are now virtually universally accepted by the world scientific community. Examples of such accepted, "settled" theories include:
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Theory of General Relativity
Evolution and Natural Selection
Archimedes' Buoyancy Principle
The Laws of Thermodynamics
Newton's Three Laws of Motion
Universal Law of Gravitation
Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion
Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion
Big Bang Theory

"The currently accepted theory of" AGW "is simply the best explanation for" the observed warming and climate changes, the melting ice, etc. "among all available alternatives."

"Its" (AGW theory)"status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available" (there are no other theories that can explain the observed phenomena) "and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory" (no other viable theories have appeared) "or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory" (no new evidence has successfully challenged AGW theory).

"Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others" = AGW theory - worldwide scientific consensus on its validity.

Scientific opinion on climate change

You fail to read and comprehend the very crap you post. To post a list of Theories as "settled" after reading and choosing to post the statements ...............

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science.

............. is just mind-boggling incompetent. Especially since the ones you listed have each had a MODIFYING EFFECT on some others in your list. Do you understand what I just said? How silly do you feel not realizing how Relativity CHANGED the scope and effect of Newtons Laws? or that Heisenberg had modifying influences on the Thermo laws?

The article I posted was about the fact that there are no "proofs" in science, no "final proven knowledge". Retards like you, fecalhead, want to equate "settled science" with "proven science". Those terms don't mean the same thing. Well established scientific theories and laws are regarded as 'scientific facts'. Calling these facts 'accepted' or even 'settled' is accurate enough even though the basis of all science involves a willingness to modify or change even established theories if new data uncovers flaws in the theory. Unfortunately for the wacko myths of your cult of reality deniers, no such new data exists that would affect the scientific understanding of AGW.. The scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming is supported by mountains of evidence and the basic laws of physics. There is no viable evidence that challenges that theory or uncovers any flaws in that theory. Because you're so scientifically illiterate, ignorant and retarded, fecalhead, you've been easily duped by the clever propagandists working for the fossil fuel industry into believing otherwise. Actually, nobody with an IQ higher than room temperature would be duped by some of the crazy crap you routinely fall for. However, the world scientific community is not so easily fooled by that kind of deceptive propaganda so the world's scientists are in almost universal agreement on the validity of the theory of anthropogenic global warming. There are no scientific organizations of national or international standing who have a stated position that denies that scientific consensus on AGW or disputes the theory of AGW. There are no viable competing theories to explain the warming trend or the climate changes that can account for the physical evidence or the scientific data that has been gathered or get around the scientific understanding of the laws of physics governing the behavior of greenhouse gases.

The scientific theories and laws that I used as examples in my post are all still valid and universally accepted by modern scientists. Some of those theories and laws compliment and explain some other theory or law, like Newton's Three Laws of Motion did with Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion. Newton's three laws were not invalidated by Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Those laws still work and are used by everyone in almost all situations that don't involve objects moving at some large fraction of the speed of light. Newton's first law is unaffected by Relativity. Relativity is not only compatible with the third law, it's very closely related. The overall symmetry of special relativity, in which all places are fundamentally the same and any uniformly moving object can be treated as being at rest, actually implies Newton's third law. Relativity only slightly modified the second law, usually stated as F=ma, which implicitly assumes that the inertial mass m doesn't change as the object accelerates at rate a under force F, because Newton didn't realize the inertial mass changes significantly at very high (near light speed) velocities. Inertial mass does not perceptibly change at any natural velocities mankind has encountered on Earth or in our solar system. Locally, it is only in particle accelerators that this modification of the second law can be observed.

The Laws of Thermodynamics can be summed up like this: energy can't be created or destroyed, things tend to move from order to disorder, and the lower the temperature drops, the more disorderly things become. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle doesn't significantly change the Laws of Thermodynamics, it just theoretically indicates that entropy (third law) can't reduce the universe to absolute zero.

You made the delusional claim that the theories I used as examples "have each had a MODIFYING EFFECT on some others in" my list. That's not really true but even if it was, so what? Those theories are still valid and still used in science, even though a few of them have been refined and extended as science has achieved new insights into sub-atomic behavior and high energy physics. You really don't understand what is going on. Too bad you're such a dunce.

nobody cares



and philosophy is gay

 

[PMZ]

You are the first person that I've met that actively campaigns for irresponsibility.

 

[skookerasbil]

More losing for the climate crusading alarmists!!!

The green energy push has led to "ecological disaster"!!!



The consequences are so severe that environmentalists and many scientists have now rejected corn-based ethanol as bad environmental policy. But the Obama administration stands by it, highlighting its benefits to the farming industry rather than any negative impact.



RealClearEnergy - The Secret, Dirty Cost of Obama's Green Power Push





Environmentalists don't give a rats ass about the environment. That's never what global warming alarmism has ever been about. It has and always will be about using the green energy push as a vehicle for the destruction of the capitalistic system. A "clean environment" to these people doesnt mean dick!!!



Fucking lefty frauds.

 

[PMZ]

More losing for the climate crusading alarmists!!!

The green energy push has led to "ecological disaster"!!!



The consequences are so severe that environmentalists and many scientists have now rejected corn-based ethanol as bad environmental policy. But the Obama administration stands by it, highlighting its benefits to the farming industry rather than any negative impact.



RealClearEnergy - The Secret, Dirty Cost of Obama's Green Power Push





Environmentalists don't give a rats ass about the environment. That's never what global warming alarmism has ever been about. It has and always will be about using the green energy push as a vehicle for the destruction of the capitalistic system. A "clean environment" to these people doesnt mean dick!!!



Fucking lefty frauds.

Another ad for enriching our enemies.

 

[skookerasbil]

I laughed my ass off when I saw this graph on REALCLEARENERGY this morning........simply more proof that the science isn't mattering and the skeptics are winning. That is........if you have the intelligence to read a graph!!!








When I say "green fantasies".........I mean......."green fantasies".

 

[PMZ]

I laughed my ass off when I saw this graph on REALCLEARENERGY this morning........simply more proof that the science isn't mattering and the skeptics are winning. That is........if you have the intelligence to read a graph!!!








When I say "green fantasies".........I mean......."green fantasies".

Clearly that's the only way to keep high demand low supply expensive to extract and process fossil fuels competitive with fuel and waste free and sustainable energy.