No Evidence

[Wuwei]

Look around on his site, he's just like SSDD.
He's right and all the rest of the world is wrong. Hilarious!!

I saw his site. I decided I wanted to do something more interesting, but I couldn't leave. I was mesmerized by the surprisingly prolific Disney Land of idiocy. The author is the sage and mentor for SSDD and all his followers of science denial who enjoy basking in the glory of crap.

 

[SSDD]

Look at you two daisies....stroking each other's little egos. You sheep need that in copious quantity don't you? You sound like little high school girls dissing the mean bitch when she is out of ear shot...

 

[SSDD]

I think it's your turn to stroke wuwei toddster.. Isn't that the way it works with you guys...he strokes you a bit.. then you stroke him a bit and pretty soon, you both forget that you can't manage the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support what you believe...and in your own minds, you have put us bad old skeptics in our places.

So go ahead...give old wuwei a little stroke....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think it's your turn to stroke wuwei toddster.. Isn't that the way it works with you guys...he strokes you a bit.. then you stroke him a bit and pretty soon, you both forget that you can't manage the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support what you believe...and in your own minds, you have put us bad old skeptics in our places.

So go ahead...give old wuwei a little stroke....

And here you are, all alone, you against all of science.

 

[jc456]

I think it's your turn to stroke wuwei toddster.. Isn't that the way it works with you guys...he strokes you a bit.. then you stroke him a bit and pretty soon, you both forget that you can't manage the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support what you believe...and in your own minds, you have put us bad old skeptics in our places.

So go ahead...give old wuwei a little stroke....

And here you are, all alone, you against all of science.

I just posted information from a physicist so you are again in error. by the way, all your deflections still no observed or measured evidence! As the physicist I posted stated

 

[Billy_Bob]

I think it's your turn to stroke wuwei toddster.. Isn't that the way it works with you guys...he strokes you a bit.. then you stroke him a bit and pretty soon, you both forget that you can't manage the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support what you believe...and in your own minds, you have put us bad old skeptics in our places.

So go ahead...give old wuwei a little stroke....

And here you are, all alone, you against all of science.

Actually those with a clue refuse to debate people who have no concept retention capabilities.. The SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess) is common in AGW nutters. They refuse to acknowledge the observed natural laws and cling to their failed models...

 

[jc456]

Look around on his site, he's just like SSDD.
He's right and all the rest of the world is wrong. Hilarious!!

I saw his site. I decided I wanted to do something more interesting, but I couldn't leave. I was mesmerized by the surprisingly prolific Disney Land of idiocy. The author is the sage and mentor for SSDD and all his followers of science denial who enjoy basking in the glory of crap.

Funny, now name something he pointed out that you believe to be wrong. Why don’t you ever do that? Instead you post the very fraud he refers to and you never explain why one can’t actually measure or observe that fraud nonsense.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think it's your turn to stroke wuwei toddster.. Isn't that the way it works with you guys...he strokes you a bit.. then you stroke him a bit and pretty soon, you both forget that you can't manage the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support what you believe...and in your own minds, you have put us bad old skeptics in our places.

So go ahead...give old wuwei a little stroke....

And here you are, all alone, you against all of science.

I just posted information from a physicist so you are again in error. by the way, all your deflections still no observed or measured evidence! As the physicist I posted stated

I just posted information from a physicist


Because each CO2 molecule would have to be 2,500°C to heat the air 1°C—an impossibility.

There cannot be greenhouse gases creating global warming due to the dilution factor. The so-called greenhouse gases are too dilute to heat the surrounding air.

Heating with Greenhouse Gases is Impossible.

This guy is your physicist? LOL!

 

[IanC]

Look around on his site, he's just like SSDD.
He's right and all the rest of the world is wrong. Hilarious!!

I saw his site. I decided I wanted to do something more interesting, but I couldn't leave. I was mesmerized by the surprisingly prolific Disney Land of idiocy. The author is the sage and mentor for SSDD and all his followers of science denial who enjoy basking in the glory of crap.

I read two of the articles, fudge factor (that SSDD refers to but never explains) and heat trapping.

Both use the same types of fallacy to improperly generalize and simplify the situations being discussed.

So they should properly be ridiculed, or at least be corrected by pointing out where they came off the rails.

But the problem is that climate science also appears to use many of the same fallacies. I don't trust either side to point out the weaknesses in their explanations, or formalize their assumptions.

I have learned a lot in the decade since climategate but mostly from my own research, or from lukewarmers like McIntyre Curry and Lewis.

 

[jc456]

I think it's your turn to stroke wuwei toddster.. Isn't that the way it works with you guys...he strokes you a bit.. then you stroke him a bit and pretty soon, you both forget that you can't manage the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support what you believe...and in your own minds, you have put us bad old skeptics in our places.

So go ahead...give old wuwei a little stroke....

And here you are, all alone, you against all of science.

I just posted information from a physicist so you are again in error. by the way, all your deflections still no observed or measured evidence! As the physicist I posted stated

I just posted information from a physicist


Because each CO2 molecule would have to be 2,500°C to heat the air 1°C—an impossibility.

There cannot be greenhouse gases creating global warming due to the dilution factor. The so-called greenhouse gases are too dilute to heat the surrounding air.

Heating with Greenhouse Gases is Impossible.

This guy is your physicist? LOL!

Prove him wrong.

 

[Wuwei]

I read two of the articles, fudge factor (that SSDD refers to but never explains) and heat trapping.

Both use the same types of fallacy to improperly generalize and simplify the situations being discussed.

So they should properly be ridiculed, or at least be corrected by pointing out where they came off the rails.

But the problem is that climate science also appears to use many of the same fallacies. I don't trust either side to point out the weaknesses in their explanations, or formalize their assumptions.

I have learned a lot in the decade since climategate but mostly from my own research, or from lukewarmers like McIntyre Curry and Lewis.

These are some excerpts from other articles.

When a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs radiation, it re-emits the radiation in [83] femto seconds.... It's actually a few microseconds.

Since each CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is surrounded by 2,500 air molecules, it would have to be 2,500°C to heat the surrounding molecules [by one degree]

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is too absurd to be used.

[Physicists] say the same amount of radiation is being emitted as absorbed .... No way. If skin cells were giving off and absorbing 524 W/m² at 98°C, tissue damage would occur between absorption and emission.

Virtually everything in physics is in error ....​

As far as fallacies, that is hard to beat.

When you say climate science also appears to use many of the same fallacies, do you have examples of those. I have not read much of climate science details. I stick to basic physics.

 

[jc456]

I read two of the articles, fudge factor (that SSDD refers to but never explains) and heat trapping.

Both use the same types of fallacy to improperly generalize and simplify the situations being discussed.

So they should properly be ridiculed, or at least be corrected by pointing out where they came off the rails.

But the problem is that climate science also appears to use many of the same fallacies. I don't trust either side to point out the weaknesses in their explanations, or formalize their assumptions.

I have learned a lot in the decade since climategate but mostly from my own research, or from lukewarmers like McIntyre Curry and Lewis.

These are some excerpts from other articles.

When a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs radiation, it re-emits the radiation in [83] femto seconds.... It's actually a few microseconds.

Since each CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is surrounded by 2,500 air molecules, it would have to be 2,500°C to heat the surrounding molecules [by one degree]

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is too absurd to be used.

[Physicists] say the same amount of radiation is being emitted as absorbed .... No way. If skin cells were giving off and absorbing 524 W/m² at 98°C, tissue damage would occur between absorption and emission.

Virtually everything in physics is in error ....​

As far as fallacies, that is hard to beat.

When you say climate science also appears to use many of the same fallacies, do you have examples of those. I have not read much of climate science details. I stick to basic physics.

Such as?

 

[IanC]

I read two of the articles, fudge factor (that SSDD refers to but never explains) and heat trapping.

Both use the same types of fallacy to improperly generalize and simplify the situations being discussed.

So they should properly be ridiculed, or at least be corrected by pointing out where they came off the rails.

But the problem is that climate science also appears to use many of the same fallacies. I don't trust either side to point out the weaknesses in their explanations, or formalize their assumptions.

I have learned a lot in the decade since climategate but mostly from my own research, or from lukewarmers like McIntyre Curry and Lewis.

These are some excerpts from other articles.

When a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs radiation, it re-emits the radiation in [83] femto seconds.... It's actually a few microseconds.

Since each CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is surrounded by 2,500 air molecules, it would have to be 2,500°C to heat the surrounding molecules [by one degree]

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is too absurd to be used.

[Physicists] say the same amount of radiation is being emitted as absorbed .... No way. If skin cells were giving off and absorbing 524 W/m² at 98°C, tissue damage would occur between absorption and emission.

Virtually everything in physics is in error ....​

As far as fallacies, that is hard to beat.

When you say climate science also appears to use many of the same fallacies, do you have examples of those. I have not read much of climate science details. I stick to basic physics.

There are no short replies to that. And I couldn't be bothered to put down long explanations any more.

There are many instances of the claim that a CO2 reactive photon is absorbed and sent back to the surface half the time, insinuating an infinite series of two up and one down.

Emissivity for solids and liquids can be approximated by a blackbody. Gases are made up of bands that are near blackbodies or near perfect transmittance.

500w of truncated solar is not 500w of nearby thermal emission, although they are often treated as interchangeable.

Is it possible to scale up simple science principles that the layman is familiar with? Not really, a lot of the time. Most people kinda have a concept or equilibrium but I have had major difficulty explaining to even smart people that there is energy stored or released as an object or system moves to equilibrium.

 

[SSDD]

I read two of the articles, fudge factor (that SSDD refers to but never explains) and heat trapping.

Both use the same types of fallacy to improperly generalize and simplify the situations being discussed.

So they should properly be ridiculed, or at least be corrected by pointing out where they came off the rails.

But the problem is that climate science also appears to use many of the same fallacies. I don't trust either side to point out the weaknesses in their explanations, or formalize their assumptions.

I have learned a lot in the decade since climategate but mostly from my own research, or from lukewarmers like McIntyre Curry and Lewis.

These are some excerpts from other articles.

When a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs radiation, it re-emits the radiation in [83] femto seconds.... It's actually a few microseconds.

Since each CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is surrounded by 2,500 air molecules, it would have to be 2,500°C to heat the surrounding molecules [by one degree]

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is too absurd to be used.

[Physicists] say the same amount of radiation is being emitted as absorbed .... No way. If skin cells were giving off and absorbing 524 W/m² at 98°C, tissue damage would occur between absorption and emission.

Virtually everything in physics is in error ....​

As far as fallacies, that is hard to beat.

When you say climate science also appears to use many of the same fallacies, do you have examples of those. I have not read much of climate science details. I stick to basic physics.

Do feel free to point out errors...and provide observed, measured evidence to support your claims. What's that bucky? No observed measured evidence? Not surprised.

 

[Wuwei]

I read two of the articles, fudge factor (that SSDD refers to but never explains) and heat trapping.

Both use the same types of fallacy to improperly generalize and simplify the situations being discussed.

So they should properly be ridiculed, or at least be corrected by pointing out where they came off the rails.

But the problem is that climate science also appears to use many of the same fallacies. I don't trust either side to point out the weaknesses in their explanations, or formalize their assumptions.

I have learned a lot in the decade since climategate but mostly from my own research, or from lukewarmers like McIntyre Curry and Lewis.

These are some excerpts from other articles.

When a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs radiation, it re-emits the radiation in [83] femto seconds.... It's actually a few microseconds.

Since each CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is surrounded by 2,500 air molecules, it would have to be 2,500°C to heat the surrounding molecules [by one degree]

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is too absurd to be used.

[Physicists] say the same amount of radiation is being emitted as absorbed .... No way. If skin cells were giving off and absorbing 524 W/m² at 98°C, tissue damage would occur between absorption and emission.

Virtually everything in physics is in error ....​

As far as fallacies, that is hard to beat.

When you say climate science also appears to use many of the same fallacies, do you have examples of those. I have not read much of climate science details. I stick to basic physics.

Do feel free to point out errors...and provide observed, measured evidence to support your claims. What's that bucky? No observed measured evidence? Not surprised.

Several have evidence. I cited 5 idiotic excerpts from the site. If you need evidence that they are not idiotic, it really shows just who is idiotic.
.

 

[SSDD]

I read two of the articles, fudge factor (that SSDD refers to but never explains) and heat trapping.

Both use the same types of fallacy to improperly generalize and simplify the situations being discussed.

So they should properly be ridiculed, or at least be corrected by pointing out where they came off the rails.

But the problem is that climate science also appears to use many of the same fallacies. I don't trust either side to point out the weaknesses in their explanations, or formalize their assumptions.

I have learned a lot in the decade since climategate but mostly from my own research, or from lukewarmers like McIntyre Curry and Lewis.

These are some excerpts from other articles.

When a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs radiation, it re-emits the radiation in [83] femto seconds.... It's actually a few microseconds.

Since each CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is surrounded by 2,500 air molecules, it would have to be 2,500°C to heat the surrounding molecules [by one degree]

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is too absurd to be used.

[Physicists] say the same amount of radiation is being emitted as absorbed .... No way. If skin cells were giving off and absorbing 524 W/m² at 98°C, tissue damage would occur between absorption and emission.

Virtually everything in physics is in error ....​

As far as fallacies, that is hard to beat.

When you say climate science also appears to use many of the same fallacies, do you have examples of those. I have not read much of climate science details. I stick to basic physics.

Do feel free to point out errors...and provide observed, measured evidence to support your claims. What's that bucky? No observed measured evidence? Not surprised.

Several have evidence. I cited 5 idiotic excerpts from the site. If you need evidence that they are not idiotic, it really shows just who is idiotic.
.

The only thing you have cited is evidence of how easily you are fooled...not something most people would be proud of, but you wackos are an odd lot.

 

[Wuwei]

The only thing you have cited is evidence of how easily you are fooled...not something most people would be proud of, but you wackos are an odd lot.

These are the quotes you are referring to which you think I'm being fooled:

When a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs radiation, it re-emits the radiation in [83] femto seconds.... It's actually a few microseconds.
​

How about a reference that says the relaxation time is in femto seconds

Since each CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is surrounded by 2,500 air molecules, it would have to be 2,500°C to heat the surrounding molecules [by one degree]​

Tell me how a single molecule can have a temperature.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is too absurd to be used. ​

You cite the SB equation constantly. Now you think it's absurd!

[Physicists] say the same amount of radiation is being emitted as absorbed .... No way. If skin cells were giving off and absorbing 524 W/m² at 98°C, tissue damage would occur between absorption and emission.​

Do you really think we suffer skin damage from our own body temperature!?

Virtually everything in physics is in error ...​

Of course you already literally said modern physics is fairy dust. Nothing new here.

And you say we wackos are an odd lot!

.

 

[SSDD]

If you weren't a complete idiot, you would know that you can't apply the SB law to gasses...and you would know that:

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

If there were, we would not be 697 posts into this thread and still waiting and you would not be trying to pick fly specks out of pepper in a failing effort to convince "someone" that such evidence exists. Laughable...absolutely laughable...and the OP still stands unchallenged by anything more than your proclamation that you are easily fooled.

 

[jc456]

The only thing you have cited is evidence of how easily you are fooled...not something most people would be proud of, but you wackos are an odd lot.

These are the quotes you are referring to which you think I'm being fooled:

When a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs radiation, it re-emits the radiation in [83] femto seconds.... It's actually a few microseconds.
​

How about a reference that says the relaxation time is in femto seconds

Since each CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is surrounded by 2,500 air molecules, it would have to be 2,500°C to heat the surrounding molecules [by one degree]​

Tell me how a single molecule can have a temperature.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is too absurd to be used. ​

You cite the SB equation constantly. Now you think it's absurd!

[Physicists] say the same amount of radiation is being emitted as absorbed .... No way. If skin cells were giving off and absorbing 524 W/m² at 98°C, tissue damage would occur between absorption and emission.​

Do you really think we suffer skin damage from our own body temperature!?

Virtually everything in physics is in error ...​

Of course you already literally said modern physics is fairy dust. Nothing new here.

And you say we wackos are an odd lot!

.

Do you really think we suffer skin damage from our own body temperature!?

You don't even understand the statement the man made do you? you should actually think about it. Has nothing to do with temperature like you stated, it was about absorbed and emitted. and again you deflect rather than actually address the statement. It's what you do.

BTW, it was excellent analogy to use. and like clockwork over your head.

 

[Wuwei]

If there were, we would not be 697 posts into this thread and still waiting

Your OP was knocked down several times. The only reason there are 697 posts is that you still keep trying to keep it alive like ground hog day.