OH YEA??? Well this guy is so disputed by "settled Science"!!!

[jc456]

Rigorous standards of evidence means reproducible experiments and accurate, verifiable predictions. None of which, to date, AGW proponents have been able to produce. Until that happens, we have to entertain the possibility of different explanations for variations in climate patterns.

Patterns that, according to the scientific record, have gone through many, much more drastic, changes since well before human and animal life existed on this planet.

Human produced carbon emissions could be having an effect on our climate. However, until that is proved to a certainty, by the reproducible experiments and verifiable predictions mentioned above, we shouldn't go destroying our economy and expanding government powers in a desperate attempt to head off something we don't fully understand nor know how to control.

All actions of man (particularly the large-scale ones) have unintended consequences. Flood a desert, destroy an ecosystem. Build a dam and cause widespread deforestation. End hunger and disease, cause an overpopulation problem, The process used for creating artificial fertilizers also allowed Germany to continue to produce ammunition and allowed the First World War to go on three years longer than it should have, at the cost of millions of lives.

The experts don’t understand clouds impact on earth . Until crick’s experts explain clouds every output is invalid

 

[Crick]

The experts don’t understand clouds impact on earth . Until crick’s experts explain clouds every output is invalid

God are you stupid.

 

[Crick]

Rigorous standards of evidence means reproducible experiments and accurate, verifiable predictions. None of which, to date, AGW proponents have been able to produce.

That is absolutely false.

Until that happens, we have to entertain the possibility of different explanations for variations in climate patterns.

Since you have decided to lie about the actual state of things, YOUR opinion has become completely irrelevant.

Patterns that, according to the scientific record, have gone through many, much more drastic, changes since well before human and animal life existed on this planet.

Please explain your belief that past changes refute AGW.

Human produced carbon emissions could be having an effect on our climate. However, until that is proved to a certainty, by the reproducible experiments and verifiable predictions mentioned above, we shouldn't go destroying our economy and expanding government powers in a desperate attempt to head off something we don't fully understand nor know how to control.

That humans are responsible for the CO2 above 280 ppm has been shown by multiple, reproducible measurements and simple bookkeeping.

All actions of man (particularly the large-scale ones) have unintended consequences. Flood a desert, destroy an ecosystem. Build a dam and cause widespread deforestation. End hunger and disease, cause an overpopulation problem, The process used for creating artificial fertilizers also allowed Germany to continue to produce ammunition and allowed the First World War to go on three years longer than it should have, at the cost of millions of lives.

This comment is irrelevant.

 

[jc456]

God are you stupid.

You better watch out, god might object to you calling him stupid

 

[fncceo]

That is absolutely false.

Since you have decided to lie about the actual state of things, YOUR opinion has become completely irrelevant.

Please explain your belief that past changes refute AGW.

That humans are responsible for the CO2 above 280 ppm has been shown by multiple, reproducible measurements and simple bookkeeping.

This comment is irrelevant.

It's OK to be frustrated when someone questions your faith. It's a common reaction when one's faith in a fundamental belief is questioned.

I don't mind if you consider my arguments to be blasphemous or heretical.

Just remember, without heresy, the Renaissance could never have happened.

 

[Crick]

It's OK to be frustrated when someone questions your faith. It's a common reaction when one's faith in a fundamental belief is questioned.

I don't mind if you consider my arguments to be blasphemous or heretical.

Just remember, without heresy, the Renaissance could never have happened.

Blasphemous? Heretical? What a fucking ego. I consider them to be false. Wrong. Incorrect. A lie. The result of ignorance and/or dishonesty. Do you actually think that a theory that failed at reproducibility or making predictions would be accepted by over 99% of active, publishing scientists? This takes us back to the giant, perfect conspiracy fantasy once again.

That the world is warming at a rate not seen in 10,000 years is based on multiple observations from all over the planet. That greenhouse warming is produced when CO2 and other GHGs absorb IR to which all other atmospheric components are transparent has been established by multiple observations by multitudes of scientists. That no other cause of the observed warming has been found is another observation of the multiple attempts to find such an alternative. That the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen more than 50% since the onset of the Industrial Revolution at a rate not seen in over two million years is based on multiple studies and observations. That the source of the increased CO2 is human emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels has been multiply established both by isotopic analysis, identifying the source of the gas and simple bookkeeping, totting up how much coal and oil we've burned. The results of the two methods agree. Predictions, including that CO2 levels will continue to increase as we continue to burn fossil fuels, that temperatures will continue to climb and that rising global temperatures will have several effects: melting the world's snow and ice, raising sea level, increasing the temperatures of the world's oceans, affecting crops and wildlife, increased precipitation and the intensity of severe weather, dramatically raising the temperature at the poles, the increased frequency of Rossby Waves in the jet stream have all come about. That Al Gore's offhand predictions have not come to pass as scheduled shows only that (Surprise! Surprise!) Al Gore is not a climate scientist and that AGW deniers tend to be ignorant and dishonest.

 

[ding]

Please explain your belief that past changes refute AGW.

Climate fluctuations are an artifact of a bipolar glaciated world where the poles have different glaciation thresholds and different landmass configurations surrounding the polar regions. They have mistakenly attributed the recent warming trend for AGW and are using biased models to confirm their biases.

 

[ding]

This comment is irrelevant.

I'm pretty sure his comment was directed at man's futility to control planetary climate and its unintended consequences which despite your objection IS relevant. It's why doctors concern themselves with doing no harm... unintended consequences.

 

[Crick]

Climate fluctuations are an artifact of a bipolar glaciated world where the poles have different glaciation thresholds and different landmass configurations surrounding the polar regions. They have mistakenly attributed the recent warming trend for AGW and are using biased models to confirm their biases.

Are you familiar with the term "one trick pony"?

 

[ding]

Are you familiar with the term "one trick pony"?

Yes, your only evidence is a trumped up one trick pony computer model. Whereas I actually discuss what drives the climate of the planet; bipolar glaciation.

 

[Crick]

Yes, your only evidence is a trumped up one trick pony computer model. Whereas I actually discuss what drives the climate of the planet; bipolar glaciation.

I bet you get a woody when you say that out loud.

 

[fncceo]

I consider them to be false. Wrong. Incorrect. A lie. The result of ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[Crick]

View attachment 741733

And what should I take from this?

 

[ding]

I bet you get a woody when you say that out loud.

I get no pleasure from people accepting - without question - what others told them to believe. Your only evidence for a warming planet is a computer model - which isn't evidence at all. It's a computer model. Everything else points to a cooling planet because the earth is uniquely configured for colder temperatures.

 

[ding]

And what should I take from this?

That you have no evidence to support your belief. That you take it on faith. That you have religion.

 

[Crick]

I get no pleasure from people accepting - without question - what others told them to believe. Your only evidence for a warming planet is a computer model - which isn't evidence at all. It's a computer model. Everything else points to a cooling planet because the earth is uniquely configured for colder temperatures.

The data below are not the output of a computer model.

 

[ding]

The data below are not the output of a computer model.

And not in agreement with northern hemisphere ice core data which is the gold standard. And their reference temperature date is completely arbitrary and intentionally misleading.

δ18O from the GISP2 ice core for the past 10,000 years

The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years – Archiv Klimanachrichten

archiv.klimanachrichten.de

Oxygen isotope measurements of the GISP2 ice core show that about 8,500 of the past 10,000 years were significantly warmer than recent decades. The most recent 1 500 years, including the Little Ice Age were cooler. Temperature reconstructions from borehole data confirm the oxygen isotope data and show that about 8,500 of the past 10,000 years were significantly warmer than recent decades. Temperature measurements at eight Greenland weather stations show that temperatures in recent decades have not exceeded 1930s levels, so top-of-core data (1987) may be compared to paleo-temperatures over the past 10,000 years.

 

[Crick]

And not in agreement with northern hemisphere ice core data which is the gold standard. And their reference temperature date is completely arbitrary and intentionally misleading.

δ18O from the GISP2 ice core for the past 10,000 years

The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years – Archiv Klimanachrichten

archiv.klimanachrichten.de

Oxygen isotope measurements of the GISP2 ice core show that about 8,500 of the past 10,000 years were significantly warmer than recent decades. The most recent 1 500 years, including the Little Ice Age were cooler. Temperature reconstructions from borehole data confirm the oxygen isotope data and show that about 8,500 of the past 10,000 years were significantly warmer than recent decades. Temperature measurements at eight Greenland weather stations show that temperatures in recent decades have not exceeded 1930s levels, so top-of-core data (1987) may be compared to paleo-temperatures over the past 10,000 years.

That's complete bullshit.

 

[fncceo]

That's complete bullshit.

The fact that your response above, along with resorting to angry cries of 'Liar' and 'Stupid', is what passes for scientific discussion on this subject is probably a major reason why most serious people don't take the issue seriously.

 

[Crick]

The fact that your response above, along with resorting to angry cries of 'Liar' and 'Stupid', is what passes for scientific discussion on this subject is probably a major reason why most serious people don't take the issue seriously.

I, on the other hand, think it's entirely due to people lying, making ignorant comments and posting complete bullshit. Even the smartest scientist who ever lived couldn't have a "scientific discussion" with an orangutan. It doesn't say ANYTHING about the topic.