Proof of AGW fraud

[james bond]

Consensus is a political term, not a scientific term

And another clown. Try reading.
Scientific consensus

I'm a scientist, doofus. I know more about science than you ever will. Consensus is political, not scientific.

That tells you all you need to know about climatology......it ain't MEASURABLE!

If it were there would be no need to talk about it and reach a consensus. You could MEASURE it.

Duh...

The reason why Grumblenuts is posting this consensus cr*p is because that is what secular/atheist scientists have rendered science today. It isn't about best theory, but best consensus. It's called "settled science."

 

[james bond]

They offer no counter theory so never need present experimental results. Denial never requires doing any science.

What bugs me is the people who live an extravagant life, wasteful of resources and heedless of others are those on your side crying about AGW. If they give this up, then I would start paying more attention to AGW.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Somewhat ironic in this case though in that I'd also likely argue with you about many aspects of modern physics.

What aspects of modern physics do you find arguable? Or maybe a digression like that belongs in the Science and Technology forum.
.

Yeah, a digression for another day at least. But briefly, I find much of both quantum physics and Einstein's warped space notions highly warped. The math has obviously been made to work out for the most part but that's just been the excuse all along. Such notions have mainly served to protect expensive institutional investments and held back our progress as a species. I'd leave it at that, but since loony james has arrived I'll just leave you with this:

Law of Conservation of Energy
The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in a system remains constant ("is conserved"), although energy within the system can be changed from one form to another or transferred from one object to another. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be transformed.

Newton never referred to his theories as "laws" and this typical modern version goes well beyond his careful assertions. Only in theory is there such a thing as a "closed system" so not a good start. If you dug a hole next to a golf ball you wouldn't claim the ball gained any form of energy as a result. We commonly (lazily) describe energy, work, and power as scalars. In reality, they're not only vector functions but complex ones to boot. Modern physicists are only beginning to wake from their long nap. High time we got back to presuming the Aether.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yep, quite the show. Hey, don't worry about me, Wuwei. Far from the first time I've dealt with such wankers. Somewhat ironic in this case though in that I'd also likely argue with you about many aspects of modern physics. But these pretenders hold no actual cards. They simply deny everything and grossly misrepresent (lie like hell, as you say) about everyone else's works. They offer no counter theory so never need present experimental results. Denial never requires doing any science.

Yes indeed, you are certainly putting on a show of ignorance. I find it rather amusing that you have not yet defined, in your own words the AGW hypothesis. Nor have you place any science up to show your position has a lick of credibility. Same Shit, Different Day by a different alarmist. And yes, You lie like hell as you have yet to produce any empirical evidence that has been observed and rendered it to the Null Hypothesis.

In a nut shell, You talk a lot of crap and provide no substance...

 

[Grumblenuts]

You just can’t get anymore special than this from your own link;

“We can't take Earth's temperature directly, but we do have a lot of information from weather stations, ocean buoys and remote sensing instruments. The information lets us see changes in climate. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech“

Oh, let me guess. "Special" because you can't either so would never even try. But, boy can you deny!

I can’t either what?

"take Earth's temperature directly" Read, McFly. That means they can't just stick a meat thermometer in it somewhere, wait 30 seconds and call that a measure of Earth's temperature, let alone its change in "warming" or "climate." You can't and haven't either. Think, McFly!

You provided a link that admits temperatures can’t be observed!

Lie, McFly!

On an ask from me for observed empirical data! Pwned

Dumb, McFly!

 

[SSDD]

Somewhat ironic in this case though in that I'd also likely argue with you about many aspects of modern physics.

What aspects of modern physics do you find arguable? Or maybe a digression like that belongs in the Science and Technology forum.
.

Yeah, a digression for another day at least. But briefly, I find much of both quantum physics and Einstein's warped space notions highly warped.

Absolutely hilarious and supremely ironic. Wuwei tends to jump on bandwagons and he thought he had himself a new bud.

Wuwei thinks that QM was handed down from mount Olympus complete, perfect, and unshakable.

His primary reason for stalking me around the board is his endless frustration at not being able to get me to hop on the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model crazy train that is QM.

 

[skookerasbil]

I just dont get all this time and energy spent on debating the science? To what end? The public is totally disinterested which is not debatable. Seems to me an exercise in group navel contemplation.

 

[Wuwei]

Absolutely hilarious and supremely ironic. Wuwei tends to jump on bandwagons and he thought he had himself a new bud.

Wuwei thinks that QM was handed down from mount Olympus complete, perfect, and unshakable.

His primary reason for stalking me around the board is his endless frustration at not being able to get me to hop on the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model crazy train that is QM.

Looks like you found a new bud. I am not frustrated. I am fascinated by your utter disbelief in science to the extent that you invent new definitions, and have a self contradictory fake physics. It isn't just QM you deny, it's the basic laws of thermodynamics and radiation physics. You haven't been able to shake QM. It must frustrate you.


.

 

[Wuwei]

I just dont get all this time and energy spent on debating the science? To what end? The public is totally disinterested which is not debatable. Seems to me an exercise in group navel contemplation.

You are right. The public is disinterested. But it isn't a debate for the public. When somebody totally butchers the laws of physics in a sad attempt to prove their point, it's fodder for this forum.


.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You are right. The public is disinterested.

Not really, but:

While public interest in science continues to grow, the level of U.S. scientific literacy remains largely unchanged, according to a survey by the Institute for Social Research.

Funded by NASA, the study found that 51 percent of Americans are interested in science, but only 28 percent have a sufficient level of scientific understanding to follow and engage in debates about current science and technology policy issues.

The level of scientific literacy has remained constant for nearly a decade.

-More-

 

[Grumblenuts]

Looks like you found a new bud.

LOL. I hardly think so. Not after this experience. I'm sure you and I better agree on the important things.

 

[jc456]

You just can’t get anymore special than this from your own link;

“We can't take Earth's temperature directly, but we do have a lot of information from weather stations, ocean buoys and remote sensing instruments. The information lets us see changes in climate. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech“

Oh, let me guess. "Special" because you can't either so would never even try. But, boy can you deny!

I can’t either what?

"take Earth's temperature directly" Read, McFly. That means they can't just stick a meat thermometer in it somewhere, wait 30 seconds and call that a measure of Earth's temperature, let alone its change in "warming" or "climate." You can't and haven't either. Think, McFly!

You provided a link that admits temperatures can’t be observed!

Lie, McFly!

On an ask from me for observed empirical data! Pwned

Dumb, McFly!

What do you think that comment means?

 

[Wuwei]

You are right. The public is disinterested.

Not really, but:

While public interest in science continues to grow, the level of U.S. scientific literacy remains largely unchanged, according to a survey by the Institute for Social Research.

Funded by NASA, the study found that 51 percent of Americans are interested in science, but only 28 percent have a sufficient level of scientific understanding to follow and engage in debates about current science and technology policy issues.

The level of scientific literacy has remained constant for nearly a decade.

-More-

Yes, a good percentage of the public is interested in things like the Pluto fly-by and the moons of the larger planets. I was referring to very fundamental physics such as laws of radiation physics. The public is much less interested in that. (My unsupported opinion.)

.

 

[Wuwei]

LOL. I hardly think so. Not after this experience. I'm sure you and I better agree on the important things.

Yes I know. I was just teasing SSDD.

 

[SSDD]

LOL. I hardly think so. Not after this experience. I'm sure you and I better agree on the important things.

Yes I know. I was just teasing SSDD.

It's funny when the monkeys think they are teasing the spectators when really all they are doing is flinging excrement.

How about you provide any definition I made up...what happened to you that made you such a liar?

 

[Wuwei]

It's funny when the monkeys think they are teasing the spectators when really all they are doing is flinging excrement.

That's exactly what you are doing right now.

How about you provide any definition I made up...what happened to you that made you such a liar?

Nope. Not a liar.

You gave a colloquial definition to redefine "spontaneous emission".
You defined anything "man-made" to never be involved in a spontaneous process.
You redefined the second temperature term in the SB equation to always be colder.
You redefined black body radiation so that it doesn't radiate near a hotter object.
You redefined the CMB to be "resonance frequencies".
You redefined the nature of the second law of thermodynamics.

There are probably other examples where you alter fundamental terms so you can deny proven science.

.

 

[SSDD]

It's funny when the monkeys think they are teasing the spectators when really all they are doing is flinging excrement.

That's exactly what you are doing right now.

How about you provide any definition I made up...what happened to you that made you such a liar?

Nope. Not a liar.

You gave a colloquial definition to redefine "spontaneous emission".
You defined anything "man-made" to never be involved in a spontaneous process.
You redefined the second temperature term in the SB equation to always be colder.
You redefined black body radiation so that it doesn't radiate near a hotter object.
You redefined the CMB to be "resonance frequencies".
You redefined the nature of the second law of thermodynamics.

There are probably other examples where you alter fundamental terms so you can deny proven science.

.

Your memory is a liar also...the discussion was about spontaneous processes...you tried to introduce the definition for a spontaneous emission as a definition for spontaneous process...the error was yours as a result of your ignorance. You lie like a rug.

I have redefined nothing...it is you wackjobs wo attempt to redefine physical laws in an attempt to make them say something they dont...and I never redefined CMB...I pointed out that CMB was initially discovered via a resonant radio frequency...you are either a bald faced liar or one of the most stupid people on the board...and since all this has been explained to you over and over, it appears that bald faced liar describes you best...

Feel free to bring a quote from me in which I redefine anything.

 

[Wuwei]

I have redefined nothing...it is you wackjobs wo attempt to redefine physical laws in an attempt to make them say something they dont.

Great it seems you now you agree that

• Phosphorescence is a spontaneous emission
• and light sticks and galvanic cells are spontaneous chemical processes
• Man made things can be spontaneous
• Black bodies radiate to warmer objects
• The cold CMB does penetrate the atmosphere and hit a warmer antenna.
• The energy of the Clausius definition refers to net energy and that allows two way radiation exchange.

The above statements are the actual science that appears in countless references, and are agreed upon by hundreds of thousands of scientists. Are you now saying you agree with the above science?
.

 

[SSDD]

I have redefined nothing...it is you wackjobs wo attempt to redefine physical laws in an attempt to make them say something they dont.

Great it seems you now you agree that

• Phosphorescence is a spontaneous emission
• and light sticks and galvanic cells are spontaneous chemical processes
• Man made things can be spontaneous
• Black bodies radiate to warmer objects
• The cold CMB does penetrate the atmosphere and hit a warmer antenna.
• The energy of the Clausius definition refers to net energy and that allows two way radiation exchange.

The above statements are the actual science that appears in countless references, and are agreed upon by hundreds of thousands of scientists. Are you now saying you agree with the above science?
.[/QUOTthe lies never stop with you and it is truly unfortunate that you are to stupid to grasp the difference between spontaneous processes and spontaneous emission...typical of the way you butcher science in an attempt to rationalize your beliefs

 

[Wuwei]

I have redefined nothing...it is you wackjobs wo attempt to redefine physical laws in an attempt to make them say something they dont.

Great it seems you now you agree that

• Phosphorescence is a spontaneous emission
• and light sticks and galvanic cells are spontaneous chemical processes
• Man made things can be spontaneous
• Black bodies radiate to warmer objects
• The cold CMB does penetrate the atmosphere and hit a warmer antenna.
• The energy of the Clausius definition refers to net energy and that allows two way radiation exchange.

The above statements are the actual science that appears in countless references, and are agreed upon by hundreds of thousands of scientists. Are you now saying you agree with the above science?
.[/QUOTthe lies never stop with you and it is truly unfortunate that you are to stupid to grasp the difference between spontaneous processes and spontaneous emission...typical of the way you butcher science in an attempt to rationalize your beliefs

As usual when you are replete with bitter insults you are generally wrong.

Spontaneous emission is an example of the more general spontaneous process.

A spontaneous process is a process that occurs on its own without outside intervention. Outside intervention is something that changes the process after it has started.​

That science definition covers both radiative and chemical examples. Why do you call that lying? It's basic science. Do you still not believe the other items I outlined that I claimed that you redefined and you claimed that I was lying? Why didn't you mention them too?


.