Proof of AGW fraud

[jc456]

Gawd I love it when you idiots use Logical Fallacy and Appeals to Authority in an effort to keep people from seeing how utterly devoid of science and fact you are...

Yes, you are convincingly clueless as to your own reliance upon the "Authority" (NASA/NOAA) for your own ridiculous attempts to discredit that very same "Authority" (NASA/NOAA). All the data backs AGW. I need provide no more. You have nothing. Grow up. Just imagine how exciting actually giving a shit about others could really be..

Show us normal then

 

[Billy_Bob]

Gawd I love it when you idiots use Logical Fallacy and Appeals to Authority in an effort to keep people from seeing how utterly devoid of science and fact you are...

Yes, you are convincingly clueless as to your own reliance upon the "Authority" (NASA/NOAA) for your own ridiculous attempts to discredit that very same "Authority" (NASA/NOAA). All the data backs AGW. I need provide no more. You have nothing. Grow up. Just imagine how exciting actually giving a shit about others could really be..

Your not arguing science your arguing fantasy.. Keep your broken models, they will crash just as they have for the last 50 years or so as you have failed to fix the most basic of scientific processes in the earths atmosphere (this shows us that your authorities still do not have a grasp of what it is they are modeling). And still no explanation of the AGW hypothesis, so you don't have a clue what it is your arguing for. DO you always argue from a point of ignorance?

 

[Wuwei]

Phosphorescence requires the storage and build up of energy, ie:sun light. Without sunlight it can not emit energy, because it has no stored energy. Work must be done for this to gain energy.

Galvanic cells require work to create the imbalance, without work being accomplished you have a worthless pile of technology.

So, both you and SSDD don't understand the definition, or are making up your own. Please focus on the bold faced part of the definition. That is where you are having trouble.

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.

Spontaneous Process: Definition & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com
You can watch the cartoon, or start reading after the first bold faced heading.

Notice that phosphorescence and batteries follow the definition.

.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Phosphorescence requires the storage and build up of energy, ie:sun light. Without sunlight it can not emit energy, because it has no stored energy. Work must be done for this to gain energy.

Galvanic cells require work to create the imbalance, without work being accomplished you have a worthless pile of technology.

So, both you and SSDD don't understand the definition, or are making up your own. Please focus on the bold faced part of the definition. That is where you are having trouble.

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.

Spontaneous Process: Definition & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com
You can watch the cartoon, or start reading after the first bold faced heading.

Notice that phosphorescence and batteries follow the definition.

.

Without the insertion of energy nothing would florese.

Chemical batteries require energy to create the imbalance.

To meet the definition of "spontaneously" it must create its own energy without outside work being done. These clearly do not meet that criteria.

 

[jc456]

Phosphorescence requires the storage and build up of energy, ie:sun light. Without sunlight it can not emit energy, because it has no stored energy. Work must be done for this to gain energy.

Galvanic cells require work to create the imbalance, without work being accomplished you have a worthless pile of technology.

So, both you and SSDD don't understand the definition, or are making up your own. Please focus on the bold faced part of the definition. That is where you are having trouble.

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.

Spontaneous Process: Definition & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com
You can watch the cartoon, or start reading after the first bold faced heading.

Notice that phosphorescence and batteries follow the definition.

.

“spon·ta·ne·ous
/spänˈtānēəs/
adjective

1. performed or occurring as a result of a sudden inner impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus.
   "the audience broke into spontaneous applause"
   synonyms: unforced, voluntary, unconstrained, unprompted, unbidden, unsolicited, unplanned, unpremeditated, unrehearsed, impulsive, impetuous, unstudied, impromptu, spur-of-the-moment, extempore, extemporaneous; More
   • (of a person) having an open, natural, and uninhibited manner.
     synonyms: natural, uninhibited, relaxed, unselfconscious, unaffected, easy, free and easy; More
   • (of a process or event) occurring without apparent external cause.
     "spontaneous miscarriages"”

 

[Wuwei]

Without the insertion of energy nothing would florese.

Chemical batteries require energy to create the imbalance.

To meet the definition of "spontaneously" it must create its own energy without outside work being done. These clearly do not meet that criteria.

Your first two sentences are correct, but the following are way off. You still haven't understood the bold faced part of the definition. That is where you are having trouble. You are making up your own definition.

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.

Spontaneous Process: Definition & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

The science definition is at the link. Did you read it or understand it? It is very simple to understand. Watch the video.


.

 

[Grumblenuts]

If you look at previous interglacials we are long in time span at the current temperature.

View attachment 265172

You would have to go back 450,000 years to find an interglaical with length longer than today and our current temperature spike is consistent with previous interglacials just before the fall back into the glacial portion of the cycle.

Hate to break it to you alarmists, but this is NATURAL VARIATION!

There's nothing "consistent with previous interglacials" there. Most notable is the increasing temperature variation as time marched forward to the point where most recently it's banging up and down like a chart recorder riding in the back of a pickup truck driving through the Badlands.Yes, that NOAA supplied data, minus your childish scribbling, indicates that we should be cooling. Other NOAA data clearly shows we're not.

 

[jc456]

Without the insertion of energy nothing would florese.

Chemical batteries require energy to create the imbalance.

To meet the definition of "spontaneously" it must create its own energy without outside work being done. These clearly do not meet that criteria.

Your first two sentences are correct, but the following are way off. You still haven't understood the bold faced part of the definition. That is where you are having trouble. You are making up your own definition.

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.

Spontaneous Process: Definition & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

The science definition is at the link. Did you read it or understand it? It is very simple to understand. Watch the video.


.

You don’t understand spontaneous. Fk everything else. You have to get past that definition first. Waiting

 

[Billy_Bob]

Phosphorescence requires the storage and build up of energy, ie:sun light. Without sunlight it can not emit energy, because it has no stored energy. Work must be done for this to gain energy.

Galvanic cells require work to create the imbalance, without work being accomplished you have a worthless pile of technology.

So, both you and SSDD don't understand the definition, or are making up your own. Please focus on the bold faced part of the definition. That is where you are having trouble.

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.

Spontaneous Process: Definition & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com
You can watch the cartoon, or start reading after the first bold faced heading.

Notice that phosphorescence and batteries follow the definition.

.

“spon·ta·ne·ous
/spänˈtānēəs/
adjective

1. performed or occurring as a result of a sudden inner impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus.
   "the audience broke into spontaneous applause"
   synonyms: unforced, voluntary, unconstrained, unprompted, unbidden, unsolicited, unplanned, unpremeditated, unrehearsed, impulsive, impetuous, unstudied, impromptu, spur-of-the-moment, extempore, extemporaneous; More
   • (of a person) having an open, natural, and uninhibited manner.
     synonyms: natural, uninhibited, relaxed, unselfconscious, unaffected, easy, free and easy; More
   • (of a process or event) occurring without apparent external cause.
     "spontaneous miscarriages"”

"1. Performed or occurring as a result of a sudden inner impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus."

Bingo...

"(of a process or event) occurring without apparent external cause."

 

[jc456]

Phosphorescence requires the storage and build up of energy, ie:sun light. Without sunlight it can not emit energy, because it has no stored energy. Work must be done for this to gain energy.

Galvanic cells require work to create the imbalance, without work being accomplished you have a worthless pile of technology.

So, both you and SSDD don't understand the definition, or are making up your own. Please focus on the bold faced part of the definition. That is where you are having trouble.

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.

Spontaneous Process: Definition & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com
You can watch the cartoon, or start reading after the first bold faced heading.

Notice that phosphorescence and batteries follow the definition.

.

“spon·ta·ne·ous
/spänˈtānēəs/
adjective

1. performed or occurring as a result of a sudden inner impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus.
   "the audience broke into spontaneous applause"
   synonyms: unforced, voluntary, unconstrained, unprompted, unbidden, unsolicited, unplanned, unpremeditated, unrehearsed, impulsive, impetuous, unstudied, impromptu, spur-of-the-moment, extempore, extemporaneous; More
   • (of a person) having an open, natural, and uninhibited manner.
     synonyms: natural, uninhibited, relaxed, unselfconscious, unaffected, easy, free and easy; More
   • (of a process or event) occurring without apparent external cause.
     "spontaneous miscarriages"”

"1. Performed or occurring as a result of a sudden inner impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus."

Bingo...

He won’t respond

 

[Billy_Bob]

If you look at previous interglacials we are long in time span at the current temperature.

View attachment 265172

You would have to go back 450,000 years to find an interglaical with length longer than today and our current temperature spike is consistent with previous interglacials just before the fall back into the glacial portion of the cycle.

Hate to break it to you alarmists, but this is NATURAL VARIATION!

There's nothing "consistent with previous interglacials" there. Most notable is the increasing temperature variation as time marched forward to the point where most recently it's banging up and down like a chart recorder riding in the back of a pickup truck driving through the Badlands.Yes, that NOAA supplied data, minus your childish scribbling, indicates that we should be cooling. Other NOAA data clearly shows we're not.

Your not interested in the science. You are a political whore..

And another appeal to logical fallacy/authority devoid of empirical evidence.

 

[jc456]

If you look at previous interglacials we are long in time span at the current temperature.

View attachment 265172

You would have to go back 450,000 years to find an interglaical with length longer than today and our current temperature spike is consistent with previous interglacials just before the fall back into the glacial portion of the cycle.

Hate to break it to you alarmists, but this is NATURAL VARIATION!

There's nothing "consistent with previous interglacials" there. Most notable is the increasing temperature variation as time marched forward to the point where most recently it's banging up and down like a chart recorder riding in the back of a pickup truck driving through the Badlands.Yes, that NOAA supplied data, minus your childish scribbling, indicates that we should be cooling. Other NOAA data clearly shows we're not.

Your not interested in the science. You are a political whore..

And another appeal to logical fallacy/authority devoid of empirical evidence.

He’s another wash, rinse, repeat idiot.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Your not arguing science your arguing fantasy.. Keep your broken models, they will crash just as they have for the last 50 years or so as you have failed to fix the most basic of scientific processes in the earths atmosphere (this shows us that your authorities still do not have a grasp of what it is they are modeling). And still no explanation of the AGW hypothesis, so you don't have a clue what it is your arguing for. DO you always argue from a point of ignorance?

You're not, you're arguing, ("your" & "your" - hey, correct!), you're arguing. Aaaah, I feel better now

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your not arguing science your arguing fantasy.. Keep your broken models, they will crash just as they have for the last 50 years or so as you have failed to fix the most basic of scientific processes in the earths atmosphere (this shows us that your authorities still do not have a grasp of what it is they are modeling). And still no explanation of the AGW hypothesis, so you don't have a clue what it is your arguing for. DO you always argue from a point of ignorance?

You're not, you're arguing, ("your" & "your" - hey, correct!), you're arguing. Aaaah, I feel better now

WOW...

Now were resorting to Grammar policing... Another indication of a failed alarmist trying to save face by deflecting his own idiocy..

Bravo. You have hit every single one of the alarmist playbook directions.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Ooops, just emitted on your avatar again. Sorry

 

[Grumblenuts]

And another appeal to logical fallacy/authority devoid of empirical evidence.

We are The Borg. All your supposed empirical evidence belong to us. All the equipment. All the data. All the charts. We supply it. You supply nothing. You pee and shit on all of it. You beg for more. We tire of this childish game. You will be assimilated. We are the Borg...

 

[jillian]

I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:

1) People say some scientists wrote emails to each other and agreed to defraud the public,. Lots of people say that - and they say very bad things about those scientists, who are criminals, as lots of people say its so.

2) Hockey stick graph. How dumb. Everyone knows that's a fraud, people say its so.

3) Al Gore. That dude looks like a dufus. Sorry, but what more proof of AGW fraud do you need?

Would you care to lie some more?

Vladimir is proud of you

 

[jc456]

Your not arguing science your arguing fantasy.. Keep your broken models, they will crash just as they have for the last 50 years or so as you have failed to fix the most basic of scientific processes in the earths atmosphere (this shows us that your authorities still do not have a grasp of what it is they are modeling). And still no explanation of the AGW hypothesis, so you don't have a clue what it is your arguing for. DO you always argue from a point of ignorance?

You're not, you're arguing, ("your" & "your" - hey, correct!), you're arguing. Aaaah, I feel better now

When you got no response, grammatical checking kicks in

 

[jc456]

I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:

1) People say some scientists wrote emails to each other and agreed to defraud the public,. Lots of people say that - and they say very bad things about those scientists, who are criminals, as lots of people say its so.

2) Hockey stick graph. How dumb. Everyone knows that's a fraud, people say its so.

3) Al Gore. That dude looks like a dufus. Sorry, but what more proof of AGW fraud do you need?

Would you care to lie some more?

Vladimir is proud of you

He’s your bud? Seems you know what he likes comrade !

 

[SSDD]

Your not arguing science your arguing fantasy.. Keep your broken models, they will crash just as they have for the last 50 years or so as you have failed to fix the most basic of scientific processes in the earths atmosphere (this shows us that your authorities still do not have a grasp of what it is they are modeling). And still no explanation of the AGW hypothesis, so you don't have a clue what it is your arguing for. DO you always argue from a point of ignorance?

You're not, you're arguing, ("your" & "your" - hey, correct!), you're arguing. Aaaah, I feel better now

You know you have lost the discussion when you start correcting grammar and punctuation rather than providing evidence to support your position.