Reasons we don't like the Kool Aid on global warming

[mudwhistle]

Warmist junk science is neither reproducible on demand and in context, falsifiable, nor does it have any static control model other than computer models, which are only as perfect as the imperfect people who input their data and cannot possibly account for every possible variable.

Yeah..............what he said...........so there.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

You forgot the next couple of paragraphs



The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth. One of the researchers, Lori Fenton, believes variations in radiation and temperature across the surface of the Red Planet are generating strong winds.

In a paper published in the journal Nature, she suggests that such winds can stir up giant dust storms, trapping heat and raising the planet’s temperature.

Fenton’s team unearthed heat maps of the Martian surface from Nasa’s Viking mission in the 1970s and compared them with maps gathered more than two decades later by Mars Global Surveyor. They found there had been widespread changes, with some areas becoming darker.

When a surface darkens it absorbs more heat, eventually radiating that heat back to warm the thin Martian atmosphere: lighter surfaces have the opposite effect. The temperature differences between the two are thought to be stirring up more winds, and dust, creating a cycle that is warming the planet.

 

[Truthmatters]

Funny you think that article they posted was koolaide , I quoted the other posters article.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Funny you think that article they posted was koolaide , I quoted the other posters article.

The backpedaling by the person quoted in the article was Kool-Aid.

 

[Truthmatters]

Go read the thread and you will understand.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Go read the thread and you will understand.

GO read? I have been reading and I understand completely. It is you who do not understand, but more likely it's willfully pretending not to understand.

You still haven't even begun a sufficient answer to this:

Warmist junk science is neither reproducible on demand and in context, falsifiable, nor does it have any static control model other than computer models, which are only as perfect as the imperfect people who input their data and cannot possibly account for every possible variable.

Because you can't refute any of it.

 

[Si modo]

Christ Almighty! We still have folks posting IPCC links for science?

This is the fundamental problem with all of this; some folks cannot distinguish between science and policy or between scientists and activists.

What a clusterfuck this all is and Al Gore is patient zero for all that ails this science. This science is so soiled as a result. Al Gore and his disciples are the true enemies of science.

 

[mudwhistle]

Christ Almighty! We still have folks posting IPCC links for science?

This is the fundamental problem with all of this; some folks cannot distinguish between science and policy or between scientists and activists.

What a clusterfuck this all is and Al Gore is patient zero for all that ails this science. This science is so soiled as a result. Al Gore and his disciples are the true enemies of science.

I would have thought anyone with an open mind would have gathered that from his attempt to grab the White House after he lost the 2000 election.

 

[Caligirl]

Can you refute any of the below? If so, please feel free:

Well, on another thread it was claimed (I assume by the same poster but didn't pay attention) that the 'warming' theory was not falsifiable ... and in the next breath - by the same poster - it was claimed that warming science had been falsified, ... so, ya know, I wouldn't take that claim as being particularly credible.

It is falsifiable, of course. Any predictive theory is falsifiable - if the prediction fails, it falsifies the theory. Any dummy should get that.

... nor does it have any static control model other than computer models, which are only as perfect as the imperfect people who input their data and cannot possibly account for every possible variable.

Yeah I don't have any particular problem with this as long as we agree that this goes for both sides and the deniers are every bit as flawed. Can we agree that the deniers have it wrong?

That was me, and that was here. I suggested that you actually read the links I provided to you as you were clueless on the logic of scientific discovery.

You obviously did not take my advice as you still do not understand the concept of falsifiability.


And, what are the 'deniers' denying?

I don't care what we call either side, as long as the labeling is evenhanded.

If the deniers want to be called the skeptical group, that's fine and dandy with me ... as long as they recognize that the warmers would prefer to be called the reasonable group. Deal?

It seems pretty clear to me that you claimed warming is not falsifiable and then claimed in the same sentence that it had been falsified. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you were blowing hot air.

It was also clear that I linked you to primary literature ... and you linked me to a blog. I stopped taking you seriously at that point.

 

[Oddball]

Globalclimatecoolerwarmering science fiction has been scientifically falsified for every possible other explanation?

That's news to me.

 

[Caligirl]

Their predictions have been way off in predictions, and we now find that their data is badly cooked.

How have their predictions been way off in predictions, please?

TIA

 

[Caligirl]

What is the Evidence for Global Warming

Please read things other than right wing blog sites if you wish to understand science.

You keep handing out the same debunked material.

Why does NASA refuse to comply with the FOIA request for their data for 2 years now?

Excuse me? NASA is part of the conspiracy??

Good Lord, the government, NASA, the scientsts, academia, the MSM, .... So many people in on the conspiracy ....

It looks like the only ones not part of the conspiracy are the religious right.

 

[Si modo]

Well, on another thread it was claimed (I assume by the same poster but didn't pay attention) that the 'warming' theory was not falsifiable ... and in the next breath - by the same poster - it was claimed that warming science had been falsified, ... so, ya know, I wouldn't take that claim as being particularly credible.

It is falsifiable, of course. Any predictive theory is falsifiable - if the prediction fails, it falsifies the theory. Any dummy should get that.



Yeah I don't have any particular problem with this as long as we agree that this goes for both sides and the deniers are every bit as flawed. Can we agree that the deniers have it wrong?

That was me, and that was here. I suggested that you actually read the links I provided to you as you were clueless on the logic of scientific discovery.

You obviously did not take my advice as you still do not understand the concept of falsifiability.


And, what are the 'deniers' denying?

I don't care what we call either side, as long as the labeling is evenhanded.

If the deniers want to be called the skeptical group, that's fine and dandy with me ... as long as they recognize that the warmers would prefer to be called the reasonable group. Deal?

It seems pretty clear to me that you claimed warming is not falsifiable and then claimed in the same sentence that it had been falsified. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you were blowing hot air.

It was also clear that I linked you to primary literature ... and you linked me to a blog. I stopped taking you seriously at that point.

OMG. Your willful ignorance about science is amazing. Again, read up on the concept of falsifiability or continue to look like a science retard. Your choice.

 

[Si modo]

Their predictions have been way off in predictions, and we now find that their data is badly cooked.

How have their predictions been way off in predictions, please?

TIA

I suspect that you will not comprehend, but as I said in the other thread to which I linked, almost all of the predictive models (at tleast the ones compiled by the IPCC) are not falsifiable, thus they are non-scientific.

 

[Caligirl]

Warmist junk science is neither reproducible on demand and in context, falsifiable, nor does it have any static control model other than computer models, which are only as perfect as the imperfect people who input their data and cannot possibly account for every possible variable.

this is an idiotic rant.

You stole it from some right wing blog and dont even realize its a phoney paid for mishmash.

Our Man Made Global Warming computer models tell us that Global Warming is man made...what a shocker!

Ya, that would be pretty bad....

.... if that was the way it had developed.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Please read things other than right wing blog sites if you wish to understand science.

You keep handing out the same debunked material.

Why does NASA refuse to comply with the FOIA request for their data for 2 years now?

Excuse me? NASA is part of the conspiracy??

Good Lord, the government, NASA, the scientsts, academia, the MSM, .... So many people in on the conspiracy ....

It looks like the only ones not part of the conspiracy are the religious right.

I know you're gullible, but, yes, for the past 2 years now NASA has refused to comply with a FOIA request to release their data on the Glacier Eating CO2 Spaghetti Monster.

Clue: Get one today.

 

[Caligirl]

Their predictions have been way off in predictions, and we now find that their data is badly cooked.

How have their predictions been way off in predictions, please?

TIA

I suspect that you will not comprehend, but as I said in the other thread to which I linked, almost all of the predictive models (at tleast the ones compiled by the IPCC) are not falsifiable, thus they are non-scientific.

Thanks,

How have the predictions been off, please?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Warmist junk science is neither reproducible on demand and in context, falsifiable, nor does it have any static control model other than computer models, which are only as perfect as the imperfect people who input their data and cannot possibly account for every possible variable.

this is an idiotic rant.

You stole it from some right wing blog and dont even realize its a phoney paid for mishmash.

Our Man Made Global Warming computer models tell us that Global Warming is man made...what a shocker!

Ya, that would be pretty bad....

.... if that was the way it had developed.

Bask in your ignorance and keep coming back to defend what you don't understand.

 

[Caligirl]

You keep handing out the same debunked material.

Why does NASA refuse to comply with the FOIA request for their data for 2 years now?

Excuse me? NASA is part of the conspiracy??

Good Lord, the government, NASA, the scientsts, academia, the MSM, .... So many people in on the conspiracy ....

It looks like the only ones not part of the conspiracy are the religious right.

I know you're gullible, but, yes, for the past 2 years now NASA has refused to comply with a FOIA request to release their data on the Glacier Eating CO2 Spaghetti Monster.

Clue: Get one today.

Amd this means they're part of the conspiracy .... slam dunk case here, ...

.... instead of just as dysfunctional as every other group?

You know, like the secret service and airport security and the folks who didn't catch Madoff and yadda yadda yadda?

 

[Caligirl]

Our Man Made Global Warming computer models tell us that Global Warming is man made...what a shocker!

Ya, that would be pretty bad....

.... if that was the way it had developed.

Bask in your ignorance and keep coming back to defend what you don't understand.

You guys really know how to put together an incredible argument.