The Experiment that finally convinced me AGW is for real

[OohPooPahDoo]

Oh, I see your point. You mean like saying "Obama's a good President" over and over doesn't make it true.

Sure.

Whatever you like.

What I like is the truth. There is little to be had in climate "science".

Well there must not be. Drudge says so.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No one's faking data you blubbering idiot. Just because a bunch of idiot bloggers claim data is faked and keep repeating it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again doesn't make it true.

Of course.
What was I thinking?

Nevermind.

Wow you showed me. A hockey stick. That proves a lot. (like how big of a fucking idiot you are, like the fact your mother dropped you at least a dozen times right on your noggin, etc.)

There, there. No need to cry.

 

[itfitzme]

Oh, I see your point. You mean like saying "Obama's a good President" over and over doesn't make it true.

Sure.

Whatever you like.

h
What I like is the truth. There is little to be had in climate "science".

Please, Dave, present us with you're great science knowledge.. Say, what statistical package to you prefer for analyzing data?

What is sum of squares?

How about simply the minimum sample size for accepted statistical significance?

You can spell it, surely you know what it is..".science"

 

[itfitzme]

No one's faking data you blubbering idiot. Just because a bunch of idiot bloggers claim data is faked and keep repeating it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again doesn't make it true.

Of course.
What was I thinking?

Nevermind.

Wow you showed me. A hockey stick. That proves a lot. (like how big of a fucking idiot you are, like the fact your mother dropped you at least a dozen times right on your noggin, etc.)

It is exactly what right wingers think is proof. They all say, "Yeah, it's exactly like that."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course.
What was I thinking?

Nevermind.

Wow you showed me. A hockey stick. That proves a lot. (like how big of a fucking idiot you are, like the fact your mother dropped you at least a dozen times right on your noggin, etc.)

It is exactly what right wingers think is proof. They all say, "Yeah, it's exactly like that."

Proof? Who needs proof?

The debate is over. The science is settled.

97% of scientists (well, 75/77) agree.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Of course.
What was I thinking?

Nevermind.

Wow you showed me. A hockey stick. That proves a lot. (like how big of a fucking idiot you are, like the fact your mother dropped you at least a dozen times right on your noggin, etc.)

It is exactly what right wingers think is proof. They all say, "Yeah, it's exactly like that."

You're right. They're like a bunch of morons all pretending that they understand something so they don't embarass themselves in front of the other morons.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

But, we are talking about a trace gas that is in earth history only responsible for a tiny fraction of the warming as a whole, we are talking about a raise of ten or 20% of this tiny effect and we have still not considered that its absorption capacity is used up, because there is no more energy in the respective bandwiths to absorb.

That's only past optical depth.

As more Co2 is added to the atmosphere, the depth of gas that is optically thick gets higher and higher. The IR is effectively radiated into space at this altitude. As this altitude increases, the effective temperature of the escaping radiation decreases (faster than the rate at which the surface area of the radiating layer increases) - resulting in a decrease of the rate at which energy escapes into space. The Earth's atmosphere has to warm to compensate.


Your arguments - while they are ultimately shown to not disprove AGW - are quite reasonable and indictive of a skeptical mind - not a denialist mind. Denialists are morons. On the other hand, skeptics like yourself are what drive science.

 

[SSDD]

You're right. They're like a bunch of morons all pretending that they understand something so they don't embarass themselves in front of the other morons.

Right....your life would be so much better if we skeptics could just see how beautiful the emperor's new clothes are.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You're right. They're like a bunch of morons all pretending that they understand something so they don't embarass themselves in front of the other morons.

Right....your life would be so much better if we skeptics could just see how beautiful the emperor's new clothes are.

You're not a skeptic.

 

[daveman]

Sure.

Whatever you like.

What I like is the truth. There is little to be had in climate "science".

Well there must not be. Drudge says so.

Science says so. You know, that thing you cultists have to distort and pervert to push your economic agenda.

 

[daveman]

Sure.

Whatever you like.

h
What I like is the truth. There is little to be had in climate "science".

Please, Dave, present us with you're great science knowledge.. Say, what statistical package to you prefer for analyzing data?

What is sum of squares?

How about simply the minimum sample size for accepted statistical significance?

You can spell it, surely you know what it is..".science"

It's a simple question, really:

Do scientists like more data, or less data?

 

[SSDD]

You're right. They're like a bunch of morons all pretending that they understand something so they don't embarass themselves in front of the other morons.

Right....your life would be so much better if we skeptics could just see how beautiful the emperor's new clothes are.

You're not a skeptic.

You really need to work on your vocabulary.

skeptic - n - a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

 

[SSDD]

h
What I like is the truth. There is little to be had in climate "science".

Please, Dave, present us with you're great science knowledge.. Say, what statistical package to you prefer for analyzing data?

What is sum of squares?

How about simply the minimum sample size for accepted statistical significance?

You can spell it, surely you know what it is..".science"

It's a simple question, really:

Do scientists like more data, or less data?

Most scientists like more....climate scientists like more, but they prefer to make it up for themselves....which explains why so many of the rural temperature stations were taken off line and why the places on earth which seem to have the greatest warming are the places with the fewest data collection stations.

 

[IanC]

h
What I like is the truth. There is little to be had in climate "science".

Please, Dave, present us with you're great science knowledge.. Say, what statistical package to you prefer for analyzing data?

What is sum of squares?

How about simply the minimum sample size for accepted statistical significance?

You can spell it, surely you know what it is..".science"

It's a simple question, really:

Do scientists like more data, or less data?

climate scientists like pick and choose which data they use, and then use sketchey methodology to exaggerate the results they want to highlight. statisticians know this and scientists from other fields are afraid of getting trapped in the tarpit of the politicized IPCC fiasco.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wow you showed me. A hockey stick. That proves a lot. (like how big of a fucking idiot you are, like the fact your mother dropped you at least a dozen times right on your noggin, etc.)

It is exactly what right wingers think is proof. They all say, "Yeah, it's exactly like that."

You're right. They're like a bunch of morons all pretending that they understand something so they don't embarass themselves in front of the other morons.

Yes Einstein. tell us again how its physically impossible to test the AGWcult hypothesis because we're unable to build a container larger than 25 meters.

I keep telling you you're being played but you refuse to listen

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It is exactly what right wingers think is proof. They all say, "Yeah, it's exactly like that."

You're right. They're like a bunch of morons all pretending that they understand something so they don't embarass themselves in front of the other morons.

Yes Einstein. tell us again how its physically impossible to test the AGWcult hypothesis because we're unable to build a container larger than 25 meters.

I didn't tell you it was physically impossible. You're a moron and a liar.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Right....your life would be so much better if we skeptics could just see how beautiful the emperor's new clothes are.

You're not a skeptic.

You really need to work on your vocabulary.

skeptic - n - a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

That's not you though. This is:

denialist - n - a person who does not acknowledge the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence; a denier.

You aren't questioning anything. You're simply declaring it false.

 

[SSDD]

Making up definitions just like you make up science. Not surprising.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You're right. They're like a bunch of morons all pretending that they understand something so they don't embarass themselves in front of the other morons.

Yes Einstein. tell us again how its physically impossible to test the AGWcult hypothesis because we're unable to build a container larger than 25 meters.

I didn't tell you it was physically impossible. You're a moron and a liar.

So where's the experiment?

Your first excuse was the 25 meter upper limit on human construction, then you said that you can only test the 100PPM increase on a planetary scale, that the 100PPM was somehow less effective at anything less than a planet.

And you still don't get that you're being played. People like Mann are laughing at you

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Making up definitions just like you make up science. Not surprising.

You busted me. I AM GOOGLE!!!


Let me google that for you