Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, you've described perfectly the bullshit pseudo-science of anthropogenic Goebbels warming.All you've applied is a bunch of garbage masquerading as science...GIGO.
Ah, yeah, Newton's Second Law of Motion. Garbage in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an externat force. But can you PROVE, that it's garbage. Cuz if you can't... well then It's like a lack of a sign is a sign. Signentific...
Waytago!
Well, you've described perfectly the bullshit pseudo-science of anthropogenic Goebbels warming.Ah, yeah, Newton's Second Law of Motion. Garbage in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an externat force. But can you PROVE, that it's garbage. Cuz if you can't... well then It's like a lack of a sign is a sign. Signentific...
Waytago!
So basically, you've got nothing. No chemistry, no physics, no mathematics and statistics, no biology, no thermodynics, not anything except "It's pseudo-science" based on no actual knowledge of science.
Computer Assisted Design is not a model.......idiot. It is a drafting table in a computer. Have you always been this stupid are did you have to have to have pharmaceutical help?
Yes, he really is that stupid. It becomes more evident the more he talks.
Well, yes it is a model. A model is everything from a small physical representation of an object to a dynamic mathematical computer simulation. A model may be a simple equation, a drawing, the digitized representation of an object in a CAD system or the dynamic fluid flow equations in a finite element analysys.
Well, you've described perfectly the bullshit pseudo-science of anthropogenic Goebbels warming.
Waytago!
So basically, you've got nothing. No chemistry, no physics, no mathematics and statistics, no biology, no thermodynics, not anything except "It's pseudo-science" based on no actual knowledge of science.
In what other area of science are you ready to bet the farm and $TRILLs based on using trees and the size of worm holes as thermometers?
The science is pretty clear to me. Doubling CO2 from 250 to 500ppm WILL contribute 1.1DegC in warming.. Everything else regarding the "fragile planet" theories and "warming amplification" is ALL speculation and hand-waving.
Computer Assisted Design is not a model.......idiot. It is a drafting table in a computer. Have you always been this stupid are did you have to have to have pharmaceutical help?
Yes, he really is that stupid. It becomes more evident the more he talks.
Well, yes it is a model. A model is everything from a small physical representation of an object to a dynamic mathematical computer simulation. A model may be a simple equation, a drawing, the digitized representation of an object in a CAD system or the dynamic fluid flow equations in a finite element analysys.
So basically, you've got nothing. No chemistry, no physics, no mathematics and statistics, no biology, no thermodynics, not anything except "It's pseudo-science" based on no actual knowledge of science.
In what other area of science are you ready to bet the farm and $TRILLs based on using trees and the size of worm holes as thermometers?
The science is pretty clear to me. Doubling CO2 from 250 to 500ppm WILL contribute 1.1DegC in warming.. Everything else regarding the "fragile planet" theories and "warming amplification" is ALL speculation and hand-waving.
No, it isn't speculation. Speculation requires empirical data to support your idea. ALL historical data says that warmer is better. PERIOD.
In what other area of science are you ready to bet the farm and $TRILLs based on using trees and the size of worm holes as thermometers?
The science is pretty clear to me. Doubling CO2 from 250 to 500ppm WILL contribute 1.1DegC in warming.. Everything else regarding the "fragile planet" theories and "warming amplification" is ALL speculation and hand-waving.
No, it isn't speculation. Speculation requires empirical data to support your idea. ALL historical data says that warmer is better. PERIOD.
I speculate on investments and choosing dentists all the time without much empirical data. I do better than 50/50...
I've actually heard the word "speculate" many times at conferences.. I do believe it's accepted coinage of advanced research...
Well, you've described perfectly the bullshit pseudo-science of anthropogenic Goebbels warming.All you've applied is a bunch of garbage masquerading as science...GIGO.
Ah, yeah, Newton's Second Law of Motion. Garbage in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an externat force. But can you PROVE, that it's garbage. Cuz if you can't... well then It's like a lack of a sign is a sign. Signentific...
Waytago!
Yep. And there is still a lot of room to debate whether temperature follows CO2, or CO2 follows temperature. Based on observation, I'd say it's the latter.
Well, yes it is a model. A model is everything from a small physical representation of an object to a dynamic mathematical computer simulation. A model may be a simple equation, a drawing, the digitized representation of an object in a CAD system or the dynamic fluid flow equations in a finite element analysys.
A conceptual, mathematical, or physical system obeying certain specified conditions, whose behavior is used to understand the physical system to which it is analogous in some way (after McGrawHill, 1974).(2) A conceptual description and the associated mathematical representation of a system, subsystem, components, or condition that is used to predict changes from a baseline state as a function of internal and/or external stimuli and as a function of time and space (10 CFR Part 960.2).
If we all waited for "concrete conclusive evidence" for anything, much less everything, to act, we'd all be in the belly of the beast early in life. But don't worry. We won't leave you behind.
So much for your evidence. Or do you define evidence as Subjective extrapolation, or is it just Chicken Little syndrome?
Here's the thing. Evidence is one thing. "Concrete conclusive evidence" is another. See how that works? It's an important point that typically starts to gel around five years old. It's what mom was trying to teach you when she said "hot" hoping that you'd take her word for that.
So much for your evidence. Or do you define evidence as Subjective extrapolation, or is it just Chicken Little syndrome?
Here's the thing. Evidence is one thing. "Concrete conclusive evidence" is another. See how that works? It's an important point that typically starts to gel around five years old. It's what mom was trying to teach you when she said "hot" hoping that you'd take her word for that.
OK sure, non reproducible, non causal, conjecture is not evidence.
You should be able to tell me with some certainty what catastrophes will happen in the earth is a couple degrees warmer but you can't.
The human race will survive in a warmer climate even if it means more intense storms.
That is a fact.
Here's the thing. Evidence is one thing. "Concrete conclusive evidence" is another. See how that works? It's an important point that typically starts to gel around five years old. It's what mom was trying to teach you when she said "hot" hoping that you'd take her word for that.
OK sure, non reproducible, non causal, conjecture is not evidence.
You should be able to tell me with some certainty what catastrophes will happen in the earth is a couple degrees warmer but you can't.
The human race will survive in a warmer climate even if it means more intense storms.
That is a fact.
Yeah, "the human race will survive" isn't a very lofty goal.
OK sure, non reproducible, non causal, conjecture is not evidence.
You should be able to tell me with some certainty what catastrophes will happen in the earth is a couple degrees warmer but you can't.
The human race will survive in a warmer climate even if it means more intense storms.
That is a fact.
Yeah, "the human race will survive" isn't a very lofty goal.
It's the only goal of evolution is it not?
Face facts sooner or later the human race will become extinct. *It's just a matter of time. *You'll be long gone by then most likely several thousand generations of your progeny will be gone as well so the last humans will be so far removed from you so as to be considered strangers.
Accept it and don't live your life in fear.
No, what the warmerists have is no chemistry, no physics, no mathematics and statistics, no biology, no thermodynics, not anything.Well, you've described perfectly the bullshit pseudo-science of anthropogenic Goebbels warming.Ah, yeah, Newton's Second Law of Motion. Garbage in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an externat force. But can you PROVE, that it's garbage. Cuz if you can't... well then It's like a lack of a sign is a sign. Signentific...
Waytago!
So basically, you've got nothing. No chemistry, no physics, no mathematics and statistics, no biology, no thermodynics, not anything except "It's pseudo-science" based on no actual knowledge of science.
Location, velocity, acceleration... l, dl/dt, d^2/dt^2(l).
Even small, sustained acceleration means future high velocity. Even small, sustained, velocity means future high location.
When your standing on the edge of a cliff, even small velocity or acceleration means falling off the cliff.
That is how we predict the future, measuring rate of change.
That is high rate of change.
"In other words, the rate of change is much greater than anything we've seen in the whole Holocene"
Now we look for the canary in the coal mine and hope it isn't dead yet because this is one coal mine we're not walking out of.
The Scariest Climate Change Graph Just Got Scarier | Mother Jones
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years
Climate Desk
Location, velocity, acceleration... l, dl/dt, d^2/dt^2(l).
Even small, sustained acceleration means future high velocity. Even small, sustained, velocity means future high location.
When your standing on the edge of a cliff, even small velocity or acceleration means falling off the cliff.
That is how we predict the future, measuring rate of change.
That is high rate of change.
"In other words, the rate of change is much greater than anything we've seen in the whole Holocene"
Now we look for the canary in the coal mine and hope it isn't dead yet because this is one coal mine we're not walking out of.
The Scariest Climate Change Graph Just Got Scarier | Mother Jones
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years
Climate Desk
exactly what I have been saying. Marcott's re-worked proxy reconstruction was thoroughly demolished for recent times yet the press release will live forever. itfitzme probably doesn't even know about the problems or the author's statement of retraction due to web based criticisms. or perhaps he does and chooses to ignore it.
the media loves a new scary climate story but they have no time or interest for setting the story straight after it has been shown to be incorrect.
every time you look at these type of science-by-press-release stories more closely you find dodgy methodology and exaggerated conclusions. every fucking time.
I'm getting bored with retail hip hop science slide shows anyway..
Location, velocity, acceleration... l, dl/dt, d^2/dt^2(l).
Even small, sustained acceleration means future high velocity. Even small, sustained, velocity means future high location.
When your standing on the edge of a cliff, even small velocity or acceleration means falling off the cliff.
That is how we predict the future, measuring rate of change.
That is high rate of change.
"In other words, the rate of change is much greater than anything we've seen in the whole Holocene"
Now we look for the canary in the coal mine and hope it isn't dead yet because this is one coal mine we're not walking out of.
The Scariest Climate Change Graph Just Got Scarier | Mother Jones
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years
Climate Desk
exactly what I have been saying. Marcott's re-worked proxy reconstruction was thoroughly demolished for recent times yet the press release will live forever. itfitzme probably doesn't even know about the problems or the author's statement of retraction due to web based criticisms. or perhaps he does and chooses to ignore it.*
the media loves a new scary climate story but they have no time or interest for setting the story straight after it has been shown to be incorrect.
every time you look at these type of science-by-press-release stories more closely you find dodgy methodology and exaggerated conclusions. every fucking time.
Yep. And there is still a lot of room to debate whether temperature follows CO2, or CO2 follows temperature. Based on observation, I'd say it's the latter.
Seems like the feedback loop causes you similar issues with economics. I understand, feedback systems have always been a pain.
