The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[SSDD]

I accept your concession. My "foolishness" is science and physics. Your's is made up pseudoscience. Science wins. Your merry go round has just derailed.

There you go...shake those pom poms...maybe toddler and crick will join you in your fantasy victory...they are big on fantasy victories also...you have so much in common...when the pep rally is over, you can give each other big wet sloppy kisses.

 

[IanC]

SSDD is not a skeptic.

Delusional, yes. Paranoid, yes. Schizophrenic? Maybe. His conspiracy ideation is truly epic.

 

[Wuwei]

It is hard to say if he is just a simple liar.
A liar knows the truth but purposefully says a falsehood.

SSDD goes further and says anything that comes to his head without having any idea whether it's true or false. If it sounds good to him, it then becomes his truth. That is quite pathological.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD is not a skeptic.

Delusional, yes. Paranoid, yes. Schizophrenic? Maybe. His conspiracy ideation is truly epic.

Still waiting on that observed, measured evidence to support your belief...still can't provide it can you? You know, if someone were able to thwart me at every turn, with so little effort, I would be saying that they were some sort of evil genius...I certainly wouldn't be claiming that a delusion paranoid was handing me my ass on a regular basis. You make claims...I ask for evidence...you fail to provide evidence...it is the same thing over and over and over...Do you think it is going to change somehow? What is the definition of insanity?

 

[SSDD]

It is hard to say if he is just a simple liar.
A liar knows the truth but purposefully says a falsehood.

SSDD goes further and says anything that comes to his head without having any idea whether it's true or false. If it sounds good to him, it then becomes his truth. That is quite pathological.

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you think of something other than your abject failure to provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence to support your claims...

 

[Wuwei]

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you think of something other than your abject failure to provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence to support your claims...

Lots of people already did provide the observed measured evidence. You know that.

 

[SSDD]

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you think of something other than your abject failure to provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence to support your claims...

Lots of people already did provide the observed measured evidence. You know that.

Same old lie over and over...you think at some point I will forget that you actually never did prod any observed measured evidence to challenge the 3 statements I made? Not going to happen..

Let me reiterate:

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

Now, are you claiming that "lots" of people already provided observed, measured evidence which challenges the 3 claims above, or are you just saying that people have provided observed, measured evidence which doesn't necessarily challenge those three claims, but is good enough to convince anyone who is politically and mentally predisposed to believe a hypothesis that lacks observed, measured evidence to support it.

Maybe you are claiming that the evidence got lost in the shuffle...I have read all the posts and haven't seen it, but if "lots" of people have posted it, then it should take little effort to bring it here and slap me down with it. Lets see it.

I predict that it won't be forthcoming, because it has never been posted, because it doesn't exist. I do believe that enough bullshit has been provided that is apparently sufficient to fool someone like you..and I believe that you honestly don't have any idea what actual observed, measured evidence to challenge any of the 3 statements I made might look like...but no, none has been posted, and you won't be bringing any here to "put me in my place"...

What I predict you will do is put up another mewling, impotent post claiming that it has been posted but you aren't inclined to post it here, or some feeble logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you aren't slapping me down with the evidence I said doesn't exist.

 

[Wuwei]

Let me reiterate:

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

You are cross posting this from another thread. Let's keep it in the "No Evidence" thread.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you think of something other than your abject failure to provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence to support your claims...

Lots of people already did provide the observed measured evidence. You know that.

Same old lie over and over...you think at some point I will forget that you actually never did prod any observed measured evidence to challenge the 3 statements I made? Not going to happen..

Let me reiterate:

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

Now, are you claiming that "lots" of people already provided observed, measured evidence which challenges the 3 claims above, or are you just saying that people have provided observed, measured evidence which doesn't necessarily challenge those three claims, but is good enough to convince anyone who is politically and mentally predisposed to believe a hypothesis that lacks observed, measured evidence to support it.

Maybe you are claiming that the evidence got lost in the shuffle...I have read all the posts and haven't seen it, but if "lots" of people have posted it, then it should take little effort to bring it here and slap me down with it. Lets see it.

I predict that it won't be forthcoming, because it has never been posted, because it doesn't exist. I do believe that enough bullshit has been provided that is apparently sufficient to fool someone like you..and I believe that you honestly don't have any idea what actual observed, measured evidence to challenge any of the 3 statements I made might look like...but no, none has been posted, and you won't be bringing any here to "put me in my place"...

What I predict you will do is put up another mewling, impotent post claiming that it has been posted but you aren't inclined to post it here, or some feeble logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you aren't slapping me down with the evidence I said doesn't exist.

There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports your one way only flow of photons hypothesis over two way flow.

 

[SSDD]

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you think of something other than your abject failure to provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence to support your claims...

Lots of people already did provide the observed measured evidence. You know that.

Same old lie over and over...you think at some point I will forget that you actually never did prod any observed measured evidence to challenge the 3 statements I made? Not going to happen..

Let me reiterate:

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

Now, are you claiming that "lots" of people already provided observed, measured evidence which challenges the 3 claims above, or are you just saying that people have provided observed, measured evidence which doesn't necessarily challenge those three claims, but is good enough to convince anyone who is politically and mentally predisposed to believe a hypothesis that lacks observed, measured evidence to support it.

Maybe you are claiming that the evidence got lost in the shuffle...I have read all the posts and haven't seen it, but if "lots" of people have posted it, then it should take little effort to bring it here and slap me down with it. Lets see it.

I predict that it won't be forthcoming, because it has never been posted, because it doesn't exist. I do believe that enough bullshit has been provided that is apparently sufficient to fool someone like you..and I believe that you honestly don't have any idea what actual observed, measured evidence to challenge any of the 3 statements I made might look like...but no, none has been posted, and you won't be bringing any here to "put me in my place"...

What I predict you will do is put up another mewling, impotent post claiming that it has been posted but you aren't inclined to post it here, or some feeble logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you aren't slapping me down with the evidence I said doesn't exist.

There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports your one way only flow of photons hypothesis over two way flow.

Of course there is....the fact that you can't measure discrete wavelengths of energy moving from a source that is cooler than the instrument being used is exactly that sort of evidence...heat the radiator to any temperature warmer than the instrument and you start measuring discrete wavelengths of energy.

How do you interpret that? What do you think it means?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you think of something other than your abject failure to provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence to support your claims...

Lots of people already did provide the observed measured evidence. You know that.

Same old lie over and over...you think at some point I will forget that you actually never did prod any observed measured evidence to challenge the 3 statements I made? Not going to happen..

Let me reiterate:

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

Now, are you claiming that "lots" of people already provided observed, measured evidence which challenges the 3 claims above, or are you just saying that people have provided observed, measured evidence which doesn't necessarily challenge those three claims, but is good enough to convince anyone who is politically and mentally predisposed to believe a hypothesis that lacks observed, measured evidence to support it.

Maybe you are claiming that the evidence got lost in the shuffle...I have read all the posts and haven't seen it, but if "lots" of people have posted it, then it should take little effort to bring it here and slap me down with it. Lets see it.

I predict that it won't be forthcoming, because it has never been posted, because it doesn't exist. I do believe that enough bullshit has been provided that is apparently sufficient to fool someone like you..and I believe that you honestly don't have any idea what actual observed, measured evidence to challenge any of the 3 statements I made might look like...but no, none has been posted, and you won't be bringing any here to "put me in my place"...

What I predict you will do is put up another mewling, impotent post claiming that it has been posted but you aren't inclined to post it here, or some feeble logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you aren't slapping me down with the evidence I said doesn't exist.

There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports your one way only flow of photons hypothesis over two way flow.

Of course there is....the fact that you can't measure discrete wavelengths of energy moving from a source that is cooler than the instrument being used is exactly that sort of evidence...heat the radiator to any temperature warmer than the instrument and you start measuring discrete wavelengths of energy.

How do you interpret that? What do you think it means?

the fact that you can't measure discrete wavelengths of energy moving from a source that is cooler than the instrument being used is exactly that sort of evidence

We've seen what happens when You post supposed evidence.
I'll wait for you to post a real source that says, "photons can never move from a cooler source to an instrument".

​

How do you interpret that? ​

I interpret that to mean that you believe emitters are omniscient.

Perhaps if you posted a real source that explained why the atmosphere at -10C can't (won't?) emit toward an instrument on the ground at 15C, but the instant it is cooled to -10.0000001C, suddenly every molecule is allowed to emit toward it.
​

What do you think it means?​

Your failure to post a real source backing your claim means that you are alone in your belief.

​

 

[SSDD]

Prove me wrong...post a measurement of a discrete wavelength measured by an instrument warmer than the radiation source....

We both know that won't be happening....but that isn't much of a surprise to either of us...is it. Maybe you can post a drawing derived from an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model as empirical evidence...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Prove yourself correct....post a source that says wavelengths are prohibited from hitting warmer targets.

We both know you can't.

Maybe you can post a drawing from The Handbook of Modern Sensors?
One that helps your claims, instead of refuting them?

 

[SSDD]

Prove yourself correct....post a source that says wavelengths are prohibited from hitting warmer targets.

We both know you can't.

Maybe you can post a drawing from The Handbook of Modern Sensors?
One that helps your claims, instead of refuting them?

The fact that none exist prove me right...what other way is there to prove a negative?

You think that no scientist ever thought of pointing an uncooled instrument at open sky? If they measured something, don't you think it might support the whole case for back radiation? You wouldn't be able to escape it...anywhere...the spectrum would be printed on toilet paper.

Like i said, no evidence will be forthcoming from you..because none exist...

 

[SSDD]

Let me reiterate:

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

You are cross posting this from another thread. Let's keep it in the "No Evidence" thread.

Seriously...after the number of posts in which you have done the same thing...stupid and a hypocrite.

Aside from that, the statements are just as pertinent on this thread as on the other thread...in fact, they are pertinent on any thread where anyone is attempting to defend either the greenhouse hypothesis, or its bastard stepchild, AGW. They raise questions to the validity of the whole field of climate science...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Prove yourself correct....post a source that says wavelengths are prohibited from hitting warmer targets.

We both know you can't.

Maybe you can post a drawing from The Handbook of Modern Sensors?
One that helps your claims, instead of refuting them?

The fact that none exist prove me right...what other way is there to prove a negative?

You think that no scientist ever thought of pointing an uncooled instrument at open sky? If they measured something, don't you think it might support the whole case for back radiation? You wouldn't be able to escape it...anywhere...the spectrum would be printed on toilet paper.

Like i said, no evidence will be forthcoming from you..because none exist...

The fact that none exist prove me right.

I agree, no sources exist that back up your claim.
On one side, we have Einstein and Planck and many, many others, who understood that objects at equilibrium absorb and emit equal amounts of energy, on the other side we have you. Alone. By yourself. With no proof. No evidence.

Just your omniscient matter that knows the temperature of cooler matter, magically, with no way of collecting that info, because, according to you, that cooler matter cannot radiate toward the warmer matter.

I can't think of any way to detect temperature without collecting emitted photons.
I'll bet you can't either.

 

[Wuwei]

Let me reiterate:

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

You are cross posting this from another thread. Let's keep it in the "No Evidence" thread.

Seriously...after the number of posts in which you have done the same thing...stupid and a hypocrite.

Aside from that, the statements are just as pertinent on this thread as on the other thread...in fact, they are pertinent on any thread where anyone is attempting to defend either the greenhouse hypothesis, or its bastard stepchild, AGW. They raise questions to the validity of the whole field of climate science...

My cross posts only follow your cross posts. I'm trying to stop it, but you are not. Cross posting is frowned upon in the USMB.

 

[Wuwei]

I agree, no sources exist that back up your claim.

That's right; no scientist in their right mind would use a noisy uncooled instrument in an experiment where the highest accuracy was desired. SSDD knows that. Yet he still pretends that smart photons exist. That's really quite trollish.

 

[SSDD]

I agree, no sources exist that back up your claim.

That's right; no scientist in their right mind would use a noisy uncooled instrument in an experiment where the highest accuracy was desired. SSDD knows that. Yet he still pretends that smart photons exist. That's really quite trollish.

The problem isn't noise...it is lack of incoming radiation...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I agree, no sources exist that back up your claim.

That's right; no scientist in their right mind would use a noisy uncooled instrument in an experiment where the highest accuracy was desired. SSDD knows that. Yet he still pretends that smart photons exist. That's really quite trollish.

The problem isn't noise...it is lack of incoming radiation...

Any other sources to confirm your claim, "lack of incoming radiation..."?

Or are you one of the scientists who discovered ulcers were caused by bacteria? LOL!