Two Theories

[polarbear]

I'd also like to thank GT for the excellent experiment, followed by a double-facepalm after watching the deniers react to it.

We give them paper after paper, and they squeal "it's too complicated!".

So we give them the most basic setup possible, and they squeal "it's too simple!".

Way to cart those goalposts back and forth, deniers. As is clearly illustrated by denier behavior here, denialism is completely unfalsifiable in the minds of those who hold faith in it, and thus clearly falls in the realm of pseudoscience.

You consider that a "scientific paper" ?

Is the Earth Warming?

[SIZE=+3]IS THE EARTH WARMING?
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Level: Senior high (and junior high for Part B)[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]You will treat the air in the large glass vessel as a model of the atmosphere. The vessel will be covered and heated by the "sun" (the heat lamp) until the temperature rises

[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]An Alka-Seltzer tablet is weighed to the nearest milligram.
[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Drop the Alka-Seltzer into the water in the small glass vessel inside the large jar. Immediately cover loosely with foil.[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]
Which stayed warm longer, the "normal" air, or the air with increased CO2?
[/SIZE]

1. [SIZE=+1]Does this experiment indicate that increasing the CO2 content in the atmosphere would cause the climate to get warmer?
   [/SIZE]
2. [SIZE=+1]Explain your answer
   [/SIZE]

So why don`t you and "Crick", aka prophet Abraham the 3rd tell the IPCC or wikipedia that you peer reviewed it and see if they publish it as a "scientific paper" or if any of the 97% consensus scientist will use it as a "scientific paper" for a reference.Maybe they would also " like to thank GT for the excellent experiment, " which according to you guys proves what none of the billion $ computer climate models could do quite as "excellent"
That`s why I like looking into this forum there is always something in here which appeals to my sense of humor.
I wonder what`s next

 

[SSDD]

I'd also like to thank GT for the excellent experiment, followed by a double-facepalm after watching the deniers react to it.

We give them paper after paper, and they squeal "it's too complicated!".

So we give them the most basic setup possible, and they squeal "it's too simple!".

Way to cart those goalposts back and forth, deniers. As is clearly illustrated by denier behavior here, denialism is completely unfalsifiable in the minds of those who hold faith in it, and thus clearly falls in the realm of pseudoscience.

You give us flawed paper after flawed paper describing flawed experiment after flawed experiment and for that you congratulate yourself. It is your basic misunderstanding of the science that causes you to be fooled by all these flawed experiments. You don't have a clue what they are actually showing...you see warming and assume that in the open atmosphere warming is occurring.....because you are ignorant.

 

[SSDD]

Seriously, in your own words, without getting to elaborate, can you describe how you believe the greenhouse effect works?

Why waste my time? The problem doesn't lie in the science and it doesn't lie in the explanations. It lies in you and your choices.

I could have predicted that answer. None of you guys want to state your hypothesis because you all have different hypotheses about how AGW is supposed to work. I have asked 3 warmers recently to describe how they believe AGW works and none of them has described the "official" version of the hypothesis...

So again, lets here your personal version. Or are you to embarrassed over it to actually speak it in public?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I'd also like to thank GT for the excellent experiment, followed by a double-facepalm after watching the deniers react to it.

We give them paper after paper, and they squeal "it's too complicated!".

So we give them the most basic setup possible, and they squeal "it's too simple!".

Way to cart those goalposts back and forth, deniers. As is clearly illustrated by denier behavior here, denialism is completely unfalsifiable in the minds of those who hold faith in it, and thus clearly falls in the realm of pseudoscience.

LOL. manboob would like to thank gitty, but it would have to be disingenuous.

Not that this would deter manboob.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You couldn't get more things wrong if you tried.

Uh huh. Can you point out the error of my ways? Consider it a "teaching moment"

I already have. You missed it.

prickabe's fundamentally dishonest way of talking almost hides his actual answer.

In short CF, that's a "no." He can't. He certainly won't.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The calmest most reflective AGW Faith-based proponent will respond to the fact that ice ages occurred and warming periods ensued long before humankind created the first CO2 emitting industry on the face of the Earth with the following:"but but but CO2!"

Are you really unable to see how flawed is that logic?

Actually, you mental pygmy, the post of mine you just quoted was derisive and mocking of the claims of you hapless AGW Faith cultist hacks.

Are ou truly as stupid as you would have to be to miss that point, you idiot?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I put ice into my carbonated seltzer water and, wouldn't you know it, the ice melted.

CO2 causes ice to melt.

So, the evil genius behind disruptive global climate denialism is...

^ the preceding post has been PEER REVIEWED and found to be 100% perfect in every imaginable way.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In the Sherlock Holmes story "Silver Blaze" a key piece of evidence is a dog that didn't bark in the night. The dog didn't bark because there was no stranger to set it off; the dog was very familiar with the nighttime visitor

In much the same way, the lack of any true experiments by the AGWCult betrays a deeper truth: they offer no evidence of temperature from a 120PPM increase in CO2 because there is no increase! They've tried the experiments but because they know the experiment falsifies their Theory, they never offer it up.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

In the Sherlock Holmes story "Silver Blaze" a key piece of evidence is a dog that didn't bark in the night. The dog didn't bark because there was no stranger to set it off; the dog was very familiar with the nighttime visitor

In much the same way, the lack of any true experiments by the AGWCult betrays a deeper truth: they offer no evidence of temperature from a 120PPM increase in CO2 because there is no increase! They've tried the experiments but because they know the experiment falsifies their Theory, they never offer it up.

That amounts to scientific dishonesty!

Someone should tell the IPCC about this!

 

[mamooth]

Denier kooks, what's the problem with using alka-seltzer as a CO2 source there?

Y'all won't answer that, being you tend to be stupid and cowardly. You can't address the issue, so you're deflecting again, like you always do. Sucks to be a denier. All the data and logic always disagrees with them, so they constantly have to think up new and ever more creative ways to handwave reality away.

And why are you all pissing yourselves over the simple experiment? The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas doesn't disprove denialism. You'd be far more sensible to take the lukewarmer position, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but doesn't have that much of an effect. If you go that way, you can still invoke the great socialist conspiracy. However, you won't be required to declare the past century of phsyics is a hoax, and thus appear as total barking loons.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Denier kooks, what's the problem with using alka-seltzer as a CO2 source there?

Y'all won't answer that, being you tend to be stupid and cowardly. You can't address the issue, so you're deflecting again, like you always do. Sucks to be a denier. All the data and logic always disagrees with them, so they constantly have to think up new and ever more creative ways to handwave reality away.

And why are you all pissing yourselves over the simple experiment? The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas doesn't disprove denialism. You'd be far more sensible to take the lukewarmer position, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but doesn't have that much of an effect. If you go that way, you can still invoke the great socialist conspiracy. However, you won't be required to declare the past century of phsyics is a hoax, and thus appear as total barking loons.

Hey Admiral, you Warmers collected billions for your research and all you have to show for it is Alka-Seltzer?

How come you still haven't found that one experiment that shows a warming from a 120PPM increase in CO2?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"ANTARCTIC TEMPERATURES WERE WARMER IN THE 1800′S AND 1940′S

Date: 28/05/14 The Hockey Schtick
A new paper published in the Annals of Glaciology shows Antarctic air temperatures were warmer during the early 1800′s and 1940′s in comparison to the end of the 20th century. The authors find evidence of a quasi-periodic climate cycle lasting 30-50 years, with at least 5 climate shifts over the past 350 years, the last beginning during the 1970′s."

Antarctic Temperatures Were Warmer In The 1800?s And 1940?s | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

USS AGWCult struck amidship, listing badly to port! Mayday!

 

[Foxfyre]

Denier kooks, what's the problem with using alka-seltzer as a CO2 source there?

Y'all won't answer that, being you tend to be stupid and cowardly. You can't address the issue, so you're deflecting again, like you always do. Sucks to be a denier. All the data and logic always disagrees with them, so they constantly have to think up new and ever more creative ways to handwave reality away.

And why are you all pissing yourselves over the simple experiment? The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas doesn't disprove denialism. You'd be far more sensible to take the lukewarmer position, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but doesn't have that much of an effect. If you go that way, you can still invoke the great socialist conspiracy. However, you won't be required to declare the past century of phsyics is a hoax, and thus appear as total barking loons.

Hey Admiral, you Warmers collected billions for your research and all you have to show for it is Alka-Seltzer?

How come you still haven't found that one experiment that shows a warming from a 120PPM increase in CO2?

Little by little, the people who are still capable of critical thinking are seeing the huge holes in the whole AGW religion. And little by little, those who take the time to really look at the propaganda are becoming skeptics--not deniers but skeptics. According to a recent Rasmussen Poll - Environment Update - Rasmussen Reports? - a substantial number of Americans do believe in global warming but less than a majority believe it is a serious problem or are willing to pay more to fight it. But in a separate poll, a majority of Americans believe scientists have not been 100% honest in promoting AGW, and I think if the media had been as competent to report that as they have been to promote AGW, public perception would be very different than what it is. Most folks say they believe it is happening, but are obviously not worried enough about it to change their lifestyles.

But according to a USA Today article this week - Poll questions shift public views on global warming - who you ask and how the questions are asked can radically change the poll results.

So we are back to the basics. When the climate models again and again prove ineffective in predicting or identifying real time climate conditions, and when there is apparently no research done to support the theory that it human caused CO2 will endanger civilization as we know it, those capable of critical thinking are paying attention to that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Denier kooks, what's the problem with using alka-seltzer as a CO2 source there?

Y'all won't answer that, being you tend to be stupid and cowardly. You can't address the issue, so you're deflecting again, like you always do. Sucks to be a denier. All the data and logic always disagrees with them, so they constantly have to think up new and ever more creative ways to handwave reality away.

And why are you all pissing yourselves over the simple experiment? The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas doesn't disprove denialism. You'd be far more sensible to take the lukewarmer position, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but doesn't have that much of an effect. If you go that way, you can still invoke the great socialist conspiracy. However, you won't be required to declare the past century of phsyics is a hoax, and thus appear as total barking loons.

Hey Admiral, you Warmers collected billions for your research and all you have to show for it is Alka-Seltzer?

How come you still haven't found that one experiment that shows a warming from a 120PPM increase in CO2?

Little by little, the people who are still capable of critical thinking are seeing the huge holes in the whole AGW religion. And little by little, those who take the time to really look at the propaganda are becoming skeptics--not deniers but skeptics. According to a recent Rasmussen Poll - Environment Update - Rasmussen Reports? - a substantial number of Americans do believe in global warming but less than a majority believe it is a serious problem or are willing to pay more to fight it. But in a separate poll, a majority of Americans believe scientists have not been 100% honest in promoting AGW, and I think if the media had been as competent to report that as they have been to promote AGW, public perception would be very different than what it is. Most folks say they believe it is happening, but are obviously not worried enough about it to change their lifestyles.

But according to a USA Today article this week - Poll questions shift public views on global warming - who you ask and how the questions are asked can radically change the poll results.

So we are back to the basics. When the climate models again and again prove ineffective in predicting or identifying real time climate conditions, and when there is apparently no research done to support the theory that it human caused CO2 will endanger civilization as we know it, those capable of critical thinking are paying attention to that.

The scary thing is that the Warmer Cult fights like a Nazi Blitzkrieg against any legitimate scientists who dares to question them. If they had any real confidence in their theory, they would welcome the skeptics.

Climate change scientist claims he has been forced from new job in 'McCarthy'-style witch-hunt by academics across the world | Mail Online

 

[Foxfyre]

Hey Admiral, you Warmers collected billions for your research and all you have to show for it is Alka-Seltzer?

How come you still haven't found that one experiment that shows a warming from a 120PPM increase in CO2?

Little by little, the people who are still capable of critical thinking are seeing the huge holes in the whole AGW religion. And little by little, those who take the time to really look at the propaganda are becoming skeptics--not deniers but skeptics. According to a recent Rasmussen Poll - Environment Update - Rasmussen Reports? - a substantial number of Americans do believe in global warming but less than a majority believe it is a serious problem or are willing to pay more to fight it. But in a separate poll, a majority of Americans believe scientists have not been 100% honest in promoting AGW, and I think if the media had been as competent to report that as they have been to promote AGW, public perception would be very different than what it is. Most folks say they believe it is happening, but are obviously not worried enough about it to change their lifestyles.

But according to a USA Today article this week - Poll questions shift public views on global warming - who you ask and how the questions are asked can radically change the poll results.

So we are back to the basics. When the climate models again and again prove ineffective in predicting or identifying real time climate conditions, and when there is apparently no research done to support the theory that it human caused CO2 will endanger civilization as we know it, those capable of critical thinking are paying attention to that.

The scary thing is that the Warmer Cult fights like a Nazi Blitzkrieg against any legitimate scientists who dares to question them. If they had any real confidence in their theory, they would welcome the skeptics.

Climate change scientist claims he has been forced from new job in 'McCarthy'-style witch-hunt by academics across the world | Mail Online

Yes, that is something else the critical thinkers take note of: that no arguments questioning the AGW dogma or proposing other theories are permitted in the debate in any significant way. That alone should give pause for thought.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Little by little, the people who are still capable of critical thinking are seeing the huge holes in the whole AGW religion. And little by little, those who take the time to really look at the propaganda are becoming skeptics--not deniers but skeptics. According to a recent Rasmussen Poll - Environment Update - Rasmussen Reports? - a substantial number of Americans do believe in global warming but less than a majority believe it is a serious problem or are willing to pay more to fight it. But in a separate poll, a majority of Americans believe scientists have not been 100% honest in promoting AGW, and I think if the media had been as competent to report that as they have been to promote AGW, public perception would be very different than what it is. Most folks say they believe it is happening, but are obviously not worried enough about it to change their lifestyles.

But according to a USA Today article this week - Poll questions shift public views on global warming - who you ask and how the questions are asked can radically change the poll results.

So we are back to the basics. When the climate models again and again prove ineffective in predicting or identifying real time climate conditions, and when there is apparently no research done to support the theory that it human caused CO2 will endanger civilization as we know it, those capable of critical thinking are paying attention to that.

The scary thing is that the Warmer Cult fights like a Nazi Blitzkrieg against any legitimate scientists who dares to question them. If they had any real confidence in their theory, they would welcome the skeptics.

Climate change scientist claims he has been forced from new job in 'McCarthy'-style witch-hunt by academics across the world | Mail Online

Yes, that is something else the critical thinkers take note of: that no arguments questioning the AGW dogma or proposing other theories are permitted in the debate in any significant way. That alone should give pause for thought.

Right. But you said "For thought" and that's the first thing to go when you join a cult.

 

[Crick]

Little by little, the people who are still capable of critical thinking are seeing the huge holes in the whole AGW religion.

No, they are not. Those capable of critical thinking accept AGW as a valid description of climate behavior. There are no huge holes in AGW and there is no AGW religion.

If you disagree, show us some evidence of your claim. A poll of the general public is hardly evidence concerning the choices of "those capable of critical thinking".

And little by little, those who take the time to really look at the propaganda are becoming skeptics--not deniers but skeptics.

Again, what evidence do you have that those who have become skeptics have taken the time to "really look at the propaganda"? You have none whatsoever. For that matter, what evidence do you have that evidence supporting AGW is propaganda? Again, you have none.

According to a recent Rasmussen Poll -

Rasmussen polls might as well be conducted by the editorial staff of Fox News. No offense, but they are crap. The CONSISTENTLY show greater support for conservative positions than ANY OTHER POLLING organisation.

a substantial number of Americans do believe in global warming

Those must be the people incapable of critical thinking, who have not taken the time to really look at the propaganda. Right?

And I find it more than a little amusing after FCT (and IanC) has attempted to rake me over the coals for the quality of the surveys showing majority support for AGW among climate scientists, that he wouldn't raise the slightest peep over a survey asking whether or not "Americans do believe in global warming". What do you mean Ms Fyre? Was this a poll asking whether or not they believed the world was getting warmer or whether or not human activity had anything to do with it? Their really aren't a lot of folks who reject the FACT that the world has gotten warmer - some... some here. But out in the real world, not many at all. It's sort of a nutcase, flatEarther position.

but less than a majority believe it is a serious problem or are willing to pay more to fight it.

And, of course, the general public are the experts. And they have so consistently shown a willingness to PAY for fending off complex and difficult-to-discern problems decades away. This is certainly hard proof that human have had nothing to do with global warming and that there is nothing to worry about. Or perhaps even that there is no warming taking place at all. Right?

But in a separate poll, a majority of Americans believe scientists have not been 100% honest in promoting AGW

How much less than 100% do they believe they have been? Have they been 99% honest? 1% honest? Something in between? And what is it they've been dishonest about? There are a lot of scientists on Earth and they have told us a great many different things. Here's another survey that all my experience informs me FCT would speak out against. Yet not a peep. Not a single peep.

and I think if the media had been as competent to report that as they have been to promote AGW, public perception would be very different than what it is. Most folks say they believe it is happening, but are obviously not worried enough about it to change their lifestyles.

How many times, in discussions about consensus views, have deniers brought up that a majority of scientists thought the Earth was the center of the Solar System, thought diseases were caused by demons, thought the stars were attached to crystal spheres? From these sorts of points, we can only assume that they believe scientists are idiots and fools and their opinion on just about anything should not be taken. But are we then to take the opinion of the far less educated general public? And not their consensus opinions - not that of some overwhelming majority of the public rejecting AGW, but that support among them for the AGW theory is something less than a strong consensus - on THAT they argue we should reject the overwhelming support it gets from the true experts in the field.

But according to a USA Today article this week, who you ask and how the questions are asked can radically change the poll results.

Really? Are you certain? That is AMAZING!

So we are back to the basics. When the climate models again and again prove ineffective in predicting or identifying real time climate conditions

So, we are back to the basics. When the deniers think that simply repeating their falsehoods will convince the public - as polls show they have - to doubt science and to doubt scientists when they talk about global warming and human's role in the process...

, and when there is apparently no research done to support the theory that it human caused CO2 will endanger civilization as we know it

And when deniers take advantage of their willingness to lie about just about anything

those capable of critical thinking are paying attention to that.

Is that you? Do you believe yourself to be capable to a superior degree of critical thinking? Is this post evidence of that? Is it?

Amazing. FCT, Ian, do you see nothing wrong in this lady's post? Do you see no flaws in the logic displayed here? Do you see no problem with the surveys she mentions? Are you REALLY okay with arguments such as those she's made here? Do you believe them to be as valid as necessary to form an informed opinion? Eh? I'd really like to hear your HONEST opinions.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry Crick. I don't chop up posts like that to respond and I don't read those others chop up. Just a personal preference. Thanks for understanding.

 

[Foxfyre]

I put ice into my carbonated seltzer water and, wouldn't you know it, the ice melted.

CO2 causes ice to melt.

Well heck. Next time use frozen CO2 instead of H20 ice and you'll get better results.

About the only place on Earth that gets cold enough to make it naturally though is Antartica, and there is so little of it in the atmosphere that at most you might find a trace of CO2 frost.

 

[Crick]

This was great fun. We got to watch as your most fundamental claim was completely and totally refuted - and then enjoyed the added entertainment of watching you all falling all over each other in an absolutely PATHETIC attempt to say it wasn't so.

It really was fun.