UH OH Spaghetti Oh! Hansen says the temps have been flat!

[SSDD]

Climate science is a soft science and as such, few are trained beyond the basics in physics, thermodynamics, etc. Very few hard scientists, trained in physics, thermodynamics, etc., are on the AGW bandwagon.

No; it's not. Phsychologists/therapists practice what are called "soft science."[/QUOTE]


Half way there....climate science is a soft science just like psychology.

A soft science is a specialized field or disciplinesthat make interpretations on the basis of scientific investigations for which it may be difficult to establish strictly measurable criteria.

A hard science on the other hand is any of the natural or physical sciences, as chemistry, biology, physics, or astronomy, in which aspects of the universe are investigated by means of experimentation.

Now, which actual experiments support the basic hypothesis of AGW? Have you ever looked at the course requirements to get a degree in climate science? The average meteorologist is far better educated than a climate scientist and few meteorologists are on the AGW bandwagon.

 

[Koios]

Climate science is a soft science and as such, few are trained beyond the basics in physics, thermodynamics, etc. Very few hard scientists, trained in physics, thermodynamics, etc., are on the AGW bandwagon.

No; it's not. Phsychologists/therapists practice what are called "soft science."

Half way there....climate science is a soft science just like psychology.

A soft science is a specialized field or disciplinesthat make interpretations on the basis of scientific investigations for which it may be difficult to establish strictly measurable criteria.

A hard science on the other hand is any of the natural or physical sciences, as chemistry, biology, physics, or astronomy, in which aspects of the universe are investigated by means of experimentation.

Now, which actual experiments support the basic hypothesis of AGW? Have you ever looked at the course requirements to get a degree in climate science? The average meteorologist is far better educated than a climate scientist and few meteorologists are on the AGW bandwagon.

Nope, not even close. In fact, you might benefit from some years of soft science couch-time.

Some things that most kindergarders should now ...

1. Climate is real and really measurable. The data is comprised of hard facts, and exact progressions are recorded.

2. Emotions are real but only subjectively measured. And emotional progress is in-exact and unmeasurable. Ergo, soft "facts."

 

[SSDD]

Nope, not even close. In fact, you might benefit from some years of soft science couch-time.

Keep trying, you will get it. Hell, just look at the arguments you guys, and climate science itself make. The very foundations of your arguments are the basis of soft science like consensus, and popular support as opposed to hard sciences which base their arguments on repeatable experimentation.

1. Climate is real and really measurable. The data is comprised of hard facts, and exact progressions are recorded.

Aspects of the climate are measurable but at present, climate science really doesn't really have a handle on what it should be measuring and there is quite a bit of disagreement within the field as to what the measurements mean and little, if any hard proof to support their various positions.

As evidence that climate science is at present a soft science, tell me what, according to climate science, would falsify the AGW hypothesis?

Face it, climate science is soft. Someday it may grow to be a hard science, but at present, it is much to political to be called science.

 

[Koios]

Nope, not even close. In fact, you might benefit from some years of soft science couch-time.

Keep trying, you will get it. Hell, just look at the arguments you guys, and climate science itself make. The very foundations of your arguments are the basis of soft science like consensus, and popular support as opposed to hard sciences which base their arguments on repeatable experimentation.

1. Climate is real and really measurable. The data is comprised of hard facts, and exact progressions are recorded.

Aspects of the climate are measurable but at present, climate science really doesn't really have a handle on what it should be measuring and there is quite a bit of disagreement within the field as to what the measurements mean and little, if any hard proof to support their various positions.

As evidence that climate science is at present a soft science, tell me what, according to climate science, would falsify the AGW hypothesis?

Face it, climate science is soft. Someday it may grow to be a hard science, but at present, it is much to political to be called science.

A bit of homework:

Google (verb) "soft sciences" and then see if climatology is on the list.

 

[RollingThunder]

Keep trying, you will get it. Hell, just look at the arguments you guys, and climate science itself make. The very foundations of your arguments are the basis of soft science like consensus, and popular support as opposed to hard sciences which base their arguments on repeatable experimentation.

Your own words demonstrate clearly that you have no idea what the basis of climate science actually is; you just have some braindead denier cult myths. Once again you reveal yourself to be a completely clueless retard.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=w9SGw75pVas]What We Know about Climate Change - YouTube[/ame]

 

[westwall]

Feel free to believe that scientists in Finland are immune to billions upon billions of dollars in grant money and do not tamper with their records, but it is proven that NOAA is not immune and actively tampers with the temperature record.

1) Um...WHAT grant money to what Finnish agency?

2) Can you show evidence of whatever money you mean being linked to the results of research?

3) How has that funding changed since the units you refer to confirmed human acitivity as a factor in climate change?

Let me predict - you will not answer any of those questions.

What are you a trakar sock? You souind just like that clown.

 

[westwall]

1) Um...WHAT grant money to what Finnish agency?

2) Can you show evidence of whatever money you mean being linked to the results of research?

3) How has that funding changed since the units you refer to confirmed human acitivity as a factor in climate change?

Let me predict - you will not answer any of those questions.

You may not want to believe it but Finland is bought and paid for:

Gore-Backed Car Firm Gets Large U.S. Loan - WSJ.com

Just answer the questions.

Tiny car factories in small towns are not the issue here. It's about science...remember?

Yes, it IS about science, and you have none on your side. If your "theory" is so rock solid present one measurable experiment that supports it. Just one.

 

[westwall]

Feel free to believe that scientists in Finland are immune to billions upon billions of dollars in grant money and do not tamper with their records, but it is proven that NOAA is not immune and actively tampers with the temperature record.

1) Um...WHAT grant money to what Finnish agency?

2) Can you show evidence of whatever money you mean being linked to the results of research?

3) How has that funding changed since the units you refer to confirmed human acitivity as a factor in climate change?

Let me predict - you will not answer any of those questions.

Indeed, Saigon.

The base facts MGW Denialists overlook are:

A. I am not a climate scientist
B. Niether is anyone else on this godforsaken site

To the Denialists, here's how it works:

Not one fucking snippet anyone here grabs onto proves a fucking thing. It's merely a snippet, which folks who in fact know something about the very complex factors affecting the Earth's climate, have considered along with EVERY OTHER KNOWN FACT, in the gestalt.

And thus a theory develops, which is also submitted for review by every other person who merits, nay demands, being included in reviewing it -- ALL OF IT, and not the cherry-picked then distorted horseshit offered up by Denialists with alphabet soup behind their names in unrelated fields of study, if that. Here's where they fall in the heirarchy ...

1. Climate scientists (overwhelming majority) who study and are apprised of all data, and are saying MGW is real, and a real threat.

2. Climate scientists (minority) who accept that MGW is real, albeit have differing opinions on it's potential impact, or how much is us v. natural forces.

>>> 3. Geologists, mostly, who either work for the fosil fuels industry or have "research" funded by the fosil fuels industry, who grab snippets, distort them, and then create pseudo-scientific bullshit that righty retards gobble up by fucking default.

In short, the bottom-feeders.

Typical AGW cultist tin foil hat conspiricy BS. I am an environmental geologist and have cleaned up more toxic waste sites than you could ever hope to read about in your short little life. I have actually DONE something to clean up the crap, all you want to do is steal money from poor people and give it to rich people.

Talk about bottom feeders, look in the mirror pal, you whore yourself out to the highest bidder in a vain hope to sweep up the scraps from their table.

 

[westwall]

1. Climate scientists (overwhelming majority) who study and are apprised of all data, and are saying MGW is real, and a real threat.

2. Climate scientists (minority) who accept that MGW is real, albeit have differing opinions on it's potential impact, or how much is us v. natural forces.

>>> 3. Geologists, mostly, who either work for the fosil fuels industry or have "research" funded by the fosil fuels industry, who grab snippets, distort them, and then create pseudo-scientific bullshit that righty retards gobble up by fucking default.

In short, the bottom-feeders.

Climate science is a soft science and as such, few are trained beyond the basics in physics, thermodynamics, etc. Very few hard scientists, trained in physics, thermodynamics, etc., are on the AGW bandwagon.

No; it's not. Phsychologists/therapists practice what are called "soft science."

Bullshit. Show me one hard number that climatologists present. Everything they publish is couched in terms like "suggest", "may", "could", etc. Here's your one and only wake up call idiot...THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A SOFT SCIENCE!

 

[Koios]

1) Um...WHAT grant money to what Finnish agency?

2) Can you show evidence of whatever money you mean being linked to the results of research?

3) How has that funding changed since the units you refer to confirmed human acitivity as a factor in climate change?

Let me predict - you will not answer any of those questions.

Indeed, Saigon.

The base facts MGW Denialists overlook are:

A. I am not a climate scientist
B. Niether is anyone else on this godforsaken site

To the Denialists, here's how it works:

Not one fucking snippet anyone here grabs onto proves a fucking thing. It's merely a snippet, which folks who in fact know something about the very complex factors affecting the Earth's climate, have considered along with EVERY OTHER KNOWN FACT, in the gestalt.

And thus a theory develops, which is also submitted for review by every other person who merits, nay demands, being included in reviewing it -- ALL OF IT, and not the cherry-picked then distorted horseshit offered up by Denialists with alphabet soup behind their names in unrelated fields of study, if that. Here's where they fall in the heirarchy ...

1. Climate scientists (overwhelming majority) who study and are apprised of all data, and are saying MGW is real, and a real threat.

2. Climate scientists (minority) who accept that MGW is real, albeit have differing opinions on it's potential impact, or how much is us v. natural forces.

>>> 3. Geologists, mostly, who either work for the fosil fuels industry or have "research" funded by the fosil fuels industry, who grab snippets, distort them, and then create pseudo-scientific bullshit that righty retards gobble up by fucking default.

In short, the bottom-feeders.

Typical AGW cultist tin foil hat conspiricy BS. I am an environmental geologist and have cleaned up more toxic waste sites than you could ever hope to read about in your short little life. I have actually DONE something to clean up the crap, all you want to do is steal money from poor people and give it to rich people.

Talk about bottom feeders, look in the mirror pal, you whore yourself out to the highest bidder in a vain hope to sweep up the scraps from their table.

Settle down. Glad to hear you're a geologist doing work in your area of expertise. All good. Geologists doing bullshit science whilst in climatologist drag, not good. They not you are the bottom-feeders, taking bux to serve a master intent on distorting science.

I'm a marketing guy, who when not fucking off here, markets and do not try to pass myself off as a brain surgeon, and publish bullshit on brain science. Nor would I be intimidated if Newton and Einstein came to me and wished to question my assertions about markets and brand strategies. I'd wipe up the floor with them, depite their IQs collectively being multiples of mine.

See where I'm going?

Meanwhile, I am not all about poor people. Some I wish to be spent on cleaning up shit and not creating more poor, such as my brother who was an engineer cleaning up Hanford, until budget cuts sent him to Saudi Arabia looking for work, since praise babyjesus and the Teas, we're spending less to clean up nuke waste in E WA.

 

[westwall]

Climate science is a soft science and as such, few are trained beyond the basics in physics, thermodynamics, etc. Very few hard scientists, trained in physics, thermodynamics, etc., are on the AGW bandwagon.

No; it's not. Phsychologists/therapists practice what are called "soft science."

Half way there....climate science is a soft science just like psychology.

A soft science is a specialized field or disciplinesthat make interpretations on the basis of scientific investigations for which it may be difficult to establish strictly measurable criteria.

A hard science on the other hand is any of the natural or physical sciences, as chemistry, biology, physics, or astronomy, in which aspects of the universe are investigated by means of experimentation.

Now, which actual experiments support the basic hypothesis of AGW? Have you ever looked at the course requirements to get a degree in climate science? The average meteorologist is far better educated than a climate scientist and few meteorologists are on the AGW bandwagon.

Nope, not even close. In fact, you might benefit from some years of soft science couch-time.

Some things that most kindergarders should now ...

1. Climate is real and really measurable. The data is comprised of hard facts, and exact progressions are recorded.

2. Emotions are real but only subjectively measured. And emotional progress is in-exact and unmeasurable. Ergo, soft "facts."

Yes, climate is "real". It is certainly "measurable" in the long term (hundreds of years) but as they can't predict what will happen 10 years from now (they have been catastrophically wrong in the prediction of what would happen during this last 15 year period) nor can they predict what effect CO2 will have on the atmosphere, as yet again the CO2 level has risen far higher than even Hansens worst case scenario, so once again youare left with that old adage, "well,it isn't an exact science" which is the very definition of what an exact science actually does.

They tell you exactly what will happen when you mix A with B.

 

[Koios]

No; it's not. Phsychologists/therapists practice what are called "soft science."

Half way there....climate science is a soft science just like psychology.

A soft science is a specialized field or disciplinesthat make interpretations on the basis of scientific investigations for which it may be difficult to establish strictly measurable criteria.

A hard science on the other hand is any of the natural or physical sciences, as chemistry, biology, physics, or astronomy, in which aspects of the universe are investigated by means of experimentation.

Now, which actual experiments support the basic hypothesis of AGW? Have you ever looked at the course requirements to get a degree in climate science? The average meteorologist is far better educated than a climate scientist and few meteorologists are on the AGW bandwagon.

Nope, not even close. In fact, you might benefit from some years of soft science couch-time.

Some things that most kindergarders should now ...

1. Climate is real and really measurable. The data is comprised of hard facts, and exact progressions are recorded.

2. Emotions are real but only subjectively measured. And emotional progress is in-exact and unmeasurable. Ergo, soft "facts."

Yes, climate is "real". It is certainly "measurable" in the long term (hundreds of years) but as they can't predict what will happen 10 years from now (they have been catastrophically wrong in the prediction of what would happen during this last 15 year period) nor can they predict what effect CO2 will have on the atmosphere, as yet again the CO2 level has risen far higher than even Hansens worst case scenario, so once again youare left with that old adage, "well,it isn't an exact science" which is the very definition of what an exact science actually does.

They tell you exactly what will happen when you mix A with B.

Of course. Climatologists, doing real hard fact science, would be the first to tell you that climate is too fucking dynamic, bordering on pure chaos, and that even though they do real science and are real scientists, their projections are merely that, and based on scientifically-based assumptions.

But to suggest, as one did, that it's soft science, merely exposes that poster's abject ignorance of what science is and is not.

 

[westwall]

Indeed, Saigon.

The base facts MGW Denialists overlook are:

A. I am not a climate scientist
B. Niether is anyone else on this godforsaken site

To the Denialists, here's how it works:

Not one fucking snippet anyone here grabs onto proves a fucking thing. It's merely a snippet, which folks who in fact know something about the very complex factors affecting the Earth's climate, have considered along with EVERY OTHER KNOWN FACT, in the gestalt.

And thus a theory develops, which is also submitted for review by every other person who merits, nay demands, being included in reviewing it -- ALL OF IT, and not the cherry-picked then distorted horseshit offered up by Denialists with alphabet soup behind their names in unrelated fields of study, if that. Here's where they fall in the heirarchy ...

1. Climate scientists (overwhelming majority) who study and are apprised of all data, and are saying MGW is real, and a real threat.

2. Climate scientists (minority) who accept that MGW is real, albeit have differing opinions on it's potential impact, or how much is us v. natural forces.

>>> 3. Geologists, mostly, who either work for the fosil fuels industry or have "research" funded by the fosil fuels industry, who grab snippets, distort them, and then create pseudo-scientific bullshit that righty retards gobble up by fucking default.

In short, the bottom-feeders.

Typical AGW cultist tin foil hat conspiricy BS. I am an environmental geologist and have cleaned up more toxic waste sites than you could ever hope to read about in your short little life. I have actually DONE something to clean up the crap, all you want to do is steal money from poor people and give it to rich people.

Talk about bottom feeders, look in the mirror pal, you whore yourself out to the highest bidder in a vain hope to sweep up the scraps from their table.

Settle down. Glad to hear you're a geologist doing work in your area of expertise. All good. Geologists doing bullshit science whilst in climatologist drag, not good. They not you are the bottom-feeders, taking bux to serve a master intent on distorting science.

I'm a marketing guy, who when not fucking off here, markets and do not try to pass myself off as a brain surgeon, and publish bullshit on brain science. Nor would I be intimidated if Newton and Einstein came to me and wished to question my assertions about markets and brand strategies. I'd wipe up the floor with them, depite their IQs collectively being multiples of mine.

See where I'm going?

Meanwhile, I am not all about poor people. Some I wish to be spent on cleaning up shit and not creating more poor, such as my brother who was an engineer cleaning up Hanford, until budget cuts sent him to Saudi Arabia looking for work, since praise babyjesus and the Teas, we're spending less to clean up nuke waste in E WA.

Then use your brain and actually research what the goals are. If pollution control was actually a goal don't you think that there would actually be some legislation written that actually reduces the pollution?

There isn't. All the legislation that is written merely deals with taxing and redistribution of those tax monies to private companies who "regulate" the carbon trade. Goldman Sachs figures very prominantly in the schemes and I suggest you look up the Rolling Stone article fo a few years ago that dealt with the company and how they are deeply involved in virtually every scam that has ever harmed the people of this country.

And once again, look up every IPCC regulation that they wish to hammer the first world with, there is not one that contains any mechanism whatsoever to reduce pollution, not one. Instead they with to categorise CO2 which is the essential gas of life as a pollutant so that they can continue to pollute totheir hearts content while taxing us for the very air we breathe.

A little hard science factoid for you, if they were able to get the atmospheric CO2 level down to 200 do you know what the result would be? Death. No plants can grow at that low a concentration level. All paleo records we have tell us that when the CO2 levels have been high the world has done exceptionally well. The same goes for warmth. When it has been warm the world has done well. The Roman civilisation blossomed when it was at least 3 degrees warmer than today as an example.

This is KNOWN, but not reported by the climatologists because it ruins their paradigm and that would ruin their scam.

Just read some history, learn something about what has actually happened before and you will be astounded at how badly you have been misled.

 

[westwall]

Nope, not even close. In fact, you might benefit from some years of soft science couch-time.

Some things that most kindergarders should now ...

1. Climate is real and really measurable. The data is comprised of hard facts, and exact progressions are recorded.

2. Emotions are real but only subjectively measured. And emotional progress is in-exact and unmeasurable. Ergo, soft "facts."

Yes, climate is "real". It is certainly "measurable" in the long term (hundreds of years) but as they can't predict what will happen 10 years from now (they have been catastrophically wrong in the prediction of what would happen during this last 15 year period) nor can they predict what effect CO2 will have on the atmosphere, as yet again the CO2 level has risen far higher than even Hansens worst case scenario, so once again youare left with that old adage, "well,it isn't an exact science" which is the very definition of what an exact science actually does.

They tell you exactly what will happen when you mix A with B.

Of course. Climatologists, doing real hard fact science, would be the first to tell you that climate is too fucking dynamic, bordering on pure chaos, and that even though they do real science and are real scientists, their projections are merely that, and based on scientifically-based assumptions.

But to suggest, as one did, that it's soft science, merely exposes that poster's abject ignorance of what science is and is not.

No, their assumptions are based on very poorly written computer models that ignore water vapor or worse, assume it is a positive forcer when it has been shown to be a NEGATIVE forcer. There is nothing exact about the way they do their science.

 

[Koios]

Typical AGW cultist tin foil hat conspiricy BS. I am an environmental geologist and have cleaned up more toxic waste sites than you could ever hope to read about in your short little life. I have actually DONE something to clean up the crap, all you want to do is steal money from poor people and give it to rich people.

Talk about bottom feeders, look in the mirror pal, you whore yourself out to the highest bidder in a vain hope to sweep up the scraps from their table.

Settle down. Glad to hear you're a geologist doing work in your area of expertise. All good. Geologists doing bullshit science whilst in climatologist drag, not good. They not you are the bottom-feeders, taking bux to serve a master intent on distorting science.

I'm a marketing guy, who when not fucking off here, markets and do not try to pass myself off as a brain surgeon, and publish bullshit on brain science. Nor would I be intimidated if Newton and Einstein came to me and wished to question my assertions about markets and brand strategies. I'd wipe up the floor with them, depite their IQs collectively being multiples of mine.

See where I'm going?

Meanwhile, I am not all about poor people. Some I wish to be spent on cleaning up shit and not creating more poor, such as my brother who was an engineer cleaning up Hanford, until budget cuts sent him to Saudi Arabia looking for work, since praise babyjesus and the Teas, we're spending less to clean up nuke waste in E WA.

Then use your brain and actually research what the goals are. If pollution control was actually a goal don't you think that there would actually be some legislation written that actually reduces the pollution?

There isn't. All the legislation that is written merely deals with taxing and redistribution of those tax monies to private companies who "regulate" the carbon trade. Goldman Sachs figures very prominantly in the schemes and I suggest you look up the Rolling Stone article fo a few years ago that dealt with the company and how they are deeply involved in virtually every scam that has ever harmed the people of this country.

And once again, look up every IPCC regulation that they wish to hammer the first world with, there is not one that contains any mechanism whatsoever to reduce pollution, not one. Instead they with to categorise CO2 which is the essential gas of life as a pollutant so that they can continue to pollute totheir hearts content while taxing us for the very air we breathe.

A little hard science factoid for you, if they were able to get the atmospheric CO2 level down to 200 do you know what the result would be? Death. No plants can grow at that low a concentration level. All paleo records we have tell us that when the CO2 levels have been high the world has done exceptionally well. The same goes for warmth. When it has been warm the world has done well. The Roman civilisation blossomed when it was at least 3 degrees warmer than today as an example.

This is KNOWN, but not reported by the climatologists because it ruins their paradigm and that would ruin their scam.

Just read some history, learn something about what has actually happened before and you will be astounded at how badly you have been misled.

I've already learned something: Nevada needs smarter geologists.

 

[SSDD]

A bit of homework:

Google (verb) "soft sciences" and then see if climatology is on the list.

Does the list include ALL of the soft sciences?

The fact is that climate science is a soft science. The data are not only stylized and interpreted, but climate science isn't sure what it needs to measure and isn't sure how to interpret what it has measured, and again, there is vast disagreement within climate science as to what the meaning is of what has been measured.

Add the fact that there isn't a single controlled experiment in support of the claims. What you are left with is a bunch of people standing around interpreting stylized data.

Here is a prime example of the softness of climate science. There is a hypothesis and an understanding of atmospheric physics that climate science adheres to. One would suppose that the same set of physics is at work everywhere within our solar system, so if the parameters of the various planets with atmospheres were plugged into the climate models a correct hypothesis should yield a predicted planetary temperature close to the actual observed temperature of the planet.

If you plug the parameters of the various planets into climate models, you don't get anything close to an accurate prediction of the observed temperatures which should tell you that the physics in the models is wrong. There are hypotheses that accurately predict the temperatures of the various planets, but the don't even take CO2 into account.

The hypothesis is flawed and yet it is clung to like a religious icon. Soft science, not driven by empirical observation.

 

[Koios]

Yes, climate is "real". It is certainly "measurable" in the long term (hundreds of years) but as they can't predict what will happen 10 years from now (they have been catastrophically wrong in the prediction of what would happen during this last 15 year period) nor can they predict what effect CO2 will have on the atmosphere, as yet again the CO2 level has risen far higher than even Hansens worst case scenario, so once again youare left with that old adage, "well,it isn't an exact science" which is the very definition of what an exact science actually does.

They tell you exactly what will happen when you mix A with B.

Of course. Climatologists, doing real hard fact science, would be the first to tell you that climate is too fucking dynamic, bordering on pure chaos, and that even though they do real science and are real scientists, their projections are merely that, and based on scientifically-based assumptions.

But to suggest, as one did, that it's soft science, merely exposes that poster's abject ignorance of what science is and is not.

No, their assumptions are based on very poorly written computer models that ignore water vapor or worse, assume it is a positive forcer when it has been shown to be a NEGATIVE forcer. There is nothing exact about the way they do their science.

You're not qualified to make that analysis of them; and they were models created by people eminently qualified to do so. That should tell you something.

Something else telling, if indeed you are a geologist: you know that outside of academia, the bulk of employment opps for geologists is the fosil fuels industry, which in turn funds many of the studies in academia. They're the main employer of geologists. So it's pretty fucking telling when MGW-denialist scientists and nearly exclusively geologists. Yeah?

 

[Koios]

A bit of homework:

Google (verb) "soft sciences" and then see if climatology is on the list.

Does the list include ALL of the soft sciences?

The fact is that climate science is a soft science. The data are not only stylized and interpreted, but climate science isn't sure what it needs to measure and isn't sure how to interpret what it has measured, and again, there is vast disagreement within climate science as to what the meaning is of what has been measured.

Add the fact that there isn't a single controlled experiment in support of the claims. What you are left with is a bunch of people standing around interpreting stylized data.

Here is a prime example of the softness of climate science. There is a hypothesis and an understanding of atmospheric physics that climate science adheres to. One would suppose that the same set of physics is at work everywhere within our solar system, so if the parameters of the various planets with atmospheres were plugged into the climate models a correct hypothesis should yield a predicted planetary temperature close to the actual observed temperature of the planet.

If you plug the parameters of the various planets into climate models, you don't get anything close to an accurate prediction of the observed temperatures which should tell you that the physics in the models is wrong. There are hypotheses that accurately predict the temperatures of the various planets, but the don't even take CO2 into account.

The hypothesis is flawed and yet it is clung to like a religious icon. Soft science, not driven by empirical observation.

I haven't the foggiest. It was homework I assigned to you and not myself.

But I already know that Climatogology is not a soft science. So if it's on a list, anywhere, the list was compiled by some right wing blogger that's a fucking retard.

That help?

 

[SSDD]

You're not qualified to make that analysis of them; and they were models created by people eminently qualified to do so. That should tell you something.

No they aren't. They are created by computer scientists with a very poor understanding of themodynamics.

I asked you what would falsify the AGW hypothesis. Is there a reason you didn't answer?

 

[SSDD]

I haven't the foggiest. It was homework I assigned to you and not myself.

But I already know that Climatogology is not a soft science. So if it's on a list, anywhere, the list was compiled by some right wing blogger that's a fucking retard.

That help?

Meteorology is a hard science, not climatolgy. The fact that you believe it is, speaks volumes. Take a look sometime at the course requirements for a degree in climatology, then look at the requirements for a degree in chemistry, physics, geology, astrophysics, etc, and then see if you still believe it is a hard science. If you do after having looked at the requirements for the degree, then you simply aren't very bright.