What the science says

[LaDexter]

Who wants to bet that most of these skeptics are fundies and think science is evil?

Science outs truth.

Truth outs evil.

CO2 based "climate change" is 100% fraud, it took REAL SCIENCE to prove that, and FRAUD is evil, as is every single life form cheering fraud and bilking the US taxpayer in the process.

 

[Crick]

Here we go with that "life form" bit. Did you fall asleep with the ScFi channel on or something?

So, who committed this fraud Dex? And what "REAL SCIENCE" proved that it was fraud?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Our planet is warming and will continue to warm. It is mostly caused by co2 and methane.

 

[SSDD]

Our planet is warming and will continue to warm. It is mostly caused by co2 and methane.

Is CO2 also causing the rapid temperature decline in the north atlantic? The earth has been warming for 14K years matthew...nothing new...nothing unusual...it will continue to warm till it begins cooling...CO2 nor any other so called greenhouse gas has any power to alter the global temperatures.

 

[Crick]

Science outs truth.

I'm not certain what YOU meant by that phrase, but I would certainly say that science gets us closer to the truth.

Truth outs evil.

Now you're getting a bit philosophical and you're lacking the underpinnings. What, for instance, is evil? And, of course, what does it mean to "out" it? Truth is not a active independent agent. PEOPLE can use the truth to do all manner of things.

CO2 based "climate change" is 100% fraud

You keep saying that (over and over and over again) but you've yet to give anyone here the slightest reason to believe it. Convince us, if you can. Try logic, reason and EVIDENCE.

it took REAL SCIENCE to prove that

Ahhh... but there you slip. Science DOESN'T PROVE things. It investigates, theorizes and provides evidence. Proof is for mathematicians and logicians... perhaps for lawyers and judges. It's not for science.

and FRAUD is evil

Then you'd best get hot and show us some fraud. Cause so far, all we have is your word and your word ain't shit.

But, I have to wonder. If I defraud the welfare system or a store or a charity to get food and medical care for a dying baby, have I done evil? If I defraud a mugger and thus save the lives of his intended victims, have I done evil? If I defraud a Hitler invading some innocent nation and prevent horror and bloodshed, have I done evil?

as is every single life form cheering fraud and bilking the US taxpayer in the process.

I've been trying to figure out why you're using the term "life form" when, obviously, the only life forms you're talking about is people. The two terms are not interchangeable Dex, they're not synonyms. Are you trying to appear dramatic? Forceful? Inclusive? Pedantic? Are you, by chance, attempting to state it in a way that will make it sound more like some universal truth your propounding?

Good god are you stupid.

Mod Edit -- fixed quotes --- you're welcome.

 

[jc456]

Really? You don't think peer reviewed descriptions of the greenhouse effect exist?

sure there have been peer review descriptions. None tested.

 

[jc456]

Like this:

A concise description of the greenhouse effect is given in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, "What is the Greenhouse Effect?" FAQ 1.3 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science, IIPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Chapter 1, page 115: "To balance the absorbed incoming [solar] energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect."

Stephen H. Schneider, in Geosphere-biosphere Interactions and Climate, Lennart O. Bengtsson and Claus U. Hammer, eds., Cambridge University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-521-78238-4, pp. 90-91.

E. Claussen, V. A. Cochran, and D. P. Davis, Climate Change: Science, Strategies, & Solutions, University of Michigan, 2001. p. 373.

A. Allaby and M. Allaby, A Dictionary of Earth Sciences, Oxford University Press, 1999, ISBN 0-19-280079-5, p. 244.

Vaclav Smil (2003). The Earth's Biosphere: Evolution, Dynamics, and Change. MIT Press. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-262-69298-4.

IPCC AR4 WG1 (2007), Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, K.B.; Tignor, M.; Miller, H.L., eds., Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-88009-1 (pb: 978-0-521-70596-7)

Schroeder, Daniel V. (2000). An introduction to thermal physics. San Francisco, California: Addison-Wesley. pp. 305–7. ISBN 0-321-27779-1. ... this mechanism is called the greenhouse effect, even though most greenhouses depend primarily on a different mechanism (namely, limiting convective cooling).

And so forth

Material above from the References section of Wikipedia's article on "The Greenhouse Effect"

Clear enough......even for idiots like jc and ssdd.

except it's never been tested as such.

Just post one of those experiments.

 

[jc456]

The ocean rise is bull shit... Temperature rise manufactured.. Their science is failed models they tout as fact... At least EXXON used real science and quantifiable, observed, evidence to support their positions.. everything you tout as fact has been manufactured and no empirical evidence exists... Fantasy vs facts..

Exxon's position is that human GHG emissions are causing global warming.

Your CONTINUED position that there is no empirical evidence is a fantasy and an insane and ignorant one a that. The fact is that there are mountains of evidence supporting AGW.

I begin to worry about your well being. How's life treating you Billy?

well again, all you have to do is post the empirical evidence. Why don't you?

 

[jc456]

SSDD

Most people who accept the AGW hypothesis do so based on politics...

Really? So scientists started talking about it, and you think people believed the scientists because of a political agenda?

I do know some people who feared regulation because of the science started attacking the science AFTERWARDS. So did you disbelieve the science before or after it was attacked by people who feared regulation?

well son, just present the empirical evidence and say na, na,na,na,na,na to us. sounds simple doesn't it?

 

[jc456]

...

SSDD SAID:
Most people who accept the AGW hypothesis do so based on politics...

DANTE REPLIED:
Really? So scientists started talking about it, and you think people believed the scientists because of a political agenda?

I do know some people who feared regulation because of the science started attacking the science AFTERWARDS. So did you disbelieve the science before or after it was attacked by people who feared regulation?

SSDD POSTS:
1) Are you trying to argue that climate science isn't highly politicized...

2) I disbelieve climate science because...

2) Show me some...

WHY did you SSDD answer the way you did? First (1), you ignore that Dante mentioned the politicization by the anti-regulation crowd, which came after the science. You ask a question that reveals you are unable to engage in serious discussion.

You then (2), Avoid the question of when you started to, in your words 'disbelieve' the science. Then you start to ask me something that totally takes the discussion off to a side issue -- a side issue put forth by those who attack the science because of fears of proposed regulations

Thanks Dante,


and a note for everyone........notice no empirical evidence supplied in his response. If what he says is sooooooo true, then why is it so difficult to just post one of these volumes of thousands of support. Peer review none the less.

Dante, just post up the science, that empirical experimental evidence that shows you're correct? Why are you so afraid to post that material? Is it perhaps you have no idea where it is?

 

[jc456]

As I already stated...I am not one of the anti regulation crowd...

you can state whatever your heart wants you to. But the facts are you stopped believing in the science when it became an issue of regulation. Throw as many words at it as you can, but the history of the 'debates' over climate change started with anti-regulation $$$ funding opposition science. Some of the same people doing opposition science as shilled for Big Tobacco

Just be honest

no it was the paying for carbon credits. A program initiated as a result of unproven science. Meaning money from citizens. Like some judgement against mankind for existing. Poor people love heat in the winter and air conditioning in the summer. They don't have the funds to pay for accelerated costs based on a lie. See I care about mankind, you..........not so much.

 

[jc456]

when a Hubble photo comes back to Earth, are the same people saying NASA is not to be believed when the fear of regulations may be involved

Why does a Hubble photo make NASA recommendations about fossil fuels somehow correct?

They don't and no one claims they do.

But they do make claims about the photos and the science and we believe them because they are NASA. That is unless you are also more of an expert than NASA scientists on space an cosmology, as much as you are more of an expert than NASA scientists on climate change?

When I say "we believe them because they are NASA" I say this with the knowledge that there claims are fact checked and a consensus is built around their claims

did you really just write this?---'They don't and no one claims they do.'

son, that is too special. watch out for the water as your back pedaling there.

 

[jc456]

Of course it does...which leads me to wonder why, when the plethora of predictions that climate science has made over the decades failed to materialize, the hypothesis which was the basis of those claims and predictions was not scrapped and a new hypothesis with better predictive capacity was not put forward.

You haven't been following your own posts as well as the science. You posted the science first backed theories of colling and later the climate science put forth revised claims (scrapped the old ones) of warming. As the science has changed, you evidently have not.

Your argument is not with the 'cooling' or 'warming' claims, it is with the science. Why? Regulation and financial costs, as you have noted

I was unaware the science made 'predictions.' I always thought the science claimed possible scenarios into the future if nothing was done to address the issues. Now if YOU are talking about individuals who made predictions...you are not arguing about the science, are you?

his and my science is about actual science. the kind that is tested in a lab and results collected and distributed for review. Do you have those? See, that is what has been consistent since cooling (not colling) and warmers have been changing their minds. They sir follow the money.

I and SSDD follow the science and would like to see the empirical evidence. post it if it's soo available that you post in here about it. What has you convinced? show us.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Isn't "peer reviewed" just another way of saying, "We have no lab work to back up our pseudo-science"?

 

[jc456]

As I already stated...I am not one of the anti regulation crowd...

you can state whatever your heart wants you to. But the facts are you stopped believing in the science when it became an issue of regulation. Throw as many words at it as you can, but the history of the 'debates' over climate change started with anti-regulation $$$ funding opposition science. Some of the same people doing opposition science as shilled for Big Tobacco

Just be honest

Is it that you are unable to actually argue against my reasons for not believing the climate science community and resulting position and therefore must invent a position to argue against...or can you just not read?

I have stated why I lack any confidence in climate science and it is due to a complete lack of observe, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the prevailing hypothesis...if you can't argue against that position...I completely understand why....since there is no counter argument to be made without providing the very observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence I have asked for and it simply does not exist.

You are simply a damned liar. It has been provided for you time and time. The fact that we have a warming world has been established. The melting of the Arctic Sea Ice has been and is being observed. The last three years records, the three warmest years on record, right in a row.

One has only to look and listen to the videos of the lectures at the annual AGU meeting in San Francisco to see and hear the scientists present evidence and observations you falsely claim does not exist.

ah.............nope!!!!

BTW, give me some search criteria for in here and i'll take the time and go looking. What should I search on? and anyone one poster who did the posting.

 

[jc456]

Isn't "peer reviewed" just another way of saying, "We have no lab work to back up our pseudo-science"?

exactly!!!

 

[jc456]

But they do make claims about the photos and the science and we believe them because they are NASA.

Yes, their claims about Hubble photos are very believable. About AGW, not so much.

They are to an overwhelming majority of real scientists, as opposed to people like you, forming a 'consensus' within the scientific community.

they are? name some of these nasa scientists that you believe. got any?

 

[jc456]

Is it that you are unable to actually argue against my reasons for not believing the climate science community...

Your reasons for inferring NASA is lying?

Seriously? The climate science community has just stated...with a straight face, that they will require a 23 TRILLION dollar investment.

In what context? Worldwide? Over decades? What?

You disbelieve NASA because you claim it is "The climate science community" asking for a "23 TRILLION dollar investment?" Or saying a "23 TRILLION dollar investment" would be needed 'if' certain things are not addressed, or are addressed wrongly?

In what context? But more seriously, it is the cost somebody mentions that makes you disbelieve 'science'???

it is the cost on a subject that isn't proven. if money is needed to correct something, fine, but name what needs correcting. What say you? Do you know what the 23 trillion is for and what it supposedly fixes? perhaps you could post the solution. Better yet, perhaps you could merely post what is the problem to solve.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Like this:

A concise description of the greenhouse effect is given in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, "What is the Greenhouse Effect?" FAQ 1.3 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science, IIPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Chapter 1, page 115: "To balance the absorbed incoming [solar] energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect."

Stephen H. Schneider, in Geosphere-biosphere Interactions and Climate, Lennart O. Bengtsson and Claus U. Hammer, eds., Cambridge University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-521-78238-4, pp. 90-91.

E. Claussen, V. A. Cochran, and D. P. Davis, Climate Change: Science, Strategies, & Solutions, University of Michigan, 2001. p. 373.

A. Allaby and M. Allaby, A Dictionary of Earth Sciences, Oxford University Press, 1999, ISBN 0-19-280079-5, p. 244.

Vaclav Smil (2003). The Earth's Biosphere: Evolution, Dynamics, and Change. MIT Press. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-262-69298-4.

IPCC AR4 WG1 (2007), Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, K.B.; Tignor, M.; Miller, H.L., eds., Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-88009-1 (pb: 978-0-521-70596-7)

Schroeder, Daniel V. (2000). An introduction to thermal physics. San Francisco, California: Addison-Wesley. pp. 305–7. ISBN 0-321-27779-1. ... this mechanism is called the greenhouse effect, even though most greenhouses depend primarily on a different mechanism (namely, limiting convective cooling).

And so forth

Material above from the References section of Wikipedia's article on "The Greenhouse Effect"

Clear enough......even for idiots like jc and ssdd.

except it's never been tested as such.

Just post one of those experiments.

except it's never been tested as such.

Absorption and emission spectrums of CO2 have never been measured? Are you sure?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course it does...which leads me to wonder why, when the plethora of predictions that climate science has made over the decades failed to materialize, the hypothesis which was the basis of those claims and predictions was not scrapped and a new hypothesis with better predictive capacity was not put forward.

You haven't been following your own posts as well as the science. You posted the science first backed theories of colling and later the climate science put forth revised claims (scrapped the old ones) of warming. As the science has changed, you evidently have not.

Your argument is not with the 'cooling' or 'warming' claims, it is with the science. Why? Regulation and financial costs, as you have noted

I was unaware the science made 'predictions.' I always thought the science claimed possible scenarios into the future if nothing was done to address the issues. Now if YOU are talking about individuals who made predictions...you are not arguing about the science, are you?

his and my science is about actual science. the kind that is tested in a lab and results collected and distributed for review. Do you have those? See, that is what has been consistent since cooling (not colling) and warmers have been changing their minds. They sir follow the money.

I and SSDD follow the science and would like to see the empirical evidence. post it if it's soo available that you post in here about it. What has you convinced? show us.

his and my science is about actual science

Any examples proving the actual science of "smart photons"?