Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have so much to say on these threads maybe for once you can just answer such a simple and key question rather than deflecting to Albert Einstein quotes. What exactly do you attribute the temperature increase to in the last 100 years, surely you must have some opinion.
Does it matter to whether your conclusion on the validity of CAGW is correct or not?
The answer is no, and so your response is continued evasion.
I can show your claims, your conclusions to be invalid and not once establish my position. Why? Because it is irrelevant to this discussion on if your position is scientifically valid or not.
And yet you accuse me of being ignorant. I suggest you spend a little less time listening to talk radio and invest a little time in reading about climate change and the science behind it as you clearly haven't. You've just heard someone say that none of this is proved because x or y doesn't fit the hypothesis. Have you heard of anomalies? A hypothesis isn't overturned because one piece of data doesn't fit the pattern.
More ignorance.
A single fact invalidates a hypothesis.
Statistics are not science. statistics are exploration tools, not validation mechanisms.
They CAN NOT scientifically validate the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming position (ie man is the main driver and the results are devastating).
They have a lot of guesses, many perceived correlations, localized consensus (among their circles), and a ton of models that are self fulfilled prophecies (ie the model of the systems which are based on their assumptions of how the systems should work and so naturally, the models produce results in line with their assumptions).
This is why they despise and dismiss the scientific method, why they claim it is not required, that consensus, elite authority, and good intentions are all enough to establish their position. They don't even apply the Null Hypothesis in their work because it gets in the way of their narrative.
It is political activism at its core. Instead of the Church attacking Galileo, it is the Church of Global Warming attacking science at its core and that is why we refer to this behavior, this demand for acceptance as fanatical and religious. I mean, look how nasty they get when you try to hold their feet to the fire (denier, flat-earther, stupid, etc... ).
What you tried to do in our discussion is derail it with an argument over useless details that have nothing to do with my requirement and in this discussion, not once have you provided any scientifically validated evidence to support your claim that you made.
By useless details you mean actual technical science and nothing even exotic at that. I just probed to see if you and I were in agreement on the most fundamental basics. The greenhouse model. Something solidly based on Gustav Kirchoff's laws of radiation which have been accepted by the physics community since he developed them in 1859 ... and yet you call this fundamental principle of the greenhouse gas effect "useless details". I didn't bring this up as a physics test for you. You were so loud about science that I absolutely assumed you were at the very least smart enough and honest enough to accept a fundamental law of physics that we could build a discussion on. But no. You are actually that ignorant. It's astounding to meet a Luddite like you. You aren't just a climate change denier you're a PHYSICS denier. Holy cow.
Why should I or anyone else engage in a discussion with you over the application (modelling) of a theory when you don't even understand or accept the 160 yr old physics that theory is based on? Why? How can you consider yourself worthy of being taken seriously in the least?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtGen
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeeBey
Forgings? ... FORGINGS??? Are you talking about CO2 forcing? HAHAHAHA!!! You don't even understand what you're typing. You're a parrot who has utterly no idea what's going on with this subject. An empty suit angrily pounding away at a keyboard. I have no idea why any of us should waste one more second on you. Ah the jeopardy of the internet. The time wasted on retards we'd never spend a minute talking to in the real world and all because we can't actually see the drool puddles on your shirt.
Obvious mistype,
You on page 33 -
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtGen
CO2 is a green house gas, yet it is among many others and very small amount and there is contention as to how this effects the climate (remember, they argue constantly over forgings negative/positive, ie how much this has an effect).
You on page 36 -
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtGen
CO2 is a green house gas, yet it is among many others and very small amount and there is contention as to how this effects the climate (remember, they argue constantly over forgings negative/positive, ie how much this has an effect).
No not a mistype. You bungled it TWICE! Once on page 33 and again on page 36. Not only have you lied about an example of your gross scientific ignorance and passed it off as a mistype but you cut and pasted the exact same phrase. You're busted. You don't have a clue what you're posting about. You're either cutting and pasting from some denier's group talking points list ... or you're shoddily trying to educate yourself, got way in over your head and are just throwing words against the wall hoping to bamboozle people that you assume are as ignorant as you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtGen
Then again, as I said you were seen for what you were doing in your first post, being a political activist. Note how you used all the typical key words: Deny (ier), Flat-Earther,
Fail. You still haven't done your homework. I'm as far from a political activist as it gets. You're taking your own slavish adherence to an unfortunate and misguided part of conservative dogma and projecting it onto me and it won't work. Yeah right I'm such an activist (by implication liberal). I'm so progressive I got called a "white nationalist" a couple weeks ago by some SJW shill named djmilf. Look it up. You don't know me. I unlike you know that science is not political. Pro-tip : Conservatives aren't necessarily racist neanderthals and liberals aren't necessarily Orwellian minions of Al Gore so be careful with the cliche assumptions.
Bottom line - You're swirling the drain. Caught for a scientific ignoramus and reduced to squealing over and over about 'validation' when it's clear you couldn't possibly understand either the theory or the modelling to have that discussion.
Does it matter to whether your conclusion on the validity of CAGW is correct or not?
The answer is no, and so your response is continued evasion.
I can show your claims, your conclusions to be invalid and not once establish my position. Why? Because it is irrelevant to this discussion on if your position is scientifically valid or not.
How is my response an evasion, I asked the question as to what you attribute the current warming trend over the last 100 years. Certainly someone who participates in these threads so frequently must have some theory as to what physical occurrence is the cause.
US climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.031°C (0.057°F) by 2100.
LMFAO
Mind you this is a reduction in the projected growth of global temps. Not an overall reduction in temps....
Sadly agree that this was a bad deal. I'm convinced AGW is real and significant but the Paris accord was largely empty in terms of its impact on warming. There was no reason for us to participate in something that was financial redistribution masquerading as an environmental solution. China and India were the telltales that this was a fraud.
Statistics are not science. statistics are exploration tools, not validation mechanisms.
Wrong.
But give it a go then, give me that one single fact that invalidates the currently accepted theory of climate change.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
