4 Reasons Why 'Climate Change' Is a Flat-Out Hoax

[SSDD]

You are digressing. What I personally think is immaterial to the subject. The subject is Holmes and you thinking in circles.

No..the subject, as always is the abject failure of the greenhouse hypothesis and your inability to provide any evidence to support your position. My position is fully supported by any physical law you care to name.

The dystopian change was clear: the aftermath of a cataclysmic event.

Not sure what your point is. If any parameter effecting the atmosphere changes, then the temperature changes will be predicted by the molar version of the ideal gas law...whatever change you care to make is going to be compensated for. All you have to do is look at the wide range of atmospheres, and distances from the sun you find across the solar system and the temperatures are predicted by the ideal gas law.

Right, but Holmes does not give a way of even attempting to do that. He says the result is already half-baked in.

Altering his statements do not change anything and they certainly don't make you cute....as I said, if you want to take the known parameters and the temperature, you can work backwards to figure what caused the parameters to be what they were; be it albedo, incoming solar energy, etc.

Sorry guy...face it. You are wrong...there is no actual evidence to support your hypothesis and there never will be.

 

[Crick]

God are you stupid.

 

[SSDD]

God are you stupid.

You believe in a hypothesis that has been in dispute for over 120 years and still doesn't have the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support it, you believe in its bastard stepchild, AGW for which not a single piece of observed, measured evidence exists that supports it over natural variability and the hypothetical warming due to man's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of AGW, has never actually been empirically measured, quantified and then attributed to GHG in any published, peer-reviewed scientific study to date.

Your belief in such a piss poor hypothesis...with no evidence to offer in support seems pretty stupid to me.

 

[Wuwei]

as I said, if you want to take the known parameters and the temperature, you can work backwards to figure what caused the parameters to be what they were; be it albedo, incoming solar energy, etc.

As I said, that is opposite of what an earth atmospheric theory should attempt to do. Why would you want to back-compute the solar influx when you can actually observe and measure influx after some catastrophic event such as an asteroid or massive volcano, etc. It is very important for survival to be able to estimate how the temperature will change as time goes on. You already have a handle on the incoming energy flux.

Holmes theory totally unable to do that. All it can do is wait for the catastrophe to evolve, and then verify that the gas law works. Of course it does.

 

[SSDD]

As I said, that is opposite of what an earth atmospheric theory should attempt to do. Why would you want to back-compute the solar influx when you can actually observe and measure influx after some catastrophic event such as an asteroid or massive volcano, etc. It is very important for survival to be able to estimate how the temperature will change as time goes on. You already have a handle on the incoming energy flux.

This really is beyond your understanding isn't it? Your belief in your piss poor hypothesis blinds you to everything else...such as, the fact that you can back compute the solar influx, albedo, pressure change etc, tells you what actually caused the temperature...and it isn't some half baked, unsupported, piss poor hypothesis with no empirical support after 120 years.

Holmes theory totally unable to do that. All it can do is wait for the catastrophe to evolve, and then verify that the gas law works. Of course it does.

What catastrophe you hand wringing hysterical ninny??? Catastrophic CO2 climate change? I am laughing.....big honking donkey laughs in your big stupid face.

 

[Wuwei]

This really is beyond your understanding isn't it? Your belief in your piss poor hypothesis blinds you to everything else...such as, the fact that you can back compute the solar influx, albedo, pressure change etc, tells you what actually caused the temperature...and it isn't some half baked, unsupported, piss poor hypothesis with no empirical support after 120 years.

The subject is that author Holmes does not have a cogent theory of how to compute near surface temperature given a new large change in solar influx.

Furthermore, you are wrong that Holmes has a cogent theory that can back compute solar influx. I didn't see any of that in his article. The author said it is baked in. He has absolutely no science behind it.

What catastrophe you hand wringing hysterical ninny??? Catastrophic CO2 climate change? I am laughing.....big honking donkey laughs in your big stupid face.

Geez SSDD, I explicitly said, asteroid or massive volcano, etc. It's right there quoted in your previous post #185.

Again, your post is replete with emotional anger ..... beyond your understanding.... piss poor.... hand wringing ninny.... big honking donkey.... stupid face.
When you get angry you never think straight, and have no cogent reply. Chill out.

 

[SSDD]

The subject is that author Holmes does not have a cogent theory of how to compute near surface temperature given a new large change in solar influx.

You get stupider and stupider.... the observable evidence proves you wrong. There is a wide range of solar influx across the planets in the solar system with atmospheres and the molar version of the idea gas law accurately calculates each and every one of them.....regardless of the solar influx.

On the other hand, there has been considerable change in solar influx over the recent decades which the greenhouse hypothesis entirely missed and climate scientists completely ignored in favor of blaming CO2 for changes in temperature.

Furthermore, you are wrong that Holmes has a cogent theory that can back compute solar influx. I didn't see any of that in his article. The author said it is baked in. He has absolutely no science behind it.

Some things are so basic that they need not be explained. Go ask ian.

Geez SSDD, I explicitly said, asteroid or massive volcano, etc. It's right there quoted in your previous post #185.

Again, since the formula works across the solar system with a very wide range of solar influx, and atmospheric types and conditions, the fact that it instantly compensates for and calculates changes in solar influx, and every other factor that might alter the parameters necessary for the molar version of the ideal gas law is self evident. No alteration is needed in the formula to account for variations across the solar system.

Again, your post is replete with emotional anger ..... beyond your understanding.... piss poor.... hand wringing ninny.... big honking donkey.... stupid face.
When you get angry you never think straight, and have no cogent reply. Chill out.

Stupidity on the level you are exhibiting does not warrant patience. You get straight cogent replies, and in answer you descend to a whole new level of stupidity.

 

[Wuwei]

The subject is that author Holmes does not have a cogent theory of how to compute near surface temperature given a new large change in solar influx.

You get stupider and stupider.... the observable evidence proves you wrong. There is a wide range of solar influx across the planets in the solar system with atmospheres and the molar version of the idea gas law accurately calculates each and every one of them.....regardless of the solar influx.

On the other hand, there has been considerable change in solar influx over the recent decades which the greenhouse hypothesis entirely missed and climate scientists completely ignored in favor of blaming CO2 for changes in temperature.

Furthermore, you are wrong that Holmes has a cogent theory that can back compute solar influx. I didn't see any of that in his article. The author said it is baked in. He has absolutely no science behind it.

Some things are so basic that they need not be explained. Go ask ian.

Geez SSDD, I explicitly said, asteroid or massive volcano, etc. It's right there quoted in your previous post #185.

Again, since the formula works across the solar system with a very wide range of solar influx, and atmospheric types and conditions, the fact that it instantly compensates for and calculates changes in solar influx, and every other factor that might alter the parameters necessary for the molar version of the ideal gas law is self evident. No alteration is needed in the formula to account for variations across the solar system.

Again, your post is replete with emotional anger ..... beyond your understanding.... piss poor.... hand wringing ninny.... big honking donkey.... stupid face.
When you get angry you never think straight, and have no cogent reply. Chill out.

Stupidity on the level you are exhibiting does not warrant patience. You get straight cogent replies, and in answer you descend to a whole new level of stupidity.

Holmes does not provide any new science. He simply shows how various atmospheric layers in different planets obey the gas law. So what. Nobody is challenging the ideal gas law here. You were taken in by a "science" charlatan.

 

[SSDD]

The subject is that author Holmes does not have a cogent theory of how to compute near surface temperature given a new large change in solar influx.

You get stupider and stupider.... the observable evidence proves you wrong. There is a wide range of solar influx across the planets in the solar system with atmospheres and the molar version of the idea gas law accurately calculates each and every one of them.....regardless of the solar influx.

On the other hand, there has been considerable change in solar influx over the recent decades which the greenhouse hypothesis entirely missed and climate scientists completely ignored in favor of blaming CO2 for changes in temperature.

Furthermore, you are wrong that Holmes has a cogent theory that can back compute solar influx. I didn't see any of that in his article. The author said it is baked in. He has absolutely no science behind it.

Some things are so basic that they need not be explained. Go ask ian.

Geez SSDD, I explicitly said, asteroid or massive volcano, etc. It's right there quoted in your previous post #185.

Again, since the formula works across the solar system with a very wide range of solar influx, and atmospheric types and conditions, the fact that it instantly compensates for and calculates changes in solar influx, and every other factor that might alter the parameters necessary for the molar version of the ideal gas law is self evident. No alteration is needed in the formula to account for variations across the solar system.

Again, your post is replete with emotional anger ..... beyond your understanding.... piss poor.... hand wringing ninny.... big honking donkey.... stupid face.
When you get angry you never think straight, and have no cogent reply. Chill out.

Stupidity on the level you are exhibiting does not warrant patience. You get straight cogent replies, and in answer you descend to a whole new level of stupidity.

Holmes does not provide any new science. He simply shows how various atmospheric layers in different planets obey the gas law. So what. Nobody is challenging the ideal gas law here. You were taken in by a "science" charlatan.

Sorry guy...but he is simply pointing out what actual science has always known...that being why the temperature is what it is...charlatans have attempted to make a gas which is incapable of causing warming at atmospheric concentrations and pressures into a means of procuring money and political power...alas, you are the one who has been taken in by charlatans...and a quaint 19th century hypothesis which has been disputed by no less than Maxwell, Carnot and Clausius...since it was first put upon the table, and after 120+ years, still can't produce a single piece of observed measured evidence in its support. You have been had by charlatans and not even good charlatans at that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?


Here’s what the author of this piece writes:

First, a disclaimer: I am not a climate scientist. In fact, I am not a scientist of any kind. But I do have a degree in electrical engineering, which I mention only to point out that I am at least as qualified as the next non-scientist to form rational opinions about global warming claims.

In obtaining my degree, I took enough classes in chemistry, physics, and geology to develop a keen appreciation of the scientific method, the best way ever devised for winnowing the truth from fakery and deception. If taking the scientific method into account, no intelligent person can fail to see that the constant drumbeat of wild and hysterical claims about the climate are insults to the search for Truth.

Following are four reasons why I will bet my life that "climate change" is the greatest scientific and political hoax in human history.

1. Rampant scientific fraud

2. The duping of Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public

3. A long trail of wildly inaccurate predictions

4. Intentional concealment of inconvenient parts of climate history

All of the details and conclusions @ https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/4_reasons_why_climate_change_is_a_flatout_hoax.html

The IPCC is still wrong on climate change. Scientists prove it. @ https://www.americanthinker.com/art...ng_on_climate_change_scientists_prove_it.html

One reason why climate change deniers are full of shit and dangerous:

Heartland Institute and its NIPCC report fail the credibility test | Climate Science Watch

The discredited Heartland Institute is attempting to present its new NIPCC report, Climate Change Reconsidered, as a legitimate alternative authority to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the NIPCC report is not a credible scientific undertaking, and the Heartland Institute has no credibility, scientific or otherwise.

Can you post the lab work showing the link between temperature and an increase in CO2 from 280PPM to 400?

Thank you

 

[SSDD]

First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?


Here’s what the author of this piece writes:

First, a disclaimer: I am not a climate scientist. In fact, I am not a scientist of any kind. But I do have a degree in electrical engineering, which I mention only to point out that I am at least as qualified as the next non-scientist to form rational opinions about global warming claims.

In obtaining my degree, I took enough classes in chemistry, physics, and geology to develop a keen appreciation of the scientific method, the best way ever devised for winnowing the truth from fakery and deception. If taking the scientific method into account, no intelligent person can fail to see that the constant drumbeat of wild and hysterical claims about the climate are insults to the search for Truth.

Following are four reasons why I will bet my life that "climate change" is the greatest scientific and political hoax in human history.

1. Rampant scientific fraud

2. The duping of Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public

3. A long trail of wildly inaccurate predictions

4. Intentional concealment of inconvenient parts of climate history

All of the details and conclusions @ https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/4_reasons_why_climate_change_is_a_flatout_hoax.html

The IPCC is still wrong on climate change. Scientists prove it. @ https://www.americanthinker.com/art...ng_on_climate_change_scientists_prove_it.html

One reason why climate change deniers are full of shit and dangerous:

Heartland Institute and its NIPCC report fail the credibility test | Climate Science Watch

The discredited Heartland Institute is attempting to present its new NIPCC report, Climate Change Reconsidered, as a legitimate alternative authority to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the NIPCC report is not a credible scientific undertaking, and the Heartland Institute has no credibility, scientific or otherwise.

Can you post the lab work showing the link between temperature and an increase in CO2 from 280PPM to 400?

Thank you

These guys aren't much for posting evidence of any sort to support their position...so it goes when you are talking to people about their faith....and only a heretic would question their faith....you are just a bad filthy heretic who deserves to be burned upon the altar of their green goddess.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?


Here’s what the author of this piece writes:

First, a disclaimer: I am not a climate scientist. In fact, I am not a scientist of any kind. But I do have a degree in electrical engineering, which I mention only to point out that I am at least as qualified as the next non-scientist to form rational opinions about global warming claims.

In obtaining my degree, I took enough classes in chemistry, physics, and geology to develop a keen appreciation of the scientific method, the best way ever devised for winnowing the truth from fakery and deception. If taking the scientific method into account, no intelligent person can fail to see that the constant drumbeat of wild and hysterical claims about the climate are insults to the search for Truth.

Following are four reasons why I will bet my life that "climate change" is the greatest scientific and political hoax in human history.

1. Rampant scientific fraud

2. The duping of Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public

3. A long trail of wildly inaccurate predictions

4. Intentional concealment of inconvenient parts of climate history

All of the details and conclusions @ https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/4_reasons_why_climate_change_is_a_flatout_hoax.html

The IPCC is still wrong on climate change. Scientists prove it. @ https://www.americanthinker.com/art...ng_on_climate_change_scientists_prove_it.html

One reason why climate change deniers are full of shit and dangerous:

Heartland Institute and its NIPCC report fail the credibility test | Climate Science Watch

The discredited Heartland Institute is attempting to present its new NIPCC report, Climate Change Reconsidered, as a legitimate alternative authority to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the NIPCC report is not a credible scientific undertaking, and the Heartland Institute has no credibility, scientific or otherwise.

Can you post the lab work showing the link between temperature and an increase in CO2 from 280PPM to 400?

Thank you

These guys aren't much for posting evidence of any sort to support their position...so it goes when you are talking to people about their faith....and only a heretic would question their faith....you are just a bad filthy heretic who deserves to be burned upon the altar of their green goddess.

Maybe they missed the request the first 20,000 times we asked?

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy...but he is simply pointing out what actual science has always known.

Yes, Homes did exactly that. He showed that NASA data in the planetary fact sheet followed the ideal gas law. Big deal. Science has known the ideal gas law since Clapeyron in 1834.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sorry guy...but he is simply pointing out what actual science has always known.

Yes, Homes did exactly that. He showed that NASA data in the planetary fact sheet followed the ideal gas law. Big deal. Science has known the ideal gas law since Clapeyron in 1834.

So, what is the expected temperature increase when CO2 increases from 280 to 400PPM?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Sorry guy...but he is simply pointing out what actual science has always known.

Yes, Homes did exactly that. He showed that NASA data in the planetary fact sheet followed the ideal gas law. Big deal. Science has known the ideal gas law since Clapeyron in 1834.

You state this but you still believe in CAGW? HOW???

 

[SSDD]

Sorry guy...but he is simply pointing out what actual science has always known.

Yes, Homes did exactly that. He showed that NASA data in the planetary fact sheet followed the ideal gas law. Big deal. Science has known the ideal gas law since Clapeyron in 1834.

Which is probably why Maxwell, Carnot, and Clausius, all men of far higher scientific standing that Arrhenius said that is quaint greenhouse hypothesis was not worth the paper it was written on...and now, 120+ years later, their opinion of the greenhouse hypothesis stands vindicated by the absence of even a single piece of observed, measured evidence to stand in its support.

Still waiting for you to demonstrate that the greenhouse hypothesis has any value at all by using it to predict the temperature of any other planet in the atmosphere with an atmosphere. If it has any validity at all, it should be able to do that basic task...lets see it.

I predict that ONCE AGAIN AS ALWAYS, you will have nothing but your belief and alas, that amounts to exactly squat.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry guy...but he is simply pointing out what actual science has always known.

Yes, Homes did exactly that. He showed that NASA data in the planetary fact sheet followed the ideal gas law. Big deal. Science has known the ideal gas law since Clapeyron in 1834.

So, what is the expected temperature increase when CO2 increases from 280 to 400PPM?

They don't want to talk about that...in fact, they can't really talk about it since the
hypothetical warming due to man's burning of hydrocarbon fuels has never actually been empirically measured, quantified and then attributed to GHG in any published, peer-reviewed scientific study to date.

What they have are lots of opinion pieces and failed models...no actual observed, measured evidence whatsoever...

 

[SSDD]

Sorry guy...but he is simply pointing out what actual science has always known.

Yes, Homes did exactly that. He showed that NASA data in the planetary fact sheet followed the ideal gas law. Big deal. Science has known the ideal gas law since Clapeyron in 1834.

You state this but you still believe in CAGW? HOW???

Faith my son...blind, unmitigated, relentless, undiluted faith. He believes and his faith provides him with a set of blinders that no amount of truth could ever penetrate. He has far too much of himself and his self worth invested into his belief to ever even acknowledge the remote possibility that he has been duped. He is the penultimate useful idiot.....

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy...but he is simply pointing out what actual science has always known.

Yes, Homes did exactly that. He showed that NASA data in the planetary fact sheet followed the ideal gas law. Big deal. Science has known the ideal gas law since Clapeyron in 1834.

Which is probably why Maxwell, Carnot, and Clausius, all men of far higher scientific standing that Arrhenius said that is quaint greenhouse hypothesis was not worth the paper it was written on...and now, 120+ years later, their opinion of the greenhouse hypothesis stands vindicated by the absence of even a single piece of observed, measured evidence to stand in its support.

Still waiting for you to demonstrate that the greenhouse hypothesis has any value at all by using it to predict the temperature of any other planet in the atmosphere with an atmosphere. If it has any validity at all, it should be able to do that basic task...lets see it.

I predict that ONCE AGAIN AS ALWAYS, you will have nothing but your belief and alas, that amounts to exactly squat.

I'm not arguing about the GHE. I simply said that Holmes' paper is vacuous, and now you are changing the subject.

 

[Edgar]

So many lies that do not understand where the truth