AGW Question

[jc456]

except it is inaccurate and not supported. you can believe what you want, but don't ask someone to believe what you believe. I still haven't seen any evidence that the earth is warming. I challenge you fools on the warmer side and it's still crickets.

You all use words like --thousands and hundreds, post up link after link of nonsense you call evidence. Did I mention nonsense material as evidence? Oh yeah, it is most often what it is. I call them liars, and will until evidence is provided to show me otherwise. BTW, I laugh at fools like you. You all make my day. you have no idea what climate actually is or weather.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And I am on the side of NASA scientists and an overwhelming majority of scientists. Put that up against you and 3% of scientists? Not a tough choice to make

The 97% of scientists imaginary statistic is as fake as anything in the AGW Fraud

 

[SSDD]

And I am on the side of NASA scientists and an overwhelming majority of scientists. Put that up against you and 3% of scientists? Not a tough choice to make

Put what up against us skeptics and your claimed 3% of scientists....clearly you aren't putting any actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical data up against us skeptics...so apparently you are putting your belief in a consensus up against us...your belief and $5 will get you a cup of what at starbucks?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

May 29, 1919: A Major Eclipse, Relatively Speaking

1919: During a total solar eclipse, Sir Arthur Eddington performs the first experimental test of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

The findings made Einstein a celebrity overnight, and precipitated the eventual triumph of general relativity over classical Newtonian physics.​

Poor, poor Frank. Ignore the evidence: Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws
In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. To take an example from daily life, suppose you discover that your car will not start. You may say, "My car does not start because the battery is low." This is your first hypothesis. You may then check whether the lights were left on, or if the engine makes a particular sound when you turn the ignition key. You might actually check the voltage across the terminals of the battery. If you discover that the battery is not low, you might attempt another hypothesis ("The starter is broken"; "This is really not my car.")

The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. A often-cited example of this is the Bohr model of the atom, in which, in an analogy to the solar system, the electrons are described has moving in circular orbits around the nucleus. This is not an accurate depiction of what an atom "looks like," but the model succeeds in mathematically representing the energies (but not the correct angular momenta) of the quantum states of the electron in the simplest case, the hydrogen atom. Another example is Hook's Law (which should be called Hook's principle, or Hook's model), which states that the force exerted by a mass attached to a spring is proportional to the amount the spring is stretched. We know that this principle is only valid for small amounts of stretching. The "law" fails when the spring is stretched beyond its elastic limit (it can break). This principle, however, leads to the prediction of simple harmonic motion, and, as a model of the behavior of a spring, has been versatile in an extremely broad range of applications.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

Changes in scientific thought and theories occur, of course, sometimes revolutionizing our view of the world (Kuhn, 1962). Again, the key force for change is the scientific method, and its emphasis on experiment.

Introduction to the Scientific Method​

How is pointing at the top story on the Weather Channel "Evidence"?

 

[SSDD]

May 29, 1919: A Major Eclipse, Relatively Speaking

1919: During a total solar eclipse, Sir Arthur Eddington performs the first experimental test of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

The findings made Einstein a celebrity overnight, and precipitated the eventual triumph of general relativity over classical Newtonian physics.​

Poor, poor Frank. Ignore the evidence: Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws
In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. To take an example from daily life, suppose you discover that your car will not start. You may say, "My car does not start because the battery is low." This is your first hypothesis. You may then check whether the lights were left on, or if the engine makes a particular sound when you turn the ignition key. You might actually check the voltage across the terminals of the battery. If you discover that the battery is not low, you might attempt another hypothesis ("The starter is broken"; "This is really not my car.")

The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. A often-cited example of this is the Bohr model of the atom, in which, in an analogy to the solar system, the electrons are described has moving in circular orbits around the nucleus. This is not an accurate depiction of what an atom "looks like," but the model succeeds in mathematically representing the energies (but not the correct angular momenta) of the quantum states of the electron in the simplest case, the hydrogen atom. Another example is Hook's Law (which should be called Hook's principle, or Hook's model), which states that the force exerted by a mass attached to a spring is proportional to the amount the spring is stretched. We know that this principle is only valid for small amounts of stretching. The "law" fails when the spring is stretched beyond its elastic limit (it can break). This principle, however, leads to the prediction of simple harmonic motion, and, as a model of the behavior of a spring, has been versatile in an extremely broad range of applications.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

Changes in scientific thought and theories occur, of course, sometimes revolutionizing our view of the world (Kuhn, 1962). Again, the key force for change is the scientific method, and its emphasis on experiment.

Introduction to the Scientific Method​

How is pointing at the top story on the Weather Channel "Evidence"?

What these people accept as, or consider to be evidence never ceases to amaze me...it is no wonder they have all been so bamboozled by this whole AGW scam...they simply go with whichever side is closest to them politically with no thought to the actual science....and can't seem to even begin to grasp that government science is, in fact, government and when the government has an agenda, government science follows if it wants to avoid strategic budget cuts.

 

[PK1]

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus

More consensus garbage...

Sure. everyone like you knows NASA faked the moon landings

NASA uses the term CONSENSUS

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: News

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Questions (FAQ)

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Carbon Dioxide

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Temperature

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Effects

---
Are those 4 AGW denier clowns still at it ... posting ludicrous science-related comments in a 4-ring circus of ignorance, pretending they know more about climatology, atmospheric & oceanic sciences than the WORLD's top scientists???
LOL!!!
Or, it's a conspiracy! A cult of PhDs!
Actually, this is more than amusing; it's incredibly hilarious!!
Indeed, they probably also believe the moon landings were hoaxes ...

.

If the evidence in support of AGW is so overwhelming and compelling, then bring some of it here....slap me down with it....make me your bitch...show me some actual , observed, measured, quantified, empirical data ....

---
Just open your ignorant bitchy anti-science eyes/brain to the evidence in the IPCC-WG1 AR5 report that over 1,000 expert reviewers from 55 countries approved. Easy to google.
Let us know which of the over 9,000 cited scientific publications you dispute.
LOL.
.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus

More consensus garbage...

Sure. everyone like you knows NASA faked the moon landings

NASA uses the term CONSENSUS

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: News

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Questions (FAQ)

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Carbon Dioxide

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Temperature

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Effects

---
Are those 4 AGW denier clowns still at it ... posting ludicrous science-related comments in a 4-ring circus of ignorance, pretending they know more about climatology, atmospheric & oceanic sciences than the WORLD's top scientists???
LOL!!!
Or, it's a conspiracy! A cult of PhDs!
Actually, this is more than amusing; it's incredibly hilarious!!
Indeed, they probably also believe the moon landings were hoaxes ...

.

If the evidence in support of AGW is so overwhelming and compelling, then bring some of it here....slap me down with it....make me your bitch...show me some actual , observed, measured, quantified, empirical data ....

---
Just open your ignorant bitchy anti-science eyes/brain to the evidence in the IPCC-WG1 AR5 report that over 1,000 expert reviewers from 55 countries approved. Easy to google.
Let us know which of the over 9,000 cited scientific publications you dispute.
LOL.
.

The one that says 93% of the Excess Heat is being absorbed by the oceans for starters.

You read that, right?

 

[PK1]

More consensus garbage...

Sure. everyone like you knows NASA faked the moon landings

NASA uses the term CONSENSUS

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: News

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Questions (FAQ)

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Carbon Dioxide

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Temperature

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Effects

---
Are those 4 AGW denier clowns still at it ... posting ludicrous science-related comments in a 4-ring circus of ignorance, pretending they know more about climatology, atmospheric & oceanic sciences than the WORLD's top scientists???
LOL!!!
Or, it's a conspiracy! A cult of PhDs!
Actually, this is more than amusing; it's incredibly hilarious!!
Indeed, they probably also believe the moon landings were hoaxes ...

.

When the science fails post up desperate logical fallacies. Now dude, that's fkn funny! Thanks for the scientific gumbo

---
Science is falsifiable and always a work in progress toward understanding reality, unlike your "fate" belief.
Go ahead & try to explain your "logical fallacies" claim ...
.

you should learn what a logical fallacy is so you can avoid posting them so frequently.

---
You don't even know basic philosophy, let alone science.
You did not cite a logical fallacy of mine.
Here's one you & your trolling anti-science buddies make:

1) We AGW deniers don't know science.
2) The top scientists in the WORLD support the evidence for AGW.

Logical FALLACY Conclusion:
We AGW deniers know science better than the top world scientists.

How STUPID is that?
.

 

[PK1]

More consensus garbage...

Sure. everyone like you knows NASA faked the moon landings

NASA uses the term CONSENSUS

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: News

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Questions (FAQ)

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Carbon Dioxide

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Temperature

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Effects

---
Are those 4 AGW denier clowns still at it ... posting ludicrous science-related comments in a 4-ring circus of ignorance, pretending they know more about climatology, atmospheric & oceanic sciences than the WORLD's top scientists???
LOL!!!
Or, it's a conspiracy! A cult of PhDs!
Actually, this is more than amusing; it's incredibly hilarious!!
Indeed, they probably also believe the moon landings were hoaxes ...

.

If the evidence in support of AGW is so overwhelming and compelling, then bring some of it here....slap me down with it....make me your bitch...show me some actual , observed, measured, quantified, empirical data ....

---
Just open your ignorant bitchy anti-science eyes/brain to the evidence in the IPCC-WG1 AR5 report that over 1,000 expert reviewers from 55 countries approved. Easy to google.
Let us know which of the over 9,000 cited scientific publications you dispute.
LOL.
.

The one that says 93% of the Excess Heat is being absorbed by the oceans for starters.

You read that, right?

---
Citation?
Let us also know the publication that disputes what the real scientist indicated.
.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sure. everyone like you knows NASA faked the moon landings

NASA uses the term CONSENSUS

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: News

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Questions (FAQ)

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Carbon Dioxide

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Temperature

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Effects

---
Are those 4 AGW denier clowns still at it ... posting ludicrous science-related comments in a 4-ring circus of ignorance, pretending they know more about climatology, atmospheric & oceanic sciences than the WORLD's top scientists???
LOL!!!
Or, it's a conspiracy! A cult of PhDs!
Actually, this is more than amusing; it's incredibly hilarious!!
Indeed, they probably also believe the moon landings were hoaxes ...

.

If the evidence in support of AGW is so overwhelming and compelling, then bring some of it here....slap me down with it....make me your bitch...show me some actual , observed, measured, quantified, empirical data ....

---
Just open your ignorant bitchy anti-science eyes/brain to the evidence in the IPCC-WG1 AR5 report that over 1,000 expert reviewers from 55 countries approved. Easy to google.
Let us know which of the over 9,000 cited scientific publications you dispute.
LOL.
.

The one that says 93% of the Excess Heat is being absorbed by the oceans for starters.

You read that, right?

---
Citation?
Let is also know the publication that disputes what the real scientist indicated.
.

You didn't read the report and you're citing it like Scripture

We did a whole thread on the Excess Heat, whatever that is

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Climate "Science" 101: Excess Heat

 

[PK1]

---
Are those 4 AGW denier clowns still at it ... posting ludicrous science-related comments in a 4-ring circus of ignorance, pretending they know more about climatology, atmospheric & oceanic sciences than the WORLD's top scientists???
LOL!!!
Or, it's a conspiracy! A cult of PhDs!
Actually, this is more than amusing; it's incredibly hilarious!!
Indeed, they probably also believe the moon landings were hoaxes ...

.

If the evidence in support of AGW is so overwhelming and compelling, then bring some of it here....slap me down with it....make me your bitch...show me some actual , observed, measured, quantified, empirical data ....

---
Just open your ignorant bitchy anti-science eyes/brain to the evidence in the IPCC-WG1 AR5 report that over 1,000 expert reviewers from 55 countries approved. Easy to google.
Let us know which of the over 9,000 cited scientific publications you dispute.
LOL.
.

The one that says 93% of the Excess Heat is being absorbed by the oceans for starters.

You read that, right?

---
Citation?
Let is also know the publication that disputes what the real scientist indicated.
.

You didn't read the report and you're citing it like Scripture

We did a whole thread on the Excess Heat, whatever that is

---
You don't believe in Scripture, right?
Good for you!

I have more faith in reputable scientists than Scripture.
Since i am not a climate scientist, i cannot comment intelligently on publications regarding "Excess Heat".
Are you a climate scientist?
Obviously not. The best you can do is cite conclusions from reputable scientists who specialize in that area.
Otherwise, you're trolling a political view.
.

 

[elektra]

You didn't read the report and you're citing it like Scripture


---
You don't believe in Scripture, right?
Good for you!

I have more faith in reputable scientists than Scripture.
Since i am not a climate scientist, i cannot comment intelligently on publications regarding "Excess Heat".
Are you a climate scientist?
Obviously not. The best you can do is cite conclusions from reputable scientists who specialize in that area.
Otherwise, you're trolling a political view.
.

Yes, all must obey what is dictated to us, only a government recognized "climate scientist" can dictate if it is hot, cold, or changing climate.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If the evidence in support of AGW is so overwhelming and compelling, then bring some of it here....slap me down with it....make me your bitch...show me some actual , observed, measured, quantified, empirical data ....

---
Just open your ignorant bitchy anti-science eyes/brain to the evidence in the IPCC-WG1 AR5 report that over 1,000 expert reviewers from 55 countries approved. Easy to google.
Let us know which of the over 9,000 cited scientific publications you dispute.
LOL.
.

The one that says 93% of the Excess Heat is being absorbed by the oceans for starters.

You read that, right?

---
Citation?
Let is also know the publication that disputes what the real scientist indicated.
.

You didn't read the report and you're citing it like Scripture

We did a whole thread on the Excess Heat, whatever that is

---
You don't believe in Scripture, right?
Good for you!

I have more faith in reputable scientists than Scripture.
Since i am not a climate scientist, i cannot comment intelligently on publications regarding "Excess Heat".
Are you a climate scientist?
Obviously not. The best you can do is cite conclusions from reputable scientists who specialize in that area.
Otherwise, you're trolling a political view.
.

Translation: Frank Pwned this badly

 

[SSDD]

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus

More consensus garbage...

Sure. everyone like you knows NASA faked the moon landings

NASA uses the term CONSENSUS

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: News

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Questions (FAQ)

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Carbon Dioxide

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Temperature

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Effects

---
Are those 4 AGW denier clowns still at it ... posting ludicrous science-related comments in a 4-ring circus of ignorance, pretending they know more about climatology, atmospheric & oceanic sciences than the WORLD's top scientists???
LOL!!!
Or, it's a conspiracy! A cult of PhDs!
Actually, this is more than amusing; it's incredibly hilarious!!
Indeed, they probably also believe the moon landings were hoaxes ...

.

If the evidence in support of AGW is so overwhelming and compelling, then bring some of it here....slap me down with it....make me your bitch...show me some actual , observed, measured, quantified, empirical data ....

---
Just open your ignorant bitchy anti-science eyes/brain to the evidence in the IPCC-WG1 AR5 report that over 1,000 expert reviewers from 55 countries approved. Easy to google.
Let us know which of the over 9,000 cited scientific publications you dispute.
LOL.
.

If there is that much actual, observed, measured empirical evidence in support of the A in AGW, you should have no problem at all slapping me down with it...come on guy....heap it on me...make me your bitch with it....show me how wrong I am....

Or....don't produce squat that can reasonably be called observed, measured quantified, empirical evidence in support of the A in AGW...that one is what I predict...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If the evidence in support of AGW is so overwhelming and compelling, then bring some of it here....slap me down with it....make me your bitch...show me some actual , observed, measured, quantified, empirical data ....

---
Just open your ignorant bitchy anti-science eyes/brain to the evidence in the IPCC-WG1 AR5 report that over 1,000 expert reviewers from 55 countries approved. Easy to google.
Let us know which of the over 9,000 cited scientific publications you dispute.
LOL.
.

The one that says 93% of the Excess Heat is being absorbed by the oceans for starters.

You read that, right?

---
Citation?
Let is also know the publication that disputes what the real scientist indicated.
.

You didn't read the report and you're citing it like Scripture

We did a whole thread on the Excess Heat, whatever that is

---
You don't believe in Scripture, right?
Good for you!

I have more faith in reputable scientists than Scripture.
Since i am not a climate scientist, i cannot comment intelligently on publications regarding "Excess Heat".
Are you a climate scientist?
Obviously not. The best you can do is cite conclusions from reputable scientists who specialize in that area.
Otherwise, you're trolling a political view.
.

Hush now...don't question the Cult

 

[SSDD]

Sure. everyone like you knows NASA faked the moon landings

NASA uses the term CONSENSUS

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: News

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Questions (FAQ)

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Carbon Dioxide

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Temperature

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Effects

---
Are those 4 AGW denier clowns still at it ... posting ludicrous science-related comments in a 4-ring circus of ignorance, pretending they know more about climatology, atmospheric & oceanic sciences than the WORLD's top scientists???
LOL!!!
Or, it's a conspiracy! A cult of PhDs!
Actually, this is more than amusing; it's incredibly hilarious!!
Indeed, they probably also believe the moon landings were hoaxes ...

.

When the science fails post up desperate logical fallacies. Now dude, that's fkn funny! Thanks for the scientific gumbo

---
Science is falsifiable and always a work in progress toward understanding reality, unlike your "fate" belief.
Go ahead & try to explain your "logical fallacies" claim ...
.

you should learn what a logical fallacy is so you can avoid posting them so frequently.

---
You don't even know basic philosophy, let alone science.
You did not cite a logical fallacy of mine.
Here's one you & your trolling anti-science buddies make:

1) We AGW deniers don't know science.
2) The top scientists in the WORLD support the evidence for AGW.

Logical FALLACY Conclusion:
We AGW deniers know science better than the top world scientists.

How STUPID is that?
.

And still no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence from out here in the observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical world....

 

[SSDD]

If the evidence in support of AGW is so overwhelming and compelling, then bring some of it here....slap me down with it....make me your bitch...show me some actual , observed, measured, quantified, empirical data ....

---
Just open your ignorant bitchy anti-science eyes/brain to the evidence in the IPCC-WG1 AR5 report that over 1,000 expert reviewers from 55 countries approved. Easy to google.
Let us know which of the over 9,000 cited scientific publications you dispute.
LOL.
.

The one that says 93% of the Excess Heat is being absorbed by the oceans for starters.

You read that, right?

---
Citation?
Let is also know the publication that disputes what the real scientist indicated.
.

You didn't read the report and you're citing it like Scripture

We did a whole thread on the Excess Heat, whatever that is

---
You don't believe in Scripture, right?
Good for you!

I have more faith in reputable scientists than Scripture.
Since i am not a climate scientist, i cannot comment intelligently on publications regarding "Excess Heat".
Are you a climate scientist?
Obviously not. The best you can do is cite conclusions from reputable scientists who specialize in that area.
Otherwise, you're trolling a political view.
.

Reputable scientists produce actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support claims regarding hypotheses dealing with the observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical world...climate science doesn't do this which is why it is pseudoscience...not actual science....but feel free to prove me wrong by bringing some actual evidence in support of the A in AGW forward....

We all know that you won't.....because none exists.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

---
Are those 4 AGW denier clowns still at it ... posting ludicrous science-related comments in a 4-ring circus of ignorance, pretending they know more about climatology, atmospheric & oceanic sciences than the WORLD's top scientists???
LOL!!!
Or, it's a conspiracy! A cult of PhDs!
Actually, this is more than amusing; it's incredibly hilarious!!
Indeed, they probably also believe the moon landings were hoaxes ...

.

When the science fails post up desperate logical fallacies. Now dude, that's fkn funny! Thanks for the scientific gumbo

---
Science is falsifiable and always a work in progress toward understanding reality, unlike your "fate" belief.
Go ahead & try to explain your "logical fallacies" claim ...
.

you should learn what a logical fallacy is so you can avoid posting them so frequently.

---
You don't even know basic philosophy, let alone science.
You did not cite a logical fallacy of mine.
Here's one you & your trolling anti-science buddies make:

1) We AGW deniers don't know science.
2) The top scientists in the WORLD support the evidence for AGW.

Logical FALLACY Conclusion:
We AGW deniers know science better than the top world scientists.

How STUPID is that?
.

And still no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence from out here in the observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical world....

Data Schmata, they have consensus

 

[SSDD]

When the science fails post up desperate logical fallacies. Now dude, that's fkn funny! Thanks for the scientific gumbo

---
Science is falsifiable and always a work in progress toward understanding reality, unlike your "fate" belief.
Go ahead & try to explain your "logical fallacies" claim ...
.

you should learn what a logical fallacy is so you can avoid posting them so frequently.

---
You don't even know basic philosophy, let alone science.
You did not cite a logical fallacy of mine.
Here's one you & your trolling anti-science buddies make:

1) We AGW deniers don't know science.
2) The top scientists in the WORLD support the evidence for AGW.

Logical FALLACY Conclusion:
We AGW deniers know science better than the top world scientists.

How STUPID is that?
.

And still no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence from out here in the observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical world....

Data Schmata, they have consensus

Best damned consensus money can buy...