AGWCult finally self destructs

You keep confusing models with evidence or did you mean Mann's one tree ring?

I do not confuse GCMs on computers with observations from nature. But neither do I believe models have no value or that they deviate unacceptably from observations. Models are the ONLY way to make projections. Very convenient that you fossil fuel industry overlords should direct you to reject them all.

What I've got is the certainty that your latest "the oceans ate my global warming" is a failure and a physical impossibility and you still haven't explained "excess heat"

I HAVE explained "excess heat" to you, on multiple occasions, telling you that there is no official definition of the term. It is simply a phrase that comes up in discussion of system where heat is moving around. You could use the term talking about your car or your air conditioner or your fireplace.

The current paradigm shift is centered around Karl et al 2015. Karl's conclusions do not coincide with "the ocean's ate my warming". That phrase appeared after Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen found enormous amounts of heat moving into the deep ocean.

Where was this excess heat hiding before it warmed the oceans?

It wasn't hiding anywhere Frank and I'm tired of explaining things to someone who specializes in not listening.
 
You keep confusing models with evidence or did you mean Mann's one tree ring?

I do not confuse GCMs on computers with observations from nature. But neither do I believe models have no value or that they deviate unacceptably from observations. Models are the ONLY way to make projections. Very convenient that you fossil fuel industry overlords should direct you to reject them all.

What I've got is the certainty that your latest "the oceans ate my global warming" is a failure and a physical impossibility and you still haven't explained "excess heat"

I HAVE explained "excess heat" to you, on multiple occasions, telling you that there is no official definition of the term. It is simply a phrase that comes up in discussion of system where heat is moving around. You could use the term talking about your car or your air conditioner or your fireplace.

The current paradigm shift is centered around Karl et al 2015. Karl's conclusions do not coincide with "the ocean's ate my warming". That phrase appeared after Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen found enormous amounts of heat moving into the deep ocean.

Where was this excess heat hiding before it warmed the oceans?

It wasn't hiding anywhere Frank and I'm tired of explaining things to someone who specializes in not listening.

You're a funny little fellow, hysterical at best and genicodial at worst, and I mean the frothing at the mouth version of hysterical

I have no fossil fuel overlords, I have a keen bs detector and the AGWCult finds new and astounding ways to pin it with this imaginary "excess heat" concept being the latest and hopefully the last.

Lucky for the AGWCult that scientists are low confront people by nature, you keep running down the reputations of the real scientists that are unfortunate enough to work next to you.

I dream of the day when real scientists rise in rebellion against the AGWCult.
 
What evidence makes you think that there are some large number "real scientists" out there who reject AGW?
 
Ah yes, the OISM petition. A piece of shit that you yokels constantly refer to as if it had meaning. There was zero vetting of the signitures, and not only are many false, but there are many millions of scientists out there. And not a single solitary Scientific Society in the world supports that bullshit piece of paper. So why don't the Scientific Societies state that AGW is a fraud? Because the evidence is overwhelming that it is not. And that the people who state that it is are those like Singer and Lindzen that have previously whored out their credentials to tobacco companies, and now have just found a bigger paycheck with the energy corporations.
 
Ah yes, the OISM petition. A piece of shit that you yokels constantly refer to as if it had meaning. There was zero vetting of the signitures, and not only are many false, but there are many millions of scientists out there. And not a single solitary Scientific Society in the world supports that bullshit piece of paper. So why don't the Scientific Societies state that AGW is a fraud? Because the evidence is overwhelming that it is not. And that the people who state that it is are those like Singer and Lindzen that have previously whored out their credentials to tobacco companies, and now have just found a bigger paycheck with the energy corporations.

The scientific societies got bought out by government cheese.

In any event real science is not done by consensus
 
The scientific societies were not "bought out by government cheese". In every case, it was the scientists who convinced the government of the reality of the problem.

And science IS done by consensus.
 
The scientific societies were not "bought out by government cheese". In every case, it was the scientists who convinced the government of the reality of the problem.

And science IS done by consensus.

Science is done by ruthless questioning of assumptions.

We're still testing Relativity.

Consensus is a cult word.

And without linking to an outside article, can you describe "excess heat"
 
What do these comments have to do with your claim that the world's scientific societies were "bought out by government cheese"?

Consensus is not a cult word. When 97% of the experts believe a theory to be correct - to make valid assumptions, to reflect a correct understanding of the physical processes involved, to be repeatable, to make valid predictions, to have NOT been falsified; you then have a consensus among the experts supporting the validity of that theory. Those theories with the widest acceptance among the experts are those most widely considered - and most likely to be - correct. Your attacks on the idea of consensus-driven science are simply more evidence that your arguments lack even the most basic of foundations.

Excess heat is heat in excess of some amount or threshold.
 
Last edited:
What do these comments have to do with your claim that the world's scientific societies were "bought out by government cheese"?

Consensus is not a cult word. When 97% of the experts believe a theory to be correct - to make valid assumptions, to reflect a correct understanding of the physical processes involved, to be repeatable, to make valid predictions, to have NOT been falsified; you then have a consensus among the experts supporting the validity of that theory. Those theories with the widest acceptance among the experts are those most widely considered and most likely to be correct. Your attacks on the idea of consensus-driven science are simply more evidence that your arguments lack even the most basic of foundations.

Excess heat is heat in excess of some amount or threshold.

You never even produced one single repeatable experiment!

Not one, not ever!
 
What do these comments have to do with your claim that the world's scientific societies were "bought out by government cheese"?

Consensus is not a cult word. When 97% of the experts believe a theory to be correct - to make valid assumptions, to reflect a correct understanding of the physical processes involved, to be repeatable, to make valid predictions, to have NOT been falsified; you then have a consensus among the experts supporting the validity of that theory. Those theories with the widest acceptance among the experts are those most widely considered and most likely to be correct. Your attacks on the idea of consensus-driven science are simply more evidence that your arguments lack even the most basic of foundations.

Excess heat is heat in excess of some amount or threshold.

You never even produced one single repeatable experiment!

Not one, not ever!






Yeah....that's kind of an important part of the scientific method I am told.
 
The scientific societies were not "bought out by government cheese". In every case, it was the scientists who convinced the government of the reality of the problem.

And science IS done by consensus.





Really? What is the scientific "consensus" on the Speed of Light? Please show me a sentence with the speed of light and consensus in the same line.
 
God are you stupid. Is the speed of light a theoretical quantity? No. It is measured. There are certainly accepted, standardized values and, if anyone cared to ask, I'm quite sure you could find a consensus accepting those standardized values.
 
God are you stupid. Is the speed of light a theoretical quantity? No. It is measured. There are certainly accepted, standardized values and, if anyone cared to ask, I'm quite sure you could find a consensus accepting those standardized values.





Oh....so you admit that for something to be "scientific" it must be measurable. Is that what you are admitting too? How do you measure "consensus"?
 
God are you stupid. Is the speed of light a theoretical quantity? No. It is measured. There are certainly accepted, standardized values and, if anyone cared to ask, I'm quite sure you could find a consensus accepting those standardized values.

So how many repeatable experiments has the AGWCult presented to date? I Still count zero, zippo, nada
 
What do these comments have to do with your claim that the world's scientific societies were "bought out by government cheese"?

Consensus is not a cult word. When 97% of the experts believe a theory to be correct - to make valid assumptions, to reflect a correct understanding of the physical processes involved, to be repeatable, to make valid predictions, to have NOT been falsified; you then have a consensus among the experts supporting the validity of that theory. Those theories with the widest acceptance among the experts are those most widely considered - and most likely to be - correct. Your attacks on the idea of consensus-driven science are simply more evidence that your arguments lack even the most basic of foundations.

Excess heat is heat in excess of some amount or threshold.

In excess of what?! Where was this "Excess heat" before the ocean ate it all the way down to 3,000m? Is it a Penn and Teller trick?
 
What excess heat are you talking about? You keep treating this term as if it were something specific, like The Gulf Stream or The Pacific Decadal Oscillation or the latent heat of vaporization. It's not. It's two words that get stuck together sometimes when people are discussing processes that involve heat. Like "stiff breeze" or "a dry heat" or "cold water" or "strong front" or "salty water" or "stupid posters". I've told you this five times now but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. If you want to talk about some specific process in global warming, feel free. But these endless queries about "excess heat" are wasting everyone's time and making you look like a complete ignoramus.
 
What excess heat are you talking about? You keep treating this term as if it were something specific, like The Gulf Stream or The Pacific Decadal Oscillation or the latent heat of vaporization. It's not. It's two words that get stuck together sometimes when people are discussing processes that involve heat. Like "stiff breeze" or "a dry heat" or "cold water" or "strong front" or "salty water" or "stupid posters". I've told you this five times now but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. If you want to talk about some specific process in global warming, feel free. But these endless queries about "excess heat" are wasting everyone's time and making you look like a complete ignoramus.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-...d/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter03.pdf

Have you ever heard of IPCC? AR5? I agree IPCC is waste of time and is in fact a criminal enterprise

"About 93% of the excess heat energy stored by the earth over the last 50 years is...."

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-...d/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter03.pdf
 
What excess heat are you talking about? You keep treating this term as if it were something specific, like The Gulf Stream or The Pacific Decadal Oscillation or the latent heat of vaporization. It's not. It's two words that get stuck together sometimes when people are discussing processes that involve heat. Like "stiff breeze" or "a dry heat" or "cold water" or "strong front" or "salty water" or "stupid posters". I've told you this five times now but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. If you want to talk about some specific process in global warming, feel free. But these endless queries about "excess heat" are wasting everyone's time and making you look like a complete ignoramus.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-...d/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter03.pdf

Have you ever heard of IPCC? AR5? I agree IPCC is waste of time and is in fact a criminal enterprise

"About 93% of the excess heat energy stored by the earth over the last 50 years is...."

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-...d/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter03.pdf
 
What excess heat are you talking about? You keep treating this term as if it were something specific, like The Gulf Stream or The Pacific Decadal Oscillation or the latent heat of vaporization. It's not. It's two words that get stuck together sometimes when people are discussing processes that involve heat. Like "stiff breeze" or "a dry heat" or "cold water" or "strong front" or "salty water" or "stupid posters". I've told you this five times now but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. If you want to talk about some specific process in global warming, feel free. But these endless queries about "excess heat" are wasting everyone's time and making you look like a complete ignoramus.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-...d/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter03.pdf

Have you ever heard of IPCC? AR5? I agree IPCC is waste of time and is in fact a criminal enterprise

"About 93% of the excess heat energy stored by the earth over the last 50 years is...."

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-...d/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter03.pdf
 

Forum List

Back
Top