Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-...d/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter03.pdfWhat 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.
How funny. The problem again with you is your confusion with the questions that 97% refers to. It's who you are though.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.
I challenge you as well to explain the termWhat 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.
The hardcore denier trolls here keep getting more hysterical.
That makes people stop paying attention to them.
So they get more hysterical.
So more people stop paying attention to them.
So they get more hysterical.
And the vicious cycle continues. They refuse to believe the world is laughing at them because they're acting like crazy people. In their conspiracy-addled minds, it must be because of a vast secret global socialist plot directed against them.
One could write very interesting papers documenting the abnormal psychology of deniers. Oh wait, that's already been done, by Lewandowski and Cook. Naturally, deniers declared that was also part of the conspiracy against them. In the world of a hardcore conspiracy cultist, every piece of evidence automatically supports their conspiracy theory somehow.
Anyways, this thread should be in the conspiracy folder, along with many denier threads.
Crick, have you had a chance to familiarize yourself with the IPCC? AR5?
"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
I thought you said they were "Scientists" Why are these "Scientist" spending so much time on a fuzzy concept, that you dismiss as "two words that get stuck together sometimes"
Crick, have you had a chance to familiarize yourself with the IPCC? AR5?
"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
I thought you said they were "Scientists" Why are these "Scientist" spending so much time on a fuzzy concept, that you dismiss as "two words that get stuck together sometimes"
Congratulations, you found an instance of them getting stuck together.
And still no explanation from you to Frank's question. Nice avoidance measures. Problem is, he and I aren't going to stop asking for your explanation.Crick, have you had a chance to familiarize yourself with the IPCC? AR5?
"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
I thought you said they were "Scientists" Why are these "Scientist" spending so much time on a fuzzy concept, that you dismiss as "two words that get stuck together sometimes"
Congratulations, you found an instance of them getting stuck together.
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.
General consensus that pi r squared equals the area of a circle.
General consensus that pi r squared equals the area of a circle.
General consensus or total agreement. Irrelevant. Scientists may agree on findings (as may mathematicians), but it is not now and it never was "agreement" that governed science.
If 100 scientists in a room "agree" that phlogiston causes fire, that doesn't make it true. The agreement or consensus has ZERO to do with the science.
And in fact, ACTUAL science eventually established that "phlogiston" is a complete myth that has no fucking bearing on fire. I look forward to the day when actual science reveals the abject mythic nature of the AGW theory.
Your understanding of science has equal validity to your predictions of the 2012 election.
General consensus that pi r squared equals the area of a circle.
General consensus that pi r squared equals the area of a circle.
No, that is a DETERMINABLE FACT.
I think its clear that any data manipulating is you goofballs not understanding or even wanting to understand how science works.So interesting in the study of human minds is it that 'belief' in a scientific phenomena is ALSO an issue that happens down partisan lines.
Oh what a coinkidink
Yeah, they can't show us in a lab how 120PPM of additional can warm air, now they have a bigger problem because they're claiming that the CO2, that can't warm air, is warming a far greater volume of water that takes far more energy to warm!
You just have to have faith that the data manipulators are telling us the truth
Further....i think you even know that.
