Challenge to the AGW Cult

[CrusaderFrank]

Really? where's the AGW Experiment?

You never asked for "an AGW Experiment". But my curiosity is piqued. Please describe for us an AGW Experiment.

Controlled test to see if an 800PPM CO2 atmosphere is really 3 to 8 degrees warmer than a 400PPM Atmosphere as the warmers theorize

 

[daveman]

Perhaps, Dave, someone who can't recognize his own work should keep his epithets in check when someone has the temerity to bring it up in conversation.

Now, again, quote me saying no experiments have been done.

And Google results will do just fine*. If you don't like the answers you get, don't bother with the bullshit questions.

In school, if a teacher asked you a question, did you hand her the book and tell her to look it up herself?

That's what you're doing when you post a link to Google search results.

You got homework. Get busy.

* - Do you realize what an idiot you'd look like if I posted all those graphs? Is that REALLY what you want me to do?

Oh, you mean the graphs that anyone with Excel could have made and uploaded to TinyPic? The ones with no indication of the original source? The ones you expect us to believe simply because you posted them?

Sure, go ahead and post them. I don't mind you looking like a moron.

 

[Abraham3]

Perhaps, Dave, someone who can't recognize his own work should keep his epithets in check when someone has the temerity to bring it up in conversation.

Now, again, quote me saying no experiments have been done.

And Google results will do just fine*. If you don't like the answers you get, don't bother with the bullshit questions.

In school, if a teacher asked you a question, did you hand her the book and tell her to look it up herself?

That's what you're doing when you post a link to Google search results.

You got homework. Get busy.

* - Do you realize what an idiot you'd look like if I posted all those graphs? Is that REALLY what you want me to do?

Oh, you mean the graphs that anyone with Excel could have made and uploaded to TinyPic? The ones with no indication of the original source? The ones you expect us to believe simply because you posted them?

Sure, go ahead and post them. I don't mind you looking like a moron.

You seem to be under some severe misapprehensions.

1) I don't give a shit what you think
2) I don't give a shit what you want

I do care that there are people out there - other people - who might make the ridiculous mistake of thinking you know what you're talking about. After all, you've got guns. It is for those people that I correct you when you err. Seems to be a full time job.

One other thing. When you suggest I made up these plots, you're calling me a liar. Considering what you're actually suggesting, it may be one of the stupidest accusations ever made, but you have called me a liar. I really, really, really don't like being called a liar. Keep that up and our relationship is going to go downhill rapidly.

If anyone wants to see how many experiments have been done establishing the infrared absorption of carbon dioxide gas, over 350 images (with links) are available at the google address below. Those data were measured/established/determined by experiment.

https://www.google.com/search?q=carb...&bih=643&dpr=1

But it seems the AGW deniers who put out this "challenge" don't actually want to see that stuff. They want to convince you that it is impossible to show the Greenhouse Effect in a laboratory setting. When these are brought up, they will object that a simple laboratory apparatus cannot replicate the Earth. Of course, it cannot. But then I have to wonder why they asked, specifically, for a laboratory experiment in the first place.

Perhaps it's because the lack of actual evidence supporting their view and the wealth supporting those who believe human GHG emissions are the dominant cause of the last century's global warming has driven them to desperate measures.

Use the logic and reason that will always provide you the most accurate analysis and decide which side of this argument has the objective support of every exercise of the scientific method. See if you can figure out which side of this argument has the preponderance of observational evidence, the preponderance of successful experimentation and has made the best predictions. There is good reason 97% of climate scientists accept AGW.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Perhaps, Dave, someone who can't recognize his own work should keep his epithets in check when someone has the temerity to bring it up in conversation.

Now, again, quote me saying no experiments have been done.

And Google results will do just fine*. If you don't like the answers you get, don't bother with the bullshit questions.

In school, if a teacher asked you a question, did you hand her the book and tell her to look it up herself?

That's what you're doing when you post a link to Google search results.

You got homework. Get busy.

* - Do you realize what an idiot you'd look like if I posted all those graphs? Is that REALLY what you want me to do?

Oh, you mean the graphs that anyone with Excel could have made and uploaded to TinyPic? The ones with no indication of the original source? The ones you expect us to believe simply because you posted them?

Sure, go ahead and post them. I don't mind you looking like a moron.

You seem to be under some severe misapprehensions.

1) I don't give a shit what you think
2) I don't give a shit what you want

I do care that there are people out there - other people - who might make the ridiculous mistake of thinking you know what you're talking about. After all, you've got guns. It is for those people that I correct you when you err. Seems to be a full time job.

One other thing. When you suggest I made up these plots, you're calling me a liar. Considering what you're actually suggesting, it may be one of the stupidest accusations ever made, but you have called me a liar. I really, really, really don't like being called a liar. Keep that up and our relationship is going to go downhill rapidly.

If anyone wants to see how many experiments have been done establishing the infrared absorption of carbon dioxide gas, over 350 images (with links) are available at the google address below. Those data were measured/established/determined by experiment.

https://www.google.com/search?q=carb...&bih=643&dpr=1

But it seems the AGW deniers who put out this "challenge" don't actually want to see that stuff. They want to convince you that it is impossible to show the Greenhouse Effect in a laboratory setting. When these are brought up, they will object that a simple laboratory apparatus cannot replicate the Earth. Of course, it cannot. But then I have to wonder why they asked, specifically, for a laboratory experiment in the first place.

Perhaps it's because the lack of actual evidence supporting their view and the wealth supporting those who believe human GHG emissions are the dominant cause of the last century's global warming has driven them to desperate measures.

Use the logic and reason that will always provide you the most accurate analysis and decide which side of this argument has the objective support of every exercise of the scientific method. See if you can figure out which side of this argument has the preponderance of observational evidence, the preponderance of successful experimentation and has made the best predictions. There is good reason 97% of climate scientists accept AGW.

You're not understanding the question. Its not: is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Its: does an increase to 800ppm raise temperature 3 to 8 degrees as is alleged

 

[daveman]

Perhaps, Dave, someone who can't recognize his own work should keep his epithets in check when someone has the temerity to bring it up in conversation.

Now, again, quote me saying no experiments have been done.

And Google results will do just fine*. If you don't like the answers you get, don't bother with the bullshit questions.

In school, if a teacher asked you a question, did you hand her the book and tell her to look it up herself?

That's what you're doing when you post a link to Google search results.

You got homework. Get busy.

* - Do you realize what an idiot you'd look like if I posted all those graphs? Is that REALLY what you want me to do?

Oh, you mean the graphs that anyone with Excel could have made and uploaded to TinyPic? The ones with no indication of the original source? The ones you expect us to believe simply because you posted them?

Sure, go ahead and post them. I don't mind you looking like a moron.

You seem to be under some severe misapprehensions.

1) I don't give a shit what you think
2) I don't give a shit what you want

I do care that there are people out there - other people - who might make the ridiculous mistake of thinking you know what you're talking about. After all, you've got guns. It is for those people that I correct you when you err. Seems to be a full time job.

One other thing. When you suggest I made up these plots, you're calling me a liar. Considering what you're actually suggesting, it may be one of the stupidest accusations ever made, but you have called me a liar. I really, really, really don't like being called a liar. Keep that up and our relationship is going to go downhill rapidly.

Yeah, like it's so warm and fuzzy now?

Look, Skippy, I didn't say you made up those graphs. I don't think you have the capability, myself.

But someone could have, and gullible you would be vacuous enough to believe them because they reinforce what you want to believe.

No URL on the images, no link to the source, nothin'. Post them again and get laughed at.

Your call.

If anyone wants to see how many experiments have been done establishing the infrared absorption of carbon dioxide gas, over 350 images (with links) are available at the google address below. Those data were measured/established/determined by experiment.

https://www.google.com/search?q=carb...&bih=643&dpr=1

But it seems the AGW deniers who put out this "challenge" don't actually want to see that stuff. They want to convince you that it is impossible to show the Greenhouse Effect in a laboratory setting. When these are brought up, they will object that a simple laboratory apparatus cannot replicate the Earth. Of course, it cannot. But then I have to wonder why they asked, specifically, for a laboratory experiment in the first place.

Perhaps it's because the lack of actual evidence supporting their view and the wealth supporting those who believe human GHG emissions are the dominant cause of the last century's global warming has driven them to desperate measures.

Use the logic and reason that will always provide you the most accurate analysis and decide which side of this argument has the objective support of every exercise of the scientific method. See if you can figure out which side of this argument has the preponderance of observational evidence, the preponderance of successful experimentation and has made the best predictions. There is good reason 97% of climate scientists accept AGW.

Fail. You handed the teacher the book and told her to look it up herself.

Damn, you're stupid.

 

[Abraham3]

Damn, you most CERTAINLY aren't my teacher.