Challenge to the Warmers: What's your Theory?

[skookerasbil]

There it is again..........Rocks posting up his Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect link for the 739th time in this forum. Always falls back on it when he's getting schooled.

The question is...........will he have posted it up over 1,000 times by years end?

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, poor ol' short bus Kooky, that is where the best and most complete explanation of what we know and how we learned it is located. Explained by real scientists, not undegreed ex-TV weathermen.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Honestly what is wrong with the American Institute of Physics? It's hard science and being so should be based on hard data. Why is it so discredited in your minds????

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Has anyone seen anything resembling a "Theory"?

Yes, you stupid ass. It has been posted repeatedly. From the American Institute of Physics. Not wingding wingnuts with third grade educations.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

About the American Institute of Physics

About AIP
Annual Report | News | Newsletter | Staff Directory

The American Institute of Physics (AIP) is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit membership corporation created for the purpose of promoting the advancement and diffusion of the knowledge of physics and its application to human welfare. It is the mission of the Institute to serve the sciences of physics and astronomy by serving its member societies, by serving individual scientists, and by serving students and the general public.

As a "society of societies," AIP supports ten Member Societies and provides a spectrum of services and programs devoted to advancing the science and profession of physics. A pioneer in digital publishing, AIP is also one of the world's largest publishers of physics journals and produces the publications of more than 25 scientific and engineering societies through its New York-based publishing division.

Member Societies - American Institute of Physics

I don't see anything resembling a "Theory" in there, Sparky

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"...in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it."

What's your "Theory"?

Can you please state it?

For consensus and "settled science" why is it so difficult to get you on record as to this "theory"

 

[dilloduck]

Honestly what is wrong with the American Institute of Physics? It's hard science and being so should be based on hard data. Why is it so discredited in your minds????

Hard science has proven to be untrustworthy and subject to spin. That's a fact, Jack.

 

[Toronado3800]

Honestly what is wrong with the American Institute of Physics? It's hard science and being so should be based on hard data. Why is it so discredited in your minds????

Hard science has proven to be untrustworthy and subject to spin. That's a fact, Jack.

I know. Folks selling cigarettes and other products bad for you and the environment keep dumping tons of money buying scientific "proof".

 

[rdean]

You're lying again, Frank. Direct answers have been posted many times. I'm not jumping through your hoop today. You never understood the logic before, why should I waste my time posting it again?

The problem is you are talking to someone who is severely challenged and has been since birth. Terrible and sad. Just remember to be compassionate.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You're lying again, Frank. Direct answers have been posted many times. I'm not jumping through your hoop today. You never understood the logic before, why should I waste my time posting it again?

The problem is you are talking to someone who is severely challenged and has been since birth. Terrible and sad. Just remember to be compassionate.

Still haven't seen anything close to a theory here.

 

[Old Rocks]

Still haven't seen evidence that you would recognize such if it bit you.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Still haven't seen evidence that you would recognize such if it bit you.

Like this

 

[wirebender]

Present your evidence!

Does it match this in credibility?

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia

The hockey stick? You are presenting the broken, discredited, debunked hockey stick and calling it credible? I am laughing in your face rocks. Here is what the NAS had to say about mann's hockey stick:

"systematically underestimated the uncertainties in the data "(p. 107).

"Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. "(p. 110)

"Mann’s results are “strongly dependent” on the strip-bark data" (pp. 106-107)," and they went further, warning that strip-bark data should not be used in this type of research" (p. 50).

" Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions."

"Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium."

Then in a congressional hearing, Mr. North, the chairman of the NAS panel that examined mann's work was asked if he disagreed with the Wegman findings which shreded mann's work. The exhange went like this:


CHAIRMAN BARTON: Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

DR. NORTH [Head of the NAS panel]: No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

So are you sure you want to use the hockey stick as credible evidence of anything besides proof that climate scientists can't be trusted?

 

[wirebender]

Honestly what is wrong with the American Institute of Physics? It's hard science and being so should be based on hard data. Why is it so discredited in your minds????

It is a fine, official sounding name for a tutoring service for kids who have a problem with math and science. In addition, it is an indoctrination center. One thing it is not, is a national institute of physics. Visit the site and look beyond the first page.

 

[wirebender]

It does exist, it's been directly measured.

No it doesn't, and it has not been measured. Measurements have been taken but they don't mean anything. If you point an instrument at the sky and take a measurement, the reading it gives you, is based on something. When you point a radiometer at the sky it gives you a reading based on Stefan-Boltzman calculations which assume you are measuring radiation from a blackbody radiating into space at a constant zero degrees Kelvin. Measurements taken from the surface of the earth, which is warmer than the blackbody the instrument believes you are pointing at don't tell you anything at all about the real world. The calculations the radiometer use aren't applicable to the measurements being taken. It makes as much sense as using a thermometer to measure the air pressure in your tires.

Then there are the measurements taken with radiometers which are artificially cooled to a temperature far below that of the surface of the earth. Again, they get readings but they have no applicability to the notion of downdwelling radiation in the atmosphere as seen from earth.

Look at your own propaganda:

According to this energy budget, downdwelling radiation accounts for nearly TWOI TIMES the amount of energy the earth's surface receives from the sun. Tell me, do you find that credible? And if the downdwelling radiation is greater than the energy from the sun, how do you explain being able to point a parabolic dish at that same radiation to achieve a cooling effect but when you point it at the sun, you can boil water in quicktime? Explain it to me. You are claiming the impossible and have absolutely no explanation that is supported by the laws of physics.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Day 3: Still no hypothesis, no theory.

 

[skookerasbil]

Day 3: Still no hypothesis, no theory.

Crusader bro......

Dont expect dick...........

Three weeks ago, I asked that even one k00k display for us a response for this question.............

"Show me where the "real science" is mattering?" on the "Predictions" thread.......

The only responses I got were..........

"You're a retard" and "'Ole KOOKY and his lies........"

 

[Toronado3800]

At least wirebender has some thought going into his posts. The type of thing you can read and say "huh interesting" or think this guy has SOME understanding of the topic but we disagree.

These posts on here demanding a theory or thesis paper are just.....odd. I don't get it Frank. You used to be better. The last guy I do not know.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

At least wirebender has some thought going into his posts. The type of thing you can read and say "huh interesting" or think this guy has SOME understanding of the topic but we disagree.

These posts on here demanding a theory or thesis paper are just.....odd. I don't get it Frank. You used to be better. The last guy I do not know.

Why is it so difficult?

What exactly got "Settled"?

I'm an avid reader and way early on in the AGW Shell game I started asking for the Global Warming "Scientists" to clearly state exactly what their "theory" was.

It seems to be "does an increase of 100PPM of CO2 over a 150 year cause cataclysmic changes in Earth's climate?"

But we "never can get to the one"

We get a weather event even where people die and the AGW Brigade goes, "See That?? ManMade Global Warming!!" And all I'm asking is...

Tell me what your theory, hypothesis, hunch or crazy notion is.

3 days and you'd think someone would have posted something from MIT or the American Institute of Marxists Physics even vaguely resembling a "Theory"

Don't you find that odd?

What was settled in the settled science of yours?

This is not science

 

[wirebender]

At least wirebender has some thought going into his posts. The type of thing you can read and say "huh interesting" or think this guy has SOME understanding of the topic but we disagree.

These posts on here demanding a theory or thesis paper are just.....odd. I don't get it Frank. You used to be better. The last guy I do not know.

The point is that while there is a claimed scientific consensus regarding AGW, there is no singular agreed upon hypothesis among even climate scientists regarding how man might be responsible for the changing climate. None of the warmist will post a hypothesis, even a hypothesis copied and pasted from a seemingly credible warmist source because as soon as they do, we, the skeptics will be able to post a contradictory hypothesis from an equally credible warmist source.

Look for yourself. Google AGW hypothesis, read the various papers and see for yourself how many variations on the topic you find. Not only is there no consensus among scientists regarding manmade climate change, there isn't even a consensus among them on how the process might work.

 

[Big Fitz]

I've asked numerous times and you've managed to fly under the radar and never once provide a direct answer.

Once and for all, please state in a single sentence this "theory" of yours

Crusader, has someone stolen your log in? Someone with no access to yesterday's topics?

Must have.

As simply stated as i can:

Greenhouse gasses help the atmosphere retain heat, we need not to break the patterns our planet has maintained for 500 million years.

So the fact that since the industrial age, humankind has produced less than 0.004% of the total atmospheric volume of CO2, which is actually only 0.6% of the amount of CO2 which is only 0.4% of the total atmospheric composition, means we're warming the planet?

That's some magical CO2 we produced.