Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[del]

You pretend that climatologists don't understand science, but you do.

....

I never said that.

..... You know that this is absolutely irrational, to accuse the world's great scientific bodies, and their members, of having less understanding of science than you, so you play this game.

I never said that.

Sure you did. For days and for pages. You know that you cannot dispute the science of AGW, you know that the world's great scientific bodies endorse the science of AGW, and you cannot rationally dispute the science of AGW, so you play this game, where you are smarter than the world's great scientific bodies, a game where you understand science, and they do not.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkoPq5AOCOA]Animal House - Fat, drunk and stupid - YouTube[/ame]

true story

 

[westwall]

Yes. Most all scientific predictions come down to one of likelihood. Are you uncomfortable with statistics and probability?

Not at all. However, if you are going to make such a substantial claim you had best be able to back it up with some empirical data. Which you can't. All you can do is trot out yet another worthless computer model.

....with evidence that the model has been validated. its in the papers that I link to. You have to actually read them. You could find many more if you used google scholar instead of the blogosphere. But I guess google is just all part of the massive conspiracy.




You'd think with a B.S. in geology and a Ph.D. in Climatology - you'd know this. But apparently you are just full of shit. You literally think that by you saying something is true - its true. How narcissistic.

There are plenty of non biased reports that show categorically how bad and utterly useless the computer models are. The fact that you still believe them just reinforces the image we have of you as a religious fanatic worshipping at the alter of your high priests.

For the record I have a PhD in geology and nothing in climatology. However, I can and am qualified to teach any of their classes except for that worthless computer language class. That language came and went before I even knew it existed (well not really, I knew it existed we just didn't use anything that primitive).

On the other hand, they are not qualified to teach a single graduate level class in geology. They could teach some of the undergrad stuff, but the graduate level classes are so far over their heads as to be funny.

 

[westwall]

Then, provide that science you say exists that supports your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

I'm not doing your work.

Just saying something doesn't make it true.

Are you retarded? It's a serious question.

And this is exactly why it's so unlikely you have a degree in anything that requires logic.

You're pretending that the entire body of evidence does not exist.

That's either a desperate game, or the plan of someone who can't think her way out of a paper bag.

You know that the claims exist.

You cannot rationally dispute them.

So you play this game.

Here's a clue moron, empirical data is relevent, computer models are not. Provide empirical data that supports your contention, not computer models, empirical data. Got it?

No? I am not surprised, you're complete lack of scientific understanding is well exposed for the world to see.

 

[westwall]

[

Okay, so a coal plant pays a hydro plant $1 billion. Where does the CO2 reduction occur?

Jeez, really? Do you ever bother to think before you speak?

It occurs because there is only a finite number of carbon credits issued. It smilar to the SO2/NxO cap and trade system - which BTW, worked.

If you want to build a few dozen new nuke plants, I'll support that.

I live in Chicago, I'm not afraid of warmer weather.

I'm glad you admit to having an extremely myopic view of the world

My gosh but you're completely clueless aren't you? This comment is so stupid as to be beyond belief.

 

[westwall]

No, this is a game you play. You are aware of the claims, you cannot dispute those claims rationally, so you play this game.

Oh, I know what your claim is and I know the claims of others are the same. When they are supported with science, those claims will have meat.

But, your claim isn't supported by the science, thus it is nothing but a belief. Beliefs are great in religion, but they have little place in science.

It's not my claim. It's science's claim. You realize that those claims are out there, you cannot rationally dispute them, so you play this game.

No, it's a claim made by 74 politically connected "scientists". Science is far more honest then that group of crooks.

 

[westwall]

It's not my claim. It's science's claim. You realize that those claims are out there, you cannot rationally dispute them, so you play this game.

If science is making that claim then show me the science making that claim.

And you're trying again to cover your eyes and pretend that it's dark outside.

Which puts you at about a 2 year old level.

You're aware of these claims, you're aware that climatologists make these claims, you do not like the claims, but you cannot rationally dispute these claims-so you play this game.

The game player is you. You know nothing about science as has been made very plain in this thread. You are nothing but an ignorant troll but keep doing what you're doing, it's amusing and I learn a great deal about your particular form of personality disorder.

 

[RollingThunder]

For the record I have a PhD in geology...

For the record, in your retarded little world, walleyed, "PhD" stands for 'Piled higher and Deeper'.

 

[del]

For the record I have a PhD in geology...

For the record, in your retarded little world, walleyed, "PhD" stands for 'Piled higher and Deeper'.

boy, you sure told him

 

[gslack]

I bet SHAT and Poopy both long for the day when they are old enough and can go into a community college and minor in "climate change"..

 

[westwall]

For the record I have a PhD in geology...

For the record, in your retarded little world, walleyed, "PhD" stands for 'Piled higher and Deeper'.

Why yes it does, though I must admit, as a geologist we prefer the term Post hole Digger.
It means more to us having to do with dirt and all that. I'm sure that level of humour is above your paygrade but now you know.

 

[gslack]

BTW, oohpoopooo or whatever his name is just called me C-U-_-T with the "N" intact in a comment when he neg repped me .... LOL

WOW.. not very bright..

 

[westwall]

BTW, oohpoopooo or whatever his name is just called me C-U-_-T with the "N" intact in a comment when he neg repped me .... LOL

WOW.. not very bright..

Well I just negged him for being a douche, how's that!

 

[daveman]

BTW, oohpoopooo or whatever his name is just called me C-U-_-T with the "N" intact in a comment when he neg repped me .... LOL

WOW.. not very bright..

He makes up for his stupidity by being filled with impotent rage.

 

[gslack]

I am still waiting on either of them to address my post asking about the Greenhouse Theory itself.. SHAT is supposed to be so scientific he should have jumped at the opportunity to address it but as of yet he has avoided it like the plague...

 

[IanC]

hmmm....its been quite a while since all the pre-peer-review publicity came out on the BEST papers. usually agreeable papers go through in no time at all. perhaps they have actually had to read the papers and fix the problems because it is obvious that there will be a lot of attention paid to these papers when they are actually published.

I wouldnt be surprised if the UHI paper just gets dumped. and the paper on how they spliced the datasets and made adjustments will have a lot of impact not only on the BEST results but also on other temperature datasets that didnt put their methodologies through open peer review. interesting times.