Extreme weather events that show AGW

[skookerasbil]

Now dumb fucks, these are real scientists, not the obese junkies on the AM radio that you worship.

Education and degrees do not confer the assumption of correctness.

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does.

Fail..... actually s0n, tens of thousands of Ma and PhD scientists call bullshit on AGW

LMAO!!!

No, they don't "son".

Whatever you say s0n....

 

[martybegan]

Education and degrees do not confer the assumption of correctness.

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does.

So Newton was right back then, everyone agreed with him, and so Relativity is wrong?

You make the false assumption that our current level of understanding of things is the correct one.

You also forget that large masses of people are just as capable of making the same mistake as a single person is.

Finally, when actual debate on the topic is stifled you can silence contrary opinions (even slightly diverging ones) via peer pressure.

Newton was not wrong, Newton was incomplete. He was absolutely correct as far as his model went.

But there was consensus, so by your statement above Einstein should have been ignored because he added to or changed Newton's findings.

Lol, nice straw man. I said no such thing.

If you wanna have a real discussion then discuss. If you wanna try to pin some stupid "gotcha" on me then bugger off.

You made the statement. You implied consensus of certain people means the matter is settled.

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does

Here is a hint, Rook, when you make general blanket statements expect to be called out on it.

 

[skookerasbil]

Actually... my bad....it was 31,000.....

Global Warming Petition Project

 

[Marion Morrison]

There are now events that can definitely be attributed to man's influence on the climate.

It's HAARP weather manipulation!

 

[skookerasbil]

Who's not winning?

 

[Crepitus]

Now dumb fucks, these are real scientists, not the obese junkies on the AM radio that you worship.

Education and degrees do not confer the assumption of correctness.

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does.

Fail..... actually s0n, tens of thousands of Ma and PhD scientists call bullshit on AGW

LMAO!!!

No, they don't "son".

Whatever you say s0n....

Well I tell ya what, why don't you come up with a list of 1,000. That should be easy if "tens of thousands" actually deny it right?

 

[Crepitus]

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does.

So Newton was right back then, everyone agreed with him, and so Relativity is wrong?

You make the false assumption that our current level of understanding of things is the correct one.

You also forget that large masses of people are just as capable of making the same mistake as a single person is.

Finally, when actual debate on the topic is stifled you can silence contrary opinions (even slightly diverging ones) via peer pressure.

Newton was not wrong, Newton was incomplete. He was absolutely correct as far as his model went.

But there was consensus, so by your statement above Einstein should have been ignored because he added to or changed Newton's findings.

Lol, nice straw man. I said no such thing.

If you wanna have a real discussion then discuss. If you wanna try to pin some stupid "gotcha" on me then bugger off.

You made the statement. You implied consensus of certain people means the matter is settled.

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does

Here is a hint, Rook, when you make general blanket statements expect to be called out on it.

No, you twisted the statement so you could disagree with it.

 

[Crepitus]

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does.

So Newton was right back then, everyone agreed with him, and so Relativity is wrong?

You make the false assumption that our current level of understanding of things is the correct one.

You also forget that large masses of people are just as capable of making the same mistake as a single person is.

Finally, when actual debate on the topic is stifled you can silence contrary opinions (even slightly diverging ones) via peer pressure.

Newton was not wrong, Newton was incomplete. He was absolutely correct as far as his model went.

But there was consensus, so by your statement above Einstein should have been ignored because he added to or changed Newton's findings.

Lol, nice straw man. I said no such thing.

If you wanna have a real discussion then discuss. If you wanna try to pin some stupid "gotcha" on me then bugger off.

You made the statement. You implied consensus of certain people means the matter is settled.

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does

Here is a hint, Rook, when you make general blanket statements expect to be called out on it.

I already expect conservatives do disagree with anything that contains actual science anyway.

 

[martybegan]

So Newton was right back then, everyone agreed with him, and so Relativity is wrong?

You make the false assumption that our current level of understanding of things is the correct one.

You also forget that large masses of people are just as capable of making the same mistake as a single person is.

Finally, when actual debate on the topic is stifled you can silence contrary opinions (even slightly diverging ones) via peer pressure.

Newton was not wrong, Newton was incomplete. He was absolutely correct as far as his model went.

But there was consensus, so by your statement above Einstein should have been ignored because he added to or changed Newton's findings.

Lol, nice straw man. I said no such thing.

If you wanna have a real discussion then discuss. If you wanna try to pin some stupid "gotcha" on me then bugger off.

You made the statement. You implied consensus of certain people means the matter is settled.

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does

Here is a hint, Rook, when you make general blanket statements expect to be called out on it.

No, you twisted the statement so you could disagree with it.

No, i responded to your blanket statement with accurate rebuttal.

 

[martybegan]

So Newton was right back then, everyone agreed with him, and so Relativity is wrong?

You make the false assumption that our current level of understanding of things is the correct one.

You also forget that large masses of people are just as capable of making the same mistake as a single person is.

Finally, when actual debate on the topic is stifled you can silence contrary opinions (even slightly diverging ones) via peer pressure.

Newton was not wrong, Newton was incomplete. He was absolutely correct as far as his model went.

But there was consensus, so by your statement above Einstein should have been ignored because he added to or changed Newton's findings.

Lol, nice straw man. I said no such thing.

If you wanna have a real discussion then discuss. If you wanna try to pin some stupid "gotcha" on me then bugger off.

You made the statement. You implied consensus of certain people means the matter is settled.

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does

Here is a hint, Rook, when you make general blanket statements expect to be called out on it.

I already expect conservatives do disagree with anything that contains actual science anyway.

I have a degree in Chemical Engineering kiddo, so I think my scientific bonafides outweigh yours.

 

[Crepitus]

Newton was not wrong, Newton was incomplete. He was absolutely correct as far as his model went.

But there was consensus, so by your statement above Einstein should have been ignored because he added to or changed Newton's findings.

Lol, nice straw man. I said no such thing.

If you wanna have a real discussion then discuss. If you wanna try to pin some stupid "gotcha" on me then bugger off.

You made the statement. You implied consensus of certain people means the matter is settled.

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does

Here is a hint, Rook, when you make general blanket statements expect to be called out on it.

I already expect conservatives do disagree with anything that contains actual science anyway.

I have a degree in Chemical Engineering kiddo, so I think my scientific bonafides outweigh yours.

That has soooo much to do with climate science.

 

[martybegan]

But there was consensus, so by your statement above Einstein should have been ignored because he added to or changed Newton's findings.

Lol, nice straw man. I said no such thing.

If you wanna have a real discussion then discuss. If you wanna try to pin some stupid "gotcha" on me then bugger off.

You made the statement. You implied consensus of certain people means the matter is settled.

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does

Here is a hint, Rook, when you make general blanket statements expect to be called out on it.

I already expect conservatives do disagree with anything that contains actual science anyway.

I have a degree in Chemical Engineering kiddo, so I think my scientific bonafides outweigh yours.

That has soooo much to do with climate science.

What's your degree or background in?

It means I have taken courses in basic science, Chemistry, Physics, thermodynamics, as well as courses in applied science, mass transfer, reactions, energy transfer.

All relate to the concepts seen in climate modelling. I have even done wastewater modelling, and thus know the limits of models of even simpler systems such as Activated Sludge treatment processes, nevermind orders of magnitude more complex systems like the atmosphere.

You are not going to get any denials or acceptances of man's impact on macro-climate from me, I am ambivalent on the topic. My issue is that the hucksters who push this crap have one solution only, more government, less freedom.

As an Engineer I know we can adjust to the changes being made via technology.

 

[Crepitus]

Lol, nice straw man. I said no such thing.

If you wanna have a real discussion then discuss. If you wanna try to pin some stupid "gotcha" on me then bugger off.

You made the statement. You implied consensus of certain people means the matter is settled.

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does

Here is a hint, Rook, when you make general blanket statements expect to be called out on it.

I already expect conservatives do disagree with anything that contains actual science anyway.

I have a degree in Chemical Engineering kiddo, so I think my scientific bonafides outweigh yours.

That has soooo much to do with climate science.

What's your degree or background in?

It means I have taken courses in basic science, Chemistry, Physics, thermodynamics, as well as courses in applied science, mass transfer, reactions, energy transfer.

All relate to the concepts seen in climate modelling. I have even done wastewater modelling, and thus know the limits of models of even simpler systems such as Activated Sludge treatment processes, nevermind orders of magnitude more complex systems like the atmosphere.

You are not going to get any denials or acceptances of man's impact on macro-climate from me, I am ambivalent on the topic. My issue is that the hucksters who push this crap have one solution only, more government, less freedom.

As an Engineer I know we can adjust to the changes being made via technology.

Biz Admin with a double minor of accounting and music. Almost as applicable to climate science as yours.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

But there was consensus, so by your statement above Einstein should have been ignored because he added to or changed Newton's findings.

Lol, nice straw man. I said no such thing.

If you wanna have a real discussion then discuss. If you wanna try to pin some stupid "gotcha" on me then bugger off.

You made the statement. You implied consensus of certain people means the matter is settled.

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does

Here is a hint, Rook, when you make general blanket statements expect to be called out on it.

I already expect conservatives do disagree with anything that contains actual science anyway.

I have a degree in Chemical Engineering kiddo, so I think my scientific bonafides outweigh yours.

That has soooo much to do with climate science.

Climate science is the one "Science" without a single repeatable experiment.

 

[martybegan]

You made the statement. You implied consensus of certain people means the matter is settled.

Here is a hint, Rook, when you make general blanket statements expect to be called out on it.

I already expect conservatives do disagree with anything that contains actual science anyway.

I have a degree in Chemical Engineering kiddo, so I think my scientific bonafides outweigh yours.

That has soooo much to do with climate science.

What's your degree or background in?

It means I have taken courses in basic science, Chemistry, Physics, thermodynamics, as well as courses in applied science, mass transfer, reactions, energy transfer.

All relate to the concepts seen in climate modelling. I have even done wastewater modelling, and thus know the limits of models of even simpler systems such as Activated Sludge treatment processes, nevermind orders of magnitude more complex systems like the atmosphere.

You are not going to get any denials or acceptances of man's impact on macro-climate from me, I am ambivalent on the topic. My issue is that the hucksters who push this crap have one solution only, more government, less freedom.

As an Engineer I know we can adjust to the changes being made via technology.

Biz Admin with a double minor of accounting and music. Almost as applicable to climate science as yours.

Lol, not even close.

5 Semester of Chemistry, 3 semesters of physics, 2 semesters of thermodynamics, then more of applied sciences.

 

[martybegan]

Lol, nice straw man. I said no such thing.

If you wanna have a real discussion then discuss. If you wanna try to pin some stupid "gotcha" on me then bugger off.

You made the statement. You implied consensus of certain people means the matter is settled.

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does

Here is a hint, Rook, when you make general blanket statements expect to be called out on it.

I already expect conservatives do disagree with anything that contains actual science anyway.

I have a degree in Chemical Engineering kiddo, so I think my scientific bonafides outweigh yours.

That has soooo much to do with climate science.

Climate science is the one "Science" without a single repeatable experiment.

it's all based on mathematical modelling because one can't experiment on a system that big, or create an physical experimental unit that mimics it accurately enough.

In wastewater treatment we use computer models, but we also used pilot scale reactors to verify the results from the models, and aid the models.

One cannot create a viable pilot atmosphere.

 

[Crepitus]

Lol, nice straw man. I said no such thing.

If you wanna have a real discussion then discuss. If you wanna try to pin some stupid "gotcha" on me then bugger off.

You made the statement. You implied consensus of certain people means the matter is settled.

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does

Here is a hint, Rook, when you make general blanket statements expect to be called out on it.

I already expect conservatives do disagree with anything that contains actual science anyway.

I have a degree in Chemical Engineering kiddo, so I think my scientific bonafides outweigh yours.

That has soooo much to do with climate science.

Climate science is the one "Science" without a single repeatable experiment.

Actually that turns out to be the other way around..

Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers | Dana Nuccitelli

 

[Crepitus]

I already expect conservatives do disagree with anything that contains actual science anyway.

I have a degree in Chemical Engineering kiddo, so I think my scientific bonafides outweigh yours.

That has soooo much to do with climate science.

What's your degree or background in?

It means I have taken courses in basic science, Chemistry, Physics, thermodynamics, as well as courses in applied science, mass transfer, reactions, energy transfer.

All relate to the concepts seen in climate modelling. I have even done wastewater modelling, and thus know the limits of models of even simpler systems such as Activated Sludge treatment processes, nevermind orders of magnitude more complex systems like the atmosphere.

You are not going to get any denials or acceptances of man's impact on macro-climate from me, I am ambivalent on the topic. My issue is that the hucksters who push this crap have one solution only, more government, less freedom.

As an Engineer I know we can adjust to the changes being made via technology.

Biz Admin with a double minor of accounting and music. Almost as applicable to climate science as yours.

Lol, not even close.

5 Semester of Chemistry, 3 semesters of physics, 2 semesters of thermodynamics, then more of applied sciences.

That's nice. Still doesn't make you any more of a climate scientist than me though.

 

[martybegan]

I have a degree in Chemical Engineering kiddo, so I think my scientific bonafides outweigh yours.

That has soooo much to do with climate science.

What's your degree or background in?

It means I have taken courses in basic science, Chemistry, Physics, thermodynamics, as well as courses in applied science, mass transfer, reactions, energy transfer.

All relate to the concepts seen in climate modelling. I have even done wastewater modelling, and thus know the limits of models of even simpler systems such as Activated Sludge treatment processes, nevermind orders of magnitude more complex systems like the atmosphere.

You are not going to get any denials or acceptances of man's impact on macro-climate from me, I am ambivalent on the topic. My issue is that the hucksters who push this crap have one solution only, more government, less freedom.

As an Engineer I know we can adjust to the changes being made via technology.

Biz Admin with a double minor of accounting and music. Almost as applicable to climate science as yours.

Lol, not even close.

5 Semester of Chemistry, 3 semesters of physics, 2 semesters of thermodynamics, then more of applied sciences.

That's nice. Still doesn't make you any more of a climate scientist than me though.

It makes me more aware of the limits of modelling and the concepts behind the models themselves.

And the issue isn't the science, it's the politics pushed when people use the "settled science" to implement socialistic policies "for our own good"

Read my sig for my view on self righteous do-gooders.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You made the statement. You implied consensus of certain people means the matter is settled.

Here is a hint, Rook, when you make general blanket statements expect to be called out on it.

I already expect conservatives do disagree with anything that contains actual science anyway.

I have a degree in Chemical Engineering kiddo, so I think my scientific bonafides outweigh yours.

That has soooo much to do with climate science.

Climate science is the one "Science" without a single repeatable experiment.

Actually that turns out to be the other way around..

Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers | Dana Nuccitelli

Can you post the lab experiments showing how an instantaneous 120PPM of CO2 will cause temperature to rise?

Thank you