If deniers are arguing facts, why would they change their focus?

[Crick]

Without plowing through the whole thread, I believe I only concluded that you had no evidence after asking you several times to produce such evidence. What little you presented was post hoc ergo propter hoc, with no causal link shown.

You said

Anyway . . . since you have no evidence that human activity is causing global warming, that said global warming is harmful, or that any sort of project funded by huge increases in taxes would change that, you really don’t have any support for your position.

By first principles the observed warming matches the warming that should be produced by the greenhouse effect acting on the increase in atmospheric CO2 and no other known mechanism for producing warming has been found responsible for more than trivial portions.
Per both isotopic analysis and bookkeeping, the CO2 above the 280 ppm pre-industrial level was created by the combusition of fossil fuels and humans are the only ones burning fossil fuels.

I have told you this repeatedly and it was certainly available in the documents to which I linked. How do YOU arrive at the conclusion that I have shown you no evidence that humans are responsible for the observed warming?

I can’t imagine conditions that would support a prediction that climate will not change. But maybe my imagination is not as great as yours. Can you provide an example?

You brought up "no climate change". I only used the term in my counter that science can produce accurate predictions, even of the very unlikely situation you brought up.

Which is the basis of all “climate science.”

Climate science is not based on unsupported conjectures. It is based on physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid mechanics and other fields as well as absolute mountains of empirical evidence from all over the planet.

No, in spite of the fact that there have been hundreds, perhaps, thousands, of apocalyptic predictions that never came true, there is still the theoretical possibility that an apocalyptic prediction will come true.

You imply that no apocalyptic prediction has ever come true. That is false.

In fact, if there ever is an apocalypse, surely any surviving historians will be able to look back and find a prediction that matches the actual event out of the thousands of predictions that have been made.

"apocalyptic: resembling the biblical Apocalyse" --Oxford Languages Dictionary, emphasis mine

If I’m not mistaken, that is exactly how Jeanie Dixon became famous as a psychic. Among the thousands of predictions being made by self describe psychics, during the 50s and 60s, she accurately predicted the assassination of John F Kennedy.

Do you actually want to continue to equate evidence-based, scientific predictions with visions, mythology, supernatural fanstasies and outright fraud? Do you actually think that is a supportable position?

I’ll check on the name. I guess there would be two explanations for that accurate prediction. One) Jeannie Dixon had psychic powers or two)If enough predictions are made, eventually, one of them will come true. Which one would you pick in that particular case?

Don't bother.

No, I do not. And I found an interesting article that posited that the predictions of the Aztec mathematician/astronomers were not actually based on any revelatory vision either, but on something completely different. Very interesting but I can’t post it on my phone. I’ll get it for you later later this evening.

On what do you believe the conclusions of the IPCC are based? Are you familiar with the charter of the IPCC? Do you understand what it is they actually do?

Neither are the “climate scientists.” The scientific method requires experimentation.

Do nuclear physicists experiment with nuclear weapons these days? Do cosmologists create universes in their laboratories? Do economists muck with the world's economy to find out how it works? Did Stephen Hawking have a black hole in a test tube? How about mathematics? Do mathematicians do a lot of experiments?

No experiment that you have described shows that there is evidence that any rise and global , if such a rise exist, is caused by human activity.

That is false. I have described for you a simple experiment validating the greenhouse effect and described the empirical observations and analysis that provide extremely strong evidence that AGW is valid. The vast majority of climate scientists and scientists from all other fields accept AGW as a valid description of the current behavior of the Earth's climate. Do you really think that would be the case were there NO evidence supporting it?

You can prove that human industrial activity has increased in the last two centuries. You can show that on modern instruments compared to much older instruments, higher temperatures are shown. You cannot show any calls or link between the two.

The link is the greenhouse effect and the demonstrated origin of the CO2 we have put into our air. The link is the inability to demonstrate ANY other cause for the observed warming. Are you suggesting that the Earth has NOT warmed? Do you really think you have the technical wherewithal to claim thousands of climate scientists can't accomplish the simplest task of their entire field?

Other than the physics and astronomy courses, I took to get my undergraduate degree, I have not extensively studied those fields. See how easy it is for me to admit to a shortcoming? Have you noticed how difficult it is for you to even say that your mathematical ability does not equal those of the greatest Aztec mathematicians?

Do YOU know precisely how smart the Aztec mathematicians were? Can you explain SPECIFICALLY how you are measuring their intelligence and mine? Your query was simply bullshit and I sure hope you know it.

My fields are educational, psychology, and special education. For both of these, I have studied a lot of human thought process, particularly human motivation. Not that I need it to understand the motivation of the global warming alarmists. Those should be pretty obvious to even the untrained person.

You claim that the topic of global warming - a huge field involving massive amounts of research, communication, documentation - is all the product of alarmists and that this conclusion of yours requires no understanding... no examination of the facts? Are you kidding?

For my advanced agrees, I study, statistics extensively, so I am fully able to understand the lack of scientific merit behind most “studies” of warming.

Quite obviously, no, you are not.

No, but it does mean that people can be led to believe in accurate predictions.

I don't know what you meant to say, but people SHOULD believe accurate predictions. And you've skipped over the point. That false predictions were made in the past does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to refute today's evidence-based, scientific predictions.

Especially if those making the predictions use them to maintain their power within a specific social order.

And what "power" do you believe the world's climate scientists possess and in what "specific social order" and how is that power maintained by their research activities? And after you've failed to answer that question, perhaps you can explain how, precisely, false research involving the work of thousands of individuals from every nation on the planet is all coordinated (since it must all describe the same falsehood) with no flaw appearing and no confessions heard from any of the thousands of required participants risking their lifelong careers to maintain that all-important "power".

Those would certainly not be hard to find. The popular press enjoy publishing stories, who steam is basically “non-liberals are stoopid! Often, the “studies“ they present are nothing more than opinion pieces disguised as science.

They wouldn't be hard to find because I was talking about YOU and the arguments you've been attempting to make here, including all your linked articles. You have NO rational reason to reject the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies that support the validity of AGW theory. None.

So it is certainly understandable, that a person who reads a lot of popular “journalism“ would believe that anyone who doubts the apocalyptic predictions of the climate scientist, are just not very intelligent.

It is not popular journalism that has convinced me that YOU are just not very intelligent on this topic. You've done that all on your own. And you've been VERY convincing.

 

[elektra]

science is not a coloring book, crick,

 

[Crick]

science is not a coloring book, crick,

Did you think that up all by yourself?

 

[elektra]

Did you think that up all by yourself?

SCIENCE IS NOT A COLORING BOOK

no, lil crick, after seeing those fancy coloring book tearouts you use in your posts I got inspired by you

 

[Crick]

SCIENCE IS NOT A COLORING BOOK

no, lil crick, after seeing those fancy coloring book tearouts you use in your posts I got inspired by you

So you did make it up all by yourself. Don't be shy. Take the credit you deserve.

 

[jc456]

Then the feeling is mutual. So why do you ask for an experiment verifying the greenhouse effect and then complain it doesn't discuss taxes?

The government presents a solution of taxes vs the nonsense of climate change. It seems you don't even know that. Fk, do you live in a glass tube?

 

[jc456]

www.ipcc.ch has mountains of evidence that humans are causing global warming, that it is harmful and that there are ways we can mitigate it. I told you that. I provided you multiple links to those data. Unfortunately, YOU are a lying piece of SHIT

the IPCC is not science it has no standing and is a nonsense organization. Now, do you have any experiment that shows man is causing any warming? Yes or no? It's a really simple question.

 

[Crick]

SCIENCE IS NOT A COLORING BOOK

no, lil crick, after seeing those fancy coloring book tearouts you use in your posts I got inspired by you

You DID notice that the post of mine you actually replied to had NO graphs, didn't you?

Well, I guess the problem is that your sources find it a lot easier to just make stuff up and lie if they don't have to craft meaningless graphs.

 

[jc456]

You DID notice that the post of mine you actually replied to had NO graphs, didn't you?

Well, I guess the problem is that your sources find it a lot easier to just make stuff up and lie if they don't have to craft meaningless graphs.

funny, are you suggesting you have datasets for all of those graphs you post? put those datasets up or shut up!

BTW, if you don't have datasets, then any graph you post is nothing but a cartoon.

 

[jc456]

By first principles the observed warming matches the warming that should be produced by the greenhouse effect acting on the increase in atmospheric CO2 and no other known mechanism for producing warming has been found responsible for more than trivial portions.

what observed warming? second, what proves if it was warming it came from humans? Third, you're just a cuck

 

[Crick]

Still waiting for Seymour Flops.

 

[jc456]

Still waiting for Seymour Flops.

secret ronde Vois ? This isn't a sex board.

 

[Crick]

Still waiting for Seymour Flops

 

[ding]

By first principles the observed warming matches the warming that should be produced by the greenhouse effect acting on the increase in atmospheric CO2 and no other known mechanism for producing warming has been found responsible for more than trivial portions.

Blatantly false. Simple physics of radiative forcing calculates - that absent convective currents - the most surface temperature that an incremental 120 ppm can produce is 0.5 C. And empirical data shows that with convective currents the most surface temperature that an incremental 120 ppm should produce is 0.22 C.

Everything above 0.22C to 0.5C is the planet naturally warming back up to its pre-glacial temperature before it reverses itself and the planet plunges into a glacial period like it has been doing for the past 3 million years.

 

[ding]

Climate science is not based on unsupported conjectures. It is based on physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid mechanics and other fields as well as absolute mountains of empirical evidence from all over the planet.

Blatantly false. Climate science - as it is practiced today - is based on the simple physics of radiative forcing and computer modeling. And flawed modeling at that.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Still waiting for Seymour Flops.

Still waiting for Seymour Flops.

Well, Crick . . . it seems I kept you waiting.

I have a responsible job, and I have many people counting on me to do it. There is some downtime, but lots of metaphorical fires to put out, often dealing with children in crises, helping them to pull out of it, while avoiding their crises affecting other children's education. Educators are thought of by some as people who run home at 3 PM. I myself did not run home until almost 7 PM. Not an unusual occurance. I didn't owe you that explanation, but I offer it in the spirit of civilized debate.

Onward.

You said

By first principles the observed warming matches the warming that should be produced by the greenhouse effect acting on the increase in atmospheric CO2 and no other known mechanism for producing warming has been found responsible for more than trivial portions.
Per both isotopic analysis and bookkeeping, the CO2 above the 280 ppm pre-industrial level was created by the combusition of fossil fuels and humans are the only ones burning fossil fuels.

The problem with the idea that increases in CO2 are the predictors of increased temperatures is that those increased temperatures were not predicted when the Industrial Revolution started. The "predictions" came after the fact as explanations of supposed observation. The solutions to that claimed increased in temperature errily match the progressive/leftist/"liberal" long-time agenda, which is to slow down U.S. development and bring us down a peg or two - or many

I have told you this repeatedly and it was certainly available in the documents to which I linked. How do YOU arrive at the conclusion that I have shown you no evidence that humans are responsible for the observed warming?

Because in order for data, or observation or anything else to be evidence of a claim, those data or observations must have no other explanation than that the claim is true. That's why experimenters using the Scientific Method isolate the variable. Global Warming "science" does not.

You brought up "no climate change". I only used the term in my counter that science can produce accurate predictions, even of the very unlikely situation you brought up.

But you did not explain how, as I requested, any hyphothetical set of data could predict no change in climate.

Climate science is not based on unsupported conjectures. It is based on physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid mechanics and other fields as well as absolute mountains of empirical evidence from all over the planet.

Repeating the phrase "mountains of evidence," is not as persuasive as showing and explaining the supposed evidence.

You imply that no apocalyptic prediction has ever come true. That is false.

"apocalyptic: resembling the biblical Apocalyse" --Oxford Languages Dictionary, emphasis mine

Have apocalyptic predictions resembling the biblical Apocalypse come true? When?

Do you actually want to continue to equate evidence-based, scientific predictions with visions, mythology, supernatural fanstasies and outright fraud?

Absolutely.

Do you actually think that is a supportable position?

It is, indeed supportable.

Don't bother.

But you did not answer my question: Jean Dixon accurately predicted the assassination of JFK. Which explanation is more likely:

1) Jean Dixon is an amazing psychic.
2) Thousands, maybe millions, of predictions are made every year, so some of them are bound to come true.

On what do you believe the conclusions of the IPCC are based? Are you familiar with the charter of the IPCC? Do you understand what it is they actually do?

I know that they are not scientists, but people who cherry pick scientific research with a goal of reporting - on apocalyptic terms - that the world is destined for disaster if we do not do as they say.

If you want to sell me on them, you tell me about their charter and their work.

Do nuclear physicists experiment with nuclear weapons these days?

No, but they did before they told the Army to go ahead and use them. Should they have skipped the testing and told the Army "this may wipe out an enemy city - or it may just slam into the ground harmlessly unless it happens to land on an important Japanese leader."

Would you have wanted your loved on to risk their lives delivering such a maybe propisition?

Do cosmologists create universes in their laboratories?

Cosmology is not a science in the sense of using the scientific method.

Do economists muck with the world's economy to find out how it works?

Economics is not a science in the sense of using the scientific method.

Psychology is, for example. That's why I studied it.

Psychology researchers isolate the variable in any experimental reseach. They also research usingj polls and observations, but they know the difference between the two. They don't call a survey an experiment. If they did, they would be professionally shamed for such dishonesty.

"Climate scientists," either don't know the difference or don't acknowledge the difference.

Did Stephen Hawking have a black hole in a test tube?

Did he discover black holes?

Black holes were predicted as early as 1784, but an astronomer (and clergyman!) named John Mitchel. Several scientists refined that theory, including Robert Oppenheimer, ironically also the scientists who indeed tested the nuclear bomb as you asked about above.

Hawkings contributed to the theory also, but observations of actual black holes are very recent.

Maybe I'm explaining too much. Are just guessing at those?

How about mathematics? Do mathematicians do a lot of experiments?

Sure do. God yes.

A lot of math is "settled," but all of the theorems started out unproven, and the greatest mathematicians proved them. Some are still ongoing. There are sophisticated computers trying to find the end of pi, and more in my wheelhouse, there are powerful computers analyzing poker to find the Game Theory Optimal version. Chess also. Checkers has been "solved." Limit Hold 'em Poker with only two players has been "solved."

Yes, math is evolving and experimental.

That is false. I have described for you a simple experiment validating the greenhouse effect and described the empirical observations and analysis

You did provide one example of an experiment to see if the greenhouse effect is possible, but you did not show the results of any actual experiments.

that provide extremely strong evidence that AGW is valid.

Not "extremely strong" evidence. Scientists don't talk that way. Again, link the results, and tell me what they prove.

The vast majority of climate scientists and scientists from all other fields accept AGW as a valid description of the current behavior of the Earth's climate. Do you really think that would be the case were there NO evidence supporting it?

I never said that there was NO evidence supporting it.

The link is the greenhouse effect and the demonstrated origin of the CO2 we have put into our air. The link is the inability to demonstrate ANY other cause for the observed warming.

Other than the instruments being different, you mean? Other than warming that has taken place on earth since its known history, you mean?

Are you suggesting that the Earth has NOT warmed?

I never said that.

Question for you, if you will answer one: Has the warming of the earth continued steadily since the idea of man-caused global warming was introduced? Research before you answer.

Do you really think you have the technical wherewithal to claim thousands of climate scientists can't accomplish the simplest task of their entire field?

I can claim that they have not shown that they have forged the four links in the metaphorical chain that AGW alarmists claim lead to a mandate to follow their plan (whatever it is). In order for their demands to be valid, they need to show four things:

1) Earth is warming at a steady pace.
2) Such warming cannot be the result of natural forces, but must be caused by human activity.
3) Such warming is harmful to life on earth and will be catastrophic if it continues
4) Proposed human activity can stop and/or reverse this harmful global warming.

The strongest link in the chain is 1), which it would be since the idea of AGW was not proposed until after the warming was observed. Even at that, the first link is not terribly strong, since the observations of warming relies on instruments that changed over time, and since the warming has not been steady:

Why did Earthâs surface temperature stop rising in the past decade?

The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean.

www.climate.gov

This article postulated natural explanations for the "pause in global warming." They are on the right track with that idea, but unfortunately refuse to consider that the warming that was "paused" is itself the result of natural forces.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. My argument is that they shouldn't refuse to consider it.

Anyway, the other links are largely chimeras. No evidence at all for 2), 3), or 4). Just conjecture, and to be truthful, wishful thinking.

Do YOU know precisely how smart the Aztec mathematicians were? Can you explain SPECIFICALLY how you are measuring their intelligence and mine? Your query was simply bullshit and I sure hope you know it.

No, I was not around to give the Aztec mathematicians IQ tests. Nor have I ever taken one myself, even though much of my studies were in psychometrics.

I judge their intelligence by their accomplishments, which far exceeded my own.

You claim that the topic of global warming - a huge field involving massive amounts of research, communication, documentation - is all the product of alarmists and that this conclusion of yours requires no understanding... no examination of the facts? Are you kidding?

No, I never claimed that. Apparently, that is how you interpret anyone's disagreeing with you.

Here is my claim, and it is a claim about a hypothesis, not proven science:

My hypothesis is that people who are conviced that AGW is a real thing, that it is really harmful, and that we really can stop or reverse it, if we just give government enough money, have little to no evidence to back those claims up. To test that hypothesis, I ask for such evidence everytime an AGW alarmist insists that we need to pay more taxes to fight global warming.

So far the hypothesis has not been disproven.

Quite obviously, no, you are not.

I don't know what you meant to say, but people SHOULD believe accurate predictions. And you've skipped over the point. That false predictions were made in the past does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to refute today's evidence-based, scientific predictions.

Haw!

You got me with that one. I meant to say that people can be led to believe inaccurate predictions.

Should believe in accurate predictions? Do you? We never know that they are accurate until they come true.

Brings me back to the Jean Dixon example which did come true. She accurately predicted the JFK murder.

Does that mean you believe it?

Yes or no, then explain all you like.

And what "power" do you believe the world's climate scientists possess and in what "specific social order" and how is that power maintained by their research activities?

Honestly, I think the "climate scientists" just want to keep getting paid. It's the politicians who pay them who have the power. They feed the politicians the research results that the politicians need, and the politicians keep their paychecks coming.

And after you've failed to answer that question, perhaps you can explain how, precisely, false research involving the work of thousands of individuals from every nation on the planet is all coordinated (since it must all describe the same falsehood) with no flaw appearing and no confessions heard from any of the thousands of required participants risking their lifelong careers to maintain that all-important "power".

Yes, under one guiding principle: Predict disaster, so the politicians can convince people not to resist having their hard-earned money taken.

They wouldn't be hard to find because I was talking about YOU and the arguments you've been attempting to make here, including all your linked articles. You have NO rational reason to reject the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies that support the validity of AGW theory. None.

I don't reject them, because I haven't seen them. I ask every time a person talks about chaning polcies to "fight global warming," and they are never produced.

It is not popular journalism that has convinced me that YOU are just not very intelligent on this topic. You've done that all on your own. And you've been VERY convincing.

Well, that was hurtful . . .

Just kidding!

It was exactly what I expected. I hypothesized that you could not debate like a grownup for more than a few posts. You lasted longer than I expected, I'll grant you that. But eventually, you go back to the school yard.

Don't be afraid to just say "U R Stoopid!" if that will save you time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, Crick . . . it seems I kept you waiting.

I have a responsible job, and I have many people counting on me to do it. There is some downtime, but lots of metaphorical fires to put out, often dealing with children in crises, helping them to pull out of it, while avoiding their crises affecting other children's education. Educators are thought of by some as people who run home at 3 PM. I myself did not run home until almost 7 PM. Not an unusual occurance. I didn't owe you that explanation, but I offer it in the spirit of civilized debate.

Onward.


The problem with the idea that increases in CO2 are the predictors of increased temperatures is that those increased temperatures were not predicted when the Industrial Revolution started. The "predictions" came after the fact as explanations of supposed observation. The solutions to that claimed increased in temperature errily match the progressive/leftist/"liberal" long-time agenda, which is to slow down U.S. development and bring us down a peg or two - or many

Because in order for data, or observation or anything else to be evidence of a claim, those data or observations must have no other explanation than that the claim is true. That's why experimenters using the Scientific Method isolate the variable. Global Warming "science" does not.

But you did not explain how, as I requested, any hyphothetical set of data could predict no change in climate.

Repeating the phrase "mountains of evidence," is not as persuasive as showing and explaining the supposed evidence.

Have apocalyptic predictions resembling the biblical Apocalypse come true? When?

Absolutely.

It is, indeed supportable.

But you did not answer my question: Jean Dixon accurately predicted the assassination of JFK. Which explanation is more likely:

1) Jean Dixon is an amazing psychic.
2) Thousands, maybe millions, of predictions are made every year, so some of them are bound to come true.

I know that they are not scientists, but people who cherry pick scientific research with a goal of reporting - on apocalyptic terms - that the world is destined for disaster if we do not do as they say.

If you want to sell me on them, you tell me about their charter and their work.

No, but they did before they told the Army to go ahead and use them. Should they have skipped the testing and told the Army "this may wipe out an enemy city - or it may just slam into the ground harmlessly unless it happens to land on an important Japanese leader."

Would you have wanted your loved on to risk their lives delivering such a maybe propisition?



Cosmology is not a science in the sense of using the scientific method.

Economics is not a science in the sense of using the scientific method.

Psychology is, for example. That's why I studied it.

Psychology researchers isolate the variable in any experimental reseach. They also research usingj polls and observations, but they know the difference between the two. They don't call a survey an experiment. If they did, they would be professionally shamed for such dishonesty.

"Climate scientists," either don't know the difference or don't acknowledge the difference.


Did he discover black holes?

Black holes were predicted as early as 1784, but an astronomer (and clergyman!) named John Mitchel. Several scientists refined that theory, including Robert Oppenheimer, ironically also the scientists who indeed tested the nuclear bomb as you asked about above.

Hawkings contributed to the theory also, but observations of actual black holes are very recent.

Maybe I'm explaining too much. Are just guessing at those?


Sure do. God yes.

A lot of math is "settled," but all of the theorems started out unproven, and the greatest mathematicians proved them. Some are still ongoing. There are sophisticated computers trying to find the end of pi, and more in my wheelhouse, there are powerful computers analyzing poker to find the Game Theory Optimal version. Chess also. Checkers has been "solved." Limit Hold 'em Poker with only two players has been "solved."

Yes, math is evolving and experimental.

You did provide one example of an experiment to see if the greenhouse effect is possible, but you did not show the results of any actual experiments.

Not "extremely strong" evidence. Scientists don't talk that way. Again, link the results, and tell me what they prove.

I never said that there was NO evidence supporting it.

Other than the instruments being different, you mean? Other than warming that has taken place on earth since its known history, you mean?

I never said that.

Question for you, if you will answer one: Has the warming of the earth continued steadily since the idea of man-caused global warming was introduced? Research before you answer.

I can claim that they have not shown that they have forged the four links in the metaphorical chain that AGW alarmists claim lead to a mandate to follow their plan (whatever it is). In order for their demands to be valid, they need to show four things:

1) Earth is warming at a steady pace.
2) Such warming cannot be the result of natural forces, but must be caused by human activity.
3) Such warming is harmful to life on earth and will be catastrophic if it continues
4) Proposed human activity can stop and/or reverse this harmful global warming.

The strongest link in the chain is 1), which it would be since the idea of AGW was not proposed until after the warming was observed. Even at that, the first link is not terribly strong, since the observations of warming relies on instruments that changed over time, and since the warming has not been steady:

Why did Earthâs surface temperature stop rising in the past decade?

The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean.

www.climate.gov

This article postulated natural explanations for the "pause in global warming." They are on the right track with that idea, but unfortunately refuse to consider that the warming that was "paused" is itself the result of natural forces.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. My argument is that they shouldn't refuse to consider it.


No, I was not around to give the Aztec mathematicians IQ tests. Nor have I ever taken one myself, even though much of my studies were in psychometrics.

I judge their intelligence by their accomplishments, which far exceeded my own.

No, I never claimed that. Apparently, that is how you interpret anyone's disagreeing with you.

Here is my claim, and it is a claim about a hypothesis, not proven science:

My hypothesis is that people who are conviced that AGW is a real thing, that it is really harmful, and that we really can stop or reverse it, if we just give government enough money, have little to no evidence to back those claims up. To test that hypothesis, I ask for such evidence everytime an AGW alarmist insists that we need to pay more taxes to fight global warming.

So far the hypothesis has not been disproven.

Haw!

You got me with that one. I meant to say that people can be led to believe inaccurate predictions.

Should believe in accurate predictions? Do you? We never know that they are accurate until they come true.

Brings me back to the Jean Dixon example which did come true. She accurately predicted the JFK murder.

Does that mean you believe it?

Yes or no, then explain all you like.

Honestly, I think the "climate scientists" just want to keep getting paid. It's the politicians who pay them who have the power. They feed the politicians the research results that the politicians need, and the politicians keep their paychecks coming.

Yes, under one guiding principle: Predict disaster, so the politicians can convince people not to resist having their hard-earned money taken.

I don't reject them, because I haven't seen them. I ask every time a person talks about chaning polcies to "fight global warming," and they are never produced.

Well, that was hurtful . . .

Just kidding!

It was exactly what I expected. I hypothesized that you could not debate like a grownup for more than a few posts. You lasted longer than I expected, I'll grant you that. But eventually, you go back to the school yard.

Don't be afraid to just say "U R Stoopid!" if that will save you time.

And after you've failed to answer that question, perhaps you can explain how, precisely, false research involving the work of thousands of individuals from every nation on the planet is all coordinated (since it must all describe the same falsehood) with no flaw appearing and no confessions heard from any of the thousands of required participants risking their lifelong careers to maintain that all-important "power".

Yes, under one guiding principle: Predict disaster, so the politicians can convince people not to resist having their hard-earned money taken.

I've told him before, no need to coordinate anything. Fund the people who agree and cancel the people who disagree. People learn pretty quick which stance gets you the chicks and which one makes it hard to pay the bills.

 

[elektra]

You DID notice that the post of mine you actually replied to had NO graphs, didn't you?

Well, I guess the problem is that your sources find it a lot easier to just make stuff up and lie if they don't have to craft meaningless graphs.

oh gee, the post had no graphs, well I guess that means you never ever posted 5,000 graphs in the last 2 weeks

and yes, you are right, my sources do not have to craft meaningless graphs, like your sources

you are so stupid, crick, you are funny,

That is right, my side, the right side, does not have to craft meaningless graphs

 

[Crick]

oh gee, the post had no graphs, well I guess that means you never ever posted 5,000 graphs in the last 2 weeks

and yes, you are right, my sources do not have to craft meaningless graphs, like your sources

you are so stupid, crick, you are funny,

That is right, my side, the right side, does not have to craft meaningless graphs

How about you point out a graph I've posted here or in any other thread that you believe was meaningless.

 

[skye]