I've changed sides

[catatomic]

I can't make up my mind. The conspiracy theories and the mathematical rigor are both impressive. Oh well.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Well I think the consensus global warming science is wrong now. Hopefully I can hang with the other side.

I am convinced that they do not treat people seriously enough who try to go against the consensus. It is like string theory - non-observable, non-repeatable, non-falsifiable, non-testable. They were saying it (AGW) since the '50s, when we really didn't have any evidence, perhaps to ease people's minds about nukes. There are definite financial incentives, such as vaccines and abortion services.

The charts that I relied on from the M.I.T. class were not conclusive enough to show a steady prediction.

Top Scientist Resigns Admitting Global Warming Is A Big Scam

I am not trying to tell anyone who to vote for but just taking a stand on this one issue.

You have no clue who Harold Lewis, do you.

Google is your friend.

 

[rdean]

Well I think the consensus global warming science is wrong now. Hopefully I can hang with the other side.

I am convinced that they do not treat people seriously enough who try to go against the consensus. It is like string theory - non-observable, non-repeatable, non-falsifiable, non-testable. They were saying it (AGW) since the '50s, when we really didn't have any evidence, perhaps to ease people's minds about nukes. There are definite financial incentives, such as vaccines and abortion services.

The charts that I relied on from the M.I.T. class were not conclusive enough to show a steady prediction.

Top Scientist Resigns Admitting Global Warming Is A Big Scam

I am not trying to tell anyone who to vote for but just taking a stand on this one issue.

The guy was retired for twenty years at the time of his death which was 5 or 6 years before the article you link to was even written. And he was just a physics teacher, not a top scientist. Unless there is another Hal Lewis I don't know about.

And who knows what his state of mind was at an advanced age.

 

[catatomic]

Yes, google is my friend. And regardless of me not knowing the way to go with climate science, I won't stand for hearsay if I detect it and I'm not bombarded with posts. Maybe I'm stupid compared with you guys; I don't know.

Harold Warren Lewis was an Emeritus Professor of Physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara. In 2010, after 67 years of membership, Lewis resigned from the American Physical Society, writing in a letter about the "corruption" from "the money flood" of government grants.

It says that right on google he worked as A Physicist for 67 years in what I'm confident was a top tier University. But what was interesting to me was the related articles in my link. However they are not the same links as when I first looked at it, so I had to just report about Harold Lewis.

 

[catatomic]

OK OK I'm going back to believing in AGW mainstream.

 

[catatomic]

Whatever... I don't know. I'm just enticed by conspiracy ideas against AGW mainstream and mathematical rigor that seems to be on the AGW mainstream side. It will probably take me a while to decide.

 

[SSDD]

I can't make up my mind. The conspiracy theories and the mathematical rigor are both impressive. Oh well.

What is not impressive is the amount of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....I have been asking for decades for any at all and thus far, have not seen the first scrap...for there to exist consensus on the topic when the first shred of observed measured, quantified evidence has yet to be produced on the topic casts serious doubt on the scientists who are supposedly part of the consensus.

 

[SSDD]

Well I think the consensus global warming science is wrong now. Hopefully I can hang with the other side.

I am convinced that they do not treat people seriously enough who try to go against the consensus. It is like string theory - non-observable, non-repeatable, non-falsifiable, non-testable. They were saying it (AGW) since the '50s, when we really didn't have any evidence, perhaps to ease people's minds about nukes. There are definite financial incentives, such as vaccines and abortion services.

The charts that I relied on from the M.I.T. class were not conclusive enough to show a steady prediction.

Top Scientist Resigns Admitting Global Warming Is A Big Scam

I am not trying to tell anyone who to vote for but just taking a stand on this one issue.

You have no clue who Harold Lewis, do you.

Google is your friend.

How about you visit your google friend and ask him to provide you with some observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis and see how much of a friend he actually is...my bet is that he is going to leave you hanging.

 

[SSDD]

Yes, google is my friend. And regardless of me not knowing the way to go with climate science, I won't stand for hearsay if I detect it and I'm not bombarded with posts. Maybe I'm stupid compared with you guys; I don't know.

Harold Warren Lewis was an Emeritus Professor of Physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara. In 2010, after 67 years of membership, Lewis resigned from the American Physical Society, writing in a letter about the "corruption" from "the money flood" of government grants.

It says that right on google he worked as A Physicist for 67 years in what I'm confident was a top tier University. But what was interesting to me was the related articles in my link. However they are not the same links as when I first looked at it, so I had to just report about Harold Lewis.

Harold Lewis was far better educated than the vast vast majority of the climate pseudoscience community...and he was educated in a hard science.....climate science is a soft science for people who aren't good at math and can't really code...

If you wan't to see the state of climate pseudoscience for what it is in short order, start asking for observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the A in AGW...I have been asking for it for decades...any at all and to date, not the first bit has been produced...I have seen all sorts of stuff that isn't evendence of anything and some that is evidence of something, but not evidence that man is altering the global climate...what you mostly see is that climate science is founded on assumptions, supported by assumptions, and has no interest in going past that point because to do so would topple the while house of cards.

 

[SSDD]

Whatever... I don't know. I'm just enticed by conspiracy ideas against AGW mainstream and mathematical rigor that seems to be on the AGW mainstream side. It will probably take me a while to decide.

Start asking for actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW....you will quickly see that there is no science behind the curtain....just talk, assumptions, and failing models which require constant tweaking jus to keep up...

 

[Wuwei]

Whatever... I don't know. I'm just enticed by conspiracy ideas against AGW mainstream and mathematical rigor that seems to be on the AGW mainstream side. It will probably take me a while to decide.

Start asking for actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW....you will quickly see that there is no science behind the curtain....just talk, assumptions, and failing models which require constant tweaking jus to keep up...

Are you bringing that crap to this thread too? You were already shown the evidence in the thread you started.
In Support of the A in AGW

You keep harping on the same thing! You were given observed, measured quantified evidence that there is back radiation from the greenhouse gasses hitting earth. The only point you had in rebuttal is to lie about the laws of physics. You were soundly rebutted against that too.

 

[jc456]

Do you believe scientific theories demand proof? Yes or no.

yes, and we're all waiting for yours.

 

[jc456]

So if there are a thousand climate scientists in the USA -- a vast exaggeration of the number -- being paid billions and billions, they all must be getting paychecks in the millions, according to The Bri Theory.

So, still stark raving mad.

And can I disprove it? Well, not easily, no. Government salaries and state university salaries are public record. I think someone would have noticed any multimillion dollar salaries for professors, most especially the other professors. Nobody has checked the salary of every single scientist, but it theoretically could be done.

However, that's not how science works. The opposing "There are no multimillion dollar climate scientist salaries" theory, OTOH, is easily falsifiable. Just show such a salary. Hence, that theory is "real science".

where are the dollar amounts for the costs of their research? Who pays for the equipment used to test or create all the stupid models?

 

[jc456]

Whatever... I don't know. I'm just enticed by conspiracy ideas against AGW mainstream and mathematical rigor that seems to be on the AGW mainstream side. It will probably take me a while to decide.

Start asking for actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW....you will quickly see that there is no science behind the curtain....just talk, assumptions, and failing models which require constant tweaking jus to keep up...

Are you bringing that crap to this thread too? You were already shown the evidence in the thread you started.
In Support of the A in AGW

You keep harping on the same thing! You were given observed, measured quantified evidence that there is back radiation from the greenhouse gasses hitting earth. The only point you had in rebuttal is to lie about the laws of physics. You were soundly rebutted against that too.

there was, what post #? I missed that.

 

[jc456]

Well I think the consensus global warming science is wrong now. Hopefully I can hang with the other side.

I am convinced that they do not treat people seriously enough who try to go against the consensus. It is like string theory - non-observable, non-repeatable, non-falsifiable, non-testable. They were saying it (AGW) since the '50s, when we really didn't have any evidence, perhaps to ease people's minds about nukes. There are definite financial incentives, such as vaccines and abortion services.

The charts that I relied on from the M.I.T. class were not conclusive enough to show a steady prediction.

Top Scientist Resigns Admitting Global Warming Is A Big Scam

I am not trying to tell anyone who to vote for but just taking a stand on this one issue.

You have no clue who Harold Lewis, do you.

Google is your friend.

you must not understand the difference between observed and modeled. Funny,

 

[SSDD]

Whatever... I don't know. I'm just enticed by conspiracy ideas against AGW mainstream and mathematical rigor that seems to be on the AGW mainstream side. It will probably take me a while to decide.

Start asking for actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW....you will quickly see that there is no science behind the curtain....just talk, assumptions, and failing models which require constant tweaking jus to keep up...

Are you bringing that crap to this thread too? You were already shown the evidence in the thread you started.
In Support of the A in AGW

You keep harping on the same thing! You were given observed, measured quantified evidence that there is back radiation from the greenhouse gasses hitting earth. The only point you had in rebuttal is to lie about the laws of physics. You were soundly rebutted against that too.

Sorry, but you haven't shown any such thing....and I am not asking for observed, measured, quantified evidence of back radiation, I am asking for observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...you don't, apparently even know what I have been asking for but you are sure that someone has provided it...they haven't.

 

[SSDD]

Well I think the consensus global warming science is wrong now. Hopefully I can hang with the other side.

I am convinced that they do not treat people seriously enough who try to go against the consensus. It is like string theory - non-observable, non-repeatable, non-falsifiable, non-testable. They were saying it (AGW) since the '50s, when we really didn't have any evidence, perhaps to ease people's minds about nukes. There are definite financial incentives, such as vaccines and abortion services.

The charts that I relied on from the M.I.T. class were not conclusive enough to show a steady prediction.

Top Scientist Resigns Admitting Global Warming Is A Big Scam

I am not trying to tell anyone who to vote for but just taking a stand on this one issue.

You have no clue who Harold Lewis, do you.

Google is your friend.

you must not understand the difference between observed and modeled. Funny,

This whole thing has been very enlightening....it appears that they don't have the least idea of what observed, measured, quantified data collected out in the real world is....and what evidence that supports the A in AGW might look like...it really is little wonder that they have been so completely taken in by this scam...

 

[catatomic]

I basically think the math and conspiracy both look impressive; the real issue is between how impressive the math is or how impressive of a cover up it could have been. For instance if there is a chart is it the numbers I should pay attention to or how those numbers could have been hand-picked?

 

[SSDD]

I basically think the math and conspiracy both look impressive; the real issue is between how impressive the math is or how impressive of a cover up it could have been. For instance if there is a chart is it the numbers I should pay attention to or how those numbers could have been hand-picked?

The debate rages over Einstein's theory of relativity still after all these years....what do you want to bet that if the sort of money being thrown at climate change were thrown towards Einstein's theory and the bulk of the money went to those who wholeheartedly agree, that consensus would be reached on the theory in a New York minute...Nothing creates consensus like money...our whole legal system is based on that fact...

 

[Wuwei]

The debate rages over Einstein's theory of relativity still after all these years....

The relativity debate ended almost 100 years ago. There is no "raging" debate today. Try to choose better metaphors.