Reasons for Staying on the Fence with Respect to CAGW

Discussion in 'Environment' started by IanC, Nov 2, 2011.

  1. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,189
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,440
    Matt Ridley's informative lecture is worth reading. I hope a video comes out.

    - Bishop Hill blog - Scientific heresy

    some qoutes-

    I highly recommend reading the whole thing
     
  2. wirebender
    Offline

    wirebender Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,723
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +120
    The laws of physics don't support the hypothesis of AGW and years of observation are contrary to the claims precisely because the claims aren't supported by the laws of physics. When the laws of physics don't support a hypothesis, there is absolutely no reason to sit on the fence.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2011
  3. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,421
    Thanks Received:
    5,406
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,283
    LOL. Ol' Bent and physics do not mix. The whole of the American Institute of Physics states that ol' Bent doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
     
  4. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,421
    Thanks Received:
    5,406
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,283
    Ian, I did read the whole thing. And one of the other statements in that paper was that the climate predictions up to this point have been pretty much spot on. But he thinks that the coming years will see a decline in the rate of increase in the warming because of what he thinks the present climatologists have failed to include in their models. Within five years we will find out how well his hypothesis stands up.
     
  5. gslack
    Offline

    gslack Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,527
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +346
    Really? than you can show this mathematically? Theoretically? Yeah...:cuckoo:
     
  6. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,421
    Thanks Received:
    5,406
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,283
  7. gslack
    Offline

    gslack Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,527
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +346
    Oh goody gumdrops you pulled your "super sciency" link out of your ass for us...again...

    Shall I ask you the same questions I asked about it the last time you used it? You abandoned that thread as I recall...
     
  8. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,421
    Thanks Received:
    5,406
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,283
    Look, G-vig, you have been shown to be a brainless troll. Why should anyone try to answer your 'questions'? Go find some more 'vig' links.
     
  9. wirebender
    Offline

    wirebender Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,723
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +120
    I have read the whole thing rocks and went to the links attached to it and read them too. I will ask you for about the 100th time, which part of that do you believe constitutes proof of anything. You are never able to answer and yet you keep posting it. Clearly you don't see anything there that you believe amounts to any sort of proof or you would name it. Or perhaps you know that you would be laughed off the board if you actually stated what on that page you believe to be proof of anything.
     
  10. gslack
    Offline

    gslack Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,527
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +346
    On that link you posted why do all the links on the right say things like "more" or "simple models" as if they go to some evidence when they do not?

    Why does your so-called "scientific evidence" site send you on a wild goose chase when you try and reference their sources?

    I asked you these before and you ran like the little punk you are....
     

Share This Page