Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'm still waiting for your point. You say you have scientific fact, let us see it.Why do you wish to keep people in the dark if you have the factual material? You're one smart geologist/scientist. Still no point.who fake data to make money. your point?huh? what qualifies the peer review folks again? Who are they again?Quite on the contrary. Orogenicman is a published Geologist. I am but a millwright, and a student of geology. But both of us link to articles from peer reviewed journals, articles written by men who have spent decades studying this discipline. Whereas you people link to fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen. And take your spiels from an obese junkie on the AM radio.He happens to have the exact same credentials as Old Rocks
Real scientists, unlike you, JC (just crazy).
Yeah, because climatology will make you a gazillion dollars, more even than those poor destitute Koch brothers.
At ease with the conspiracy theories, just crazy.
This was beat to death in another thread. You know this can't be done in a laboratory. What you can do in a lab is show that GHGs have a "blanketing" effect and demonstrate GHG backscatter is viable.socks, why not post an experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures. Let's call a spade a spade shall we. You want to post this kind of strawman garbage then post up the experiment or stfu.
I'm still waiting for your point. You say you have scientific fact, let us see it.Why do you wish to keep people in the dark if you have the factual material? You're one smart geologist/scientist. Still no point.who fake data to make money. your point?huh? what qualifies the peer review folks again? Who are they again?Quite on the contrary. Orogenicman is a published Geologist. I am but a millwright, and a student of geology. But both of us link to articles from peer reviewed journals, articles written by men who have spent decades studying this discipline. Whereas you people link to fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen. And take your spiels from an obese junkie on the AM radio.
Real scientists, unlike you, JC (just crazy).
Yeah, because climatology will make you a gazillion dollars, more even than those poor destitute Koch brothers.
At ease with the conspiracy theories, just crazy.
Oh, and what is my political agenda? What is it you feel I'm trying to do other than get to the facts?
An experiment that would make JC happy cannot be done in a lab. That was all covered in a previous thread called “post the experiment” Read it there.why can't it be done in a laboratory?
Why can't you show us the increase in temperature cause by an additional 120PPM of CO2
And we're being EXTREMELY generous with you, because we're asking for an INSTANTANEOUS addition of 120PPM in a CLOSED SYSTEM and you still can't show any "warming"
how? If anyone is a troll it is the poster who claims he has scientific facts and can't produce one of them. That sir is definition of a troll. Me, I have my points and still are valid at this very moment.I'm still waiting for your point. You say you have scientific fact, let us see it.Why do you wish to keep people in the dark if you have the factual material? You're one smart geologist/scientist. Still no point.who fake data to make money. your point?huh? what qualifies the peer review folks again? Who are they again?
Real scientists, unlike you, JC (just crazy).
Yeah, because climatology will make you a gazillion dollars, more even than those poor destitute Koch brothers.
At ease with the conspiracy theories, just crazy.
Oh, and what is my political agenda? What is it you feel I'm trying to do other than get to the facts?
Troll.
huh? What do you mean? Ian posted what I'd like to see. Do you say that that request is outrageous based on the claims? Give me box like mythbusters had, take a reading. increase the CO2 by 20 PPM and take a reading, add another 20 PPM and another and another. Why is that sooooooo difficult to do? What is it one is afraid of that drives a reaction of insanity? Why do you need to be on a mountain or valley or on a boat at sea? why, seems very simple to me. Me, the fact there isn't one is my proof. I will stand by my proof. Which is the missing proof by those who claim that adding 120 PPM of CO2 causes a temperature increase.An experiment that would make JC happy cannot be done in a lab. That was all covered in a previous thread called “post the experiment” Read it there.why can't it be done in a laboratory?
Why can't you show us the increase in temperature cause by an additional 120PPM of CO2
And we're being EXTREMELY generous with you, because we're asking for an INSTANTANEOUS addition of 120PPM in a CLOSED SYSTEM and you still can't show any "warming"
In short to make jc happy the experiment would have to be done in a chamber miles high, with near absolute zero at the top of the chamber with simulated cross winds. Any experiment done in the lab would be smaller and require computational modeling to interpret the result to the real world, and you know how much deniers are upset about computational modeling.
An experiment that would make JC happy cannot be done in a lab. That was all covered in a previous thread called “post the experiment” Read it there.why can't it be done in a laboratory?
Why can't you show us the increase in temperature cause by an additional 120PPM of CO2
And we're being EXTREMELY generous with you, because we're asking for an INSTANTANEOUS addition of 120PPM in a CLOSED SYSTEM and you still can't show any "warming"
In short to make jc happy the experiment would have to be done in a chamber miles high, with near absolute zero at the top of the chamber with simulated cross winds. Any experiment done in the lab would be smaller and require computational modeling to interpret the result to the real world, and you know how much deniers are upset about computational modeling.
BTW, the next time you feel like making a statement of what I'd like, ask me and I'll tell you. Don't post some fictional drivel.An experiment that would make JC happy cannot be done in a lab. That was all covered in a previous thread called “post the experiment” Read it there.why can't it be done in a laboratory?
Why can't you show us the increase in temperature cause by an additional 120PPM of CO2
And we're being EXTREMELY generous with you, because we're asking for an INSTANTANEOUS addition of 120PPM in a CLOSED SYSTEM and you still can't show any "warming"
In short to make jc happy the experiment would have to be done in a chamber miles high, with near absolute zero at the top of the chamber with simulated cross winds. Any experiment done in the lab would be smaller and require computational modeling to interpret the result to the real world, and you know how much deniers are upset about computational modeling.
I might guess that most scientists understand modeling enough that they are satisfied in their predictions. If AGW is such a controversial cause, why don't you deniers find funding from the oil companies to demonstrate that CO2 does not cause increased warming.It's been 'beat to death' in numerous threads. The bottom line is that no experiment has been made public because any one that used increases in our normal range would show negligible results.This was beat to death in another thread. You know this can't be done in a laboratory. What you can do in a lab is show that GHGs have a "blanketing" effect and demonstrate GHG backscatter is viable.socks, why not post an experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures. Let's call a spade a spade shall we. You want to post this kind of strawman garbage then post up the experiment or stfu.
Run a test at 200,400,800,1600,3200... and graph the results. Does anyone doubt that many versions of this type of experiment have been done? Its exactly the type of thing university science majors do in first year. I fear the results would 'dilute the message'. trademark climate science
You already gave me your viewpoint. I'm just assuming that you meant what you said in the "post the experiment" thread.BTW, the next time you feel like making a statement of what I'd like, ask me and I'll tell you. Don't post some fictional drivel.
So is Warmer. They are both words that are only 6 letters and easy to type.Denier is a Cult word
In laboratory conditions, science already know how back scattering works. These types of absorption experiments were done long ago. Exponential attenuation of radiation is well known.huh? What do you mean? Ian posted what I'd like to see. Do you say that that request is outrageous based on the claims? Give me box like mythbusters had, take a reading. increase the CO2 by 20 PPM and take a reading, add another 20 PPM and another and another. Why is that sooooooo difficult to do? What is it one is afraid of that drives a reaction of insanity? Why do you need to be on a mountain or valley or on a boat at sea? why, seems very simple to me. Me, the fact there isn't one is my proof. I will stand by my proof. Which is the missing proof by those who claim that adding 120 PPM of CO2 causes a temperature increase.
sure it is. Wow I really thought you had some potential and then you fall into the normal warmer rants. Models. I don't want a model that has already failed to show me what isn't going to happen although they think it might. Sorry. Oh, BTW, the solution to the warmer rant is to ask for money. For what? What will the money do? I've been waiting for those details as well. To make accusations and have zero backing calling humans out for something you have no proof of said accusation is fraud. Anytime you feel you really give a shit about this then you just start posting about things that are logical and actually follow science.In laboratory conditions, science already know how back scattering works. These types of absorption experiments were done long ago. Exponential attenuation of radiation is well known.huh? What do you mean? Ian posted what I'd like to see. Do you say that that request is outrageous based on the claims? Give me box like mythbusters had, take a reading. increase the CO2 by 20 PPM and take a reading, add another 20 PPM and another and another. Why is that sooooooo difficult to do? What is it one is afraid of that drives a reaction of insanity? Why do you need to be on a mountain or valley or on a boat at sea? why, seems very simple to me. Me, the fact there isn't one is my proof. I will stand by my proof. Which is the missing proof by those who claim that adding 120 PPM of CO2 causes a temperature increase.
(Warning. Extreme hyperbole) Asking for a lab experiment of this sort is like piling a bunch of one inch cubes, and checking that the height of the pile is equal to the number of blocks times one inch. Legitimate scientists don't want to waste their time. As ionc said, why hasn't a university student done it, if you guys have such a stake in it.
I might guess that most scientists understand modeling enough that they are satisfied in their predictions. If AGW is such a controversial cause, why don't you deniers find funding from the oil companies to demonstrate that CO2 does not cause increased warming.It's been 'beat to death' in numerous threads. The bottom line is that no experiment has been made public because any one that used increases in our normal range would show negligible results.This was beat to death in another thread. You know this can't be done in a laboratory. What you can do in a lab is show that GHGs have a "blanketing" effect and demonstrate GHG backscatter is viable.socks, why not post an experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures. Let's call a spade a spade shall we. You want to post this kind of strawman garbage then post up the experiment or stfu.
Run a test at 200,400,800,1600,3200... and graph the results. Does anyone doubt that many versions of this type of experiment have been done? Its exactly the type of thing university science majors do in first year. I fear the results would 'dilute the message'. trademark climate science
Yes, for you guys, it is also exactly the type of thing university science majors do in first year. Wouldn't you love it if a definitive experiment was published that showed AGW was all a farce? C'mon, do the experiment and post the experiment.
I knew you had nothing. common warmer failure. WINNINGWhat data or testimony are you using to come to your conclusion?ever hear of evidence? I'd be more scared to see you on a jury, you couldn't move along with the arguments, you'd choose a position and no matter the data or testimony by others, you'd berate them and call them all liars because they didn't agree with the position you take. Funny thing reality when shown in full bloom. You are a parrott, puppet and what ever other names are out there for someone too stupid to think for themselves and look at the actual evidence or lack of it. Nope I'd be more liked. I was once a foreman and found the defendant not guilty. Not enough evidence. I am consistent as hell brother.dude, I've never ever once made a claim of being a scientist. I've even stated that my knowledge is slim. But, I am a thought producing individual and I look at reality as a person who has knowledge of other things and I can interpret data since I do it for a living. So, not sure why one needs to be a scientist to understand data. Please provide me some context into why that is a requirement? I also absorb others data and use logic. And logic says to me, if you don't know where life begins, how can you claim finality of how it is? Please explain that?how do you know? That's a flippin bold ass statement to make. You don't know who he is, again, you're just a terd on a message board stinking up the place with bullshit.
It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that someone who claims to be a scientist and yet doesn't understand the first think about science is not telling the truth. You for instance...
How can a person like you ever sit on a jury? Without seeing the person commit murder with your own eyes, how will you decide? By looking at the mountains of evidence that all suggests evolution is real. In fact its pretty much a fact. Even the pope believes. Why dont you?
You are reading way to much into what I said.Hahahaha. I guess your true colors are coming out now, eh?
I'm a big oil funded denier? Hahahaha.
Straw man? Ad hominem? Seems like you are creating the straw man and attacking me. Yes, I agree I sounded cynical, but I bet there is a lot of potential money available for a university student experiment. I can not see the government being interested in funding it because they already have the consensus they need. But I really can see some sort of denial institution wanting to prove that once and for all that an increased CO2 density will not increase GW. This is serious question that you should consider. Maybe a state grant would work. Why hasn't that been done?How typical of you bozos. It doesn't matter how often you are told what the skeptic's position is, you always fall back on straw man arguments and ad hominem.
dude, so you say that a claim not backed by evidence is my job to prove? Are you fnn insane. You wish to make a claim, prove it. It isn't my job to prove something doesn't happen, it is yours and your pals to show it does. again, why does the government solution start with asking for money?You are reading way to much into what I said.Hahahaha. I guess your true colors are coming out now, eh?
I'm a big oil funded denier? Hahahaha.
Straw man? Ad hominem? Seems like you are creating the straw man and attacking me. Yes, I agree I sounded cynical, but I bet there is a lot of potential money available for a university student experiment. I can not see the government being interested in funding it because they already have the consensus they need. But I really can see some sort of denial institution wanting to prove that once and for all that an increased CO2 density will not increase GW. This is serious question that you should consider. Maybe a state grant would work. Why hasn't that been done?How typical of you bozos. It doesn't matter how often you are told what the skeptic's position is, you always fall back on straw man arguments and ad hominem.
dude, so you say that a claim not backed by evidence is my job to prove? Are you fnn insane. You wish to make a claim, prove it. It isn't my job to prove something doesn't happen, it is yours and your pals to show it does. again, why does the government solution start with asking for money?You are reading way to much into what I said.Hahahaha. I guess your true colors are coming out now, eh?
I'm a big oil funded denier? Hahahaha.
Straw man? Ad hominem? Seems like you are creating the straw man and attacking me. Yes, I agree I sounded cynical, but I bet there is a lot of potential money available for a university student experiment. I can not see the government being interested in funding it because they already have the consensus they need. But I really can see some sort of denial institution wanting to prove that once and for all that an increased CO2 density will not increase GW. This is serious question that you should consider. Maybe a state grant would work. Why hasn't that been done?How typical of you bozos. It doesn't matter how often you are told what the skeptic's position is, you always fall back on straw man arguments and ad hominem.
huh? Gawd the mis representation by you warmers is unprecedented. What is my position? I have explained to you and every other warmer on here my position. It is in here probably over a thousand times. Show me that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. I'm waiting.dude, so you say that a claim not backed by evidence is my job to prove? Are you fnn insane. You wish to make a claim, prove it. It isn't my job to prove something doesn't happen, it is yours and your pals to show it does. again, why does the government solution start with asking for money?You are reading way to much into what I said.Hahahaha. I guess your true colors are coming out now, eh?
I'm a big oil funded denier? Hahahaha.
Straw man? Ad hominem? Seems like you are creating the straw man and attacking me. Yes, I agree I sounded cynical, but I bet there is a lot of potential money available for a university student experiment. I can not see the government being interested in funding it because they already have the consensus they need. But I really can see some sort of denial institution wanting to prove that once and for all that an increased CO2 density will not increase GW. This is serious question that you should consider. Maybe a state grant would work. Why hasn't that been done?How typical of you bozos. It doesn't matter how often you are told what the skeptic's position is, you always fall back on straw man arguments and ad hominem.
You are the one questioning whether or not CO2 in the atmosphere is truly a greenhouse gas. It's your question. You go find the answer, if you dare.
