the Piwd Pipers of Denialism

[westwall]

That's fucking laughable....send those who "deny" to a gulag until they comply?

Claims of imaginary persecution? Check.

Handwaving away actual discussion? Check.

Sucky logic? Check.

Yep, looks like we got another political cultist here. They try to hide it, but if you poke them for a bit, they always let it slip.

Let's go over again the discussion that Si Modo was running from.

1. Heat balance measurements show more heat coming into earth than going out. That causes warming.
2. That heat imbalance is caused by greenhouse gases. We see the outgoing IR shutting down over the CO2 absorption frequencies.
3. Those greenhouse gases are made by humans.

Hence, humans are causing global warming. There's not a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" anywhere to be seen in there. It's a solid logic chain, and you have to show one of the premises is incorrect to break the chain.

You can argue about the scale of the warming, about the consequences, about the economics. However, given the current data, no rational person now denies that humans are causing some warming.

Not one of your assertions is verified by observation. Now piss off. You have zero credibility.

 

[Si modo]

That's fucking laughable....send those who "deny" to a gulag until they comply?

Claims of imaginary persecution? Check.

Handwaving away actual discussion? Check.

Sucky logic? Check.

Yep, looks like we got another political cultist here. They try to hide it, but if you poke them for a bit, they always let it slip.

Let's go over again the discussion that Si Modo was running from.

1. Heat balance measurements show more heat coming into earth than going out. That causes warming.
2. That heat imbalance is caused by greenhouse gases. We see the outgoing IR shutting down over the CO2 absorption frequencies.
3. Those greenhouse gases are made by humans.

Hence, humans are causing global warming. There's not a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" anywhere to be seen in there. It's a solid logic chain, and you have to show one of the premises is incorrect to break the chain.

You can argue about the scale of the warming, about the consequences, about the economics. However, given the current data, no rational person now denies that humans are causing some warming.

No citations for your claims?





Another asswipe with nothing but cheap talk.

 

[mamooth]

First, you need to state that the logic chain is valid. Not wasting any time until you do.

I've spent too much time posting detailed references, just to watch the denialist weasels wave their hands, make some excuses as to why it doesn't matter, and then slither back into their crevices. Westy there is a world-renowned expert on being that type of whiny little bitch.

So, up for that, or are you "just another asswipe with nothing but cheap talk".

Of course, given that I'm holding the standard position and you're the contrarian, it's really your job to prove your case. It's like you're demanding I document gravity to prove it exists. But hey, if you're nice I'll play along.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, next Sis is going into her 'correlation does not equal causation' spiel. Totally ignoring that the causation, in this case, the absorption spectra of the GHGs was established before there was measureable global warming to corelate with.

Hmmm........... Interesting that Sis dislikes the American Chemical Society. Mybe it is because they do real science.

ACS Climate Science Toolkit -- 1

 

[Si modo]

First, you need to state that the logic chain is valid. Not wasting any time until you do.

I've spent too much time posting detailed references, just to watch the denialist weasels wave their hands, make some excuses as to why it doesn't matter, and then slither back into their crevices. Westy there is a world-renowned expert on being that type of whiny little bitch.

So, up for that, or are you "just another asswipe with nothing but cheap talk".

Of course, given that I'm holding the standard position and you're the contrarian, it's really your job to prove your case. It's like you're demanding I document gravity to prove it exists. But hey, if you're nice I'll play along.

Well, forgive me, but until I see that the state of the science allows of some conclusion about the significance and magnitude of man made CO2 causing any warming, I'm not buying a thing.

Now, YOU post a cute little ditty that "obviously" makes sense to anyone, yet there has yet to be any science (not ditties) that allows for a conclusion about the significance and magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

If you believe your "logic" is correct, get started on a paper, submit it to a scientific journal, have it peer-reviewed, and then I guess we can call this all settled.

 

[Si modo]

Well, next Sis is going into her 'correlation does not equal causation' spiel. Totally ignoring that the causation, in this case, the absorption spectra of the GHGs was established before there was measureable global warming to corelate with.

Hmmm........... Interesting that Sis dislikes the American Chemical Society. Mybe it is because they do real science.

ACS Climate Science Toolkit -- 1

Correlation does not equal causation. Fact.

I'm sorry that bothers you so much.

 

[westwall]

Well, next Sis is going into her 'correlation does not equal causation' spiel. Totally ignoring that the causation, in this case, the absorption spectra of the GHGs was established before there was measureable global warming to corelate with.

Hmmm........... Interesting that Sis dislikes the American Chemical Society. Mybe it is because they do real science.

ACS Climate Science Toolkit -- 1

Correlation does not equal causation. Fact.

I'm sorry that bothers you so much.

A fundamental axiom of science.....which the AGW cultists allways seem to ignore.

 

[Dubya]

What does a "denier" deny?

Denying, what else!

 

[mamooth]

If you believe your "logic" is correct, get started on a paper, submit it to a scientific journal, have it peer-reviewed, and then I guess we can call this all settled.

"Human action" = A
"Increased CO2" = B
"Warming" = C

A -> B and B -> C, therefore A -> C

That's the logic chain which you think requires a peer-reviewed paper. An honest person could have simply said it was valid logic. Alas, denialists know they'll need room to squirm, wiggle and weasel once the facts are presented, hence the contortions they go into to deny simple logic.

 

[Intense]

(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");

Trakar, What exactly is that number?

Is it safe to go (+ -) 5 Degrees Fahrenheit to compensate for error? Who should we start killing off first to balance out CO2 levels?

I have a Theory. Let's blame Genetic Engineering.

 

[mamooth]

Correlation does not equal causation. Fact.

I'm sorry that bothers you so much.

Nah. What bothers us is you and Westy lying by claiming we're using such arguments.

But please, if you're not lying, please explain how how my arguments fit that category. Explain how directly measuring something equates to "correlation is causation". According to the fuktard logic you and Westy embrace, stepping on a scale to read your weight is using "correlation is causation."

It's the "natural cycles" crowd like Westy who rely almost exclusively on correlation-is-causation arguments. They'll superimpose some phenomenon on the temperature data, see that it sort of matches, and claim "Aha! Natural cycle!", based 100% on the correlation-is-causation fallacy. They don't attempt to show a reproducible physical mechanism, nor do they make falsifiable predictions. In contrast, AGW scientists provide reproducible physical mechanisms and make falsifiable predictions, none of which have been falsified.

 

[westwall]

Correlation does not equal causation. Fact.

I'm sorry that bothers you so much.

Nah. What bothers us is you and Westy lying by claiming we're using such arguments.

But please, if you're not lying, please explain how how my arguments fit that category. Explain how directly measuring something equates to "correlation is causation". According to the fuktard logic you and Westy embrace, stepping on a scale to read your weight is using "correlation is causation."

It's the "natural cycles" crowd like Westy who rely almost exclusively on correlation-is-causation arguments. They'll superimpose some phenomenon on the temperature data, see that it sort of matches, and claim "Aha! Natural cycle!", based 100% on the correlation-is-causation fallacy. They don't attempt to show a reproducible physical mechanism, nor do they make falsifiable predictions. In contrast, AGW scientists provide reproducible physical mechanisms and make falsifiable predictions, none of which have been falsified.

You are amazing in your adherence to propaganda and your lack of scientific literacy. I am a geologist and look back over the 5 billion year history of the planet to make my arguments. You asshats take the last 30 years and concoct a whole mythology to support your Stalinist ideals.

 

[Si modo]

Correlation does not equal causation. Fact.

I'm sorry that bothers you so much.

Nah. What bothers us is you and Westy lying by claiming we're using such arguments.

But please, if you're not lying, please explain how how my arguments fit that category. Explain how directly measuring something equates to "correlation is causation". According to the fuktard logic you and Westy embrace, stepping on a scale to read your weight is using "correlation is causation."

It's the "natural cycles" crowd like Westy who rely almost exclusively on correlation-is-causation arguments. They'll superimpose some phenomenon on the temperature data, see that it sort of matches, and claim "Aha! Natural cycle!", based 100% on the correlation-is-causation fallacy. They don't attempt to show a reproducible physical mechanism, nor do they make falsifiable predictions. In contrast, AGW scientists provide reproducible physical mechanisms and make falsifiable predictions, none of which have been falsified.

What can I say except that correlation does not equal causation. I'm sorry that you don't understand that, either.

A bunch of scientific illiterates at this site, I see.

 

[IanC]

Correlation does not equal causation. Fact.

I'm sorry that bothers you so much.

Nah. What bothers us is you and Westy lying by claiming we're using such arguments.

But please, if you're not lying, please explain how how my arguments fit that category. Explain how directly measuring something equates to "correlation is causation". According to the fuktard logic you and Westy embrace, stepping on a scale to read your weight is using "correlation is causation."

It's the "natural cycles" crowd like Westy who rely almost exclusively on correlation-is-causation arguments. They'll superimpose some phenomenon on the temperature data, see that it sort of matches, and claim "Aha! Natural cycle!", based 100% on the correlation-is-causation fallacy. They don't attempt to show a reproducible physical mechanism, nor do they make falsifiable predictions. In contrast, AGW scientists provide reproducible physical mechanisms and make falsifiable predictions, none of which have been falsified.

????? all of the predictions have been falsified so far. that is why we need to spread a wider net to find the driving factors of climate change.

 

[mamooth]

What can I say except that correlation does not equal causation.

At least you got that right. As in, you literally can't say anything else except that mantra, no matter how inapplicable to the situation it is. It's kind of bizarre, given how Westwall here is the only one actually using the tactic.

A bunch of scientific illiterates at this site, I see.

We clearly understand the concept, given how we keep pointing out how badly you misuse it. You have a poor grasp of logic, and that fatally handicaps you on these scientific topics.

Your type is common, an engineer or some other techie type who has delusions about being just as wise as those scientists are. No. Some tech courses in college do not make a scientist, nor does working in a tech field.

 

[mamooth]

????? all of the predictions have been falsified so far.

Say what? Where did you get such a notion? Please, tell us about all these falsified predictions.

The temp predictions from at he AGW side were spot-on correct. Polar amplification was correctly predicted. Stratospheric cooling. Hadley cell expansion. A bunch of non-intuitive things were predicted correctly. I am unaware of any big misses. I am aware of things the denialists claim were predicted that weren't actually predicted, but that's their problem.

The AGW scientists have been making falsifiable predictions that were proven correct for decades, hence they have a lot of credibility now. The denialist side either just refuses to make predictions, or makes predictions that fail. That's yet another reason why the denialist side has so little credibilty.

 

[mamooth]

You asshats take the last 30 years and concoct a whole mythology to support your Stalinist ideals.

When you fling out something that retarded, you reveal yourself as the gibbering political cultist that you are.

You stink at science. It really is that simple. We point out how bad you suck, and that sends you raging. You're another techie who has delusions about understanding science. Dunning-Kruger in action, the way you lack the intelligence to understand that you lack the intelligence.

 

[Si modo]

If you believe your "logic" is correct, get started on a paper, submit it to a scientific journal, have it peer-reviewed, and then I guess we can call this all settled.

"Human action" = A
"Increased CO2" = B
"Warming" = C

A -> B and B -> C, therefore A -> C

That's the logic chain which you think requires a peer-reviewed paper. An honest person could have simply said it was valid logic. Alas, denialists know they'll need room to squirm, wiggle and weasel once the facts are presented, hence the contortions they go into to deny simple logic.

If it is just that easy, why is there NO scientific paper that is saying the same thing? Why is there no conclusion, one way or the other, about the significance and magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming?

Get writing on a paper, submit it to a scientific journal for peer review, and get published.

Afraid? Because what your posting is not science, but as a scientific illiterate, you aren't aware of that.

 

[Si modo]

You asshats take the last 30 years and concoct a whole mythology to support your Stalinist ideals.

When you fling out something that retarded, you reveal yourself as the gibbering political cultist that you are.

You stink at science. It really is that simple. We point out how bad you suck, and that sends you raging. You're another techie who has delusions about understanding science. Dunning-Kruger in action, the way you lack the intelligence to understand that you lack the intelligence.

How rich....a scientific illiterate telling a scientist he stinks at science.

 

[mamooth]

Why is there no conclusion, one way or the other, about the significance and magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming?

Synthesis Report Home

And that's just the most massive one. What you're demanding is out there.