The "Science is settled" narrative is STOOPID

[jc456]

So turns out, Einsteins "Theory of Relativity", based upon the speed of light may have been wrong after all!!!!

When Science Is Wrong The Threat of Truth by Consensus PJ Media


Would Einstein, were he alive, try to shut out any new scientific possibilities? Based upon many, many statements he made during his life............no way!!!


Albert Einstein Quotes - 183 Science Quotes - Dictionary of Science Quotations and Scientist Quotes



But climate science is "settled"????

duh





Meanwhile, despite volumes of evidence in the scientific community that puts into question the validity of AGW, the AGW climate crusaders refuse to recognize any science other than their own science.

Fred Dyson, the most brilliant physicist on the planet in the 1950's and who took over for Einstein at Princeton after he died, said THIS >> “I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic,” Dyson said.

Dyson also said THIS >>>

But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.

“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”

A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.

“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”



In other words, these people are so full of shit, its not even real.


Religion? Most definitely.

Science? Most definitely....................not.

The brilliancy of science is not that it is always "right" but that it can change when new evidence comes along. Scientific theories are theories that give the best explanation to fit the available facts at the time. For example Mendel and genetics. We know now that some of his ideas on how it worked were wrong - new technology constantly opens up new avenues for research that challanges our theories. Sometimes it overturns them, sometimes it just changes parts of them (like Mendel's theory of heredity).

Scientific consensus is a consensus is also based upon a large body of evidence supporting certain conclusions and in the case of anthropogenic climate change that body comes from a variety of disciplines. When something is "settled science" that doesn't mean it's unchanging. Evolution as a core principle, is "settled science" but a lot of the details are still changing and there are still a lot of unanswered questions. Likewise, the idea that human activities are influencing climate has become pretty much "settled science" though the degree to which that is occuring is still under debate.

What's funny is all we asked for was an experiment and yet the left on here can't produce one that proves whatever it is they want to prove. I don't even think they know anymore!

 

[jc456]

Computer models are only as reliable as the facts coded into them. But climate change isn't based on computer models or anything other than the very simplest observations like how low-lying islands are now under water. How sea levels are rising. How it's getting warmer in places where it shouldn't like Alaska.

A computer model can say whatever the programmer wants it to say. But you can't spoof Nature.

How many low lying islands are now under water? And are we sure they are not underwater because too many people caused them to sink as suggested by one Democrat representative?

Entire nation of Kiribati to be relocated over rising sea level threat - Telegraph

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

I take it you have stock in flotation device companies?

Why are you drowning?

 

[jc456]

Laugh out loud all night long and this one ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha

Calm down. We don't want you to choke on all that spittle. And clean off your keyboard while your at it.

Ok...do you have a grip now?

What about the data that isn't computer models?

Wow arswipe that was pretty good

We seem to have a communication problem. Do I need to dumb down the question further? (not sure if that is possible).

Yeah I notice you're a bit confused it's normal for the folks on the left to feel that way since they don't even know what they're arguing anymore! Ha ha Ha ha ha it is funny, funny as hell dude

 

[Coyote]

Laugh out loud all night long and this one ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha

Calm down. We don't want you to choke on all that spittle. And clean off your keyboard while your at it.

Ok...do you have a grip now?

What about the data that isn't computer models?

Wow arswipe that was pretty good

We seem to have a communication problem. Do I need to dumb down the question further? (not sure if that is possible).

Yeah I notice you're a bit confused it's normal for the folks on the left to feel that way since they don't even know what they're arguing anymore! Ha ha Ha ha ha it is funny, funny as hell dude

Let's give it another try shall we?

What about the data that isn't computer models?

 

[jc456]

So turns out, Einsteins "Theory of Relativity", based upon the speed of light may have been wrong after all!!!!

When Science Is Wrong The Threat of Truth by Consensus PJ Media


Would Einstein, were he alive, try to shut out any new scientific possibilities? Based upon many, many statements he made during his life............no way!!!


Albert Einstein Quotes - 183 Science Quotes - Dictionary of Science Quotations and Scientist Quotes



But climate science is "settled"????

duh





Meanwhile, despite volumes of evidence in the scientific community that puts into question the validity of AGW, the AGW climate crusaders refuse to recognize any science other than their own science.

Fred Dyson, the most brilliant physicist on the planet in the 1950's and who took over for Einstein at Princeton after he died, said THIS >> “I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic,” Dyson said.

Dyson also said THIS >>>

But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.

“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”

A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.

“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”



In other words, these people are so full of shit, its not even real.


Religion? Most definitely.

Science? Most definitely....................not.

The brilliancy of science is not that it is always "right" but that it can change when new evidence comes along. Scientific theories are theories that give the best explanation to fit the available facts at the time. For example Mendel and genetics. We know now that some of his ideas on how it worked were wrong - new technology constantly opens up new avenues for research that challanges our theories. Sometimes it overturns them, sometimes it just changes parts of them (like Mendel's theory of heredity).

Scientific consensus is a consensus is also based upon a large body of evidence supporting certain conclusions and in the case of anthropogenic climate change that body comes from a variety of disciplines. When something is "settled science" that doesn't mean it's unchanging. Evolution as a core principle, is "settled science" but a lot of the details are still changing and there are still a lot of unanswered questions. Likewise, the idea that human activities are influencing climate has become pretty much "settled science" though the degree to which that is occuring is still under debate.

By the way you mention the word evidence in this post it sure would be nice if you guys could ever just supply one piece of evidence but that's okay we've come to expect that you don't have any

 

[Coyote]

.

So turns out, Einsteins "Theory of Relativity", based upon the speed of light may have been wrong after all!!!!

When Science Is Wrong The Threat of Truth by Consensus PJ Media


Would Einstein, were he alive, try to shut out any new scientific possibilities? Based upon many, many statements he made during his life............no way!!!


Albert Einstein Quotes - 183 Science Quotes - Dictionary of Science Quotations and Scientist Quotes



But climate science is "settled"????

duh





Meanwhile, despite volumes of evidence in the scientific community that puts into question the validity of AGW, the AGW climate crusaders refuse to recognize any science other than their own science.

Fred Dyson, the most brilliant physicist on the planet in the 1950's and who took over for Einstein at Princeton after he died, said THIS >> “I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic,” Dyson said.

Dyson also said THIS >>>

But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.

“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”

A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.

“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”



In other words, these people are so full of shit, its not even real.


Religion? Most definitely.

Science? Most definitely....................not.

The brilliancy of science is not that it is always "right" but that it can change when new evidence comes along. Scientific theories are theories that give the best explanation to fit the available facts at the time. For example Mendel and genetics. We know now that some of his ideas on how it worked were wrong - new technology constantly opens up new avenues for research that challanges our theories. Sometimes it overturns them, sometimes it just changes parts of them (like Mendel's theory of heredity).

Scientific consensus is a consensus is also based upon a large body of evidence supporting certain conclusions and in the case of anthropogenic climate change that body comes from a variety of disciplines. When something is "settled science" that doesn't mean it's unchanging. Evolution as a core principle, is "settled science" but a lot of the details are still changing and there are still a lot of unanswered questions. Likewise, the idea that human activities are influencing climate has become pretty much "settled science" though the degree to which that is occuring is still under debate.

What's funny is all we asked for was an experiment and yet the left on here can't produce one that proves whatever it is they want to prove. I don't even think they know anymore!

Experiment for what?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Laugh out loud all night long and this one ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha

Calm down. We don't want you to choke on all that spittle. And clean off your keyboard while your at it.

Ok...do you have a grip now?

What about the data that isn't computer models?

Wow arswipe that was pretty good

We seem to have a communication problem. Do I need to dumb down the question further? (not sure if that is possible).

Yeah I notice you're a bit confused it's normal for the folks on the left to feel that way since they don't even know what they're arguing anymore! Ha ha Ha ha ha it is funny, funny as hell dude

I know right? How about this one:

 

[jc456]

Laugh out loud all night long and this one ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha

Calm down. We don't want you to choke on all that spittle. And clean off your keyboard while your at it.

Ok...do you have a grip now?

What about the data that isn't computer models?

Wow arswipe that was pretty good

We seem to have a communication problem. Do I need to dumb down the question further? (not sure if that is possible).

Yeah I notice you're a bit confused it's normal for the folks on the left to feel that way since they don't even know what they're arguing anymore! Ha ha Ha ha ha it is funny, funny as hell dude

Let's give it another try shall we?

What about the data that isn't computer models?

I told you it's fabricated what is the problem with that? you don't understand Fabricated?

 

[jc456]

Laugh out loud all night long and this one ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha

Calm down. We don't want you to choke on all that spittle. And clean off your keyboard while your at it.

Ok...do you have a grip now?

What about the data that isn't computer models?

Wow arswipe that was pretty good

We seem to have a communication problem. Do I need to dumb down the question further? (not sure if that is possible).

Yeah I notice you're a bit confused it's normal for the folks on the left to feel that way since they don't even know what they're arguing anymore! Ha ha Ha ha ha it is funny, funny as hell dude

I know right? How about this one:

Good for you

 

[jc456]

.

So turns out, Einsteins "Theory of Relativity", based upon the speed of light may have been wrong after all!!!!

When Science Is Wrong The Threat of Truth by Consensus PJ Media


Would Einstein, were he alive, try to shut out any new scientific possibilities? Based upon many, many statements he made during his life............no way!!!


Albert Einstein Quotes - 183 Science Quotes - Dictionary of Science Quotations and Scientist Quotes



But climate science is "settled"????

duh





Meanwhile, despite volumes of evidence in the scientific community that puts into question the validity of AGW, the AGW climate crusaders refuse to recognize any science other than their own science.

Fred Dyson, the most brilliant physicist on the planet in the 1950's and who took over for Einstein at Princeton after he died, said THIS >> “I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic,” Dyson said.

Dyson also said THIS >>>

But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.

“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”

A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.

“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”



In other words, these people are so full of shit, its not even real.


Religion? Most definitely.

Science? Most definitely....................not.

The brilliancy of science is not that it is always "right" but that it can change when new evidence comes along. Scientific theories are theories that give the best explanation to fit the available facts at the time. For example Mendel and genetics. We know now that some of his ideas on how it worked were wrong - new technology constantly opens up new avenues for research that challanges our theories. Sometimes it overturns them, sometimes it just changes parts of them (like Mendel's theory of heredity).

Scientific consensus is a consensus is also based upon a large body of evidence supporting certain conclusions and in the case of anthropogenic climate change that body comes from a variety of disciplines. When something is "settled science" that doesn't mean it's unchanging. Evolution as a core principle, is "settled science" but a lot of the details are still changing and there are still a lot of unanswered questions. Likewise, the idea that human activities are influencing climate has become pretty much "settled science" though the degree to which that is occuring is still under debate.

What's funny is all we asked for was an experiment and yet the left on here can't produce one that proves whatever it is they want to prove. I don't even think they know anymore!

Experiment for what?

You're a bit late to the party aren't you?

 

[Coyote]

Calm down. We don't want you to choke on all that spittle. And clean off your keyboard while your at it.

Ok...do you have a grip now?

What about the data that isn't computer models?

Wow arswipe that was pretty good

We seem to have a communication problem. Do I need to dumb down the question further? (not sure if that is possible).

Yeah I notice you're a bit confused it's normal for the folks on the left to feel that way since they don't even know what they're arguing anymore! Ha ha Ha ha ha it is funny, funny as hell dude

Let's give it another try shall we?

What about the data that isn't computer models?

I told you it's fabricated what is the problem with that? you don't understand Fabricated?

So all that data like ice-core samples, receding glaciers, ocean acidification is fabricated? Wow. That's a hell of a job they've done. How'd they pull it off?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Calm down. We don't want you to choke on all that spittle. And clean off your keyboard while your at it.

Ok...do you have a grip now?

What about the data that isn't computer models?

Wow arswipe that was pretty good

We seem to have a communication problem. Do I need to dumb down the question further? (not sure if that is possible).

Yeah I notice you're a bit confused it's normal for the folks on the left to feel that way since they don't even know what they're arguing anymore! Ha ha Ha ha ha it is funny, funny as hell dude

I know right? How about this one:

Good for you

Thanks!

I know, science can be hard for republicunts. It's okay.

 

[Coyote]

.

So turns out, Einsteins "Theory of Relativity", based upon the speed of light may have been wrong after all!!!!

When Science Is Wrong The Threat of Truth by Consensus PJ Media


Would Einstein, were he alive, try to shut out any new scientific possibilities? Based upon many, many statements he made during his life............no way!!!


Albert Einstein Quotes - 183 Science Quotes - Dictionary of Science Quotations and Scientist Quotes



But climate science is "settled"????

duh





Meanwhile, despite volumes of evidence in the scientific community that puts into question the validity of AGW, the AGW climate crusaders refuse to recognize any science other than their own science.

Fred Dyson, the most brilliant physicist on the planet in the 1950's and who took over for Einstein at Princeton after he died, said THIS >> “I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic,” Dyson said.

Dyson also said THIS >>>

But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.

“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”

A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.

“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”



In other words, these people are so full of shit, its not even real.


Religion? Most definitely.

Science? Most definitely....................not.

The brilliancy of science is not that it is always "right" but that it can change when new evidence comes along. Scientific theories are theories that give the best explanation to fit the available facts at the time. For example Mendel and genetics. We know now that some of his ideas on how it worked were wrong - new technology constantly opens up new avenues for research that challanges our theories. Sometimes it overturns them, sometimes it just changes parts of them (like Mendel's theory of heredity).

Scientific consensus is a consensus is also based upon a large body of evidence supporting certain conclusions and in the case of anthropogenic climate change that body comes from a variety of disciplines. When something is "settled science" that doesn't mean it's unchanging. Evolution as a core principle, is "settled science" but a lot of the details are still changing and there are still a lot of unanswered questions. Likewise, the idea that human activities are influencing climate has become pretty much "settled science" though the degree to which that is occuring is still under debate.

What's funny is all we asked for was an experiment and yet the left on here can't produce one that proves whatever it is they want to prove. I don't even think they know anymore!

Experiment for what?

You're a bit late to the party aren't you?

There are a whole lot of scientific theories that aren't backed by a specific experiment.
Evolution
Gravity
Big Bang
Hubbles Law of Cosmic Expansion
Keplars Laws of Planetary Motion
Einstein's Theory of General Relativity

You going to say that because it lacks an experiment proving the theory that gravity doesn't exist?

 

[Coyote]

So turns out, Einsteins "Theory of Relativity", based upon the speed of light may have been wrong after all!!!!

When Science Is Wrong The Threat of Truth by Consensus PJ Media


Would Einstein, were he alive, try to shut out any new scientific possibilities? Based upon many, many statements he made during his life............no way!!!


Albert Einstein Quotes - 183 Science Quotes - Dictionary of Science Quotations and Scientist Quotes



But climate science is "settled"????

duh





Meanwhile, despite volumes of evidence in the scientific community that puts into question the validity of AGW, the AGW climate crusaders refuse to recognize any science other than their own science.

Fred Dyson, the most brilliant physicist on the planet in the 1950's and who took over for Einstein at Princeton after he died, said THIS >> “I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic,” Dyson said.

Dyson also said THIS >>>

But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.

“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”

A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.

“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”



In other words, these people are so full of shit, its not even real.


Religion? Most definitely.

Science? Most definitely....................not.

The brilliancy of science is not that it is always "right" but that it can change when new evidence comes along. Scientific theories are theories that give the best explanation to fit the available facts at the time. For example Mendel and genetics. We know now that some of his ideas on how it worked were wrong - new technology constantly opens up new avenues for research that challanges our theories. Sometimes it overturns them, sometimes it just changes parts of them (like Mendel's theory of heredity).

Scientific consensus is a consensus is also based upon a large body of evidence supporting certain conclusions and in the case of anthropogenic climate change that body comes from a variety of disciplines. When something is "settled science" that doesn't mean it's unchanging. Evolution as a core principle, is "settled science" but a lot of the details are still changing and there are still a lot of unanswered questions. Likewise, the idea that human activities are influencing climate has become pretty much "settled science" though the degree to which that is occuring is still under debate.

By the way you mention the word evidence in this post it sure would be nice if you guys could ever just supply one piece of evidence but that's okay we've come to expect that you don't have any

Lots of evidence is out there but you want just one piece? Ok.

C02 measurements.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Laugh out loud all night long and this one ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha

Calm down. We don't want you to choke on all that spittle. And clean off your keyboard while your at it.

Ok...do you have a grip now?

What about the data that isn't computer models?

Wow arswipe that was pretty good

We seem to have a communication problem. Do I need to dumb down the question further? (not sure if that is possible).

Yeah I notice you're a bit confused it's normal for the folks on the left to feel that way since they don't even know what they're arguing anymore! Ha ha Ha ha ha it is funny, funny as hell dude

Let's give it another try shall we?

What about the data that isn't computer models?

DO you mean this data?

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate according to AR1 and succeeding papers.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

Now do you want to discuss how the "forcing" which is now zero by empirical evidence and how the null hypothesis shows the theroy of CO2 induced has failed at producing the base LOG rate warming, found in a closed cylinder lab environment, where water vapor has removed all warming possibly caused by CO2?

 

[Billy_Bob]

.

So turns out, Einsteins "Theory of Relativity", based upon the speed of light may have been wrong after all!!!!

When Science Is Wrong The Threat of Truth by Consensus PJ Media


Would Einstein, were he alive, try to shut out any new scientific possibilities? Based upon many, many statements he made during his life............no way!!!


Albert Einstein Quotes - 183 Science Quotes - Dictionary of Science Quotations and Scientist Quotes



But climate science is "settled"????

duh





Meanwhile, despite volumes of evidence in the scientific community that puts into question the validity of AGW, the AGW climate crusaders refuse to recognize any science other than their own science.

Fred Dyson, the most brilliant physicist on the planet in the 1950's and who took over for Einstein at Princeton after he died, said THIS >> “I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic,” Dyson said.

Dyson also said THIS >>>

But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.

“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”

A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.

“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”



In other words, these people are so full of shit, its not even real.


Religion? Most definitely.

Science? Most definitely....................not.

The brilliancy of science is not that it is always "right" but that it can change when new evidence comes along. Scientific theories are theories that give the best explanation to fit the available facts at the time. For example Mendel and genetics. We know now that some of his ideas on how it worked were wrong - new technology constantly opens up new avenues for research that challanges our theories. Sometimes it overturns them, sometimes it just changes parts of them (like Mendel's theory of heredity).

Scientific consensus is a consensus is also based upon a large body of evidence supporting certain conclusions and in the case of anthropogenic climate change that body comes from a variety of disciplines. When something is "settled science" that doesn't mean it's unchanging. Evolution as a core principle, is "settled science" but a lot of the details are still changing and there are still a lot of unanswered questions. Likewise, the idea that human activities are influencing climate has become pretty much "settled science" though the degree to which that is occuring is still under debate.

What's funny is all we asked for was an experiment and yet the left on here can't produce one that proves whatever it is they want to prove. I don't even think they know anymore!

Experiment for what?

Please show us how 120 ppm has affected the global temperature in the mid troposphere and why it has not caused any warming as your CAGW mongers have screamed, at the top of their lungs, that we are all going to fry.. I await the Math, Method and data to reproduce your experiment.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Wow arswipe that was pretty good

We seem to have a communication problem. Do I need to dumb down the question further? (not sure if that is possible).

Yeah I notice you're a bit confused it's normal for the folks on the left to feel that way since they don't even know what they're arguing anymore! Ha ha Ha ha ha it is funny, funny as hell dude

Let's give it another try shall we?

What about the data that isn't computer models?

I told you it's fabricated what is the problem with that? you don't understand Fabricated?

So all that data like ice-core samples, receding glaciers, ocean acidification is fabricated? Wow. That's a hell of a job they've done. How'd they pull it off?

Please show acidification.

A PH drop of 0.002 is not acidification in any ones book who works in a lab..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Wow arswipe that was pretty good

We seem to have a communication problem. Do I need to dumb down the question further? (not sure if that is possible).

Yeah I notice you're a bit confused it's normal for the folks on the left to feel that way since they don't even know what they're arguing anymore! Ha ha Ha ha ha it is funny, funny as hell dude

Let's give it another try shall we?

What about the data that isn't computer models?

I told you it's fabricated what is the problem with that? you don't understand Fabricated?

So all that data like ice-core samples, receding glaciers, ocean acidification is fabricated? Wow. That's a hell of a job they've done. How'd they pull it off?

What is the spacial proximity of ice core data? What does a one layer actually span in time? single days of frozen, melt, refreeze? how did they determine the length of each core layer in time? What are the effects of open air above the layers and water penetration of the layers during warm periods?

Its not conspiracy theroy, It's objective assessment of the faults. Its like Mann adding 5 year plots to his hockey stick graph when he was using 300 year plots prior to the last 150 years.. How many 5 year plots are in a 300 year plot? when averaged what is the mean single point of the plot?Your warming disappears into oblivion..

Our current warming is insignificant and could very well be within millions of years of 300 year plots to be very normal variation. No conspiracy needed.

 

[Coyote]

Calm down. We don't want you to choke on all that spittle. And clean off your keyboard while your at it.

Ok...do you have a grip now?

What about the data that isn't computer models?

Wow arswipe that was pretty good

We seem to have a communication problem. Do I need to dumb down the question further? (not sure if that is possible).

Yeah I notice you're a bit confused it's normal for the folks on the left to feel that way since they don't even know what they're arguing anymore! Ha ha Ha ha ha it is funny, funny as hell dude

Let's give it another try shall we?

What about the data that isn't computer models?

DO you mean this data?

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate according to AR1 and succeeding papers.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

It only takes a few degrees of change to create massive changes. A 2 degree C shift could hasten the melting of the icesheets thus increasing sea-levels. It could begin melting the permafrost which in turn could potentially release huge amounts of greenhouse gases such as methane which goes back into the atmosphere creating a feedback loop.

Now do you want to discuss how the "forcing" which is now zero by empirical evidence and how the null hypothesis shows the theroy of CO2 induced has failed at producing the base LOG rate warming, found in a closed cylinder lab environment, where water vapor has removed all warming possibly caused by CO2?

Are you trying to claim there is no empirical evidence for the role of C02 in climate change?

 

[Coyote]

.

So turns out, Einsteins "Theory of Relativity", based upon the speed of light may have been wrong after all!!!!

When Science Is Wrong The Threat of Truth by Consensus PJ Media


Would Einstein, were he alive, try to shut out any new scientific possibilities? Based upon many, many statements he made during his life............no way!!!


Albert Einstein Quotes - 183 Science Quotes - Dictionary of Science Quotations and Scientist Quotes



But climate science is "settled"????

duh





Meanwhile, despite volumes of evidence in the scientific community that puts into question the validity of AGW, the AGW climate crusaders refuse to recognize any science other than their own science.

Fred Dyson, the most brilliant physicist on the planet in the 1950's and who took over for Einstein at Princeton after he died, said THIS >> “I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic,” Dyson said.

Dyson also said THIS >>>

But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.

“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”

A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.

“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”



In other words, these people are so full of shit, its not even real.


Religion? Most definitely.

Science? Most definitely....................not.

The brilliancy of science is not that it is always "right" but that it can change when new evidence comes along. Scientific theories are theories that give the best explanation to fit the available facts at the time. For example Mendel and genetics. We know now that some of his ideas on how it worked were wrong - new technology constantly opens up new avenues for research that challanges our theories. Sometimes it overturns them, sometimes it just changes parts of them (like Mendel's theory of heredity).

Scientific consensus is a consensus is also based upon a large body of evidence supporting certain conclusions and in the case of anthropogenic climate change that body comes from a variety of disciplines. When something is "settled science" that doesn't mean it's unchanging. Evolution as a core principle, is "settled science" but a lot of the details are still changing and there are still a lot of unanswered questions. Likewise, the idea that human activities are influencing climate has become pretty much "settled science" though the degree to which that is occuring is still under debate.

What's funny is all we asked for was an experiment and yet the left on here can't produce one that proves whatever it is they want to prove. I don't even think they know anymore!

Experiment for what?

Please show us how 120 ppm has affected the global temperature in the mid troposphere and why it has not caused any warming as your CAGW mongers have screamed, at the top of their lungs, that we are all going to fry.. I await the Math, Method and data to reproduce your experiment.

For what point?