The Warmers Case to the APS

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's your chance to vet your case form Mankind causing "Global Warming".

Post your evidence, the same evidence that the Warmers will submit to the American Physics Society and we'll go through it and understand the science behind your theory.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Don't be shy. Present the science

Take this as a Teaching moment

 

[mamooth]

Frank, don't drink and post.

 

[westwall]

Frank, don't drink and post.

I expected better from you admiral. Frank is giving you an opportunity to present some real science, and you're running away with your tail between you legs....how completely unsurprising.

 

[mamooth]

Westwall, please stop mocking my military service. Do you have any idea how bad it makes you look when you do that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, don't drink and post.

^ Which is why I'm confident the AGWCult will not present any science to the APS.

Maybe mention Tyndall?

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Abraham3]

Don't be shy. Present the science

Take this as a Teaching moment

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Now you will say that is worthless; that all its authors and sources are ignorant and members of a grand conspiracy. But I guarantee you, that will not be the position of the APS.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Don't be shy. Present the science

Take this as a Teaching moment

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Now you will say that is worthless; that all its authors and sources are ignorant and members of a grand conspiracy. But I guarantee you, that will not be the position of the APS.

I'll read it

 

[westwall]

Westwall, please stop mocking my military service. Do you have any idea how bad it makes you look when you do that?

I never mock anyone who actually served, admiral. YOU DIDN'T....that's the point!

 

[westwall]

Don't be shy. Present the science

Take this as a Teaching moment

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Now you will say that is worthless; that all its authors and sources are ignorant and members of a grand conspiracy. But I guarantee you, that will not be the position of the APS.

I don't care to wade through pages of crap. How about linking to the specific scientific reports contained on the site.

 

[Abraham3]

Read it all. I guarantee you it'll do you good. A few points, though:

1) If you haven't read it, how do you know its crap?
2) Judging something before you know enough to make that judgement has a name.
3) Admitting that you haven't read any of the IPCC's material is not going to advance your credibility in these discussions.

 

[westwall]

Read it all. I guarantee you it'll do you good. A few points, though:

1) If you haven't read it, how do you know its crap?
2) Judging something before you know enough to make that judgement has a name.
3) Admitting that you haven't read any of the IPCC's material is not going to advance your credibility in these discussions.

I wandered around on the site and could find no actual studies. I found loads of press releases and rah rah pieces, but no actual scientific studies.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Westwall, please stop mocking my military service. Do you have any idea how bad it makes you look when you do that?

I never mock anyone who actually served, admiral. YOU DIDN'T....that's the point!

Ask her about the plywood

 

[Abraham3]

Read it all. I guarantee you it'll do you good. A few points, though:

1) If you haven't read it, how do you know its crap?
2) Judging something before you know enough to make that judgement has a name.
3) Admitting that you haven't read any of the IPCC's material is not going to advance your credibility in these discussions.

I wandered around on the site and could find no actual studies. I found loads of press releases and rah rah pieces, but no actual scientific studies.

So, after 26 years, you still don't know how the IPCC works. Got it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Read it all. I guarantee you it'll do you good. A few points, though:

1) If you haven't read it, how do you know its crap?
2) Judging something before you know enough to make that judgement has a name.
3) Admitting that you haven't read any of the IPCC's material is not going to advance your credibility in these discussions.

I wandered around on the site and could find no actual studies. I found loads of press releases and rah rah pieces, but no actual scientific studies.

^ He's right. At least they admit there's been no warming the past 15 years.

I didn't see anything resembling an experiment, even a thought experiment you might present to a group of physicists.

What did I miss?

 

[mamooth]

I never mock anyone who actually served, admiral. YOU DIDN'T....that's the point!

Nobody should have to put up with the degree of assholism, stalking and dishonesty that I've always put up with from you. And I won't keep putting up with it. Hence, you really ought to be dropping that shit right now.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Read it all. I guarantee you it'll do you good. A few points, though:

1) If you haven't read it, how do you know its crap?
2) Judging something before you know enough to make that judgement has a name.
3) Admitting that you haven't read any of the IPCC's material is not going to advance your credibility in these discussions.

I wandered around on the site and could find no actual studies. I found loads of press releases and rah rah pieces, but no actual scientific studies.

So, after 26 years, you still don't know how the IPCC works. Got it.

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." -- IPCC

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's 126 pages and just fucking unbelievable. They continue have High Degree of Confidence in models that show warming accurate to pinpoint accuracy, then they admit there's been no warming the past 15 years!

Are they schizophrenic?

Either their model is wrong, or their theory is wrong

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I can't cut and paste from the article or I'd do a side-by-side of the High Degree of Confidence vs. actual observation disconnect.

When it's that wrong, there's a problem with the theory or the model.

 

[westwall]

Read it all. I guarantee you it'll do you good. A few points, though:

1) If you haven't read it, how do you know its crap?
2) Judging something before you know enough to make that judgement has a name.
3) Admitting that you haven't read any of the IPCC's material is not going to advance your credibility in these discussions.

I wandered around on the site and could find no actual studies. I found loads of press releases and rah rah pieces, but no actual scientific studies.

So, after 26 years, you still don't know how the IPCC works. Got it.

No, I understand quite well how they work...or don't woark as the case may be. this is a specific OP about SCIENCE and specifically the SCIENCE of AGW. You linked us to a propaganda website.

Are you too stupid to understand that?