To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[SSDD]

[

Oohh.. you're getting close. Increases in GHGs in our atmosphere increase the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere and raise the Earth's temperature. That's what's been happening since the Industrial Revolution began.

Sorry crick...no hot spot which would be the inevitable result of heat "trapping" by CO2...get yourself a hypothesis that actually works....

 

[SSDD]

Except it isn't happening...ignorant old woman...or exceedingly effeminate man if you prefer.

Would you like lessons in how to construct effective insults? Yours truly suck.

I bet FCT loves you taking on his argument. Why don't you explain his math for us?

From someone as lame as you?.....no thanks.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Did you give up explaining what generates heat on Venus?

As "the sun" is a complete answer, yes, we did give up trying to explain it more. After all, it can't be dumbed down any further than that.

Does this same Sun heat Mercury as well? Without an atmosphere, there is a large difference between day and night temperature on that planet. Are you standing by your "static pressure does not generate heat" theory?

Mercury's surface experiences the greatest temperature variation of the planets in the Solar System, ranging from 100 K (−173 °C; −280 °F) at night to 700 K (427 °C; 800 °F) during the day at some equatorial regions.

At the surface, the atmosphere presses down as hard as water 3,000 feet beneath Earth's ocean. The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius).

Google

Bueller?

Anyone?

Bueller?

 

[jc456]

as to the OP. perhaps there is only a fine line between skepticism and paranoia. we have been lied to, and misdirected, many times by the CAGW side. honest mistakes I can live with, purposeful obfuscation I cannot. I see no reason to gullibly accept the case for CAGW when there are so many holes in it. deferral to authority is a poor option when even laymen can spot the obvious flaws.

If you believe those "holes" exist and are intentional, you're not skeptical, you're paranoid.

Besides, anyone who provides SSDD's psycho-physics the slightest bit of support has completely abandoned the qualifications to make the SLIGHTEST claim of skepticism

hmmm......I have pissed off some on the far spectrum of skepticism by claiming the greenhouse effect is real, just not as described by CAGW. you are just as crazy as SSDD but are simply at the other end of the spectrum.

Since my position is based on the consensus of mainstream science on the matter, I can not fit the bill of crazy. SSDD does so in spades, as is obvious to all.

Since my position is based on the consensus of mainstream science on the matter,

A mole, going blindly through life. Uneducated. How can you top this post. Because someone said so I'll believe.Too frkn funny to say the least.

 

[mamooth]

Does this same Sun heat Mercury as well?

Of course it does.

Without an atmosphere, there is a large difference between day and night temperature on that planet.

And part of that would be because of the lack of a greenhouse effect. Any atmosphere would moderate temperature some, but a greenhouse effect would moderate it more, as it does on Venus.

Are you standing by your "static pressure does not generate heat" theory?

Being nothing you've rambled about contradicts it in any way, of course I stand by it, as does every knowledgeable person on the planet.

Your need to explain this new theory of yours in detail, as I don't think anyone can fathom your thought processes. Being that Mercury's and Venus's behavior is totally consistent with greenhouse theory, why do you think it disproves greenhouse theory?

And if you're so sure the past centuries of physics are so completely wrong, and that only you and a few other unappreciated Einsteins know the RealTruth, you ought to prove your case, write it up, publish, and collect that Nobel Prize that you so clearly deserve.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Does this same Sun heat Mercury as well?

Of course it does.

Without an atmosphere, there is a large difference between day and night temperature on that planet.

And part of that would be because of the lack of a greenhouse effect. Any atmosphere would moderate temperature some, but a greenhouse effect would moderate it more, as it does on Venus.

Are you standing by your "static pressure does not generate heat" theory?

Being nothing you've rambled about contradicts it in any way, of course I stand by it, as does every knowledgeable person on the planet.

Your need to explain this new theory of yours in detail, as I don't think anyone can fathom your thought processes. Being that Mercury's and Venus's behavior is totally consistent with greenhouse theory, why do you think it disproves greenhouse theory?

And if you're so sure the past centuries of physics are so completely wrong, and that only you and a few other unappreciated Einsteins know the RealTruth, you ought to prove your case, write it up, publish, and collect that Nobel Prize that you so clearly deserve.

So if Venus crushing atmosphere was N2 instead of CO2, we'd have wide, wide differences day and night?

There's so little of these GHG's on Earth, I mean we measure them in PPM, are you saying that 300PPM of CO2 is enough to stabilize temperature on earth but 400PPM causes wild disruptions?

If we added as 100PPM of CO2 on Mars would that be enough to turn it into a tropical paradise? Since Martian atmosphere is only 2.5 10e16, a few Chinese coal factories could make it toasty warm in no time!

Oh how about 100PPM on Mercury? would that stabilize the day and night temperature per your "theory"?

 

[mamooth]

So if Venus crushing atmosphere was N2 instead of CO2, we'd have wide, wide differences day and night?

The differences would definitely be wider, yes. "Wide, wide differences", however, is your strawman, so you're the one obligated to explain it.

There's so little of these GHG's on Earth, I mean we measure them in PPM, are you saying that 300PPM of CO2 is enough to stabilize temperature on earth but 400PPM causes wild disruptions

No. Again, you're the only one obligated to explain your strawmen.

If we added as 100PPM of CO2 on Mars would that be enough to turn it into a tropical paradise? Since Martian atmosphere is only 2.5 10e16, a few Chinese coal factories could make it toasty warm in no time!

Your strange theories are getting progressively dumber.

Oh how about 100PPM on Mercury? would that stabilize the day and night temperature per your "theory"?

It would lessen the difference only very slightly, because Mercury has such a slow rotation. The night on Mercury is months long, and such a thin atmosphere would lose heat quickly. I hope that explains to you why your wacky "stabilize" theory is such nonsense.

 

[Crick]

Except it isn't happening...ignorant old woman...or exceedingly effeminate man if you prefer.

Would you like lessons in how to construct effective insults? Yours truly suck.

I bet FCT loves you taking on his argument. Why don't you explain his math for us?

From someone as lame as you?.....no thanks.

TRANSLATION: Uhhh... I can't

 

[SSDD]

Except it isn't happening...ignorant old woman...or exceedingly effeminate man if you prefer.

Would you like lessons in how to construct effective insults? Yours truly suck.

I bet FCT loves you taking on his argument. Why don't you explain his math for us?

From someone as lame as you?.....no thanks.

TRANSLATION: Uhhh... I can't

Thanks for proving my point....how much more lame could you get?

 

[Crick]

Your fan base is calling SID.

 

[SSDD]

Your fan base is calling SID.

Nah....just other people who also recognize that you are about as lame as one individual can get...

 

[Crick]

Are these the other people who actually believe that the world's climate scientists are all involved in a massive conspiracy of lying to the public because they're getting rich from research grants and all wish to destroy the world's economies? You see what you all have in common, don't you SID. You're all paranoid. At least, it is that which your lack of real arguments has left you.

 

[SSDD]

Are these the other people who actually believe that the world's climate scientists are all involved in a massive conspiracy of lying to the public because they're getting rich from research grants and all wish to destroy the world's economies? You see what you all have in common, don't you SID. You're all paranoid. At least, it is that which your lack of real arguments has left you.

Never stop lying do you? As i have said before....climate science is the unfortunate victim of an error cascade and being politicized when it was still in its infancy....as a result of the error cascade, the science has become corrupted with bad data, and it remains in its infancy as a result of its politicization.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Are these the other people who actually believe that the world's climate scientists are all involved in a massive conspiracy of lying to the public because they're getting rich from research grants and all wish to destroy the world's economies? You see what you all have in common, don't you SID. You're all paranoid. At least, it is that which your lack of real arguments has left you.

Never stop lying do you? As i have said before....climate science is the unfortunate victim of an error cascade and being politicized when it was still in its infancy....as a result of the error cascade, the science has become corrupted with bad data, and it remains in its infancy as a result of its politicization.

One of the best post yet on this, I am still curious do they not know this or know it and just want to continue to over do it for publicity and fear mongering?

 

[Crick]

Let's see:
o All climate scientists are involved in a massive conspiracy to produce false data. ALL OF THEM.
o Climate science made an enormous mistake when it first began and no one (besides SSDD) has ever discovered it
o Despite hundreds and hundreds of people involved in producing temperature records from the various agencies around the world, all of whom are claimed by deniers like SSDD and Bear here, to be involved in this grand falsification, NOT ONE has ever confessed to this activity. NOT FUCKING ONE
o Not one of the thousands of scientists who make use of those temperature data for their own work has ever complained that their jobs, their living, their life's work was being fucked with. NOT FUCKING ONE

But the deniers believe it.

 

[SSDD]

Let's see:
o All climate scientists are involved in a massive conspiracy to produce false data. ALL OF THEM.
o Climate science made an enormous mistake when it first began and no one (besides SSDD) has ever discovered it
o Despite hundreds and hundreds of people involved in producing temperature records from the various agencies around the world, all of whom are claimed by deniers like SSDD and Bear here, to be involved in this grand falsification, NOT ONE has ever confessed to this activity. NOT FUCKING ONE
o Not one of the thousands of scientists who make use of those temperature data for their own work has ever complained that their jobs, their living, their life's work was being fucked with. NOT FUCKING ONE

But the deniers believe it.

Wow....3 logical fallacies in one post....how do you manage to dress yourself and eat your oat meal?

 

[Crick]

Oh, don't be shy. Those are all YOUR claims and YOUR failings.

There is no conspiracy among climate scientists

Climate scientists are not grossly incompetent

No one has confessed to deceptively manipulating temperature data because no one is deceptively manipulating temperature data - or CO2 levels or sea levels or ocean pH values or anything else.

The only reason deniers are making these claims is because they haven't got jack shit in the way or science backing them up.

And, as SSDD has clearly demonstrated with his bizarre ideas about photons, heat transfer and who-knows -what-all, and as Billy Boy has demonstrated in my sig, they have a strong tendency to seriously flawed science and are not great friends with honesty.

 

[SSDD]

Oh, don't be shy. Those are all YOUR claims and YOUR failings.

Actually, they aren't, but then lying in an attempt to make a point is your standard MO....

There is no conspiracy among climate scientists

Feel free to bring a post from me stating that I believe there is....I have said before that climate science is the unfortunate victim of an error cascade...and being politicized in its infancy...there are a few bad actors and the rest just take published work at face value, thus spreading the bad data and making it part of the narrative.

Climate scientists are not grossly incompetent

Climate science is a soft science and the scientific method is not being practiced...what would you call a universal failure to follow the scientific method?

]QUOTE="Crick, post: 13019638, member: 48966"]No one has confessed to deceptively manipulating temperature data because no one is deceptively manipulating temperature data - or CO2 levels or sea levels or ocean pH values or anything else.[/quote]

Of course they have...I gave you the quote which you tried comically, and unsuccessfully to defend..

The only reason deniers are making these claims is because they haven't got jack shit in the way or science backing them up.

Still waiting for that empirical evidence that proves the most basic, fundamental, first claim of the AGW hypothesis....talk about not having jack...that's you guys...you can't even back up the most basic claim of your hypothesis with empirical evidence.

And, as SSDD has clearly demonstrated with his bizarre ideas about photons, heat transfer and who-knows -what-all, and as Billy Boy has demonstrated in my sig, they have a strong tendency to seriously flawed science and are not great friends with honesty.

And yet, the climate is behaving as I predicted...not as you with your failed GCM's epically failed predictions.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'll go with them getting caught fudging the data...that's no conspiracy, that's a fact.

Who do you believe has been "fudging the data" and what is your evidence?

Google is your friend, try it and enlighten yourself

No. I want to know who YOU believe to be fudging data and why.

dailycaller.com

stevengoddard.wordpress.com

www.telegraph.co.uk
By Christopher Booker

thenewamerican.com

washingtontimes.com

LOLOLOLOL.....so, your so-called evidence is a bunch of denier cult bullcrap you got off of various rightwingnut sources....two blogs, a denier cult reporter in a Rupert Murdoch rag, a rightwingnut publication and a newspaper owned by the Moonies. LOL.

You are a freaking nitwit who searched out blatent denier cult propaganda written by non-scientists stooging for the fossil fuel industry, and you idiotically imagine that that fraudulent twaddle constitutes actual evidence.

You are who..and pray tell why should I give a damn? Another whack job chimes in

Who am I? I'm the sane rational adult who just pointed out what stupid joke your response was to a demand to see your evidence. You are the freaking "whack job", SillyIdioticLackwit.

The tens of thousands of working climate scientists in over a hundred countries all around the world check each other's work in a continual process called 'science'....something about which you are obviously completely ignorant....and the denier cult myth that all of those scientists are all cooperating in a conspiracy to "fudge the data" is so absurd, it is actually quite insane. You have no evidence....just more demented denier cult drivel....and your clinging to your conspiracy theory is really just more evidence to support the OP of this thread. Deniers are pathologically paranoid conspiracy theory crackpots.

We know all about the PAL REVIEW and the blocking of inconvenient data and papers that discredit your silly ass wealth redistribution scheme..

 

[Billy_Bob]

hmmm......I have pissed off some on the far spectrum of skepticism by claiming the greenhouse effect is real, just not as described by CAGW. you are just as crazy as SSDD but are simply at the other end of the spectrum.

that climate sensitivity just keeps going down down down.....won't be long before it is zero or less and then some actual science can begin to find out what factors really matter to the climate....

Current CS levels are less than 0.476 deg C per doubling. It has been revised down so many times I have lost count and it now is less than 1 deg C. Far less than the expect LOG function found in controlled lab experiments, indicating that water vapor is indeed a negative forcing not a positive one and why all modeling today fails by a factor of 300%. This number increases every day as the divergence from reality becomes greater and greater as time progresses.

“Being off by a factor of three does not qualify in my book as settled science,” Christy said.

Source