Trenberth Debunks Himself

[SSDD]

Two of the three studies he tried to give back to me in return used models. That deniers who bad-mouth models frequently post up links to studies that use them is commonplace.

I don't believe the models...any of them. We don't know enough about the movement of energy through the system to create a believable model. The point was to point out your myopia and bias.....you believe models that agree with you but not models that disagree with you when in fact, none of them can be trusted because we are in the infancy of our understanding of the climate and what drives it.

Don't try to bullshit a bullshitter. You were trying to refute the IPCC's reference. Your challenging references used models. Models are widely used by all manner of researchers. It's the only way to make a prediction. Denier objections to models are unjustified. No one is more aware of their limitations than the folks who create them. No one is less aware of their value than those desperate to find something substantial with which to attack AGW.

True, you are full of bullshit....that would be why it is so damned easy to show how biased, gullible, and duped you are. Nature itself has refuted the IPCC far better than I ever could.

 

[Abraham3]

So you have no response. Got it.

 

[SSDD]

So you have no response. Got it.

No response needed....nature responded. You lose.

 

[Abraham3]

Still nothing. And more insults or clever quips aren't going to change that. When you have some comment about the number and quality of references used by the IPCC on AR5 or their references against Hot Schtick's collection or on the actual opinions of climate scientists regarding the effect of clouds on climate or any of the other topics posted that Professor Westwall seems to have declined to review, feel free to get back. Otherwise, you're just wasting EVERYONE's time.

 

[SSDD]

Still nothing. And more insults or clever quips aren't going to change that. When you have some comment about the number and quality of references used by the IPCC on AR5 or their references against Hot Schtick's collection or on the actual opinions of climate scientists regarding the effect of clouds on climate or any of the other topics posted that Professor Westwall seems to have declined to review, feel free to get back. Otherwise, you're just wasting EVERYONE's time.

Nice attempt to divert attention away from the fact that you only believe models that agree with your position while discounting those models that do not....all the while completely ignoring actual observation which proves your hypothesis is bunk.

 

[Abraham3]

It's not "my hypothesis". It's not even a hypothesis. It's a theory: a widely accepted theory. That's why I buy into it. And, apparently, why you don't.

 

[SSDD]

It's not "my hypothesis". It's not even a hypothesis. It's a theory: a widely accepted theory. That's why I buy into it. And, apparently, why you don't.

No, its a hypothesis. For someone who claims to be an engineer, you sure are lacking in the basics. This time you don't even know the difference between hypothesis and theory.

Here, let me help. From the science dictionary:

hypothesis - A statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability.

theory - a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

So in order to move from hypothesis to theory, multiple experiments are required to confirm its viability. Can you show us some of these experiments that prove that a 100ppm increase in a trace atmospheric gas can cause a change in the climate? Just a couple will be fine.

As you can see, a theory has been repeatedly tested by experiments (experiments you can't seem to produce) and can be used to make predictions....well, with regard to AGW, lots of predictions have been made and they never fail to fail.

Go learn something junior. You favor a failed hypothesis which according to the scientific method, never even got close to becoming a theory.

 

[Abraham3]

The only identification your "hypothesis" was ever given in this thread was that it was "mine". My hypothesis is that the Earth has been getting warmer and that the primary cause is human GHG emissions. That THEORY is accepted by 97% of the world's publishing climate scientists. If they're happy with the support that THEORY has, I'm happy they're happy. That you're not doesn't bother me for one second.

 

[SSDD]

The only identification your "hypothesis" was ever given in this thread was that it was "mine". My hypothesis is that the Earth has been getting warmer and that the primary cause is human GHG emissions. That THEORY is accepted by 97% of the world's publishing climate scientists. If they're happy with the support that THEORY has, I'm happy they're happy. That you're not doesn't bother me for one second.

And an idiot hypothesis it is. The earth is in the process of exiting an ice age....humans did not set that change into motion and humans are not exacerbating it....although if they could, I would encourage them to do so since the earth is a far better place during warm periods than during cold.

And again, it is a hypothesis....unprovable, and apparently unfalsifiable...the worst sort.

 

[Abraham3]

Saying it doesn't make it so.

 

[SSDD]

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Being so makes it so. Open your eyes and stop drinking bong water.

 

[Abraham3]

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Being so makes it so. Open your eyes and stop drinking bong water.

Try providing authoritative, qualified, objective and verifiable evidence for your claims. My opinion on anthropogenic global warming is based on thousands of peer-reviewed studies. Yours, most distinctly, is not.

 

[Abraham3]

"If a million people say something wrong, its STILL wrong". Besides, all those climate scientists are stupid, conspiring crooks. They ALL lie so they can get rich on grant money. The government wants to push AGW so that it can take power over the individual cause THAT'S what governments do - at least governments run by black liberals."

Anything else?

 

[SwimExpert]

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Being so makes it so. Open your eyes and stop drinking bong water.

Try providing authoritative, qualified, objective and verifiable evidence for your claims. My opinion on anthropogenic global warming is based on thousands of peer-reviewed studies. Yours, most distinctly, is not.

Your opinion is based on the fact that someone else said holds that opinion, and thus you accept it as true. You do not bother to even question the opinion. That is a completely illogical form of reasoning.

 

[Abraham3]

Do you believe anything you haven't personally verified? I strongly suspect the answer to that question is "yes". Therefore, you take people's word at all manner of things. We have irrefutable testimony that the vast majority of the experts in the field of climatology accept AGW as a valid theory. I am not a climate scientist. I'm going to take their expert opinion; just as you take expert opinions in other fields: at least fields for which you lack the 'political' prejudice to reject the facts.

 

[SwimExpert]

Do you believe anything you haven't personally verified? I strongly suspect the answer to that question is "yes". Therefore, you take people's word at all manner of things.

False dilemma.

 

[Abraham3]

Your dilemma is quite real. You started off on the wrong foot assuming I question nothing. You took a second wrong step when you assumed I take scientist's opinions as truth.

Like I told you the other day, you're not the first poster here to suggest science can do nothing because their might be magic. You guys should have a meeting and exchange secret handshakes.

 

[SSDD]

You guys should have a meeting and exchange secret handshakes.

Like you guys......no thanks.

 

[Abraham3]

You guys should have a meeting and exchange secret handshakes.

Like you guys......no thanks.

Glad to see you recognize yourself in passing reference. I wasn't sure I was remembering correctly who it was that had argued magic. Thanks for the confirmation.

 

[SwimExpert]

Your dilemma is quite real. You started off on the wrong foot assuming I question nothing. You took a second wrong step when you assumed I take scientist's opinions as truth.

Like I told you the other day, you're not the first poster here to suggest science can do nothing because their might be magic. You guys should have a meeting and exchange secret handshakes.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI0RoJz7Tno]Billy Madison - Best insult ever! I award you no points - YouTube[/ame]