What would disprove global warming?

I've asked this before, and no one really answered. But I would still love to know what evidence it would take to disprove global warming.

Because apparently it's warming whether:

the tempature goes up or down
it snows alot or a little
there are lots of hurricanes or few
whether there is lots of ice or little.

the list goes on. What would disprove global warming?
Nothing...Up to and including Phil Jones, Michael Mann and Rajendra Pachauri coming out and saying APRIL FOOOLLLLS!

We're dealing with people with a quasi-religious belief system here, not anyone for whom contrary scientific data is of any merit.

Since you never post anything approaching scientific data, how would you know?
 
Nope. Moron.

Liar. I have done so repeatedly and you continue to lie about that.

No, you have not.
Liar.

Come on, Si, show me where all of this is wrong;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Is the American Institute of Physics a bunch of nutjobs? How about the American Geophysicists Union? The American Chemical Society?

All of these scientists are wrong, and only you know the truth?

I think you are well into the little tin hat stage.
 
I've asked this before, and no one really answered. But I would still love to know what evidence it would take to disprove global warming.

Because apparently it's warming whether:

the tempature goes up or down
it snows alot or a little
there are lots of hurricanes or few
whether there is lots of ice or little.

the list goes on. What would disprove global warming?
Nothing...Up to and including Phil Jones, Michael Mann and Rajendra Pachauri coming out and saying APRIL FOOOLLLLS!

We're dealing with people with a quasi-religious belief system here, not anyone for whom contrary scientific data is of any merit.

Since you never post anything approaching scientific data, how would you know?
I just did, knucklehead.

Here it is again: http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/cherry-picking-black-swans-and-falsifiability

But since you've already admitted that nothing short of the hoaxers recanting would be acceptable evidence to you, bothering with it is a waste of effort.
 
The problem for these guys is irrelevant. If it were to get cold for a while, they would say we are going through a pollution winter. And they don't really want a solution. They want the problem, so they can peddle the same tired cure.

And they have the cure. It is the same cure for whatever ails the universe. Government control over people, and Grifters control over the government.

Baruch, you really should consider reading the science on the issue before you mindlessly flap your yap.

We have been over the science together, you and i, several times.

It is the science of the three card monte artist, the science of the weavers who made the emperors new wardrobe, it is the science of fraud and deceit and half baked numbers and half baked religiosity that would embarrass a Tennessee dervish. It is the science of the medicine show selling salt water for a dollar a teaspoonful.

The numbers have a tendency not to fit, so they re jigger them so they will.

We have been through this together. And you believe the harder the more that Toto barks at the little guy behind the curtain, you believe more and more in the wizard who is little more than steam and a fancy speaker system.

Really? A bunch of yap-yap, Baruch. Nothing more than meaningless verbage.

You post this tripe, and I post articles from peer reviewed journals, NOAA, NASA, and the USGS.

Cannot any of you post real science backing your denial of reality?
 

Come on, Si, show me where all of this is wrong;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Is the American Institute of Physics a bunch of nutjobs? How about the American Geophysicists Union? The American Chemical Society?

All of these scientists are wrong, and only you know the truth?

....
When you post any science, I'll respond to it with science.

The consensus argument is not only passe (as it always should have been as it means nothing in science), those who still try it must have some serious comprehension issues or they are Alinskyites.

.... I think you are well into the little tin hat stage.
Those who insist on discussing science when the topic is science must appear to be some sort of conspiracist to one who plays at science.
 
Nothing...Up to and including Phil Jones, Michael Mann and Rajendra Pachauri coming out and saying APRIL FOOOLLLLS!

We're dealing with people with a quasi-religious belief system here, not anyone for whom contrary scientific data is of any merit.

Since you never post anything approaching scientific data, how would you know?
I just did, knucklehead.

Here it is again: Cherry Picking, Black Swans and Falsifiability | The Resilient Earth

But since you've already admitted that nothing short of the hoaxers recanting would be acceptable evidence to you, bothering with it is a waste of effort.

Doug L. Hoffman's blog | The Resilient Earth

Water Vapor The Next Demon Gas
Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman on Sun, 02/21/2010 - 18:01
With CO2 driven global warming becoming more discredited by new scientific evidence every day, the world's meddling climate regulators are casting about for a new gas to demonize. Last year the US Environmental Protection Agency was reportedly thinking of even classifying water vapor as a pollutant, due to its central role in global warming. Because water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, accounting for the majority of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, water vapor emissions during human activities—such as the processing and burning of fossil fuels—are again coming under increasing scrutiny by government regulators.

Lordy, lordy, no wonder this garbage is a blog, would never pass peer review.

As is known by anyone of even the least scientific literacy, H20 has only about a retention span of 9 or 10 days in the atmosphere. CO2, about two centuries.

The fact that this dingleberry claims a mathematics degree impresses me not in the least when he tries to deny 150 years of known physics.

Like Heinz Lycklama, he is apparently and educated fruitcake.
 
Baruch, you really should consider reading the science on the issue before you mindlessly flap your yap.

We have been over the science together, you and i, several times.

It is the science of the three card monte artist, the science of the weavers who made the emperors new wardrobe, it is the science of fraud and deceit and half baked numbers and half baked religiosity that would embarrass a Tennessee dervish. It is the science of the medicine show selling salt water for a dollar a teaspoonful.

The numbers have a tendency not to fit, so they re jigger them so they will.

We have been through this together. And you believe the harder the more that Toto barks at the little guy behind the curtain, you believe more and more in the wizard who is little more than steam and a fancy speaker system.

Really? A bunch of yap-yap, Baruch. Nothing more than meaningless verbage.

You post this tripe, and I post articles from peer reviewed journals, NOAA, NASA, and the USGS.

Cannot any of you post real science backing your denial of reality?
First, it is the imperative of the guy presenting the theory to prove it. All I need to show is that your stuff is not convincing.
Second, there is a real problem with the whole `peer review` process. those who dont joint the party dont get the peer review. If all you accept are numbers from the same small set of sources that allow no investigation, then it is more acceptable right now all your peer review amounts to is a circle jerk. Those outside the circle jerk cant get at the data to validate it.
Third, the methodology is in question. Stations in cold places are dropped, stations in hot places are added, and wow, the numbers go up. it is like dropping the pitcher and the weak hitting shortstop from the batting average of the team and adding in the averages of George Brett and Ted Williams. Wow, the average went up.

And there is the problem that the stations are not in unchanging places. PDX has gone from a small cement strip in an ocean of grass to a huge asphalt ocean. That changes the weather data for PDX, but increases in temperature for stations like that is not increases in global climate temperature. You move the station to Ft. Vancouver, also an airport, and you would not get the same degree of temperature increase over time that you see at PDX, even though they are only 1/2 mile apart.

The whole issue of fraud is another thing.

You cant convince folks of the truth of your assertion from borrowed lies.
 
Peer review is a dead letter.

Ad hominems are irrelevant.

Next time, try "I got nothing".

Which of course explains your vast scientific knowledge:lol:
Right-o...You claim I don't post anything scientific...I post something scientific and you reject it out-of-hand with your familiar ad hominems and appeals to authority.

Like I said, a waste of effort.

I'll now just stick to pointing out the all too obvious: That you're a block-headed old fool.
 
What are you looking to disprove? The idea that the ice caps are going to melt us into Waterworld or the mere idea that warming is real?
 
Were the temperature to show a steady decline for at least a decade.

Were the glaciers and arctic ice to gain mass for at least a decade, instead of losing it at an accelerating rate.

But what we are seeing is a steady increase in temperatures. And a steady decrease in the ice. And, right now, the warmest winter on record.

The earth has not GAINED temperature since 1998 as announced by the very Scientist you love. That is 12 years of NO INCREASE.
 
Basicly that we dont need to run off a cliff on the basis of fraud.

I actually do all the cool things I am supposed to. I recycle, drive very little, bike and hike for most of my business.

It bugs me that I do all the right things and get yelled at for an infidel, and Algore does all the wrong things and is honored as a profit.
 

Forum List

Back
Top