4 Reasons Why 'Climate Change' Is a Flat-Out Hoax

[PredFan]

Oh for fuck's sake!

There are TWO SEPARATE ARGUMENTS here. Keep them straight.

1. Climate change - The climate may be changing (Ignoring the fact that the climate NEVER stays the same).

2. Man-made climate change - The belief that man is causing climate change has zero facts to back it up.

Many people on the left and right can't keep these two very different points separated.

 

[danielpalos]

Climate change happens, regardless; we need engineered solutions.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry guy...but he is simply pointing out what actual science has always known.

Yes, Homes did exactly that. He showed that NASA data in the planetary fact sheet followed the ideal gas law. Big deal. Science has known the ideal gas law since Clapeyron in 1834.

Which is probably why Maxwell, Carnot, and Clausius, all men of far higher scientific standing that Arrhenius said that is quaint greenhouse hypothesis was not worth the paper it was written on...and now, 120+ years later, their opinion of the greenhouse hypothesis stands vindicated by the absence of even a single piece of observed, measured evidence to stand in its support.

Still waiting for you to demonstrate that the greenhouse hypothesis has any value at all by using it to predict the temperature of any other planet in the atmosphere with an atmosphere. If it has any validity at all, it should be able to do that basic task...lets see it.

I predict that ONCE AGAIN AS ALWAYS, you will have nothing but your belief and alas, that amounts to exactly squat.

I'm not arguing about the GHE. I simply said that Holmes' paper is vacuous, and now you are changing the subject.

Except that it isn't....it accurately predicts the temperatures of every planet in the solar system with sufficient atmosphere for auto compression...hardly vacuous.

 

[SSDD]

Oh for fuck's sake!

There are TWO SEPARATE ARGUMENTS here. Keep them straight.

1. Climate change - The climate may be changing (Ignoring the fact that the climate NEVER stays the same).

2. Man-made climate change - The belief that man is causing climate change has zero facts to back it up.

Many people on the left and right can't keep these two very different points separated.

The left likes to keep away from the man made part where evidence is concerned...they like to show some evidence of change and simply assume that we are to blame...and suggest that skeptics don't accept that the climate is changing rather than get into the discussion regarding the science necessary to establish that we have anything at all to do with global climate.

Climate change happens, regardless; we need engineered solutions.

We are the most adaptable species that has ever lived on this planet...When we need solutions, there will be solutions...right now, we have a host of problems that are actual problems with actual solutions...hunger, pollution, bad land use, over use of certain resources...etc etc etc..and none of which can be addressed because the climate change scam is sucking all of the air out of the room and all of the treasure out of the coffers.....they literally want trillions of dollars...what could be accomplished with all that money? and what has been accomplished with the thousands of billions of dollars which have already been flushed down the climate hole...name one actual accomplishment that has made any of that expense worth it.

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy...but he is simply pointing out what actual science has always known.

Yes, Homes did exactly that. He showed that NASA data in the planetary fact sheet followed the ideal gas law. Big deal. Science has known the ideal gas law since Clapeyron in 1834.

Which is probably why Maxwell, Carnot, and Clausius, all men of far higher scientific standing that Arrhenius said that is quaint greenhouse hypothesis was not worth the paper it was written on...and now, 120+ years later, their opinion of the greenhouse hypothesis stands vindicated by the absence of even a single piece of observed, measured evidence to stand in its support.

Still waiting for you to demonstrate that the greenhouse hypothesis has any value at all by using it to predict the temperature of any other planet in the atmosphere with an atmosphere. If it has any validity at all, it should be able to do that basic task...lets see it.

I predict that ONCE AGAIN AS ALWAYS, you will have nothing but your belief and alas, that amounts to exactly squat.

I'm not arguing about the GHE. I simply said that Holmes' paper is vacuous, and now you are changing the subject.

Except that it isn't....it accurately predicts the temperatures of every planet in the solar system with sufficient atmosphere for auto compression...hardly vacuous.

Nope. It's vacuous. NASA measured all the state variables and showed that the gas law was not violated. That is not a prediction of anything.

 

[SSDD]

Nope. It's vacuous. NASA measured all the state variables and showed that the gas law was not violated. That is not a prediction of anything.

Vacuous: adj. - without contents; empty.

So lets see that observed. measured evidence that supports the greenhouse hypothesis...and how about we see how well it predicts the temperatures of the other planets.

Oh...that's right...there is no observed, measured evidence that supports it and it only works here and only with an ad hoc fudge factor...

Here is some news for you sparky...that is, by definition, vacuous.

 

[Wuwei]

Nope. It's vacuous. NASA measured all the state variables and showed that the gas law was not violated. That is not a prediction of anything.

Vacuous: adj. - without contents; empty.

So lets see that observed. measured evidence that supports the greenhouse hypothesis...and how about we see how well it predicts the temperatures of the other planets.

Oh...that's right...there is no observed, measured evidence that supports it and it only works here and only with an ad hoc fudge factor...

Here is some news for you sparky...that is, by definition, vacuous.

You have to believe the accurately tested models of quantum mechanics before anybody can talk to you about the atmosphere. You also have to use the accepted scientific definitions of terminology. Since you don't abide by either, there is no language of science that can be used to communicate with you.

 

[SSDD]

Nope. It's vacuous. NASA measured all the state variables and showed that the gas law was not violated. That is not a prediction of anything.

Vacuous: adj. - without contents; empty.

So lets see that observed. measured evidence that supports the greenhouse hypothesis...and how about we see how well it predicts the temperatures of the other planets.

Oh...that's right...there is no observed, measured evidence that supports it and it only works here and only with an ad hoc fudge factor...

Here is some news for you sparky...that is, by definition, vacuous.

You have to believe the accurately tested models of quantum mechanics before anybody can talk to you about the atmosphere. You also have to use the accepted scientific definitions of terminology. Since you don't abide by either, there is no language of science that can be used to communicate with you.

So I guess that's a no....you can't provide any observed, measured evidence that supports the greenhouse hypothesis, and you can't demonstrate that it has any predictive power in the atmospheres of other planets with atmospheres...

And you suggest that somehow, that is ok because I don't place much faith in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models. Tell me, what does my belief in anything have to do with your inability to produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the greenhouse hypothesis or its inability to predict the temperatures of other planets?

 

[Wuwei]

So I guess that's a no....you can't provide any observed, measured evidence that supports the greenhouse hypothesis, and you can't demonstrate that it has any predictive power in the atmospheres of other planets with atmospheres...

And you suggest that somehow, that is ok because I don't place much faith in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models. Tell me, what does my belief in anything have to do with your inability to produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the greenhouse hypothesis or its inability to predict the temperatures of other planets?

You were provided evidence time and again that the laws of physics allows GHGs to backscatter from the atmosphere to earth. You even agreed that backscatter exists to a LN cooled spectrometer. But you never gave any physical reason that the GHG backscatter stops dead in it's tracks where the earth is warmer. You disagree with the entire body of science and scientists. You invent your own laws of physics and your own terminology. You disparage the use of mathematical models, yet you latch on to models to attempt to deny backscatter..

Your lack of understanding science precludes you from understanding the scientific evidence.

 

[SSDD]

No I wasn't...I was provided with clear proof that you don't have any idea what evidence might look like...you provided proof that you are easily fooled by instruments....you provided proof that you neither know what instruments are measuring nor how they achieve those measurements....

You provided nothing more than evidence of how easily you are fooled. Do I need to even come back? Is it going to be more of the same never ending temper tantrum because I won't believe in your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models?

 

[Crick]

As I and others have stated dozens and dozens of times, anyone wishing to see and review mountains of the evidence that SSDD claims does not exist should visit www.ipcc.ch and read Working Group I's portion of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Review: "The Physical Science Basis".

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SummaryVolume_FINAL.pdf

 

[SSDD]

As I and others have stated dozens and dozens of times, anyone wishing to see and review mountains of the evidence that SSDD claims does not exist should visit www.ipcc.ch and read Working Group I's portion of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Review: "The Physical Science Basis".

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SummaryVolume_FINAL.pdf

Yeah...you posted a big chunk of it HERE...and when I asked you to point out any where within it a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, YOU COULDN'T DO IT....and when I asked for you to point out a single piece of observed measured evidence which established a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, YOU COULDN'T DO IT....and when I asked you to point out a single peer reviewed published paper in which the hypothetical warming resulting from human activities was measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses, YOU COULDN'T DO IT.

You are being pwned skidmark...the more you talk, the more opportunity I have to point out that you couldn't produce even a shred of the evidence you claimed existed..,I can do it all day...till I have to leave to play a gig this afternoon anyway...

 

[Crick]

More lies

 

[SSDD]

More lies

Point out the evidence I asked for in the steaming pile of excrement you wasted bandwidth providing...or hell, go look somewhere else. I am asking for evidence and you aren't providing it...no one is providing it and it certainly isn't out there in the literature...where, exactly is the evidence I am asking for.

Do you believe that asking for a single piece of observed measured evidence that supports AGW over natural variability is to much to ask for?

Do you think it is unreasonable to ask for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?

Do you think it is outrageous to ask for a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by man's activities has been measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses?

Are those things really to much to ask from a hypothesis regarding entities as observable and measurable as the atmosphere and the climate?

 

[Crick]

Asked and answered

 

[SSDD]

Posting your bullshit on every thread is not fooling anyone crick...anyone with any capacity to think at all knows that if you had posted even a single piece of evidence that I had asked for, it would be that evidence that you would be posting on every thread...rather than a weak, impotent, mewling, lying dodge that no one is falling for.

You lost a lot of face today and you aren't getting it back unless you can post the evidence you claimed existed and are now dishonestly claiming that you posted...and we both know that it isn't going to happen.

You are laughing stock...how do you like it?

 

[Wuwei]

No I wasn't...I was provided with clear proof that you don't have any idea what evidence might look like...you provided proof that you are easily fooled by instruments....you provided proof that you neither know what instruments are measuring nor how they achieve those measurements....

You provided nothing more than evidence of how easily you are fooled. Do I need to even come back? Is it going to be more of the same never ending temper tantrum because I won't believe in your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models?

Naw, it's you that has no idea of what evidence looks like since you don't believe or understand science or instrumentation.

 

[SSDD]

Naw, it's you that has no idea of what evidence looks like since you don't believe or understand science or instrumentation.

It isn't me who has repeatedly been corrected as to how instruments work, what they are measuring, and how they are measuring it.

Just recently you claimed that a spectrometer works like this...and I quote:

"A detector doesn't measure the difference between input radiation and it's own internal radiation. It measures the sum of those two. As you lower the temperature of the detector all that's left is the external radiation, and that more accurately represents what you are trying to measure."

and you said it HERE

Now a spectrometer is a pretty basic piece of equipment....and it operates nothing like the description you gave. Clearly, you know very little about what instruments are measuring, and how they are measuring them, and what goes into producing the output. Because of your lack of knowledge of instrumentation, you are easily fooled by it....combine that with your willingness to disregard what instruments tell you in favor or your belief in models over reality and you are left with very little credibility when you discuss science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Naw, it's you that has no idea of what evidence looks like since you don't believe or understand science or instrumentation.

It isn't me who has repeatedly been corrected as to how instruments work, what they are measuring, and how they are measuring it.

Just recently you claimed that a spectrometer works like this...and I quote:

"A detector doesn't measure the difference between input radiation and it's own internal radiation. It measures the sum of those two. As you lower the temperature of the detector all that's left is the external radiation, and that more accurately represents what you are trying to measure."

and you said it HERE

Now a spectrometer is a pretty basic piece of equipment....and it operates nothing like the description you gave. Clearly, you know very little about what instruments are measuring, and how they are measuring them, and what goes into producing the output. Because of your lack of knowledge of instrumentation, you are easily fooled by it....combine that with your willingness to disregard what instruments tell you in favor or your belief in models over reality and you are left with very little credibility when you discuss science.

Just recently you claimed that a spectrometer works like this...and I quote:

"A detector doesn't measure the difference between input radiation and it's own internal radiation. It measures the sum of those two. As you lower the temperature of the detector all that's left is the external radiation, and that more accurately represents what you are trying to measure."

That's weird, he didn't use the word spectrometer, he said detector.

 

[danielpalos]

Climate change is no hoax. Technology can save us. State Capitalism all the way!