AGW Question

[Martin Eden Mercury]

so what you're really saying is that you don't want to be tied to an answer so that you can change your mind when it is appropriate, when you know the lie is exposed. Got ya!!!

Believing in scientific theories, presupposes one is willing to change one's mind with new data. Maybe you are mistaking science for something else?

 

[jc456]

as a benchmark for a discussion? Maybe, understanding a persons position is important in a discussion. Guess you don't have them very often.

It'd be similar to discussion favorite teams in sports or favorite sport. Helps to know what to talk about.

So you feel the need to ask a question, or you feel the need to set up a yes or no question? Have you ever been in a court of law? Yes or no?

yes I have been in a court of law. What's that got to do with answering a question regarding the origin of a theory? Fk the question and lay out what the theory is developed from?

a benchmark for a discussion: Why do you put people on trial with yes or no questions? When discussing a theory, one of your allies has called a hypothesis, it is not unrealistic to assume that you are not looking to discuss a theory, so much as you are looking to attack the persons.

well again, it is tough to state that someone believes or does not believe in someone elses material. So how is it one can discuss your position if one doesn't know your position? If you do not wish to discuss, leave the thread and the forum and you're set.

 

[jc456]

so what you're really saying is that you don't want to be tied to an answer so that you can change your mind when it is appropriate, when you know the lie is exposed. Got ya!!!

Believing in scientific theories, presupposes one is willing to change one's mind with new data. Maybe you are mistaking science for something else?

I change my mind often on things as I learn more about them. This however is a discussion on a theory, you either do believe in it or not. seems cut and dry. but as is often the case in here, you libturds don't like to be cornered into an answer, so you merely avoid and call people names. It's an expected response in most threads. you are consistent with that. Not sure how you can make a point and have someone respond when one doesn't know your position on the topic.

BTW, I don't believe there is a hot spot in the troposphere layer and hence call bullshit to the warmers. If you choose to oppose that view, then you will be admitting you believe in the theory of the hot spot.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

based upon his theories, Einstein made some of the wildest predictions ever heard: gravity can bend light and time slows down the faster one travels. He boldly made those predication and they've survived every test for the past 100 years.

Meanwhile the AGWCult cannot even state their theory, all we get is mealy-mouth, wishy-washy, maybe yes maybe no cryptic statement.

That's the difference between science and the occult

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

as a benchmark for a discussion? Maybe, understanding a persons position is important in a discussion. Guess you don't have them very often.

It'd be similar to discussion favorite teams in sports or favorite sport. Helps to know what to talk about.

So you feel the need to ask a question, or you feel the need to set up a yes or no question? Have you ever been in a court of law? Yes or no?

yes I have been in a court of law. What's that got to do with answering a question regarding the origin of a theory? Fk the question and lay out what the theory is developed from?

a benchmark for a discussion: Why do you put people on trial with yes or no questions? When discussing a theory, one of your allies has called a hypothesis, it is not unrealistic to assume that you are not looking to discuss a theory, so much as you are looking to attack the persons.

well again, it is tough to state that someone believes or does not believe in someone elses material. So how is it one can discuss your position if one doesn't know your position? If you do not wish to discuss, leave the thread and the forum and you're set.

The Crusader (self professed genius at oped writing) Guy is the one who asked a question he knew the answer to. Was he trying to set people up? If so, is that an attempt at honest and reasonable discussion, or is it a veiled troll attack

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

I change my mind often on things as I learn more about them. This however is a discussion on a theory, you either do believe in it or not. seems cut and dry. but as is often the case in here, you libturds don't like to be cornered into an answer, so you merely avoid and call people names. It's an expected response in most threads. you are consistent with that. Not sure how you can make a point and have someone respond when one doesn't know your position on the topic.

BTW, I don't believe there is a hot spot in the troposphere layer and hence call bullshit to the warmers. If you choose to oppose that view, then you will be admitting you believe in the theory of the hot spot.

There you go again.

If you wanted to ask the simple, straight question "Do you believe in the scientific consensus on the science of global warming?" you would get as straight an answer. See how simple you can make things?

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

based upon his theories, Einstein made some of the wildest predictions ever heard: gravity can bend light and time slows down the faster one travels. He boldly made those predication and they've survived every test for the past 100 years.

Meanwhile the AGWCult cannot even state their theory, all we get is mealy-mouth, wishy-washy, maybe yes maybe no cryptic statement.

That's the difference between science and the occult

Dear Crusading Genius, Climate Change scientists have stated their theories, and have had them peer reviewed. They are even being tested as we speak. What is your issue? What exactly is your issue?

 

[Billy_Bob]

as a benchmark for a discussion? Maybe, understanding a persons position is important in a discussion. Guess you don't have them very often.

It'd be similar to discussion favorite teams in sports or favorite sport. Helps to know what to talk about.

So you feel the need to ask a question, or you feel the need to set up a yes or no question? Have you ever been in a court of law? Yes or no?

You like being a pivot man in a circle jerk. You go round and round and never answer the question while baiting others to say something you can use against them.

The AGW theroy and its so called supporting evidence wont pass a court of law's discovery process and physical review with cross examination. NO legitimate court would place itself in the cross hairs of this without many professionals to advise it on the scientific veracity, not the AGW premise itself. There has been so much corruption of the science it wont pass muster and that is easily proved.

 

[Billy_Bob]

based upon his theories, Einstein made some of the wildest predictions ever heard: gravity can bend light and time slows down the faster one travels. He boldly made those predication and they've survived every test for the past 100 years.

Meanwhile the AGWCult cannot even state their theory, all we get is mealy-mouth, wishy-washy, maybe yes maybe no cryptic statement.

That's the difference between science and the occult

Dear Crusading Genius, Climate Change scientists have stated their theories, and have had them peer reviewed. They are even being tested as we speak. What is your issue? What exactly is your issue?

Their theroys FAILED. The math doesn't add up., the models fail without question showing that they do not understand the system, Nor how to correctly model it.
IN other words, THEY ARE CLUELESS ABOUT THE EARTHS CLIMATE SYSTEMS and their proclamations are BULL SHIT!!

 

[mamooth]

Martin, you're talking with a trio of hard core conspiracy cultists. If you want to amuse yourself with them, have fun. Just understand that attempting reason will have no effect on people who have proudly abandoned reason. They only understand that you're an enemy of their cult, and therefore they hate you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

based upon his theories, Einstein made some of the wildest predictions ever heard: gravity can bend light and time slows down the faster one travels. He boldly made those predication and they've survived every test for the past 100 years.

Meanwhile the AGWCult cannot even state their theory, all we get is mealy-mouth, wishy-washy, maybe yes maybe no cryptic statement.

That's the difference between science and the occult

Dear Crusading Genius, Climate Change scientists have stated their theories, and have had them peer reviewed. They are even being tested as we speak. What is your issue? What exactly is your issue?

So does this "stated theory" suppose a troposheric hot spot?

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

You like being a pivot man in a circle jerk. You go round and round and never answer the question while baiting others to say something you can use against them.

The AGW theroy and its so called supporting evidence wont pass a court of law's discovery process and physical review with cross examination. NO legitimate court would place itself in the cross hairs of this without many professionals to advise it on the scientific veracity, not the AGW premise itself. There has been so much corruption of the science it wont pass muster and that is easily proved.

Climate Scientists have reached a consensus on the Global Warming data. Scientific theories are not legal arguments. You claim a corruption in the sciences, yet you cannot show evidence to back up your claims -- not evidence that would "pass a court of law's discovery process and physical review with cross examination."

Why do you attack the science? Be truthful

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Their theroys FAILED. The math doesn't add up., the models fail without question showing that they do not understand the system, Nor how to correctly model it.
IN other words, THEY ARE CLUELESS ABOUT THE EARTHS CLIMATE SYSTEMS and their proclamations are BULL SHIT!!

You present members of USMB with a difficult choice: Your opinions, or the opinions of the world scientific community.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Martin, you're talking with a trio of hard core conspiracy cultists. If you want to amuse yourself with them, have fun. Just understand that attempting reason will have no effect on people who have proudly abandoned reason. They only understand that you're an enemy of their cult, and therefore they hate you.

mamooth
I am not debating the science with them. Why would I? They're not climate scientists, and neither am I.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

So does this "stated theory" suppose a troposheric hot spot?

I thought you answered that already. Why would keep asking a question, you yourself have answered?

 

[Billy_Bob]

You like being a pivot man in a circle jerk. You go round and round and never answer the question while baiting others to say something you can use against them.

The AGW theroy and its so called supporting evidence wont pass a court of law's discovery process and physical review with cross examination. NO legitimate court would place itself in the cross hairs of this without many professionals to advise it on the scientific veracity, not the AGW premise itself. There has been so much corruption of the science it wont pass muster and that is easily proved.

Climate Scientists have reached a consensus on the Global Warming data. Scientific theories are not legal arguments. You claim a corruption in the sciences, yet you cannot show evidence to back up your claims -- not evidence that would "pass a court of law's discovery process and physical review with cross examination."

Why do you attack the science? Be truthful

Too funny;

You use consensus as if it means something in science. Consensus is a political term and not one reputable scientist use. Your like the Catholic Church who said the sun circled the earth and that the earth was flat.. Their "consensus" was wrong as it is today also.. But hey, your in a cult...

 

[Billy_Bob]

So does this "stated theory" suppose a troposheric hot spot?

I thought you answered that already. Why would keep asking a question, you yourself have answered?

The pivot man...

Round and round you go... never answering the question...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Their theroys FAILED. The math doesn't add up., the models fail without question showing that they do not understand the system, Nor how to correctly model it.
IN other words, THEY ARE CLUELESS ABOUT THE EARTHS CLIMATE SYSTEMS and their proclamations are BULL SHIT!!

You present members of USMB with a difficult choice: Your opinions, or the opinions of the world scientific community.

Well lets see if the little MEM ****-tard can answer the basic premise of CAGW...

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

The IPCC in AR1, AR2, AR3, AR4 and AR5 can not defend their theroy becasue it can not pass empirical review.

DEFEND YOUR POSITION with empirical evidence or STFU!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You like being a pivot man in a circle jerk. You go round and round and never answer the question while baiting others to say something you can use against them.

The AGW theroy and its so called supporting evidence wont pass a court of law's discovery process and physical review with cross examination. NO legitimate court would place itself in the cross hairs of this without many professionals to advise it on the scientific veracity, not the AGW premise itself. There has been so much corruption of the science it wont pass muster and that is easily proved.

Climate Scientists have reached a consensus on the Global Warming data. Scientific theories are not legal arguments. You claim a corruption in the sciences, yet you cannot show evidence to back up your claims -- not evidence that would "pass a court of law's discovery process and physical review with cross examination."

Why do you attack the science? Be truthful

Too funny;

You use consensus as if it means something in science. Consensus is a political term and not one reputable scientist use. Your like the Catholic Church who said the sun circled the earth and that the earth was flat.. Their "consensus" was wrong as it is today also.. But hey, your in a cult...

Like denier!, consensus is a cult word

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Too funny;

You use consensus as if it means something in science. Consensus is a political term and not one reputable scientist use. Your like the Catholic Church who said the sun circled the earth and that the earth was flat.. Their "consensus" was wrong as it is today also.. But hey, your in a cult...

What is funnier, and yet truly sad, is that you believe a consensus in the scientific community is worthless. You are the one who like the Catholic Church feels threatened (because you were told to be by the noise machine). You actually compare a consensus in the Church , to a consensus within the scientific community?

Of course reputable scientists use the term 'consensus' on what the leading science theorizes and predicts. This does not mean they are against testing the theories behind the consensus. So your statement that "Consensus is a political term and not one reputable scientist" uses, is moronic on the face of it. The way you keep insisting on misrepresenting (if not misrepresenting, then you must be totally ignorant) how the term consensus is being used when discussing a scientific consensus, is troubling. Like the Church of old, you have a belief that when challenged, you will purposefully (hopefully not ignorantly) defend in the face of all evidence to the contrary