Alright, here's your chance. Humans are NOT causing climate change. Change my mind...

[jc456]

Why? You'll just ignore it, scream insults and run, so what's the point? We already know you'll do that.

you just ignored what has been posted. Provide data that lines up with historical data, you always conveniently leaving the past off. Ice Cores is all we got for records. I look for honest data. you got any?

 

[Crick]

The assertion is yours to approve, granpa.

Actually, it's not. The AGW proponents need to support their theory with empirical data.

To date they have not. Further the climatologists have tried to turn the scientific method on its head by refuting the need for reproducibility and by claiming you have to prove a negative.

All signs of a pseudo science.

Bullshit. There are massive amount of empirical data supporting AGW. There has been no effort to refute reproducibility and no one has insisted that you prove a negative. These are the arguments that one would find among the ignorant in a middle school. You should be embarrassed.

 

[jc456]

The assertion is yours to approve, granpa.

Actually, it's not. The AGW proponents need to support their theory with empirical data.

To date they have not. Further the climatologists have tried to turn the scientific method on its head by refuting the need for reproducibility and by claiming you have to prove a negative.

All signs of a pseudo science.

Bullshit. There are massive amount of empirical data supporting AGW. There has been no effort to refute reproducibility and no one has insisted that you prove a negative. These are the arguments that one would find among the ignorant in a middle school. You should be embarrassed.

why don't you ever provide it then?

Show the data where CO2 doesn't follow temperatures.

 

[westwall]

That has all the signs of a psuedo argument, but go for it.

Your arguments consist of Appeals to authority, and correlation equals causation.

Both of which are logic fails.

But you go right along following them.

 

[westwall]

The assertion is yours to approve, granpa.

Actually, it's not. The AGW proponents need to support their theory with empirical data.

To date they have not. Further the climatologists have tried to turn the scientific method on its head by refuting the need for reproducibility and by claiming you have to prove a negative.

All signs of a pseudo science.

Bullshit. There are massive amount of empirical data supporting AGW. There has been no effort to refute reproducibility and no one has insisted that you prove a negative. These are the arguments that one would find among the ignorant in a middle school. You should be embarrassed.

No, there is not. What empirical data there is proves the exact opposite. Global warming ALWAYS occurs before a rise in CO2 levels.

 

[mamooth]

No, there is not. What empirical data there is proves the exact opposite. Global warming ALWAYS occurs before a rise in CO2 levels.

As has been explained to you many times -- patiently, as if we were talking to an idiot child, because that is essentially is the case-- that's totally consistent with AGW theory. CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback.

Now, the grownups are talking. Here's your juicebox, the kiddie table is thataway.

 

[jc456]

No, there is not. What empirical data there is proves the exact opposite. Global warming ALWAYS occurs before a rise in CO2 levels.

As has been explained to you many times -- patiently, as if we were talking to an idiot child, because that is essentially is the case-- that's totally consistent with AGW theory. CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback.

Now, the grownups are talking. Here's your juicebox, the kiddie table is thataway.

and yet you can't present that data. dude you keep saying it and every graph disputes your words. so you have no data. cause you never present it.

 

[westwall]

No, there is not. What empirical data there is proves the exact opposite. Global warming ALWAYS occurs before a rise in CO2 levels.

As has been explained to you many times -- patiently, as if we were talking to an idiot child, because that is essentially is the case-- that's totally consistent with AGW theory. CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback.

Now, the grownups are talking. Here's your juicebox, the kiddie table is thataway.

The problem you have, idiot. Is EVERYTHING is consistent with "AGW THEORY" Which makes it non falsifiable which makes it a PSEUDO SCIENCE.

Thanks for playing.

 

[sartre play]

Cant change your mind its made up & not open to new information. I can suggest that you consider looking into pollution & situations regarding water & air. Climate change is much more difficult to understand.

 

[jc456]

Climate change is much more difficult to understand.

you have no idea about climate. you think it's weather. you think flooding is the result of climate change. hahahahahaahahahaha, tornadoes as well. step up and confirm that for us. you probably also think burning forests are climate change.

 

[Crick]

No, there is not. What empirical data there is proves the exact opposite. Global warming ALWAYS occurs before a rise in CO2 levels.

As has been explained to you many times -- patiently, as if we were talking to an idiot child, because that is essentially is the case-- that's totally consistent with AGW theory. CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback.

Now, the grownups are talking. Here's your juicebox, the kiddie table is thataway.

The problem you have, idiot. Is EVERYTHING is consistent with "AGW THEORY" Which makes it non falsifiable which makes it a PSEUDO SCIENCE.

Thanks for playing.

AGW is quite falsifiable, idiot.
1) Show humans are not the source of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere
2) Show that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
3) Show that the greenhouse effect isn't real
4) Show that the Earth's temperature is not increasing

And when you cannot falsify it, accept the likelihood that it is valid.

 

[mamooth]

AGW is quite falsifiable, idiot.
1) Show humans are not the source of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere
2) Show that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
3) Show that the greenhouse effect isn't real
4) Show that the Earth's temperature is not increasing

And when you cannot falsify it, accept the likelihood that it is valid.

I'll add a few more:

5) Show sea level isn't increasing.
6) Show glaciers aren't melting (overall)
7) Show that backradiation isn't increasing.
8) Show there's no stratospheric cooling.
9) Demonstrate conclusively that a specific natural factor is causing the current fast warming

The real irony? Denialism can't be falsified. There is literally no evidence that could disprove it the mind of any denier. Denialism doesn't even rise to the level of pseudoscience, becasue there's no theory at all behind it. If you ask them for their theory of what's causing the current fast warming, you get either conspiracy theories or silence. What you don't get is any actual theory that can be tested.

 

[westwall]

Cant change your mind its made up & not open to new information. I can suggest that you consider looking into pollution & situations regarding water & air. Climate change is much more difficult to understand.

No, it's actually quite easy. It is ALWAYS changing. There is NO time that the climate has been static.

 

[westwall]

No, there is not. What empirical data there is proves the exact opposite. Global warming ALWAYS occurs before a rise in CO2 levels.

As has been explained to you many times -- patiently, as if we were talking to an idiot child, because that is essentially is the case-- that's totally consistent with AGW theory. CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback.

Now, the grownups are talking. Here's your juicebox, the kiddie table is thataway.

The problem you have, idiot. Is EVERYTHING is consistent with "AGW THEORY" Which makes it non falsifiable which makes it a PSEUDO SCIENCE.

Thanks for playing.

AGW is quite falsifiable, idiot.
1) Show humans are not the source of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere
2) Show that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
3) Show that the greenhouse effect isn't real
4) Show that the Earth's temperature is not increasing

And when you cannot falsify it, accept the likelihood that it is valid.

Humans account for less than 5% of the global CO2 production. Fact.

Show that an infinitesimal amount of CO2 can affect the global temperature knowing that water vapor constitutes the overwhelming majority of ghgs in the atmosphere and it operates in the same spectra as CO2 thus overwhelming any effect that CO2 could have.

Show that man's paltry less than 5% contribution to the global CO2 budget can have an affect.

The Earth's temperature has been increasing since 1850 when the little ice age ended.

Prove that this temperature increase is nothing more than natural cyclic affect that has been happening since time began.

 

[jc456]

No, there is not. What empirical data there is proves the exact opposite. Global warming ALWAYS occurs before a rise in CO2 levels.

As has been explained to you many times -- patiently, as if we were talking to an idiot child, because that is essentially is the case-- that's totally consistent with AGW theory. CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback.

Now, the grownups are talking. Here's your juicebox, the kiddie table is thataway.

The problem you have, idiot. Is EVERYTHING is consistent with "AGW THEORY" Which makes it non falsifiable which makes it a PSEUDO SCIENCE.

Thanks for playing.

AGW is quite falsifiable, idiot.
1) Show humans are not the source of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere
2) Show that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
3) Show that the greenhouse effect isn't real
4) Show that the Earth's temperature is not increasing

And when you cannot falsify it, accept the likelihood that it is valid.

Lurch ohhhhhhhhhh

 

[jc456]

No, there is not. What empirical data there is proves the exact opposite. Global warming ALWAYS occurs before a rise in CO2 levels.

As has been explained to you many times -- patiently, as if we were talking to an idiot child, because that is essentially is the case-- that's totally consistent with AGW theory. CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback.

Now, the grownups are talking. Here's your juicebox, the kiddie table is thataway.

The problem you have, idiot. Is EVERYTHING is consistent with "AGW THEORY" Which makes it non falsifiable which makes it a PSEUDO SCIENCE.

Thanks for playing.

AGW is quite falsifiable, idiot.
1) Show humans are not the source of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere
2) Show that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
3) Show that the greenhouse effect isn't real
4) Show that the Earth's temperature is not increasing

And when you cannot falsify it, accept the likelihood that it is valid.

Humans account for less than 5% of the global CO2 production. Fact.

Show that an infinitesimal amount of CO2 can affect the global temperature knowing that water vapor constitutes the overwhelming majority of ghgs in the atmosphere and it operates in the same spectra as CO2 thus overwhelming any effect that CO2 could have.

Show that man's paltry less than 5% contribution to the global CO2 budget can have an affect.

The Earth's temperature has been increasing since 1850 when the little ice age ended.

Prove that this temperature increase is nothing more than natural cyclic affect that has been happening since time began.

Funny he doesn’t think he’s obligated to do all those items he asked. Flip it back on him. He’s making the claim, the burden is all his to prove every one of those things.

 

[jc456]

No, there is not. What empirical data there is proves the exact opposite. Global warming ALWAYS occurs before a rise in CO2 levels.

As has been explained to you many times -- patiently, as if we were talking to an idiot child, because that is essentially is the case-- that's totally consistent with AGW theory. CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback.

Now, the grownups are talking. Here's your juicebox, the kiddie table is thataway.

The problem you have, idiot. Is EVERYTHING is consistent with "AGW THEORY" Which makes it non falsifiable which makes it a PSEUDO SCIENCE.

Thanks for playing.

AGW is quite falsifiable, idiot.
1) Show humans are not the source of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere
2) Show that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
3) Show that the greenhouse effect isn't real
4) Show that the Earth's temperature is not increasing

And when you cannot falsify it, accept the likelihood that it is valid.

Burden is all yours. Prove all of that

 

[jc456]

AGW is quite falsifiable, idiot.
1) Show humans are not the source of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere
2) Show that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
3) Show that the greenhouse effect isn't real
4) Show that the Earth's temperature is not increasing

And when you cannot falsify it, accept the likelihood that it is valid.

I'll add a few more:

5) Show sea level isn't increasing.
6) Show glaciers aren't melting (overall)
7) Show that backradiation isn't increasing.
8) Show there's no stratospheric cooling.
9) Demonstrate conclusively that a specific natural factor is causing the current fast warming

The real irony? Denialism can't be falsified. There is literally no evidence that could disprove it the mind of any denier. Denialism doesn't even rise to the level of pseudoscience, becasue there's no theory at all behind it. If you ask them for their theory of what's causing the current fast warming, you get either conspiracy theories or silence. What you don't get is any actual theory that can be tested.

Burden is yours. You show us you have evidence! Ready, go.

we don’t have any obligation

 

[mamooth]

Humans account for less than 5% of the global CO2 production. Fact.

Do we really have to explain to you again, in small words, how an equilibrium system works? It appears so.

I make $1000 a week. I spend $1000 a week. My bank account stays the same.

I make $1050 a week. I spend $1000 a week. My bank account grows by $50 a week. A mere 5% difference keeps adding up.

Show that an infinitesimal amount of CO2

And by "infinitesimal", you mean a finite quantity that can be directly measured. Words mean things, and generally not what you say they mean.

can affect the global temperature knowing that water vapor constitutes the overwhelming majority of ghgs in the atmosphere

Water vapor is the feedback, not the driver. Increase it artificially, it rains back out. That's why there's no runaway greenhouse effect due to water vapor.

and it operates in the same spectra as CO2 thus overwhelming any effect that CO2 could have.

H2O and CO2 plug different holes in the IR emission spectrum.

The Earth's temperature has been increasing since 1850 when the little ice age ended.

You mean the LIA was completely over by 1850. Temperatures had gone past pre-LIA levels.

Up until 1970, temperature closely tracked solar activity. That was the natural cycle. After 1970, temperature and solar activity went in opposite directions. That demonstrates that it wasn't part of the natural cycle.

Prove that this temperature increase is nothing more than natural cyclic affect that has been happening since time began.

The directly observed stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation and decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG emission bands have no natural explanations, therefore they are smoking guns for the warming not being part of natural cycle.

 

[mamooth]

Burden is yours. You show us you have evidence! Ready, go.

Are you drunik?

I just ask because you're now demanding we produce the evidence to falsify global warming, when the point is that there is no such evidence.