AN Open Challenge for my AGW Friends....

[jc456]

Why can't we use empirical climate data from the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet? Or the empirical climate evidence of the glacial cycles that have been occurring for the past 3 million years?

It doesn't fit their narrative.

 

[jc456]

It appears the request was too difficult for them to handle which is why they ignored it for the cheap prejudice and fallacious response thus no debate at all which is why they lose....... again.

I have done similar expose of their childish behavior in three forums with this and not a single reply to the content of this article published 2 1/2 years ago.

ZERO.... really, they couldn't handle it instead the screamed at it with a torrent of fallacies, name calling and more childish responses while totally avoiding the article itself thus never challenged.

Where is the Climate Emergency?

LINK

they won't debate because they will lose. It's really quite simple.

 

[Sunsettommy]

they won't debate because they will lose. It's really quite simple.

They CAN'T debate because they don't know jack shit about the AGW conjecture they slurp up the stupid propaganda so willingly the very fact that numerous government officials, government paid scientists and the media from around the world push it so hard is a sure sign of a scam in progress but unfortunately too many people are easily fooled by them who's only benefit is more $$ and power as Al Gore who buys large CO2 emitting properties with one close to the coast, Obama who buys literally on the coastline a piece of property barely holding back the waves.

 

[jc456]

They CAN'T debate because they don't know jack shit about the AGW conjecture they slurp up the stupid propaganda so willingly the very fact that numerous government officials, government paid scientists and the media from around the world push it so hard is a sure sign of a scam in progress but unfortunately too many people are easily fooled by them who's only benefit is more $$ and power as Al Gore who buys large CO2 emitting properties with one close to the coast, Obama who buys literally on the coastline a piece of property barely holding back the waves.

View attachment 858037

The tactic is to utilize the media as frequently as possible all channels. push the narrative to avoid the debate.

 

[BULLDOG]

The challenge was for YOU to present models which I can evaluate. My own research has shown no model capable of long term climactic prediction. The ball is in your court... GO!

No. Your thread. Show what you got dumbass.

 

[toobfreak]

every last scientific institution on the planet Earth disagrees with your viewpoints.

BULLSHIT. There are thousands of scientists who do not agree with Climate Change.

You could not possibly know that EVERY LAST institution on the planet agrees with or disagrees on ANYTHING.

But if that is all you think, at one time, most every last scientist and institution all agreed that the Earth was flat, center f the universe, and sailing too far out to sea could make you sail right off the edge of the world.

Once again, the majority were wrong, proven so by a tiny minority of independent thinkers.

 

[BULLDOG]

Why can't we use empirical climate data from the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet? Or the empirical climate evidence of the glacial cycles that have been occurring for the past 3 million years?

You gotta ask the OP about that. He's the one requiring data that was not compiled by others. He's quite adamant about not accepting information presented by previous experts. Are you willing to accept all that data from someone who was not an expert n the field?

 

[BULLDOG]

Still waiting for YOU to answer his request from post one:



So far all you show is your unprovoked prejudice which is boooring!

Dumb thread. If he has information to present, then he should present it. I'm not going down his rabit hole.

 

[ding]

You gotta ask the OP about that. He's the one requiring data that was not compiled by others. He's quite adamant about not accepting information presented by previous experts. Are you willing to accept all that data from someone who was not an expert n the field?

I'll accept anything that is true.

 

[BULLDOG]

BULLSHIT. There are thousands of scientists who do not agree with Climate Change.

You could not possibly know that EVERY LAST institution on the planet agrees with or disagrees on ANYTHING.

But if that is all you think, at one time, most every last scientist and institution all agreed that the Earth was flat, center f the universe, and sailing too far out to sea could make you sail right off the edge of the world.

Once again, the majority were wrong, proven so by a tiny minority of independent thinkers.

So list all the prominant, credible scientific organizations that don't believe generally accepted climate science

 

[BULLDOG]

I'll accept anything that is true.

Determining what is true is the rub. I'll go with the experts in the field over some nutbag on the internet. Credentials are the only rational way to determine what is true.

 

[toobfreak]

So list all the prominant, credible scientific organizations that don't believe generally accepted climate science

Why, so you can tell me that anyone I'd list isn't prominent or credible in your book?

 

[ding]

You gotta ask the OP about that.

Why? You were the one who said he was waiting for someone to present their own personal research that doesn't rely on other's previous work, right?

So my questions to you were, Why can't we use empirical climate data from the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet? Or the empirical climate evidence of the glacial cycles that have been occurring for the past 3 million years?

Because that's what I have been doing; using paleoclimate data as the basis for my own personal research.

 

[Crick]

Slandering Sue... Funny how you would bring that outright deception creating person into this conversation and all without facts. Her reputation is not one you want to hang anything on. How about you bring some facts that are reproducible and verifiable. Sue failed in her analysis.

I can defend what Dr Spencer did because he was open and transparent with what he did. He did a simple evaluation using real world data to prime the models. He then allowed them to run and watch the predicative phase of each one as measured against empirical data.

It's called Empirical Verification. If the model can't predict the future and runs away in temperature its worthless. The modelers are running from this test as it exposes the models' weaknesses and failures.

Show us a single failure in Sue's analysis. And he was not the least bit transparent about what he did to produce that graphic.

 

[ding]

Determining what is true is the rub. I'll go with the experts in the field over some nutbag on the internet. Credentials are the only rational way to determine what is true.

That would be great if you actually understood what they were saying and it made enough sense to you that you could discuss it intelligently, but you can't. So when I ask how their estimate of radiative forcing of CO2 compares to their estimate of feedback from CO2, you have no idea what I am asking and can't understand why it is an important point.

 

[BULLDOG]

Why, so you can tell me that anyone I'd list isn't prominent or credible in your book?

Show credibility. That's not too much to ask for.

 

[ding]

Credentials are the only rational way to determine what is true.

That is a dumb statement.

 

[ding]

Show credibility. That's not too much to ask for.

The previous interglacial periods were 2C warmer with 26 ft higher seas and 120 ppm less CO2 than today. Credibility says that our present climate is well within the normal range of temperature for an interglacial period.

 

[toobfreak]

Show credibility. That's not too much to ask for.

People post links to scientists and institutions here all of the time that dispute man made climate change. If you have ignored all of them and are too lazy to use the search function to start there or search the web, then why should I care about my "credibility" to you?

 

[BULLDOG]

Why? You were the one who said he was waiting for someone to present their own personal research that doesn't rely on other's previous work, right?

So my questions to you were, Why can't we use empirical climate data from the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet? Or the empirical climate evidence of the glacial cycles that have been occurring for the past 3 million years?

Because that's what I have been doing; using paleoclimate data as the basis for my own personal research.

Again. I'm not the one whining about appeal to authority. Personally gathered data is the only other option.