AnOTHER Open Challenge for my AGW Friends

[Crick]

Numerous posters here have claimed to have evidence that:

1) The world is not getting warmer

2) The oceans are not rising

3) The cryosphere is not melting

4) Climate scientists are lying to us, AGW is a liberal/democratic hoax

I thought it might be handy to have one spot to put all that amazing stuff. Here you go, oh me brothers.

 

[ReinyDays]

Numerous posters here have claimed to have evidence that:

1) The world is not getting warmer

2) The oceans are not rising

3) The cryosphere is not melting

4) Climate scientists are lying to us, AGW is a liberal/democratic hoax

I thought it might be handy to have one spot to put all that amazing stuff. Here you go, oh me brothers.

5] YOU'RE lying to us about what Climate Scientists say ...

I vote #5 ... because you're a troll living in pigeon shit under some stupid bridge ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Numerous posters here have claimed to have evidence that:

1) The world is not getting warmer

2) The oceans are not rising

3) The cryosphere is not melting

4) Climate scientists are lying to us, AGW is a liberal/democratic hoax

I thought it might be handy to have one spot to put all that amazing stuff. Here you go, oh me brothers.

When the science is on your side, the first thing you do is censor/cancel skeptics.

The second thing you do is adjust instrument data over the last 100 years.

 

[Crick]

5] YOU'RE lying to us about what Climate Scientists say ...

I vote #5 ... because you're a troll living in pigeon shit under some stupid bridge ...

It's not a poll Sweetheart. It's a cork board for you to put up the evidence you've often claimed to possess. Now if you have some evidence that indicates I am lying about what climate scientists (which you don't have to capitolize) say, feel free to post it here.

 

[ReinyDays]

It's not a poll Sweetheart. It's a cork board for you to put up the evidence you've often claimed to possess. Now if you have some evidence that indicates I am lying about what climate scientists (which you don't have to capitolize) say, feel free to post it here.

What definition of temperature are we using and why is that wrong? ... last time you copy/pasted from Britannica's "hotness"/"coldness" little girlie sensations or some such ... which is a lie and you know it ...

 

[Crick]

What definition of temperature are we using and why is that wrong? ... last time you copy/pasted from Britannica's "hotness"/"coldness" little girlie sensations or some such ... which is a lie and you know it ...

You need a little education.

LIE : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression

Still waiting for some evidence of... well... anything.

 

[EMH]

Numerous posters here have claimed to have evidence that:

1) The world is not getting warmer

2) The oceans are not rising

3) The cryosphere is not melting

4) Climate scientists are lying to us, AGW is a liberal/democratic hoax

I thought it might be handy to have one spot to put all that amazing stuff. Here you go, oh me brothers.

Thanks....

All answered already....

Since Co2 does nothing, what does cause Earth climate change?

The first part is understanding what is climate and what is weather. Climate is the parameters of Earth that allow certain ranges of weather. We don't get Cat 10 canes now, but we would if Earth had no ice. What are the parameters of climate that can change? Ocean levels Atmospheric...

www.usmessageboard.com

Apparently we really need a "debate" over the term ICE AGE because y'all are all wrong...

What is an ICE AGE? Most apparently still believe it is a terrifying horror movie event where Earth all at once freezes up. The data has never supported such a scenario. Since 2010, there has been a massive effort to re-write Earth climate history into a series of rapid "glaciations" and ice...

www.usmessageboard.com

The warmers need to explain the Arctic Circle's ice pattern, and how Co2 is responsible...

The map is clear. 7% of Earth ice is on Greenland. Why is there ice on Greenland south of the Arctic Circle, and no ice north of the Arctic Circle on Alaska? Co2 and sun do not explain this. The only explanation is the Greenland is within 600 miles of the pole at the top, and hence...

www.usmessageboard.com

Hurricane Franklin vs. 1938 Hurricane - is the Atlantic Ocean "warming?"

Well we are all so very excited for the hurricane season, at least the media is. Hurricane Franklin is a well organized Cat 4, for the moment, out in the Atlantic and apparently will only threaten Bermuda. Down to 130mph, it is 1 mph above a Cat 3 and likely to decelerate. Hurricane...

www.usmessageboard.com

How old were the 2.5 mile thick glaciers covering Chicago in the past 20k-5 million years?

This is where the climate debate is now stuck. Every piece of land within 600 miles of a pole is in ice age, everything outside of that is not. Nobody has attempted to dispute that. It is the clear truth of Earth today. Milankovitch Cycles, which I call McBullshit Cycles, take a very...

www.usmessageboard.com

The lies of Milankovich Cycles aka McBullshit - where was land mass Antarctica 70 million years ago

McBullshit claims Antarctica has been on the South Pole forever, it never moved at all. And, while it is on the South Pole, it has rapidly gone from ice age to tropical paradise and back over and over.... a Dennis Quaid theory for sure... We know that Antarctica has 70 million year old...

www.usmessageboard.com

The Co2 fraud is misdiagnosing fires, and life on land is perishing because of this fraud

There are fires globally. There is but one explanation, ever increasing human consumption of FINITE land based fresh water is leaving plants dry and ready to burn. The Co2 fraud claims a (ficticious) 2 degree rise in temperature is behind it, not increased human consumption of fresh water...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[jc456]

You need a little education.

LIE : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression

Still waiting for some evidence of... well... anything.

I’m still waiting on the name of one climate scientist who’s career began as one out of college. You’re still pitching crickets

 

[Crick]

What definition of temperature are we using and why is that wrong? ... last time you copy/pasted from Britannica's "hotness"/"coldness" little girlie sensations or some such ... which is a lie and you know it ...

You can use any definition you like as long as your audience can reasonably be assumed to know which one you're using.

 

[Crick]

Thanks....

All answered already....

Since Co2 does nothing, what does cause Earth climate change?

The first part is understanding what is climate and what is weather. Climate is the parameters of Earth that allow certain ranges of weather. We don't get Cat 10 canes now, but we would if Earth had no ice. What are the parameters of climate that can change? Ocean levels Atmospheric...

www.usmessageboard.com

The premise here, that CO2 does nothing is a demonstrable falsehood. Beyond that, this is nothing but babbling about the poles which says absolutely nothing about what is causing the world to warm.

Apparently we really need a "debate" over the term ICE AGE because y'all are all wrong...

What is an ICE AGE? Most apparently still believe it is a terrifying horror movie event where Earth all at once freezes up. The data has never supported such a scenario. Since 2010, there has been a massive effort to re-write Earth climate history into a series of rapid "glaciations" and ice...

www.usmessageboard.com

An amazing demonstration of your ignorance. It is YOU that do not understand what is an ice age and what is a glacial cycle within an ice age.

The warmers need to explain the Arctic Circle's ice pattern, and how Co2 is responsible...

The map is clear. 7% of Earth ice is on Greenland. Why is there ice on Greenland south of the Arctic Circle, and no ice north of the Arctic Circle on Alaska? Co2 and sun do not explain this. The only explanation is the Greenland is within 600 miles of the pole at the top, and hence...

www.usmessageboard.com

This is your absurd claim that there is no ice (or glaciers) in Alaska north of the Arctic Circle. There are glaciers in Alaska north and south of the Arctic Circle.

Hurricane Franklin vs. 1938 Hurricane - is the Atlantic Ocean "warming?"

Well we are all so very excited for the hurricane season, at least the media is. Hurricane Franklin is a well organized Cat 4, for the moment, out in the Atlantic and apparently will only threaten Bermuda. Down to 130mph, it is 1 mph above a Cat 3 and likely to decelerate. Hurricane...

www.usmessageboard.com

This is a pathetic attempt to claim the oceans have not warmed because no Cat 5 hurricanes have made it to Martha's Vineyard as one reportedly did in 1938. This, of course, ignores several billion instrumental data points.

How old were the 2.5 mile thick glaciers covering Chicago in the past 20k-5 million years?

This is where the climate debate is now stuck. Every piece of land within 600 miles of a pole is in ice age, everything outside of that is not. Nobody has attempted to dispute that. It is the clear truth of Earth today. Milankovitch Cycles, which I call McBullshit Cycles, take a very...

www.usmessageboard.com

Your rejection of Milankovitch forcing. Beyond that, whatever it is you're attempting to say about Chicago and the Laurentide sheet is simply incomprehensible (No evidence of life in Chicago???). And Milankovitch isn't refuted by making up a nickname for it.

The lies of Milankovich Cycles aka McBullshit - where was land mass Antarctica 70 million years ago

McBullshit claims Antarctica has been on the South Pole forever, it never moved at all. And, while it is on the South Pole, it has rapidly gone from ice age to tropical paradise and back over and over.... a Dennis Quaid theory for sure... We know that Antarctica has 70 million year old...

www.usmessageboard.com

Angry (why are you always angry?) rambling about Antarctica and tectonics. You seem to believe that mainstream science has been telling us that the Antarctic continent has always been at the South Pole and then you use information - provided to you by mainstream science - to show us that it was not.

The Co2 fraud is misdiagnosing fires, and life on land is perishing because of this fraud

There are fires globally. There is but one explanation, ever increasing human consumption of FINITE land based fresh water is leaving plants dry and ready to burn. The Co2 fraud claims a (ficticious) 2 degree rise in temperature is behind it, not increased human consumption of fresh water...

www.usmessageboard.com

Another angry ramble this time claiming that forest fires all over the world are being caused by increased human consumption of fresh water.

There are a few posters here who claimed to have real evidence to support the suppositions I mentioned in the OP and other AGW denier memes. EMH was the first to attempt to put something down here and I imagine a number of the AGW deniers here were not happy to see him first to step up to the plate. Just keep in mind that EMH doesn't believe he is with you. He believes you are with him. If you aren't, you might want to tell him so.

 

[Lemmi]

The climate has been changing since long before our human ancestors climbed out of the trees. Now we're told cooking on gas stoves is heating up the earth. Nobody has proven it to be true.

 

[jc456]

demonstrable

Why can’t you show it?

 

[Crick]

The climate has been changing since long before our human ancestors climbed out of the trees. Now we're told cooking on gas stoves is heating up the earth. Nobody has proven it to be true.

Evening. First, the natural sciences do not make use of proofs but evidence and there is enough evidence supporting the AGW theory to have convinced very close to every climate scientist on the planet. Second: the fact that the climate has changed in the past without human activity does not mean that human activity cannot be changing it now. An analogy we see here is that forest fires took place long before humans showed up. That does not mean that humans can't start forest fires.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First, the natural sciences do not make use of proofs but evidence and their is enough evidence supporting the AGW theory to have convinced very close to every climate scientist on the planet.

Plus, nobody gets a grant by saying it's not a disaster.
In fact, nobody gets published, gets to keep their job or
even give a speech if they disagree with the AGW doomers.

 

[jc456]

Second: the fact that the climate has changed in the past without human activity does not mean that human activity cannot be changing it now

If only you can prove it

 

[ReinyDays]

You can use any definition you like as long as your audience can reasonably be assumed to know which one you're using.

No ... physics textbooks typically devote an entire chapter to temperature so that the student clearly understands the definition given in that chapter ... and why that's a prerequisite for meteorology, which in turn is a prerequisite for climatology ... ... you've claimed to have taken a year's coursework in thermodynamics ... so now's the time to pony up ...

What definition do climatologists use for temperature when they say "temperatures are rising"? ... because that's my statement in post #2 ... "5] YOU'RE lying to us about what Climate Scientists say" ... and the second part, why is that definition wrong?, and again this is straight out of first year physics textbook ... in the chapter devoted to temperature ... it's just before the chapter on the conservation of energy ... you know, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics ... that you claim to have spent a year studying ...

=====

Yes ... you do use any definition you want ... that's not science ... that's lying ... I still pick #5 ...

 

[Oddball]

Plus, nobody gets a grant by saying it's not a disaster.
In fact, nobody gets published, gets to keep their job or
even give a speech if they disagree with the AGW doomers.

What would any of them do tomorrow if they came out today and said; "Oops, we got it wrong...There's really no cause for alarm".

 

[Crick]

No ... physics textbooks typically devote an entire chapter to temperature so that the student clearly understands the definition given in that chapter ... and why that's a prerequisite for meteorology, which in turn is a prerequisite for climatology ... ... you've claimed to have taken a year's coursework in thermodynamics ... so now's the time to pony up ...

What definition do climatologists use for temperature when they say "temperatures are rising"? ... because that's my statement in post #2 ... "5] YOU'RE lying to us about what Climate Scientists say" ... and the second part, why is that definition wrong?, and again this is straight out of first year physics textbook ... in the chapter devoted to temperature ... it's just before the chapter on the conservation of energy ... you know, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics ... that you claim to have spent a year studying ...

=====

Yes ... you do use any definition you want ... that's not science ... that's lying ... I still pick #5 ...

I have taken two semesters of thermodynamics and one of heat transfer (non-equilibrium thermo).

You still have yet to identify a single lie I have ever posted. And if you have a question about a scientist's statement, I suggest you ask the scientist.

Your obsession with the definition of temperature became pathetic about twelve posts back.

 

[ReinyDays]

What would any of them do tomorrow if they came out today and said; "Oops, we got it wrong...There's really no cause for alarm".

Research would continue ... do you think this is "new money" being spent ... it's not, climate is just getting a bigger portion of the budget ... and research in dynamic meteorology is "suffering" in a sense ... but not really because this climate research is like WAY WAY OVER DUE ... just basic information from the polar regions was non-existent before my hero Al Gore set the world alight ... what a great man, just look how rich he got on the Hysteria, brilliant I say, brilliant ...

There never was any cause for alarm ... not like the risk of nuclear war in the Levant ... or all your cell phone traffic on record on NSA (and Chinese) server farms ... if this is obvious bullshit, then what are they hiding? ... I smell oil, crude oil ...

 

[ReinyDays]

I have taken two semesters of thermodynamics and one of heat transfer (non-equilibrium thermo).

You still have yet to identify a single lie I have ever posted. And if you have a question about a scientist's statement, I suggest you ask the scientist.

Your obsession with the definition of temperature became pathetic about twelve posts back.

You still haven't answered either ... you don't know, is why ... why do you lie about a year in therm? ... that's an obvious lie ...

What definition do Climatologists use? ... and why do Climatologists know that is wrong? ...