Blinded by the Light

[Donald H]

Is that the new explanation de jure? ... we weren't watching the weather during WWII and the aftermath ... the data that disproves the CO2 hypothesis can be simply hand waved away ... the very essence of cherry-picking ... bravo! ...

I agree 27-year time intervals is just weather, not climate ... but that applies to the current warming just as much ... what the period of global cooling between 1940 and 1980 proves is CO2 has negligible effect on surface temperature ...

Physics uses real math, not this statistical bullshit ...

I can't say for sure if Matt is stupid, dishonest, or has been caught lying? There are least 3 kinds of denialists and that's not counting Christians who live a life of lies.

Which would you think is most likely?

 

[ding]

I can't say for sure if Matt is stupid, dishonest, or has been caught lying? There are least 3 kinds of denialists and that's not counting Christians who live a life of lies.

Which would you think is most likely?

You should use public transportation and ignite your farts.

 

[Donald H]

You should use public transportation and ignite your farts.

Now how much more work would it have been for Matt to make sure he wouldn't be caught in a lie?
Or didn't he know that he was lying?

 

[ding]

Now how much more work would it have been for Matt to make sure he wouldn't be caught in a lie?
Or didn't he know that he was lying?

It really doesn't take much work to discredit AGW.

 

[Donald H]

It really doesn't take much work to discredit AGW.

When denialists like Matt purposely lie (or fk up ignorantly), who are we to believe. Matt had the best credentials of any denialists that have been trotted out so far. Now he's done that!

 

[toobfreak]

Good luck getting people to stop having sex ...

Just sterilize them after they have the allotted number of kids.

 

[ReinyDays]

I can't say for sure if Matt is stupid, dishonest, or has been caught lying? There are least 3 kinds of denialists and that's not counting Christians who live a life of lies.

Which would you think is most likely?

He's not stupid ... there's some good arguments he's making ... albeit using time intervals more appropriate for a discussion of weather, rather than climate ...

He may not understand the material well enough to be able to lie ... he makes some bad arguments as well ... starting with too short of time periods ...

 

[ding]

When denialists like Matt purposely lie (or fk up ignorantly), who are we to believe. Matt had the best credentials of any denialists that have been trotted out so far. Now he's done that!

Denialists like Patrick Moore?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The atmosphere has no effect on the Sun ...

Total Solar Irradiation is a new term, this is usually presented as j* in scientific literature ... if you'd read the HR diagram article, you'd understand what we're measuring here better ...

Mass and mass alone ... and the Sun isn't changing mass ...

=====

One photon, one molecule ... no, there's not enough molecules of CO2 to effect temperature in our atmosphere ... why do you ask? ...

Here's what I said: Just show us one time in a lab how a .012% increase in an atmospheric trace element can “raise temperature”

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What is commonly overlooked are the bandwidth changes of the sun over time, TSI doesn't show it which is why it can be misleading to what the sun is doing to the atmosphere and planetary waters.

As if the Sun is a digital heat source and not some Bizarroland plasma where the surface is 200 times hotter than the interior

 

[ReinyDays]

Here's what I said: Just show us one time in a lab how a .012% increase in an atmospheric trace element can “raise temperature”

Why are you asking me? ...

Are you using mass or volume? ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Just sterilize them after they have the allotted number of kids.

Sure, just like China ... I had a friend who was forcibly sterilized, couldn't afford a lawyer ... isn't this is same as abortion? ... treating the poor like dogs ... "spay and neuter, it's the right thing to do" ... cheaper than child support enforcement ...

 

[Donald H]

Denialists like Patrick Moore?

I'll need a preview my friend, I don't have time for hybrid denialists.

 

[Donald H]

He's not stupid ... there's some good arguments he's making ... albeit using time intervals more appropriate for a discussion of weather, rather than climate ...

He may not understand the material well enough to be able to lie ... he makes some bad arguments as well ... starting with too short of time periods ...

The main point is that Matt lost his credibility as a denialist. He invented his whole theory and it's not just a typo or spelling error.

 

[ReinyDays]

The main point is that Matt lost his credibility as a denialist. He invented his whole theory and it's not just a typo or spelling error.

Yeah ... 98% of Denialists ruin everything for us remaining 2% ... and it does become who can out-kOOky the other with all manner of bizarre theories ...

Hysterical reasoning cuts both ways ... lucky for the rest of us, fairly simple math refutes catastrophic climate change ... although catastrophic weather is a fact of life ... get over it ...

... and unless someone can answer this question ... the kOOkiness can't be demonstrated ...

Here's what I said: Just show us one time in a lab how a .012% increase in an atmospheric trace element can “raise temperature”

 

[Donald H]

Yeah ... 98% of Denialists ruin everything for us remaining 2% ... and it does become who can out-kOOky the other with all manner of bizarre theories ...

Hysterical reasoning cuts both ways ... lucky for the rest of us, fairly simple math refutes catastrophic climate change ... although catastrophic weather is a fact of life ... get over it ...

... and unless someone can answer this question ... the kOOkiness can't be demonstrated ...

Let's leave the debate to science's 98% who are the experts.

What we 'can' do is catch the lies of both sides and especially the ones that are ferreted out for us by experts!

Thus, another Matthew bites the dust.

No, simple math doesn't refute climate change. If that were true then Matt wouldn't have resorted to lies and false information to make the point.

The denialist club needs to form an org that is tasked with peer reviewing valuable sources such as Matt. His attempt could have been corrected and amended before it was published for public consumption. Or discarded if found necessary.

 

[Donald H]

Yeah ... 98% of Denialists ruin everything for us remaining 2% ... and it does become who can out-kOOky the other with all manner of bizarre theories ...

Hysterical reasoning cuts both ways ... lucky for the rest of us, fairly simple math refutes catastrophic climate change ... although catastrophic weather is a fact of life ... get over it ...

... and unless someone can answer this question ... the kOOkiness can't be demonstrated ...

You can challenge Matthew's challenger here on this board but you're going to be ignored by the wider world in the same way Ding is ignored.

The job for both of you is to build a reputation that ensures you don't get ignored by people who matter.

Matthew on the other hand was a great white hope of the denialists, when carelessness caused him to crash and burn in a cloud of smoke.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yeah ... 98% of Denialists ruin everything for us remaining 2% ... and it does become who can out-kOOky the other with all manner of bizarre theories ...

Hysterical reasoning cuts both ways ... lucky for the rest of us, fairly simple math refutes catastrophic climate change ... although catastrophic weather is a fact of life ... get over it ...

... and unless someone can answer this question ... the kOOkiness can't be demonstrated ...

So just take your word for it? No lab experiments linking 120PPM of CO2 to temperature, very odd

 

[toobfreak]

... isn't this is same as abortion? ... treating the poor like dogs ...

No, abortion is killing the living. As to the poor, nope, the only way to reduce human global population is if /everyone/ stops having kids, at least for a while, then fewer after that.

 

[ReinyDays]

No, simple math doesn't refute climate change.

That's not what I said ... I said fairly simple math refutes catastrophic climate change ... it's the nature of logarithms ...