Challenge to the AGW Cult

[daveman]

Why on earth does Frank think his challenge isn't retarded? Does he really think one should be able accurately repeat the behavior of a whole planet in a lab?

You can, of course, show the greenhouse gases making a small system hotter as concentrations increase. As was done a century ago. Denialist cultists are bit behind the times.

Yup, like I said...you believe a jar with gas accurately replicates an entire planet's atmosphere and oceans with millions of variables.

And on the absolutely ridiculous basis, you demand trillions of dollars to "save" us from it.


Ummm...

No.

 

[Abraham3]

If you check back in this thread you will find I opined that you or Frank would reject any experiment that didn't actually make use of the Earth's entire atmosphere. If we were to succeed in that, you'd required the ocean. If we succeeded there, you'd probably demand that the actual sun be brought in.

So, it stands revealed. This entire thread is pure denialist bullshit.

 

[daveman]

If you check back in this thread you will find I opined that you or Frank would reject any experiment that didn't actually make use of the Earth's entire atmosphere. If we were to succeed in that, you'd required the ocean. If we succeeded there, you'd probably demand that the actual sun be brought in.

So, it stands revealed. This entire thread is pure denialist bullshit.

Sooo...you admit you have no experimental basis for your claims.

Finally.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you check back in this thread you will find I opined that you or Frank would reject any experiment that didn't actually make use of the Earth's entire atmosphere. If we were to succeed in that, you'd required the ocean. If we succeeded there, you'd probably demand that the actual sun be brought in.

So, it stands revealed. This entire thread is pure denialist bullshit.

What's the problem, Hercules?

It's not that you have produced an experiment that's at odds with your theory, you simply refuse to test your theory at all!

That's not how science works.

That's why AGW worship is a Cult

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you check back in this thread you will find I opined that you or Frank would reject any experiment that didn't actually make use of the Earth's entire atmosphere. If we were to succeed in that, you'd required the ocean. If we succeeded there, you'd probably demand that the actual sun be brought in.

So, it stands revealed. This entire thread is pure denialist bullshit.

Yeah, you can't possibly replicate anything as complex as an ocean

 

[Abraham3]

If you check back in this thread you will find I opined that you or Frank would reject any experiment that didn't actually make use of the Earth's entire atmosphere. If we were to succeed in that, you'd required the ocean. If we succeeded there, you'd probably demand that the actual sun be brought in.

So, it stands revealed. This entire thread is pure denialist bullshit.

Sooo...you admit you have no experimental basis for your claims.

Finally.

So, you demonstrate that English is not your native tongue.

 

[Abraham3]

If you check back in this thread you will find I opined that you or Frank would reject any experiment that didn't actually make use of the Earth's entire atmosphere. If we were to succeed in that, you'd required the ocean. If we succeeded there, you'd probably demand that the actual sun be brought in.

So, it stands revealed. This entire thread is pure denialist bullshit.

What's the problem, Hercules?

It's not that you have produced an experiment that's at odds with your theory, you simply refuse to test your theory at all!

That's not how science works.

That's why AGW worship is a Cult

Hercules?

The question of note wouldn't be whether or not I've tested the theory. I'm not a scientist. It would be whether or not the world's climate scientists have tested the theory. Since 97% of them agree with it, they are either the most dishonest group of humans ever identified or the theory has been tested to satisfaction.

Aside from noting that CO2's IR absorption spectra is listed in numerous textbooks, I have declined from playing this little game as it was obvious from the start that you all would shoot down any specific laboratory experiment we might mention for inadequately simulating the entire global environment.

I'm not so stupid to fall for such a ploy. You, however, seem to be stupid enough to think I would.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you check back in this thread you will find I opined that you or Frank would reject any experiment that didn't actually make use of the Earth's entire atmosphere. If we were to succeed in that, you'd required the ocean. If we succeeded there, you'd probably demand that the actual sun be brought in.

So, it stands revealed. This entire thread is pure denialist bullshit.

What's the problem, Hercules?

It's not that you have produced an experiment that's at odds with your theory, you simply refuse to test your theory at all!

That's not how science works.

That's why AGW worship is a Cult

Hercules?

The question of note wouldn't be whether or not I've tested the theory. I'm not a scientist. It would be whether or not the world's climate scientists have tested the theory. Since 97% of them agree with it, they are either the most dishonest group of humans ever identified or the theory has been tested to satisfaction.

Aside from noting that CO2's IR absorption spectra is listed in numerous textbooks, I have declined from playing this little game as it was obvious from the start that you all would shoot down any specific laboratory experiment we might mention for inadequately simulating the entire global environment.

I'm not so stupid to fall for such a ploy. You, however, seem to be stupid enough to think I would.

Please show me the tests.

Can you link to a test and not a model?

 

[Abraham3]

Please show me the tests.

No.*

You can find them as easily as can I.

You aren't looking for the truth.

Showing you the experimental data will not change your mind.

Sorry to say it but your contributions in this forum are lacking the substance to make you worth the effort. That's why you were the first person I put in my Ignore List, though Skookerasbil quickly followed you.

* But for anyone else that might have a REAL interest in this topic:

https://www.google.com/search?q=car...egF&sqi=2&ved=0CC8QsAQ&biw=1366&bih=643&dpr=1

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Please show me the tests.

No.

You can find them as easily as can I.

You aren't looking for the truth.

Showing you the experimental data will not change your mind.

Sorry to say it but your contributions in this forum are lacking the substance to make you worth the effort. That's why you were the first person I put in my Ignore List, though Skookerasbil quickly followed you.

I haven't found a single test that control for an 800PPM, or any slight increase in CO2

Not a single one.

The one's that the Warmers link to involved increasing the pressure on the container by pumping in several hundred thousand or maybe even a million PPM of CO2, they never disclose what they've added.

There was one college in rural Louisiana that did an experiment involving a 200PPM increase but they never posted the results. I spoke to one of the two professors running the experiment and he told me that the other professor simply vanished and no one has heard from him.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Please show me the tests.

No.*

You can find them as easily as can I.

You aren't looking for the truth.

Showing you the experimental data will not change your mind.

Sorry to say it but your contributions in this forum are lacking the substance to make you worth the effort. That's why you were the first person I put in my Ignore List, though Skookerasbil quickly followed you.

* But for anyone else that might have a REAL interest in this topic:

https://www.google.com/search?q=car...egF&sqi=2&ved=0CC8QsAQ&biw=1366&bih=643&dpr=1

^ not a single experiment there either Champ

 

[Abraham3]

Please show me the tests.

No.*

You can find them as easily as can I.

You aren't looking for the truth.

Showing you the experimental data will not change your mind.

Sorry to say it but your contributions in this forum are lacking the substance to make you worth the effort. That's why you were the first person I put in my Ignore List, though Skookerasbil quickly followed you.

* But for anyone else that might have a REAL interest in this topic:

https://www.google.com/search?q=car...egF&sqi=2&ved=0CC8QsAQ&biw=1366&bih=643&dpr=1

^ not a single experiment there either Champ

I don't mind you being ignorant and your intentional stupidity can be overlooked, but I don't like it when you lie.

 

[daveman]

If you check back in this thread you will find I opined that you or Frank would reject any experiment that didn't actually make use of the Earth's entire atmosphere. If we were to succeed in that, you'd required the ocean. If we succeeded there, you'd probably demand that the actual sun be brought in.

So, it stands revealed. This entire thread is pure denialist bullshit.

Sooo...you admit you have no experimental basis for your claims.

Finally.

So, you demonstrate that English is not your native tongue.

Ummmm, it's not me who said there have been no experiments, and then denied I said it.

Perhaps you're just dishonest. Yes, that seems far more likely.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No.*

You can find them as easily as can I.

You aren't looking for the truth.

Showing you the experimental data will not change your mind.

Sorry to say it but your contributions in this forum are lacking the substance to make you worth the effort. That's why you were the first person I put in my Ignore List, though Skookerasbil quickly followed you.

* But for anyone else that might have a REAL interest in this topic:

https://www.google.com/search?q=car...egF&sqi=2&ved=0CC8QsAQ&biw=1366&bih=643&dpr=1

^ not a single experiment there either Champ

I don't mind you being ignorant and your intentional stupidity can be overlooked, but I don't like it when you lie.

Really? where's the AGW Experiment?

 

[Abraham3]

Where do you think all that data came from? WalMart?

 

[Abraham3]

Sooo...you admit you have no experimental basis for your claims.

Finally.

So, you demonstrate that English is not your native tongue.

Ummmm, it's not me who said there have been no experiments, and then denied I said it.

Perhaps you're just dishonest. Yes, that seems far more likely.

Quote me saying there've been no experiments.

And do you recall calling me a moron? I quoted a study to which you posted a link. You denied having posted the link. I found it in the thread on IPCC predictions. Called you an asshole. Did you catch that one?

 

[daveman]

So, you demonstrate that English is not your native tongue.

Ummmm, it's not me who said there have been no experiments, and then denied I said it.

Perhaps you're just dishonest. Yes, that seems far more likely.

Quote me saying there've been no experiments.

If you have experiments, list them. And no, a Google search results link is inadmissible.

This is a test to see if you know what you're talking about. The jury's still out. Better impress 'em.

And do you recall calling me a moron? I quoted a study to which you posted a link. You denied having posted the link. I found it in the thread on IPCC predictions. Called you an asshole. Did you catch that one?

You sure do take the internet personally.

Perhaps someone with such tender feelings would best be served by remaining in progressive echo chambers, where his fragile world-view would not be challenged due to Groupthink being rigorously enforced.

They're over there, way off to the left:

<========

 

[Abraham3]

Perhaps, Dave, someone who can't recognize his own work should keep his epithets in check when someone has the temerity to bring it up in conversation.

Now, again, quote me saying no experiments have been done.

And Google results will do just fine*. If you don't like the answers you get, don't bother with the bullshit questions.

* - Do you realize what an idiot you'd look like if I posted all those graphs? Is that REALLY what you want me to do?

 

[emilynghiem]

The AGW Cult has theorized that a 800PPM CO2 concentration will raise temperature 3, 5, 8 degrees. Pick a number

That's called a "theory"

Now get into a lab and test it

Show me the repeatable lab experiments that show a 3-8 degree increase in temperature from an 800PPM increase in CO2 and I'll become a believer

I'd like to see a study done
on how many liberals/conservatives would agree on goals of
* environmental preservation
* reduction of pollution
* cleaning up toxic sites.

Instead of fighting over global warming.

If polls can show more people agree on issues across party lines
that would achieve the same goals by stopping waste and pollution

this would prove that there are ulterior motives for focusing on global warming
either
* media bias and ratings from inciting conflict between groups arguing back and forth
* corporate profit from selling carbon credits and other fringe benefits from selling out
the real green environmentalist movement that has tried to out the counterfeiters
hijacking their issues for profit
* political gain by either side by fueling talking points to slam the opposing view

Why not out the REAL fraud going on?

That global warming is not the real issue, but just abused to rally ratings and votes?

That we'd do much better focusing on environmental conservation and stopping pollution.
but since those are unifying and sensible solutions, the politics/media don't focus on that!

 

[Abraham3]

Really? where's the AGW Experiment?

You never asked for "an AGW Experiment". But my curiosity is piqued. Please describe for us an AGW Experiment.