Earth just had hottest 12 months in recorded history

[Stryder50]

You need to be looking to be reasonable yourself. This AGW bullshit is a scam. It is not based upon anything scientifically defensible.

And especially anything that can be replicated in the laboratory, another fundamental of the scientific process.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Oh boy!...ApuFuckchop is here to spread the little "thumbs down" thingies!

You were expecting a cognoscente discussion?

 

[Crick]

These folks are pretty consistent with name calling when their science is questioned. All I did is ask for open and transparent science that can be reproduced and verified by others... And they get mad, name call, then runaway....

What you have done, Billy Boy, is put out what clearly appear to be lies and misinformation and then fail to put out any links in support. That's when folks start calling you names.

 

[ding]

Simple physics shows the world will warm by a bit more than 1C once CO2 doubles, if feedbacks are not taken into account.

Explainer: How scientists estimate climate sensitivity

The sensitivity of the Earth’s climate to increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration is a question that sits at the heart of climate science. Essentially, it dictates how much global temperatures will rise in response to human-caused CO2 emissions, but it is a question that does not yet have a...

www.carbonbrief.org

 

[ding]

So what that means is that anything over 1C by 2100 is model feedback being attributed to CO2.

 

[Stryder50]

I'm not a climate scientist and neither are you. I'm not going to sit here like an asshole and have a climate debate with some random on the internet when neither of us is actually qualified to do so.

I would pay money to see a video recording of you debating an actual scientist. The look on your face the moment you realized you were in over your head would be priceless.

When it comes to "not a climate scientist" neither are abu afak or Crick. For that matter, neither are Al Gore or that obnoxious Scandinavian teen girl Greta Thunberg.

As taxpayers and voters, we Citizens have an obligation to know as much if not more than the people we elect to make guv'mint policy/laws and allocate guv'mint funds - such as hiring "climate scientists" and paying for funds/grants to do climate research.

One of the reasons we teach basic sciences in K-12 schooling, and beyond (or use to) is to assure future citizens-voters-taxpayers have an essential grounding in such areas to live better and not make harmful mistakes. For example, ideally you were taught why not to mix ammonia and chlorine to make a better cleaning solution. I'd hope you were anyway and wonder if you could answer, off the top of your head with out web-searching, why you shouldn't mix the two.

Point here is that you are engaging in a "climate debate"; seem to be coming from a point of great ignorance on climate and basic science, and that is why you choose the cop-out; CYA path you now wish to follow.

 

[Leweman]

It wasn't and who cares?

 

[Mac-7]

I didn't say anything about government policies. You're just attaching things to me based on your preconceived notions.

I’m confident you have policies in mind - unspoken here - that al gore and greta thunberg will approve of

 

[Mac-7]

Bitter is the wrong word. I just stopped caring. I'll give my drive by opinion and do some good shitposting from time to time, but I just don't have the desire to put in effort anymore. Not with this conversation.

You deny being freaked out but its obvious that you are

 

[Crick]

When it comes to "not a climate scientist" neither are abu afak or Crick. For that matter, neither are Al Gore or that obnoxious Scandinavian teen girl Greta Thunberg.

But the people getting climate science studies published in refereed journals and the people putting together the IPCC's assessment reports - those people ARE climate scientists. And they all accept AGW theory as valid.

As taxpayers and voters, we Citizens have an obligation to know as much if not more than the people we elect to make guv'mint policy/laws and allocate guv'mint funds - such as hiring "climate scientists" and paying for funds/grants to do climate research.

That's why governments put out so much data and transparent analysis.

One of the reasons we teach basic sciences in K-12 schooling, and beyond (or use to) is to assure future citizens-voters-taxpayers have an essential grounding in such areas to live better and not make harmful mistakes. For example, ideally you were taught why not to mix ammonia and chlorine to make a better cleaning solution. I'd hope you were anyway and wonder if you could answer, off the top of your head with out web-searching, why you shouldn't mix the two.

Because the reams and reams of chlorine gas that will produce will be unpleasant to say the least.

Point here is that you are engaging in a "climate debate"; seem to be coming from a point of great ignorance on climate and basic science, and that is why you choose the cop-out; CYA path you now wish to follow.

Poster Anomalism doesn't seem to be debating the science. He's discussing YOUR relationship and the relationship of other deniers with the actual scientists doing climate research and their conclusions; something for which he seems perfectly qualified.

 

[DukeU]

How do we fix it? Will we save the planet by convincing these ignorant rednecks that the scientists aren't lying to us?

Send them your money.

 

[Crick]

I just put this thread up this morning. I can't believe it has garnered this much response. I thought you all were tired of me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But the people getting climate science studies published in refereed journals and the people putting together the IPCC's assessment reports - those people ARE climate scientists. And they all accept AGW theory as valid.

When the science is on your side, censoring opponents is the first thing real scientists do.

 

[Flash]

2.4 degrees F since 1760?

Nobody has a clue what the average temperature of the earth was in 1760. Or 1761. Or for hundreds of years afterwards.

We don't even know what the temperature of the earth is now. You sure as hell can't depend upon the Climate Scientists today when they take a readings at one place and apply a factor to say what the temperature is at other places, that were never measured. The Climategate scientists admitted doing that and NASA and NOAA were caught red handed doing it.

 

[Crick]

No it didn't. You are lying as usual.

Recorded history goes back over three thousand years and we no idea what the world wide temperature was back then or even now.

I suspect the article was referring to the recording of sufficient temperature data so that a global mean could be approximated. Of course, proxy data has been used for temperatures back 22,000 years and 800,000 years for ice cores.

You are always confused about things like this, aren't you?

Ummm... I don't think I'm the confused one here.

Do you have any plans to ever pull your Environmental Wacko head out of your ass?

Do you have plans to ever give mainstream science any credence?

 

[Crick]

Too Funny.... Another MODELING Failure.... And Crick jumps on it without looking into the claims made.

And what modeling failure do you see here Billy Boy?

 

[Anomalism]

I’m confident you have policies in mind - unspoken here - that al gore and greta thunberg will approve of

Yeah. See, this is the problem. You know so many things that just aren't true.

 

[Flash]

Almost no scientists are saying that AGW is not happening.

Any scientist who says that gets canceled.

Big Environmental Wacko bucks buys "science".

 

[Anomalism]

You deny being freaked out but its obvious that you are

No, I'm really not. If I was I'd probably be more invested in arguing with you about it. Annihilation doesn't scare me. I'm going to die either way.

 

[Flash]

I just put this thread up this morning. I can't believe it has garnered this much response. I thought you all were tired of me.

We enjoy ridiculing you stupid uneducated Environmental Wackos.

Are you fixing your husband the sandwich like I told you to do?