Global Warming is political "science" and politicians need a question put to them

[Crick]

AFFF foam? Carbon dioxide? Halon gas?

 

[Crick]

Nobody thinks that, turd.

We have seen dozens of your brethren make precisely that argument. And "Turd"? How fucking old ARE you?

 

[bripat9643]

We have seen dozens of your brethren make precisely that argument. And "Turd"? How fucking old ARE you?

That isn't what they think, and people who claim to understand science and then demonstrate patently that they don't deserve the moniker "turd." All warmist cult members deserve to be called "turd."

 

[Crick]

That isn't what they think, and people who claim to understand science and then demonstrate patently that they don't deserve the moniker "turd." All warmist cult members deserve to be called "turd."

Since that is what many people have said, I have to conclude it IS what some people think. And I'd have to guess you're, what, 11... 12 perhaps.

 

[bripat9643]

Since that is what many people have said, I have to conclude it IS what some people think. And I'd have to guess you're, what, 11... 12 perhaps.

Please quote one of them

I'd have to guess that you're a turd who believes in AGW

 

[Crick]

Please quote one of them

I'd have to guess that you're a turd who believes in AGW

Yeah... me and every scientist on the planet. But you know so much better than them. Right? You're smarter than all those silly PhDs. Or do you think they're all lying and making it all up so they can get rich off research grants but that the people in the fossil fuel industries whose very existence is threatened by AGW would never tell a falsehood. Right?

 

[ding]

Yeah... me and every scientist on the planet.

There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).

And there have been other reviews and articles over this period have either been undecided, or else argued for significant but subtle effects of solar variability on climate change.

For example:
Labitzke & van Loon (1988); van Loon & Labitzke (2000); Labitzke (2005); Beer et al. (2000); Reid (2000); Carslaw et al. (2002); Ruzmaikin & Feynman (2002); Ruzmaikin et al. (2004, 2006); Feynman & Ruzmaikin (2011); Ruzmaikin & Feynman (2015); Salby & Callaghan (2000, 2004, 2006); Kirkby (2007); de Jager et al. (2010); Tinsley & Heelis(1993); Tinsley (2012); Lam & Tinsley (2016); Zhou et al. (2016); Zhang et al. (2020b); Dobrica et al. (2009); Dobrica et al. (2010); Demetrescu & Dobrica (2014); Dobrica et al. (2018); Blanter et al. (2012); van Loon & Shea (1999); van Loon & Meehl (2011); van Loon et al. (2012); Roy & Haigh (2012); Roy (2014, 2018); Roy & Kripalani (2019); Lopes et al. (2017); Pan et al. (2020).

 

[Sunsettommy]

Yeah... me and every scientist on the planet. But you know so much better than them. Right? You're smarter than all those silly PhDs. Or do you think they're all lying and making it all up so they can get rich off research grants but that the people in the fossil fuel industries whose very existence is threatened by AGW would never tell a falsehood. Right?

Consensus arguments means you can't defend your delusions which is all you have left.

 

[bripat9643]

Anyone who claims that 97% of all scientists agree is automatically an ignoramus. It wouldn't matter of 99% of them agree. It only takes one with proof to confirm the AGW theory, and they just don't have the proof.

 

[Crick]

Anyone who claims that 97% of all scientists agree is automatically an ignoramus. It wouldn't matter of 99% of them agree. It only takes one with proof to confirm the AGW theory, and they just don't have the proof.

If AGW had been falsified, no one would accept it. 99% of published climate scientists accept AGW in no small part because NO ONE HAS EVER FALSIFIED IT.

 

[ding]

If AGW had been falsified, no one would accept it. 99% of published climate scientists accept AGW in no small part because NO ONE HAS EVER FALSIFIED IT.

You mean besides the fact that it was 2C warmer during the last interglacial cycle with 120 ppm less CO2?

 

[bripat9643]

If AGW had been falsified, no one would accept it. 99% of published climate scientists accept AGW in no small part because NO ONE HAS EVER FALSIFIED IT.

Not true. Check out every green nutbag in this forum. Every so-called "climate scientist" who has sold his sole to the AGW bandwagon has a a clear motive to accept it and defend it. Without it they have no career.

Climategate proved they are falsifying it. The data in all the major climate data centers has been shown to be manipulated (homogenized).

 

[Crick]

Not true. Check out every green nutbag in this forum. Every so-called "climate scientist" who has sold his sole to the AGW bandwagon has a a clear motive to accept it and defend it. Without it they have no career.

Climategate proved they are falsifying it. The data in all the major climate data centers has been shown to be manipulated (homogenized).

It sure would be nice if the deniers here actually understood how mainstream science works. Why don't you see if you can tell us what aspect of AGW has been falsified?

 

[Crick]

It sure would be nice if the deniers here actually understood how mainstream science works. Why don't you see if you can tell us what aspect of AGW has been falsified? What you'd be looking for is a repeatable experiment or observation, not a misinterpreted email.

 

[Sunsettommy]

If AGW had been falsified, no one would accept it. 99% of published climate scientists accept AGW in no small part because NO ONE HAS EVER FALSIFIED IT.

It is clear you don't realize that the AGW conjecture comes in TWO parts, the first part has little dispute as everyone knows CO2 a trace gas absorbs IR a trace amount of the IR band.

The second part is all built on modeling bullshit has never showed up after 32 years which is why current warming trend will be slow as it has been for several decades now.

Do you know what second part of the AGW conjecture is?

 

[Crick]

I was trying to Edit my post to add that last sentence but apparently hit Reply instead. So, let's try that again. This is addressed to poster Bripat9643.

It sure would be nice if the deniers here actually understood how mainstream science works. Why don't you see if you can tell us what aspect of AGW has been falsified? What you'd be looking for is a repeatable experiment or observation, not a misinterpreted email.

This is to say that nothing revealed by Climategate falsifies AGW. And if you think you can prove that temperature data have been falsified, you're going to have to explain why you have zero actual evidence of those data being falsified and that none of the thousands of scientists using that data noticed the sort of problems falsification would have created and how five or six different national weather/climate organizations came up with global temperature datasets with better than 98% pairwise correlation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I was trying to Edit my post to add that last sentence but apparently hit Reply instead. So, let's try that again. This is addressed to poster Bripat9643.

It sure would be nice if the deniers here actually understood how mainstream science works. Why don't you see if you can tell us what aspect of AGW has been falsified? What you'd be looking for is a repeatable experiment or observation, not a misinterpreted email.

This is to say that nothing revealed by Climategate falsifies AGW. And if you think you can prove that temperature data have been falsified, you're going to have to explain why you have zero actual evidence of those data being falsified and that none of the thousands of scientists using that data noticed the sort of problems falsification would have created and how five or six different national weather/climate organizations came up with global temperature datasets with better than 98% pairwise correlation.

It sure would be nice if the deniers here actually understood how mainstream science works. Why don't you see if you can tell us what aspect of AGW has been falsified?

Why don't you see if you can tell us what aspect of AGW is falsifiable?

 

[Sunsettommy]

I was trying to Edit my post to add that last sentence but apparently hit Reply instead. So, let's try that again. This is addressed to poster Bripat9643.

It sure would be nice if the deniers here actually understood how mainstream science works. Why don't you see if you can tell us what aspect of AGW has been falsified? What you'd be looking for is a repeatable experiment or observation, not a misinterpreted email.

This is to say that nothing revealed by Climategate falsifies AGW. And if you think you can prove that temperature data have been falsified, you're going to have to explain why you have zero actual evidence of those data being falsified and that none of the thousands of scientists using that data noticed the sort of problems falsification would have created and how five or six different national weather/climate organizations came up with global temperature datasets with better than 98% pairwise correlation.

The Warmist/alarmist kook completely ignores my question in POST 255 here it is:

"Do you know what second part of the AGW conjecture is?"

 

[Crick]

It sure would be nice if the deniers here actually understood how mainstream science works. Why don't you see if you can tell us what aspect of AGW has been falsified?

Why don't you see if you can tell us what aspect of AGW is falsifiable?

Falsify the absorption spectra of CO2 and methane.
Falsify the anthropogenic source of CO2 above 280 ppm
Falsify the Greenhouse Effect
Falsify the temperature record
Falsify the loss of snow and ice worldwide
Falsify rising sea levels
Falsify changes to the AMOC from meltwater
Falsify mass loss in Greenland and Antarctica
Falsify that warm ocean water is causing the destabilization of the WAIS
Falsify measurements of downwelling infrared
Falsify satellite records of LWIR escaping to space

 

[bripat9643]

Falsify the absorption spectra of CO2 and methane.
Falsify the anthropogenic source of CO2 above 280 ppm
Falsify the Greenhouse Effect
Falsify the temperature record
Falsify the loss of snow and ice worldwide
Falsify rising sea levels
Falsify changes to the AMOC from meltwater
Falsify mass loss in Greenland and Antarctica
Falsify that warm ocean water is causing the destabilization of the WAIS
Falsify measurements of downwelling infrared
Falsify satellite records of LWIR escaping to space

You don't know the meaning of the word "falsifiable," moron.