Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Shine IR light through an evacuated tube and monitor the light that makes it through the tube. Begin adding CO2 and see what happens to the transmitted light.Describe just one of them.
I have to note that the statement above is a subjective ad hominem attack on me while mine was an objective, demonstrable observation of fact. ; - )More ad hominem, the last gasp of a debate loser.
Post the experimentShine IR light through an evacuated tube and monitor the light that makes it through the tube. Begin adding CO2 and see what happens to the transmitted light
Whatever happens it would not show that human activity is causing harmful global warming that can be reversed by raising taxes.Shine IR light through an evacuated tube and monitor the light that makes it through the tube. Begin adding CO2 and see what happens to the transmitted light.
Ad hominems are the level YOU chose to debate on. Look at your responses to other posters . Even your fellow alarmists are not on here defending you. Too embarrassed to associate with childishness.I have to note that the statement above is a subjective ad hominem attack on me while mine was an objective, demonstrable observation of fact. ; - )
What the fuck is wrong with you? You asked for a description of an experiment verifying the greenhouse effect. The terms of the greenhouse effect theory don't include taxes.Whatever happens it would not show that human activity is causing harmful global warming that can be reversed by raising taxes.
I don't need their assistance, though I certainly appreciate it when it comes. I have mainstream science. You have nothing.Ad hominems are the level YOU chose to debate on. Look at your responses to other posters . Even your fellow alarmists are not on here defending you. Too embarrassed to associate with childishness.
when did the atmosphere get a glass tube?What the fuck is wrong with you? You asked for a description of an experiment verifying the greenhouse effect. The terms of the greenhouse effect theory don't include taxes.
Not sure what you think this means? Like Fauci?I have mainstream science.
How old are you, Crick? I feel like I'm arguing with a twelve year old.What the fuck is wrong with you? You asked for a description of an experiment verifying the greenhouse effect. The terms of the greenhouse effect theory don't include taxes.
Why do you think it isn't coming, though? You're not the only alarmist on the forum.I don't need their assistance, though I certainly appreciate it when it comes. I have mainstream science. You have nothing.
How is that an argument about global warming?PS: if you believe that Trump line in your avatar, you are one incredibly stupid motherfucker.
Then the feeling is mutual. So why do you ask for an experiment verifying the greenhouse effect and then complain it doesn't discuss taxes?How old are you, Crick? I feel like I'm arguing with a twelve year old.
That is incorrect. The effect is easily modeled in a laboratory. Most high school kids have done it.The "greenhouse effect" is something that happens in the Earth's atmosphere, not a test tube.
Because you think they aren't helping me. And they only rarely do. I take that to indicate they don't think I need any help and most of the time, I do not.Why do you think it isn't coming, though? You're not the only alarmist on the forum.
It isn't. It's about you and Trump and ignorance.How is that an argument about global warming?
Anyway . . . since you have no evidence that human activity is causing global warming, that said global warming is harmful, or that any sort of project funded by huge increases in taxes would change that, you really don’t have any support for your position.Then the feeling is mutual. So why do you ask for an experiment verifying the greenhouse effect and then complain it doesn't discuss taxes?
That is incorrect. The effect is easily modeled in a laboratory. Most high school kids have done it.
Because you think they aren't helping me. And they only rarely do. I take that to indicate they don't think I need any help and most of the time, I do not.
It isn't. It's about you and Trump and ignorance.
www.ipcc.ch has mountains of evidence that humans are causing global warming, that it is harmful and that there are ways we can mitigate it. I told you that. I provided you multiple links to those data. Unfortunately, YOU are a lying piece of SHITAnyway . . . since you have no evidence that human activity is causing global warming, that said global warming is harmful, or that any sort of project funded by huge increases in taxes would change that, you really don’t have any support for your position.
SoCO2 is higher than it has been in over 2 million years YOU FUCKING IDIOT.
But, that's not how grownups debate. You have a real opportunity for growth here, Crick. I think you should take it.www.ipcc.ch has mountains of evidence that humans are causing global warming, that it is harmful and that there are ways we can mitigate it. I told you that. I provided you multiple links to those data. Unfortunately, YOU are a lying piece of SHIT
www.instituteforenergyresearch.org
www.forbes.com
www.telegraph.co.uk
www.forbes.com
www.chron.com
nypost.com
But, that's not how grownups debate. You have a real opportunity for growth here, Crick. I think you should take it.
Maybe if I showed you how you looked to adults, you would get it. Here is my impression of someone responding to you as you respond to them:
Hey CRICK, you pathetic TOFFEE NOSE %$#&^ pervert:
Take a look at these links and you'll see how wrong you are!
Climate Alarm: Failed Prognostications
Learn how the narrative surrounding climate alarm has evolved during the thirty years since the orginal warnings came from alarmists.
,fit(1200,675),quality(65))
The List Of 120 Years Of Climate Scares By Scientists | 710 WOR | Mark Simone
Get the Latest Info!710wor.iheart.com
Top 10 Global Warming Lies That May Shock You
The Environmental Defense Fund has assembled what it believes to be the ten most powerful global warming assertions in the alarmists’ playbook, yet each assertion either backfires on alarmists or has been proven false.
America’s climate alarmists have been made to look like fools
Looking back at this hysterical prediction from 2004 is both amusing and comforting
The Skeptics Are Thrashing The Alarmists In The Global Warming Debate
Rarely will alarmists step into the ring for a live debate that people can watch.
chrome-extension://bdfcnmeidppjeaggnmidamkiddifkdib/viewer.html?file=https://clips.cato.org/sites/default/files/Cato_blaze_climate.pdf
Climate change alarmists ignore scientific methods
The empirical evidence doesn’t support the claims.
50 years of predictions that the climate apocalypse is nigh
For the past two weeks in Glasgow, Scotland, world leaders have gathered at COP 26, the United Nations Climate Change Conference, to listen to the same message: Disaster is just around the corner.
Now, are you finally educated? Or did you choose ignorance by ignoring those links, you %$&^# little punk?
Here is the Hansen 1988 model that Robert Bradley Jr, in your first linked article, claimed was an "exaggerate Malthusian scare"Not a lot of peer reviewed work there. No science at all actually.
Would you like to discuss some of these articles?
Sure. Pick one that you read and give me your thoughts.Not a lot of peer reviewed work there. No science at all actually.
Would you like to discuss some of these articles?
Triggered MMGW cultist says what?What the fuck is wrong with you? You asked for a description of an experiment verifying the greenhouse effect. The terms of the greenhouse effect theory don't include taxes.
I don't need their assistance, though I certainly appreciate it when it comes. I have mainstream science. You have nothing.
PS: if you believe that Trump line in your avatar, you are one incredibly stupid motherfucker.
Here is the Hansen 1988 model that Robert Bradley Jr, in your first linked article, claimed was an "exaggerate Malthusian scare"
View attachment 893323
The staff of the IPCC are not scientists either. They are reporters in that they report the results of professional “climate scientists” whose job It is to produce research to show that climate is changing, and that human activity is the driving force behind that change.The gentleman, with whose statement Bradley opened his article, Phillip Shabecoff, is not a scientist but a reporter.
Refresh my memory: did the world’s most prolific producers of carbon sign the Kyoto Protocol? I’m thinking about major industrial power, such as China, Russia, the United States, and Canada. Are they all active signatories to this protocol?He certainly didn't originate his predicted numbers and we are not shown where they actually came from nor what qualifications were attached to them. Additionally, Shabecoff's comments were made in 1988, the IPCC was just being formed. The Kyoto Protocol would not be in force for another17 years and the Paris Accords were 27 years away. It would be astounding if predictions made then were not higher than what would eventually take place - not that we've reached 2050 yet.
Since those predictions rely on “shared, socioeconomic pathways,” could you explain a little bit about the science behind shared socioeconomic pathways?Bradley goes on to state that "dire predictions of global warming and sea level rise are well on their way to being falsified - and by a lot, not a little. Well, here are some later predictions. Let's see how they did.
View attachment 893326
View attachment 893327
These look pretty accurate to me. Of course, NO WHERE, does Bradley provide any actual number to back up his claims and charges, so its a little hard to judge. Sea level rise is another point he claims to have been grossly exaggerated. Here is the actual
View attachment 893328
And here are the latest IPCC, AR6 projections.
View attachment 893333
Figure 9.27 | Projected global mean sea level rise under different Shared Socio-economic Pathway (SSP) scenarios. Likely global mean sea level (GMSL) change for SSP scenarios resulting from processes in whose projection there is medium confidence. Projections and likely ranges at 2150 are shown on right. Lightly shaded ranges and thinner lightly shaded ranges on the right show the 17th–83rd and 5th–95th percentile ranges for projections including low confidence processes for SSP1-2.6 and SSP5-8.5 only, derived from a p-box including structured expert judgement and marine ice-cliff instability projections. Black lines show historical GMSL change, and thick solid and dash-dotted black lines show the mean and likely range extrapolating the 1993–2018 satellite altimeter trend and acceleration. Further details on data sources and processing are available in the chapter data table (Table 9.SM.9).
Here are the analogous projections from the IPCC's AR5
View attachment 893340
If the AR5 prediction, was roughly doubled by the AR6 prediction, and if the latest prediction is the correct one, that tells us that the AR5 prediction was off by a factor of roughly 100%.Note that the RCP 8.5 predictions for 2050 have roughly doubled between AR5 and AR6. Not what you've expect to see if they had been grossly exaggerated in the past and "falsified - by a lot"
Yes, it is! A breath of fresh air. I hope you will keep it up.How are we doing here? Is this grownup enough for you?
You are missing the larger point of those links. The point is not that here is science to prove that the climate will not change. That’s not something that can be accurately predicted by existing science. Neither change, nor lack of change, could be scientifically predicted by existing science as I showed above.Not a lot of peer reviewed work there. No science at all actually.
Would you like to discuss some of these articles?
Perhaps that would be because it is a point none of your links actually made.You are missing the larger point of those links.
I never thought you were attempting to show any such thing. Aside from the personal attacks, you claimed that I had no evidence that humans were responsible for the recently observed warming or that the warming represented a threat to our well being.The point is not that here is science to prove that the climate will not change.
There are a number of predictions regarding climate that existing science CAN make with some accuracy one of which would be that climate will not change, did conditions actually support such a prediction.That’s not something that can be accurately predicted by existing science.
You showed no such thing and neither did your linked articles. They made claims along those lines but as far as I saw, every single one of those claims was an unsupported conjecture.Neither change, nor lack of change, could be scientifically predicted by existing science as I showed above.
I hope you're not going to suggest that that precludes the possibility that any apocalyptic prediction can be valid.What you’re missing is that Apocalyptic predictions of catastrophic failures of earth and her Life support systems have been part of our cultures for many years.
And what relevance do you believe that has wrt the conclusion of mainstream science on human GHG emissions and the greenhouse effect? Do you think the IPCC's conclusions are based on revelatory visions?In the relatively modern times dating back to Nostradamus and to the predictions in the book of revelations. But prior to that advanced civilizations had calendars that predicted earth’s demise on fairly specific dates.
Again, what relevance does this have to the conclusions of modern climate science? The Aztecs were not employing the scientific method.In their minds it was mathematically based and I’m sure that they had a few choice words in Aztec or the like for anyone who doubted.
I haven't the faintest idea how smart they might have been. Like you, I consider myself capable of understanding some science and, I suspect, more technical science that that for which you've been trained. Have you had any coursework in physics, chemistry, thermodynamics or heat transfer?Just out of curiosity, do you consider yourself as smart, even smarter, or not quite as smart, as those advanced Aztec mathematicians? I would happily admit to not being quite as smart as they. Yet they turned out to be wrong.
In what sense? You have shown nothing of the sort. Poster Mamooth made a point here that forest fires took place for milllions of years before humans appeared. That does NOT indicate that humans cannot be responsible for forest fires today. That the Aztecs made incorrect predictions does not mean that accurate predictions cannot be made today.In that sense, anthropogenic global warming is yet another apocalyptic religion.
I think you might better spend your time and your expertise looking into research on the rejection of mainstream science without rational cause.One of my masters is in educational psychology. A masters doesn’t mean I’m an expert that can perform research, but it does mean I have the expertise to read and understand research. I’m going to look into research on the psychology of belief in apocalyptic religions. It might explain some of the modern day fascination with “climate change”.
Without plowing through the whole thread, I believe I only concluded that you had no evidence after asking you several times to produce such evidence. What little you presented was post hoc ergo propter hoc, with no causal link shown.Perhaps that would be because it is a point none of your links actually made.
I never thought you were attempting to show any such thing. Aside from the personal attacks, you claimed that I had no evidence that humans were responsible for the recently observed warming or that the warming represented a threat to our well being.
I can’t imagine conditions that would support a prediction that climate will not change. But maybe my imagination is not as great as yours. Can you provide an example?There are a number of predictions regarding climate that existing science CAN make with some accuracy one of which would be that climate will not change, did conditions actually support such a prediction.
Which is the basis of all “climate science.”You showed no such thing and neither did your linked articles. They made claims along those lines but as far as I saw, every single one of those claims was an unsupported conjecture.
I hope you're not going to suggest that that precludes the possibility that any apocalyptic prediction can be valid.
No, I do not. And I found an interesting article that posited that the predictions of the Aztec mathematician/astronomers were not actually based on any revelatory vision either, but on something completely different.And what relevance do you believe that has wrt the conclusion of mainstream science on human GHG emissions and the greenhouse effect? Do you think the IPCC's conclusions are based on revelatory visions?
Neither are the “climate scientists.” The scientific method requires experimentation.Again, what relevance does this have to the conclusions of modern climate science? The Aztecs were not employing the scientific method.
Other than the physics and astronomy courses, I took to get my undergraduate degree, I have not extensively studied those fields. See how easy it is for me to admit to a shortcoming? Have you noticed how difficult it is for you to even say that your mathematical ability does not equal those of the greatest Aztec mathematicians?I haven't the faintest idea how smart they might have been. Like you, I consider myself capable of understanding some science and, I suspect, more technical science that that for which you've been trained. Have you had any coursework in physics, chemistry, thermodynamics or heat transfer?
No, but it does mean that people can be led to believe in accurate predictions. Especially if those making the predictions use them to maintain their power within a specific social order.In what sense? You have shown nothing of the sort. Poster Mamooth made a point here that forest fires took place for milllions of years before humans appeared. That does NOT indicate that humans cannot be responsible for forest fires today. That the Aztecs made incorrect predictions does not mean that accurate predictions cannot be made today.
Those would certainly not be hard to find. The popular press enjoy publishing stories, who steam is basically “non-liberals are stoopid! Often, the “studies“ they present are nothing more than opinion pieces disguised as science.I think you might better spend your time and your expertise looking into research on the rejection of mainstream science without rational cause.
