Is climate change a "contentious" issue ? Really ?

Do accept that smoking causes cancer.

Hey Camal-A....it CAN cause cancer. It does not automatically cause cancer.

What the fuck ?

This is a SCOTUS nomination.
Some of the things that are contentious are:

The exact mechanism that causes climate to change. That is contentious.

That is utter nonsense. The very nearly unanimous opinion of active climate scientists is that the global warming of the last 150 years is being caused by the greenhouse effect acting on excess CO2 produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. You knew that was a fact several years ago, you just seem to lack the honesty to admit it.

No it isn't.

Sorry about that.
 
Do accept that smoking causes cancer.

Hey Camal-A....it CAN cause cancer. It does not automatically cause cancer.

What the fuck ?

This is a SCOTUS nomination.
Some of the things that are contentious are:

The exact mechanism that causes climate to change. That is contentious.

That is utter nonsense. The very nearly unanimous opinion of active climate scientists is that the global warming of the last 150 years is being caused by the greenhouse effect acting on excess CO2 produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. You knew that was a fact several years ago, you just seem to lack the honesty to admit it.

No it isn't.

Sorry about that.

Consensus arguments (which generates ZERO evidence) is their bread and butter evidence of WHY they have no concept about how reproducible science research works.

This is what happens when people have been trained to be an ideological herd animal in school.
 
Funny how it gets 'splained over and over and over and over again to your warmer moonbats that "consensus" is politcal, and isn't anywhere to be found ind scientific method....Speaking of dumb fucks.

If it is NOT in the scientific method, please explain how what we think of as settled science gets settled.
 
Funny how it gets 'splained over and over and over and over again to your warmer moonbats that "consensus" is politcal, and isn't anywhere to be found ind scientific method....Speaking of dumb fucks.

If it is NOT in the scientific method, please explain how what we think of as settled science gets settled.

No scientific principle is completely settled. For example, Newtons 'Laws". These observations of Newton made back in the 17th Century, are as close to being settled as any principle in science. We can use those laws to make amazingly accurate predictions of bodies in motion across vast distances of space and time. However, we don't fully understand why they work on a quantum level. Much to the consternation of scientists like Einstein, Newtonian 'Laws' don't even function predicatively on a quantum level.

We believe so strongly that the laws of Newtonian Physics are settled, that when they don't match the observations and predictions, we have to create unknown factors such as the Cosmological Constant, Dark Matter, or Dark Energy, to get them to fit until we fully understand the phenomenon.

Every scientific principle is valid only as long as it supports all the available data and observations. The scope of our data and observations grow constantly. When a principle no longer fits the data, regardless of how 'settled' it is. it MUST be discarded.

That is the Scientific Method.
 
Do accept that smoking causes cancer.

Hey Camal-A....it CAN cause cancer. It does not automatically cause cancer.

What the fuck ?

This is a SCOTUS nomination.
Some of the things that are contentious are:

The exact mechanism that causes climate to change. That is contentious.

That is utter nonsense. The very nearly unanimous opinion of active climate scientists is that the global warming of the last 150 years is being caused by the greenhouse effect acting on excess CO2 produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. You knew that was a fact several years ago, you just seem to lack the honesty to admit it.

No it isn't.

Sorry about that.

Consensus arguments (which generates ZERO evidence) is their bread and butter evidence of WHY they have no concept about how reproducible science research works.

This is what happens when people have been trained to be an ideological herd animal in school.

Harris' approach was pathetic.
 
What do you mean there is no linear correlation between CO2 and temperature. WtF is this? View attachment 402598

NOAA is the source of that chart.

You do know that NOAA was caught fabricating data when that asshole Obama was President, don't you?

If AGW is real then why do the Environmental Wackos have to lie about the data?

So, since you seem to reject NOAA's climate data, whose do you believe IS valid?
1603027986986.png
 
Funny how it gets 'splained over and over and over and over again to your warmer moonbats that "consensus" is politcal, and isn't anywhere to be found ind scientific method....Speaking of dumb fucks.

If it is NOT in the scientific method, please explain how what we think of as settled science gets settled.

No response to this yet. Let's see if we can tease out an answer. A scientist or researcher publishes a study whose results, they argue, supports a certain hypothesis. Other scientists and researchers read the study. Some try to repeat the research. Many simply examine the study to see if anything was overlooked or if mistakes were made. If the experimental results turn our to be repeatable and no one finds any fatal errors in the work, the theory comes to be accepted. As more and more time goes by and still no errors are found and/or other research supports the same conclusions, even more will come to accept the theory. Now, not everyone's judgement is equal in something like this. The opinion of a senior, theoretical physicist on a study on the stellar evolution of brown dwarf stars should be given considerably more weight than the opinion of your plumber, no matter how good he is at fixing your clogged toilet. So, when looking to see how well theories in the climate sciences are accepted, it is best to examine the opinions of active climate scientists.

Am I going too fast for you?
 
What do you mean there is no linear correlation between CO2 and temperature. WtF is this? View attachment 402598

NOAA is the source of that chart.

You do know that NOAA was caught fabricating data when that asshole Obama was President, don't you?

If AGW is real then why do the Environmental Wackos have to lie about the data?

So, since you seem to reject NOAA's climate data, whose do you believe IS valid?
View attachment 403460


The entire Environmental Wacko community have been using each other's fabricated data and even brag about it. Just go read the Climategate emails and see how these butt pirates admit the data is not there but they feel justified in lying to the people.

If AGW was real there would be no reason to fabricate data and the historical record would substantiate that CO2 levels emitted in man made levels effects climate change.

It is damn hard to present the case that my gas guzzling CO2 emitting Tundra truck makes the earth warmer when the historical data shows that the earth had ten times as much CO2 but was a snowball planet or that when the CO2 levels were 2/3rds what they are now the earth was signifacntly warmer, doesn't it?
 
Last edited:
Funny how it gets 'splained over and over and over and over again to your warmer moonbats that "consensus" is politcal, and isn't anywhere to be found ind scientific method....Speaking of dumb fucks.

If it is NOT in the scientific method, please explain how what we think of as settled science gets settled.

No response to this yet. Let's see if we can tease out an answer. A scientist or researcher publishes a study whose results, they argue, supports a certain hypothesis. Other scientists and researchers read the study. Some try to repeat the research. Many simply examine the study to see if anything was overlooked or if mistakes were made. If the experimental results turn our to be repeatable and no one finds any fatal errors in the work, the theory comes to be accepted. As more and more time goes by and still no errors are found and/or other research supports the same conclusions, even more will come to accept the theory. Now, not everyone's judgement is equal in something like this. The opinion of a senior, theoretical physicist on a study on the stellar evolution of brown dwarf stars should be given considerably more weight than the opinion of your plumber, no matter how good he is at fixing your clogged toilet. So, when looking to see how well theories in the climate sciences are accepted, it is best to examine the opinions of active climate scientists.

Am I going too fast for you?
Sorry I wasn't hanging on your every utterance you fucking narcissist.

Science gets "settled" (in fact no science is ever settled) by providing repeatability on demand, quantifiability, and falsifiability....None of which is to be found anywhere in the Goebbels warming "consensus" bullshit.

Opinions and bandwagon "consensus" are entirely irrelevant to anything.
 
Scientific method is supposed to be contentious ... it's a confrontational process ... being falsifiable means people are out there trying to falsify these theories ... or it's not science, it's philosophy ... not to say there aren't things we can agree on, especially in matters of our atmosphere there are a few assumptions we make and agree on that are in no way "settled" ... specifically Continuum Theory ... to date there is no proof that Naiver-Stokes equations are true, we only agree they are true and proceed under this assumption ... very useful for simplifying our understanding of weather and climate ... but usefulness is never proof, like Newton's Law of Gravity or the Conservation of Energy ...

Crick ... please ... what experiment can we conduct in the lab to demonstrate CO2's effect on temperature? ... I agree the theory is sound, so why is it so difficult to show? ...
 
Scientific method is supposed to be contentious ... it's a confrontational process ... being falsifiable means people are out there trying to falsify these theories ... or it's not science, it's philosophy ... not to say there aren't things we can agree on, especially in matters of our atmosphere there are a few assumptions we make and agree on that are in no way "settled" ... specifically Continuum Theory ... to date there is no proof that Naiver-Stokes equations are true, we only agree they are true and proceed under this assumption ... very useful for simplifying our understanding of weather and climate ... but usefulness is never proof, like Newton's Law of Gravity or the Conservation of Energy ...

Crick ... please ... what experiment can we conduct in the lab to demonstrate CO2's effect on temperature? ... I agree the theory is sound, so why is it so difficult to show? ...
Crick ... please ... what experiment can we conduct in the lab to demonstrate CO2's effect on temperature? ... I agree the theory is sound, so why is it so difficult to show? ...

And after that, please show us how much "excess" CO2 (X) leads to how much change in temperature (Y)?....IOW, quantify your answer.....And do so in the context of an infinitely flexible and adaptive ecosystem.

Please show your math.
 
And after that, please show us how much "excess" CO2 (X) leads to how much change in temperature (Y)?....IOW, quantify your answer.....And do so in the context of an infinitely flexible and adaptive ecosystem.

Please show your math.

Exactly ... how much does CO2 warm the atmosphere? ... the IPCC predicts only 2ºC over the next 100 years and that's trivial ... will not change the climate in the least little bit ...
 
Crick ... please ... what experiment can we conduct in the lab to demonstrate CO2's effect on temperature? ... I agree the theory is sound, so why is it so difficult to show? ...

We could point you to thousands of lab experiments quantifying the IR absorption spectrum of CO2.

We could point out that you'd have to be severely retarded to think that there can be duplicate earths to run controlled experiments.

However, we've done that before, and you've ignored it. That indicates you're not interested in answeres. You're playing stupid because you're a dishonest troll.

And after that, please show us how much "excess" CO2 (X) leads to how much change in temperature (Y)?....IOW, quantify your answer.....

Each doubling of CO2 leads to 3.0C of warming. The earth seems to be following that prediction pretty closely.

In stark contrast, your idiot cult predicted cooling, and is still predicting cooling. You mouthbreathers couldn't even get the direction right. Your and your side have all been as wrong as it's possible to be, which is why everyone laughs at you.

Please show your math.

Look it up yourself, little troll. Not that you will. You want to remain willfully stupid, to fit in with your cult.
 
Crick ... please ... what experiment can we conduct in the lab to demonstrate CO2's effect on temperature? ... I agree the theory is sound, so why is it so difficult to show? ...
We could point you to thousands of lab experiments quantifying the IR absorption spectrum of CO2.
We could point out that you'd have to be severely retarded to think that there can be duplicate earths to run controlled experiments.
However, we've done that before, and you've ignored it. That indicates you're not interested in answeres. You're playing stupid because you're a dishonest troll.

You should be more careful with your quotes ... you've credited Oddball with something I posted #51 ... I'm flattered but Oddball might be insulted ...

Go ahead and point out a half-dozen lab experiments ... your second sentence declares there are no experiments to be conducted, thus you spout pseudo-science ... and no, you and I have never been over this terrain before ...

I eagerly await your citations ...
And after that, please show us how much "excess" CO2 (X) leads to how much change in temperature (Y)?....IOW, quantify your answer.....

Each doubling of CO2 leads to 3.0C of warming. The earth seems to be following that prediction pretty closely.

That is not how logarithmic functions behave ... maybe the citation you give from above will explain this? ... it's ass-hat wrong, between 180 ppm to 280 ppm, we've seen +12ºC temperature increase ... according to you, we should only be a fennig short of 5ºC from glacial maximum ... pretty obviously wrong ...

∆T = 5.35ºC k ln(CF/CI) where ∆T=change in temp, k=sensitivity factor, CF=final concentration, and CI=initial concentration

Please show your math.
Look it up yourself, little troll. Not that you will. You want to remain willfully stupid, to fit in with your cult.

This means your math is wrong ... and you know it ... see above ....
 
Some of the things that are contentious are:

The exact mechanism that causes climate to change. That is contentious.
Funny how scientists and governments have a consensus about the general mechanisms that cause current global warming. It's only politically contentious among dumb fuck US rightards.
1603183622743.png


See?
 
Deniers seem to be the same sort of folk who have embraced the qanon nonsense. It is concerning that this level of idiocy gets a welcome in trumps administration.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top