Is the subject of Climate Change/GW just...

[jackflash]

...another divide & conquer i$$ue that was never meant to end??? I mean the divide & conquer i$$ues definitely keep the profe$$ional politician$ in office for a lifetime!

 

[mamooth]

...another divide & conquer i$$ue that was never meant to end???

It's not a political issue. The fact that conservatives keep trying to make it one doesn't change that. The science is what it is, and it says that humans are causing significant global warming.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Is the subject of Climate Change/GW just another divide & conquer i$$ue that was never meant to end??? I mean the divide & conquer i$$ues definitely keep the profe$$ional politician$ in office for a lifetime!

 

[jackflash]

Is the subject of Climate Change/GW just another divide & conquer i$$ue that was never meant to end??? I mean the divide & conquer i$$ues definitely keep the profe$$ional politician$ in office for a lifetime!

View attachment 370408

BB, your quote just netted you a homerun with the freakin' BASES LOADED!!!

 

[westwall]

...another divide & conquer i$$ue that was never meant to end??? I mean the divide & conquer i$$ues definitely keep the profe$$ional politician$ in office for a lifetime!

Yes, it is all about concentrating power and money in the hands of the super rich.

 

[gfm7175]

...another divide & conquer i$$ue that was never meant to end???

It's not a political issue.

Yes it is.

The fact that conservatives keep trying to make it one doesn't change that. The science is what it is,

There is no science involved with AGW. Science does not address the unquantified/undefined.

Define "climate change". Define "global warming". Show me a model for "Greenhouse Effect" that does not conflict with currently standing laws of science.

and it says that humans are causing significant global warming.

Define "significant". Define "global warming".

Buzzwords are summarily dismissed. You have made no argument.

 

[mamooth]

Show me a model for "Greenhouse Effect" that does not conflict with currently standing laws of science.

We've been over this before many times. You're hilariously ignorant of the most basic things about the laws of thermodynamics.

When I see that the smartest people in the world disagree with me, I could think "Hmmm. It's almost certain that I'm wrong, so I should educate myself more.", or I could think "I AM INCAPABLE OF ERROR, THEREFORE THE WHOLE WORLD MUST BE CONSPIRING AGAINST ME!".

Not being a paranoid narcissist, I go with the first option. Deniers always go with the second.

define "significant". Define "global warming".

Buzzwords are summarily dismissed. You have made no argument.

To save time, let's just assume I've posted the numbers, and you've squealed that it's all a fraud, and that I've pointed out how that's the action of a hardcore cultist. No need to go through all of that again. Proceed from there.

 

[Likkmee]

Does CC-GW= more $1200 checks ?

 

[westwall]

Show me a model for "Greenhouse Effect" that does not conflict with currently standing laws of science.

We've been over this before many times. You're hilariously ignorant of the most basic things about the laws of thermodynamics.

When I see that the smartest people in the world disagree with me, I could think "Hmmm. It's almost certain that I'm wrong, so I should educate myself more.", or I could think "I AM INCAPABLE OF ERROR, THEREFORE THE WHOLE WORLD MUST BE CONSPIRING AGAINST ME!".

Not being a paranoid narcissist, I go with the first option. Deniers always go with the second.

define "significant". Define "global warming".

Buzzwords are summarily dismissed. You have made no argument.

To save time, let's just assume I've posted the numbers, and you've squealed that it's all a fraud, and that I've pointed out how that's the action of a hardcore cultist. No need to go through all of that again. Proceed from there.

Yes, you post computer derived fiction and claim it is real. It isn't, it is FICTION.

 

[gfm7175]

Show me a model for "Greenhouse Effect" that does not conflict with currently standing laws of science.

We've been over this before many times.

... and you still haven't learned anything...

You're hilariously ignorant of the most basic things about the laws of thermodynamics.

Inversion Fallacy. This is your issue, not mine.

When I see that the smartest people in the world disagree with me, I could think "Hmmm. It's almost certain that I'm wrong, so I should educate myself more.", or I could think "I AM INCAPABLE OF ERROR, THEREFORE THE WHOLE WORLD MUST BE CONSPIRING AGAINST ME!".

Define "the smartest people in the world"... Who are you even referring to? That's right, YOU don't even know... This is simply a false authority fallacy and a bogus position assignment, both leading into an invalid proof fallacy and likely also a bulverism fallacy. You aren't a big fan of logic, are you?

Not being a paranoid narcissist, I go with the first option. Deniers always go with the second.

More logic denying... Insults, buzzwords, false dichotomy, etc...

To save time, let's just assume I've posted the numbers,

... but you haven't... The only numbers you can post are numbers that someone made up out of their head (numbers of type randU)... To claim that randU numbers are data is a logical fallacy.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to any usable accuracy. We simply do not have enough thermometers to do so.

and you've squealed that it's all a fraud,

... and explained to you precisely WHY that is, to which you form no valid counterarguments...

and that I've pointed out how that's the action of a hardcore cultist.

YOU are the cultist, and your calling me a cultist does not refute my arguments. You have not addressed the issue of not enough thermometers... you have not addressed the issue of data bias... you have not declared/justified a variance, nor have you calculated a margin of error from that variance...

You are denying mathematics. You are denying science. You are denying logic.

No need to go through all of that again. Proceed from there.

We are still at the same point...

 

[mamooth]

Yes, you post computer derived fiction and claim it is real. It isn't, it is FICTION.

You've been telling that stupid lie for years. It doesn't stink any less with age. So why tell it?

Oh, I see. You were brainwashed by stupid propaganda. You know it. Everyone knows it. At this stage, even the most hardcore deniers have come to realize how they've been pushing cult propaganda all these years. They're just in too deep to ever say it, as that would require admitting that the dirty liberals had been right about everything for all those years.

So sad. They'll live out the rest of their lives as a cultists. Perhaps they can all move in together in a commune in some remote area, where they never have to look at facts again.

 

[mamooth]

Inversion Fallacy. This is your issue, not mine.

It's not debatable that you're dogshit-ignorant of thermodynamics. That's would be why you're just crying at me now. You made a crazy positive claim, so you're obligated to support it, but you won't.

So either put up or shut up. Tell everyone exactly how climate models violate the laws of thermodynamics.

... but you haven't... The only numbers you can post are numbers that someone made up out of their head (numbers of type randU)...

And you fall back on conspiracy weeping again, like a good cultist.

To claim that randU numbers are data is a logical fallacy.

But nobody does that. You're just making crap up again. If you're not lying, you'll be able to back up your kook claim there. Please proceed, or admit that you lied.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to any usable accuracy. We simply do not have enough thermometers to do so.

Yes, yes, we've also established that you're hilariously ignorant of basic statistics and well as being hilariously ignorant of thermodynamics.

You have not addressed the issue of not enough thermometers... you have not addressed the issue of data bias... you have not declared/justified a variance, nor have you calculated a margin of error from that variance...

Of course I have. You just didn't like the answers, so you pretended not to see them. Such gutlessness is typical of hardcore cultists.

 

[gfm7175]

Inversion Fallacy. This is your issue, not mine.

It's not debatable that you're dogshit-ignorant of thermodynamics. That's would be why you're just crying at me now. You made a crazy positive claim, so you're obligated to support it, but you won't.

So either put up or shut up. Tell everyone exactly how climate models violate the laws of thermodynamics.

... but you haven't... The only numbers you can post are numbers that someone made up out of their head (numbers of type randU)...

And you fall back on conspiracy weeping again, like a good cultist.

To claim that randU numbers are data is a logical fallacy.

But nobody does that. You're just making crap up again. If you're not lying, you'll be able to back up your kook claim there. Please proceed, or admit that you lied.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to any usable accuracy. We simply do not have enough thermometers to do so.

Yes, yes, we've also established that you're hilariously ignorant of basic statistics and well as being hilariously ignorant of thermodynamics.

You have not addressed the issue of not enough thermometers... you have not addressed the issue of data bias... you have not declared/justified a variance, nor have you calculated a margin of error from that variance...

Of course I have. You just didn't like the answers, so you pretended not to see them. Such gutlessness is typical of hardcore cultists.

You are forming no arguments... You are just making blind accusations like a good little religious zealot does... I told you what you need to do for mathematics... I've told you that you cannot create energy out of nothing (1st LoT), cannot trap heat or make it flow in reverse (2nd LoT), cannot increase temperature while decreasing radiance (Stefan Boltzmann Law), and other things... Provide me with whatever model you claim to be "correct" and I will utterly destroy it.

 

[mamooth]

You are forming no arguments...

Pointing that you're making claims you can't support is an excellent argument.

I told you what you need to do for mathematics...

And it was all dumb You have no idea of what you're babbling about. You don't know how to calculate the variance of a mean, and you don't know how to calculate the variance of tightly correlated variables.

I've told you that you cannot create energy out of nothing (1st LoT),

What does that have to do with climate models, where energy is never created out of nothing?

cannot trap heat or make it flow in reverse (2nd LoT),

What does that have to do with climate models, where heat doesn't flow cold to hot?

cannot increase temperature while decreasing radiance (Stefan Boltzmann Law),

Sure you can. Temperature isn't the issue. Input energy is the issue. After equlibrium, the top of the atmosphere will be at the same temp, no matter how much the surface warms. As an obvious example, the top of the atmosphere on Venus is quite cool.

Provide me with whatever model you claim to be "correct" and I will utterly destroy it.

Start by working on your dumb errors that I highlighted there.

 

[abu afak]

You are forming no arguments... You are just making blind accusations like a good little religious zealot does... I told you what you need to do for mathematics... I've told you that you cannot create energy out of nothing (1st LoT), cannot trap heat or make it flow in reverse (2nd LoT), cannot increase temperature while decreasing radiance (Stefan Boltzmann Law), and other things... Provide me with whatever model you claim to be "correct" and I will utterly destroy it.

People (and plants) are going to be shocked after all these centuries of success that greenhouse trapping of heat can't be done.

yawn.
`

 

[westwall]

Yes, you post computer derived fiction and claim it is real. It isn't, it is FICTION.

You've been telling that stupid lie for years. It doesn't stink any less with age. So why tell it?

Oh, I see. You were brainwashed by stupid propaganda. You know it. Everyone knows it. At this stage, even the most hardcore deniers have come to realize how they've been pushing cult propaganda all these years. They're just in too deep to ever say it, as that would require admitting that the dirty liberals had been right about everything for all those years.

So sad. They'll live out the rest of their lives as a cultists. Perhaps they can all move in together in a commune in some remote area, where they never have to look at facts again.

Because it's not a lie. Provide a link to a single global warming study that isn't computer model derived.

GO.

 

[jwoodie]

Inversion Fallacy. This is your issue, not mine.

It's not debatable that you're dogshit-ignorant of thermodynamics. That's would be why you're just crying at me now. You made a crazy positive claim, so you're obligated to support it, but you won't.

So either put up or shut up. Tell everyone exactly how climate models violate the laws of thermodynamics.

... but you haven't... The only numbers you can post are numbers that someone made up out of their head (numbers of type randU)...

And you fall back on conspiracy weeping again, like a good cultist.

To claim that randU numbers are data is a logical fallacy.

But nobody does that. You're just making crap up again. If you're not lying, you'll be able to back up your kook claim there. Please proceed, or admit that you lied.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to any usable accuracy. We simply do not have enough thermometers to do so.

Yes, yes, we've also established that you're hilariously ignorant of basic statistics and well as being hilariously ignorant of thermodynamics.

You have not addressed the issue of not enough thermometers... you have not addressed the issue of data bias... you have not declared/justified a variance, nor have you calculated a margin of error from that variance...

Of course I have. You just didn't like the answers, so you pretended not to see them. Such gutlessness is typical of hardcore cultists.

What is your real name? Ed Hominem?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Oh, I see. You were brainwashed by stupid propaganda.

Someone who believes the “Climate Change” hoax is accusing someone else of being “brainwashed”.

 

[mamooth]

Because it's not a lie. Provide a link to a single global warming study that isn't computer model derived.

GO.

That's easy. The temperature record.

Are you going to escalate your lying to epic levels now and claim the temperature record is some kind of model? I hope not. I hope you still possess some vestigial shame and decency.

Global warming theory is well-proven with no models at all. The remarkable success of the models is just icing on the cake. Things like the stratospheric cooling, the increased backradation, and the decrease in outgoling longwave in the GHG bands demonstrate the human cause of the temperature increase, being that there is no natural explanation for such directly measured factors.

 

[mamooth]

What is your real name? Ed Hominem?

I note your lack of concern about the many insults coming from your side. Your hypocrisy will earn you big brownie points in your cult.

Someone who believes the “Climate Change” hoax is accusing someone else of being “brainwashed”.

Excellent insult hit and run. You're also qualified to be a denier cultist.

Let's do what conspiracy cultists like you two hate most, which is discuss the science.

The temperature record shows strong warming. Do you agree with that, or are you going the conspiracy moron route and claiming that it's all a hoax?

Now, you don't have to look like an obvious lead-paint-licker. You can say that "the warming is real, but it's all natural!".

After that position collapses, you can admit that "humans are causing it, but that it's beneficial!".

After that line of defense crumbles, retreat to "Sure, it's real, and it's harmful, but it costs too much to fix!".

Finally, after you have nothing left, mope out "Okay, we were wrong, but it's still the fault of you liberals. If you hadn't been so mean, we would have listened!".

So, rejoice! I've given you a roadmap of evasion for the next decades, telling you how to deny reality without looking too crazy, which will keep you in good standing with your political cult.