I've changed sides

[Billy_Bob]

Do you believe scientific theories demand proof? Yes or no.

First, Your hypothesis has not been graduated to a theory because there is no empirical, observed, quantifiable evidence... To support it..

Second, The IPCC used a MODEL which has no predicative capabilities to make their claims.. FANTASY LAND!

 

[flacaltenn]

OK. When Dr. Lewis can provide us with a scientific explanation of what we are seeing right now on this planet, I will listen to the old fart. Until then, he is just another over the hill fool denying the science.

Nobody can explain the devastation that YOU think you're seeing because of a 1/2 deg aver. temp. change in your lifetime.. To do so -- would require much couch time and maybe experimentation with psycho-active drugs.

What's with the lack of SUPER storms and KILLER tornadoes and Droughts eh?? Does it make you nervous when the omens fail to impress us??

 

[flacaltenn]

The climate has been getting warmer, it does that on its own. Been doing it for eons. Relax and throw some more charcoal on the grill.

On the contrary, for the last 6000 years, until the advent of the Industrial Age, the climate was slowly cooling.

Climate myths: It’s been far warmer in the past, what’s the big deal?

And there we get ANOTHER false reading of the data from a guy who should KNOW BETTER than to ignore all the OTHER COLORED squiggly lines and just focus on the Black line.. Are you RACIST or something?

OF COURSE when you take a data set and REDUCE IT TO a heavily filtered MEAN VALUE -- any UNFILTERED variance (like the modern temperature record) will ALWAYS appear scary and awesome in comparison.. We're tired of that trick.. You got a NEW ONE????

 

[Crick]

Do you believe scientific theories demand proof? Yes or no.

First, Your hypothesis has not been graduated to a theory because there is no empirical, observed, quantifiable evidence... To support it..

Second, The IPCC used a MODEL which has no predicative capabilities to make their claims.. FANTASY LAND!

Is there some reason you're not answering the question I asked you?

 

[mamooth]

You tell me genius, which is bigger. the hundreds of billions that the oil companies make by providing us with a commodity that runs this planet....or the TRILLIONS that you progressives want to spend to completely change the energy systems of this planet.

The fossil fuel payouts, obviously, because they pay millions directly to paid shills, while the honest scientsts get no such subsidies. It's not even close. The fossil fuel industry shells out hundreds of times more in bribe money. Any honest scientist could instantly double their salary by lying for the deniers, but they don't. They effectively take a pay cut to tell the truth, which gives them even more credibility.

Now, let's look at ... you.

How much money has the fossil fuel industry put into your pocket, by any means? Employment, grants, subcontracting, consulting, stock holdings, anything.

If that number is > $0, stop posting, because by your own admission, you're a bought and paid for shill, and therefore not a single word you say on the topic can be trusted.

 

[bripat9643]

You tell me genius, which is bigger. the hundreds of billions that the oil companies make by providing us with a commodity that runs this planet....or the TRILLIONS that you progressives want to spend to completely change the energy systems of this planet.

The fossil fuel payouts, obviously, because they pay millions directly to paid shills, while the honest scientsts get no such subsidies. It's not even close. The fossil fuel industry shells out hundreds of times more in bribe money. Any honest scientist could instantly double their salary by lying for the deniers, but they don't. They effectively take a pay cut to tell the truth, which gives them even more credibility.

Now, let's look at ... you.

How much money has the fossil fuel industry put into your pocket, by any means? Employment, grants, subcontracting, consulting, stock holdings, anything.

If that number is > $0, stop posting, because by your own admission, you're a bought and paid for shill, and therefore not a single word you say on the topic can be trusted.

The government pays so-called "honest scientist" billions upon billions every year. The AGW cult dogma that somehow "scientists" on the government payroll are untainted by filthy money couldn't further from the truth. Anyone who tries to claim that AGW skeptics are all paid shills only indicates that he's a douche bag or a fool.

 

[mamooth]

The government pays so-called "honest scientist" billions upon billions every year.

Billions and billions? Really? Can you name who specifically is getting these billions in their paycheck?

The point would be that you're not even remotely attached to reality.

 

[westwall]

The government pays so-called "honest scientist" billions upon billions every year.

Billions and billions? Really? Can you name who specifically is getting these billions in their paycheck?

The point would be that you're not even remotely attached to reality.

This is going to make most of us laugh but I doubt you'll understand the joke but here go's.... Can you refute the claim that billions upon billions are being deposited in their paychecks?

GO!

 

[bripat9643]

The government pays so-called "honest scientist" billions upon billions every year.

Billions and billions? Really? Can you name who specifically is getting these billions in their paycheck?

The point would be that you're not even remotely attached to reality.

Learn English. I didn't say each scientist was getting billions.

 

[Crick]

Learn English. I'm afraid you did.

 

[Pogo]

he doesn't need a competing theory to rightfully conclude that your theory is shit. You sound just like some Bible thumper who claims god must exist because science isn't currently able to explain everything that happens in the universe.

They think you need a new hypothesis in order to prove that the old hypothesis is wrong....shows how little they know about science....all you need to prove a hypothesis is wrong is a single predictive failure....the AGW hypothesis has a string of them going back decades...it is clearly flawed but they hate capitalism and capitalism could be crippled if cuts in CO2 were mandated...so it isn't about scientific truth, it is about crippling capitalism..

Riiiiiight, because there's like, money in that.

There's WAAAAY more money in supporting AGW.

Riiiiiiiight, because you can always siphon off studies from your scientific study pipelines and sell them.

You tell me genius, which is bigger. the hundreds of billions that the oil companies make by providing us with a commodity that runs this planet....or the TRILLIONS that you progressives

"You Progressives"?

Nothing like living in the past. Which "Progressives" would these be then? Teddy or Fighting Bob?

SMH...

... want to spend to completely change the energy systems of this planet.

Link?




Yeah, didn't think so.

 

[westwall]

They think you need a new hypothesis in order to prove that the old hypothesis is wrong....shows how little they know about science....all you need to prove a hypothesis is wrong is a single predictive failure....the AGW hypothesis has a string of them going back decades...it is clearly flawed but they hate capitalism and capitalism could be crippled if cuts in CO2 were mandated...so it isn't about scientific truth, it is about crippling capitalism..

Riiiiiight, because there's like, money in that.

There's WAAAAY more money in supporting AGW.

Riiiiiiiight, because you can always siphon off studies from your scientific study pipelines and sell them.

You tell me genius, which is bigger. the hundreds of billions that the oil companies make by providing us with a commodity that runs this planet....or the TRILLIONS that you progressives

"You Progressives"?

Nothing like living in the past. Which "Progressives" would these be then? Teddy or Fighting Bob?

SMH...

... want to spend to completely change the energy systems of this planet.

Link?




Yeah, didn't think so.

Yeah, you whistle dixie a lot but you're about as ignorant as they come. Here's Bernies plan, which is basically the progressives plan worldwide. And the IPCC admits that the cost, the estimated cost to reorganize the planets energy systems is 76 trillion dollars. So, yes, you are a progressive 'tard and you're wrong. About everything.

• Cut U.S. carbon pollution b
  • Cut U.S. carbon pollution by 40 percent by 2030 and by over 80 percent by 2050 by putting a tax on carbon pollution, repealing fossil fuel subsidies and making massive investments in energy efficiency and clean, sustainable energy such as wind and solar power.
  y 40 percent by 2030 and by over 80 percent by 2050 by putting a tax on carbon pollution, repealing fossil fuel subsidies and making massive investments in energy efficiency and clean, sustainable energy such as wind and solar power.

Full Plan: Combating Climate Change to Save the Planet

 

[Pogo]

Riiiiiight, because there's like, money in that.

There's WAAAAY more money in supporting AGW.

Riiiiiiiight, because you can always siphon off studies from your scientific study pipelines and sell them.

You tell me genius, which is bigger. the hundreds of billions that the oil companies make by providing us with a commodity that runs this planet....or the TRILLIONS that you progressives

"You Progressives"?

Nothing like living in the past. Which "Progressives" would these be then? Teddy or Fighting Bob?

SMH...

... want to spend to completely change the energy systems of this planet.

Link?




Yeah, didn't think so.

Yeah, you whistle dixie a lot but you're about as ignorant as they come. Here's Bernies plan, which is basically the progressives plan worldwide. And the IPCC admits that the cost, the estimated cost to reorganize the planets energy systems is 76 trillion dollars. So, yes, you are a progressive 'tard and you're wrong. About everything.

• Cut U.S. carbon pollution b
  • Cut U.S. carbon pollution by 40 percent by 2030 and by over 80 percent by 2050 by putting a tax on carbon pollution, repealing fossil fuel subsidies and making massive investments in energy efficiency and clean, sustainable energy such as wind and solar power.
  y 40 percent by 2030 and by over 80 percent by 2050 by putting a tax on carbon pollution, repealing fossil fuel subsidies and making massive investments in energy efficiency and clean, sustainable energy such as wind and solar power.

Full Plan: Combating Climate Change to Save the Planet

Dafuck's that got to do with me?

I asked you for a link to what you say *I* want. And we both know you can't do it, since I've called you on this bullshit before and you came up empty then too.

You lose.

 

[bripat9643]

Learn English. I'm afraid you did.

Really? Where did I use the word "each?"

 

[Crick]

I take it back. You were right. My apologies.

 

[mamooth]

So if there are a thousand climate scientists in the USA -- a vast exaggeration of the number -- being paid billions and billions, they all must be getting paychecks in the millions, according to The Bri Theory.

So, still stark raving mad.

And can I disprove it? Well, not easily, no. Government salaries and state university salaries are public record. I think someone would have noticed any multimillion dollar salaries for professors, most especially the other professors. Nobody has checked the salary of every single scientist, but it theoretically could be done.

However, that's not how science works. The opposing "There are no multimillion dollar climate scientist salaries" theory, OTOH, is easily falsifiable. Just show such a salary. Hence, that theory is "real science".

 

[SSDD]

"I've changed sides"

That there are those who perceive ‘sides’ is the problem.

On a scientific issue, and that is what global warming is, there are no sides. Just what the evidence and observations indicate. That the 'Conservatives' have made it a matter of sides is an indication that they are not interested in the science, just the politics of it.

Sorry rocks, but there is no observed evidence....There is a whole thread over there asking for observed, measured, quantified evidence and you guys were able to post up exactly SQUAT....zero observed, measured, quantified evidence....you post a chart showing that so called greenhouse gasses absorb IR and fail to note that they also emit that IR and claim that is proof of AGW....what you provided isn't even evidence that absorption and emission equals warming...much less that man is responsible for climate change....


So lets see some of that evidence you claim exists....where is it?....why are you unable to post even little of it?

 

[SSDD]

Why are facts summed up into a conspiracy? Ice sheets are melting, its getting warmer and drier and the weather is totally freakinkin out. Facts are facts. We aren't seeing Elvis holding hands with the Loc ness monster.

Much of the claims of ice melting is due to simple lying, it has not gotten warmer for a couple of decades now....and it isn't getting dryer relative to history...and the weather freaking out is in large part due to a 24/7 weather cycle on TV...and all that time must be filled with something... What you believe to be facts is in fact, fabrication, invention, storytelling....in short...lying.

 

[Crick]

Sorry rocks, but there is no observed evidence....There is a whole thread over there asking for observed, measured, quantified evidence and you guys were able to post up exactly SQUAT....zero observed, measured, quantified evidence....you post a chart showing that so called greenhouse gasses absorb IR and fail to note that they also emit that IR and claim that is proof of AGW....what you provided isn't even evidence that absorption and emission equals warming...much less that man is responsible for climate change....

Liar.

For the umpteenth time, WGI, The Physical Science Basis, AR5, has more evidence than you could deal with in a dozen life times.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry rocks, but there is no observed evidence....There is a whole thread over there asking for observed, measured, quantified evidence and you guys were able to post up exactly SQUAT....zero observed, measured, quantified evidence....you post a chart showing that so called greenhouse gasses absorb IR and fail to note that they also emit that IR and claim that is proof of AGW....what you provided isn't even evidence that absorption and emission equals warming...much less that man is responsible for climate change....

Liar.

For the umpteenth time, WGI, The Physical Science Basis, AR5, has more evidence than you could deal with in a dozen life times.

And yet, you can't produce the first bit of it....how interesting is that? There is absolutely zero observed, measured, quantified evidence in existence that supports the A in AGW....sorry crick...you have already proven that you can't produce it and in addition have shown us all what passes for evidence in your decidedly unscientific mind...

The one bit of observed, measured, quantified data you produced showed that an instrument cooled to -80F could receive radiation from an atmosphere that is above -80F....exactly how do you think that supports the A in AGW? Your answer should be at least as interesting as the fact that you think it actually supports the A in AGW in the first place.