“Nothing To Do With Man” – Astrophysicist Says Climate-Cultists “Are On A Gravy Train” To Make Money

[Leviticus]

There is zero empirical evidence to support your claim.

None.

According to scientists, there is. By definition, empirical is evidence based on observation. The theory on climate change is based on observations made by scientists. You choosing to ignore their findings doesn't make those findings any less valid.

 

[FA_Q2]

For a human you seen unable to think critically. Like I said. I am qualified to teach any climatogy class. Graduate level included.

A climatologist would be lost in a graduate level geology class.

Hell, I think the vast majority would be in serious trouble with optical crystalography which is a 2nd year class.

That's where we had lots of geology majors suddenly change to geography.....which you will see a lot of climatologists have as their undergrad degree.

So it is just climatology where everyone in any field is an expert. What about psychology? Aer you an expert in that as well?

This is the same bullshit tactic that young earth creationists use to 'prove' that the earth is 6000 years old. They pull out a physicist to explain why DNA proves common decent is impossible. Then they pull in a biologist to explain flood geology.

It is a bullshit and dishonest tactic, period. All you have is bullshit insults and claims that you are an expert in everything because you have a degree. Whatever, that you are unable to understand expertise whatsoever just shows you are an idiot no matter what piece of sheepskin you have on your wall.

 

[Flash]

According to scientists, there is. By definition, empirical is evidence based on observation. The theory on climate change is based on observations made by scientists. You choosing to ignore their findings doesn't make those findings any less valid.

The problem is that we have found out that the scientists lie.

They have admitted to lying. The create false and cherry picked data.

We have found out that not only do the climate scientists lie but also so do government institutions like NOAA, NASA and the UN Climate Commission.

For instance, just within the last couple of weeks we have found out that NOAA doesn't even follow their own procedures for recording temperature.

Climate change is real but we have no credible evidence there is a man made component to it. All we have is a silly correlation, false and cherry picked data and some shit-in shit-out computer models.

If man made climate change is real the scientists would not have to create false data and some of their predictions would actually come true every once in awhile.

Yea, it was hot in the northern hemisphere this summer. However, back in the beginning of winter in the southern hemisphere they had record lows.

 

[westwall]

So it is just climatology where everyone in any field is an expert. What about psychology? Aer you an expert in that as well?

This is the same bullshit tactic that young earth creationists use to 'prove' that the earth is 6000 years old. They pull out a physicist to explain why DNA proves common decent is impossible. Then they pull in a biologist to explain flood geology.

It is a bullshit and dishonest tactic, period. All you have is bullshit insults and claims that you are an expert in everything because you have a degree. Whatever, that you are unable to understand expertise whatsoever just shows you are an idiot no matter what piece of sheepskin you have on your wall.

Nope. Other than IO psychology, which actually produces measurable output, psychology is based on OPINION.

OPINION is SUBJECTIVE. I don't deal in subjective science...which is soft, I deal in OBJECTIVE science, which is measurable. In other words, hard, or exact.

Let us use a sport analogy, climatology is akin to ice dancing. The winners are based on the subjective opinion of judges. In other words a consensus of opinion.

Geology and the other hard sciences, on the other hand, are track and field. The winners are based on who crosses the finish line first.

No judgement. No consensus.

MEASURABLE results are all that matter.

Show me anything that is measurable in climatology.

 

[westwall]

According to scientists, there is. By definition, empirical is evidence based on observation. The theory on climate change is based on observations made by scientists. You choosing to ignore their findings doesn't make those findings any less valid.

Post it up.

 

[Nostra]

We know CO2 absorbs energy
We know CO2 has been increasing
Therefore, if it doesn’t stop, temps will go up

If the CO2 isn’t because of human activity, where is it coming from? The deniers seem to have all the answers, except that one. If you can’t answer it, then you’re the one that isn’t being scientific.

The majority of CO2 comes from the oceans. Should we get rid of those?

 

[Nostra]

Humans produce more CO2 in less than a week than all the volcanoes on earth do in an average year.

CO2 emissions: Human vs volcanoes

He didn't say volcanos, Simp.

Learn to read.

 

[Nostra]

According to scientists, there is. By definition, empirical is evidence based on observation. The theory on climate change is based on observations made by scientists. You choosing to ignore their findings doesn't make those findings any less valid.

"Theory".

 

[konradv]

The majority of CO2 comes from the oceans. Should we get rid of those?

You got a cite for that? Sounds like typical ‘let’s pull something out of the air’ denialist BS.

 

[konradv]

"Theory".

Yes, theory and no, it doesn’t mean a guess.

 

[zaangalewa]

ll the people here who speak about CO2-emissions from volcanos, rain forests and oceans forget a very simple thing: Nature regulates such problems but the main problem of disregulation now started about 500-200 years ago in a system where hundredthousands of years is normally only a little moment. Compared with this time we are in the beginning of an explosion and what we will not do now will have big effects in the future. 40 years ago we had been able to stop the current climate change - now we are still able to slow down the effects. On the other side: The effects seem to come faster than most scientists prognosted.
To start now to do something - and everyone is able to do something - is for sure not wrong. The worst risk: One day we could say "It was superflous to do so" what indeed never someone really will know when it was successful what we did do now. But the risk to do nothing is able to wipe out all mankind because we have bodies which are only able to live in a relativelly small bandwidth of instability of the possible climate changes. Even on our wonderful planet today - with the best living conditions in the whole universe - exist wide deserts, wide ice deserts and wide deserts in the oceans where to live is nearly impossible. A warning signal what is able to happen everywhere.

 

[FA_Q2]

Nope. Other than IO psychology, which actually produces measurable output, psychology is based on OPINION.

OPINION is SUBJECTIVE. I don't deal in subjective science...which is soft, I deal in OBJECTIVE science, which is measurable. In other words, hard, or exact.

Let us use a sport analogy, climatology is akin to ice dancing. The winners are based on the subjective opinion of judges. In other words a consensus of opinion.

Geology and the other hard sciences, on the other hand, are track and field. The winners are based on who crosses the finish line first.

No judgement. No consensus.

MEASURABLE results are all that matter.

Show me anything that is measurable in climatology.

Measurable results? You mean like measuring the mean temperature of the globe?

Climate Change: Global Temperature

Earth's surface temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the start of the NOAA record in 1850. It may seem like a small change, but it's a tremendous increase in stored heat.

www.climate.gov

Oh wait. As a geologist you must know that those measurements are fake right? Because you are an expert in the field after all....

 

[westwall]

Measurable results? You mean like measuring the mean temperature of the globe?

Climate Change: Global Temperature

Earth's surface temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the start of the NOAA record in 1850. It may seem like a small change, but it's a tremendous increase in stored heat.

www.climate.gov

Oh wait. As a geologist you must know that those measurements are fake right? Because you are an expert in the field after all....

Yeah. Now look at how climatologists take the raw data, but then run it through a climate model to obtain their final number.

Why do you think they do that?

There is so much about what they do that is fraudulent, that you don't know, that when you figure it out, if you are honest, you will be furious.

Do yourself a favor and leave the echo chamber you live in.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yeah. Now look at how climatologists take the raw data, but then run it through a climate model to obtain their final number.

Why do you think they do that?

There is so much about what they do that is fraudulent, that you don't know, that when you figure it out, if you are honest, you will be furious.

Do yourself a favor and leave the echo chamber you live in.

So is that a retraction from the last lie you told or are you sticking with the claim they do not measure anything?

What is funny is that you seem to not realize Astrophysics also deals in models.

 

[Nostra]

Yes, theory and no, it doesn’t mean a guess.

Theory = NOT PROVEN.

 

[westwall]

So is that a retraction from the last lie you told or are you sticking with the claim they do not measure anything?

What is funny is that you seem to not realize Astrophysics also deals in models.

Dude. Stop acting like an asshole. I use my language very carefully. You should do likewise.

Meteorologists measure the temps. Then climatologists run them through the computer models.

Do you not understand anything about the real world?

 

[Billiejeens]

It's common knowledge

 

[FA_Q2]

Dude. Stop acting like an asshole. I use my language very carefully. You should do likewise.

and then:

Do you not understand anything about the real world?

why do you think I am being an asshole? Why do you not try your own advice.

You are not giving me anything but you attitude demanding that you know climatologists know nothing, don't measure anything and everyone is an expert in their field and continually demanding I am ignorant. Of course I am going to shovel that crap right back at you.

The FACT is they take measurements and then make predictions like every other field of science. And the one thing that almost every damn climatologist can agree on is that the earth is warming faster than it has in the past and is doing so while the sun's output is decreasing. Ergo, global warming is simply a fact at this point. That a geologist or an astrophysicist wants to say otherwise without even making a cogent argument is bullshit. This thread was started on the premise that this astrophysicist has any actual valuable input. I pointed out a simple fact, he has no expertise in the field and therefore has about as much valuable input on the subject as Al Gore. He has the credentials and if he really had something he would submit a paper and get it through peer review. He has not.

And, as i pointed out several posts ago and you just sidestepped the issue, this is the EXACT SAME TACTIC every other charlatan uses. TEC (young earth creation) is an excellent example of this. Go peruse through Answers in Genesis and that is all you will see, a bunch of PHDs making claims about fields they have zero expertise in but we should all listen because they have a degree. Hell, they have an astrophysicist as well making a bunch of claims about geology. Claims that 'prove' the world is 6000 years old. Well that is garbage and you are well aware of that. You just want to ignore it in this case because the bobblehead in question agrees with your supposition.

That does not change the underlying reality. And you have spun over and over again to pretend this is not the case. Hell, with the vapid comments this guy made, it would not matter what his expertise was in, they are utterly irrelevant as they are devoid of any fact, charge, argument or even a basic prediction.

 

[SeaMajor7]

The Church of Climastrology shall not be denied, Inshalgore.
The Sacred Computer Models shall not be questioned.
GIGO Forever, amen, they pray.

 

[bripat9643]

According to scientists, there is. By definition, empirical is evidence based on observation. The theory on climate change is based on observations made by scientists. You choosing to ignore their findings doesn't make those findings any less valid.

The so-called "climate scientists" can't isolate the output variable, temperature, to a single input variable, CO2 concentration. Furthermore, they can't even accurately measure the output variable.