Opposing the AGW Consensus are . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[Billy_Bob]

Actually this is wrong too.
Science does not deal in "Proof," only math can really/absolutely do that. (2+2 is 4)

Science deals in Theories affirmed over time BY continuing consistent measurement and observation of the evidence.
So in fact, science IS Consensus.
ie, Evolution is ALSO true by consensus of the consistent (and growing) evidence.
The more and longer the merrier.
And there is overwhelming consensus on AGW, and it has Grown over the last few decades, to where now it is over 90%, and of more/most experienced specialists, nearing 100%. (continue reading OP link under excerpt quoted '"surveys.")

`

You're making the same failed argument over and over again. You appeal to those you think are authorities but never learn what it is they are spewing. You NEVER fact check them because it is a narrative you approve of. Any first-year scientist, in the hard sciences, can tell you Consensus is MOB Rule and is not based in science.

 

[abu afak]

You're making the same failed argument over and over again. You appeal to those you think are authorities but never learn what it is they are spewing. You NEVER fact check them because it is a narrative you approve of. Any first-year scientist in the hard sciences can tell you Consensus is MOB Rule and is not based in science.

I always check facts.
Unlike you who posted an OP Article that 'Solar panels are Useless over 85°.'
YOU F****** IDIOT!
Just took their word because you liked it/Politics.
Who could have believed that, especially someone in the debate every day.
That is UNIMAGINABLY STUPID!
and same on many other issues I've gutted you on
IAC:
New One?

Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

"appeal to authority"​

"You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true."​

​

""**It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.""


`

 

[Billy_Bob]

I always check facts.
Unlike you who posted an OP Article that 'Solar panels are Useless over 85°.'
YOU F****** IDIOT!
Just took their word because you liked it/Politics.
Who could have believed that, especially someone in the debate every day.
That is UNIMAGINABLY STUPID!
and same on many other issues I've gutted you on
IAC:
New One?

Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

"appeal to authority"​

"You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true."​

​

​

""It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.""


`

You don't even know the basics about the hypothesis. I have given you these basics several times and you ignore it. SO here it is once again. A very good article on the BASICS OF THE CAGW HYPOTHESIS:

The Skeptic's Case | Mises Institute

Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message.

mises.org

Dr Evans is very succinct in his presentation. He shows the five parameters of CAGW and why they each fail. He explains the science behind the hypothesis and shows that there is very little, in fact, that we disagree on. He shows exactly how the hypothesis fails.

As to your appeals to authority, as a Ph.D. I don't do these. Ideal in facts that I can understand, research, and prove with empirical evidence or experiment.

 

[ding]

Actually this is wrong too.
Science does not deal in "Proof," only math can really/absolutely do that. (2+2 is 4)

Science deals in Theories affirmed over time BY continuing consistent measurement and observation of the evidence.
So in fact, science IS Consensus. (consensus a reflection of scientist opinion on Evidence)
ie, Evolution is ALSO true by consensus of the consistent and growing evidence.
The more and longer the merrier.
And there is overwhelming consensus on AGW, and it has Grown over the last few decades, to where now it is over 90%, and of more/most experienced specialists, nearing 100%. (continue reading OP link under excerpt quoted '"surveys.")

`

That’s nice. It’s 2C cooler with 26ft shallower seas with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 than in the past. That’s what the science shows.

 

[ding]

They literally have no valid explanation for our present climate being 2C cooler with 26ft shallower seas with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2.

 

[abu afak]

That’s nice. It’s 2C cooler with 26ft shallower seas with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 than in the past. That’s what the science shows.

Yes, it been both warmer and colder with different sea levels..
which sheds NO LIGHT on the the current AGW debate.
SWAT!

`

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yes, it been both warmer and colder with different sea levels..
which sheds NO LIGHT on the the current AGW debate.
SWAT!

`

Actually, it does, you just chose not to see it. We have had CO2 levels as high or higher than today through much of earth's history and we have NEVER seen a runaway atmosphere. Water vapor will not allow it.

You're ignoring well established paleo history. Why is that?

 

[ding]

Yes, it been both warmer and colder with different sea levels..
which sheds NO LIGHT on the the current AGW debate.
SWAT!

`

Actually it does. It shows there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Actually it does. It shows there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.

I love it.... They can't answer the questions... OR they refuse too. As Oddball put it:

1) Repeatability.
2) Control sample.
3) Falsifiability.
4) Quantifiability.
5) Predictability.

Basic science.

 

[Billy_Bob]

No it does not
It would depend on Other Conditions at the time, and you cited NO time.. nothing.
You are a one-line TROLL/@SSHOLE.

And the additional claim that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperaurs is riDICKulous.
`
`

Correlation does not imply CAUSATION. Every scientist knows this. But you spout it as fact. Why?

 

[abu afak]

Actually it does. It shows there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.

No it does not
It would depend on Other Conditions at the time, (why) and you cited NO time.. nothing.
You are a one-line TROLL/@SSHOLE.

And the additional claim that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperaurs is riDICKulous.
`
`

 

[Billy_Bob]

No it does not
It would depend on Other Conditions at the time, and you cited NO time.. nothing.
You are a one-line TROLL/@SSHOLE.

And the additional claim that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperaurs is riDICKulous.
`
`

Poor Abu... You're running yourself in circles while you ignore the evidence presented. That is why we all laugh at you. You are given the evidence, but you refuse to use cognitive thinking skills.

 

[abu afak]

Poor Abu... You're running yourself in circles while you ignore the evidence presented. That is why we all laugh at you. You are given the evidence, but you refuse to use cognitive thinking skills.

What "evidence?"
How many times have i kicked the shlt out of you in the last few pages alone "Solar-Panels-are-useless-over-85" BOY??
`

 

[Billy_Bob]

What "evidence?"
How many times have i kicked the shlt out of you in the last few pages alone "Solar-Panels-are-useless-over-85" BOY??
`

Since you brough that up, multiple times, in an attempt to discredit me, do you disagree with heat degrading the panels output? Please provide proof of this. You failed to do it there, can you do it here? The degradation, of the output of these panels, above 85 degrees F is now settled and documented science.

The fact you do not understand the basic CAGW hypothesis is stunning. IN the first ten posts of this thread, you were given the data to look at, but you refuse to. You sir, Are a parrot.

You are a legend in your own mind. that's it.

 

[ding]

No it does not
It would depend on Other Conditions at the time, (why) and you cited NO time.. nothing.
You are a one-line TROLL/@SSHOLE.

And the additional claim that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperaurs is riDICKulous.
`
`

So which radiative forcing component was responsible for it being 2C warmer with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2?

 

[westwall]

Actually this is wrong too.
Science does not deal in "Proof," only math can really/absolutely do that. (2+2 is 4)

Science deals in Theories affirmed over time BY continuing consistent measurement and observation of the evidence.
So in fact, science IS Consensus. (consensus a reflection of scientist opinion on Evidence)
ie, Evolution is ALSO true by consensus of the consistent and growing evidence.
The more and longer the merrier.
And there is overwhelming consensus on AGW, and it has Grown over the last few decades, to where now it is over 90%, and of more/most experienced specialists, nearing 100%. (continue reading OP link under excerpt quoted '"surveys.")

`

No, science deals in observable facts.

Emphasis on OBSERVABLE.

 

[ding]

Game, set, match.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

OFF Topic to the AGW Consensus.
The GND is another topic/policy what, if anything, to do about it.
`

A Thread Is Not a Tightrope

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

You just can't figure it out... No surprise...

And you did not answer my question. I provided the actual LOG of CO2. IN that graph it shows that we should have seen nearly 2 deg C since 1850. According to empirical evidence we have seen just 0.6 deg C in total in that time frame.

CO2 is not driving anything by empirical experiment and evidence.

You keep saying that it is me who is lying but the facts say different.

You are an idiot. You keep posting up failed modeling from Godard and NOAA. Modeling that fails empirical verification 100% of the time. The physics is very simple, yet you miss the forest because you cant see through the trees..

Leeches Lashing Out

Instead of answering you, Abucadabra can just blurt out "OFF TOPIC!!" and maintain his delusions.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

"""Before the industrial re
volution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.

As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?




`

The "Balance of Nature" Is Not in Man's Favor and Never Has Been