Over 4.5 Billion to die by 2012

[PMZ]

Anybody know the products of combustion of fossil fuels?

 

[PMZ]

Does anybody know what causes weather?

 

[Ernie S.]

I notice that no one is questioning that the methane loop exists, and is a massive threat to life on this planet.

Much better to argue about what some idiot blogger wrote than actually deal with the science, I guess.

OMG!!! Cow farts are going to kill us all. We should all become vegans. Soy beans don't fart hardly at all.

 

[Sunshine]

I notice that no one is questioning that the methane loop exists, and is a massive threat to life on this planet.

Much better to argue about what some idiot blogger wrote than actually deal with the science, I guess.

OMG!!! Cow farts are going to kill us all. We should all become vegans. Soy beans don't fart hardly at all.

If vegetarians like animals so much, why do they keep eating their food?

 

[gslack]

Does anybody know what causes weather?

Dude are you that lonely???

Damn man, stop posting to yourself and begging for attention, have some dignity..

 

[PMZ]

Deniers have zero science that supports what they wish was true. Zero. Nothing.

They hope to accomplish their goal of more for them at the expense of future generations through the spread of ignorance. Not unlike the role of the Church that lead to Europe's Dark Ages.

Their strategy is to attack science and scientists to try to drag them down to the level of their politics and politicians.

In other words drag dirty politics to the world of truth seeking.

Nafarious at best.

Of course it's all for naught. They are trying to delay what's already launched.

There is just too much opportunity to contain the doers of the world.

The bottom line for their efforts is that the harder they work at it, the more irrelevant they make themselves. And if there's one thing that they can't afford to lose any more of its relevance.

They really seem unable to help themselves though. The ego thing. They want to seem educated and informed without investing in being educated and informed.

It's self destructive behavior.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Deniers have zero science that supports what they wish was true. Zero. Nothing.

They hope to accomplish their goal of more for them at the expense of future generations through the spread of ignorance. Not unlike the role of the Church that lead to Europe's Dark Ages.

Their strategy is to attack science and scientists to try to drag them down to the level of their politics and politicians.

In other words drag dirty politics to the world of truth seeking.

Nafarious at best.

Of course it's all for naught. They are trying to delay what's already launched.

There is just too much opportunity to contain the doers of the world.

The bottom line for their efforts is that the harder they work at it, the more irrelevant they make themselves. And if there's one thing that they can't afford to lose any more of its relevance.

They really seem unable to help themselves though. The ego thing. They want to seem educated and informed without investing in being educated and informed.

It's self destructive behavior.

...and AGWCult knows Zero Science

 

[PMZ]

There's a world of science to support AGW. There's not a spec of science supporting denial. Zero.

If you disagree, show me one piece of scientific evidence that supports that AGW is not real.

 

[SSDD]

Anybody know what happens to any volume of matter that takes in more heat energy than it can pass on?

Sure, it warms up. Did the sun increase its output? Or did the earth's core suddenly become warmer? If not, then what's your point since those two are the only sources of heat available.

You warmer cultists seem to forget that little fact all the time in your belief that CO2 is an energy source.

 

[SSDD]

Anybody know what defines a compound as a greenhouse gas?

A fabricated, unproven, untestable, unphyisical, greenhouse effect hypothesis based on a completely made up fudge factor of entirely unknown and untraceable origins. Any other questions?

 

[SSDD]

Anybody know the products of combustion of fossil fuels?

Sure, we all do. Do you have any repeatable, observable experiment that proves that the addition of those products to the atmosphere causes warming? Or, as I suspect, do you have nothing more than weak corelation as a basis for your belief? Corelation that falls apart when one looks further back into the climate history of the earth.

 

[SSDD]

Does anybody know what causes weather?

Nope. None of us do. We have a relatively good basic understanding of what sort of weather certain atmospheric conditions cause, but we are in the dark when asked exactly what caused the atmospheric conditions that resulted in the weather.

 

[Saigon]

Does anybody know what causes weather?

Nope. None of us do. We have a relatively good basic understanding of what sort of weather certain atmospheric conditions cause, but we are in the dark when asked exactly what caused the atmospheric conditions that resulted in the weather.

So you admit that weather cannot be reproduced in a lab, but demand that climate change must be reproduceable in a lab before you will take it seriously.

And you wonder why I question whether you believe your own posting?

 

[SSDD]

Deniers have zero science that supports what they wish was true. Zero. Nothing.

Actually, zero is the amount of hard, observed, empirical evidence you have that mankind's activities are causing the global climate to change.

I asked siagon to read a definition of the scientific method and then apply it to the "research" and findings of climate science. He was, predictably, unable to do it. Would you care to give it a try? Here is the definition of the scientific method:

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself,[discuss] supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established (when data is sampled or compared to chance).

As you can see, climate science is at odds with a number of the very foundations of science and the scientific method. Measurable and empirical evidence. That is always a problem for you guys. When asked for measureable empirical evidence that proves that man is responsible for climate change, you invariably change the subject or claim that the mythical measurable empirical evidence has already been presented. When asked to kindly repost it, you can't. When asked for some measureable empirical proof that Y amount of CO2 in the atmosphere causes X amount of warming, again, no measurable, empirical proof is available.

Then there is the matter of experimentation. The only evidence of experimentation that I can find that climate science has performed are climate models and they are failures. They are literally, the hypothesis put to the test and they have failed every time...even with constant tweaking every time they go off the rails, they continue to fail. Why? Obviously because the hypothesis is wrong.

Climate science clearly doesn't let reality speak for itself. The pause is a fine example. The predictions made by the hypothesis are slapped down and in turn, the hypothesis itself is slapped down by the reality of the pause but belief in the hypothesis persists. Belief is not part of the scientific method. Belief falls under the catergory of "something else".

And finally there is the requirement of full disclosure. Full and open exchange of material so that others can fully test all of the research and thereby fully test the hypothesis. We all know how much money and time have been spent by climate science in hiding data and resisting disclosure of research methods and findings.

You like to call us deniers and anti science but the fact is that what you call science fails every test that the scientific method requires of a field of study in order to be called science at all.

 

[SSDD]

There's a world of science to support AGW.

What you call science can't even pass the tests required by the scientific method to be called science.

If you disagree, show me one piece of scientific evidence that supports that AGW is not real.

Prove a negative? There's the scientific accumen of climate science in a nutshell. It is you who is making the claims of impending disaster...it is therefore up to you to show hard, measurable, empirical evidence that your claims have a rational basis.

You might start by showing an observable, repeatable experiment that proves that by adding Y amount of CO2 to the atmosphere, X amount of warming actually happens. That is basic science and certainly not unreasonable if you appreciate the scientific method. So lets see some good faith on your part. Kindly show us the experiment. You don't have to do it yourself but surely some climate scientist has done it since it seems to be taken as fact.

 

[SSDD]

So you admit that weather cannot be reproduced in a lab, but demand that climate change must be reproduceable in a lab before you will take it seriously.

And you wonder why I question whether you believe your own posting?

As you guys like to state...weather is not climate. And no, I certainly don't expect anyone to reproduce weather in a lab. That isn't the issue though. The claim is that additional CO2 added to the atmosphere will cause warming which will then cause changes in the weather. What I want to see is hard, observable, repeatable, experimental evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming. That is basic science and is required by the scientific method of any study in order to be called science. If in fact, adding CO2 to the atmosphere can cause warming, it should be proveable by experiment. Natural laws certainly predict all sorts of results when one thing is added to another or taken away, or varied in amount and those predictions are routinely born out by observable repeatable experiment. Observable repeatable experiment are, in fact, how they became laws in the first place.

So lets see the experiment that proves that adding some amount of CO2 to the atmosphere causes some amount of warming. That is, after all, the very foundation of your claims of manmade global warming. Surely the hypothesis has been tested in the laboratory and found to be sound.

Your inability to grasp the difference between demonstrating the soundness of the basic science behind a hypothesis and demonstrating the results of what happens if the basic science is true, calls into question your own scientific skills....not that anyone actually thought you had any in the first place. If you can't demonstrate the basic mechanism of a hypothesis predicting a change in energy escape from a system as a result of an increase of a gas in that system in a repeatable, observable, measurable laboratory setting, how do you expect to be believed or taken serously by anyone other than rubes?

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

I certainly don't expect anyone to reproduce weather in a lab. That isn't the issue though.

Then stop posting this childish gibberish about climate change not being reproduced in a lab - it's as simple as that.

 

[gslack]

SSDD -

I certainly don't expect anyone to reproduce weather in a lab. That isn't the issue though.

Then stop posting this childish gibberish about climate change not being reproduced in a lab - it's as simple as that.

LOL, you think it helps your case tosay such childish things like "reproduce weather in a lab" or hurts it?

Weather isn't a theory, it's right there outside our door 24/7..

Get a grip junior..

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012

* * * *

Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rose by a record amount over the past year. It is the third successive year in which they have increased sharply. Scientists are at a loss to explain why the rapid rise has taken place, but fear the trend could be the first sign of runaway global warming.

Runaway Global Warming promises to literally burn-up agricultural areas into dust worldwide by 2012, causing global famine, anarchy, diseases, and war on a global scale as military powers including the U.S., Russia, and China, fight for control of the Earth's remaining resources.

Over 4.5 billion people could die from Global Warming related causes by 2012, as planet Earth accelarates [sic] into a greed-driven horrific catastrophe.

-- [As opposed to one of those non horrific catastrophes.] Id.

See? They were RIGHT. They said COULD.

Ok. So what? Yes, they were "off" on that whole "promise" thing.

But still, that's pretty good; they were like about 50% correct (if we count the qualifications).

The piece did not SAY so, but I suppose the not-quite-quoted "scientists" probably peer reviewed each other.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

I certainly don't expect anyone to reproduce weather in a lab. That isn't the issue though.

Then stop posting this childish gibberish about climate change not being reproduced in a lab - it's as simple as that.

I am not and never have asked to see climate change demonstrated in a lab you blithering babbling fool. I have asked and wlli continue to ask for some credible demonstration of the basic mechanism by which you claim CO2 causes climate change, I.E. adding X amount of CO2 to a system results in Y amount of temperature increase. If you can demonstrate that change results in a temperature increase then we can look at the claimed changes that might result from that temperature increase. But if you can't demonstrate that X amount of CO2 results in Y amount of warming the you are expecting me to accept the rest on faith.