The Arrogance of the Warmers

[westwall]

Very stupid of you, Walleyes. For if you look at the graph, the variation in CO2 is about 282 to 272 ppm. And the 282 was during the MWP, while the 272 was during the Little Ice Age. Yes, I will post that site and it's graphs again.

Ice cores, carbon dioxide concentration, and climate

Nice attempt there olfraud but that's not the study I'm thinking of. Post the correct one. Chicken!

The question is why should I accept one study over possibly thousands that say otherwise? Those tree and plant "studies" don't show it as high as today, but higher then the ice cores, yes.

The question is why would you use anything from a group that has willingly, knowingly, and repeatedly falsified data?

 

[Big Fitz]

The first stage of grief is denial.

The first step in proving your assertion is NOT making a wisecrack.

No, you have made the extraordinary claim that the weather we are seeing today is somehow exceptional. I look forward to your supporting evidence. Please note however, we require EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, not computer models. They are so poor as to be unusable.

Oh.... welll... THAaaat!

Stupid empirical evidence.

 

[code1211]

Ah, the arrogance of these damned warmers. How dare they present scientific evidence about a scientific subject. The damned arrogance.

And how do the warmers feel about the CO2 rising since 2002 while the most respected gatherers of climate data all record global cooling?

Are they collecting scientific evidence or something you define differently?

Better to ask how one feels about people that continually lie. Cooling since 2002? 2001 through 2010 the warmest decade on record. 2005, 2010 tied with 1998 as the warmest years on record. That's cooling?

Please check the graphs of the data collected byt hte most respected climate organizations on the planet. And, yes, when the trend of temperatures is cooling during the period stated, that is cooling.

Is it NOAA, or HADCrut that you believe is lying?

2011 August 09 « Reasonable Doubt on Climate Change

 

[code1211]

I never said any of that!

Sure you did, or implied it anyway. Recent experiments cast doubt on a central idea of special relativity, therefore those who want action taken against global warming are being "arrogant" because their science can't be any more certain than Einstein's.

There is always a possibility of being wrong; that's part of doing science. That doesn't mean we sit paralyzed and unable to take action when all the available evidence says we need to in order to avert a catastrophe. Sure, the science could be wrong. It probably isn't, but it could be. But since that can be said at any state of knowledge, the conclusion if you want to go that direction is that we should never do anything.

The problem is that the direct cause-effect relationship and and an accurate prediction of the effects of the imagined cause have not been established.

You are asking that we believe what you say on faith alone.

That is not science. It is religion.

 

[code1211]

There's no possibility of your being wrong because you cannot show a single repeatable laboratory experiment that eliminates all variables save a 100PPM increase in CO2 which according to your hypothesis will warm the experiment up to 5 degrees and acidify any water in the container.

I've been asking for years and I've never gotten any Warmer to post the experiment with results described

Then you're constructing a test from your own imagination which is inappropriate to the subject and designed to be impossible to meet.

The science is sound. About the central argument, that the earth is warming and that the primary cause of this is human activity, there is little disagreement nor any significant doubt. There remains considerable uncertainty about the exact amount of warming to be expected and about the consequences for life on earth and for humanity/civilization. Also, as Bill Clinton said recently in a speech on the subject, there's room for political dispute about the best and most economical way to reduce our carbon footprint, but that can't even start until the irrational denialism, driven by a well-funded propaganda campaign on the part of the fossil fuel industry, is dropped from serious politics.

Your own argument in the OP is no more logical than those who say we can't trust science because scientists lie about their findings in order to get more funding. With that attitude, we return to the Dark Ages.

Cut through the BS.

How much will the temperature rise with the increase in CO2? What is the maximum if there is one, for the temperature to rise.

In the past, when the level of CO2 was something along the lines of 18 times the level of those we experience today, how high was the accompanying temperature?

As an aside, why did the global temperatures start to rise before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution?

 

[Big Fitz]

I never said any of that!

Sure you did, or implied it anyway. Recent experiments cast doubt on a central idea of special relativity, therefore those who want action taken against global warming are being "arrogant" because their science can't be any more certain than Einstein's.

There is always a possibility of being wrong; that's part of doing science. That doesn't mean we sit paralyzed and unable to take action when all the available evidence says we need to in order to avert a catastrophe. Sure, the science could be wrong. It probably isn't, but it could be. But since that can be said at any state of knowledge, the conclusion if you want to go that direction is that we should never do anything.

The problem is that the direct cause-effect relationship and and an accurate prediction of the effects of the imagined cause have not been established.

You are asking that we believe what you say on faith alone.

That is not science. It is religion.

Not to mention "Direct Cause Effect" relationship has not been established for anything whined about by the warmists. It's all models and correlary... like non-site pollution. The two concepts are NOT inter-related.

 

[code1211]

Then you're constructing a test from your own imagination which is inappropriate to the subject and designed to be impossible to meet.

The science is sound. About the central argument, that the earth is warming and that the primary cause of this is human activity, there is little disagreement nor any significant doubt. There remains considerable uncertainty about the exact amount of warming to be expected and about the consequences for life on earth and for humanity/civilization. Also, as Bill Clinton said recently in a speech on the subject, there's room for political dispute about the best and most economical way to reduce our carbon footprint, but that can't even start until the irrational denialism, driven by a well-funded propaganda campaign on the part of the fossil fuel industry, is dropped from serious politics.

Your own argument in the OP is no more logical than those who say we can't trust science because scientists lie about their findings in order to get more funding. With that attitude, we return to the Dark Ages.

What you're describing is not science; it's somewhere between alchemy and astrology.

Now let's not be TOO hasty to put it so highly in the pantheon of science. After all, it's a climatological philosopher's stone.

It's hot, AGW
It's cold, AGW
It's wet, AGW.
It's dry, AGW.
It snows, AGW.
Comets, AGW.
Monkeys fly out our butts, AGW.

Lest we forget, the reflex reaction "cause" of the Japan Earth Quake was Global Warming.

 

[code1211]

The first stage of grief is denial.

The first step in proving your assertion is NOT making a wisecrack.

As I understand it, his assertion is that the case you propose is not proven. I don't think it is either.

How is it logical that you are asking him to disprove something that is not yet proven?

Being "not yet proven" seems to eliminate the need to disprove it since by not being proven yet implies that it's already unproven.

Pretty simple logic.

 

[Big Fitz]

The first stage of grief is denial.

The first step in proving your assertion is NOT making a wisecrack.

As I understand it, his assertion is that the case you propose is not proven. I don't think it is either.

How is it logical that you are asking him to disprove something that is not yet proven?

Being "not yet proven" seems to eliminate the need to disprove it since by not being proven yet implies that it's already unproven.

Pretty simple logic.

Did you get a hernia trying to move them thar goalposts?

 

[bripat9643]

There's no possibility of your being wrong because you cannot show a single repeatable laboratory experiment that eliminates all variables save a 100PPM increase in CO2 which according to your hypothesis will warm the experiment up to 5 degrees and acidify any water in the container.

I've been asking for years and I've never gotten any Warmer to post the experiment with results described

Then you're constructing a test from your own imagination which is inappropriate to the subject and designed to be impossible to meet.

What you call "inappropriate" and impossible to meet" is what genuine scientists call a "well designed experiment." That's how we know you're nothing more than another global warming con-artist.

The science is sound.

That's hilarious coming from someone who just proved he doesn't know a thing about science.

About the central argument, that the earth is warming and that the primary cause of this is human activity, there is little disagreement nor any significant doubt.

There's plenty of disagreement and plenty of doubt.

There remains considerable uncertainty about the exact amount of warming to be expected and about the consequences for life on earth and for humanity/civilization. Also, as Bill Clinton said recently in a speech on the subject, there's room for political dispute about the best and most economical way to reduce our carbon footprint, but that can't even start until the irrational denialism, driven by a well-funded propaganda campaign on the part of the fossil fuel industry, is dropped from serious politics.

Your own argument in the OP is no more logical than those who say we can't trust science because scientists lie about their findings in order to get more funding. With that attitude, we return to the Dark Ages.

So, after attacking the argument with a couple of logical fallacies, untruths and outright lies, he proceeds directly to his solution.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah Pattycake. The poster child for willfull ignorance.

 

[Cuyo]

There's no possibility of your being wrong because you cannot show a single repeatable laboratory experiment that eliminates all variables save a 100PPM increase in CO2 which according to your hypothesis will warm the experiment up to 5 degrees and acidify any water in the container.

I've been asking for years and I've never gotten any Warmer to post the experiment with results described

Then you're constructing a test from your own imagination which is inappropriate to the subject and designed to be impossible to meet.

What you call "inappropriate" and impossible to meet" is what genuine scientists call a "well designed experiment." That's how we know you're nothing more than another global warming con-artist.



That's hilarious coming from someone who just proved he doesn't know a thing about science.

About the central argument, that the earth is warming and that the primary cause of this is human activity, there is little disagreement nor any significant doubt.

There's plenty of disagreement and plenty of doubt.

So consider the repercussions if you're wrong vs. the repercussions if the rest of the world is wrong.

 

[Cuyo]

Sure you did, or implied it anyway. Recent experiments cast doubt on a central idea of special relativity, therefore those who want action taken against global warming are being "arrogant" because their science can't be any more certain than Einstein's.

There is always a possibility of being wrong; that's part of doing science. That doesn't mean we sit paralyzed and unable to take action when all the available evidence says we need to in order to avert a catastrophe. Sure, the science could be wrong. It probably isn't, but it could be. But since that can be said at any state of knowledge, the conclusion if you want to go that direction is that we should never do anything.

The problem is that the direct cause-effect relationship and and an accurate prediction of the effects of the imagined cause have not been established.

You are asking that we believe what you say on faith alone.

That is not science. It is religion.

Not to mention "Direct Cause Effect" relationship has not been established for anything whined about by the the entire world except American Republicans. [Red added by Cuyo] It's all models and correlary... like non-site pollution. The two concepts are NOT inter-related.

s'il te plait.

 

[Big Fitz]

The problem is that the direct cause-effect relationship and and an accurate prediction of the effects of the imagined cause have not been established.

You are asking that we believe what you say on faith alone.

That is not science. It is religion.

Not to mention "Direct Cause Effect" relationship has not been established for anything whined about by the the entire world except American Republicans. It's all models and correlary... like non-site pollution. The two concepts are NOT inter-related.

s'il te plait.

Mademoiselle Tete a la Merde:

Remove the edit to my quote or get turned over to the mods. You can add it after in your own section, but do NOT presume to edit my words like that. It's a violation of TOS.

And we are not so familiar you may use 'S'il te plait'. S'il vous plaiez is proper. Deux faux pas.

 

[Cuyo]

Not to mention "Direct Cause Effect" relationship has not been established for anything whined about by the the entire world except American Republicans. It's all models and correlary... like non-site pollution. The two concepts are NOT inter-related.

s'il te plait.

Mademoiselle Tete a la Merde:

Remove the edit to my quote or get turned over to the mods. You can add it after in your own section, but do NOT presume to edit my words like that. It's a violation of TOS.

And we are not so familiar you may use 'S'il te plait'. S'il vous plaiez is proper. Deux faux pas.

That's as good as it gets.

Mademoiselle Tete a la Merde: according to Google; 'Miss a shit head.' I get the point but can you provide a better dialectic translation?

 

[Big Fitz]

s'il te plait.

Mademoiselle Tete a la Merde:

Remove the edit to my quote or get turned over to the mods. You can add it after in your own section, but do NOT presume to edit my words like that. It's a violation of TOS.

And we are not so familiar you may use 'S'il te plait'. S'il vous plaiez is proper. Deux faux pas.

That's as good as it gets.

Mademoiselle Tete a la Merde: according to Google; 'Miss a shit head.' I get the point but can you provide a better dialectic translation?

Sorry, I didn't have to rely on computers to translate. I learned myself, rusty, but the meaning holds up as well as "Ich bin ein Berliner."

Je parle francias, mais Je parle mauvais.

Now. Remove the edit to it's proper place S'il vous plaiez? or do I still need to report it?

 

[Cuyo]

Mademoiselle Tete a la Merde:

Remove the edit to my quote or get turned over to the mods. You can add it after in your own section, but do NOT presume to edit my words like that. It's a violation of TOS.

And we are not so familiar you may use 'S'il te plait'. S'il vous plaiez is proper. Deux faux pas.

That's as good as it gets.

Mademoiselle Tete a la Merde: according to Google; 'Miss a shit head.' I get the point but can you provide a better dialectic translation?

Sorry, I didn't have to rely on computers to translate. I learned myself, rusty, but the meaning holds up as well as "Ich bin ein Berliner."

Je parle francias, mais Je parle mauvais.

Now. Remove the edit to it's proper place S'il vous plaiez? or do I still need to report it?

Ich spreche ein Bissien Deutsch, y se habla poquito espaniol, para no parle francias.

I believe my edit has sufficiently identified that the edit was made by me, unless a mod tells me otherwise. Personally I don't feel it was dishonest in its original form, either.

 

[westwall]

Then you're constructing a test from your own imagination which is inappropriate to the subject and designed to be impossible to meet.

What you call "inappropriate" and impossible to meet" is what genuine scientists call a "well designed experiment." That's how we know you're nothing more than another global warming con-artist.



That's hilarious coming from someone who just proved he doesn't know a thing about science.

About the central argument, that the earth is warming and that the primary cause of this is human activity, there is little disagreement nor any significant doubt.

There's plenty of disagreement and plenty of doubt.

So consider the repercussions if you're wrong vs. the repercussions if the rest of the world is wrong.

Consider the repurcussions of what will occur if the IPCC gets to piss away 76 trillion dollars to possibly lower the global temperature one degree at the end of 100 years....maybe.

Now imagine what could be accomplished were that 76 trillion actually invested in something real. Something tangible, something that doesn't rely on a "maybe".

 

[westwall]

That's as good as it gets.

Mademoiselle Tete a la Merde: according to Google; 'Miss a shit head.' I get the point but can you provide a better dialectic translation?

Sorry, I didn't have to rely on computers to translate. I learned myself, rusty, but the meaning holds up as well as "Ich bin ein Berliner."

Je parle francias, mais Je parle mauvais.

Now. Remove the edit to it's proper place S'il vous plaiez? or do I still need to report it?

Ich spreche ein Bissien Deutsch, y se habla poquito espaniol, para no parle francias.

I believe my edit has sufficiently identified that the edit was made by me, unless a mod tells me otherwise. Personally I don't feel it was dishonest in its original form, either.

Doesn't matter what you "think", those are the rules...follow them.

 

[gslack]

That's as good as it gets.

Mademoiselle Tete a la Merde: according to Google; 'Miss a shit head.' I get the point but can you provide a better dialectic translation?

Sorry, I didn't have to rely on computers to translate. I learned myself, rusty, but the meaning holds up as well as "Ich bin ein Berliner."

Je parle francias, mais Je parle mauvais.

Now. Remove the edit to it's proper place S'il vous plaiez? or do I still need to report it?

Ich spreche ein Bissien Deutsch, y se habla poquito espaniol, para no parle francias.

I believe my edit has sufficiently identified that the edit was made by me, unless a mod tells me otherwise. Personally I don't feel it was dishonest in its original form, either.

Only a douchebag would edit someones words in a quote attributed to them...

But you have done this before and been called on huh... One day someone may take notice of your habits across multiple identities on here and do the right thing...

You and all of your misquoting alter-egos are pathetic..