The best case a lay person can make against AGW

[PredFan]

I said the same thing to American airlines. The "pilot" said he could fly but since AA has had crashes in the past I said "I'll fly this thing" (btw I'm not a pilot).

But since theyve made mistakes before I figured that trusting any pilot is a bridge too far. The airline disagreed but that's because the establishment "pilots" sought to conspire against me.

Yeah too bad that isn't true, we wouldn't have to listen to your stupid drivel now.

Why not? You think only insiders can land planes? That's a clear indication you only trust big aviation.

Lol, you actually think you have made a relevant point! That's cute.

 

[ClosedCaption]

A mistake isn't a reason to throw away all the science.

if its a huge mistake its the best reason to throw away what obviously was not science. Makes sense now?

So like, crashing a plane?

dear when you say co2 causes temperature to rise and then massive CO2 doesn't make it happen that a mistake. Do you understand now?

You're saying the pilots crashed the planes on purpose to enrich big aviation?

 

[Zander]

 

[SSDD]

as I said their evidence is in 1000's of scientific papers. You would have to be a scientist and refute them all for your approach to be useful

I never said that I have read them all...I said that I have been asking for decades for even one shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the claim that mankind's CO2 emissions are altering the global temperature...and in those decades, I have not yet seen even one small bit of such evidence....there are plenty of people who are so convinced that one would imagine that they have seen a veritable mountain of such evidence...and I have had long discussions with them and asked over and over for such evidence...and none has been forthcoming....even from people who claimed to have seen such evidence....

If any such evidence existed, a person would not be able to avoid it...it would be in ads in the magazines, on billboards everywhere, on television, etc...do you think that if such evidence existed anyone on earth could ask for even a day, much less for decades and never have it shown to them?

 

[SSDD]

And do you really think that you need to be a scientist to recognize observed, measured, quantified empirical data that supports a hypothesis?.?

yes yes yes ever read about the higs boson you need a PHd in physics and an IQ of 150 to have any idea at all if it exists!!! Climate science is almost that complex.

Yes...I have read some about the higs boson...and you don't need an IQ of 150 or a PhD in physics to grasp the idea, and to know that even if you had an IQ of 250, and a PhD in 5 fields of science you still would not know if it exists or not...and climate science is nothing like that complex....the higs boson particle is theoretical...it remains theoretical and unobserved...

Here is a quick lowdown on the higs boson that I would hope that most anyone with an even average education could understand...

Higgs Boson is a theoretical particle. Reefed to as the "GOD" particle. It is what makes up the stuff every thing is made of but at the smallest of levels. Not much is known about it since it has not been observed. It would be able to become any thing since it is what every thing is made of. It would be what would make up electrons, protons or Neron's. Every thing. It is on a scale we have not yet been able to achieve. But the implications would be extreme. You would be able to make any thing from nothing and possibly make it two things at the same time.

Climate science is the study of observable, measurable, quantifiable entities....the atmosphere and the climate....the claim is that the science is settled...in order for the science to be settled, a mass of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence must exist...in fact, can you name any science that is actually settled? Name any science in which we know all there is to know? I am quite sure you can't...and as far as climate science goes, we have barely scratched the surface. The claim that we KNOW what drives the climate is a bald faced lie.

Climate science, in so far as it goes, is a soft science as opposed to the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, biology...a degree in climatatology doesn't involve much in the way of upper level mathematics, chemistry, physics, etc...which would lead to actually having observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of a hypothesis involving observable, measurable, quantifiable entities.

If you believe that climate science is in the same ball park as far as complexity goes as theoretical physics, and that one needs a PhD in order to tell whether or not observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence exists in support of any hypothesis, then all I can ask is what educational system has so thoroughly failed you???

 

[SSDD]

1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,

Wrong, being temperatures have steadily increased the whole time.

Bullshit hairball...temperature data set manipulation has been going on the whole time...and anyone who claims a record global temperature by a hundredth of a degree when the margin of error is ten times that amount is nothing but a hand waving hysteric and propagandist.

 

[SSDD]

A mistake isn't a reason to throw away all the science. Nor is it a reason to put you in the cockpit. That's weak logic

A complete lack of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of a hypothesis is plenty of reason to question anyone making claims of imminent disaster...couple that with multiple predictive failures and you have a perfectly valid reason to call any hypothesis falsified...in real science.....a SINGLE predictive failure is grounds to toss out a hypothesis and begin work on one that better explains the phenomenon in question...the AGW hypothesis is one failed prediction after another...and its biggie...the smoking gun that humans are causing the climate to change...the tropospheric hot spot simply hasn't appeared and it is 20 years past due in the face of an ever growing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere...

 

[SSDD]

Spoken like a true ignoramous. Look, stupid, it is not the fact that it is warming that is alarming, it is the rate of warming.

You claim to be educated rocks...if you are, then you know that there is no proxy reconstruction that would allow you to make any claim whatsoever regarding the rate of temperature change on the 100, or 300 year level...in which case, you are a deliberate bald faced liar...or you are not educated and don't know, in which case, your claims of being educated are a deliberate bald faced lie...

 

[SSDD]

Where have you been the past three years? 2014 was the warmest year on record. Until 2015 surpassed that. And now 2016 will surpass 2015.

Gross data manipulation...and claiming records by 100ths of a degree when the margin of error is 10 times that is again...deliberate bald faced lying and propagandizing...

 

[SSDD]

yes climate changes and we really don't know climate history at all. For example was the Little Ice Age regional or not.

It was regional. That's well known. All the data confirms that.

More lies from the hairball....the fingerprint of the little ice age, as well as the warm holocene optimum, the minoan warm period...the roman warm period and the medieval warm period all show up in both the greenland ice core data and the vostok ice core data...interesting that a regional effect would show up in such far flung locations.

 

[SSDD]

can the liar tell us what region????????

North Atlantic, dumbass.

If you don't know such basics, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups. And if you had any decency, you'd thank me for taking the time out to educate a cultist like you.

So why does it show up in the vostok ice core data?

 

[gipper]

1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,
2) They said AGW started in 1900 when population was 1.6 billion (now 7.5) and little carbon use. Huge population increase and huge carbon use today but no correlative change in temperature as the scientists predicted
3) Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables.
4) Scientists said bad weather would be worse yet the opposite happened confirmed by scientific data and insurance companies. This means they don't understand weather and cannot predict it
5) Much current debate has been on a warming hiatus when new population and carbon highs should have shot temperature off the blade of the hockey stick.
6) Good scientists like Roger Pielke are driven out of the debate by leftists in the university monoculture who dont want the truth to interfere with their political agenda to use AGW to concentrate govt under the pretense of saving the planet from AGW
7) Climate scientists were the nerds of academia until AGW, now they are rock stars saving the planet. Any good crack in the consensus will instantly destroy them all as the worst scientists in history so they must ride this wave till the bitter end regardless of the science!! It seems very similar to the scientific consensus that developed many times in the field of nutrition.

Can anyone help me with any more?

It is patently obvious that warmers do not require proof of AGW, to believe.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So why does it show up in the vostok ice core data?

what is it????

 

[SSDD]

So why does it show up in the vostok ice core data?

what is it????

The cooling signature of the little ice age that the hairball claimed was regional to the north atlantic. The antarctic is quite a distance away for a fingerprint of an event that was restricted to the north atlantic don't you think?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So why does it show up in the vostok ice core data?

what is it????

The cooling signature of the little ice age that the hairball claimed was regional to the north atlantic. The antarctic is quite a distance away for a fingerprint of an event that was restricted to the north atlantic don't you think?

So why does it show up in the vostok ice core data?

what is it????

The cooling signature of the little ice age that the hairball claimed was regional to the north atlantic. The antarctic is quite a distance away for a fingerprint of an event that was restricted to the north atlantic don't you think?

interesting point; so how do the scientists explain it way?

 

[SSDD]

So why does it show up in the vostok ice core data?

what is it????

The cooling signature of the little ice age that the hairball claimed was regional to the north atlantic. The antarctic is quite a distance away for a fingerprint of an event that was restricted to the north atlantic don't you think?

So why does it show up in the vostok ice core data?

what is it????

The cooling signature of the little ice age that the hairball claimed was regional to the north atlantic. The antarctic is quite a distance away for a fingerprint of an event that was restricted to the north atlantic don't you think?

interesting point; so how do the scientists explain it way?

they don't...they ignore it since it doesn't support the false claim that events like the minoan warm period...the roman warm period...the medieval warm period and the little ice age were regional in nature.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Law Dome ice core data seems to fit perfectly with AGW??

 

[Crick]

I don't follow. they present 100's of papers that pass muster as science. So you would have to be a scientist and refute them all for your approach to be valid it seems to me.

Of course they do...and when I ask for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that we are altering the global climate with our CO2 emissions, none can be found...if any such evidence existed, no one on earth would be able to avoid it...

And do you really think that you need to be a scientist to recognize observed, measured, quantified empirical data that supports a hypothesis?...what educational system failed you so miserably?

You've been pointed at THOUSANDS of peer reviewed papers presenting evidence of AGW. You simply lie and continue to claim they don't exist. You're comments are absolutely worthless.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You've been pointed at THOUSANDS of peer reviewed papers presenting evidence of AGW.

sure but
1) all scientists don't agree despite 1000's of papers
2) the left throws out all who disagree so what is real value of papers?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,
2) They said AGW started in 1900 when population was 1.6 billion (now 7.5) and little carbon use. Huge population increase and huge carbon use today but no correlative change in temperature as the scientists predicted
3) Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables.
4) Scientists said bad weather would be worse yet the opposite happened confirmed by scientific data and insurance companies. This means they don't understand weather and cannot predict it
5) Much current debate has been on a warming hiatus when new population and carbon highs should have shot temperature off the blade of the hockey stick.
6) Good scientists like Roger Pielke are driven out of the debate by leftists in the university monoculture who dont want the truth to interfere with their political agenda to use AGW to concentrate govt under the pretense of saving the planet from AGW
7) Climate scientists were the nerds of academia until AGW, now they are rock stars saving the planet. Any good crack in the consensus will instantly destroy them all as the worst scientists in history so they must ride this wave till the bitter end regardless of the science!! It seems very similar to the scientific consensus that developed many times in the field of nutrition.

Can anyone help me with any more?

8th point added and its a good one!!!


1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,
2) They said AGW started in 1900 when population was 1.6 billion (now 7.5) and little carbon use. Huge population increase and huge carbon use today but no correlative change in temperature as the scientists predicted
3) Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables.
4) Scientists said bad weather would be worse yet the opposite happened confirmed by scientific data and insurance companies. This means they don't understand weather and cannot predict it
5) Much current debate has been on a warming hiatus when new population and carbon highs should have shot temperature off the blade of the hockey stick.
6) Good scientists like Roger Pielke are driven out of the debate by leftists in the university monoculture who dont want the truth to interfere with their political agenda to use AGW to concentrate govt under the pretense of saving the planet from AGW
7) Climate scientists were the nerds of academia until AGW, now they are rock stars saving the planet. Any good crack in the consensus will instantly destroy them all as the worst scientists in history so they must ride this wave till the bitter end regardless of the science!! It seems very similar to the scientific consensus that developed many times in the field of nutrition.



8) Most so called scientists are leftists in the university monoculture who throw out scientists who disagree with them so what value does their "science" really have?