The Four Main Fails of AGW

[CrusaderFrank]

Here are the 4 main reasons why AGW fails:

1. There are no experiments.

A flat out lie. The absorption characteristics of CO2 are characterized by hundreds of papers. We've shown them to Frank before.

2. This additional planet killing atmospheric heat in 1 above is somehow also heating the oceans down 700m deep?

Well, yes. Again, we've explained that to Frank in one-syllable words. The fact that he's an imbecile doesn't make reality invalid.

3. So many failed predictions!

Again, a big lie. The climate scientist predictions have been excellent, while Frank and his cult pals have faceplanted consistently for over 40 years running now.

4. The AGW Cult;

Flat earthers and scientologists also claim that those outside of their cults are the real cultists. That's standard behavior for authoritarian-follower cult losers. They can cry and whine all they like, but all the data _still_ say's they're kook cult losers. Frank thinks he can overturn reality if he just throws enough trantrums, but that is not the case.

AGW science crosses all political boundaries all around the world, because it's actual science. If left-wing politics vanished, the science wouldn't change at all.

Frank's butthurt denialism is restricted mostly to American conservatives, because it's entirely political. If right-wing politics vanished, denialism would instantly cease to exist.

Here are the 4 main reasons why AGW fails:

1. There are no experiments.

A flat out lie. The absorption characteristics of CO2 are characterized by hundreds of papers. We've shown them to Frank before.

2. This additional planet killing atmospheric heat in 1 above is somehow also heating the oceans down 700m deep?

Well, yes. Again, we've explained that to Frank in one-syllable words. The fact that he's an imbecile doesn't make reality invalid.

3. So many failed predictions!

Again, a big lie. The climate scientist predictions have been excellent, while Frank and his cult pals have faceplanted consistently for over 40 years running now.

4. The AGW Cult;

Flat earthers and scientologists also claim that those outside of their cults are the real cultists. That's standard behavior for authoritarian-follower cult losers. They can cry and whine all they like, but all the data _still_ say's they're kook cult losers. Frank thinks he can overturn reality if he just throws enough trantrums, but that is not the case.

AGW science crosses all political boundaries all around the world, because it's actual science. If left-wing politics vanished, the science wouldn't change at all.

Frank's butthurt denialism is restricted mostly to American conservatives, because it's entirely political. If right-wing politics vanished, denialism would instantly cease to exist.

Notice the Cat Lady did NOT respond with anything ON POINT but deflected and insulted

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Here are the 4 main reasons why AGW fails:

1. There are no experiments.

A flat out lie. The absorption characteristics of CO2 are characterized by hundreds of papers. We've shown them to Frank before.

2. This additional planet killing atmospheric heat in 1 above is somehow also heating the oceans down 700m deep?

Well, yes. Again, we've explained that to Frank in one-syllable words. The fact that he's an imbecile doesn't make reality invalid.

3. So many failed predictions!

Again, a big lie. The climate scientist predictions have been excellent, while Frank and his cult pals have faceplanted consistently for over 40 years running now.

4. The AGW Cult;

Flat earthers and scientologists also claim that those outside of their cults are the real cultists. That's standard behavior for authoritarian-follower cult losers. They can cry and whine all they like, but all the data _still_ say's they're kook cult losers. Frank thinks he can overturn reality if he just throws enough trantrums, but that is not the case.

AGW science crosses all political boundaries all around the world, because it's actual science. If left-wing politics vanished, the science wouldn't change at all.

Frank's butthurt denialism is restricted mostly to American conservatives, because it's entirely political. If right-wing politics vanished, denialism would instantly cease to exist.

Here are the 4 main reasons why AGW fails:

1. There are no experiments.

A flat out lie. The absorption characteristics of CO2 are characterized by hundreds of papers. We've shown them to Frank before.

2. This additional planet killing atmospheric heat in 1 above is somehow also heating the oceans down 700m deep?

Well, yes. Again, we've explained that to Frank in one-syllable words. The fact that he's an imbecile doesn't make reality invalid.

3. So many failed predictions!

Again, a big lie. The climate scientist predictions have been excellent, while Frank and his cult pals have faceplanted consistently for over 40 years running now.

4. The AGW Cult;

Flat earthers and scientologists also claim that those outside of their cults are the real cultists. That's standard behavior for authoritarian-follower cult losers. They can cry and whine all they like, but all the data _still_ say's they're kook cult losers. Frank thinks he can overturn reality if he just throws enough trantrums, but that is not the case.

AGW science crosses all political boundaries all around the world, because it's actual science. If left-wing politics vanished, the science wouldn't change at all.

Frank's butthurt denialism is restricted mostly to American conservatives, because it's entirely political. If right-wing politics vanished, denialism would instantly cease to exist.

Notice the Cat Lady did NOT respond with anything ON POINT but deflected and insulted

It is the way of the progs to never admit that they were wrong, but attack those who bring a logic and factual argument. Zealots are very dangerous.

 

[jc456]

A flat out lie. The absorption characteristics of CO2 are characterized by hundreds of papers. We've shown them to Frank before.

then why not link to one? instead you don't. doesn't make your point at all. I'd say more proves Frank's post. thanks, for showing all there are no experiments.

 

[mamooth]

So you admit you have no control group or sample....

And?

We don't have any control groups for any planetary science, given that there are no duplicate planets, but that doesn't stop the science. Why do you insist on a planetary scale control group for the sole case of climate science? Your inconsistent standards make you look wildly hypocritical, your inconsistent standards.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

So you admit you have no control group or sample....

And?

We don't have any control groups for any planetary science, given that there are no duplicate planets, but that doesn't stop the science. Why do you insist on a planetary scale control group for the sole case of climate science? Your inconsistent standards make you look wildly hypocritical, your inconsistent standards.

Have you ever been 700m down in the watery depths of an ocean?

 

[jc456]

We don't have any control groups for any planetary science, given that there are no duplicate planets, but that doesn't stop the science. Why do you insist on a planetary scale control group for the sole case of climate science? Your inconsistent standards make you look wildly hypocritical, your inconsistent standards.

isn't control groups a scientific procedure?

 

[mamooth]

A flat out lie. The absorption characteristics of CO2 are characterized by hundreds of papers. We've shown them to Frank before.

then why not link to one?

Because I've done so many times before, and Frank just lies about it. But since you asked, I count 77 papers listed here that define the spectral absorption characteristics of CO2.

https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/Updated/ref-table.pdf

A lot of this stuff originates with the Air Force, who were trying to make missiles with IR seeker heads. You can't make those work without knowing what kinds of IR will travel through the atmosphere.

Needless to say, the Air Force is clearly part of the socialist conspiracy.

 

[mamooth]

Have you ever been 700m down in the watery depths of an ocean?

Was there any point to such a stupid question? If so, you should make it directly and honestly. You know, act like a liberal.

 

[jc456]

Because I've done so many times before, and Frank just lies about it. But since you asked, I count 77 papers listed here that define the spectral absorption characteristics of CO2.

great, which one shows the affect of CO2 on temperature? I did a search and not one article or experiment popped up. So, if you don't mind, which one of the experiments in that link shows the impact of CO2 on temperature.

 

[mamooth]

isn't control groups a scientific procedure?

Control groups are used in population studies, which most science is not.

For example, say I take an ice core to measure the oxygen isotopes. Tell me what the "control group" is supposed to be.

 

[mamooth]

great, which one shows the affect of CO2 on temperature?

Sure. Here's an easy one.

Needless to say, most deniers say it doesn't count, because .... reasons. They can't give one, other than "BUT IT DOESN'T AGREE WITH ME, SO IT'S WRONG!".

I did a search and not one article or experiment popped up. So, if you don't mind, which one of the experiments in that link shows the impact of CO2 on temperature.

Got it. Goalpost-moving. And now you're going to move the goalposts again, and again, and again.

 

[jc456]

isn't control groups a scientific procedure?

Control groups are used in population studies, which most science is not.

For example, say I take an ice core to measure the oxygen isotopes. Tell me what the "control group" is supposed to be.

I don't know, but, Significance of Control Group in Research.

 

[Dadoalex]

Here are the 4 main reasons why AGW fails:

1. There are no experiments. The central pillar is that an increase in a negligible atmospheric gas is generating heat that will soon end all life on Earth. Well, how much additional heat does the 120 ppm of CO2 generate? Why is there never a non-imaginary number provided by the lab work?

2. This additional planet killing atmospheric heat in 1 above is somehow also heating the oceans down 700m deep? Yet, it takes far more energy to heat water than air. Where is that missing energy?

3. So many failed predictions! Any real scientist would have had to discard the flawed theory and moved on, AGW is impervious to its graphic, public misses

4. The AGW Cult; yes, it's a Cult, because it's religion, not science, is oblivious to the fact that China generates more of this imaginary planet killing gas than all industrial nations combined and double the output of the USA. If this really was science and an existential threat, all the efforts would be on dialing back Chinese output. Instead, the AGW Cult excuses the ChiComs for being allowed to continue spewing this imaginary planet killing gas for 20 years beyond the latest alleged tipping point.

Here's the problem kids.
People who pretend to understand science.

CO2 doesn't produce heat.
CO2 retains heat not allowing it to escape to space.

And when you don't understand the science you are, of course, prone to making stupid suggestions.

 

[jc456]

great, which one shows the affect of CO2 on temperature?

Sure. Here's an easy one.

Needless to say, most deniers say it doesn't count, because .... reasons. They can't give one, other than "BUT IT DOESN'T AGREE WITH ME, SO IT'S WRONG!".

I did a search and not one article or experiment popped up. So, if you don't mind, which one of the experiments in that link shows the impact of CO2 on temperature.

Got it. Goalpost-moving. And now you're going to move the goalposts again, and again, and again.

well that one doesn't show the characteristics of CO2 and temperature at all. It's a failed experiment because there is no control of CO2. it's been explained many times in here. By me as a matter of fact. Probably five years ago in fact. The mere fact you choose that one is more evidence to Frank's statement. And again, you posted a link that didn't reach one hair of undercutting CO2 vs temperature. Unless you can tell me which one in the list is it.

 

[mamooth]

well that one doesn't show the characteristics of CO2 and temperature at all.

And there go those goalposts, sailing down the field! You asked for an experiment that showed CO2 caused warming. I gave you one. Now you're making up bogus reasons why it doesn't count. Like this:

It's a failed experiment because there is no control of CO2.

Of course there is. One side has more CO2 than the other. It's precisely measured on each side.

it's been explained many times in here.

Don't tell such stupid lies. Even you should have standards.

I could go get more experiments. You'd just move the goalposts again. I hope you don't embarrass yourself by denying that. So why should we bother, when it's a given that you'll just lie more, as you did here?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here are the 4 main reasons why AGW fails:

1. There are no experiments. The central pillar is that an increase in a negligible atmospheric gas is generating heat that will soon end all life on Earth. Well, how much additional heat does the 120 ppm of CO2 generate? Why is there never a non-imaginary number provided by the lab work?

2. This additional planet killing atmospheric heat in 1 above is somehow also heating the oceans down 700m deep? Yet, it takes far more energy to heat water than air. Where is that missing energy?

3. So many failed predictions! Any real scientist would have had to discard the flawed theory and moved on, AGW is impervious to its graphic, public misses

4. The AGW Cult; yes, it's a Cult, because it's religion, not science, is oblivious to the fact that China generates more of this imaginary planet killing gas than all industrial nations combined and double the output of the USA. If this really was science and an existential threat, all the efforts would be on dialing back Chinese output. Instead, the AGW Cult excuses the ChiComs for being allowed to continue spewing this imaginary planet killing gas for 20 years beyond the latest alleged tipping point.

Here's the problem kids.
People who pretend to understand science.

CO2 doesn't produce heat.
CO2 retains heat not allowing it to escape to space.

And when you don't understand the science you are, of course, prone to making stupid suggestions.

So, does the heat retained by CO2 raise temperature?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

isn't control groups a scientific procedure?

Control groups are used in population studies, which most science is not.

For example, say I take an ice core to measure the oxygen isotopes. Tell me what the "control group" is supposed to be.

Most science is done by consensus, ignoring failed predictions and challenging any questions with death threats, right?

 

[mamooth]

So, does the heat retained by CO2 raise temperature?

If your stupid question has a point to it, then make it directly. Nobody is going to play your stupid cult games.

 

[mamooth]

Most science is done by consensus, ignoring failed predictions and challenging any questions with death threats, right?

Just because that's how _you_ do it, don't assume everyone else thinks like you.

All kinds of deniers here have talked about how all the decent people should kill themselves. I assume you wholeheartedlly support such denier death lust, since you've never criticized it, and because TheParty requires it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here are the 4 main reasons why AGW fails:

1. There are no experiments.

A flat out lie. The absorption characteristics of CO2 are characterized by hundreds of papers. We've shown them to Frank before.

2. This additional planet killing atmospheric heat in 1 above is somehow also heating the oceans down 700m deep?

Well, yes. Again, we've explained that to Frank in one-syllable words. The fact that he's an imbecile doesn't make reality invalid.

3. So many failed predictions!

Again, a big lie. The climate scientist predictions have been excellent, while Frank and his cult pals have faceplanted consistently for over 40 years running now.

4. The AGW Cult;

Flat earthers and scientologists also claim that those outside of their cults are the real cultists. That's standard behavior for authoritarian-follower cult losers. They can cry and whine all they like, but all the data _still_ say's they're kook cult losers. Frank thinks he can overturn reality if he just throws enough trantrums, but that is not the case.

AGW science crosses all political boundaries all around the world, because it's actual science. If left-wing politics vanished, the science wouldn't change at all.

Frank's butthurt denialism is restricted mostly to American conservatives, because it's entirely political. If right-wing politics vanished, denialism would instantly cease to exist.

I'd you to only have to lie once per response so let's deal only with Number 1

1. There are no experiments. The central pillar is that an increase in a negligible atmospheric gas is generating heat that will soon end all life on Earth. Well, how much additional heat does the 120 ppm of CO2 generate? Why is there never a non-imaginary number provided by the lab work?

here's your non-response:

A flat out lie. The absorption characteristics of CO2 are characterized by hundreds of papers. We've shown them to Frank before.

Do you have a non-imaginary whole number answer to: how much additional heat does the 120 ppm of CO2 generate? What's the temperature increase?