The Sound of Settled Science

[skookerasbil]

The more we learn...My problem is when your side wants to completely discredit science without even attempting to do any science to do it.

When all one has but faith

Hey JC..... do these people put the big old pumpkin on the tee for us or what?

Everyday it's BATTER UP!!

 

[Muhammed]

The more we learn...My problem is when your side wants to completely discredit science without even attempting to do any science to do it.

Kinda hard to do the science when they refused to publish the raw data.

Do the words "hide the decline" mean anything to you?

 

[Weatherman2020]

The more we learn...My problem is when your side wants to completely discredit science without even attempting to do any science to do it.

As in any mathematical endeavor, the order in which you do the operations is the difference between right and wrong... In life it is the difference between life and death. Since we still have little understanding as to what the proper order of operations is in our climate, making the assumption you know the proper order is fantasy. Empirical review of your models shows they are 100% failures, without exception. Thus your order of operations is wrong!

Silly Billy, you don't even know basic statistics, let alone any higher math. All the stinky 'facts' you present come right out of your ass. You have no business denigrating anyone else's knowledge. There are established fact in this debate. The first of which is that we have increased the CO2 level in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm. CH4 from about 700 ppb to over 1850 ppb. That has increased the water vapor in the atmosphere by 7%. All these are GHGs, and the atmosphere and ocean is warming.

Only you Mythers insist the planets climate was stable until recently. You scammers really do mock science.

PS you're numbers are bs too.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The more we learn...My problem is when your side wants to completely discredit science without even attempting to do any science to do it.

As in any mathematical endeavor, the order in which you do the operations is the difference between right and wrong... In life it is the difference between life and death. Since we still have little understanding as to what the proper order of operations is in our climate, making the assumption you know the proper order is fantasy. Empirical review of your models shows they are 100% failures, without exception. Thus your order of operations is wrong!

Silly Billy, you don't even know basic statistics, let alone any higher math. All the stinky 'facts' you present come right out of your ass. You have no business denigrating anyone else's knowledge. There are established fact in this debate. The first of which is that we have increased the CO2 level in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm. CH4 from about 700 ppb to over 1850 ppb. That has increased the water vapor in the atmosphere by 7%. All these are GHGs, and the atmosphere and ocean is warming.

Tell me McFly, how much warming has the rise in CO2 been positively attributed too man? Please show the math and data sets disproving all other climactic/solar events...

I'm sure it will be the same as Cricks when I asked him for even one piece of empirical evidence..

 

[Crick]

Please identify which significant forcing factor you believe not present in this diagram

 

[miketx]

The more we learn...My problem is when your side wants to completely discredit science without even attempting to do any science to do it.

I'm a wiz at statistics. You can get up to be down and in to be out with such ease.

Global warming Mythers know the tricks too.

Classic lie!

 

[Crick]

Why don't you throw some facts at us instead of just puffing your chest and spouting so far unjustified indignation? Where do you believe mainstream science is misusing statistics regarding anthropogenic global warming?

 

[jc456]

The more we learn...My problem is when your side wants to completely discredit science without even attempting to do any science to do it.

As in any mathematical endeavor, the order in which you do the operations is the difference between right and wrong... In life it is the difference between life and death. Since we still have little understanding as to what the proper order of operations is in our climate, making the assumption you know the proper order is fantasy. Empirical review of your models shows they are 100% failures, without exception. Thus your order of operations is wrong!

Billy, given your extensive experience, I was wondering if you could give us a quick overview on the technique of working from abject ignorance with willful lies? Have you found that to be a productive and beneficial technique or does the corporal punishment your poor, embarrassed mother inflicts on you daily build on whatever it is tht serves you as a conscience?

One word, observed

 

[jc456]

Why don't you throw some facts at us instead of just puffing your chest and spouting so far unjustified indignation? Where do you believe mainstream science is misusing statistics regarding anthropogenic global warming?

How about some observation

 

[Crick]

Why don't you throw some facts at us instead of just puffing your chest and spouting so far unjustified indignation? Where do you believe mainstream science is misusing statistics regarding anthropogenic global warming?

Still waiting.

 

[Old Rocks]

The more we learn...My problem is when your side wants to completely discredit science without even attempting to do any science to do it.

As in any mathematical endeavor, the order in which you do the operations is the difference between right and wrong... In life it is the difference between life and death. Since we still have little understanding as to what the proper order of operations is in our climate, making the assumption you know the proper order is fantasy. Empirical review of your models shows they are 100% failures, without exception. Thus your order of operations is wrong!

Billy, given your extensive experience, I was wondering if you could give us a quick overview on the technique of working from abject ignorance with willful lies? Have you found that to be a productive and beneficial technique or does the corporal punishment your poor, embarrassed mother inflicts on you daily build on whatever it is tht serves you as a conscience?

One word, observed

Dumb ****. Observed melting of the cryosphere. Observed warming of the atmosphere. Observed warming of the oceans. Observed sea level rise. Observed decrease in the pH of the oceans. Observed absorption spectra of the GHGs. Now tell me what your observations are that says that any of this is incorrect.

 

[Crepitus]

The more we learn...My problem is when your side wants to completely discredit science without even attempting to do any science to do it.

I'm a wiz at statistics. You can get up to be down and in to be out with such ease.

Global warming Mythers know the tricks too.

Your a whiz at nonsense. LOL The science is settled that water vapor, CO2, CH4, and NOx are GHGs. That was settled in 1859 by John Tyndall. Svante Arrhenius did the calculations for the doubling of CO2 in 1896, and the figure he arrived at was pretty accurate. You are a know nothing with delusions of intelligence.

But no proof whatsoever it is the cause of any warming. None. It's a theory.

Too, it is exceedingly clear that all around the world, the people who make climate change policy concur: the alarmists, after 20 years by the way, have yet to make the case. Any climate change policies by Western governments have been symbolic only. The warmists get all giddy about that ( as all progressives do getting euphoric over banners and symbols ) but most people don't care. The Paris Treaty being as dead as a doornail is just a small example of the profound failure of the climate science industry not being able to make even a close to convincing case.

I'm not sure you understand the scientific meaning of the word theory.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The more we learn...My problem is when your side wants to completely discredit science without even attempting to do any science to do it.

As in any mathematical endeavor, the order in which you do the operations is the difference between right and wrong... In life it is the difference between life and death. Since we still have little understanding as to what the proper order of operations is in our climate, making the assumption you know the proper order is fantasy. Empirical review of your models shows they are 100% failures, without exception. Thus your order of operations is wrong!

Billy, given your extensive experience, I was wondering if you could give us a quick overview on the technique of working from abject ignorance with willful lies? Have you found that to be a productive and beneficial technique or does the corporal punishment your poor, embarrassed mother inflicts on you daily build on whatever it is tht serves you as a conscience?

One word, observed

Dumb ****. Observed melting of the cryosphere. Observed warming of the atmosphere. Observed warming of the oceans. Observed sea level rise. Observed decrease in the pH of the oceans. Observed absorption spectra of the GHGs. Now tell me what your observations are that says that any of this is incorrect.

BS. Total BS.

Oh yeah, our scientific superiors claim water levels can rise in one location in a vast ocean, that ocean temperature is a constant at all depths and never fluctuates, PH of the ocean changed in the last decade....

 

[Billy_Bob]

The more we learn...My problem is when your side wants to completely discredit science without even attempting to do any science to do it.

As in any mathematical endeavor, the order in which you do the operations is the difference between right and wrong... In life it is the difference between life and death. Since we still have little understanding as to what the proper order of operations is in our climate, making the assumption you know the proper order is fantasy. Empirical review of your models shows they are 100% failures, without exception. Thus your order of operations is wrong!

Billy, given your extensive experience, I was wondering if you could give us a quick overview on the technique of working from abject ignorance with willful lies? Have you found that to be a productive and beneficial technique or does the corporal punishment your poor, embarrassed mother inflicts on you daily build on whatever it is tht serves you as a conscience?

One word, observed

Dumb ****. Observed melting of the cryosphere. Observed warming of the atmosphere. Observed warming of the oceans. Observed sea level rise. Observed decrease in the pH of the oceans. Observed absorption spectra of the GHGs. Now tell me what your observations are that says that any of this is incorrect.

And yet you have not ascertained what portion of any of this is caused directly by man and which can not be explained by natural variation... You use made up models that are incapable of showing this as every one FAILS empirical review... Yet you 'believe'.....

Hell, you cant even define the range of natural variation, which everything we have seen the last 300 years falls well within....

 

[Billy_Bob]

The more we learn...My problem is when your side wants to completely discredit science without even attempting to do any science to do it.

I'm a wiz at statistics. You can get up to be down and in to be out with such ease.

Global warming Mythers know the tricks too.

Your a whiz at nonsense. LOL The science is settled that water vapor, CO2, CH4, and NOx are GHGs. That was settled in 1859 by John Tyndall. Svante Arrhenius did the calculations for the doubling of CO2 in 1896, and the figure he arrived at was pretty accurate. You are a know nothing with delusions of intelligence.

Every paper you cite failed empirical review.... now that's funny as hell.. When your modeling fails, when tested against observations, you have no proof of anything except failure and evidence that they do not understand the system they are modeling.... yet you want to kill your economy and enslave every one for your belief's.... Sad really.. so easily duped!

 

[Weatherman2020]

The more we learn...My problem is when your side wants to completely discredit science without even attempting to do any science to do it.

I'm a wiz at statistics. You can get up to be down and in to be out with such ease.

Global warming Mythers know the tricks too.

Your a whiz at nonsense. LOL The science is settled that water vapor, CO2, CH4, and NOx are GHGs. That was settled in 1859 by John Tyndall. Svante Arrhenius did the calculations for the doubling of CO2 in 1896, and the figure he arrived at was pretty accurate. You are a know nothing with delusions of intelligence.

Every paper you cite failed empirical review.... now that's funny as hell.. When your modeling fails, when tested against observations, you have no proof of anything except failure and evidence that they do not understand the system they are modeling.... yet you want to kill your economy and enslave every one for your belief's.... Sad really.. so easily duped!

He read it on the internet so why would he question it?

 

[skookerasbil]

The more we learn...My problem is when your side wants to completely discredit science without even attempting to do any science to do it.

I'm a wiz at statistics. You can get up to be down and in to be out with such ease.

Global warming Mythers know the tricks too.

Your a whiz at nonsense. LOL The science is settled that water vapor, CO2, CH4, and NOx are GHGs. That was settled in 1859 by John Tyndall. Svante Arrhenius did the calculations for the doubling of CO2 in 1896, and the figure he arrived at was pretty accurate. You are a know nothing with delusions of intelligence.

Every paper you cite failed empirical review.... now that's funny as hell.. When your modeling fails, when tested against observations, you have no proof of anything except failure and evidence that they do not understand the system they are modeling.... yet you want to kill your economy and enslave every one for your belief's.... Sad really.. so easily duped!

Lol......

Billy.....these climate crusaders can't go a single day without trying to pull some kind of fakery.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The more we learn...My problem is when your side wants to completely discredit science without even attempting to do any science to do it.

I'm a wiz at statistics. You can get up to be down and in to be out with such ease.

Global warming Mythers know the tricks too.

Your a whiz at nonsense. LOL The science is settled that water vapor, CO2, CH4, and NOx are GHGs. That was settled in 1859 by John Tyndall. Svante Arrhenius did the calculations for the doubling of CO2 in 1896, and the figure he arrived at was pretty accurate. You are a know nothing with delusions of intelligence.

Every paper you cite failed empirical review.... now that's funny as hell.. When your modeling fails, when tested against observations, you have no proof of anything except failure and evidence that they do not understand the system they are modeling.... yet you want to kill your economy and enslave every one for your belief's.... Sad really.. so easily duped!

Lol......

Billy.....these climate crusaders can't go a single day without trying to pull some kind of fakery.

I cant wait for the usual appeal to authority and "peer review"...

Doesn't matter that they do not understand the system and fail at modeling it...Its peer reviewed... so its gospel... duped retards... It speaks volumes about their peers credibility and ethical conduct as well...

 

[westwall]

The more we learn...My problem is when your side wants to completely discredit science without even attempting to do any science to do it.

We want science to be done CORRECTLY. Computer models are not science. They are science fiction. They are no better than those who program them. Furthermore, models are inherently inaccurate. Take a look at ANY climate change study and you will see the following statement "we use a simple model". A SIMPLE MODEL. Here is the reality of computer models. The most advanced computer models on the planet are those called CFD or Computational Fluid Dynamics Models, and the most advanced versions of those are the ones used in Formula One racing, and aerospace design (the two are almost identical), they are used to develop parts for the race cars and they are trying to get more speed out of those parts so the race cars can go faster around the race track. Simple.

They are only working with a few, very well known variables, and they are expensive, and extremely complex. A decent one costs 50 million dollars to buy, and millions of dollars to run. They run 24/7 during the race season, and they run tens of thousands of models to try and modify existing parts to make them better. After 10,000 runs, they will find a part design that gives promise, so they will actually build that design, put it on the car, and test it in a wind tunnel. Less than one percent of those parts gives an advantage.

That is the reality of computer models. The example I gave you is the most complex, most expensive computer model IN THE WORLD...and more than 99.9% of its output is shit.

So you expect me to give a shit about a self described "simple" computer model, developed by people who can't even do basic algebra? They are not practicing science, if they were they wouldn't need to falsify data as they have been caught doing time and time again.

If you care about science, and the scientific method, may I suggest you look to the sciences that actually practice best practices, and not forging their data.

 

[Crick]

So you believe that climate science should never use computer models? Yes?