Thoughts on "Scientific Consensus."

[Midnight Marauder]

We are in the down part of the sun cycle, but the general trend is still toward higher temperatures.

Wrong. The cooling trend is much longer then ever thought.

And hold on a sec, you admit that the SUN matters? Don't get caught doing that, you'll be kicked out of the AGW church.

Know what Anthropogenic means?

 

[elvis]

We are in the down part of the sun cycle, but the general trend is still toward higher temperatures.

Wrong. The cooling trend is much longer then ever thought.

And hold on a sec, you admit that the SUN matters? Don't get caught doing that, you'll be kicked out of the AGW church.

Know what Anthropogenic means?

He'll have to consult with his AGW church to find out if he's allowed to know what that means.

 

[Chris]

We are in the down part of the sun cycle, but the general trend is still toward higher temperatures.

Wrong. The cooling trend is much longer then ever thought.

And hold on a sec, you admit that the SUN matters? Don't get caught doing that, you'll be kicked out of the AGW church.

Know what Anthropogenic means?

The sun can trump everything else. The sun could burn the earth to a cinder.

But the sun is only part of the warming according to the Stanford Solar Center scientists.

Global Warming -- Research Issues

 

[Bern80]

And physics has firmly established the absorbtion spectra of CO2. And the fact that we have had rapid increases in CO2 and CH4 in the past, and the result, in every case, was rapid warming. That the initial cause was trapp volcanics in no way changes the result, simply because now the cause is the activities of man.

Like your stand on evolution, your talking points reveal a deep misunderstanding of how science is done, and how conclusions are reached.

You may want to examine what you don't understand. Most of us understand science just fine in terms of how hypotheses are tested and how conclusions are reached.. I would say it is you that does not understand science. It isn't science that you believe in or are practicing. What you are practicing is faith in the religion that is AGW. After all you don't really understand the science behind it as well as your cherry picked experts. Therefore it is simply a faith that you have that one group of people is right and you have chosen to ignore the rest, much like a christian only has faith in Jesus' and ignores budha or the spirits native american's believed in.

 

[Chris]

And physics has firmly established the absorbtion spectra of CO2. And the fact that we have had rapid increases in CO2 and CH4 in the past, and the result, in every case, was rapid warming. That the initial cause was trapp volcanics in no way changes the result, simply because now the cause is the activities of man.

Like your stand on evolution, your talking points reveal a deep misunderstanding of how science is done, and how conclusions are reached.

You may want to examine what you don't understand. Most of us understand science just fine in terms of how hypotheses are tested and how conclusions are reached.. I would say it is you that does not understand science. It isn't science that you believe in or are practicing. What you are practicing is faith in the religion that is AGW. After all you don't really understand the science behind it as well as your cherry picked experts. Therefore it is simply a faith that you have that one group of people is right and you have chosen to ignore the rest, much like a christian only has faith in Jesus' and ignores budha or the spirits native american's believed in.

Atmospheric CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

This was proved experimentally in 1859.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

We are adding 8 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

 

[AllieBaba]

You are such a flat earther.

We've already dispensed with all this junk science. Now run off and watch some cartoons.

 

[Chris]

You are such a flat earther.

We've already dispensed with all this junk science. Now run off and watch some cartoons.

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

 

[AllieBaba]

Give me a break.

 

[Chris]

Give me a break.

Venus receives only one fourth the amount of radiation that Mercury does.

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

 

[Bern80]

And physics has firmly established the absorbtion spectra of CO2. And the fact that we have had rapid increases in CO2 and CH4 in the past, and the result, in every case, was rapid warming. That the initial cause was trapp volcanics in no way changes the result, simply because now the cause is the activities of man.

Like your stand on evolution, your talking points reveal a deep misunderstanding of how science is done, and how conclusions are reached.

You may want to examine what you don't understand. Most of us understand science just fine in terms of how hypotheses are tested and how conclusions are reached.. I would say it is you that does not understand science. It isn't science that you believe in or are practicing. What you are practicing is faith in the religion that is AGW. After all you don't really understand the science behind it as well as your cherry picked experts. Therefore it is simply a faith that you have that one group of people is right and you have chosen to ignore the rest, much like a christian only has faith in Jesus' and ignores budha or the spirits native american's believed in.

Atmospheric CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

This was proved experimentally in 1859.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

We are adding 8 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

If our atmosphere was that simple you would have your case made. Except our atmosphere is far from that simple. It is truly laughable to watch you people trying to convince yourselves that you understand any of this when you obviously dont' understand even basic concepts like what constitutes an actual correllation. Do yourself a favor, take a math class and learn how to derive a correct correlation co-efficient, run CO2 numbers over time with temperature over time and let us know what the number is. THEN tell us if you have a case.

What we do know about you is that first and foremost you're a died in the wool liberal. Global warming is a liberal religion. That's really why you believe in it. Not because you understand the science and certainly not because you've evaluated the contradictory evidence.

 

[Chris]

You may want to examine what you don't understand. Most of us understand science just fine in terms of how hypotheses are tested and how conclusions are reached.. I would say it is you that does not understand science. It isn't science that you believe in or are practicing. What you are practicing is faith in the religion that is AGW. After all you don't really understand the science behind it as well as your cherry picked experts. Therefore it is simply a faith that you have that one group of people is right and you have chosen to ignore the rest, much like a christian only has faith in Jesus' and ignores budha or the spirits native american's believed in.

Atmospheric CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

This was proved experimentally in 1859.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

We are adding 8 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

If our atmosphere was that simple you would have your case made. Except our atmosphere is far from that simple. It is truly laughable to watch you people trying to convince yourselves that you understand any of this when you obviously dont' understand even basic concepts like what constitutes an actual correllation. Do yourself a favor, take a math class and learn how to derive a correct correlation co-efficient, run CO2 numbers over time with temperature over time and let us know what the number is. THEN tell us if you have a case.

What we do know about you is that first and foremost you're a died in the wool liberal. Global warming is a liberal religion. That's really why you believe in it. Not because you understand the science and certainly not because you've evaluated the contradictory evidence.

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

 

[Bern80]

Atmospheric CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

This was proved experimentally in 1859.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

We are adding 8 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

If our atmosphere was that simple you would have your case made. Except our atmosphere is far from that simple. It is truly laughable to watch you people trying to convince yourselves that you understand any of this when you obviously dont' understand even basic concepts like what constitutes an actual correllation. Do yourself a favor, take a math class and learn how to derive a correct correlation co-efficient, run CO2 numbers over time with temperature over time and let us know what the number is. THEN tell us if you have a case.

What we do know about you is that first and foremost you're a died in the wool liberal. Global warming is a liberal religion. That's really why you believe in it. Not because you understand the science and certainly not because you've evaluated the contradictory evidence.

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

Because Mercury has no atmosphere to speak of. Now you dishonest prick, explain how two planets with atmoshpheres nothing like earths even comes close to proving your point. I challenge you to ask any scientist if he would find credible such a ridculous analogy as this one. The scope of differing variables between Venus is Earth is so broad as to render the two incomparable. Watching someone who thinks they're so smart make comparisons that are so scientifically stupid is truly amusing.

 

[Old Rocks]

You may want to examine what you don't understand. Most of us understand science just fine in terms of how hypotheses are tested and how conclusions are reached.. I would say it is you that does not understand science. It isn't science that you believe in or are practicing. What you are practicing is faith in the religion that is AGW. After all you don't really understand the science behind it as well as your cherry picked experts. Therefore it is simply a faith that you have that one group of people is right and you have chosen to ignore the rest, much like a christian only has faith in Jesus' and ignores budha or the spirits native american's believed in.

Atmospheric CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

This was proved experimentally in 1859.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

We are adding 8 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

If our atmosphere was that simple you would have your case made. Except our atmosphere is far from that simple. It is truly laughable to watch you people trying to convince yourselves that you understand any of this when you obviously dont' understand even basic concepts like what constitutes an actual correllation. Do yourself a favor, take a math class and learn how to derive a correct correlation co-efficient, run CO2 numbers over time with temperature over time and let us know what the number is. THEN tell us if you have a case.

What we do know about you is that first and foremost you're a died in the wool liberal. Global warming is a liberal religion. That's really why you believe in it. Not because you understand the science and certainly not because you've evaluated the contradictory evidence.

Give us some contradictory evidence to evaluate, Bern. Something out of a real scientific journal, such as Nature, Science, or the Journal of Geo-physics.

 

[Old Rocks]

You are such a flat earther.

We've already dispensed with all this junk science. Now run off and watch some cartoons.

Silly person. Show us where you have done this. How about some links to the scientific articles?

 

[Bern80]

Atmospheric CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

This was proved experimentally in 1859.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

We are adding 8 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

If our atmosphere was that simple you would have your case made. Except our atmosphere is far from that simple. It is truly laughable to watch you people trying to convince yourselves that you understand any of this when you obviously dont' understand even basic concepts like what constitutes an actual correllation. Do yourself a favor, take a math class and learn how to derive a correct correlation co-efficient, run CO2 numbers over time with temperature over time and let us know what the number is. THEN tell us if you have a case.

What we do know about you is that first and foremost you're a died in the wool liberal. Global warming is a liberal religion. That's really why you believe in it. Not because you understand the science and certainly not because you've evaluated the contradictory evidence.

Give us some contradictory evidence to evaluate, Bern. Something out of a real scientific journal, such as Nature, Science, or the Journal of Geo-physics.

Already done in other thread. It is so amusing to watch you people with you're new 'show me the science, show me the science' tag line, when the 'scientific' analogies you try to make are one's most scientist would laugh at. Venus' temperature is proof of man made global warming? Come on guys. If you are going to demand the nice little box that you want this evidence surely you can do the same. Show us YOUR peer reviewed material that PROVES man is the cause of global warming. I'll give you yet another hint on top of don't bother with the IPCC, EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS AND ACKNOWLEDGES THAT cO2 IS A GREENHOUSE GAS SO WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER FUCKING LINK TO THE CO2 CYCLE. The do not prove your point as Earth's atmosphere and climate patters are a hair more complex than one gas trace gas.