To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[jc456]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

Everyone in the world except American Republicans know man made climate change/global warming is real.

It'll be interesting to see if the Republican nominee denies it while debating hillary.

Link ?

Edit: 54% of Australians don't

54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming, 80% don’t donate to environment or vote for it « JoNova

The world is meeting in Paris talking about going green.

We didn't send any Republicans and fox and rush aren't talking about it. It's why you need to ask for a link.

Do you need a link if I say evolution or the big bang are real?

Scientific consensus.

Why don't you Google it

I just want to see your evidence. Post that or provide a link. And Paris is over and the entire world did not go, 196 out of 7 billion people went. How the hell do you get the globe out of those numbers? Please, you can't make this shit up I swear.

 

[westwall]

We show data.

Yes, you show data, but none of the data is related to your claims. You give us red herrings instead of data.

You show computer derived fiction. See the difference? Nope. Didn't think you would.

I keep pointing out that the directly observed data proves global warming theory, no models required. If you're that ignorant of the basic science, you're not qualified to be in the discussion.

The stratosphere is cooling.

Backradiation is increasing.

OLR in the GHG bands is decreasing.

Those are all smoking guns for warming caused by greenhouse gases.

Now, what data can you present to back up your theory, whatever that may be?

And nowhere can you provide empirical data to support a single one of those assertions. All you can present are computer models which anyone with a brain knows is not data.

 

[jc456]

Again, what does the phrase "widely accepted theory" mean Mr Westwall? How does one discern what the dominant theory on any question is Mr Westwall? Why do you think mainstream science believes you and the rest of the deniers here are fringe whackjobs Mr Westwall?

CON-*******-SENSUS

From Wikipedia's article on "Scientific Theory"

The scientific method involves the proposal and testing of hypotheses, by deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, then performing those experiments to see whether the predictions are valid. This provides evidence either for or against the hypothesis. When enough experimental results have been gathered in a particular area of inquiry, scientists may propose an explanatory framework that accounts for as many of these as possible. This explanation is also tested, and if it fulfills the necessary criteria (see above), then the explanation becomes a theory. This can take many years, as it can be difficult or complicated to gather sufficient evidence.

Once all of the criteria have been met, it will be widely accepted by scientists (see scientific consensus) as the best available explanation of at least some phenomena. It will have made predictions of phenomena that previous theories could not explain or could not predict accurately, and it will have resisted attempts at falsification. The strength of the evidence is evaluated by the scientific community, and the most important experiments will have been replicated by multiple independent groups.

uh, no, sorry. widely accepted is a human persons opinion not fact or evidence. F A I L

 

[jc456]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

Everyone in the world except American Republicans know man made climate change/global warming is real.

It'll be interesting to see if the Republican nominee denies it while debating hillary.

Link ?

Edit: 54% of Australians don't

54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming, 80% don’t donate to environment or vote for it « JoNova

The world is meeting in Paris talking about going green.

We didn't send any Republicans and fox and rush aren't talking about it. It's why you need to ask for a link.

Do you need a link if I say evolution or the big bang are real?

Scientific consensus.

Why don't you Google it

Oh look Chinese don't


Climate change concern among Chinese citizens plummets, research finds

Bullshit they have the biggest problem with it.

pollution or climate change?

 

[jc456]

I don't care you halfwit.

Okay, you're officially on record as rejecting the modern scientific method. Good of you to stop pretending.

Flat earthers were the accepted "consensus" once upon a time as well.

That was before the era of the scientific method (the era deniers still live in), hence it's not a valid critique of the scientific method.

The number of scientists who have been proven wrong with the their consensus viewpoints would fill an encyclopedia. Whenever those scientists derive monetary benefit from their agreement with the "consensus" they lose all credibility. The fact that you ignore that merely shows the world that YOU are a political propagandist.

And after that rant, the actual data still contradicts your claims. You can scream and rage all you want, and all the data will still contradict you. Therefore, the world will keep ignoring you. If you want the world to stop ignoring you, your side will have to do some actual science for the first time ever. Make extra sure your science successly explains all of this data:

1. The directly observed fast increase in temperatures
2. The directly observed stratospheric cooling
3. The directly observed increase in backradiation
4. The directly observed decrease in outgoing longwave radiation
5. The directly observed decrease in solar output
6. Orbital forcings that are trying to cool the earth.

(Notice how none of that involves a model.)

Global warming theory is the only theory that successfully accounts for all of the observed data. That's why it's the accepted theory. Your side, you wave your hands around, scream "Natural cycles!", and declare victory, having invoked your religious magic. And then you wonder why nobody else believes it.

I can't say it any better than Frank:

^ Still hasn't posted a single repeatable experiment linking a rounding error increase in an atmospheric trace element to an increase in temperature. Not a single experiment, not in years

 

[jc456]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

Everyone in the world except American Republicans know man made climate change/global warming is real.

It'll be interesting to see if the Republican nominee denies it while debating hillary.

Link ?

Edit: 54% of Australians don't

54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming, 80% don’t donate to environment or vote for it « JoNova

The world is meeting in Paris talking about going green.

We didn't send any Republicans and fox and rush aren't talking about it. It's why you need to ask for a link.

Do you need a link if I say evolution or the big bang are real?

Scientific consensus.

Why don't you Google it

Ok since you are to lazy to get facts and just spout opinions from your butt.


Climate change opinion by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


70% of the folks in Afghanistan don't believe in the AGW cult

66% of the folks in Cambodia don't believe in the AGW cult

69% of the folks in Chad don't believe in the AGW cult

51% of the folks in Denmark don't believe in the AGW cult

46% of the folks in Egypt don't believe in the AGW cult

41% of the folks in Germany don't believe in the AGW cult

62% of the folks in Iceland don't believe in the AGW cult

62% of the folks in Iraq don't believe in the AGW cult

53% of the folks in Norway don't believe in the AGW cult

61% of the folks in Saudi Arabia don't believe in the AGW cult

71% of the folks in South Africa don't believe in the AGW cult

82% of the folks in Tanzania don't believe in the AGW cult

52% of the folks in the United Kingdom don't believe in the AGW cult

51% of the folks in Vietnam don't believe in the AGW cult

The governments and scientists all know

they know what? ask them for an experiment to support their claim and you'll get crickets, so again....F A I L

 

[jc456]

Prior to 1960 the "consensus" was that the Earth was contracting and that's how mountains were built. Then plate tectonics came along and blew that shit right out of the water. The scientific method has been around for centuries so you are just as ignorant of the history of science as you are its methodology and ethics.

So better evidence arrived, and the consensus changed.

The lesson we learn is that if you can show the better evidence, the consensus will change fairly quickly. That's how it was with global warming theory, or plate tectonics, or the bacterial cause of ulcers.

So, just show the better data.

so show us the evidence. If it showed up, then that means it must exist, so post it up here.

 

[mamooth]

A few hardcore deniers certainly have worked hard to prove the thread premise to be correct beyond any doubt. To them, everything is part of the conspiracy. Serious paranoia.

Hence, this thread is a wrap.

 

[jc456]

A few hardcore deniers certainly have worked hard to prove the thread premise to be correct beyond any doubt. To them, everything is part of the conspiracy. Serious paranoia.

Hence, this thread is a wrap.

the thread proved you F A I L E D

 

[sealybobo]

Everyone in the world except American Republicans know man made climate change/global warming is real.

It'll be interesting to see if the Republican nominee denies it while debating hillary.

Link ?

Edit: 54% of Australians don't

54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming, 80% don’t donate to environment or vote for it « JoNova

The world is meeting in Paris talking about going green.

We didn't send any Republicans and fox and rush aren't talking about it. It's why you need to ask for a link.

Do you need a link if I say evolution or the big bang are real?

Scientific consensus.

Why don't you Google it

Ok since you are to lazy to get facts and just spout opinions from your butt.


Climate change opinion by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


70% of the folks in Afghanistan don't believe in the AGW cult

66% of the folks in Cambodia don't believe in the AGW cult

69% of the folks in Chad don't believe in the AGW cult

51% of the folks in Denmark don't believe in the AGW cult

46% of the folks in Egypt don't believe in the AGW cult

41% of the folks in Germany don't believe in the AGW cult

62% of the folks in Iceland don't believe in the AGW cult

62% of the folks in Iraq don't believe in the AGW cult

53% of the folks in Norway don't believe in the AGW cult

61% of the folks in Saudi Arabia don't believe in the AGW cult

71% of the folks in South Africa don't believe in the AGW cult

82% of the folks in Tanzania don't believe in the AGW cult

52% of the folks in the United Kingdom don't believe in the AGW cult

51% of the folks in Vietnam don't believe in the AGW cult

The governments and scientists all know

So you went from only republicans deny man made climate change to you believing the government of North Korea on scientific matters?

What faith you have comrade .

This December, world leaders are gathering in Paris to complete a new global climate agreement – an extraordinary opportunity for the international community to meet the threat of climate change. To achieve a world where everyone lives with dignity and opportunity – a vision leaders embraced in the global goals for sustainable development – we must take strong action on climate change. Everyone has a role to play. As governments convene for the conference, civil society groups, businesses, scientists, innovators and citizens will also gather to share climate solutions and to let leaders know that every sector, every community, and every person must play an active role in addressing climate change. - See more at: Earth To Paris

 

[SSDD]

Okay, you're officially on record as rejecting the modern scientific method. Good of you to stop pretending.

"Modern" Scientific Method? What the hell is that? The old scientific method went something like this: The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generallyy involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena ,experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. Climate science certainly isn't following the old scientific method...describe this "modern" scientific method.

 

[SSDD]

^ Still hasn't posted a single repeatable experiment linking a rounding error increase in an atmospheric trace element to an increase in temperature. Not a single experiment, not in years

You ever hear of the "modern" scientific method? How does it differ from the old scientific method. Is the modern method one where you skip empirical evidence and experimentation and ignore everything that contradicts the hypothesis and jump straight to a political consensus?

 

[SSDD]

Prior to 1960 the "consensus" was that the Earth was contracting and that's how mountains were built. Then plate tectonics came along and blew that shit right out of the water. The scientific method has been around for centuries so you are just as ignorant of the history of science as you are its methodology and ethics.

Within the past couple of years the consensus was a that stress caused stomach ulcers....there was no such thing as quasicrystals....salt caused high blood pressure....high colesterol had a direct link to heart disease and now it seems that the old consensus regarding dietary fat is about to fall as well. Historically, going with the consensus on anything is a losing bet...the consensus is usually a product of groupthink and groupthink is rarely ever right.

 

[SSDD]

Prior to 1960 the "consensus" was that the Earth was contracting and that's how mountains were built. Then plate tectonics came along and blew that shit right out of the water. The scientific method has been around for centuries so you are just as ignorant of the history of science as you are its methodology and ethics.

So better evidence arrived, and the consensus changed.

The lesson we learn is that if you can show the better evidence, the consensus will change fairly quickly. That's how it was with global warming theory, or plate tectonics, or the bacterial cause of ulcers.

So, just show the better data.

How about the fact that CO2 has been steadily increasing but the temperature has not climbed in 20 years and the tropospheric hot spot that would be the inevitable result of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science has failed to appear?

 

[SSDD]

We show data.

Yes, you show data, but none of the data is related to your claims. You give us red herrings instead of data.

You show computer derived fiction. See the difference? Nope. Didn't think you would.

I keep pointing out that the directly observed data proves global warming theory, no models required. If you're that ignorant of the basic science, you're not qualified to be in the discussion.

The stratosphere is cooling.

Backradiation is increasing.

OLR in the GHG bands is decreasing.

Those are all smoking guns for warming caused by greenhouse gases.

Now, what data can you present to back up your theory, whatever that may be?

All of those things you claim are proof are nothing more than the output of flawed models...in the real world, there is no actual measurement of back radiation unless one cools the instrument to a temperature colder than the atmosphere....OLR is increasing...it isn't warming...and the tropospheric hot spot has failed to materialize...

 

[sealybobo]

Prior to 1960 the "consensus" was that the Earth was contracting and that's how mountains were built. Then plate tectonics came along and blew that shit right out of the water. The scientific method has been around for centuries so you are just as ignorant of the history of science as you are its methodology and ethics.

So better evidence arrived, and the consensus changed.

The lesson we learn is that if you can show the better evidence, the consensus will change fairly quickly. That's how it was with global warming theory, or plate tectonics, or the bacterial cause of ulcers.

So, just show the better data.

so show us the evidence. If it showed up, then that means it must exist, so post it up here.

No doubt human population growth is a major contributor to global warming, given that humans use fossil fuels to power their increasingly mechanized lifestyles. More people means more demand for oil, gas, coal and other fuels mined or drilled from below the Earth’s surface that, when burned, spew enough carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere to trap warm air inside like a greenhouse.

Does Population Growth Impact Climate Change?

 

[IanC]

Prior to 1960 the "consensus" was that the Earth was contracting and that's how mountains were built. Then plate tectonics came along and blew that shit right out of the water. The scientific method has been around for centuries so you are just as ignorant of the history of science as you are its methodology and ethics.

So better evidence arrived, and the consensus changed.

The lesson we learn is that if you can show the better evidence, the consensus will change fairly quickly. That's how it was with global warming theory, or plate tectonics, or the bacterial cause of ulcers.

So, just show the better data.

so show us the evidence. If it showed up, then that means it must exist, so post it up here.

No doubt human population growth is a major contributor to global warming, given that humans use fossil fuels to power their increasingly mechanized lifestyles. More people means more demand for oil, gas, coal and other fuels mined or drilled from below the Earth’s surface that, when burned, spew enough carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere to trap warm air inside like a greenhouse.

Does Population Growth Impact Climate Change?

Population growth is a major factor in Climate Change and quite a few other problems. It's not politically correct to work on the problems from that angle though.

CO2 is a necessary constituent of the Greenhouse Effect that keeps our world inhabitable. I'm not sure whether we know what the best levels are, or what the perfect temperature is.

 

[jc456]

Okay, you're officially on record as rejecting the modern scientific method. Good of you to stop pretending.

"Modern" Scientific Method? What the hell is that? The old scientific method went something like this: The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generallyy involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena ,experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. Climate science certainly isn't following the old scientific method...describe this "modern" scientific method.

the new method is to throw out the old scientific method and listen to Mantooth. duh

 

[jc456]

Prior to 1960 the "consensus" was that the Earth was contracting and that's how mountains were built. Then plate tectonics came along and blew that shit right out of the water. The scientific method has been around for centuries so you are just as ignorant of the history of science as you are its methodology and ethics.

So better evidence arrived, and the consensus changed.

The lesson we learn is that if you can show the better evidence, the consensus will change fairly quickly. That's how it was with global warming theory, or plate tectonics, or the bacterial cause of ulcers.

So, just show the better data.

so show us the evidence. If it showed up, then that means it must exist, so post it up here.

No doubt human population growth is a major contributor to global warming, given that humans use fossil fuels to power their increasingly mechanized lifestyles. More people means more demand for oil, gas, coal and other fuels mined or drilled from below the Earth’s surface that, when burned, spew enough carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere to trap warm air inside like a greenhouse.

Does Population Growth Impact Climate Change?

Yes doubt. I doubt anyone in climate science knows anything about human influence. Anyone!!! and in case you thought I studdered, ANYONE! Otherwise there would actually be evidence of such a thing and there isn't any. ANY.
You merely make some correlation that because 'A' happens 'global warming' happens. Sorry charlie that isn't so. Now is there more CO2 because of more humans? sure! why wouldn't there be I can draw that connection. Does it mean global warming, no not at all because no one, no one has tied CO2 to warming other than it absorbs IR. That's it. Now, you can feel free to prove me wrong, and please try, cause so far in two years that hasn't happened.

 

[westwall]

Okay, you're officially on record as rejecting the modern scientific method. Good of you to stop pretending.

"Modern" Scientific Method? What the hell is that? The old scientific method went something like this: The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generallyy involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena ,experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. Climate science certainly isn't following the old scientific method...describe this "modern" scientific method.

Wow, I didn't even catch that one. Gives you an idea of how sick I am! What a crock of shit....