What would need to happen for you to come to the other side?

[Politico]

didnt you post something similar to this a couple of years back? it seems like you are becoming more strident in your support of AGW rather than less even though evidence is piling up that the exaggerated claims made by global warming advocates are at the very least faulty.

I realize it is difficult to find old threads but could you find your stated predictions for the last two years?

A couple years? More like every few days. And he doesn't state anything. Just copies other people's stuff.

 

[Mr. H.]

I'm pretty much on the fence. Not sure what it would take to tip me one way or t'other.

 

[flacaltenn]

Such a knowledgable person you are. Our species is less than 40,000 years old, the ice ages were less than 800,000 years, and you ain't a tenth as knowledgable as you think you are.

I'll go with real scientists at the GSA and AGU over flap-yaps like you.

I don't cater much to liars.. Especially ones that stalk me with accusations that don't hold water.. So --- you can try..

What I said about the Dennisovans being discovered earlier OUT of AFRICA was..


I even capitalized MOST OF THE ICE AGES -- and supplied a graph showing those dates are earlier than the last 3 or 4 glacial periods.. YOU --- cant read or think apparently..

And then I quoted NAT GEO here and discussed a 60KyA date..

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...ution-called-into-question-2.html#post8259551

From NAT GEO

"Neanderthals and Denisovans arose hundreds of thousands of years before modern-looking humans spread worldwide from Africa more than 60,000 years ago. The small traces of their genes now found in modern humans are signs of interbreeding among ancient human groups."

My POINT was not the AFRICAN dates of early Hominids -- but when they emigrated from Africa and how long various Homo Erectus species existed and cross-bred BEFORE Homo Sapiens arrived "up north" a mere 60K years ago..

So you're a liar -- and you found ONE BONE that you thought you can beat me with repeatedly. But that bone just got taken from you .. Bad Dog...

Post #10, Early evolution called into question thread, Science and Technology.
Here's the prob Steve.. As hominid discovery dates get pushed back by 100s of millenia on these "iterations" --- it gets to be more difficult to chart ancestral linkages to primate species as these hominid discoveries begin to PRE-DATE most all of our "monkey" ancestors. You DO REALIZE that this puts hominids into time epochs PREDATING MOST OF THE ICE AGES? Don'tcha?

IF --- big IF ---- this is all correct and it actually IS a hominid leg bone.. The Dennisovans (the name for this species) dont even have a complete fossil record..
__________________

Now that is what you wrote. The dates in question are 400,000 years old. The ice ages began about 2.5 million years ago.

Predating MOST of the ice ages doesn't make a statement as to the BEGINNING of the ice ages -- now does it?

Far as I'm concerned, they keep pushing back the earliest EUROPEAN DATES to the point where the diff between ALL and MOST of the ice ages soon won't matter..

 

[flacaltenn]

Post #12, same place;

Imagine how many Nova documentaries on the origin of man are gonna have to be locked up in the "Whoops" Vault because of this.. You know -- all those reactments of our ape-looking ancestors on the African plains just discovering that they had a brain and opposable thumbs. A mere 40,000 yrs ago.

This WOULD BE HUGE.. And NOT a minor disruption to the science.. How many ape species do you know that existed way back into the Ice Ages?


Now you stated 40,000 years ago. Homo Sap goes back 200,000 years. Neanderthals back at least 400,000, Homo Erectus about 1.8. None predate the ice ages.

The OP was NOT ABOUT the origins of hominids.. It was about the incredible lengths of times that SOME Homo species existed OUTSIDE of Africa. CLEARLY, as much evolution was going on OUTSIDE of Africa as inside in those 200,000 or 400,000 years.. Especially with the inter-breeding between homo erectus variants like the Dennisovans.. The concept that Homo Sapiens arrived A MERE 40K or 60K years ago into those European areas MAY CHANGE with more time. Since obviously, SEVERAL hominid species were able to survive and develop in EurAsia much much earlier. We may YET FIND that Homo Sapiens interbred in those areas up to 400,000 years ago and that the BULK of evolution might JUST NOT HAVE HAPPENED in Africa.. So much is yet to be discovered. You want to INSIST on one particular story on the basis of sparse evidence???

Yeah --- that would be how you roll science generally..

I know you're very disappointed that you didn't catch me in some kind of Creationistic predicament.. But you got NOTHING here except YOUR inability to comprehend the significance of that particular OP...

 

[asterism]

What would need to happen for you to come to the other side?

Me,
1. Decrease of global temperatures over the next 5 years. Note; clear cooling trend with at least 3 of the next 5 outside of the top 10.
2. Same for the increase of sea ice over the arctic. 5-5.5 million km being the norm by 2018.
3. Glacial melting reversing...glacial growing outwards that haven't the past 80 years.

By 2018 if this is what is occurring = me becoming very skeptical.

The raw data behind the foundation for this theory.

So far it isn't there. I've still got a request out and they are taking their time vetting my association with a credentialed research society, so time will tell.

 

[PredFan]

The other side? Me?

It would take a violation of the laws of physics. The Climate, and the laws that govern it would have to change and turn physics on it's ear in order for me to believe that man is causing the earth's temperatures to rise.

 

[asterism]

The other side? Me?

It would take a violation of the laws of physics. The Climate, and the laws that govern it would have to change and turn physics on it's ear in order for me to believe that man is causing the earth's temperatures to rise.

I don't think we know enough to make that determination. The people on this planet can surely do a whole lot of dastardly things - we set the Cuyhoga river on fire!

It really comes down to the data and making sure we are looking at the relevant data that proves correlation, and then deciding if that correlation proves causation.

 

[PredFan]

The other side? Me?

It would take a violation of the laws of physics. The Climate, and the laws that govern it would have to change and turn physics on it's ear in order for me to believe that man is causing the earth's temperatures to rise.

I don't think we know enough to make that determination. The people on this planet can surely do a whole lot of dastardly things - we set the Cuyhoga river on fire!

It really comes down to the data and making sure we are looking at the relevant data that proves correlation, and then deciding if that correlation proves causation.

The question was "What would it take for me to convert to a believer in AGW. That's what it would take. We know enough about gas laws to know that increased temperatures of a gas means that that gas can hold more atoms in it, such as CO2. We have data to show that CO2 follows increased temperatures. In order for me to believe in AGW I would have to see evidence that that gas law can be violated and the cart is actually before the horse.

As soon as I see that happen then I might begin to believe.

 

[Old Rocks]

The other side? Me?

It would take a violation of the laws of physics. The Climate, and the laws that govern it would have to change and turn physics on it's ear in order for me to believe that man is causing the earth's temperatures to rise.

I don't think we know enough to make that determination. The people on this planet can surely do a whole lot of dastardly things - we set the Cuyhoga river on fire!

It really comes down to the data and making sure we are looking at the relevant data that proves correlation, and then deciding if that correlation proves causation.

The question was "What would it take for me to convert to a believer in AGW. That's what it would take. We know enough about gas laws to know that increased temperatures of a gas means that that gas can hold more atoms in it, such as CO2. We have data to show that CO2 follows increased temperatures. In order for me to believe in AGW I would have to see evidence that that gas law can be violated and the cart is actually before the horse.

As soon as I see that happen then I might begin to believe.

What you have just stated is that you really don't know much about physics, or understand with the absorption spectra of CO2 and CH4 mean to the energy balance in the atmosphere.

Now look at the statement you made that is highlighted in red. Do you have the faintest idea of what you stated? No, you have not the slightest knowledge of science.

 

[asterism]

The other side? Me?

It would take a violation of the laws of physics. The Climate, and the laws that govern it would have to change and turn physics on it's ear in order for me to believe that man is causing the earth's temperatures to rise.

I don't think we know enough to make that determination. The people on this planet can surely do a whole lot of dastardly things - we set the Cuyhoga river on fire!

It really comes down to the data and making sure we are looking at the relevant data that proves correlation, and then deciding if that correlation proves causation.

The question was "What would it take for me to convert to a believer in AGW. That's what it would take. We know enough about gas laws to know that increased temperatures of a gas means that that gas can hold more atoms in it, such as CO2. We have data to show that CO2 follows increased temperatures. In order for me to believe in AGW I would have to see evidence that that gas law can be violated and the cart is actually before the horse.

As soon as I see that happen then I might begin to believe.

More atoms due to heat?

No. CO2 always has exactly three atoms - one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms.

 

[PredFan]

I don't think we know enough to make that determination. The people on this planet can surely do a whole lot of dastardly things - we set the Cuyhoga river on fire!

It really comes down to the data and making sure we are looking at the relevant data that proves correlation, and then deciding if that correlation proves causation.

The question was "What would it take for me to convert to a believer in AGW. That's what it would take. We know enough about gas laws to know that increased temperatures of a gas means that that gas can hold more atoms in it, such as CO2. We have data to show that CO2 follows increased temperatures. In order for me to believe in AGW I would have to see evidence that that gas law can be violated and the cart is actually before the horse.

As soon as I see that happen then I might begin to believe.

What you have just stated is that you really don't know much about physics, or understand with the absorption spectra of CO2 and CH4 mean to the energy balance in the atmosphere.

Now look at the statement you made that is highlighted in red. Do you have the faintest idea of what you stated? No, you have not the slightest knowledge of science.

Wrong. What I stated was the FACT that a gas can hold more atoms on it at higher temperatures. I pointed out that CO2 follows temperature and implied that those who believe otherwise are putting the cart before the horse.

Those are gas laws and are laws of physics. I know a lot more about science than a regular schmuck. Your problem seems to be rooted in reading comprehension, based on the fact that your reply had nothing to do with my post.

 

[Kosh]

CO2 does NOT drive cliamte

 

[ScienceRocks]

You skeptics wouldn't know science if it jumped up and bit you in the ass

 

[asterism]

The question was "What would it take for me to convert to a believer in AGW. That's what it would take. We know enough about gas laws to know that increased temperatures of a gas means that that gas can hold more atoms in it, such as CO2. We have data to show that CO2 follows increased temperatures. In order for me to believe in AGW I would have to see evidence that that gas law can be violated and the cart is actually before the horse.

As soon as I see that happen then I might begin to believe.

What you have just stated is that you really don't know much about physics, or understand with the absorption spectra of CO2 and CH4 mean to the energy balance in the atmosphere.

Now look at the statement you made that is highlighted in red. Do you have the faintest idea of what you stated? No, you have not the slightest knowledge of science.

Wrong. What I stated was the FACT that a gas can hold more atoms on it at higher temperatures. I pointed out that CO2 follows temperature and implied that those who believe otherwise are putting the cart before the horse.

Those are gas laws and are laws of physics. I know a lot more about science than a regular schmuck. Your problem seems to be rooted in reading comprehension, based on the fact that your reply had nothing to do with my post.

I think you mean molecules, not atoms.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

matthew.......listen dude........gotta clue you into something.........

Your efforts in here are less effective than a social worker walking through a crack house and announcing "hey.....c'mon guys......lets all go hit the wheatgrass juice place on the corner and get a shake for breakfast!!"

lol!!!l!o!l!o!lo!lololol!!o!l!ol

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The hardcore denialists are never going to admit that they are wrong. They will just try to shift the blame for their idiocy to the people that have been trying to warn us that things are changing.

"Being Wrong made me a fortune"