A New Theory of Global Warming

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > A New Theory of Global Warming > Page 2

Page 2 of 2

04-12-2015 20:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	IBdaMann wrote: peterlward wrote: Good video. Declarations of fact by people who do not understand science or even the scientific method and are unwilling to consider anything they do not think they know simply makes this site irrelevant. Too bad. Best wishes. Standard religious intellectual cowardice. You find people who don't believe as you do, who aren't as gullible as you, who recognize your crap for the crap it is,...and you pout like a baby. Why can't you address science? Like all other warmizombies, you believe that a certain amount of credentials suffices for science. You probably aren't even a scientist. . You forget the effects of being immersed in our university propaganda centers that long has on people. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-12-2015 01:09
Totototo ★☆☆☆☆ (117)	@Peter - Hello Dr. Ward, I read that yesterday the Etna volcano erupted. Do you predict a rise in the global atmospheric temperature due to this event?
05-12-2015 01:44
peterlward ★☆☆☆☆ (69)	This was a very small eruption so its effects on climate are probably not measurable. Bárðarbunga was the largest lava eruption within a year since 1783. 1.4 km3 of lava covered an area of 85 km2, the size of Manhattan within 6 months. This led to warming. Pinatubo in 1991 was the largest explosive eruption since 1912. The smaller explosive eruptions of Agung (1963) and El Chichon (1982) had similar but lesser effects. Etna was much, much smaller. Puu Oo has been erupting in Hawaii since January 3, 1983 oozing 2.7 km3 by January 2005, twice as much as Bárðarbunga but over 22 years instead of 0.5 years. Some eruptive phases may have influenced climate, but the signals may not be clear above the noise. The clearest signals are from the largest eruptions, so we need to study those first.
05-12-2015 01:55
Totototo ★☆☆☆☆ (117)	@Peter - Thanks for answering, very interesting.
09-12-2015 01:36
davidlaing ☆☆☆☆☆ (5)	Refreshing to get a serious question finally, after all this unprofessional and counterproductive ranting by faceless, self-aggrandizing pseudo-scientists whose only "contribution" to science is to dismiss the ideas of others at all costs. Such pontifical spoiling activities are a shameful disservice to all who wish to further the advancement of science. I therefore challenge you, "The Parrot Killer, "Ceist," and "IBdaMann" to reveal to us your academic and professional credentials, and your publications, whereby you can be deemed fit and qualified to pass such summary judgement on the honest scientific investigations of others. If you can in fact supply such credentials, you may succeed in lending some credence to some of your opinionated remarks, but if you can't, then you would do us all a great service by removing yourselves and your unproductive negative editorializing from this forum.

09-12-2015 02:54
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	davidlaing wrote: Refreshing to get a serious question finally, after all this unprofessional and counterproductive ranting by faceless, self-aggrandizing pseudo-scientists whose only "contribution" to science is to dismiss the ideas of others at all costs. Such pontifical spoiling activities are a shameful disservice to all who wish to further the advancement of science. I therefore challenge you, "The Parrot Killer, "Ceist," and "IBdaMann" to reveal to us your academic and professional credentials, and your publications, whereby you can be deemed fit and qualified to pass such summary judgement on the honest scientific investigations of others. If you can in fact supply such credentials, you may succeed in lending some credence to some of your opinionated remarks, but if you can't, then you would do us all a great service by removing yourselves and your unproductive negative editorializing from this forum. None are needed. Credentials do not a scientist make, neither do publications of any sort. Anyone and everyone is qualified to pass judgement on what you say, just as anyone and everyone is qualified to pass judgement on what I say. Your 'challenge' is nothing more than a fallacy of appealing to authority. If you have to base your argument on a credential you hold, you've already lost. It means your argument is weak. Indeed, you have denied your own argument. It is you that is attacking here. If you don't like scientists with no credentials, than turn off your computer now and throw it away. Turn off your lights, etc. All of that was developed by scientists that include those with no credentials whatsoever. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-12-2015 03:44
davidlaing ☆☆☆☆☆ (5)	Your response proves my point far more eloquently than I could have done. You cannot contribute constructively to scientific debate because no matter what anyone says, you put it down in any way you can. It is therefore obvious that no one can take you seriously. Case closed.
09-12-2015 04:12
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	davidlaing wrote: Refreshing to get a serious question finally, Great! Another idiot who cannot distinguish between gibberish and an intelligent idea. davidlaing wrote: after all this unprofessional and counterproductive ranting by faceless, self-aggrandizing pseudo-scientists whose only "contribution" to science is to dismiss the ideas of others at all costs. Unprofessional? OK. I am not a professional poster. Counterproductive? Into the Night and I are the only ones bringing science to this board. Faceless? Were you not told this is a message board? Do you not know how they work? Self-aggrandizing? Didn't you complain about my anonymity and lack of stated credentials? Pseudo-scientist? Fine. I confess that I'm actually not a pseudo-scientist. Dismiss ideas at all cost? What cost is associated with dismissing an idea? There has to be an award for people like you who can screw up one single solitary sentence with so many egregious errors. I'll take this as my warning that I shouldn't expect much from you in the way of coherency. davidlaing wrote: Such pontifical spoiling activities Let's review a little English for a moment. What you want to write is "Such pontificating..." The last pontifical spoiling activity occurred just before the Papacy abandoned virgin sacrifice rituals. I don't pontificate. I have no theology to advocate/preach. Telling the mistaken, such as yourself, how they are misguided and duped is not pontificating. davidlaing wrote: ...are a shameful disservice to all who wish to further the advancement of science. I don't think you would recognize science if it were to bite you on the hand. davidlaing wrote: I therefore challenge you, "The Parrot Killer, "Ceist," and "IBdaMann" to reveal to us your academic and professional credentials, and your publications, whereby you can be deemed fit and qualified to pass such summary judgement on the honest scientific investigations of others. First, please don't include Ceist in this list. Both he and I would consider it an insult. Second, this would have worked much better had you written in your native language and just allowed us to translate with Google. The stern tone you had hoped to achieve was completely lost. Third, you have confirmed that you don't know how this whole science thing works. Science speaks for itself and its inherent truth. Idiots like yourself think science is a matter of subjective opinion and religious titles. In an effort to educate you on how internet forums work, I will accept your challenge. My real name is Pythagoras. My publications include my theorem. The rumors of my demise have been exaggerated to say the least. Fourth, I challenge you to a debate on Global Warming science. Start a thread with your Global Warming science or just shut up. I'm ready to hand you your ass any day of the week. You are clearly an ignoramus; it shouldn't take long before you are EVADING, whining, complaining and reducing all discussion to pure ad hominem drivel. We can already see that you are a major whiner. davidlaing wrote: If you can in fact supply such credentials, you may succeed in lending some credence to some of your opinionated remarks, I let science do all the talking. Science carries all its own credibility. You'll understand that when you learn what science is. davidlaing wrote: but if you can't, then you would do us all a great service by removing yourselves and your unproductive negative editorializing from this forum. If you can't create a thread for the Global Warming science that you insist you have then you would do us all a great service by removing yourself and your unproductive, error-filled, negative editorializing from this forum. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-12-2015 04:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	davidlaing wrote: Your response proves my point far more eloquently than I could have done. You cannot contribute constructively to scientific debate because no matter what anyone says, you put it down in any way you can. It is therefore obvious that no one can take you seriously. Case closed. Hardly! But if you want to feel satisfied with such a weak argument, be my guest. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-12-2015 04:57
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	davidlaing wrote: Your response proves my point far more eloquently than I could have done. You cannot contribute constructively to scientific debate because no matter what anyone says, you put it down in any way you can. It is therefore obvious that no one can take you seriously. Case closed. Did you notice how you never provided any science either? You illustrate my point very clearly. Into the Night and I are the only ones bringing any science to the forum. Warmizombies like yourself just bring rambling ad hominem-laced gibberish. Where's your thread on your Global Warming science? (waiting) . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-12-2015 05:55
still learning ★★☆☆☆ (244)	peterlward wrote: I will have a booth (number 1138) set up in the exhibit hall at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, December 14 to 18 in San Francisco I walked by today and yesterday, didn't stop. You two (or at least two grey haired guys)(my age) were already engaged with other folks. While you didn't have as many people stopping by as NASA did, you did seem to have more than the adjacent Geoscene 3D or the opposite Boreal Genomics booths did. I didn't look for your poster. So many. Irrelevant aside, I guess Anthony Watts had a poster too, though I didn't see it either. Wow, so much planetary science stuff, Pluto, Ceres, Mars, Earth. If you are a longtime science-fiction reader as I am, some fascinating talks.
RE: AGU19-12-2015 14:22
peterlward ★☆☆☆☆ (69)	We talked to approximately 500 people including Anthony Watts. Many valuable new contacts. Lots of stimulating discussion. Only one screamer mindlessly defending greenhouse gas warming. Most people were inquisitive and thoughtful whether they thought we were right or not. So I have signed up for a booth at the American Meteorological Society Meeting in New Orleans in January where I also give a talk in a joint sessions in honor of Mario Molina, who shared the Nobel Prize for figuring out the CFC to ozone relationship. https://ams.confex.com/ams/96Annual/webprogram/Paper284695.html

Page 2 of 2

Join the debate A New Theory of Global Warming:

Threads	Replies	Last post
I have a theory	123	16-06-2023 19:16
Evolutionary Biology and the Endosymbiotic Theory of Consciousness.	111	08-06-2023 02:39
What is the cause of climate change based on the greenhouse gas theory?	82	04-02-2023 20:51
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2	533	30-01-2023 07:22
Relativity theory	317	03-11-2022 19:38