Remember me
▼ Content

Does the absence of empirical evidence for CAGW give you pause for thought?



Page 1 of 212>
Does the absence of empirical evidence for CAGW give you pause for thought?06-05-2020 15:10
herbie wangenheim
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
The whole basis of the climate debate revolves around fear with the central premise our species has influenced climate in a "dangerous" way (sic Obama) as unassailable as the 10 commandments among fundamentalist Christians. Yet no observational evidence for the notion exists.

Here we are 30+ years after Hansen and still no repeatable experiment demonstrating "dangerous" effects from co2.
Activists continue the insanity of linking any extreme event (weather or otherwise) to rising co2 leaning on truly hapless historical temp records while blustering "science says....". Yet science has not a single non modelled study to demonstrate the dangerous effect of co2 on mankind. Plaintive cries of "it's warming" cut no ice (see what I did there?) we are in an interglacial so warming is expected.

When I was at school experiments and demonstrations were the heart of science any ideas that couldn't be demonstrated were known as faith.
06-05-2020 15:43
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(636)
Welcome Herbie go post that on Skeptical science and see if you can get blocked faster than I did.I am with you on this and am patiently waiting for the sea levels to go up.
06-05-2020 16:40
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1239)
CAGW twits will deny anything that stands in the way of their fundamentalist style religion, including logic, science, and mathematics. They are very irrational people.
06-05-2020 16:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
herbie wangenheim wrote: Yet no observational evidence for the notion exists.

... much less any valid datsets.

Global Warming is a WACKY religion based on hatred and intolerance.

herbie wangenheim wrote:Activists continue the insanity of linking any extreme event (weather or otherwise) to rising co2 leaning on truly hapless historical temp records while blustering "science says....".


From The Manual:

Unprecedented: adjective
Per the Global Warming lexicon, whenever an ordinary or otherwise non-exceptional event occurs that some Climate Scientist wishes to imply requires a Settled Science explanation, the event is characterized as "unprecedented."

Of the Instrument Record: prepositional phrase
In the Global Warming mythology, being pronounced a superlative "of the instrument record" is a religious honor, akin to a title of sainthood, bestown upon an ordinary or otherwise non-exceptional weather event that becomes interesting trivia for having broken some obscure record.

herbie wangenheim wrote: Yet science has not a single non modelled study to demonstrate the dangerous effect of co2 on mankind.

There are no studies in science. There are only falsifiable models that predict nature. Ergo, you should have written "Yet science has not a single falsifiable model predicting any atmospheric temperature change for a given atmospheric composition change.

You are absolutely welcome.

herbie wangenheim wrote: When I was at school experiments and demonstrations were the heart of science any ideas that couldn't be demonstrated were known as faith.

Just one minor quibble, ... experiments are the heart of the scientific method. Science is comprised of falsifiable models that predict nature.

Otherwise, yes, you are absolutely correct. Global Warming is a nutcase religion and Wikipeida provides the scripture.

.


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
06-05-2020 18:43
herbie wangenheim
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
duncan61 wrote:
Welcome Herbie go post that on Skeptical science and see if you can get blocked faster than I did.I am with you on this and am patiently waiting for the sea levels to go up.


Sks is one of the funniest blogs out there I particularly like their catalogue of rebuttals and how they blow up in their face when obvious flaws are pointed out.
Echo chambers can only exist via censorship I wouldn't waste my time
06-05-2020 18:51
herbie wangenheim
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
gfm7175 wrote:
CAGW twits will deny anything that stands in the way of their fundamentalist style religion, including logic, science, and mathematics. They are very irrational people.


What fascinates me is how some advocates of the cult are of a reasonable educational standard but appear desperate to prove the old adage that academia is no guarantee of intelligence
06-05-2020 19:03
herbie wangenheim
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
IBdaMann wrote:
herbie wangenheim wrote: Yet no observational evidence for the notion exists.

... much less any valid datsets.

.


Nail on head, the reason USCRN was set up was because historic temp records were of as much value as casting the runes reasonable temp data sets were desperately needed hence the evolution of Satellites and USCRN. Despite their existence being a relatively short time frame they show nothing of concern
06-05-2020 22:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13495)
herbie wangenheim wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
herbie wangenheim wrote: Yet no observational evidence for the notion exists.

... much less any valid datsets.

.


Nail on head, the reason USCRN was set up was because historic temp records were of as much value as casting the runes reasonable temp data sets were desperately needed hence the evolution of Satellites and USCRN. Despite their existence being a relatively short time frame they show nothing of concern


Satellites can't measure an absolute temperature anyway. They can only measure light. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. We don't have enough thermometers to measure it.

All satellites are really good for when it comes to temperature is looking at relative temperatures, such as determining where the Gulf Stream (a warm current compared to the colder water around it) happens to be wandering that day. It does not, however, measure the temperature absolutely of the Gulf Stream or of the ocean water around it. Nor does it measure any other part of Earth absolutely. The satellite has no idea what the temperature is. Just the relative temperature to something else, and that on an abstract level, since it is assuming that both areas being compared have the same emissivity.


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
07-05-2020 03:05
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(636)
I was wondering how a satelitte 9000km away measured the temperature.Where are all the warmer zombies on this thread.
07-05-2020 04:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
duncan61 wrote: I was wondering how a satelitte 9000km away measured the temperature.Where are all the warmer zombies on this thread.

I have always wondered why warmizombies use thermometers at the point where they want to measure a temperature when they are convinced that using a satellite in orbit would be much more accurate.

I hope you have noticed that warmizombies NEVER include the margin of error for whatever they are talking about. That point alone is sufficient to have their conclusions tossed.


.


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
07-05-2020 04:11
James___
★★★★★
(3287)
IBdaMann wrote:
duncan61 wrote: I was wondering how a satelitte 9000km away measured the temperature.Where are all the warmer zombies on this thread.

I have always wondered why warmizombies use thermometers at the point where they want to measure a temperature when they are convinced that using a satellite in orbit would be much more accurate.

I hope you have noticed that warmizombies NEVER include the margin of error for whatever they are talking about. That point alone is sufficient to have their conclusions tossed.


.



You are naive young one. The only way to accurately measure temperature is to stick the thermometer up your rectum. If you have one.
07-05-2020 04:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
James___ wrote:The only way to accurately measure temperature is to stick the thermometer up your rectum. If you have one.

That would require me to move from my chair and I'm rather comfortable at the moment ... and I'm busy thinking.

.
Edited on 07-05-2020 04:42
07-05-2020 10:21
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
herbie wangenheim wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
herbie wangenheim wrote: Yet no observational evidence for the notion exists.
... much less any valid datsets.

Nail on head, ...

One thing you find online with both sides of every issue is the satisfaction of those who agree with one another patting each other on the back and celebrating their consensus.

Interested in debating any of these issues herbie?

And welcome to the board you make a very good point with this topic. You could call it empirical doubt.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
07-05-2020 11:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13495)
tmiddles wrote:
herbie wangenheim wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
herbie wangenheim wrote: Yet no observational evidence for the notion exists.
... much less any valid datsets.

Nail on head, ...

One thing you find online with both sides of every issue is the satisfaction of those who agree with one another patting each other on the back and celebrating their consensus.

Interested in debating any of these issues herbie?


What's to debate? Random numbers are random numbers, even if you are claiming them as 'data'.


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
07-05-2020 11:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
tmiddles wrote:Interested in debating any of these issues herbie?

Why are you asking him if he's interested in debating when you aren't?

Do you think he should be forewarned about your relentless dishonesty?
Attached image:

07-05-2020 13:29
herbie wangenheim
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
tmiddles wrote:
herbie wangenheim wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
herbie wangenheim wrote: Yet no observational evidence for the notion exists.
... much less any valid datsets.

Nail on head, ...

One thing you find online with both sides of every issue is the satisfaction of those who agree with one another patting each other on the back and celebrating their consensus.

Interested in debating any of these issues herbie?

And welcome to the board you make a very good point with this topic. You could call it empirical doubt.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN


Not sure what you want to debate if you cannot produce empirical evidence of man made co2 producing alleged catastrophe.
Anyone interested in robust science will not accept the cagw fallacy but faith has an attraction for many hence the proliferation of religion and cults.

Perhaps you simply wanted a pat on the back for the empirical evidence quote - good boy - happy to oblige
07-05-2020 16:41
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1838)
Into the Night wrote:]Satellites can't measure an absolute temperature anyway. They can only measure light. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. We don't have enough thermometers to measure it.

Had a perfect teaching moment with my high school son the other day. We had a previous conversation about satellites measuring Earth's temperature and I explained the best I could, but I could tell he was still skeptical. How could his dad know more about satellites than NASA? A pretty fair question I would say.

I do quite a bit of air conditioner repair at work, so I ordered a dual laser thermometer for checking pipe temperature and adjusting refrigerant levels.

When it arrived at our doorstep he owed me a favor so I asked him to get it set up and working. Little did he know I was setting him up.

We went around the house inputting emissivity values and checking the temperatures of different materials, and cross-checking with a probe thermometer to see if we were getting it right.

He quickly learned that it just wasn't accurate unless the emissivity value perfect. Then I asked him, what is the emissivity of the Earth?

He said Dad, you are a reasonably intelligent guy, but that may be the dumbest question you've ever asked me.

That's when it all clicked and he was kind of pissed off about all the satellite "data" BS that had been shoved in his face as facts during school.


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
Edited on 07-05-2020 16:44
07-05-2020 16:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
herbie wangenheim wrote: Not sure what you want to debate if you cannot produce empirical evidence of man made co2 producing alleged catastrophe. Anyone interested in robust science will not accept the cagw fallacy but faith has an attraction for many hence the proliferation of religion and cults.

You are exactly correct.

No science supports Global Warming, Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect. The terms aren't even unambiguously defined for science to ever apply.

No valid datasets support Global Warming, Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect. None of the dogma can be concluded from the sum total of humanity's observations to date.

Ergo, there is no rational basis to believe Global Warming, Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect.

Well done.

[note: I see you use the term CAGW, as though you are trying to make some sort of distinction between the firebrand Marxist tmiddles version of Global Warming, i.e. catastrophic and human-caused, and the natural kind that you believe is "true". There isn't even any natural kind. There is no Greenhouse Effect that can be unambiguously expressed without violating physics. They are both different denominations of the same religion and are both completely unsupported]


.


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
07-05-2020 19:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13495)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:]Satellites can't measure an absolute temperature anyway. They can only measure light. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. We don't have enough thermometers to measure it.

Had a perfect teaching moment with my high school son the other day. We had a previous conversation about satellites measuring Earth's temperature and I explained the best I could, but I could tell he was still skeptical. How could his dad know more about satellites than NASA? A pretty fair question I would say.

I do quite a bit of air conditioner repair at work, so I ordered a dual laser thermometer for checking pipe temperature and adjusting refrigerant levels.

When it arrived at our doorstep he owed me a favor so I asked him to get it set up and working. Little did he know I was setting him up.

We went around the house inputting emissivity values and checking the temperatures of different materials, and cross-checking with a probe thermometer to see if we were getting it right.

He quickly learned that it just wasn't accurate unless the emissivity value perfect. Then I asked him, what is the emissivity of the Earth?

He said Dad, you are a reasonably intelligent guy, but that may be the dumbest question you've ever asked me.

That's when it all clicked and he was kind of pissed off about all the satellite "data" BS that had been shoved in his face as facts during school.

Well done! You have successfully freed your son from the clutches of the Church of Global Warming. I don't blame him one bit for being angry at the schools for shoving that BS in his face all these years.

He probably still doesn't know the half of it.

It starts even in kindergarten, when they start teaching things like "tomatoes are vegetables". They aren't. They are fruit. They are the seed bearing part of the plant. The U.S. government calls them "vegetables" for tax reasons.

They go on to teach that oil and coal are 'evil', and that we are running out, and that anyone using a gasoline powered vehicle is "destroying the planet". They also have drilled into them at that point that "we are destroying the animals', and "the ice pack is melting", and a whole host of other BS.

They are also taught the Liberal language, and are taught to abandon English in favor of it.

In colleges and universities, the message of Marxism is added, taught as the only "compassionate" economic system, and are told that capitalism is "evil".

Most come out believing much of this shit, like tmiddles and keepit. They are illiterate graduates, and often Marxists as well, trying to implement fascism by oligarchy, with themselves as the 'elite' of course; or they become what Lenin once called "useful idiots".


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
Edited on 07-05-2020 19:24
08-05-2020 15:17
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
What is the point of adding the qualifier "catastrophic" to AGW? Does that mean that you accept that "regular" AGW is real but you reject the notion that there is a significant likelihood for a catastrophic scenario as a result?
08-05-2020 18:07
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1239)
JackFou wrote:
What is the point of adding the qualifier "catastrophic" to AGW? Does that mean that you accept that "regular" AGW is real but you reject the notion that there is a significant likelihood for a catastrophic scenario as a result?

Does it really matter whether it is "catastrophic" hooey or "regular" hooey? In the end, AGW itself is just a bunch of hooey... The theory fails both internal and external testing...
Edited on 08-05-2020 18:07
08-05-2020 18:21
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
gfm7175 wrote:
JackFou wrote:
What is the point of adding the qualifier "catastrophic" to AGW? Does that mean that you accept that "regular" AGW is real but you reject the notion that there is a significant likelihood for a catastrophic scenario as a result?

Does it really matter whether it is "catastrophic" hooey or "regular" hooey? In the end, AGW itself is just a bunch of hooey... The theory fails both internal and external testing...


If it doesn't matter then what is the point of the qualifier "catastrophic"?
08-05-2020 19:01
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1239)
JackFou wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
JackFou wrote:
What is the point of adding the qualifier "catastrophic" to AGW? Does that mean that you accept that "regular" AGW is real but you reject the notion that there is a significant likelihood for a catastrophic scenario as a result?

Does it really matter whether it is "catastrophic" hooey or "regular" hooey? In the end, AGW itself is just a bunch of hooey... The theory fails both internal and external testing...


If it doesn't matter then what is the point of the qualifier "catastrophic"?

You'd have to ask that question to a member of that sect of The Church...

As for me, I think the AGW theory itself is of no worth, whether "catastrophic" or not. It fails internal/external testing.
08-05-2020 19:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13495)
JackFou wrote:
What is the point of adding the qualifier "catastrophic" to AGW? Does that mean that you accept that "regular" AGW is real but you reject the notion that there is a significant likelihood for a catastrophic scenario as a result?


Define 'global warming'. Buzzword fallacy. Define 'AGW'. Buzzword fallacy. The Church of Global Warming adds the qualifier 'catastrophic' to this buzzword.

Loaded question...Mantras 33a...10...29.

No argument presented. RQAA.


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
08-05-2020 19:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13495)
JackFou wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
JackFou wrote:
What is the point of adding the qualifier "catastrophic" to AGW? Does that mean that you accept that "regular" AGW is real but you reject the notion that there is a significant likelihood for a catastrophic scenario as a result?

Does it really matter whether it is "catastrophic" hooey or "regular" hooey? In the end, AGW itself is just a bunch of hooey... The theory fails both internal and external testing...


If it doesn't matter then what is the point of the qualifier "catastrophic"?


Irrelevance fallacy. Mantra 26.


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
08-05-2020 19:59
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:
What is the point of adding the qualifier "catastrophic" to AGW? Does that mean that you accept that "regular" AGW is real but you reject the notion that there is a significant likelihood for a catastrophic scenario as a result?


Define 'global warming'. Buzzword fallacy. Define 'AGW'. Buzzword fallacy. The Church of Global Warming adds the qualifier 'catastrophic' to this buzzword.

Loaded question...Mantras 33a...10...29.

No argument presented. RQAA.


I'm not arguing anything. I'm just asking a simple question.
08-05-2020 23:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13495)
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:
What is the point of adding the qualifier "catastrophic" to AGW? Does that mean that you accept that "regular" AGW is real but you reject the notion that there is a significant likelihood for a catastrophic scenario as a result?


Define 'global warming'. Buzzword fallacy. Define 'AGW'. Buzzword fallacy. The Church of Global Warming adds the qualifier 'catastrophic' to this buzzword.

Loaded question...Mantras 33a...10...29.

No argument presented. RQAA.


I'm not arguing anything. I'm just asking a simple question.


No argument presented. RQAA.


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
09-05-2020 00:03
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1239)
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:
What is the point of adding the qualifier "catastrophic" to AGW? Does that mean that you accept that "regular" AGW is real but you reject the notion that there is a significant likelihood for a catastrophic scenario as a result?


Define 'global warming'. Buzzword fallacy. Define 'AGW'. Buzzword fallacy. The Church of Global Warming adds the qualifier 'catastrophic' to this buzzword.

Loaded question...Mantras 33a...10...29.

No argument presented. RQAA.


I'm not arguing anything. I'm just asking a simple question.

... one that I've answered... multiple times...

You are now "pulling a tmiddles"...
09-05-2020 00:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13495)
gfm7175 wrote:
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:
What is the point of adding the qualifier "catastrophic" to AGW? Does that mean that you accept that "regular" AGW is real but you reject the notion that there is a significant likelihood for a catastrophic scenario as a result?


Define 'global warming'. Buzzword fallacy. Define 'AGW'. Buzzword fallacy. The Church of Global Warming adds the qualifier 'catastrophic' to this buzzword.

Loaded question...Mantras 33a...10...29.

No argument presented. RQAA.


I'm not arguing anything. I'm just asking a simple question.

... one that I've answered... multiple times...

You are now "pulling a tmiddles"...


Could it be that everyone that asks questions over and over that have already been answered on any forum anywhere is actually just one person (tmiddles)?



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
09-05-2020 00:51
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1239)
Into the Night wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:
What is the point of adding the qualifier "catastrophic" to AGW? Does that mean that you accept that "regular" AGW is real but you reject the notion that there is a significant likelihood for a catastrophic scenario as a result?


Define 'global warming'. Buzzword fallacy. Define 'AGW'. Buzzword fallacy. The Church of Global Warming adds the qualifier 'catastrophic' to this buzzword.

Loaded question...Mantras 33a...10...29.

No argument presented. RQAA.


I'm not arguing anything. I'm just asking a simple question.

... one that I've answered... multiple times...

You are now "pulling a tmiddles"...


Could it be that everyone that asks questions over and over that have already been answered on any forum anywhere is actually just one person (tmiddles)?

09-05-2020 02:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
gfm7175 wrote:
JackFou wrote:
What is the point of adding the qualifier "catastrophic" to AGW? Does that mean that you accept that "regular" AGW is real but you reject the notion that there is a significant likelihood for a catastrophic scenario as a result?

Does it really matter whether it is "catastrophic" hooey or "regular" hooey? In the end, AGW itself is just a bunch of hooey... The theory fails both internal and external testing...

Great response! I'd award you a bonus point but I only have 5-point awards and I'd have to ask you for change.

Totally awesome! Well done.

.


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
11-05-2020 23:01
herbie wangenheim
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
JackFou wrote:
What is the point of adding the qualifier "catastrophic" to AGW? Does that mean that you accept that "regular" AGW is real but you reject the notion that there is a significant likelihood for a catastrophic scenario as a result?


Without a fear descriptor the subject reverts to an inconsequential hobby activity rather than the massive research gravy train it has become. It is the favoured descriptor of activist (fraudulent?) scientists like Michael Mann:

"
Edited on 11-05-2020 23:05
12-05-2020 01:03
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1239)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
JackFou wrote:
What is the point of adding the qualifier "catastrophic" to AGW? Does that mean that you accept that "regular" AGW is real but you reject the notion that there is a significant likelihood for a catastrophic scenario as a result?

Does it really matter whether it is "catastrophic" hooey or "regular" hooey? In the end, AGW itself is just a bunch of hooey... The theory fails both internal and external testing...

Great response! I'd award you a bonus point but I only have 5-point awards and I'd have to ask you for change.

Totally awesome! Well done.

.

Thank you.

The bonus point can go on a tab for now, but once I get up to five of 'em, I better get that damn trophy!
12-05-2020 02:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
gfm7175 wrote: The bonus point can go on a tab for now, but once I get up to five of 'em, I better get that damn trophy!


I'll do you one better. I made it to the bank and got a few rolls of individual bonus points (shiny, current year!). I'm now back in business.

gfm7175, for your belated award ceremony ...
Attached image:

12-05-2020 02:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
GasGuzzler, I just realized that you were only presented the certificate for your five bonus points at your ceremony because the trophies were on backorder.

They just came in. We are sending to you at the address we have on file.
.
Attached image:

12-05-2020 17:36
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1239)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: The bonus point can go on a tab for now, but once I get up to five of 'em, I better get that damn trophy!


I'll do you one better. I made it to the bank and got a few rolls of individual bonus points (shiny, current year!). I'm now back in business.

gfm7175, for your belated award ceremony ...


Thank you kindly, good sir!
12-05-2020 21:29
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
I just did a quick search on line for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming

By far the most common use of that term was by the anti-AGW crowd starting with the Oregon Petition back in 1998.
12-05-2020 21:43
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1838)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler, I just realized that you were only presented the certificate for your five bonus points at your ceremony because the trophies were on backorder.

They just came in. We are sending to you at the address we have on file.
.


And I also thank you! One request....
Could I please get pre-disinfected drone delivery?


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
13-05-2020 09:19
Ory_Dan
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
They need a strong glass of alcoholic bevy, and a smack .
13-05-2020 09:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
DRKTS wrote:
I just did a quick search on line for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming

By far the most common use of that term was by the anti-AGW crowd starting with the Oregon Petition back in 1998.

Big deal. Who cares? It's a scam. What would be a better name? "Global Fleecing?" "Greenback Effect"? What?


.


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
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Does the absence of empirical evidence for CAGW give you pause for thought?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Empirical Evidence for Man-made Global Warming16103-06-2020 20:20
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N252624-01-2020 06:17
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or7318-01-2020 02:33
Evidence of rapid climate change!012-10-2019 06:09
Anecdotal evidence2026-09-2019 12:56
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact