Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[jrad6515]

Geez, you are even more clueless than I thought. If you can’t show me any evidence whatsoever that you have any clue as to what you were talking about then why am I going to waste a few hours with you on a video chat that probably very few people will see?

Here is my challenge to you. You post a cogent cause and affect proof of AGW and I will gladly critique it and most likely rip it apart. Clearly you have no proof or you would post it.

I am convinced that you are fraud now. Do you even have any scientific background? If so tell me what it is if you do. You haven’t done anything other than call proper skeptics “deniers“ and other names. Frankly, I see you as a total joke with absolutely nothing to offer other than ad hominem attacks.

Remember, the onus is on you to prove AGW, not on me to disprove it. So show me I”m wrong about you being a fraud and post a cogent proof of AGW. I dare you. I’ve been asking you for months to do this but you keep running and hiding.

So are you going to do it or are you going to keep chickening out?

 

[jrad6515]

Meanwhile back to reality:

 

[ohmman]

You post a cogent cause and affect proof of AGW

This is all we've done for 288 pages of this thread. You "deny" these things are valid, which is why it is worthwhile to work together reproducing work. Your inability to go live is an obvious cop out to anyone reading, but it's fascinating to see you continue to portray some kind of righteousness in this regard.

I'm always happy to meet you in a live forum to work through the evidence, which in its entirety, is difficult to deny. You'll come around if you're willing to review it. Just let me know when you're ready to abandon your dogma and learn a little.

I actually feel a little bad for @Swampgator, because having you at his back kind of chisels away at any sort of validity he's trying to portray. I mean, I feel quite certain that he understands adjustments. He said he follows Curry. That at least puts him a few steps ahead of you.

 

[ohmman]

Frankly, I see you as a total joke with absolutely nothing to offer other than ad hominem attacks.

Ah, the cognitive dissonance. Here's a little "evidence" that's hard to deny.

Are you daft?

you guys are dense.

You are either really clueless or scientifically illiterate. Probably both.

science-denying global warming kool-aid drinkers

AGW cultists

AGW kool-aid drinkers

religious anti-science AGW zealots

YOU are the chickensh*t

What a fraud you are.

You should be ashamed of yourself

Put up or shut up, coward.

 

[mspohr]

Here you go

Could military strategy win the war on global warming?

 

[S'toon]

Meanwhile back to reality:

Ah, another video by the guy who has so little credibility in climate science that he can't even use his real name.

Weather in one country isn't climate. Climate is what happens around the world.

During the same time frame:

Australia breaks weather records with hottest ever summer

Australia records hottest-ever summer

Australia's hottest summer beats previous record by 'large margin'

[URL='https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/101996439/it-was-officially-new-zealands-hottest-summer-on-record']It was officially New Zealand's hottest summer on record[/url]

 

[jrad6515]

This is all we've done for 288 pages of this thread. You "deny" these things are valid, which is why it is worthwhile to work together reproducing work. Your inability to go live is an obvious cop out to anyone reading, but it's fascinating to see you continue to portray some kind of righteousness in this regard.

I'm always happy to meet you in a live forum to work through the evidence, which in its entirety, is difficult to deny. You'll come around if you're willing to review it. Just let me know when you're ready to abandon your dogma and learn a little.

I actually feel a little bad for @Swampgator, because having you at his back kind of chisels away at any sort of validity he's trying to portray. I mean, I feel quite certain that he understands adjustments. He said he follows Curry. That at least puts him a few steps ahead of you.

Translation: “ I am too chicken to post my ‘proof’ in a public forum so instead I want to waste your time with hours of a video conference that will obviously not prove anything “

So until you can post your proof here in black-and-white for all to see I will continue to believe that you are a fraud with no scientific background. That is becoming more and more obvious all the time.

 

[jrad6515]

No that's exactly what I mean. I do not and will not accept things as true simply because there is a consensus.
Can you prove your consensus claims? If all you have is Cook et al then go away.

Precisely. First of all science is not done by consensus but I would not expect Ohman to know that since he is clearly not a scientist though he fraudulently masquerades as one. In fact the alarmists' "consensus" consists of a few dozen left-wing politicians and scientists who make a lot of unproveable claims, mainly through a nonscientific left-wing political body (UNIPCC). OTOH, the Oregon Petition has a list of 31,000 names of real scientists who believe that AGW is a scam. Of course the alarmists, being the underhanded trolls that they are, have tried mightily to discredit the list by posting fake names but they have been almost all weeded out over time. So 31,000 vs a few dozen - yeah, sounds like a consensus to me - a consensus that AGW is an unproveable figment of socialist wankers' imaginations.

None of this matters anyway since science is not done by consensus but when you don't have science on your side you have to manufacture a fake 'consensus' instead to try and mislead the public. However the public is on to the scam and rightly puts AGW at the bottom of the list of their concerns in daily life.

 

[Swampgator]

Great, then I didn't build a straw man. Can you answer my questions from the previous post, then?


Are you suggesting I have to prove that there is a consensus, or that I have to prove the claims of the consensus? Perhaps you and I should do the live video that @jrad6515 was too scared to do. I'll include some members of the community that have built the consensus. Is that interesting to you?

Sure, as long as I can get my experts on the video who disagree with your, slippery consensus. You can't even an simple questions.
What exactly is there a consensus on?

 

[Swampgator]

In a way it is, but not how you understand the process.

The scientific method is iterated until the leaders in the field stop testing the hypothesis because they think it is a waste of time to find the same results. Occasionally results from other observations come along that put in doubt the accepted hypothesis, and then the cycle begins again.

No mathematician spends their life doubting 1 + 1 = 2
No physical scientist doubts the spectrometry of CO2. If you had the tools and the skills you could spend your life checking and rechecking the spectrometric results published by countless others of CO2 but no scientist of merit would pay any attention to your work.

When you point out that past peaks of CO2 lag peak warming and conclude that CO2 is not a cause of global warming, you are ignoring basic spectrometry. You might as well be arguing that a circle can be squared or the Earth is flat.

Well if everything is so well known, why are there still billions of dollars going to climate researchers? How much money went last year to gravity research?

 

[jrad6515]

Ah, another video by the guy who has so little credibility in climate science that he can't even use his real name.

His real name is Tony Heller - the same name he posted the video under and the same one that he has testified under before Congress where he has documented the climate fraud occurring at some govt. agencies these days. So it would appear that YOU are the one with no credibility.

 

[jrad6515]

Well if everything is so well known, why are there still billions of dollars going to climate researchers? How much money went last year to gravity research?

Lol - just follow the money...

 

[SageBrush]

Well if everything is so well known, why are there still billions of dollars going to climate researchers?

The money is not being spent to decide whether AGW is real, but in how it will play out.

 

[jrad6515]

Sure, as long as I can get my experts on the video who disagree with your, slippery consensus. You can't even an simple questions.
What exactly is there a consensus on?

Don't fall for the video diversion. I have been trying for months to get this fraudster to post his 'proof' right here but he won't do it because he has none. I am willing to spend at least a few minutes looking at any proof that he wants to post and spend time rebutting it but of course he can't do that so he just recently came up with the video diversion to try and lure us into wasting time (only "a few hours") with him.

 

[JRP3]

OTOH, the Oregon Petition has a list of 31,000 names of real scientists who believe that AGW is a scam.

Oregon Petition is garbage.
FACT CHECK: Did 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change a Hoax?
The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda | HuffPost
https://skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm
Oregon Petition

 

[Swampgator]

The money is not being spent to decide whether AGW is real, but in how it will play out.

OH, so they don't know?

 

[Swampgator]

Oregon Petition is garbage.
FACT CHECK: Did 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change a Hoax?
The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda | HuffPost
https://skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm
Oregon Petition

Using snopes and skeptical science to debunk anything actually strengthens the targeted argument.

 

[winfield100]

OH, so they don't know?

actually, you don't

 

[Swampgator]

Don't fall for the video diversion. I have been trying for months to get this fraudster to post his 'proof' right here but he won't do it because he has none. I am willing to spend at least a few minutes looking at any proof that he wants to post and spend time rebutting it but of course he can't do that so he just recently came up with the video diversion to try and lure us into wasting time (only "a few hours") with him.

I have noticed that most of the CAGW adherents on this thread do not like hard facts and data. They tend to shrink away (actually slide away) from facts when presented. That said. I think calling them names like fraudsters undermines your arguments. I understand the emotions that are involved in some of these discussions. And I do fail myself from time to time in keeping any ad hominem attacks out of my replies. By I think trying to stick to the facts and letting them attack us a deniers, stupid, uneducated, etc works to strengthen our own credibility and undermines theirs.

 

[Swampgator]

actually, you don't

Correct! Neither do you.