Another Climate Change Crackpot Goes Down

[mvscal]

My perception is that scientists understand science better than me. Considering their great knowledge and extensive research into matters of which I know far les than they do, I would be stupid to act as if I knew better than they.

Your failure is conceptualizing "scientists" as a single, monolithic entity. Skepticism in science is vital to the process and not the perjorative that ignorant morons such as yourself have made it out to be.

[Bizzarofelice]

I rely on the evidence of my senses

Yes, we know you have an education problem.

[Bizzarofelice]

Skepticism in science is vital to the process and not the perjorative that ignorant morons such as yourself have made it out to be.

skepticism based upon science, or skepticism based upon belief and preconceived notions?

me 1
you 0

[War Wagon]

I rely on the evidence of my senses

Yes, we know you have an education problem.

senses don't require an education. You're born with them.

For instance, the last time you had a dick up your ass, you didn't need that fake diploma to inform you of how pleasurable it was, now did you?

[mvscal]

Skepticism in science is vital to the process and not the perjorative that ignorant morons such as yourself have made it out to be.

skepticism based upon science, or skepticism based upon belief and preconceived notions?

My skepticism is based on observable data. Your position is based on your personal politics.

FACT: The earth has had ice ages with higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than we have today.

FACT: The oceans aren't warming.

FACT: Rising CO2 is a lagging indicator of warming trends.

FACT: Climate change alarmists have been caught falsifying data in order to support their computer models.

FACT: These computer models cannot duplicate known historical climate patterns.

FACT: Temperature recording stations have been deliberately placed in parking lots and near HVAC units in order to skew average results.

FACT: The human contribution to warming cannot be distinguished from natural variability.

FACT: Alarmists demand that we spend trillions of dollars to mitigate something that neither needs or can be mitigated.

I'll take facts. You can keep your propaganda.

[Felix]

I know algore

how many times do I have to tell you this.....
al gore is not a scientist....

My skepticism is based on observable data.

then by all means, present your scientific data, tell me where it came from and lets see if it stands up....

[Bizzarofelice]

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

scientists just don't hold water when compared to conservative media, eh?

[Dinsdale]

Someone proposes a radical new, completely unproven, unprovable theory, and now the onus is on the "deniers" to disprove it.

Skepticism in science is vital to the process and not the perjorative that ignorant morons such as yourself have made it out to be.

skepticism based upon science, or skepticism based upon belief and preconceived notions?

me 1
you 0

YHKYOA-BTW

[Bizzarofelice]

Someone proposes a radical new, completely unproven, unprovable theory, and now the onus is on the "deniers" to disprove it.

Skepticism in science is vital to the process and not the perjorative that ignorant morons such as yourself have made it out to be.

skepticism based upon science, or skepticism based upon belief and preconceived notions?

me 1
you 0

YHKYOA-BTW

HA! Get that weaksauce outta here, Dinsy.

Although I must compliment you on your restraint. A post from you that didn't have 5K words is a rarity.

[Dinsdale]

then by all means, present your scientific data, tell me where it came from and lets see if it stands up....

Dear fucking Spaghetti Monster :facepalm:

MAYBE, just maybe, the people with the NEW FUCKING THEORY shoud present some scientific data that isn't make-belive.

Like maybe using the same "measuring standards" for at least a few years in a row.

You're spitting in the face of science[i/], bro.

[Dinsdale]

Someone proposes a radical new, completely unproven, unprovable theory, and now the onus is on the "deniers" to disprove it.

skepticism based upon science, or skepticism based upon belief and preconceived notions?

me 1
you 0[/quote]




YHKYOA-BTW[/quote]


HA! Get that weaksauce outta here, Dinsy.

Although I must compliment you on your restraint. A post from you that didn't have 5K words is a rarity.[/quote]


Nonsensical UBB/C&P error... I'll fix it.

My apologies for the confusion... my post didn't make sense...

[Bizzarofelice]

Someone proposes a radical new, completely unproven, unprovable theory, and now the onus is on the "deniers" to disprove it.

skepticism based upon science, or skepticism based upon belief and preconceived notions?

me 1
you 0

YHKYOA-BTW[/quote]


HA! Get that weaksauce outta here, Dinsy.

Although I must compliment you on your restraint. A post from you that didn't have 5K words is a rarity.[/quote]


Nonsensical UBB/C&P error... I'll fix it.

My apologies for the confusion... my post didn't make sense...[/quote]


just so long as we both understand that I am awesome midwest and you are awesome [jake33]norfwest[/jake33] [/img]

[Felix]

Dear fucking Spaghetti Monster :facepalm:

MAYBE, just maybe, the people with the NEW FUCKING THEORY shoud present some scientific data that isn't make-belive.

Like maybe using the same "measuring standards" for at least a few years in a row.

You're spitting in the face of science[i/], bro.

dude, I'm asking for you to provide me peer reviewed scientific papers that support your position.....provide me the source of those papers, and lets take a look at them....oh and newsmax doesn't qualify as a scientific, peer reviewed source...lets see some articles from scientific journals...

pretty simple really....

[mvscal]

pretty simple really....

You can start by educating yourself on the Ordovician Ice Age. The argument about atmospheric CO2 being responsible for climate warming begins and ends right there.

[Bizzarofelice]

Al Gore was worth $800k in 2000, and is now a billionaire.

red herring

[poptart]

some scientist who wants to get fucked up the ass

[Felix]

You can start by educating yourself on the Ordovician Ice Age. The argument about atmospheric CO2 being responsible for climate warming begins and ends right there.

here's a couple things you might want to read....

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 821000115X

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... olved.html

but again, if I'm unclear in what I'm asking for let me state it again

provide me peer reviewed scientific studies that support your assertions....holy shit dude, if it's as evident as you say, there should be plenty of scientific studies available

[Dinsdale]

provide me peer reviewed scientific studies

Seriously?

You really are one bigtime rube.


Not only have your Heroes lied, but they're now credited with "destroying the peer-review process."

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.

If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.

Richard Lindzen is THE most knowledgeable climate scientist on earth... and he thinks your full of shit. And the hilarious/sad thing about it, the Warmist crackpots use multiple theories developed by Lindzen -- his numbers about the forcing of water vapor (he's forgotten more about this subject thatn anyone else knows), and many of the ideas he's come up with in his illustrious career...

yet when Warmers hear that Lindzen disagrees with them... their response is always "he doesn't know what he's talking about, and his theories are flawed."

Yup, that's right -- the guy whose theories they base their models on "doesn't know what he's talking about," BY THEIR OWN FUCKING ADMISSION.

So, does he know what he's talking about and have valid theories, or is he a crackpot, Warmers?

How does that cake taste that you both have and ate?


If you REALLY want to sound like a clown in this debate, keep talking about "peer-reviewed... SQUAAAAAAAAACK!"

[Felix]

Richard Lindzen is THE most knowledgeable climate scientist on earth... and he thinks your full of shit.

then I'm assuming he's published peer reviewed articles which back up what he says....surely, if he's the most preeminent climate scientist on the planet, he has published massive amounts of scientific studies disproving climate change....

btw, peer review is the only scientific way I know to test whether a hypotheses holds water....it doesn't say whether something is true or not, it's simply looks the presented data to see if there are flaws in the analyses....

[Dinsdale]

btw, peer review is the only scientific way I know to test whether a hypotheses holds water...

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

Good luck chasing that tail of yours.


BTW -- if you're not familiar with Richard Lindzen, then now would be an excellent time to quietly duck out of any climate discussion.


Seriously? "Is Lindzen published?"


What part of "The Warmers USE LINDZEN'S THEORIES IN THEIR MODELS" are you struggling with?

[Felix]

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

Good luck chasing that tail of yours.


Seriously? "Is Lindzen published?"


What part of "The Warmers USE LINDZEN'S THEORIES IN THEIR MODELS" are you struggling with?

so how would you propose that scientific hypotheses be verified? should we just take peoples word for it?

insofar as Lindzen goes, I know exactly who he is...and I didn't ask you if he was published, I asked you to provide a peer reviewed scientific paper that supports his assertions that man has no influence on the earths climate...

his arguments are pretty much kicked to the curb in this article (with links) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -newsweek/

interestingly enough, here's a scientific paper published by 15 of his colleagues at MIT....

http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/docum ... pt169.pdfy

so, you need to tell me why these guys are wrong and Lindzen is right...

[Dinsdale]

I asked you to provide a peer reviewed scientific paper that supports his assertions that man has no influence on the earths climate...

Is there a Warmist bullshit tactic you won't roll out?

This one has already been addressed, in this very fucking thread.

Sorry, bud -- when a radical new theory is suggested, the onus is on the people proposing the theory to prove it.

No one has come anywhere close -- matter of fact, every model they've rolled out in support of their theory has proved to be a failure.

Seriously, where the fuck did you people learn about science? "Here's our new theory, and we voted on it, so therefore the onus is on you to disprove it."


Logically, it's right up there with "we'll use Richard Lindzen's theories to prove he doesn't know what he's talking about."

[Dinsdale]

(with links)

For realz?

You linked to an article by Michael Fucking Mann to back up your side of a climate change discussion?


As mentioned, now would be an excellent time to tuck your tail and back away from this one.

That's right up there with browsing the music forum and quoting posts from Whitey when giving advise on pulling chicks.


Although it is kinda funny watching Mann's nose grow every time he opens his mouth. Dude just makes the shit up as he goes... PROVEN liar... but a wealthy one.

[Felix]

Is there a Warmist bullshit tactic you won't roll out?

This one has already been addressed, in this very fucking thread.

you didn't bother reading the paper did you?

i must have missed where you provided a link to the peer reviewed scientific paper by lindzen disputing man's influence on climate change....

this is the 3rd time I've asked you to provide me a link to a scientific study that supports Lindzen's claims...let me save you the trouble of looking for it, because it doesn't fucking exist...Lindzen uses assertions and strawman arguments that aren't based on any scientific study, they're simply his opinions....

curiously he's still using the same arguments he was using back in 1999....he does know that serious advances have been made since then doesn't he?

[Felix]

You linked to an article by Michael Fucking Mann to back up your side of a climate change discussion?

I also linked you to a scientific paper produced by 15 climate scientists at MIT....so what's your response to that?

[Dinsdale]

curiously he's still using the same arguments he was using back in 1999....he does know that serious advances have been made since then doesn't he?

How's Mann's Hockey Stick working out, speaking of the 90's?



But seriously... you're a broken record with your "we voted on it, so now you need to disprove the radical new theory."

[indyfrisco]

Felix,

What are your thoughts on Elenin and the Easter Bunny?

[Dinsdale]

I also linked you to a scientific paper produced by 15 climate scientists at MIT....so what's your response to that?

That's part 1.

Watch all 5 parts.


And whoever leaves the church last, you or Mann, should turn off the lights.

[bradhusker]

amusing.


considering the 30 straight days of 100 in Kansas and droughts across the plains and super droughts in Texas, I thought the climate change people would be silent these days.


I guess stupid doesn't take a holiday.

actually, yes, its hot, but when you think you can actually do anything to change or alter the earth or solar system in any way shape or form? that takes stupidity to a whole new level.

[Felix]

really? the video is just as biased as al gore's tripe

I'm interested in the science of anthropomorphic climate change, not sensationalism....

meanwhile, it seems that you get your "science" from 2007 CBC produced videos...nice....

way to keep abreast of current scientific research

[mvscal]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 821000115X

Ultimately, the time period of elevated pCO2 levels is followed by geologic evidence of deglaciation

Yes. Very "sciencey." Check back in when "ultimately" is a defined with any degree of specificity.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... olved.html

But when Seth Young of Indiana University in Bloomington did a detailed analysis of carbon-13 levels in rocks formed at the time, the picture that emerged was very different. Young found CO2 concentrations were in fact relatively low when the ice age began.

The dip, he says, was triggered by a burst of volcanic activity that deposited new silicate rocks. These draw CO2 out of the air as they erode. As the ice spread, however, it gradually covered the silicate rocks, slowing the erosion and so allowing CO2 to build up in the atmosphere once more. This eventually would have warmed the atmosphere enough to end the ice age, says Kump.

This also is completely laughable and is obviously aimed at people who have a kindergarten level of scientific understanding. You know...people like you. It is a dodge that emphatically does NOT solve the so-called "high carbon ice age mystery."

This "burst of volcanic activity that deposited new silicate rocks" would have also belched huge metric shit tons of carbon into the atmosphere. Enough, anyway, to get the carbon levels up to 5600 PPM at one point. The sequestering of CO2 through rock weathering is a gradual process. New silicate rocks deposited by volcanoes and then covered by ice should have low levels of carbon.

The thing is when these lying bags of fuck talk about CO2 levels dropping as the ice age began, they mean that the CO2 levels dropped from 5,600ppm to a "mere" 3,000 ppm which still is nearly ten times higher than than the 389ppm today.

The bottom line is that there is no mystery at all to a high carbon ice age at least to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty. We know volcanoes have a pronounced cooling effect on the climate and, from the CO2 levels of the Odovician, this was episode of volcanic activity the likes of which we have never seen. You couple that with low solar activity and there's your ice age. CO2 is irrelevant. Even this new correction allows for an ice age with levels of atmospheric carbon ten times higher than what it is today.

[Felix]

CO2 is irrelevant.

your ignorance is duly noted

[mvscal]

CO2 is irrelevant.

your ignorance is duly noted

That's all you've got? What part of ice age with 3,000 ppm CO2 are you struggling to comprehend?

[War Wagon]

while watching Felix get schooled for the umpteenth time by mv on climate science, it's difficult not to feel sorry for him. It's like reading the first few chapters of David Copperfield.

Here Felix, this should get you right with the world... sorta'.

[bradhusker]

You guys can go back and forth forever, BUT, you fail to understand the big picture here. The planet goes from ice age to warming and back again. Its done this some 6 times now that we know of. SO, the point is this, NOTHING Al Gore or any of these wacko scientists do or say, means shit.

Understand? we as a species are powerless to do a damm thing, we are nothing more than "dust in the wind", got it?

If anyone thinks that we can do anything at all to alter the planets cycles or the solar system or the sun, you are laughable.

dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind, Embrace that fact, and you will sleep better,

[Felix]

That's all you've got? What part of ice age with 3,000 ppm CO2 are you struggling to comprehend?

which part of increased solar output are you struggling to comprehend?

[Dinsdale]

which part of increased solar output are you struggling to comprehend?

Funniest line of the threa (and Felix's entire posting career).

You mean like the increased solar activity of the 90's?

[bradhusker]

That is so true, ANY schmuck can get published nowadays, the entire publishing industry is a joke, in fact, just this past year, a well noted faggott professor gets published on the premise that a penis is really a vagina, and a vagina is really a penis.
Now, call me crazy, but if a left leaning faggott professor can get shit like that published? We're ALL is serious trouble.

[Bizzarofelice]

wacko scientists

so despite all of their study on the matter, you know better than scientists?

[Truman]

wacko scientists

so despite all of their study on the matter, you know better than scientists?

'pends on the scientists and their take, 'lice.