You were equally straightforward when explaining the following: “if we go to fantasy land, that assumes none of those items are falsified, then there is something wrong with the theory and should be modified and eventually rejected as the data would no longer fit the estimated projections.” As per that quote, I merely want you to spell out what data would no longer fit the estimated projections.
You already grant that “some data” wouldn’t fit the estimated projections; I’m huffing and puffing until you simply name what said data would be.
Fantasy only produces fantasy, until the evidence points otherwise keep living with disappointment, I defer to the experts and it is the experts you need to deal with.
There is a link to the research already made, not my problem that you are ignoring it.
What nonsense. It’s clear that the simplistic idiots view is that all skepticism and challenges to the doom and gloomers predictions are only because of money. As the fuckholes would put it:
That is pure batshit crazy talk. It’s trying to paint all skeptics and critics of your belief system as the same, in other words, simply oil company toadies who are only deniers because of money and profit.
Bullshit. I fucking hate oil companies, and the entire militaryindustrial complex, as well as the media lapdogs and shills pimping for who ever signs their paycheck. I loath coal burning, mining and the waste from it all.
It’s fuckhole crazy to label anyone who questions the outrageous claims and predictions of climate warmers as being deniers of science. That the idiots don’t get that, it’s why I pit them.
[Moderating]
I’ve merged FXMasterMind’s pit thread about global warming with this one. The OP from the other thread is now post number 370.
[/Moderating]
I’m asking whether, if there’s no warming – and possibly even some cooling? – over a given span of years, your predictions will be falsified regardless of what’s happening with long-wave radiation. What degree of warming do you predict, on what timetable?
Boy you are dense, this is one of the basic ones, and you only want to run away from it now. The nano second it is noticed that more long-wave radiation (heat) is leaving than arriving then one just need to confirm it and then it will be clear that whatever is happening we do not need to worry about this as it would be also likely that the following research will point to mechanisms that we were not aware of that could take care of the CO2 warming.
I have a question… In an earlier post (oops, can’t find it) GIGObuster said that “CAGW” is a “warning phrase” – a kind of “Feynman alert” – that indicates a bias or agenda.
I tried to find the phrase using Google, and only find “Citizens Against Government Waste.” What is CAGW in this context, and why is it a give-away?
(Honest question: I really know next to effing NOTHING about climate science. I’m barely able to use a thermometer; the use of the barometer so far wholly escapes me!)
(But…I really like GIGObuster. He blows the opposition away in debate technique! I want to be like him when I grow up!)
Trinopus (foolish, ignorant, and childlike…but trying to learn and grow)
No, what I want is the number first of all.
Then, he can clog the server with cites, but I don’t want a linky-linky answer so that he can run away saying “you didn’t read the the third paper hinted in fourth link found in the webpage of the lead researche’s common-law-wife written in Assyrian”.
See? Instead of the answer, a number, I get yet another list of reason why I’m dumb and deluded. I’m most assuredly am dumb and deluded, but still get no answer.
GB has given lots of cite here and in other threads, from proper AGW places. I’ve read some of them and have read tens of other from other people. I don’t want to know what other people who are not in this thread think, I want GB’s answer, his own answer, the asnwer he gives in somebody at work says “hey, GB, what’s the CO2-doublin’-temp increase, man”. I’m sure he doesn’t start writing the url for the pdf of the IPCC fourth assessment, he says “about 34.76”, that’s the number I want.
wevets, I promise that when we have a thread about 737s, I’ll give you straight answrs.
Nice trick ignoring yourself all the time-explains a lot actually.
And while we’re on the subject, it’s amazing when I see that some people don’t know when to quit (or even the meaning of the term)-they just all moved their ignorant asses on over here to this thread and continued carrying on like nothing has happened, and the irony is still completely lost on them. GIGO keeps handing them their figurative heads, and yet they keep asking for seconds. GIGO you need to setup a headhunter’s shop-you’d make millions selling to wizards and witch doctors and sorceresses and such-“Oh yes over here we have the Obsessive Ignorant AGW Denier’s section; when you squeeze their little heads, an aroma of stale moose manure is emitted.”
CAGW stands for “Catastrohpic Anthropogenic Global Warming.”
To my mind, the word “catastrophic” is probably a bit of an overstatement, but the point is that one needs to distinguish between mild warming and serious warming.
For example, global surface temperatures probably increased by about a degree over the last 100 years or so. However, this has not had serious negative effects.
See, it’s one thing to claim that increased levels of CO2 will cause global surface temperatures to rise a bit. It’s another thing entirely to claim that any such temperature increases will be significantly amplified through water vapor feedback and cause significant harm to humanity and/or the environment.
No, Gigo is doing his usual duck and dive. I like Gigo but on this subject he is less than objective. His standard method is to duck questions and label anyone who has any question a denier. Or link to other sites instead of making an actual argument.
It is bullshit, sloppy and if it the subject were different he’d be raked over the coals for it.
Science is about asking questions. Yet the standard procedure when it comes to climate change is to label anyone who does not accept it unquestioningly as a denier and pretend that the argument has been won. It is stupid and silly.
There are some rather smart folks who have issues with the science. Freeman Dyson comes to mind. I know some others who have worked with or looked deeply at the models (a couple LANL guys and some folks who did nuclear winter modeling back in the day) and they have not been impressed. This isn’t to say that the people are not working hard on this or that they are not smart. It is that it a huge undertaking.
There are three things you need to deal with when studying a subject: that which you know, that which you do not know and that which you do not know you do not know. Contrary to what Gigo says, from what I can tell there is a whole lot of things we do not know we do not know. For example, last year it was found that the solar wind is imparting energy to the atmoshpere in a totally unexpected way. No one expected the result. Obviously since no one knew about it, it could not be modeled. Now, it could be that this finding is trivial. Or not. The issue is that no one knew about it. How many other things are out there that we do not know but ought to?
Furthermore, from what I have looked at, some of the models suck. The leaked CRU code had some very big issues. It sucks. Do a quick google search and you can find critiques on it.
