Lol, of course you won’t provide any specifics or evidence to support your ridiculous predictions.
And of course you won’t even say what specifically will happen – just that there will be “fundamental change.”
Nice rationalization, though.
I see that Jeremy, The Nowhereman from Yellow submarine will never get a Ringo to take him somewhere.
In the end he and FX will end ignored where it counts like the “tobacco smoke does not cause cancer” FUD people.
Asking you to clearly state, or just link to, what you mean when you say AGW theory, AGW, or whatever it IS you keep spending countless hours typing about, that makes you sick? Once again, you did not just state what has clearly been on the table. Instead, you evade. You simply seem unable to answer a direct, easy to answer question.
of course that doesn’t even contain the word “theory”, much less state what is being discussed. It just repeats the same thing. Global warming, or climate change. It never states what you act like exists.
AGW theory. Or the theory of global warming. Like I said, it isn’t a theory. It’s a fact, and nobody can deny it.
If there actually was a theory, it would be child play to link to it, recite it, explain it, list the predictions, list the evidence for each, and explain the history of how the theory came about. There would be a way to confirm that the theory was sound, see the changes made to it, and we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
But, because you listen to a cult of pseudoscience, you believe things like
Which only a person trapped on a desert island wouldn’t know by now, is what is meant by “global warming”, climate change, AGW, global warming theory, disruptive climate change, freaky weather, or whatever name is used this year.
But it isn’t a theory.
Except when it is.
NASA gives global warming theory a boost
Read more at http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability/45575-nasa-gives-global-warming-theory-a-boost#63iCaUiMt8IWd86J.99
So now it’s a theory.
No, the media distorts things.
NASA Earth Observatory - Newsroom
Whoops, there it is.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features//Paleoclimatology/paleoclimatology_intro.php
Here’s where it gets truly sick.
Gigobuster, you spend endless hours writing on this forum. Take one minute and just answer the question.
Is there, or is there not,a theory of global warming?
Obviously if you agree with me, that there is not, then no more need be said.
if you say yes, what is the theory?
Simple, direct, to the point.
I’m taking bets folks. I bet he will simply not answer in any way that simple question. Nor explain anything.
Lol, good luck with that.
As I mentioned before, in any discussion of a scientific claim, hypothesis, prediction, or theory, it’s totally reasonable for skeptics to demand that the proponents set forth exactly what is being claimed, hypothesized, predicted or theorized.
(It is also reasonable for skeptics to ask for a summary of the evidence which supports the claim, hypothesis, prediction, or theory but I doubt you will even get beyond the threshold.)
The simple point for the pit is that you are a willful ignorant. And that is based on plenty of past history.
The real sick thing is that the basis for the FUD from you is coming from groups that just recently dedicated themselves to make people sick. The tobacco companies and their funded [del]Think tanks[/del] stink tanks.
Just like before, the FUD is concentrated on discrediting the scientists and the science, in this case the ignorant thing is to assume that there is only one theory, but like in the tobacco causes cancer case there are many lines of evidence to conclude that tobacco smoke causes cancer and heart disease.
In the case of Climate change there are basic early theories that have plenty of support, but they are not the only ones, for starters one has to look at the reasons behind the early item that caused scientists to change their tune that we should not worry about all our emissions.
Like in Evolution, there is indeed an early theory of natural selection by Darwin, but there are others that are used that use the framework from the early one, like Punctuated equilibrium.
And that is why you are a certified ignorant. The idiocy comes for not looking at the evidence and previous publications that were linked to many times in the past.
There are more theories now used for many subjects that support the warnings scientists are giving us regarding our use of the atmosphere as a sewer. But as usual, the first place to start a paradigm shift is to deal with the early theories. Do you have any evidence against them?
So, once again you avoid answering a simple question.
Nobody assumed “there is only one theory”, you were asked what you mean by “AGW theory”, or “the theory of global warming”. Or to provide a link to an explanation.
Instead you write “in this case the ignorant thing is to assume that there is only one theory”, which is what you said.
The question still remains. Is there such a thing as “AGW theory”, or as we read on the NASA pages, “the theory of global warming”? I said there is no theory of global warming. You called names. I asked you what you say.
You still are avoiding the simple question.
It’s pretty obvious.
You are even wrong on this one you willful ignorant.
As I said, you have to start with the basic one that was in bold. (maybe you are bold challenged 
) The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change, in the journal Tellus in 1956.
So, explain why Plass and the ones confirming his theory so far are wrong. **Or shut up **until you learn the basics.
Edited to add the early base theory un-bolded to help FX.
No there isn’t. Not one theory, anyway. There are multiple theories and warmists jump from theory to theory as it suits their convenience.
Typically when they want to claim that lots of scientists agree with them, then the theory of global warming is very watered down, e.g. it’s simply the claim that on average, global surface temperatures have increased over the last 50 years or so.
But when they are calling for major policy changes, the theory is that really bad things will happen with the climate unless western countries – especially the United States – limit CO2 emissions.
This vagueness also allows warmists to look, after the fact of course, at various weather an climate events and assert that those events confirm their theory.
Like the proverbial TV psychic, they are great at predicting things which have already happened.
This convenient jumping around is probably why warmists are so reluctant to spell out exactly what the global warming theory is.
So a theory is disproven if you can’t exactly predict the consequences Bee? Well, guess that trashes evolution completely.
Glad you’re willing to preach the controversy. Of course, it’s coming out rather muffled. Having your head up your ass might help explain the lack of cites or even an actual rationalization of your contrarian view.
It’s getting boring providing all the cites and having you go poo poo over them without any factual attempt at rebuttal cupcake ( Hint - Being an ass isn’t the same thing).
If you can’t add content maybe you could add variety by poo pooing over the round earth concept, or the crack pots who insist the earth is over 4,000 years old? Of course, you’ve already brilliantly dispatched evolution with your present argument so no need to cover old ground.
Maybe because there’s no “simple” answer buttmunch?
If you’re genuinely curious, there’s reams of material to read ( A lot of it touched on by the cites in this thread).
Happy in your ignorance? Cool, but it’d be much appreciated if you’d stop trying to share it. I have no definitive proof stupidity is contagious, but why take chances?
I’m quite aware of the assumptions used to program climate models. And rather than tar all with the same brush, I’ve found there is a wide range or disagreement among those who study climate, climate history and what is happening with our planet, as well as changes induced by human activities.
It’s the “global warming” crowd that makes me sick. As we see here, the typical alarmists asshat isn’t well educated, nor can they explain what they are basing their claims on, nor any way to confirm it they are using science to study it. The evasion of a simple issue, the meaning of a phrase (term, principle, axoim, hypothesis, theory, claim) they actually use over and over, illustrates the ignorance and hubris that tends to clog up any real discussion of earth science.
It’s like debating fog, or punching jello. There isn’t anything there.
Or, if there is some actual content, it’s just copied from somewhere, and there is no actual knowledge of what is being slapped into the response window.
It’s sickening. But, so is the real obfuscation and propaganda from the denial side, which is indeed very much like any corporate bullshit, in that in no way is their product a problem in any way. This also is true for those who clear cut forest, burn tropical jungles to plant palm oil or grow cattle for McDonalds, those who spill oil into the seas, spew pollution of all sorts, allow fertilizer run off to kill the seas, or build dangerous reactors and deny any harm when the blow the fuck up.
It all makes me sick.
You know in your heart it’s true.
Not necessarily, Chuckles. But at a minimum, the proponents of a theory need to set forth exactly what is being theorized.
Nice strawman, though.
Anyway, I take it you are declining to answer my rephrased questions from before?
I will ask one last time:
First, is it your position that the theory which is supported by at least 95% of either “the scientific community” or “climate scientists” is that
(1) The climate has warmed in recent decades; and
(2) Human activities have contributed adversely to global climate change.
?
Second, is it your position that the same theory says nothing about water vapor feedback?
Two very simple questions. But I doubt you will answer them. Instead, I expect more evasiveness, rationalization, strawmanning, etc.
That is typical of the illogical, even emotional response to scientific questions regarding “global warming”, strawman, red herrings, leading questions and insults.
It’s sick.
Of course there is. If you believe that the question is flawed, you simply point out that as an answer. The same is true for the reverse problem.
If I state “There is no theory of global warming, it is just a fact”, and I ask you if you agree, it’s also a simple question. You either answer, or explain why it’s a fallacy to state that.
This is no philosophical issue.
http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/blog/9024
Julia Cole, Professor Department of Geosciences, The University of Arizona
See? Is what she said true? Do you agree? Disagree?
It’s how a discussion works.
See? There was a simple answer to what seems to be a simple thing.
Of course, nobody has defined what is meant by what we are calling “It” in this case. Which is fucking hilarious.
Useless crap, so far what you have demonstrated is just projection, there is no evidence whatsoever to support everything of what you have claimed, and that is prime evidence so far to show all that you are the uneducated one. The only solution you have is to declare all scientists as involved in a conspiracy as you did before. So be content in your nowhere world as it will never affect the experts where it counts.
I already did, the hilarious thing is to see you showing the incredible feat of whistling by the graveyard of your mind.
Is there, or is there not,a theory of global warming?
Obviously if you agree with me, that there is not, then no more need be said.
if you say yes, what is the theory?
Simple, direct, to the point.
I’m taking bets folks. I bet he will simply not answer in any way that simple question. Nor explain anything.
Gigobusters answer?
Anyone with actual knowledge of climate science can answer my question in far less time than the Gigos of the world spend being an insulting fuckbag.
It’s why you can’t take them seriously. Seriously. They make real climate science look bad by pretending to be authorities. But when asked questions, they simply act like an asshole.
it’s hard not to make jokes at that point.
That’s dodging, evading and trying to muddy the waters.
If you don’t actually know, just say “I don’t know”. If you can’t link to single page on skepticalscience.com (which it is obvious you can’t), just admit it. There is no page on skepticalscience that explains what they mean by “AGW theory”, or “theory of global warming”.
You know this is true.