I'm sick of this Global Warming!

[Fear_Itself]

The First Law of Thermodynamics states, “Climate change deniers who don’t understand science and are immune to empirical evidence should shut their pieholes.”

Oh, sorry, that is the First Law of Pieholes.

[brazil84]

@Fear_Itself

The First Law of Thermodynamics states, “Climate change deniers who don’t understand science and are immune to empirical evidence should shut their pieholes.”

Oh, sorry, that is the First Law of Pieholes.

Not sure what you mean by “climate change deniers,” but certainly people such as yourself who don’t understand the idea they believe in so fervently should shut up.

@Fear Itself

Where did you get that idea? There are lots of empirical data that would disprove global warming;

Please give me three specific examples.

Also, please let me know what you mean by “global warming” – is it simply the claim that global surface temperatures have been increasing? Or something more?

[andros]

First you say (with, of course, my emphasis):

@brazil84

people such as yourself…should shut up.

But then:

Please give me three specific examples.

Also, please let me know what you mean by “global warming” – is it simply the claim that global surface temperatures have been increasing? Or something more?

Make up your mind!

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

Has Brazil apologized yet for the blatant quotemine on page 57?

[watchwolf49]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Hmm, notice how your quote would imply that they seem uncertain on the issue, when in fact they are very clearly acting in line with the scientific consensus?

Consensus is philosophy. Since when are scientific theories voted on? It only seems a quagmire to you because you don’t understand scientific method. Brazil simply asks questions you do not answer.

[Subterraneanus]

Squab, anyone?

[brazil84]

@andros

First you say (with, of course, my emphasis):

But then:

Make up your mind!

Lol, if he admits ignorance and stops posting on matters which he does not understand, I will stop asking the question.

ETA:

Speaking of which, do you agree with the American Academy of Pediatrics’ assertion that “there remains uncertainty about how rapidly and extensively the climate will change in the future”?

Also, are you asserting that my claims are vague and/or ever-changing? If so, please provide 2 specific examples.

[Subterraneanus]

He’s asserting you’re a fucking idiot.

[brazil84]

@Subterraneanus

He’s asserting you’re a fucking idiot.

Lol, apparently “fucking idiot” = someone who politely asks people to define the vague terms they use and to back up their claims.

Sorry if scrutiny hurts your feelz.

[Subterraneanus]

You’re also a passive-aggressive twat.

[FXMastermind]

@brazil84

Lol, apparently “fucking idiot” = someone who politely asks people to define the vague terms they use and to back up their claims…

At least they didn’t call you a monkey with a stick. Or was it a typewriter? In any case, the way the roaches scatter from the light, avoid questions and science based discussions, it’s fucking ironic as hell.

Going back in time, when I pointed out the theory of Global warming (the CO2 theory) didn’t exist on the SS blog, or on Wikipedia, and that nobody claiming global warming was a current disaster seemed to be able to define it, or link to it …

@Whack-a-Mole

Really?

• http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

• https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

• Global Warming: United Nations Climate Report Proves Earth Is Suffering

The irony was as usual, lost on the victim. It must suck that even Wikipedia doesn’t define and explain the theory. It certainly sucks that SS doesn’t.

@Whack-a-Mole

There are mountains of evidence out there in support of AGW. There is a reason so many science organizations support the notion (see earlier links…pretty nearly all of them).

So, it goes something like this:

“We, the scientific community, are of the opinion that AGW is real based upon a metric crap-ton of evidence. We admit that we may find it is all caused by leprechauns in the future but till evidence for that is brought forward AGW is far and away the best explanation at hand.”

If FXMastermind can produce the leprechauns or any other solution apart from AGW he can expect a Nobel Prize and a $1 million reward and gloating rights forever

It cracks me up that people actually think there is all this money, and anyone who puts forth evidence that pokes holes in the CO2 theory will become rich. They don’t seem to realize how tight rich people are with money, and how it’s almost impossible to get a grant or funding from rich motherfuckers.

@AlienVessels

The nice thing about science is that it’s a pretty ruthless methodology. And scientists are trained to rip apart poor efforts.

And yet when this is applied to global warming theory, as well as the idiot claims made about AGW , it’s called something else completely. Or ignored. Or people get angry and nasty.

In the alarmists worldview, rich fossil fuel people are just happy to hand out money, and fund anyone who pokes holes in the idiocy that has taken over climate science. They actually believe that shit.

Of course they don’t need to back up their bullshit. When they make a claim it’s fucking gospel. But you ask them to simply define what they are claiming, and they do everything but.

Priceless. Just fucking priceless.

[watchwolf49]

@Subterraneanus

He’s asserting you’re a fucking idiot.

In the past ten months, you’ve only succeeded in putting two sentences together once. It’s like having “dial-an-insult” on speed-dial.

What is a “Watt per square meter”?

[brazil84]

@Subterraneanus

You’re also a passive-aggressive twat.

Lol, sorry that clear thinking hurts your feelz. I do enjoy the unintended self-irony of your latest insult though.

[FXMastermind]

@watchwolf49

What is a “Watt per square meter”?

They can’t answer because Wikipedia doesn’t have an article for that.

[FXMastermind]

In the case of using the term in regards to either the total or a change in solar energy reaching the surface or the lower troposphere, it is the SI term for the power incident on a surface. Or the radiant flux density.

Irradiance is the power of electromagnetic radiation per unit area (radiative flux) incident on a surface. Radiant emittance or radiant exitance is the power per unit area radiated by a surface.

Irradiance - Wikipedia

Some get it confused with “intensity”, which it is not.

[andros]

@brazil84

Lol, if he admits ignorance and stops posting on matters which he does not understand, I will stop asking the question.

ETA:

Speaking of which, do you agree with the American Academy of Pediatrics’ assertion that “there remains uncertainty about how rapidly and extensively the climate will change in the future”?

Also, are you asserting that my claims are vague and/or ever-changing? If so, please provide 2 specific examples.

To the first, don’t care. To the second, no, I have asserted nothing of the sort.

[FXMastermind]

There is strong consensus among expert scientists that Earth is undergoing rapid, global climate change,1,3 although there remains uncertainty about how rapidly and extensively the climate will change in the future. Overall scientific predictions agree, however, that temperatures and sea level will continue to rise throughout the 21st century.1,4 Even if GHG emissions were abruptly reduced to zero, the planet would continue to warm for decades until the energy stored in the system equilibrates.5 The possibility of reaching a tipping point at which abrupt, large, and irreversible change could be superimposed on current trends adds both urgency and further ambiguity to the situation.6 Current human activities are accelerating these changes, and future human activities will affect their trajectories; the window of opportunity for successful mitigation, therefore, may be very short.7 Actions made in the coming decade will have a profound effect on global health and, in particular, on children’s health.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/120/5/1149.full

[brazil84]

@andros

To the first, don’t care.

Ok, then let’s agree for the sake of argument that any climate changes due to mankind’s activities will be minimal in terms of rapidity and extensiveness, ok?

To the second, no, I have asserted nothing of the sort.

Well, you already said you agree with the following statement:

Which will be very easy to do given the vagueness and ever-changing nature of their claims

Whose claims?

[andros]

Why are you so defensive about this?

[brazil84]

@andros

Why are you so defensive about this?

Lol, nice try at changing the subject.

Please answer my questions (which I asked first):

1. Will you agree for the sake of argument that any climate changes due to mankind’s activities will be minimal in terms of rapidity and extensiveness?

2. Whose claims do you say are vague and ever-changing?

Once you have answered those questions, please quote me where you feel I have manifested a strong need to avoid criticism; explain why you prefer to have a meta-discussion; and then we can discuss it.