I'm sick of this Global Warming!

[FXMastermind]

@GIGObuster

As for the not a theory/theory it was pointed beofre that there are many lines of inquiry that is telling us that AGW is happening. Each one of them has a basic theory,

Obviously he didn’t read everything before writing that.

I can hardly wait until he gets to the good shit.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Obviously he didn’t read everything before writing that.

I can hardly wait until he gets to the good shit.

It was explained early, you still think it is very clever to teach grandpa to suck eggs.

You are still deluded into thinking that I was not aware of what the general points are. So, besides just repeating in many ways what I have an history of posting before, do you now want to deal with the lies you have posted so far?

[sylmar]

@FXMastermind

In several of those long ass science posts I did earlier, I laid out some of the current theory about what is happening with water vapor and albedo, and why the assumptions in the CO2 theory may be completely wrong.

Unlike the purely hypothetical assumptions used by the climate models and disastrous warming proponents, they are based on science.
It’s physics, bitch.

Daaaamn. Now I’m regretting poking fun at you guys. I think you’re really onto something here FX.

You , Brazzers and Aji need to pool resources and work up a paper and submit it HERE to get the full exposure this kind of ground breaking thought deserves. ( Make sure you include that last line, I’m sure that’ll be a huge selling point.)

Usually peer review is pretty drawn out and exhaustive, but once they get a look at your revolutionary stuff, I’m sure they’ll fast track it.

And we’ll be left here softly sighing," We knew them when…"

[GIGObuster]

@sylmar

Daaaamn. Now I’m regretting poking fun at you guys. I think you’re really onto something here FX.

You , Brazzers and Aji need to pool resources and work up a paper and submit it here to get the full exposure this kind of ground breaking thought deserves. ( Make sure you include that last line, I’m sure that’ll be a huge selling point.)

Usually peer review is pretty drawn out and exhaustive, but once they get a look at your revolutionary stuff, I’m sure they’ll fast track it.

And we’ll be left here softly sighing," We knew them when…"

I will hold my breath for that day.

Yeah, not likely that their dizzying intellect will be used for good, they are happy to just remain blogessors that can deny even what the NAS reports.

[YogSothoth]

@sylmar

Dunno YogSosoth. Sure you can point to the 97% to 98% of the people who study climatology for their livlihood agreeing the worlds warming and man’s activities are responsible.

But there’s four slapdicks here with the impressive credential of being interwebz posters who are telling us it just ain’t so. I find the slapdicks convincing even if they can’t present an argument in a coherent, consistent, non-contradictory manner.

I’m torn.

I like the visual I get when I see the word “slapdicks” I’m not gay though, not that there’s anything wrong with that

@FXMastermind

It’s a goddamn religion. A crazy ass one to boot.

A religion’s based on faith. Global warming is scientific fact, you can go out and rediscover the evidence yourself, that is, if you weren’t such a bumbling moron

@FXMastermind

Even if you want to avoid calling a theory (who knows why?) you can call it CO2 based warming. You can easily explain or link to) what this means, how it works, what will happen, why it’s a serious issue.

I have no problems with calling it a theory just like evolution is a “theory”. Its a theory because in science, we may not know 100% of the mechanics of how something works, but it doesn’t change the overall fact that it does work with a fairly predictably factual mechanism. Not knowing how every single molecule is supposed to go makes it a theory, but it is essentially fact.

Then again, you’re the type of person who looks at a semantic wrestling match like that and thinks its the real debate, that if you can catch someone, somewhere accidentally calling it a “theory”, then you’ve found your smoking gun and the entire thing topples onto itself.

@FXMastermind

But instead we see endless boring posts concentrating on insults and claims you already did everything.

Well insults are all you understand and I feel sorry for stupid people, so I try to talk down to them at their level

@FXMastermind

Priceless.

How many times have you used “Priceless” as a punchline? Are you poor? Do you need some money? Don’t worry, I’m sure you can just ride the waves of the floods caused by global warming home to your climate-proof shack

@FXMastermind

If I was trying to tear your religion apart, I don’t need to actually write anything to make you look bad. You got it covered.

That’s good because Zoroastrianism says global warming is real and I don’t know what I would do without the comfort of the swamis

@FXMastermind

The physics of CO2 based warming theory are simple, the signatures to tell it’s happening are simple to explain, and the evidence for each signal are easy to come by.

So why don’t you explain it then? If its simple, its right up your (flooded) alley!

[FXMastermind]

@GIGObuster

So, so much for the simplification method, in the real complex world the pedantic reason why there is no single theory is just like the “tobacco causes cancer and other diseases”, there are many lines of research that showed how deadly it was, not a single one.

Complete nonsense. The sort of thing some blogger would just make up. Let’s take a look at the mind set of such a blogger.

There is some implication that there is an “AGW theory” and that there is an argument in its support, and that said argument is a cohesive thread starting with Fourier and ending at the dreaded-extremist-boogeyman-Gore —

I claim **there is no “AGW theory” **in the sense that there is an argument that four colors suffice, or more fairly, that stars follow an evolutionary path based on their mass. AGW is not an organizing principle of climate theory at all.

The Falsifiability Question

What the fuck man? Seriously? Let’s look further.

It’s not a theory, it’s a consequence of the theory.

The Falsifiability Question

Well there you go then. It’s not a theory, it’s a consequence. Of a theory.

So attacks on climate change as if it were a “theory” make very little sense. Greenhouse gas accumulation is a fact. Radiative properties of greenhouse gases are factual.

Only In It For The Gold: The Falsifiability Question

OMG! Exactly what I stated early on in this very thread!!!

@FXMastermind

It’s not a theory. It’s a fact.

What did Gigigalloper say about this?

@GIGObuster

Like Evolution AGW is a valid theory that also has facts on its side.

So now we have Gigogalloper posting links to blogs that support what I said, and against what he is claiming.

Or something. He is so all over the place, (gish gallop) you really can’t tell what he actually believes, unless it’s his belief in how smart he is.

And I thought this thread couldn’t get any better.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Complete nonsense. The sort of thing some blogger would just make up. Let’s take a look at the mind set of such a blogger.

Good to know that your dizzying intellect is working.

BTW you do know what dizzying means?

Anyhow that was not just a blogger you numnuts. But I knew you would fell for your juvenile dismissals.

And you are still thinking that you are making a great point while teaching the same of what was explained many times before here and in other threads.

[FXMastermind]

@FXMastermind

It’s not a theory. It’s a fact.

@YogSosoth

Global warming is scientific fact,

@YogSosoth

I have no problems with calling it a theory just like evolution is a “theory”.

It used to be I had to quote two posts to get to that level of comedy gold.

Now it’s all in the same post!

Don’t ever stop being you.

[GIGObuster]

@GIGObuster

Like Evolution AGW is a valid theory that also has facts on its side.

@FXMastermind

So now we have Gigogalloper posting links to blogs that support what I said, and against what he is claiming.

Or something. He is so all over the place, (gish gallop) you really can’t tell what he actually believes, unless it’s his belief in how smart he is.

And I thought this thread couldn’t get any better.

News flash, Evolution is also not a single theory, it is based on many lines of evidence and there are even a few variations. We already established that in popular or more simple settings for more simple minds like yours it is appropriate to call it that.

[FXMastermind]

@GIGObuster

Nope, everyone can see that you do not have an alternative of what clearly is the case, the National Academy of Sciences is talking about only one theory, and it is AGW.

@GIGObuster

Many already did figure out that his opinion is not the only one that counts in the universe, because of that and many other reasons.

@GIGObuster

that Plass is recognized as the father of the modern global warming theory

We really need you to come up with your view, and stick to it. It’s just crazy ass gigo galloping at this point.

@GIGObuster

Anyhow that was not just a blogger you numnuts.

That has nothing to do with your waffling over what you think things are called, what they mean, what you are even talking about.

But, on the other hand, your continued and degenerating tap dance around simple terms is sort of amusing.

Continue.

[sylmar]

Published yet FX?

Jesus! You’re still posting here? Focus man. Brazz and Aj are probably already slaving away and your still here preaching to the unworthy.

I’m heading out to a wedding this weekend, but I’ll keep monitoring Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology for the Brazzer, Aj and FX paradigm shattering opus…

And remember," It’s physics bitches!"

[FXMastermind]

The expectation of AGW does not organize this work. It emerges from this work. It’s not a theory, it’s a consequence of the theory.

Only In It For The Gold: The Falsifiability Question

I think he doesn’t realize what a tautology is.

But hell, a 5 year old blog post counts as peer reviewed data to old Gigogalloper.

I’d like to address the “falsifiability question”, i.e., what evidence would it take to shake me of my firm “belief” in AGW.

There is some implication that there is an “AGW theory” and that there is an argument in its support

– Michael Tobis

Well goddamn Michael Tobis, why didn’t you say that earlier? That saves us all a lot of trouble. AGW ain’t a theory, so nothing can shake your faith in it.

Might as well close this here thread down. A goddamn blogger said it, case closed.

Why are we even posting?

Hell, skepticalscience should get on that right away.

Cause here we read

Sometimes people ask “what would it take to falsify the man-made global warming theory?”.

The Big Picture
And here we see once again skepticalscience claiming

There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

The 97% consensus on global warming

What a conundrum.

[FXMastermind]

@sylmar

Jesus! You’re still posting here?

There is no Jesus.
Sorry to make you cry.

[FXMastermind]

@FXMastermind

What’s worse, is that while there has no doubt been warming, the type of warming does not match what the computer models predicted. Nor has the climate change happened as the consensus declared it would.

By “worse” I mean both for impacts on our planet, and of course worse for the alarmists who now are starting to realize how wrong they have been.

Haha not really, they will never ever ever admit they were wrong about anything.

But damn it must suck to be an alarmists right now. Of course I can tell they are hoping, really hoping for at least one hurricane to hit the US this year. And they really really want it to be a bad one so they can go “See? See? Global warming bitches! We told you it was going to make things bad”.

Which is sort of fucked up. Hoping for some horrific disaster just so you can say “I told you so”.

It makes me sick.

[Subterraneanus]

You’re an idiot, FX.

[FXMastermind]

@GIGObuster

News flash, Evolution is also not a single theory, it is based on many lines of evidence and there are even a few variations.

And that is easy to show.

Evolution

Both in the article, as well as the bibliography/sources, there is a clear mention of all the different theories involved, as well as several “theories of evolution” clearly stated.

But you go to “global warming theory” or “global warming” and there isn’t a single theory mentioned.

Climate change

In fact, the word theory occurs exactly one time.

The same poll found that 20% of Americans, 20% of Britons and 14% of Canadians think "global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven.

There is no mention of theory anywhere else. Not in the bibliography/sources, not in the article.

Check for yourself.

Startling when you think about it.

You can go to the Greenhouse effect article, and see it has not even one mention of “theory” in the entire article. Not one time will you find theory used.

Priceless.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

But, on the other hand, your continued and degenerating tap dance around simple terms is sort of amusing.

Continue.

Actually, as others reported you are an idiot, nowhere I do say that I’m unhappy with the definition you use or mine, the problem is your lies about the evidence that support whatever way you want to call the theory or their parts. And the dumb dismissal you did of what the NSA, Scientific American and other researchers report.

[GIGObuster]

And, regarding your once again stupid point about theory or not, the explanation from Michael Tobis, Research Scientist Associate at the University of Texas Institute for Geophysics (the same one that you stupidly called just “a blogger” is a good one on why you do not see an specific theory, once again AGW and global warming is the result of several theories and lines of evidence.

[FXMastermind]

As hard as it is to believe, Wikipedia simply has no information on AGW theory, global warming theory, or the theory of global warming.

Nothing.

You might think there would be some arguments over this on the contentious Global Warming Controversy article.

Right?

Guess how many times the word theory appears in that article.

Twice. But only once in regards to global warming theory

A number of global warming skeptics, such as the following, assert that grant money is given preferentially to supporters of global warming theory.

You couldn’t make this up if you tried.

[GIGObuster]

You are right, I could not make you more stupid if I tried.