17 Mar 15
11 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhat you call "junk science" is real science not made to mislead people.
I love science and always have. I don't like junk science meant to mislead people. You don't seem to be able to see the difference.
So, actually, you do poo poo science.
Very basic physics says CO2 should cause warming. The equations of physics + the statistics and data shows man made global warming should be significant enough to cause much more extreme weather events of the kind that will result in millions more lives being lost and so far you have given us no evidence nor credible sources of information to the contrary.
Before you moronically ask me for my sources of info yet again: My sources are from the university physics courses I did for basic physics explains it all just fine. If you really want to see my sources, you will just have to take a physics degree yourself (obviously, you won't be doing that ). Short of that, just ask the physics experts here, who, despite your high opinion of yourself, know vastly more about the physics than you do, or you will just have to google for the relevant info yourself -I won't do it for you.
But it is clear you won't ever do this because it is obvious that you have no interest in science where and when it contradicts your beliefs.
18 Mar 15
Originally posted by humy"Very basic physics says CO2 should cause warming."
What you call "junk science" is real science not made to mislead people.
So, actually, you do poo poo science.
Very basic physics says CO2 should cause warming. The equations of physics + the statistics and data shows man made global warming should be significant enough to cause much more extreme weather events of the kind that will result in millions more l ...[text shortened]... e it is obvious that you have no interest in science where and when it contradicts your beliefs.
It is interesting that you used the word "should". All the climate models indicated that it "should" have warmed more than it did during the pause. After that failure they tweaked the climate models again. We are supposed to think they got it right this time. I'm sure they will fail again.
Dr. Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist. Does that mean you respect his opinion more than a non physicist? Clearly not, so why do you keep bringing up physics? Are you just one of those guys that wears it like a badge or something? Do you like to fool yourself into thinking your opinion matters more than anyone that is not a physicist only to reject the opinion of physicists that don't follow the status qou?
"you have no interest in science where and when it contradicts your beliefs."
That applies to you, not me. You think science is determined by the news media. The news media says that that vast majority of climate scientists say global warming is real. I agree with that too. Then along comes a guy like you and you become convinced that means the vast majority of climate scientists think GW will cause millions (and recently you said billions) of people to die as a result of climate change. The vast majority of climate scientist DO NOT believe that. You and a lot of other people just fooled yourself into thinking that is the case. Science really is not on your side in this particular case. You are the one who is perverting science to fit your extreme views.
http://heartland.org/s-fred-singer
18 Mar 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainI sincerely hope you are correct.
"Very basic physics says CO2 should cause warming."
It is interesting that you used the word "should". All the climate models indicated that it "should" have warmed more than it did during the pause. After that failure they tweaked the climate models again. We are supposed to think they got it right this time. I'm sure they will fail again.
Dr. Sin ...[text shortened]... e one who is perverting science to fit your extreme views.
http://heartland.org/s-fred-singer
23 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonhouseDo you think I deny ice ages? How could anybody deny climate change unless they are idiots? It is amazing that some people don't know the difference between climate change and anthropogenic (man made) climate change.
So what are you? You don't deny climate change? Or is it you don't think mankind's use of fossil fuels is at fault?
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic
23 Mar 15
4 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainWOW that is an incredibly stupid obtuse comment even for you!
Do you think I deny ice ages?
Lets rephrase the question to make you comprehend the obvious intended meaning:
Do you deny RECENT/CURRENT climate change?
It is amazing that some people don't know the difference between climate change and anthropogenic (man made) climate change.
Nope. We obviously all know the difference just fine. STOP BEING OBTUSE.
You are a moron.
23 Mar 15
Originally posted by humy"Do you deny RECENT/CURRENT climate change?"
WOW that is an incredibly stupid obtuse comment even for you!
Lets rephrase the question to make you comprehend the obvious intended meaning:
Do you deny RECENT/CURRENT climate change?
It is amazing that some people don't know the difference between climate change and anthropogenic (man made) climate change.
Nope. We obviously all know the difference just fine. STOP BEING OBTUSE.
You are a moron.
No. Climate changes all the time. Hey Captain Obvious, do you even realize you are the one being a moron? You cannot even ask a specific question. Furthermore, you still use terms like "climate denier" which is an incredibly stupid term in any context. Do you expect people to deny there is a climate? 🙄
23 Mar 15
Originally posted by FabianFnasI'll stop saying the slowdown in warming is a pause when they stop making inaccurate statements of their own. They know full well I have never denied climate change because climate change is natural. That is what I meant when I said I don't deny the ice age. Only a stupid person would suggest anybody denies climate change when it is so obvious climate has always changed. Anybody who uses the term carelessly knowing that they really mean "man made climate change" and are simply too lazy to be specific have no right to nit pick when others do something similar. I know the term "pause in warming" is inaccurate every single time I use it, but I will continue to do so out of laziness as long as they keep using inaccurate terms. They have been doing that for a very long time and every time I corrected them they kept right on doing it. I'm just giving them a taste of their own medicine and it drives them nuts. They love double standards as long as they are doing it, but they hate it when somebody does the same to them. I'll stop when they stop. Until then I will keep doing my best to make them feel like stupid hypocrites because that is exactly what they are.
I usually say that the one using name calling and personal attacks is the one whose arguments has run out.
If I were to declare a winner in this very debate, I would certainly say - noone.
Anthropogenic. It is not hard to copy and paste. Man made doesn't take much effort to write. If they insist on writing like idiots I will treat them like they are idiots. For the record, I rarely insult first. Humy, Sonhouse and Googlefudge have all insulted me before I insulted them. I'm just retaliating when I insult them. If you had been following more closely you would know that.
24 Mar 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainSo what is the evidence YOU see that supports the view that mankind is too insignificant to have any effect on climate change?
I'll stop saying the slowdown in warming is a pause when they stop making inaccurate statements of their own. They know full well I have never denied climate change because climate change is natural. That is what I meant when I said I don't deny the ice age. Only a stupid person would suggest anybody denies climate change when it is so obvious climate ha ...[text shortened]... just retaliating when I insult them. If you had been following more closely you would know that.
24 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonhouseI never said that. All I have ever doubted is the assertion that man is the PRIMARY cause of global warming. I have never ruled out man as a factor. The truth is NOBODY knows how much of the global warming is caused by man. Some people claim they do but never have any proof of their assertions. Those are the quacks that get funding while the competent climate scientists do not because they are not funding prostitutes.
So what is the evidence YOU see that supports the view that mankind is too insignificant to have any effect on climate change?
24 Mar 15
7 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brain
The truth is NOBODY knows how much of the global warming is caused by man.
The truth is NOBODY knows how much of the global warming is caused by man.
wrong, scientists, that know vastly more about it than you and, unlike you, have for many years intensively studied the actual data and know how to use the equations of physics, can give a good enough estimate of how much of a global warming trend is man made and about how much is natural -good enough estimate to show that, even within a large margin of error, man is the cause of enough (and even just ~10% would be enough here ) of the warming trend to potentially eventually result in the extra deaths of million of people from extreme weather events.
Some people claim they do but never have any proof of their assertions.
wrong, there is good evidence and some links we have given you show it.
Those are the quacks that get funding
So you dismiss the vast majority of climate scientists that claim there is significant man made global warming as “quacks” just because you don't like what their research shows.
while the competent climate scientists do not because they are not funding prostitutes.
Even for you, that is an incredibly stupid statement. So I see you resort to incredibly stupid insults to scientists, that know a lot more than you or I and are certainly much more intelligent than you, that show you are wrong -I take it then you have no argument or counter evidence hence just the moronic pure insults.
24 Mar 15
Originally posted by humy"wrong, there is good evidence and some links we have given you show it."The truth is NOBODY knows how much of the global warming is caused by man.
wrong, scientists, that know vastly more about it than you and, unlike you, have for many years intensively studied the actual data and know how to use the equations of physics, can give a good enough estimate of how much of a global warming trend is man made and ab ...[text shortened]... ng -I take it then you have no argument or counter evidence hence just the moronic pure insults.
No, there was no evidence in the links you provided. At least one (if not all of them) was based on climate models which I have already shown have not predicted anything accurately. FAIL!