Sea level rise

@metal-brain said
Then why is the Artificial Phobos hypothesis still on Fred Singer's wikipedia page?

If you bothered to read it, that hypothesis is NOT presented as a scientific fact on that page. It is implicitly presented as an unproven hypothesis (not these exact words but clearly implied). Therefore there is no lie presented on the wikipedia page there. Your point?

@humy said
If you bothered to read it, that hypothesis is NOT presented as a scientific fact on that page. It is implicitly presented as an unproven hypothesis (not these exact words but clearly implied). Therefore there is no lie presented on the wikipedia page there. Your point?

Fred Singer NEVER proposed that! It is false info on a wikipedia page that has been there for years. It is complete BS and I proved that to you and sonhouse long ago.

Wikipedia is an unreliable source of info. That is a fact.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Br
skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

I discredited that website long ago. Why do you embrace false info so much? Don't you ever learn?

@metal-brain said
I discredited that website long ago.

No, you didn't.

@metal-brain said
Fred Singer NEVER proposed that!

Even if that were true, and you haven't convinced me that it is, its wouldn't be a scientific fact like relativity or data about climate etc they got wrong but rather what was someone else's claim they got wrong. Thus this wouldn't be an indicator relativity or data about climate etc is wrong as those things can be and are repeatedly verified via yet more measurements and experiments leaving no reasonable doubt.
The thing here you don't get is that the said scientific facts in a wikipedia page, as opposed to other types of fact such as what someone said etc, are regularly checked and rechecked via yet more measurements and experiments and thus, if they are wrong, the statement of them would generally be corrected or amended or in some cases removed and replaced.

@humy said
No, you didn't.

They relied on the consensus project for a false consensus. They made other false assertions as well. It is a hack website full of lies.

@humy said
Even if that were true, and you haven't convinced me that it is, its wouldn't be a scientific fact like relativity or data about climate etc they got wrong but rather what was someone else's claim they got wrong. Thus this wouldn't be an indicator relativity or data about climate etc is wrong as those things can be and are repeatedly verified via yet more measurements and experi ...[text shortened]... the statement of them would generally be corrected or amended or in some cases removed and replaced.

Rumors are not scientific fact. Singer wrote an article called "three easy steps to the moon" that proved you wrong. He said Phobos was likely a collection of asteroid rubble over time. He NEVER claimed it was hollow. The alien nonsense was not proposed by Singer at all. That was a fabrication by weirdo alarmists like you that can't be truthful.

Your effort to defend wikipedia is futile. You don't know when to give up. That is why you resort to lies. You are always choosing to defend losing arguments.

@metal-brain said
Rumors are not scientific fact.

Is evidence for relativity or data about climate that proves you wrong just "Rumors"?

@humy said
Is evidence for relativity or data about climate that proves you wrong just "Rumors"?

What evidence? Rumors and false assertions are not evidence.

@metal-brain said
Enough of the silly digressions. Sea level rise is not rising at an alarming rate.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL028492

There is no evidence man is the main cause of GW today.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

The biggest thing climate models got wrong 50 years ago was how much greenhouse gas emissions would increase....

We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observationally‐estimated forcings were taken into account.......This research should help resolve public confusion around the performance of past climate modeling efforts, and increases our confidence that models are accurately projecting global warming.

I'm not sure the last sentence is true.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

@wildgrass said
The biggest thing climate models got wrong 50 years ago was how much greenhouse gas emissions would increase....
[quote]We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observat ...[text shortened]... //www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

You don't need a climate model to predict global warming. We are in a warming trend that started from natural causes. Predicting the trend will continue is a pretty safe bet. Any moron can do that. How is that impressive?

Climate model predictions are inaccurate. If you consider merely predicting a warming trend will continue as success, then hooray for you for not predicting global cooling. Not that it is impressive. Going with the trend is a safe bet.

@humy said
Is evidence for relativity or data about climate that proves you wrong just "Rumors"?

Since you have not shown me any evidence of either they are so far just rumors that you are starting. I already proved GPS does not use GR. Rumors that GPS is evidence of GR are false. What else do you have?

@metal-brain said
I already proved GPS does not use GR.

No, you haven't. And I have proved the contrary, and here is just one out of many NONE-wiki links that does this:

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
"....
the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy.

Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly .... Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion.

Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.

The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time.

The engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects when they designed and deployed the system. For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, the onboard clocks were designed to "tick" at a slower frequency than ground reference clocks, so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at about the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations. Further, each GPS receiver has built into it a microcomputer that, in addition to performing the calculation of position using 3D trilateration, will also compute any additional special relativistic timing calculations required [3], using data provided by the satellites.

Relativity is not just some abstract mathematical theory: understanding it is absolutely essential for our global navigation system to work properly!
..."

Do you dispute any of the above said known facts? If so, which one and show your evidence that its wrong...

Here is more;
http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=55
And, this time from a wiki which you keep implying is all lies or at least mainly false, yet more;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Special_and_general_relativity

so, unless all the above are ALL just pure lies as part of an absurd world wide conspiracy by all scientists and satellite engineers involved in all GPS sats to fool as all into thinking they have to design GPS to take into account both SR and GR when in fact they don't, this proves your are wrong and all we science-experts are right about this.

@metal-brain said
We are in a warming trend that started from natural causes.

Where is the logical contradiction in a warming trend starting by natural causes but then later continuing because of man made causes?