S
Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter
- Thread starter Moviefan-2
- Start date
- Status
Too bad its not very accurate, Sophie.
More CO2 = more acid rain, more extreme weather and other issues.
The benefits of more CO2 only hold for a short time then you're back into finding more fertilizer to support higher growth rate for instance, or else you're back where you started.
Nice comic, but it really isn't nearly as funny as this one.
More CO2 = more acid rain, more extreme weather and other issues.
The benefits of more CO2 only hold for a short time then you're back into finding more fertilizer to support higher growth rate for instance, or else you're back where you started.
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production/
Nice comic, but it really isn't nearly as funny as this one.
S
**Sophie**
hmm maybe we should poll this one. Who's cartoon is better see if we can come up with a consensusNice comic, but it really isn't nearly as funny as this one.
That would be fun lolMight be.
There's only a handful of you crackpots
You, moviefan, FAST, bishop, jcpro and a couple of others.
That's some team you make.
By the way, your team is really being outscored today.
Even your comic isn't doing so well....
YOur cartoon is way better then frank..hmm maybe we should poll this one. Who's cartoon is better see if we can come up with a consensus
MY video is way better then all the cartoon..lol..
Climate warming chart torn apart..lol
Climate warming chart absoutely torn apart.. This video show how they trick & lied & misled you . You can see what they did to the global warming chart!!
Pat&Stu took this graph from Obama's Science Adviser, Dr. Holdren, and completely blew it to pieces!
Wow,...you really should seek help,...or become a man,...maybe both.
This is really telling,..."everyone who works for a government department has to have the same view as the government",...the "government does NOT have an opinion,...the department that is funded by the government states its opinion,...and since that supposedly is were the "expertise" is,...the government accepts it blindly as policy.
You got it ass backwards,...as usual.
And I know Fat Al is your hero,...but why did you bring that jerk into this,...I sure as hell didn't,...just makes you look rather,...whats you favorite word,...oh ya,...STUPID
If you need more help,...please let me know.
FAST
One is funny. Then there's yours.hmm maybe we should poll this one. Who's cartoon is better see if we can come up with a consensus
SOphie came up to the plate and just hit a grand slammed ..lol..
Frank & fuji just lost.. Game over!
Climate warming chart torn apart..lol
Climate warming chart absoutely torn apart.. This video show how they trick & lied & misled you . You can see what they did to the global warming chart!!
Pat&Stu took this graph from Obama's Science Adviser, Dr. Holdren, and completely blew it to pieces!
S
**Sophie**
You can say whatever you like, no matter how stupid the statement, no one will stop you.
You've been utterly refuted here, the only question is what you will do next: deny and run, play dumb, or acknowledge the facts and update you views based on the new information.
Let me explain to you what has happened in super simple terms:
We have a theoretical model that says greenhouse gases will create a warming effect by downwelling energy. The theory is based on some fundamental physics about how different types of matter interact with different types of radiation. The theory predicts that a certain level of energy will be reflected back to the surface, and wind up warming the surface.
That theory applies everywhere on earth where there's an atmosphere. Which is everywhere.
Climate change deniers have been claiming the theory is just a theory, only a computer model, trying to deny it by pretending that calling something a model means you can somehow just ignore it. Yes, climate change deniers are just that stupid. They really said this stupid thing.
So some scientists went out and pointed some precision instruments at the sky and set about measuring the radiation downwelling from the sky. To prove that what they observed was being reflected back by greenhouse gas they used mass spectrometry to check out what was in the atmosphere. That meant they could compare the exact composition of the gases overhead to the exact amount of energy downwelling from the sky: direct observation of the model prediction.
And guess what? They saw exactly the amount of energy downwelling from the sky that the model said they should see. Exactly. And then they measured what kind of warming effect it was having, and found it warmed up the surface just exactly as much as the model said it should.
That's an experiment that empirically confirmed a prediction.
So take your silly Luddite "but they only saw it at two locations" and post it everywhere you like: it makes you look dishonest, desperate, and somewhat funny in a sad sort of way.
Really, you are going to hurt your credibility trying to argue against Nature.
They literally proved wrong everything you have been saying.
Maybe you got comfortable arguing with Frankfooter, and you somehow thought that you were having a real debate by endlessly disagreeing whether the anomaly measured was plus or minus whatever. Maybe you thought that meant you had a valid position. It at least a chance at being right.
You don't. You were just arguing with a lightweight. Any real look at the science with any real understanding of the method blows your bullshit away.
The 66% is arrived at by adding up different responses.
Similarly, the responses that are aligned with my views add up to about 25%, not 11%. Not an insignificant number.
But the size of one vote vs the other doesn't matter. Scientific questions aren't resolved by holding a vote. That's not how science works.
Cook and the others weren't surveys. They were analyses of papers done by people with a confirmed bias.
And if you look at the total results, they didn't get anywhere near 97%, either.
No, I think we should ignore the survey because it never asked respondents for their views on anthropogenic climate change. I have no idea why you keep evading that point.
(BTW, the 79 responses weren't the only ones who published in the field.)
The "97% consensus" claim is total bullshit.
Fuji:
You've got so much manure in your post, it's hardly worth addressing. But I'll tackle a few of your biggest whoppers.
The "deniers" don't dispute the greenhouse effect. What is in dispute is whether its impact is significant enough to be a concern.
The facts haven't changed. When you look at the temperature trends since the Little Ice Age, nothing unusual has occurred in recent times. There is no evidence of any unusual phenomenon that requires explaining. The researchers who claimed that alarming things were occurring made predictions that have been consistently and spectacularly wrong.
Indeed, that's why the predictions keep changing and have been dramatically reduced.
The research paper that reports to confirm the greenhouse effect only spoke to that. It said nothing about the accuracy of numerical temperature predictions.
Finally, let's revisit your analogy about the house. You spoke about the uncertainties. But one of the key uncertainties is how much of a warming influence is really due to man-made emissions.
Here's a different take on your analogy:
Temperatures have dropped in your house. It's really cold. So you try to warm things up by lighting a match.
As a matter of science, no one will argue with you that the match will give off some heat. That's a scientific fact. But many of us will question your belief that one lit match will warm up an entire house.
Obviously, a lit match is different than a furnace.
That's the debate, using your analogy. One of the total unknowns is how much anthropogenic heat are we talking about. Based on the evidence, it appears to be very little -- more of a lit match than a furnace -- and not enough to worry about.
You've got so much manure in your post, it's hardly worth addressing. But I'll tackle a few of your biggest whoppers.
The "deniers" don't dispute the greenhouse effect. What is in dispute is whether its impact is significant enough to be a concern.
The facts haven't changed. When you look at the temperature trends since the Little Ice Age, nothing unusual has occurred in recent times. There is no evidence of any unusual phenomenon that requires explaining. The researchers who claimed that alarming things were occurring made predictions that have been consistently and spectacularly wrong.
Indeed, that's why the predictions keep changing and have been dramatically reduced.
The research paper that reports to confirm the greenhouse effect only spoke to that. It said nothing about the accuracy of numerical temperature predictions.
Finally, let's revisit your analogy about the house. You spoke about the uncertainties. But one of the key uncertainties is how much of a warming influence is really due to man-made emissions.
Here's a different take on your analogy:
Temperatures have dropped in your house. It's really cold. So you try to warm things up by lighting a match.
As a matter of science, no one will argue with you that the match will give off some heat. That's a scientific fact. But many of us will question your belief that one lit match will warm up an entire house.
Obviously, a lit match is different than a furnace.
That's the debate, using your analogy. One of the total unknowns is how much anthropogenic heat are we talking about. Based on the evidence, it appears to be very little -- more of a lit match than a furnace -- and not enough to worry about.
I'm trying to parse your views, fool, those aren't my ideas.
You are the one who is trying to claim that scientists who work for a government all are paid to have the same opinion, or at least that's what I think you are trying to say.
Your punctuation and grammar are so bad that its really hard to tell if you have a point there at all.
But if you agree those claims are wrong, then we'll confirm that you have no arguments against the consensus and move on from there.
Agreed?
The score is still:
7 legit studies from the side backing science
0 from the troll team
Your troll opinion is worth nothing in this argument.
If you are a believer in science and evidence, as you claim, bring it.
This coming from the guy who thinks it's a valid argument to point out high residuals. Given your fundamental ignorance you are in no place to make this claim.
Maybe in your confusion you meant magnitude rather than significance. In either case the study proved with a high degree of significance that it has the expected magnitude.
In the rest of your post you went back to your asinine, completely invalid, innumerate and ignorant argument about residuals.
You are going to have to deal with the fact that the Nature study was hard science that directly proved AGW.
It's not up for debate, we're just waiting to see how long you dance.
Do you realize that the chart they are talking about is a chart on mid-atmospheric temperatures?
Its really only useful in this argument if you live in the clouds and want to know what the weather outside your door is.
We are talking surface temperature here, for those of us who live on the planet.
- Status
