Anthropogenic global warming myth

Originally posted by wildgrass
Ha ha funny joke. Or you are responding (again) without reading my post?

In case of the latter, I will repeat myself again. Your alternative explanation for accelerating glacial melt, other than anthropogenic global warming, cannot be "the models are wrong" because the models in the study we were discussing (Marzeion et al. Science 2014) matched actual ...[text shortened]... e NOT wrong. What other scientific explanation do you have for why glacial melt is accelerating?

If it was that easy there would be no need for a model in the first place. 🙄

Originally posted by Metal Brain
If it was that easy there would be no need for a model in the first place. 🙄

Wow, you really nailed him that time, didn't you.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
If it was that easy there would be no need for a model in the first place. 🙄

Let me fix that for you: "If you don't care about the underlying causes, there would be no need for a model in the first place."

Again reposting the unanswered questions: What scientific explanation do you have for acceleration of glacial melt?

Is there any conceivable example of evidence that would convince you that global warming was primarily anthropogenic?

Here's what I usually do. Step 1 - Think about the question. Step 2 - Contemplate a response. Step 3 - Answer the question.

Originally posted by wildgrass
Let me fix that for you: "If you don't care about the underlying causes, there would be no need for a model in the first place."

Again reposting the unanswered questions: What scientific explanation do you have for acceleration of glacial melt?

Is there any conceivable example of evidence that would convince you that global warming was primarily anth ...[text shortened]... tep 1 - Think about the question. Step 2 - Contemplate a response. Step 3 - Answer the question.

You are in denial of the obvious. If the glacial melt records were all accurate there would be no need for climate models to be used. They use them to estimate the records that do NOT exist or are very inaccurate due to poor record keeping.

You have put faith into mere guesswork driven by bias by unprofessional scientists. They are no more unbiased than Samuel George Morton. Not surprisingly they got the results they were looking for.

You either have very poor critical thinking skills or you are engaged in a sad display of "Group Think". Science is about facts, not biased opinions.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You are in denial of the obvious. If the glacial melt records were all accurate there would be no need for climate models to be used. They use them to estimate the records that do NOT exist or are very inaccurate due to poor record keeping.

You have put faith into mere guesswork driven by bias by unprofessional scientists. They are no more unbiased th ...[text shortened]... you are engaged in a sad display of "Group Think". Science is about facts, not biased opinions.

Maybe, but at least I know what question marks look like.

YouTube

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/#476930c85909

Originally posted by Metal Brain
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/#476930c85909

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_mark

Originally posted by wildgrass
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_mark

Seriously? After you ignoring so many of my questions like "what is your source of information" as well as many others you resort to hypocrisy?
If you want someone to answer your questions try answering theirs first. 🙄

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Seriously? After you ignoring so many of my questions like "what is your source of information" as well as many others you resort to hypocrisy?
If you want someone to answer your questions try answering theirs first. 🙄

and yet you never give a straight answer to many of our questions, hypocrite.
Like, what evidence would convince you that there exists significant amount of man made global warming?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Seriously? After you ignoring so many of my questions like "what is your source of information" as well as many others you resort to hypocrisy?
If you want someone to answer your questions try answering theirs first. 🙄

Your question is: What is my source of information? Where did you think I ignored your question? I would like a specific example. There are lots of research studies that attack this question from many different angles, and I'm always willing to dig up source info. Let's ask specific questions, please.

Conversely, it is pretty obvious the questions you are ducking. You're staking your claim on a pseudoscientific position that cannot be proven false. You've inadvertently admitted that, in your mind, no evidence could ever exist that could prove that anthropogenic global warming was significant and actionable.

Did I get that right?

Originally posted by humy
and yet you never give a straight answer to many of our questions, hypocrite.
Like, what evidence would convince you that there exists significant amount of man made global warming?

I'll know when I see it. So far all I have seen is biased nonsense.

Originally posted by wildgrass
Your question is: What is my source of information? Where did you think I ignored your question? I would like a specific example. There are lots of research studies that attack this question from many different angles, and I'm always willing to dig up source info. Let's ask specific questions, please.

Conversely, it is pretty obvious the questions you a ...[text shortened]... prove that anthropogenic global warming was significant and actionable.

Did I get that right?

I'm still waiting for you to present the data you keep evading.

I pointed out before that you replied to an older post instead of the most recent one to evade my questions.

"You've inadvertently admitted that, in your mind, no evidence could ever exist that could prove that anthropogenic global warming was significant and actionable."

Bullcrap! More false assertions on your part. Try being honest next time.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I'll know when I see it. ....

This is in response to my post of;

"...and yet you never give a straight answer to many of our questions, hypocrite.
Like, what evidence would convince you that there exists significant amount of man made global warming?..."

OBVIOUSLY, your response of "I'll know when I see it" doesn't answer the question because it doesn't say what that "..it" is i.e. what evidence would convince you. And you fool NOBODY for pretending it answers the question.
Obviously, your non-answer confirms exactly what I and others said; you never give a straight answer to many of our questions, hypocrite.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I'm still waiting for you to present the data you keep evading.

I pointed out before that you replied to an older post instead of the most recent one to evade my questions.

"You've inadvertently admitted that, in your mind, no evidence could ever exist that could prove that anthropogenic global warming was significant and actionable."

Bullcrap! More false assertions on your part. Try being honest next time.

Questions are a type of sentence structure designed to prompt an answer. I don't see any such sentences in any of your recent posts except: "Seriously?"

My answer, to that, is yes.

In response your "false assertions" accusation, I can only work with the information you have provided. Your committed refusal to answer simple questions requires a little bit of inference if we're going to get anywhere.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
" As far as I can tell the models have been remarkably accurate."

Nobody has shown that to be true because it is not.
What is your source of information?

When we post the links you just say, no that's not right, only my buddy is correct.