08 May 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou're trying to tell me that you have never asked anyone to prove anything? Seriously?
I never wrote "to prove" so I have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps it is you that has a short memory.
Now you seem to be very delusional. That is your favorite word when you know that you are wrong and not want to admit it, isn't it? I don't know how many times you want others to prove things only in this thread!
So you say you never use the verb 'to prove'? Hmmm, as the psychiatrist would say...
08 May 15
6 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasMaybe a question of semantics, as in that famous statement from ex pres Clinton:
You're trying to tell me that you have never asked anyone to prove anything? Seriously?
Now you seem to be very delusional. That is your favorite word when you know that you are wrong and not want to admit it, isn't it? I don't know how many times you want others to prove things only in this thread!
So you say you never use the verb 'to prove'? Hmmm, as the psychiatrist would say...
"I never had sex with that woman".
"I never said TO PROVE"
(I may have said PROVE IT but NEVER said to prove)
"How much have temps increased in the past 10 years? Not much. Even if it had it would not prove global warming is a bad thing. People can adapt to it. It is no big deal".
"LOL! Nobody is being forced to move in great numbers. Your position is laughable!"
"You don't know what you are talking about. I just proved a 40 year warming period can have nothing to do with man made causes. How warm the earth was last year doesn't prove a darn thing. Heck, how warm it has been in the last 4 decades is not proof of anything substantial."
"What is your source of information? Don't ask people to prove a negative. That is not reasonable."
Are you claiming there was less CO2 in the atmosphere during 1940-1975? It seems you are, so what is your source of information?
"Are you claiming there was less slash and burning of forests during 1940-1975? What is your source of information?"
If that last statement isn't a call for proof, I don't know much about the English language.
08 May 15
Originally posted by FabianFnas"You're trying to tell me that you have never asked anyone to prove anything?"
You're trying to tell me that you have never asked anyone to prove anything? Seriously?
Now you seem to be very delusional. That is your favorite word when you know that you are wrong and not want to admit it, isn't it? I don't know how many times you want others to prove things only in this thread!
So you say you never use the verb 'to prove'? Hmmm, as the psychiatrist would say...
How was I supposed to know you didn't mean someone asking me to prove something? You never specified, yet you expect people to read your mind. If you think that is reasonable then you are the one who is actually delusional.
Like I said, I didn't say the words "to prove" so your post was very confusing to say the least.
Now you are saying I am wrong about something. You don't say what I was wrong about so I don't know what you are talking about.
" I don't know how many times you want others to prove things only in this thread!"
Dude, it goes both ways. We are all expected to prove things when debating anything, especially controversial things like this! You must have been drinking before posting on here. You don't make any sense and your posts are plagued with a lack of specificity that approaches neglect. That makes you seem delusional. I can't read your mind. 🙄
08 May 15
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseYou are complaining that I asked for proof???
Maybe a question of semantics, as in that famous statement from ex pres Clinton:
"I never had sex with that woman".
"I never said TO PROVE"
(I may have said PROVE IT but NEVER said to prove)
"How much have temps increased in the past 10 years? Not much. Even if it had it would not prove global warming is a bad thing. People can adapt to it. It ...[text shortened]...
If that last statement isn't a call for proof, I don't know much about the English language.
Is that what this is all about?
Everybody asks for proof. If somebody makes a claim that is met with skepticism it is expected that the person making the claim prove it or at least provide their source of information. A lot of people don't like to provide their source of information because they are bluffing. Humy has done that a lot. A long time ago he also claimed that ocean temp records didn't exist prior to the years on the limited graph (propaganda by omission) he provided. Recently I found out he was lying about that. NOAA has records of the entire 20th century. I recently pointed out to him that prior to 1945 ocean temps were increasing faster than more recent increases.
I have been consistently generous in providing my sources of information. If you don't ask me to prove my claims it is probably because I provide my source of information when making my claims for everybody's convenience. It would be nice if everyone else was as generous with sources of information as I have been. If they were I would not have to ask for it and tell them to back up their claims with proof.
Have I ever asked anyone on this thread to prove a negative? It is usually the person losing the debate that resorts to asking others to prove a negative. It is a desperate act.
08 May 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainI was just responding to your statement that you never asked for proof. It's a semantic thing I guess.
You are complaining that I asked for proof???
Is that what this is all about?
Everybody asks for proof. If somebody makes a claim that is met with skepticism it is expected that the person making the claim prove it or at least provide their source of information. A lot of people don't like to provide their source of information because they are bluf ...[text shortened]... on losing the debate that resorts to asking others to prove a negative. It is a desperate act.
But our real problem with your posts is you are posting from dudes who are clearly in the payroll of various energy companies and such and you just poo poo any kind of claim they could possibly ever be biased because of it. THEY ARE BIASED BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHERE THEIR MEALTICKET COMES FROM.
You can't be being bought out by big tobacco and then claim there are no health problems smoking tobacco.
Same with climate change deniers or downplayers.
08 May 15
Originally posted by sonhouseDr Richard Lindzen is on the payroll of energy companies? I don't think so.
I was just responding to your statement that you never asked for proof. It's a semantic thing I guess.
But our real problem with your posts is you are posting from dudes who are clearly in the payroll of various energy companies and such and you just poo poo any kind of claim they could possibly ever be biased because of it. THEY ARE BIASED BECAUSE THEY ...[text shortened]... ere are no health problems smoking tobacco.
Same with climate change deniers or downplayers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2922553/Global-warming-believers-like-hysterical-cult-MIT-scientist-compares-climate-alarmists-religious-fanatics.html
09 May 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainI'd strongly recommend finding a different source than the Daily Mail. It does not have a good history. In the 1930's it actually had a headline: "Hurrah for the Black Shirts", meaning they were supporting Oswald Moseley's British Union of Fascists. It's a nasty rag that will print lies. Find your information elsewhere.
Dr Richard Lindzen is on the payroll of energy companies? I don't think so.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2922553/Global-warming-believers-like-hysterical-cult-MIT-scientist-compares-climate-alarmists-religious-fanatics.html
09 May 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWelcome back Deepthought.
I'd strongly recommend finding a different source than the Daily Mail. It does not have a good history. In the 1930's it actually had a headline: "Hurrah for the Black Shirts", meaning they were supporting Oswald Moseley's British Union of Fascists. It's a nasty rag that will print lies. Find your information elsewhere.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/21/mit-climate-scientist-global-warming-believers-a-cult/
http://www.hirhome.com/climate_change/global_warming03.htm
09 May 15
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe fact remains that you are predisposed to believe those who agree with your views. You do not do actual climate science so you take the word of those you agree with. And those people are in a solid minority, most bought off by the energy companies.
Welcome back Deepthought.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/21/mit-climate-scientist-global-warming-believers-a-cult/
http://www.hirhome.com/climate_change/global_warming03.htm
An assessment of the good doctor, some by his ex students: From Wiki
Third-party characterizations of Lindzen[edit]
The April 30, 2012 New York Times article included the comments of several other experts. Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington, said Lindzen is "feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it’s wrong science. I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all." Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist, said of Lindzen's views "Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, ‘We’re sure it’s not a problem.’ It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization."[67]
A 1996 New York Times article included the comments of several other experts. Jerry Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, did not accept Lindzen's assessment of the science, and said that Lindzen had "sacrificed his luminosity by taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound." Mahlman did, however, admit that Lindzen was a "formidable opponent." William Gray of Colorado State University basically agreed with Lindzen, describing him as "courageous." He said, "A lot of my older colleagues are very skeptical on the global warming thing." He added that whilst he regarded some of Lindzen's views as flawed, he said that, "across the board he's generally very good." John Wallace of the University of Washington agreed with Lindzen that progress in climate change science had been exaggerated, but said there are "relatively few scientists who are as skeptical of the whole thing as Dick [Lindzen] is."[3]
The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now.".[68] However, on June 8, 2005 they reported that Lindzen insisted that he had been misquoted, after James Annan contacted Lindzen to make the bet but claimed that "Lindzen would take only 50 to 1 odds".[69]
Lindzen has been called a contrarian, in relation to climate change and other issues.[70][71][72] Lindzen's graduate students describe him as "fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak."[73]
09 May 15
Originally posted by sonhouse"The fact remains that you are predisposed to believe those who agree with your views. You do not do actual climate science so you take the word of those you agree with."
The fact remains that you are predisposed to believe those who agree with your views. You do not do actual climate science so you take the word of those you agree with. And those people are in a solid minority, most bought off by the energy companies.
An assessment of the good doctor, some by his ex students: From Wiki
Third-party characterizations of ...[text shortened]... n's graduate students describe him as "fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak."[73]
Your statement above applies to you, not me. I pointed out that temperatures in the Pliocene were far higher then than today. This is not debatable as you know. This shows the disconnect between CO2 and temperatures. The reason for this disconnect is clearly the fact that CO2 levels lag behind temperatures. Read the link I posted for Deepthought. I will post it again. Read it this time.
http://www.hirhome.com/climate_change/global_warming03.htm
" And those people are in a solid minority, most bought off by the energy companies."
You are wrong. They are not in a minority as you assert. I made this point over a dozen times at least on the science forum. I'll repeat myself again. 97% of climate scientists agree that man is an influence on the climate. They do not indicate how much of an influence that is. 3% is enough for that consensus, not a primary AGW as some try to mislead people into believing. As Fred Singer once said "the nights are slightly warmer, that might be it". Some people are trying to mislead others into believing the majority of climate scientists believe that man is the primary cause of global warming today. That is simply not true. That is the myth that is being imposed on most of us by the corporate news media. It is another way to get people to support another tax that will do nothing to save the planet. It will support another agenda though. All elites support centralization. They are in control. Of course they do. They make the rules.
10 May 15
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainHere is a wiki on the pliocene:
"The fact remains that you are predisposed to believe those who agree with your views. You do not do actual climate science so you take the word of those you agree with."
Your statement above applies to you, not me. I pointed out that temperatures in the Pliocene were far higher then than today. This is not debatable as you know. This shows the discon ...[text shortened]... All elites support centralization. They are in control. Of course they do. They make the rules.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliocene_climate
It says the CO2 count then was about 400 PPM. Pretty high, probably from volcano activity.
I don't know about "far" higher, it says about 2-3 degrees C.
10 May 15
Originally posted by sonhouse"It says the CO2 count then was about 400 PPM. Pretty high, probably from volcano activity."
Here is a wiki on the pliocene:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliocene_climate
It says the CO2 count then was about 400 PPM. Pretty high, probably from volcano activity.
I don't know about "far" higher, it says about 2-3 degrees C.
400 PPM is about the same as now and you are probably wrong about volcanic activity. Read the link below so you are not so clueless. It is like you will not accept the fact that temperatures come first then CO2 rises. You need to correct your cause and effect. It is like Al Gore brainwashed you too much for you to accept the truth.
http://www.hirhome.com/climate_change/global_warming03.htm
"I don't know about "far" higher, it says about 2-3 degrees C."
That is far higher (relatively speaking). It melted all of the glaciers. If I said the earth is not warming very much because it is much less than that, what would you say to me? You would say a fraction of a degree is a lot, right? If not there is no problem and I know you will not accept that.
Maybe you should look into how much the earth has warmed over the past 100 years so you know what you are talking about. I am actually shocked that you are downplaying 2-3 degrees C. Do you need to convert it to Fahrenheit? I'm not sure what you are thinking. You are confused or something.
10 May 15
9 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brain"about" is the operative word here. And it was not "the same as now" until very recently assuming it wasn't slightly greater than 400ppm then. Only a relatively small difference in CO2 concentration can make a measurable difference to the final temperature at equilibrium which, of course, takes time when there is a change in CO2 concentration, because of such things in physics as the heat capacity of a system that delays or slows down temperature changes. And it wasn't many years ago when it was lower than 400 ppm hence we have not yet experienced the full warming effects of this change in CO2 concentration thus rendering your assertions irrelevant if not wrong. But I, who have done and passed physics courses at university, have repeatedly informed you, who has NO science credentials, of all this before -only for you to moronically and arrogantly ignore it and/or dismiss it.
400 PPM is about the same as now .
You arrogantly and delusionally think you know better and more about science than the scientists here; but you are wrong. Not even I think I know more about science than the scientists here! And, unlike you, I HAVE science credentials!