Direct evidence for positive feedback in climate:

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You really have answer to everything! When will you come up with the right answers?

There you go again with the vague criticism and no proof.

Do you believe GW will lead to permanent above freezing temperatures? Surely even you know how stupid that assertion is. Tell us all, when was the last time that happened? Show us all how intelligent you are. Show us that sonhouse did not post the wrong answer.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You think you are a winner? Let me tell you - you are a loser.

Only a loser think that he is a winner with lousy arguments. Whenever you lose a debate you put fundamentalistic rhetorics into play, a clear sign of a loser.

No proof?

Who is the loser?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
No proof?

Who is the loser?

When you learn from others, then you have a potential to be a winner.
When you stubbornly attacks everyone not sharing the same twisted opinion, you will never learn and therefore remain a loser.

For short - Read and learn!

Originally posted by FabianFnas
When you learn from others, then you have a potential to be a winner.
When you stubbornly attacks everyone not sharing the same twisted opinion, you will never learn and therefore remain a loser.

For short - Read and learn!

I'm twisted for being the only guy to prove why I say? You are the one who is twisted. I learn from others all the time....when they prove something. People learn from me when they have an open mind. I have taught people that cows don't sleep standing up. Some people refused to believe me, but you can't change the minds of people who have their minds made up and don't want to be confused with facts. I could take a picture of a cow sleeping, but guys with your mentality would say something like "just because they sleep laying down doesn't mean they don't sleep standing up too". They don't sleep standing up, but how can I prove a negative? That is a child like tendency. Don't ask me to prove a negative.

Grow up.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I'm twisted for being the only guy to prove why I say? You are the one who is twisted. I learn from others all the time....when they prove something. People learn from me when they have an open mind. I have taught people that cows don't sleep standing up. Some people refused to believe me, but you can't change the minds of people who have their minds mad ...[text shortened]... I prove a negative? That is a child like tendency. Don't ask me to prove a negative.

Grow up.

When you are desperate to hide that you are losing the battle, then you always ask for proof. Every time! You don't deliver proofs, you don't answer questions, you just go on in the fundamentalistic rhetorics.

Are you learning anything? No? Then you are a loser.
I learn from you. I study your rhetorics and I learn a lot. I am a winner.

Grow up!

Originally posted by FabianFnas
When you are desperate to hide that you are losing the battle, then you always ask for proof. Every time! You don't deliver proofs, you don't answer questions, you just go on in the fundamentalistic rhetorics.

Are you learning anything? No? Then you are a loser.
I learn from you. I study your rhetorics and I learn a lot. I am a winner.

Grow up!

🙄

Originally posted by Metal Brain
🙄

You act like a child - so grow up!

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You act like a child - so grow up!

Interesting. Everything you say to me actually applies to you. You still have nothing to contribute here. Do you think you can win a debate by avoiding it?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Interesting. Everything you say to me actually applies to you. You still have nothing to contribute here. Do you think you can win a debate by avoiding it?

You haven't got it, still you haven't. How many times do I have to tell you?

I'm not here to debate climate. I'm here to study rhetorics. And you are the main target of interest. Rhetorics is the main interest of mine.

How can I win a debate if I'm not a participant of the debate? I'm not here to win any debate. I am a winner because I learn about your rhetorics all the time, and I can assure you, you are not a winner anywhere.

A basic trait of a fundamentalist is that everything is about to win, never to learn.You can fight and fight and when you realize that you actually are losing, then you are nitpicking about spelling, words, semantics. That's a sure sign that you know that you are a loser. Another sign of a loser is to use name calling, personal attacks, and other punches below the belt. When criticized the defense "He did it first" comes around, just like a parrot. These are some sure signs that the fundamentalist knows that he loses the debate. What signs apply to you, dear Metal Brain?

So rhetorics is my main interest and you are my favorite subject of my studies. Clear enough?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You haven't got it, still you haven't. How many times do I have to tell you?

I'm not here to debate climate. I'm here to study rhetorics. And you are the main target of interest. Rhetorics is the main interest of mine.

How can I win a debate if I'm not a participant of the debate? I'm not here to win any debate. I am a winner because I learn about y ...[text shortened]...

So rhetorics is my main interest and you are my favorite subject of my studies. Clear enough?

"I'm not here to debate climate. I'm here to study rhetorics."

I don't believe you. Someone merely here to study rhetoric would have no need to comment repeatedly. Also, you are claiming to see rhetoric where there is none. All of my points are supported by facts which I provide my sources of information for.

I can see that your true goal is to falsely accuse me of promoting rhetoric and never proving it because you never debating anything. How convenient. Since you are not here to debate you can falsely accuse me of rhetoric and never prove it despite the fact your accusation has absolutely no merit at all.

Nobody is fooled by your dishonesty. You are like a child that makes a dishonest accusation and runs away before anybody can confront you about your lie. Debate or stop your bloody lies!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"I'm not here to debate climate. I'm here to study rhetorics."

I don't believe you. Someone merely here to study rhetoric would have no need to comment repeatedly. Also, you are claiming to see rhetoric where there is none. All of my points are supported by facts which I provide my sources of information for.

I can see that your true goal is to fa ...[text shortened]... n and runs away before anybody can confront you about your lie. Debate or stop your bloody lies!

All infighting aside, it still looks like you have a mind set similar to religious fundamentalists like RJ Hinds who firmly believes the moon was cooled by water and the Earth is 6000 years old. I know you are atheist but your mind set is similar to that in that is sounds like you have a preconceived notion, perhaps just believing dudes like Meyer and his analysis and ignoring anything to the contrary.

For instance, the Scientific American article says the gap may be only 200 years but that is just the result of their analysis of this decade.

Another decade down the line they may find the real lag is zero.

That is entirely in the realm of possibility. It just looks like your mind is made up and nothing will change it.

Do you have some credentials in atmospheric sciences or some such that we should believe you over what is already written?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"I'm not here to debate climate. I'm here to study rhetorics."

I don't believe you. Someone merely here to study rhetoric would have no need to comment repeatedly. Also, you are claiming to see rhetoric where there is none. All of my points are supported by facts which I provide my sources of information for.

I can see that your true goal is to fa ...[text shortened]... n and runs away before anybody can confront you about your lie. Debate or stop your bloody lies!

You want me to prove to you that my interest of you is your rhetorics?

As I've said before - when you know you have lost, then you ask for proofs. You are so foreseeable.

Originally posted by sonhouse
All infighting aside, it still looks like you have a mind set similar to religious fundamentalists like RJ Hinds who firmly believes the moon was cooled by water and the Earth is 6000 years old. I know you are atheist but your mind set is similar to that in that is sounds like you have a preconceived notion, perhaps just believing dudes like Meyer and his a ...[text shortened]... ls in atmospheric sciences or some such that we should believe you over what is already written?

"Another decade down the line they may find the real lag is zero."

So your position now is that the science is wrong? LOL!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"Another decade down the line they may find the real lag is zero."

So your position now is that the science is wrong? LOL!

Science and scientists have the ability to be wrong, as opposed to votaries who have fixed opinions or beliefs. All I am saying is they learned from the past analysis and came up with more refined answers.

So they might come up with even more refined answers in the future.

Just like Newton's theory or laws of gravitation was shown to be a special case of a larger theory, Einstein's gravity which reproduces Newtonian gravity in certain cases.

You seem to have an OCD relation with proving science wrong. I asked you once if you have some special qualifications in atmospheric science but you seem not to want to answer that question.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Science and scientists have the ability to be wrong, as opposed to votaries who have fixed opinions or beliefs. All I am saying is they learned from the past analysis and came up with more refined answers.

So they might come up with even more refined answers in the future.

Just like Newton's theory or laws of gravitation was shown to be a special case ...[text shortened]... special qualifications in atmospheric science but you seem not to want to answer that question.

First you said this:

"Science and scientists have the ability to be wrong"

Then you said this:

"You seem to have an OCD relation with proving science wrong."

I'm not trying to prove the science wrong, you are! All I am doing is trying to set the record straight about science. You believed the myth that 97% of climate scientists believe in your alarmist views based on unreliable climate models. They don't. You and humy made false statements about the science, I am just trying to correct you both and reveal the science for what it is. You and humy are trying to promote myths about science.