User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789
Results 81 to 88 of 88

Thread: The Great Climate Hoax

  1. #81
    Points: 9,281, Level: 23
    Level completed: 4%, Points required for next Level: 769
    Overall activity: 42.0%
    Achievements:
    3 months registered5000 Experience Points
    carolina73's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    2113
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    3,340
    Points
    9,281
    Level
    23
    Thanks Given
    1,176
    Thanked 2,104x in 1,492 Posts
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mamooth View Post
    And that's been done conclusively.

    AGW theory explains all of the observed data, and it is the simplest theory to do so. By Occam's Razor, it is thus most likely to the be correct theory.

    So what's your theory to explain the current fast warming?

    Make sure it explains the directly observed stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation and decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the greenhouse gas bands. None of the "Natural Cycle!" theories explain that data, so those theories are demonstrably wrong.

    You don't have a theory at all. You're just waving your hands around wildly. Until you can put forth a theory that explains all the observed data, you won't be taken seriously.



    Which is why your side should quit it with the lying.



    See? That's why most everyone concludes that you're a pack of frauds, because your side keeps telling whoppers like that.

    If all the data didn't say you were pushing fraud, you wouldn't have to invoke a loopy conspiracy theory to give you an excuse to discard that inconvenient heretical data that dared contradict sacred cult dogma. But the actual data does so that, so you see such conspiracy theories as your only option.



    Which conspiracy blog fed you that story? It's a conspiracy theory I hadn't seen before, so I'd like to see the source of it.



    Again, what conspiracy blog came up with that whopper?



    Those two "changes" are a fantasy on your part.



    The Bush admin coined that term. You don't seem well-informed about the history of this issue.



    No, that's nonsense too.



    Good thing the records go way, way back more.



    As one of my ongoing points is that every denier is a member of the right-wing kook extremist fringe cult, I thank you for confirming that point. Denialism is entirely political and has nothing to do with science. If right-wing politics vanished, denialism would instantly vanish. In stark contrast, the reputable science crosses all political boundaries around the world. If left-wing politics vanished, the science wouldn't change a bit.




    And we know humans are making the temperature rise quickly, because that's what the hard data says.



    This right-wing hatred of science just got us a pandemic. There's a price to pay for rejecting science.
    Occam's Razor means nothing except that you went to see the movie $#@!tails. It is not a logical argument. It is a quip.

    Carbon dating
    https://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/...curate-faq.htm

    The common accepted usefulness is longer than this article suggests with most saying about 10,000 years.
    At 60,000 years it would be like me claiming I was 20 +/- 100 years by the test.

    Sorry, but I have two Engineering degrees before I got my MBA. I understand the science and probability far more than you do. You are just repeating what you were told. I started in R&D and no one was called a scientist. I also checked NASA and no one is called scientist in the title. 97% of scientist say is a lie. It was a college project that even the professor told us that the information was used incorrectly and the data was selective.

    Now your entire package of lies is premised on the fact that the climate has been getting warmer but you have never tied it to man. Pollution is bad. We all know that. When the earth is not warming then it is cooling. The climate always changes.

  2. #82
    Points: 1,900, Level: 10
    Level completed: 13%, Points required for next Level: 350
    Overall activity: 24.0%
    Achievements:
    31 days registered1000 Experience Points
    Padme's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    415
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    697
    Points
    1,900
    Level
    10
    Thanks Given
    157
    Thanked 405x in 290 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Common Sense View Post
    None.
    Climate change has occurred... The change started when the Earth was born!

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Sense View Post
    The prediction of a coming ice age that was made in the 70's by a small group of scientists did not have a broad consensus. A small group of scientists thought it was a possibility...that's contrasted today by a broad consensus among scientists, scientific groups, academies, institutions, governments and businesses. They virtually all agree than human activity is changing the climate.
    Of course! Human activity has been changing climate since the industrial revolution in the 1800's (Sorry). Now, if we are going to think about "human activity changing the climate" we have to think -no doubt about it - that where there are more humans, there are more activities. So, where are more humans? What countries have more humans? The United States of America is certainly not the place where there are more humans changing the climate!

    Hint, hint, think China and India.
    Last edited by Padme; 03-21-2020 at 05:05 PM.

    "Master Skywalker said you should teach me about politics." - Padme Amidala

  3. #83
    Points: 3,066, Level: 13
    Level completed: 4%, Points required for next Level: 484
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    mamooth's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    268
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    973
    Points
    3,066
    Level
    13
    Thanks Given
    2
    Thanked 258x in 187 Posts
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina73 View Post
    Occam's Razor means nothing except that you went to see the movie $#@!tails. It is not a logical argument. It is a quip.
    It's actually mathematically provable.
    Carbon dating
    Creationist website garbage? Hilarious.

    Carbon dating has nothing to do with measuring CO2 levels in ice cores. It doesn't matter how old the carbon is, the level is the level.

    Sorry, but I have two Engineering degrees before I got my MBA. I understand the science and probability far more than you do.
    You demonstrably don't. After all, you thought carbon dating was used to measure CO2 levels, and you reference creationist garbage.

    You are just repeating what you were told. I started in R&D and no one was called a scientist. I also checked NASA and no one is called scientist in the title. 97% of scientist say is a lie. It was a college project that even the professor told us that the information was used incorrectly and the data was selective.
    If someone has a doctorate and post-doctorate in atmospheric physics, that person is a scientist. That describes climate scientists. So just what are you babbling about? They are scientists. You are not. You are an engineer with delusions of adequacy.

    Now your entire package of lies is premised on the fact that the climate has been getting warmer but you have never tied it to man.
    I addressed that directly, and you cut and ran. I've taken your measure, and found you wanting.

    Pollution is bad. We all know that. When the earth is not warming then it is cooling. The climate always changes.
    And you're back to your "climate can change naturally, so humans can't change climate" stupidity, even after I pointed out the stupidity of it. But then, I suppose that stupidity is the best you've got, given your complete ignorance of the topic.
    "Dear America: You are waking up as Germany once did, to the awareness that 1/3 of your people would kill another 1/3, while 1/3 watches." -- Warner Twertzog

  4. #84
    Points: 3,066, Level: 13
    Level completed: 4%, Points required for next Level: 484
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    mamooth's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    268
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    973
    Points
    3,066
    Level
    13
    Thanks Given
    2
    Thanked 258x in 187 Posts
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Padme View Post
    So, let's see, from that list what is a hoax or a conspiracy to you?
    I posted the actual record of the climate predictions, and two deniers immediately said it was a hoax.

    Why? They had to. Their religion demands it. In their minds, their religion is infallible, therefore any data that contradicts their sacred scripture must be a hoax.

    Declaring how any data you don't like is a hoax is typical conspiracy cultist behavior, and it's pretty much all that global warming deniers do.
    "Dear America: You are waking up as Germany once did, to the awareness that 1/3 of your people would kill another 1/3, while 1/3 watches." -- Warner Twertzog

  5. #85
    Points: 82,406, Level: 69
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 44
    Overall activity: 43.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Common Sense's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    930252
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    38,307
    Points
    82,406
    Level
    69
    Thanks Given
    13,702
    Thanked 15,173x in 10,604 Posts
    Mentioned
    512 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina73 View Post
    Occam's Razor means nothing except that you went to see the movie $#@!tails. It is not a logical argument. It is a quip.

    Carbon dating
    https://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/...curate-faq.htm

    The common accepted usefulness is longer than this article suggests with most saying about 10,000 years.
    At 60,000 years it would be like me claiming I was 20 +/- 100 years by the test.

    Sorry, but I have two Engineering degrees before I got my MBA. I understand the science and probability far more than you do. You are just repeating what you were told. I started in R&D and no one was called a scientist. I also checked NASA and no one is called scientist in the title. 97% of scientist say is a lie. It was a college project that even the professor told us that the information was used incorrectly and the data was selective.

    Now your entire package of lies is premised on the fact that the climate has been getting warmer but you have never tied it to man. Pollution is bad. We all know that. When the earth is not warming then it is cooling. The climate always changes.
    Did you really just use a creationist website and expect to be taken seriously?

    What's next, the earth is 6000 years old and flat?

  6. #86
    Points: 82,406, Level: 69
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 44
    Overall activity: 43.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Common Sense's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    930252
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    38,307
    Points
    82,406
    Level
    69
    Thanks Given
    13,702
    Thanked 15,173x in 10,604 Posts
    Mentioned
    512 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Padme View Post
    Climate change has occurred... The change started when the Earth was born!



    Of course! Human activity has been changing climate since the industrial revolution in the 1800's (Sorry). Now, if we are going to think about "human activity changing the climate" we have to think -no doubt about it - that where there are more humans, there are more activities. So, where are more humans? What countries have more humans? The United States of America is certainly not the place where there are more humans changing the climate!

    Hint, hint, think China and India.
    Huh? I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make.

    I'm glad you are accepting that man has been effecting climate since the beginning of the individual revolution (late 1700's). Yes, high population densities can mean greater impact on climate, but not always. Population density is an important factor, but so is the rate of industrialization, manufacturing, consumption rates etc...

  7. #87
    Points: 231,328, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteranOverdrive
    Awards:
    Activity Award
    Tahuyaman's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    271959
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    102,495
    Points
    231,328
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    11,931
    Thanked 40,944x in 30,556 Posts
    Mentioned
    466 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Has anyone made a link between climate change / disruption / global warming to the spread of the coronavirus?

  8. #88
    Points: 231,328, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteranOverdrive
    Awards:
    Activity Award
    Tahuyaman's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    271959
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    102,495
    Points
    231,328
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    11,931
    Thanked 40,944x in 30,556 Posts
    Mentioned
    466 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Common Sense View Post
    Huh? I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make.

    I'm glad you are accepting that man has been effecting climate since the beginning of the individual revolution (late 1700's). Yes, high population densities can mean greater impact on climate, but not always. Population density is an important factor, but so is the rate of industrialization, manufacturing, consumption rates etc...
    What's the "individual revolution"?

    So, high density population can impact the climate and sometimes it doesn't. I guess one can cherry pick when it does or doesn't.

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Single Sign On provided by vBSSO