Another theory that must be rejected by conservatives

[PLC1]

Spoken like a pissy liberal. You have lost.

Who has run out of arguments and resorted to personal attacks?

Personal attacks are not allowed on this forum, BTW. Continue, and I'll start to delete your posts. I'd do so now, except that I've been posting in the same thread, and don't want to be accused of abusing my status as moderator.

You are the one who keeps bringing God into the issue, not me. Are you that desparate for another strawman?

You support ID, yet don't bring god into the issue?

 

[orogenicman]

OGM - The fact is that they make all kinds of excuses for why the Earth is warming, but cannot say what is causing the current warming, or why it is warming so rapidly.


Paleride - Again, claims that you can not prove. The medieval warm period came on faster and warmer than the present which takes "unprecedented" out of your arsenal. Or are you going to deny all those peer reviewed studies? I can give you dozens more, but it isn't the science that drives you, it is your faith.

The medieval warming period took place over several centuries. But I note that you are still making excuses for why you cannot say why the current warming is occurring, and instead fall back on accusations that the other side is relying on faith. It's a desparate move, Palerider.

 

[palerider]

"So lets see one bit of hard, observed evidence that proves that CO2 is responsible for climate change."

Do you think that this is just a coincidence?

You realize don't you, that that graph is the product of a computer simulation and not observed data? I am laughing in your face. You also might notice that it has completely eliminated the roman warm period, the medieval warm period, and the little ice age. It is just a rehash of the discredited hockey stick.

I wondered how long before you drug out a hockey stick. I guess it is time to stick a fork in you. When you drag out the hockey stick, you are done.

 

[orogenicman]

"More appeal to ridicule in lieu of evidence to support your claims. Predictable."

More excuses for why you can't explain the current warming. Predictable. What's the explanation?

 

[GenSeneca]

"In what way could I scrutinize AGW that would not result in you claiming I was anti-science or just plain stupid?" - GenSeneca
Well, you could start by learning something about the scientific method, not automaticaly believing that real scientists doing real work on global warming are evil witches out to destroy the world's economy, perhaps give them a little credit for the very hard, often thankless work they do for often very low pay, despite the years and years of colleged education they invested in which put many of them in considerable debt, by not automatically taking the skeptics word on the matter simply because they are telling you what you want to hear. Shall I go on? Oh, then you can do some actual literary research in the peer-reviewed journals to see what the real scientists are saying and why.

Just as I thought.... You do consider any form of AGW scrutiny to be done out of stupidity and/or an anti-science position. That's a shame since it was you who claimed there could be intelligent debate on the topic but all you have to offer are more fallacious arguments delivered with utter contempt for anyone who would disagree.

 

[palerider]

I'd do so now, except that I've been posting in the same thread, and don't want to be accused of abusing my status as moderator.

Go ahead. Its what liberals do.

You support ID, yet don't bring god into the issue?

Do you believe we are alone in the universe? Do you believe that no advanced civilizations exist that might seed likely worlds?

 

[palerider]

"More appeal to ridicule in lieu of evidence to support your claims. Predictable."

More excuses for why you can't explain the current warming. Predictable. What's the explanation?

I don't need to explain the warming because it happened long before man could have possibly been responsible. The onus is upon your shoulders to prove that we are responsible this time even though through most of history the temperature has been considerably higher than the present. You are the one making claims that you can't substantiate.

 

[orogenicman]

"An alternative theory is not necessary if one is simply pointing out bad science. I have no problem stating that we don't know what is driving the climate, but we can state pretty confidently that it is not CO2. CO2 is a political scapegoat and nothing more."

No sir. It isn't enough to point out the shortcomings of someone else's work. That's not how science works. If you were really a biochemist, you'd understand this very basic fact. And since you've yet to point out any real meaningful shortcomings, particularly with regard to CO2, the gas you believe isn't having any effect on our climate despite the 6 billion tons of it we we pump into the atmosphere every year, can't explain where it goes, or how it could be so inert in the atmosphere when it isn't in the laboratory, I expect that you are the one who is having a political cluster f&^K, and nothing more.

 

[orogenicman]

"Do you drink your koolaid with a straw or straight from the bucket?"

Are you denying that someone illegally hacked a government server, then illegally posted confidential e-mails on the internet, made all kinds of slanderous accusations about certain scientists, which were subsequently found to be false allegations (with the exception of the issue of FOIA requests)? Someone is drikning kool-aid here, and it ain't me (never liked the stuff).

 

[palerider]

No sir. It isn't enough to point out the shortcomings of someone else's work.

Yes it is. When you put forward a theory that violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics, it is enough to point out that you don't know what you are talking about.

That's not how science works.

Then clearly you aren't a scientist.

If you were really a biochemist, you'd understand this very basic fact.

If you were a scientst you wouldn't believe that one must have an alternate theory in order to prove a theory invalid. Agw is in violation of physical laws, it is enough to point that out.

And since you've yet to point out any real meaningful shortcomings, particularly with regard to CO2

Except for the fact that there is no mechanism by which a gas can absorb and retain heat and the fact that once a packet of IR is absorbed and emitted by a CO2 molecule, that packet, from that point forward, is invisible to CO2, and the fact that emitted IR can not be absorbed by the original heat sorce and further warmed.

Except for the fact that the above mentioned render the hypothes of agw null, I suppose I haven't provided anything.

the gas you believe isn't having any effect on our climate despite the 6 billion tons of it we we pump into the atmosphere every year, can't explain where it goes, or how it could be so inert in the atmosphere when it isn't in the laboratory, I expect that you are the one who is having a political cluster f&^K, and nothing more.

Still making claims that you can't support. If it is having an effect, lets see the hard, observed, testable, repeatable data. So far all you have is the result of piss poor computer simulations.

 

[palerider]

Are you denying that someone illegally hacked a government server, then illegally posted confidential e-mails on the internet, made all kinds of slanderous accusations about certain scientists, which were subsequently found to be false allegations (with the exception of the issue of FOIA requests)? Someone is drikning kool-aid here, and it ain't me (never liked the stuff).

I deny that any serious investigation was ever carried out. The example of jones never being asked if those at CRU deleted emails is evidence of a shoddy investgiation.

 

[orogenicman]

"In the CRU investigation, jones was not even asked if the CRU scientists had deleted emails. Considering that fact, how thorough do you believe the investiation actually was. You might also consider the gross conflict of interest on the investagative committess across the board.

You sound more like an acolyte all the time."

So what? How does any of that refute global warming? Do you ever delete e-mails, Palerider? Why don't you post your e-mails so we can see what kinds of things you've said about AGW supporters or your colleagues, and whether or not you've ever done anything unseemly in a professional capacity. Hey, if it's fair game to steal e-mails, it is certainly fair game to insist that the other side share with the world their e-mails. Come on, Grasshoper. You don't have anything to hide, do you? Of course you don't.

 

[orogenicman]

"My email is subject to review at any time but since I am not involved in an attempt to scam the whole world, and am not involved in manipulating and falsifying data in an attempt to prove a piss poor hypothesis, I have no worries with regard to what might be there."

Alrighty then. Let's review your e-mails, shall we? Hey, you are the one who is so certain you've done nothing wrong, right. So you have nothing to hide. Right? Fair game, Palerider. You guys are the ones who opened that can of worms.

 

[orogenicman]

"I asked you for evidence that the climate is presently at the optimum temperature for our habitation. You were not able to provide any such evidence so you manufactured a strawman to attack. "

I have provided it, Palerider. Weren't you paying attention? Now, why don't you be a good lad and start answering my questions, instead of trying to avoid them?

 

[palerider]

So what? How does any of that refute global warming? Do you ever delete e-mails, Palerider?

No I don't. Where I work, IT copies all emails for review and deletes them based on a review schedule.

Why don't you post your e-mails so we can see what kinds of things you've said about AGW supporters or your colleagues, and whether or not you've ever done anything unseemly in a professional capacity.

Primarily because security protocols where I work forbid it. And no, I don't stray from professional activity at work. There is a reason I am the boss.

Hey, if it's fair game to steal e-mails, it is certainly fair game to insist that the other side share with the world their e-mails. Come on, Grasshoper. You don't have anything to hide, do you? Of course you don't.

I see that you have given up all pretense of being able to support your claims. I am not going to continue in a dick measuring contest with you. Your inability to substantiate your claims has lost you the debate. Let me know if and when you get some actual data that supports the claim of AGW.