Bullet to the head of the AGW hoax?

[citizenzen]

The problem with this approach is that much of the science on global warming has been politicized and the BILLIONS of dollars involved tends impact the results.

So what approach do you propose?

 

[Gipper]

So what approach do you propose?

That is a silly question.

There is no need for an "approach." When something does not exist, there is no need to research it or come up with an approach to solve it.

One can't solve a problem that does not first exist.

 

[citizenzen]

When something does not exist, there is no need to research it...

If you're right, more research would verify that nothing exists. If further research would support your position, would you shy away from it? Don't you think there's something to be gained by understanding our climate more thoroughly?

It's a very shaky position to take by saying, "We know everything we need to know. There's no reason to look into it any further." That's not only bad science, it leads me to think that you don't want information to come forth.

 

[palerider]

If you're right, more research would verify that nothing exists. If further research would support your position, would you shy away from it? Don't you think there's something to be gained by understanding our climate more thoroughly?

It's a very shaky position to take by saying, "We know everything we need to know. There's no reason to look into it any further." That's not only bad science, it leads me to think that you don't want information to come forth.

I suggest that you take a few minutes (that's all it takes) to familiarize yourself with the basics of AGW theory. You can find any number of sources from your own side of the argument that state explicitly that CO2 traps outgoing longwave radiation which causes the atmosphere to warm.

The spectra captured by the satellites clearly show, even to one who isn't a scientist, that the amount of outgoing long wave radiation has not changed from the 70's to the present even though there is more atmospheric CO2 present. If AGW theory were true, there would be less outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 spectrum.

Pleading that you aren't bright enough to look at the evidence but will blindly accept the word of a group of "scientists" who have proven to be frauds is a completely indefensible position. You as much as admit to being a dupe.

By the way, more research from the climate pseudoscientists is about as valuable as past research. They manufacture data to reach a predetermined outcome.

 

[citizenzen]

By the way, more research from the climate pseudoscientists is about as valuable as past research. They manufacture data to reach a predetermined outcome.

And there you have it. You've carved out a nice little position... you'll simply dismiss any forthcoming evidence for GW as a part of a vast conspiracy that seeks to control your life by having you take public transportation. Those bastards!

I will instead continue to explore this issue further, and to keep an open mind to the evidence, whether it points towards one conclusion or the other.

I'll also continue to seek ways to lessen my personal impact on this world (whether Global Warming is real or not) and to vote for politicians and initiatives that support environmentalism. Reducing pollution and conserving energy is a wise choice regardless of it's impact on the world's temperature.

 

[palerider]

And there you have it. You've carved out a nice little position... you'll simply dismiss any forthcoming evidence for GW as a part of a vast conspiracy that seeks to control your life by having you take public transportation. Those bastards!

No. The evidence proves that is what they have done, not to mention their own admissions. I never dismiss actual supportable evidence but that isn't what the climate pseudoscientists use. They present the results of computer simulations as evidence even though it is well known that their programming is substandard and rife with errors. Further, the simulations can not accurately predict the past. I don't know how much you know about programming, but if a programming can't accurately predict the past, then it is evident that the data put into the program supposedly describing the past was clearly in error.

The evidence proves that there is no scientific basis to AGW theory. And yet, you cling to it and defend it like a red faced bible thumper clings to his own dogma.

I will instead continue to explore this issue further, and to keep an open mind to the evidence, whether it points towards one conclusion or the other.

No you won't. You will continue to rely on a group that has shown itself unworthy to call themselves scientists. And you will not keep an open mind to the evidence. Nothing could be more clear cut than the evidence that has already been presented on this thread that anthropogenic global warming is not happening and you reject it out of hand claiming that you aren't bright enough to look at a simple graph, or temperature representation and understand what it means while at the same time, you trust and rely on a group whose whole case is no more than a logical fallacy known as an appeal to complexity.

I'll also continue to seek ways to lessen my personal impact on this world (whether Global Warming is real or not) and to vote for politicians and initiatives that support environmentalism. Reducing pollution and conserving energy is a wise choice regardless of it's impact on the world's temperature.

I suppose you vote for those politicians and initiatives in complete ignorance of the carnage they leave in their wake. Are you even remotely aware that the pile of corpses that can be laid af the feet of environmentalism dwarfs the pile that can be laid at the feet of lenin, stalin, mao, pol pot, and hitler collectively? It seens that you deliberately choose the path of a dupe even when you pretend self righteousness.

 

[citizenzen]

Nothing could be more clear cut than the evidence that has already been presented on this thread

Nothing? My, somebody sure thinks a lot about himself.

I on the other hand will not "so blindly" accept your assertion as to the certainty of your position and will remain open to forthcoming scientific studies and debate.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[palerider]

Nothing? My, somebody sure thinks a lot about himself.

Nothing. It is straight forward evidence that AGW is not happening.

I on the other hand will not "so blindly" accept your assertion as to the certainty of your position and will remain open to forthcoming scientific studies and debate.

But by your own admission, you will blindly accept the assertions of a group that has been found to and admitted that they have manipulated data to reach a preconcieved result. Your position is one representing the pinnacle of hypocricy.

 

[citizenzen]

Your position is one representing the pinnacle of hypocricy.

Mom always knew I was destined for greatness... but the pinnacle... gosh... I'm humbled by this honor.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

If AGW theory were correct and increasing atmospheric CO2 caused warming, it would happen because the increased CO2 would capture more long wave radiation in the 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometer wavelengths...

From the origin. This is solid data, and can only be refuted by those using distortion or avoidance.

Palerider, your supplied information, along with all the disclosure of falsifications and tweaked data of recent days should be enough to put the bullet to the head of this beastly hoax. Unfortunately, the same mindset that allowed it to become the monstrosity it has is the same mindset that will refuse to acknowledge the evidence even when it is obvious and irrefutable.

Al Gore and his acolytes need a house of worship, and if you take that away, no matter how much in shambles, they will fight tooth and nail with the only weapons left: demand for more proof, challenges to the integrity and qualifications of those providing said proof and total denial even in the face of no support remaining for their position.

On the other hand, it should be expected. This has been pounded into the minds of the gullible and unwitting for nearly two decades. The evidence of reality will have difficulty overcoming the erroneous data and resulting computer model outcomes of the Gorebovites.

 

[palerider]

From the origin. This is solid data, and can only be refuted by those using distortion or avoidance.

Palerider, your supplied information, along with all the disclosure of falsifications and tweaked data of recent days should be enough to put the bullet to the head of this beastly hoax. Unfortunately, the same mindset that allowed it to become the monstrosity it has is the same mindset that will refuse to acknowledge the evidence even when it is obvious and irrefutable.

Al Gore and his acolytes need a house of worship, and if you take that away, no matter how much in shambles, they will fight tooth and nail with the only weapons left: demand for more proof, challenges to the integrity and qualifications of those providing said proof and total denial even in the face of no support remaining for their position.

On the other hand, it should be expected. This has been pounded into the minds of the gullible and unwitting for nearly two decades. The evidence of reality will have difficulty overcoming the erroneous data and resulting computer model outcomes of the Gorebovites.

AGW theory can not be falsified. No matter what happens, it plays into the predictions their priests have made. More rain, AGW. Less rain, AGW. More snow, AGW. Less snow, AGW. More hurricaines, AGW. Fewer hurricaines, AGW. Melting anarctic ice, AGW. Expanding anarctic ice, AGW. Increasing global temperatures, AGW. Decreasing global temperatures, AGW.

When a theory has no standard upon which it may be disproven, then it has left the realm of scientific theory and has well and truely become religion. When you ask members of the congregation what might prove to them that AGW theory is false, to an individual, none of them can give an answer.

 

[GenSeneca]

When a theory has no standard upon which it may be disproven, then it has left the realm of scientific theory and has well and truely become religion. When you ask members of the congregation what might prove to them that AGW theory is false, to an individual, none of them can give an answer.

Forgive me for making this tangent statement but it's very similar to the "religion" of the 9/11 Troofers. To both groups it is impossible to debunk their claims and anyone who tries is a shill for the powers that be.... Here is an example of both:

AWG Conspiracy Theorist:

let's try to estimate how many paid bloggers are typing their little fingers off [for "big oil"]...in order to dispense a wide net of anti-global warming propaganda....I wonder if they'd be able to hire a massive blog-force to punch their agenda through?

9/11 Conspiracy Theorist:

DISCLAIMER: I have worked with a buddy of mine on a private forum to debunk 9/11 myths.

LOL. So you definitely have an agenda. Might as well be a freakin' shill.

Some info on Conspiracy Theories:

Perhaps the most contentious aspect of a conspiracy theory is the problem of settling a particular theory's truth to the satisfaction of both its proponents and its opponents. Particular accusations of conspiracy vary widely in their plausibility, but some common standards for assessing their likely truth value may be applied in each case:

• Occam's razor - does the alternative story explain more of the evidence than the mainstream story, or is it just a more complicated and therefore less useful explanation of the same evidence?
• Logic - do the proofs offered follow the rules of logic, or do they employ fallacies of logic?
• Methodology - are the proofs offered for the argument well constructed, i.e., using sound methodology? Is there any clear standard to determine what evidence would prove or disprove the theory?
• Whistleblowers - how many people – and what kind – have to be loyal conspirators?
• Falsifiability - is it possible to demonstrate that specific claims of the theory are false, or are they "unfalsifiable"?

That last one Pale was just discussing...

The psychological origins of a Conspiracy Theory:

According to some psychologists, a person who believes in one conspiracy theory tends to believe in others; a person who does not believe in one conspiracy theory tends not to believe another. This may be caused by differences in the information upon which parties rely in formulating their conclusions.

Psychologists believe that the search for meaning is common in conspiracism and the development of conspiracy theories, and may be powerful enough alone to lead to the first formulating of the idea. Once cognized, confirmation bias and avoidance of cognitive dissonance may reinforce the belief. In a context where a conspiracy theory has become popular within a social group, communal reinforcement may equally play a part.

How popular is the AGW theory?

 

[palerider]

How popular is the AGW theory?

It is the biggest pseudoscientific theory since eugenics. My bet is that in 10 or 15 years, you will have as much trouble finding someone who actually believed in AGW theory as you would have finding someone who actually bought into eugenics.

 

[Gipper]

It is the biggest pseudoscientific theory since eugenics. My bet is that in 10 or 15 years, you will have as much trouble finding someone who actually believed in AGW theory as you would have finding someone who actually bought into eugenics.

You are right. But, I want retribution. These stinking f-ing Marxists who demanded we completely change our way of life based on a lie, need to pay for what they did. They need to be completely discredited, disbarred, and Nobel prize removed.

Why do we let them get away with this BS with no consequences?

 

[citizenzen]

You are right. But, I want retribution. These stinking f-ing Marxists who demanded we completely change our way of life based on a lie, need to pay for what they did. They need to be completely discredited, disbarred, and Nobel prize removed.

Why do we let them get away with this BS with no consequences?

I could give you my address so you could gun me down. Would that make you happy?