Scientists say they have proved climate change is real, now mus...

[PHD]

SpaceBlues wrote:

Why is it then the deniers like him? Because he's their boss.
Remember how tina adores him.

Yo, spacedoutblues would that be the same NASA that made the USA space hitchhikers??

[PHD]

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' never had upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa...... & no science or mathematics beyond that.'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' has had errors of 3000 TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 1 million TIMES, & 72 million TIMES.

More diarrheas from the “pinheadlitesout”

[ChromiuMan]

PHD wrote:

<quoted text>Yo, spacedoutblues would that be the same NASA that made the USA space hitchhikers??

Congress did that. Are you a Paul Broun supporter now, PHD? Brain_D is.

[tha Professor]

Brian_G wrote:

If you weren't advocating climate change mitigation, we wouldn't have any disagreement. Climate always changes, climate change mitigation hasn't even been tested.

>>Humans are changing the climate through the greenhouse effect, and reducing greenhouse gases would mitigate that effect. A child could understand at least that simple fact, and yet you continue to obfuscate, evade, and try to change the subject. Why?

<quoted text>No, I don't believe climate change mitigation by restricting CO2 emissions or sequestering greenhouse gas isn't "hugely difficult"; I believe its impossible. There are no published experimental tests that show its even remotely possible.
I'm not mocking purely observational climate science; I'm mocking climate change mitigation and man made climate catastrophe alarmism.

>>Changing the subject again? I told you that performing experiments on a world-wide scale was "hugely difficult." Please don't try to pretend I said something else and argue against that, instead - that technique is called using a strawman argument. And you've already had many, many experiments cited for you showing how greenhouse gases affect atmospheric warming, so why pretend that warming is 'alarmism?" You seem wildly irrational and in denial, citing "beliefs" instead of facts.

<quoted text>The first link is from Fair Game:
http://www.picotech.com/experiments/global/gl...
GHere's two more:
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_...
http://www.beloit.edu/sepm/Geology_and_the_en...
This page has been taken down:
http://dcdc.asu.edu/K-12Education/greenhousel...

Why are you citing this evidence to me, when it contradicts YOUR claims?

[tha Professor]

dr spark wrote:

it was all about " global cooling " 25 years ago ,
what will it be in 2024 ?
anybody's guess,...
a nuclear Iran will probably cause massive fallout and millions will be dead ,...
who will get hit first ? America or Israel
the global warming myth keeps the sheep-ple dumb and pre occupied -

It hasn't been about "global cooling" any time recently, that is a bit of Denier misinformation.

Unless, as you suggest, there were an all-out nuclear exchange which brought on the 'nuclear winter' effect. But then, your implication that Iran would attack either the U.S. or Israel is specious if not absurd.

[SpaceBlues]

dr spark wrote:

it was all about " global cooling " 25 years ago ,
what will it be in 2024 ?
anybody's guess,...
a nuclear Iran will probably cause massive fallout and millions will be dead ,...
who will get hit first ? America or Israel
the global warming myth keeps the sheep-ple dumb and pre occupied -

No, it was not. The rest of your post is also false.

Did you know:

Bullies’ accomplices suffer similar levels of distress as victims, finds study

Read more: http://www.canada.com/life/Bullies+accomplice...

[litesong]

dr spark wrote:

it was all about " global cooling " 25 years ago .....

Instead of reading Time & Newsweek on the sly at a local magazine rack, you should have enrolled at University & read Science Journals at Earth science, geology, astronomy, & mathematics libraries at the colleges.

Of course, you are wrong. In the 70's, 44 Science Papers were published in Science Journals about global warming, whereas only 7 papers were written about global cooling. Science, itself, was already predicting the problems of AGW.

[PHD]

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
Instead of reading Time & Newsweek on the sly at a local magazine rack, you should have enrolled at University & read Science Journals at Earth science, geology, astronomy, & mathematics libraries at the colleges.
Of course, you are wrong. In the 70's, 44 Science Papers were published in Science Journals about global warming, whereas only 7 papers were written about global cooling. Science, itself, was already predicting the problems of AGW.

More diarrheas from the “pinheadlitesout”

[PHD]

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
Congress did that. Are you a Paul Broun supporter now, PHD? Brain_D is.

No, I don't support any of those fools. So congress did it because it was a profitable venture?

[Brian_G]

tha Professor wrote:

>>Humans are changing the climate through the greenhouse effect,

Yet, no experimental evidence shows our greenhouse gas emissions are able to change climate temperature. As each greenhouse gas molecule is added to the atmosphere, it has less warming effect than the previous molecule.

.

tha Professor wrote:

and reducing greenhouse gases would mitigate that effect. A child could understand at least that simple fact, and yet you continue to obfuscate, evade, and try to change the subject. Why?

Again, no experimental test proves tha Professor's claim above.

.

tha Professor wrote:

>>Changing the subject again? I told you that performing experiments on a world-wide scale was "hugely difficult." Please don't try to pretend I said something else and argue against that, instead - that technique is called using a strawman argument. And you've already had many, many experiments cited for you showing how greenhouse gases affect atmospheric warming, so why pretend that warming is 'alarmism?" You seem wildly irrational and in denial, citing "beliefs" instead of facts.

None of the studies cited shows the effect of man made greenhouse gas on atmospheric temperature. That's how you can know climate change mitigation is a hoax.

.

tha Professor wrote:

Why are you citing this evidence to me, when it contradicts YOUR claims?

You asked me to cite my claim: "There are several experiments demonstrating the greenhouse effect, they tend to show a far lower CO2 forcing than the IPCC's most conservative estimates." The experiments I cited in my previous post prove the greenhouse effect is weak and our greenhouse gas contributions are insignificant.

[SpaceBlues]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Yet, no experimental evidence shows our greenhouse gas emissions are able to change climate temperature. As each greenhouse gas molecule is added to the atmosphere, it has less warming effect than the previous molecule.
.
<quoted text>Again, no experimental test proves tha Professor's claim above.
.
<quoted text>None of the studies cited shows the effect of man made greenhouse gas on atmospheric temperature. That's how you can know climate change mitigation is a hoax.
.
<quoted text>You asked me to cite my claim: "There are several experiments demonstrating the greenhouse effect, they tend to show a far lower CO2 forcing than the IPCC's most conservative estimates." The experiments I cited in my previous post prove the greenhouse effect is weak and our greenhouse gas contributions are insignificant.

Listen. Submit your nonsense to publication to compete with the scientists.

Leave us alone.

P.S. You have spammed the world about 40,000 times with your nonsense. Go compete with science in proper arena.

[SpaceBlues]

To Topix Editors:

I for one will be very upset if you reward the above poster's 40,000 spam posts.

Sincerely,

[Brian_G]

SpaceBlues wrote:

Listen. Submit your nonsense to publication to compete with the scientists.

I'm flattered you would suggest my claim,'the lack of experimental tests prove climate change mitigation is a hoax' is worthy of submission for publication. Thank you very much.

.

SpaceBlues wrote:

Leave us alone.

Cyberbullies always tell you what to do and where to go. They can't compete with rational argument, so the demand compliance.

.

SpaceBlues wrote:

P.S. You have spammed the world about 40,000 times with your nonsense. Go compete with science in proper arena.

While I agree, Topix posters aren't always competent to judge scientific theories; I believe they can learn. It might take more posts but I'm going to continue to discuss the experimental history of climate change mitigation:

Zip, zero, nada...

[SpaceBlues]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>I'm flattered you would suggest my claim,'the lack of experimental tests prove climate change mitigation is a hoax' is worthy of submission for publication. Thank you very much.
.
<quoted text>Cyberbullies always tell you what to do and where to go. They can't compete with rational argument, so the demand compliance.
.
<quoted text>While I agree, Topix posters aren't always competent to judge scientific theories; I believe they can learn. It might take more posts but I'm going to continue to discuss the experimental history of climate change mitigation:
Zip, zero, nada...

No need to flatter yourself for your nonsense.

[Fair Game]

Brian_G wrote:

While I agree, Topix posters aren't always competent to judge scientific theories; I believe they can learn.

You're right, they aren't; you're wrong, they can't: you're proof of that.

[SpaceBlues]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text> to another poster:
You're right, they aren't; you're wrong, they can't: you're proof of that.

Actually, a lot of deniers are no longer posting as you know.

He's just the one who hasn't dropped out after all these years. It must be the $$$$$, no?

[Brian_G]

Fair Game wrote:

You're right, they aren't; you're wrong, they can't: you're proof of that.

Then cite the most compelling experiment for climate change mitigation you've found.

I'll wait.

[PHD]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>Listen. Submit your nonsense to publication to compete with the scientists.
Leave us alone.
P.S. You have spammed the world about 40,000 times with your nonsense. Go compete with science in proper arena.

Why don't you submit your peer reviewed published work to all? So submit your scientific science fiction nonsense to Hollywood and make another scientific science fiction movie. You have spammed to world more than 400,000 times with your nonsense. Go compete with the proper scientific science fiction movie arena.

[SpaceBlues]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
Funny, that. I was just looking at graphs of the data-annual and 8 year trends- and they show a warming trend.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/weather_vs_...
I expect you'll say it's realclimate so they must've just made it up. Hey ho.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...

Indeed.

<back to the future>

[SpaceBlues]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think you're going to believe anything we post- the simple solution is to wait. Science says the current cooling trend is a blip, and the long-term warming trend will take hold again after a few years. You say global warming has finished.
If after five years, there's no more global warming and you get to know you were right. If in any year before then the previous record is broken, you get to know you were wrong.
Please remember this little post in five years time! I'll try to.
Hopefully the decision makers will make their decisions on the scientific evidence available at the moment.

Look what I found!