Global Warming Standup Comedy

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#3004 Dec 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I like Reagan!
.
<quoted text>Pat really thinks there's never been a thermonuclear bomb test? Those things were tested for years, in the atmosphere and underground. The only climate change was a local and brief cooling effect until the particulates fell out of the atmosphere.
.
<quoted text>Adding or removing any GHG from the atmosphere then detecting a climate signal, or even a change to global atmospheric content measurement would be a possible experiment. Don't blame skeptics, science hasn't kept up with the hype.
.
<quoted text>That's the theory, where's the peer reviewed experimental test?
.
<quoted text>More than theorized: Lithium deuteride[edit]
The corresponding lithium-6 deuteride, formula 6Li2H or 6LiD, is the fusion fuel in thermonuclear weapons. In warheads of the Teller-Ulam design, a fission trigger explosion heats, compresses and bombards 6LiD with neutrons to produce tritium in an exothermic reaction. The deuterium and tritium (both isotopes of hydrogen) then fuse to produce helium-4, a neutron and 17.59 MeV of energy.
This effect has been experimentally tested many times, most recently:
On May 11, 1998, India reportedly detonated a thermonuclear bomb in its Operation Shakti tests ("Shakti-1", specifically).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_we...
.
<quoted text>Then do the experiments outdoors, as if that's not done every day. An experiment doesn't require a laboratory.
There was no experiment confirming the science of the H-Bomb. The theory was tested without any laboratory experiments because there was no method of doing so. Likewise, there is no laboratory method of testing AGW. The resulting warming is the test. We know that the H-Bomb worked. We also know that AGW is happening because the Earth is warming.But of course, you are unable to admit this or are really that stupid.....

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#3005 Dec 9, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, at least the vast majority of significant national science academies. Perhaps you can find on in outer Bongoland that is a bit backward. Each has given a statement validating AGW theory and the IPCC WG1 analysis.
<quoted text>
But 'natural experiments' are allowed. i.e. deriviing the science from changes you can detect and measure even if you cannot put them on a lab bench. As in climate science or astonomy.
<quoted text>
Hurry up and take it so you can talk intelligently. Lab tests are just one way to get DATA. They are not the core of science. The basic core of science is framing and validating a model of reality.
As a matter of fact, the Sun's fusion reaction was theorized on Earth. Helium gas was discovered on the Sun before it was known to exist on the Earth. None of this work was adaptable to an experiment because the Sun was too big to house in a laboratory and a little too hot for firsthand evidence. Not only that, but we were not able to get there in the year 1868. The naive babblings of the resident deniers are nothing more than denial or outright stupidity.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#3006 Dec 10, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
There was no experiment confirming the science of the H-Bomb. The theory was tested without any laboratory experiments because there was no method of doing so.
Pat wants to ignore the entire history of thermonuclear weapons tests? How's that for denial!

.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Likewise, there is no laboratory method of testing AGW.
Just like nuclear weapons are tested, we can test the effect of man made greenhouse gases on the atmosphere. It's just that the results are too insignificant to publish...

Or you could still do a laboratory test on GHG and the temperature of a contained atmosphere, why not use that? Is it because the results show doubling atmospheric CO2 causes a very small temperature increase?

.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
The resulting warming is the test.
No, a test is done intentionally. The warming is just the warming, you've got no experiments demonstrating how warming results from man made CO2.

.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
We know that the H-Bomb worked.
We know the bombs worked because we tested them before using them in war. Where's the test for climate change mitigation?

.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
We also know that AGW is happening because the Earth is warming.
No, we speculate "that AGW is happening because the Earth is warming", after a successful experimental test of AGW theory we'll know the cause of global climate warming.

.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
But of course, you are unable to admit this or are really that stupid.....
I know the difference between speculation, observation, experimentation and pseudoscience. AGW theory implies climate change mitigation but its never been sucessfully demonstrated. There are no peer reviewed experimental tests of man made climate change or climate change mitigation. We're not even able to add or remove a gas from the atmosphere and measure a corresponding change in atmospheric content. We're that insignificant; climate changes our lives, there's no experimental evidence we change global climate.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#3007 Dec 10, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Pat wants to ignore the entire history of thermonuclear weapons tests? How's that for denial!
.
<quoted text>Just like nuclear weapons are tested, we can test the effect of man made greenhouse gases on the atmosphere. It's just that the results are too insignificant to publish...
Or you could still do a laboratory test on GHG and the temperature of a contained atmosphere, why not use that? Is it because the results show doubling atmospheric CO2 causes a very small temperature increase?
.
<quoted text>No, a test is done intentionally. The warming is just the warming, you've got no experiments demonstrating how warming results from man made CO2.
.
<quoted text>We know the bombs worked because we tested them before using them in war. Where's the test for climate change mitigation?
.
<quoted text>No, we speculate "that AGW is happening because the Earth is warming", after a successful experimental test of AGW theory we'll know the cause of global climate warming.
.
<quoted text>I know the difference between speculation, observation, experimentation and pseudoscience. AGW theory implies climate change mitigation but its never been sucessfully demonstrated. There are no peer reviewed experimental tests of man made climate change or climate change mitigation. We're not even able to add or remove a gas from the atmosphere and measure a corresponding change in atmospheric content. We're that insignificant; climate changes our lives, there's no experimental evidence we change global climate.
There was no laboratory test of an H-Bomb! An explosion resulted from the application of the theory. No test just the final application. Some things cannot be tested in a laboratory experiment. Try to internalize that.

Likewise there is no laboratory test for global warming. We just cannot get the whole world into a laboratory.

There was no intentional test of the effects of tobacco. You failed again. Many medical procedures are not tested before they are applied. Would you be willing to slurp up a suspected harmful chemical to help study its effects?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#3008 Dec 10, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
There was no laboratory test of an H-Bomb!
Of course there were, many tests. Slotin's technique of tickling the dragon's tail with critical mass experiments allowed laboratory tests of subcritical atomic interactions.

.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
An explosion resulted from the application of the theory.
And many experimental tests to refine the theory, that's why atomic theory is so complicated but AGW theory is so simple.

.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
No test just the final application.
All those nuclear weapons were tested before deployed.

.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Some things cannot be tested in a laboratory experiment. Try to internalize that.
If they have to do with changing the environment, then they can be tested in the real world. A field experiment is just as valid as a lab experiment.

.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Likewise there is no laboratory test for global warming. We just cannot get the whole world into a laboratory.
No field experiment either, what's up with that? I mean we have experimental tests of atmospheric thermonuclear blasts that show a local and temporary cooling under the debris cloud, but no change in global climate.

.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
There was no intentional test of the effects of tobacco. You failed again.
There were intentional laboratory tests on the effects of tobacco. Please, catch up.

.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Many medical procedures are not tested before they are applied.
Every FDA approved medical procedure is tested.

.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Would you be willing to slurp up a suspected harmful chemical to help study its effects?
Don't drink the koolaid, climate change mitigation is a hoax and man made catastrophic climate change is pseudoscience.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#3009 Dec 10, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Of course there were, many tests. Slotin's technique of tickling the dragon's tail with critical mass experiments allowed laboratory tests of subcritical atomic interactions.
.
<quoted text>And many experimental tests to refine the theory, that's why atomic theory is so complicated but AGW theory is so simple.
.
<quoted text>All those nuclear weapons were tested before deployed.
.
<quoted text>If they have to do with changing the environment, then they can be tested in the real world. A field experiment is just as valid as a lab experiment.
.
<quoted text>No field experiment either, what's up with that? I mean we have experimental tests of atmospheric thermonuclear blasts that show a local and temporary cooling under the debris cloud, but no change in global climate.
.
<quoted text>There were intentional laboratory tests on the effects of tobacco. Please, catch up.
.
<quoted text>Every FDA approved medical procedure is tested.
.
<quoted text>Don't drink the koolaid, climate change mitigation is a hoax and man made catastrophic climate change is pseudoscience.
Not too many laboratories that I know of were blown up with H-Bombs!
How many laboratory experiments on tobacco products were performed on humans? Many experiments are applied to animals, but very few basic experiments are performed upon humans. How many persons were told to breathe asbestos to see what the effects would be? Doubt there would be many. Nope, the effects of asbestos were found by studies, not experiments. Don't be so Ig------slow....

Btw, there has been scientific evidence that CO2 is a GHG. Keep up.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#3010 Dec 10, 2013
Right, CO2 is a greenhouse gas but there's no experiment showing man's CO2 is significant to climate. If you want to prove a theory, you've got to test it. What's the best experimental test you've found for climate change mitigation?
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#3011 Dec 10, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Right, CO2 is a greenhouse gas
A small victory for truth. BG finally gets ONE small point. Now let's see how badly he's messed up the rest..
Brian_G wrote:
Right, CO2 is a greenhouse gas but there's no experiment showing man's CO2 is significant to climate.
Meaningless noise. As a Greenhouse gas, more CO2 increases the global average temperature. The global average temperature is a major factor in climate state and climate stability. Since we have the receipts (for fuel and therefore emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere) and science has verified that the increase in CO2 is from industry, we per se, HAVE an effect on climate. We want to have LESS effect on climate so we want to stop CHANGING the climate by emitting gigatons of CO2.
Brian_G wrote:
If you want to prove a theory, you've got to test it.
Test, yes. There are MANY ways of testing a theory. They have used regression analysis of the climate factors against a model of the planetary climate and verfied that the three major factors are solar insolation (not changing much), high altitude sulphate aerosols,(there, but not changing much), and GHGs (changed a lot and still increasing steadily).
Brian_G wrote:
What's the best experimental test you've found for climate change mitigation?
"if it hurts doing this, stop doing this..' i.e. common sense. You don't need an 'experiment' to say that cause and effect works BOTH ways. Less cause = less effect with the exception of 'tipping points' but we are hopefully not reaching those yet.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#3012 Dec 10, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Btw, there has been scientific evidence that CO2 is a GHG. Keep up.
He is certainly on the right thread, but his 'standup comedy routine' is a bit stale.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#3013 Dec 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Right, CO2 is a greenhouse gas but there's no experiment showing man's CO2 is significant to climate. If you want to prove a theory, you've got to test it. What's the best experimental test you've found for climate change mitigation?
As usual, you crayfish. The old telson is flapping furiously.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#3014 Dec 11, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
A small victory for truth. BG finally gets ONE small point. Now let's see how badly he's messed up the rest..
It's circular reasoning, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs and emits IR light. Like saying, the sky is blue.

Climate change alarmism is like saying the sky is falling.

.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Meaningless noise.
The Scientific Method is just meaningless noise to LessHy.

.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
As a Greenhouse gas, more CO2 increases the global average temperature. The global average temperature is a major factor in climate state and climate stability. Since we have the receipts (for fuel and therefore emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere) and science has verified that the increase in CO2 is from industry, we per se, HAVE an effect on climate.
There's no evidence for this effect, its like saying the oceans are rising because you took a leak while you were swimming. Also, having the receipts for fuel doesn't mean the fuel was actually burned. You paid for the tank of gas in your car, but paying doesn't mean you have an empty gas tank.

.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
We want to have LESS effect on climate so we want to stop CHANGING the climate by emitting gigatons of CO2.
Yet there is no experimental evidence man can change the global climate. Cite a peer reviewed experiment if that's untrue.

.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Test, yes. There are MANY ways of testing a theory. They have used regression analysis of the climate factors against a model of the planetary climate and verfied that the three major factors are solar insolation (not changing much), high altitude sulphate aerosols,(there, but not changing much), and GHGs (changed a lot and still increasing steadily).
A regression analysis can't determine causality the way an experiment can. Correlation isn't causality.

.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
"if it hurts doing this, stop doing this..' i.e. common sense. You don't need an 'experiment' to say that cause and effect works BOTH ways. Less cause = less effect with the exception of 'tipping points' but we are hopefully not reaching those yet.
You need an experiment if you propose a scheme like capping or taxing CO2 emissions or schemes for sequestering CO2 from the air in carbon sinks. Experiments aren't just done by scientists, businesses use them to test new business plans. Don't buy a pig in a poke.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#3015 Dec 11, 2013
Have you ever read something then could only shake your head and say: "WTF"?
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
There was no experiment confirming the science of the H-Bomb. The theory was tested without any laboratory experiments... Likewise, there is no laboratory method of testing AGW. The resulting warming is the test. We also know that AGW is happening because the Earth is warming...
...and who is "We"???
Fellow scientifically minded people who now "believe" a correlation between AGW and a warming planet is all that is necessary to "know" it to actually be Cause and Effect?

Is there ANYTHING that could shake your faith in Orthodox Climatology?

Stay warm my friends.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#3016 Dec 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>It's circular reasoning, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs and emits IR light. Like saying, the sky is blue.
There is a difference between FACTS like CO2 is a GHG, or the Sky is Blue (not precisely a true fact by the way) and circular reasoning. In fact, there is no reasoning implied by FACTS. Your ignorance astounds me.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The Scientific Method is just meaningless noise to LessHy.
Again, silly blather. The scientific method includes data from 'lab experiments' but is not limited by them. Any validation is accepted. Including measuring the state of the atmosphere over time while it is being changed by large emissions of GHGs, lab tests of CO2 LW IR absorbtion (at various pressures) and regression analysis of other potential factors.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php...
"Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."

"In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection."

I keep trying to educate you in the Scientific Method and what is Science, but you are resistant to education of any type. A typical troll with one song to sing.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#3017 Dec 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There's no evidence for this effect, its like saying the oceans are rising because you took a leak while you were swimming. Also, having the receipts for fuel doesn't mean the fuel was actually burned. You paid for the tank of gas in your car, but paying doesn't mean you have an empty gas tank.
Meaningless noise again. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You admit that. We know that CO2 levels are rising. We measure that. Both are evidence of a 'cause' and the effect is predictable.

Like saying you add water to a bath with the plug in and then deny that the water level is rising. You are getting ridiculous.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#3018 Dec 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Yet there is no experimental evidence man can change the global climate. Cite a peer reviewed experiment if that's untrue.
The FACT of climate change is derived from the fact that we ARE changing one known 'variable' in the climate process. To say that it DOESN'T change would require an experiment. And we have the 'natural experiment' of measuring the global average surface temperature to validate the fact.

Defining the exact changes from increased GHGs and consequent AGW is the one thing that is still in the air.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#3019 Dec 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>A regression analysis can't determine causality the way an experiment can. Correlation isn't causality.
Exactly. A regression analysis can only VERIFY the theoretical cause and effect. I.e it can VERIFY that increased CO2 and other GHGs is causing a warming in the global average surface temperature. This is science. Playing with graphs (usually the noise) such as the 'pause' in air temperature trends from La Nina is a denialist attempt to discredit science. They ignore the multiple variables which have to be SEPARATED in order to get a clear picture of the cause and effect of EACH variable.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#3020 Dec 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
You need an experiment if you propose a scheme like capping or taxing CO2 emissions or schemes for sequestering CO2 from the air in carbon sinks.
No. You need the political will to stop the ignorance of science and deal with the consequences of using our atmosphere like an open sewer. An experiment? The ONLY valid experiment would be to reduce CO2 emissions and see how that affects the temperature trend. We already have the experiment where we ADD CO2 and see the resulting temperature trend.
Brian_G wrote:
Experiments aren't just done by scientists, businesses use them to test new business plans.
Experiment is a useful tool to collect 'clean data', but it isn't meaningful unless it is used as data input to science and reason. Experiments without the science is like correlation without causation. Meaningless and prone to error. Such as cold fusion, faster than light neutrinos, etc etc etc.
Brian_G wrote:
Don't buy a pig in a poke.
You keep trying to sell your pig in a poke but nobody is buying. Time for you to move on.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#3021 Dec 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Climate change alarmism is like saying the sky is falling.
'Alarmism' is NOT a fact. We don't know exactly what problems will e created so there is no 'alarm' here, just warnings.

and the sky is rising with AGW warming. Like the oceans, they experience thermal expansion. It's a law (gas law). Your ignorance of science and scientific methods continues to astound me.
Cut n Paste

Minneapolis, MN

#3022 Dec 11, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
'Alarmism' is NOT a fact. We don't know exactly what problems will e created so there is no 'alarm' here, just warnings.
and the sky is rising with AGW warming. Like the oceans, they experience thermal expansion. It's a law (gas law). Your ignorance of science and scientific methods continues to astound me.
"... there is no 'alarm' here, "

Absolutely right. There is no need for alarm.
Current CO2 levels are nowhere near a dangerously high level.
Cut n Paste

Minneapolis, MN

#3023 Dec 11, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
The FACT of climate change is derived from the fact that we ARE changing one known 'variable' in the climate process. To say that it DOESN'T change would require an experiment. And we have the 'natural experiment' of measuring the global average surface temperature to validate the fact.
Defining the exact changes from increased GHGs and consequent AGW is the one thing that is still in the air.
Exactly!
Science understands the fundamental mechanics of Climate.
Though climate science is in it's infancy "we" think "we" have sufficient knowledge to control the weather.(Of course "we" also say "we" need billions of $ for further research)

Right now there is a consensus that a single control mechanism can be applied to adjust our weather.

If "we" don't like the size of the tornadoes in a region there is an application of a scientific theory to make them less severe.
If "we" are unhappy about the numbers of tornadoes each year....
there's an application for that too.
Big Hurricanes? There's AN APP.
Floods...OR drought... AN APP.
Collapsing bridges in Minneapolis??? APP!!!
YES! The list goes on...
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.html
Just look at the hundreds of studies that all suggest "dialing down" the CO2 is the single application that will solve our climate woes.

True Believers in Orthodox Climatology -attend:
Now is the time to stand fast in your faith of Our Climate Science.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Will Green Political Machine Foil Trump? 9 min Say It Ain t So Jo 30
More & Larger Western U.S. Forest Fires (Apr '14) 28 min A Real American 49
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 34 min LIbEralS 35,561
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr dGo mnaDed lyHo i... 60,662
mau nomor togel jitu hub 082319208865 (Aug '15) 1 hr YOHANES1 14
News Panel recommends options to reduce aviation car... 8 hr tina anne 3
GW based on flawed science 16 hr IB DaMann 43
More from around the web