Good News Sucks for Climate Cultists

serendipity said:
Sorry but that's just bullshit! Here's what the great man said way back in 2012 in the House of Commons.

Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.
Click to expand...

Climate cannot change. There is no value associated with climate that can change.
Weather changes. Climate does not.
CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor does. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
 
Into the Night said:
So you discard the 1st law of thermodynamics...utterly. You think you can create energy out of nothing.
Click to expand...

NOpe. But your version of the first law doesn't even REMOTELY look like the first law of thermo. For one: there isn't a "time" component.

In other words you took a stab at sounding sciencey and you failed. No harm in that. Just go and learn the topic first.
 
Quincunx said:
The topic you are taking a stab at is called "Climate Sensitivity". It has been estimated over and over again and found to be in the range of 2-4.5degC.

This illustration (from an article by Knutti and Hegerl, 2008) shows the various methods that have been used and the likely estimate of the sensitivity.

Climate_Sensitivity_500.jpg


So I'm sorry but since you provided no evidence for your position I'm going to go with the one that has evidence.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as 'climate sensitivity'. Buzzword fallacy.
 
Quincunx said:
Only about 7 or 8 that were peer reviewed. But the point remains that Lindzen is on the side of the doubters. He's among the tiny minority who doubt the standard science.

Just like Einstein had doubts about Quantum Mechanics and my mineralogy professor had doubts about plate tectonics back in the 1980's.

There's always doubt. The key is that Lindzen represents about only 3% or less of the total scientific population.
Click to expand...

Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.
Science isn't a population. It isn't even people.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
 
Quincunx said:
NOpe. But your version of the first law doesn't even REMOTELY look like the first law of thermo. For one: there isn't a "time" component.
Click to expand...
Yes there is. Again, you try to make the case that energy cannot produce work. This has already been explained to you. Repetition fallacy (chanting).
Quincunx said:
In other words you took a stab at sounding sciencey and you failed. No harm in that. Just go and learn the topic first.
Click to expand...
Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself. Religion isn't science.

It is not possible to create energy out of nothing.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

You just want to deny science in favor of your religion.
 
Quincunx said:
So you foundationally disagree with Richard Lindzen on the topic of climate change? Did I get that right?
Click to expand...

ROFL

Making shit up?

I've read Lindzen extensively.

I'm going to take a wild guess that you have not. (But you watched a movie by Pope Algore the prevacator...)
 
moon said:
Which study was that and when was it dated ? The frequency and severity of extreme events are, of course, ongoing. You can add Rolling Fork to your ...er....'study '
Click to expand...


There have been several issued over the last few years and they included the time frame of supposed "extreme" weather.
Tornados happen, they have always happened and they will continue to happen.
 
Quincunx said:
Just going to ignore the articles I posted that say the exact opposite of your opinion?
Click to expand...

I just scanned through this thread from the OP to post 81 (the one I am responding to), and I found exactly ZERO articles in it posted by YOU. So, there is no "opposite of (my) opinion" to respond to. Nada, nothing, zip-point-shit.

My position stands. The mainstream climate scientists are more involved in politics than science, their findings to date are mostly crap, their predictions are nearly 100% wrong. They've been wrong so much and so often, only a complete fool would believe them. Until they can show that their science is valid and their predictions reasonably correct, and that will take some doing now, there is no reason to believe a thing they say.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I just scanned through this thread from the OP to post 81 (the one I am responding to), and I found exactly ZERO articles in it posted by YOU.
Click to expand...

Embedded links. Look for the blue color. That indicates something called a HYPERLINK. It is an HTML command that reads <a href="link address"> ....</a>
 
Quincunx said:
I've read more actual climate science than you have. :)
Click to expand...

"Climate Science..."

You mean you're a devoted cultist who recites mantras from your church.

YOU decided to name drop Dr. Lindzen.

So let's see what he ACTUALLY wrote;

7g1m9a.jpg


https://climatechangethefacts.org.au/richard-lindzen/

I used to debate this shit with you cultists, years ago. Then it became clear that Jehovahs Witnesses are more rational about Christmas than AGW Cultists are about climate.

Now I just mock you Giai worshipping nutjobs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top