Quote from: taxed on August 11, 2014, 11:18:58 AM
I can explain it to you.  As someone who has used math in the real world to eat, like many of us here except you, your models have consistently been wrong and based on fraudulent data.

To support this assertion, you produced two random quotations.  Apparently, two inaccurate predictions from two random scientists means that the entire field is wrong.  Do you realize I could use the same logic to disprove the validity of math?

Quote
In the real world, if they continue to be wrong, you go out of business and lose money.  In academia, you get a tenure.

Maybe that's your problem - you're trying to judge scientific theories with business principles and not, you know, the scientific method.

Quote
Normal people hear your man-made global warming BS and dismiss it.  Those people who you think know what they're talking about are just idiots, like the geniuses on the research ship that got stuck in the ice.

"Normal people" aren't very good at science.  You have to be somewhat talented in the field and, more importantly, do real research and study.  From the sources you've cited, it's obvious that you get everything you know about AGW off of the "bostonherald" and "forbes.com", ie, you're a google warrior.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 11, 2014, 05:33:21 PM
To support this assertion, you produced two random quotations.  Apparently, two inaccurate predictions from two random scientists means that the entire field is wrong.  Do you realize I could use the same logic to disprove the validity of math?

I'm not the one who calls CO2 a pollutant.  Common sense and logic makes is obvious that anyone who says that doesn't have a firm grasp on anything.

Quote
Maybe that's your problem - you're trying to judge scientific theories with business principles and not, you know, the scientific method.

It has nothing to do with business principals.  We get it right because we have to, therefore, we do.  Or, we fail, figure out what we got wrong, and try again.  You get it wrong and get a good grade on your report card.  There is a difference, and you really should learn your place intellectually.

Quote
"Normal people" aren't very good at science.  You have to be somewhat talented in the field and, more importantly, do real research and study.  From the sources you've cited, it's obvious that you get everything you know about AGW off of the "bostonherald" and "forbes.com", ie, you're a google warrior.

Like these geniuses?
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/11/report-bill-nye-al-gore-get-the-physics-of-global-warming-wrong/

QuoteCritics are saying Bill Nye "the science guy" and former Vice President Al Gore got their global warming science wrong, citing previously published research.

Back in 2011, Nye and Gore teamed up to show that global warming was real using "a simple lab experiment." The problem is that such experiments have been discredited by scientists who the say these demonstrations show heat transport, not global warming.

"Although not an accurate demonstration of the physics of climate change, the experiment we have considered and related ones are valuable examples of the dangers of unintentional bias in science, the value of at least a rough quantitative prediction of the expected effect, the importance of considering alternative explanations, and the need for carefully designed experimental controls," according to a paper by scientists from Tufts and the Technical Education Research Centers.

During a 2011 "24 hours of climate reality" by the Climate Reality Project, a group founded by Gore to sound the alarm on global warming, Nye put together a "Climate Change 101" video which used "a simple lab experiment" to demonstrate how increasing levels of carbon dioxide emissions heat the planet.

Nye's "simple" experiment involved sealing thermometers inside two identical bottles, which were sealed. To illustrate the effects of increased carbon dioxide on temperature, Nye fits a hose from a CO2 canister into one of the bottles. Both bottles are then placed placed under heat lamps.

"Within minutes you will see the temperature of the bottle with carbon dioxide in it rising faster and higher," Nye said in his video experiment. "The bottles are like our atmosphere, the lamps are like our sun."

A paper published in a 2010 edition of the American Journal of Physics found that experiments like Nye's are "not an accurate demonstration of the physics of climate change."

These experiments have not just been reproduced by Nye, but by scientists and teachers around the country to illustrate the cause of global warming in a simple, easy to understand way. But they all suffer a fatal flaw: they illustrate "processes related to convective heat transport that plays no role in climate change."

Are we all going to die on Tuesday again?

Quote from: taxed on August 11, 2014, 09:02:39 PM
I'm not the one who calls CO2 a pollutant.

Please provide an quantifiable definition of "pollutant".

Excess CO2 is a bad thing, in the same manner that excess sugar, fat, or even water is bad for humans.  That a certain level of CO2 is necessary for our survival does not change this fact.

Quote
Common sense and logic makes is obvious that anyone who says that doesn't have a firm grasp on anything.

"Common sense and logic" and the "scientific method" are not the same thing at all, but it's far easier to bullshit knowledge on the former than the latter.

Quote
It has nothing to do with business principals.  We get it right because we have to, therefore, we do.  Or, we fail, figure out what we got wrong, and try again.  You get it wrong and get a good grade on your report card.  There is a difference, and you really should learn your place intellectually.

Science is academia.    

Quote
Like these geniuses?
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/11/report-bill-nye-al-gore-get-the-physics-of-global-warming-wrong/

So instead of actually looking at professional scientific papers, you decide to criticize...a politician, and a comedian?   

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 11, 2014, 09:12:25 PM
Please provide an quantifiable definition of "pollutant".

No.  That implies I give the idiocy validity.  It is make believe and ridiculous to call it a pollutant, and if I try to prove it isn't a pollutant, like trying to prove Santa doesn't exist, then I engage in idiocy.  It is so stupid to even consider, that I make fun at someone who calls it a pollutant, of any kind.  I'm not dumb and gullible to think it is a pollutant.

Quote
Excess CO2 is a bad thing, in the same manner that excess sugar, fat, or even water is bad for humans.  That a certain level of CO2 is necessary for our survival does not change this fact.

You are still in make believe land.  There is no CO2 danger.

Quote
"Common sense and logic" and the "scientific method" are not the same thing at all, but it's far easier to bullshit knowledge on the former than the latter.

I don't follow and take seriously idiots who think the Arctic sea ice is melting, take a boat up there, and get stuck.  I'm with the people who called them idiots and making fun of them after.

Quote
Science is academia.    

Nope.  Science is science.

Quote
So instead of actually looking at professional scientific papers, you decide to criticize...a politician, and a comedian?   

I don't blame them for trying anything.  The only problem is not everyone is as stupid as they think.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 11, 2014, 09:08:30 PM
Are we all going to die on Tuesday again?

Sci Fi the CPF science guy says we have a CO2 crisis.

Quote from: taxed on August 11, 2014, 09:31:26 PM
No.  That implies I give the idiocy validity.  It is make believe and ridiculous to call it a pollutant, and if I try to prove it isn't a pollutant, like trying to prove Santa doesn't exist, then I engage in idiocy.  It is so stupid to even consider, that I make fun at someone who calls it a pollutant, of any kind.  I'm not dumb and gullible to think it is a pollutant.

This isn't how scientific theories are discussed in any capacity.  If you want to discuss this like you know what you're talking about, you will provide data, math, definitions, units, and observations.  But you won't do any of this, because you literally have no idea what you're talking about.

QuoteYou are still in make believe land.  There is no CO2 danger.

Break out the math for me, then.

Quote
I don't blame them for trying anything.  The only problem is not everyone is as stupid as they think.

The point clearly sailed over your head, so let me spell it out for you: If you want to discuss AGW, discuss the professional, peer reviewed papers.  What Bill Nye says is completely irrelevant. 

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 11, 2014, 09:42:47 PM
This isn't how scientific theories are discussed in any capacity.  If you want to discuss this like you know what you're talking about, you will provide data, math, definitions, units, and observations.  But you won't do any of this, because you literally have no idea what you're talking about.

Break out the math for me, then.

The point clearly sailed over your head, so let me spell it out for you: If you want to discuss AGW, discuss the professional, peer reviewed papers.  What Bill Nye says is completely irrelevant.

You're chasing what you want to believe.  Your hockey stick scam has already been busted.  Quit chasing CO2 molecules with butterfly nets and study some real science, not this fake "climate science" crap.

http://www.news.wisc.edu/23050

QuoteWhen the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently requested a figure for its annual report, to show global temperature trends over the last 10,000 years, the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Zhengyu Liu knew that was going to be a problem.

"We have been building models and there are now robust contradictions," says Liu, a professor in the UW-Madison Center for Climatic Research. "Data from observation says global cooling. The physical model says it has to be warming."

It's going to be 73 tomorrow....in August. I love global warming climate change.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 11, 2014, 09:55:54 PM
It's going to be 73 tomorrow....in August. I love global warming climate change.

Supposed to be 79 degrees tomorrow here in the north central.  Boy what a scorching summer day.

Quote from: taxed on August 11, 2014, 10:01:13 PM
Supposed to be 79 degrees tomorrow here in the north central.  Boy what a scorching summer day.

We're gonna melt!

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 11, 2014, 10:03:29 PM
We're gonna melt!

It's my own fault.  I haven't read any peer reviewed papers lately.

Quote from: taxed on August 11, 2014, 10:04:14 PM
It's my own fault.  I haven't read any peer reviewed papers lately.

Why not? They're reviewed! By peers!

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 11, 2014, 10:07:39 PM
Why not? They're reviewed! By peers!

I'm going to bring a bunch with me next time I go camping. That way when it gets cold, I can read the peer reviewed papers to prove to myself how warm it is.

Quote from: taxed on August 11, 2014, 10:11:56 PM
I'm going to bring a bunch with me next time I go camping. That way when it gets cold, I can read the peer reviewed papers to prove to myself how warm it is.

I'm going to wear them in the winter!