AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?

[Tonington]

You were doing so good the other day when you admitted "I don't know"

I've yet to see any climate effects on nutation.

Just because the atmosphere is involved, doesn't mean that it is climate forcing the nutation.

That's ridiculous. Are you going to claim next that climate causes every single tornado, hurricane, ice storm, drought, sand storm, hail storm, and any other meteorological phenomenon as well?

It's a random process. If I really had to put down a hypothesis, I would actually say that sea ice is more likely to be a climate effect that will impact the nutation, but it hasn't been shown.

That's the point. Just because you can cite some papers talking about the atmosphere, does not mean that climate change is causing the phenomenon. That hypothesis needs to be tested. Finding something only tangentially related is not proof that climate is impacting the wobbles of our planet's axis.

Maybe in blog science it's proof, but not in real science....

 

[petros]

That's the point. Just because you can cite some papers talking about the atmosphere, does not mean that climate change is causing the phenomenon. That hypothesis needs to be tested. Finding something only tangentially related is not proof that climate is impacting the wobbles of our planet's axis.

It's far more than oceanic and atmospheric variances. Much, much more and it is there for you to find if you are willing to look. Admit it, prior to a couple days ago you had no idea that nutations even existed but to dismiss them as one of the plausible reasons behind past climate shifts is as foolish as jumping on the CO2 bandwagon and all it's repetative, big budget marketing technques.

Out of all the potential causes for climate change there is only one that can be profitted from and taxed.

 

[Avro]

It's far more than oceanic and atmospheric variances. Much, much more and it is there for you to find if you are willing to look. Admit it, prior to a couple days ago you had no idea that nutations even existed but to dismiss them as one of the plausible reasons behind past climate shifts is as foolish as jumping on the CO2 bandwagon and all it's repetative, big budget marketing technques.

Out of all the potential causes for climate change there is only one that can be profitted from and taxed.

LOL, and petroleum and coal can't be taxed and profitted from?

Personal Attack Removed by Moderator

YouTube - ‪China goes green‬‎

How do we tax wind and solar?

 

[captain morgan]

I'm no expert on this, but I don't think it actually 'moved'. It's just that some ice has melted away and some ice has come about in the last 30 or so years. If anything, there's obviously more ice that has melted away - and it is more than probable that C02 emissions caused the melting of that ice.

I could be wrong here, but it seems plain that the ice itself didn't physically move. Am I missing something, because this seems bluntly obvious.

So, in your professional opinion, based on the irrefutable evidence, it's antro CO2?

Got a link or is this what all of the green-washing has yielded?

 

[Avro]

So, in your professional opinion, based on the irrefutable evidence, it's antro CO2?

Got a link or is this what all of the green-washing has yielded?

It's what 97% of climatologists have said against the will of the denailists machine.

Tell me, if it's not AGW what is forcing the climate to warm?

 

[Tonington]

It's far more than oceanic and atmospheric variances.

Of course it is. But there's no evidence climate is one of them. If it were, then there would be a distinct signal from the climate. Nobody has found any such signal, and in fact the longer the period is, the weaker the signal becomes in the wobble. Climate change signal works precisely in the opposite fashion. The longer the period, the larger the signal.

Admit it, prior to a couple days ago you had no idea that nutations even existed

That's not true. I learned about them in a geology class. Large amounts of mass need to be able to move around in order for the wobble to oscillate as it does. That causes distinct differences in sedimentation.

but to dismiss them as one of the plausible reasons behind past climate shifts

Ahhhh. I never said that the climate doesn't respond to nutations, I said that they do in fact:

Certainly the only one I'm aware of that would have any relevance to changing insolation at the the poles.

No, nutations are impacted by tidal forces. Climate responds to nutations, it can't cause them.

There is no mechanism I know of that can cause the climate to perturb the nutation of earth's wobble. In one of my last posts I said if I had to, that I would look at sea ice data for a possible climate forcing on the nutation.

But there's no clear climate signal to be found in the nutations. The reverse is not true.

is as foolish as jumping on the CO2 bandwagon and all it's repetative, big budget marketing technques.

Jumping on any bandwagon is foolish. But, despite your assertions, it's not a bandwagon. There is more evidence for an enhanced greenhouse than any other driving factor.

Out of all the potential causes for climate change there is only one that can be profitted from and taxed.

And a total non-sequitur for discussions of causation.

 

[captain morgan]

It's what 97% of climatologists have said against the will of the denailists machine.

Is that like 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Trident?

 

[Avro]

Is that like 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Trident?

97% isn't 4 out of 5.

Personal Attack Removed by Moderator

I'll try again.

Tell me, what is forcing the climate to change if not AGW?

 

[Tonington]

Is that like 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Trident?

Nope, that's only 80%

 

[captain morgan]

i was thinking that the 5th dentist decided to speak-out on behalf of everyone.

 

[Avro]

i was thinking that the 5th dentist decided to speak-out on behalf of everyone.

Still not 97%.

 

[Tonington]

i was thinking that the 5th dentist decided to speak-out on behalf of everyone.

It can't be 4/5 if one dentists speaks for everyone.

 

[petros]

There is no mechanism I know of that can cause the climate to perturb the nutation of earth's wobble. In one of my last posts I said if I had to, that I would look at sea ice data for a possible climate forcing on the nutation.

But there's no clear climate signal to be found in the nutations. The reverse is not true.

Keep looking.

Is that like 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Trident?

Trident.... 3 Teeth!

 

[captain morgan]

Still not 97%.

It could be depending on which greenie math the dentist is using.

Let's see; 1 dentist that elects to speak on behalf of the planet - correcting for any errors easily equals 97% acceptance.

Trident.... 3 Teeth!

What a coincidence, three teeth is the exact same number of the cumulative IQ of the greenies regarding this issue

 

[Avro]

It could be depending on which greenie math the dentist is using.

Let's see; 1 dentist that elects to speak on behalf of the planet - correcting for any errors easily equals 97% acceptance.

Still not 97%...plus, of the 3% which are skeptics and which are denialists?

...but hey, let's trust the fossil fuel machine, the ones funding the less than 3%.

 

[Tonington]

Keep looking.

I did. You posted angular momentum. Your supposed climate link is non-existant.

What part of determinism cannot be stochastic do you fail to understand? Can you show me one single significant association in nature where a significant trend is responsible for no trend? Or an association where no trend causes a significant trend in something else?

That fails logic. There cannot be an association that causes the dependent variable to rise, while the independent variable is stationary.

 

[petros]

I did. You posted angular momentum. Your supposed climate link is non-existant.

I gave you the oats. I didn't give you the sugar cube or the apple. You have to earn those.

 

[Tonington]

To put it simpler, if there is an association, you can make predictions. If something is stochastic, it is random. You cannot predict something that is random.

If you can't grasp that, I don't see much point in discussing anything further with you on this.

 

[petros]

To put it simpler, if there is an association, you can make predictions. If something is stochastic, it is random. You cannot predict something that is random.

If you can't grasp that, I don't see much point in discussing anything further with you on this.

You mean like the climate being such a wildcard that there is no way in hell a model can predict jack ****?

I agree 100%

Personal Attack Removed by Moderator

 

[Avro]

You mean like the climate being such a wildcard that there is no way in hell a model can predict jack ****?

I agree 100%

If you are unwilling to learn and earn on your own that's too bad. That's probably why you fell for the CO2 scam hook line and sphincter, because it was what you were told.

You seem to trust the fossil fuel sector over science petros.

How much do you have invested in that sector?

Here I thought you were a commie.:lol: