AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?

[Tonington]

Dead serious and I'm talking about the same energy source that is (likely) responsible for the observed warming on Mars.

I see. So a correlation is enough for you. I'll make note of that.

And you of course will disregard the satellite observations of a darker planet, with higher albedo. The solar energy has been on a declining trend since the 1970's:

Yet I bet you'll ignore that and continue on with your falshoods, as any denier worth their salt would.

I want conclusiveness because that is exactly what you are selling. Don't pretend otherwise.

No, what I am selling is the most probable cause. Science really isn't conclusive in the way you want. It makes conclusions, based on what is most probable. When a scientific theory has conclusiveness, it's because many related investigations find the same thing, over and over again, and the probability that the theory is wrong is very slim.

You routinely talk about science, without knowing a single thing about how it works.

 

[captain morgan]

I see. So a correlation is enough for you. I'll make note of that.

I can probably correlate an increased incidence of kittens being stuck in trees with temp fluctuations... Doesn't mean it's causation, does it?

And you of course will disregard the satellite observations of a darker planet, with higher albedo.

Did Mars just recently get darker?

Yet I bet you'll ignore that and continue on with your falshoods, as any denier worth their salt would.

Your alleged falsehoods suggest that you offer certainties... Did you just get them now?

No, what I am selling is the most probable cause. Science really isn't conclusive in the way you want. It makes conclusions, based on what is most probable. When a scientific theory has conclusiveness, it's because many related investigations find the same thing, over and over again, and the probability that the theory is wrong is very slim.

No Tonnington, when you say that anthropogenic CO2 is causing GW, you are not suggesting a "probable cause"... You are saying that anthro CO2 IS the smoking gun.

You routinely talk about science, without knowing a single thing about how it works.

.. But apparently I know just enough to call bullsh*t on you.

 

[Tonington]

I can probably correlate an increased incidence of kittens being stuck in trees with temp fluctuations... Doesn't mean it's causation, does it?

Yes, that's my point...you're saying that the correlation of Mars warming and Earth warming is probably the same thing. You have no basis to say probably, and in fact scientists have studied Mars and they have an explanation for the warmth they've measured there. The cause is not the same as the cause identified on Earth.

But you are going to ignore that, and choose a correlation as a probabilistic test for causation. Interesting.

Did Mars just recently get darker?

Read the paper.

No Tonnington, when you say that anthropogenic CO2 is causing GW

It is. More CO2 must cause more warming. That's a fact.

you are not suggesting a "probable cause"... You are saying that anthro CO2 IS the smoking gun.

No, I'm saying that a greenhouse gas is still a greenhouse gas. When I post links such as the fingerprints associated with various forcing factors, that is when I say anthropogenic climate change is the smoking gun.

Can you fathom that? There is a difference.

 

[Avro]

YouTube - Mars Attacks!!!

Notice how the host says he is going to do something radical and actually read something.

Very objective.:lol:

 

[captain morgan]

Yes, that's my point...you're saying that the correlation of Mars warming and Earth warming is probably the same thing.

.... But CO2 is somehow exempted from that same consideration, is it?

You have no basis to say probably, and in fact scientists have studied Mars and they have an explanation for the warmth they've measured there. The cause is not the same as the cause identified on Earth. But you are going to ignore that, and choose a correlation as a probabilistic test for causation.

Unbelievable.... Really...

That comment reeks of supposition that these "scientists" have a real depth of understanding of the Martian climate system after landing one whole remote unit on the surface.

Hell, it's these very scientists that have (essentially) limited knowledge (and that is an extremely generous evaluation, by the way) of the Earth's system, yet that's more than solid enough for you to dismiss the climate events on Mars.

You condemn me for moving the goal posts, hell, your latitude for goal-post moving is inter-galactic.

It is. More CO2 must cause more warming. That's a fact.

... Among many things. Not everything is caused by CO2.

No, I'm saying that a greenhouse gas is still a greenhouse gas. When I post links such as the fingerprints associated with various forcing factors, that is when I say anthropogenic climate change is the smoking gun.

... Among other components.

 

[mentalfloss]

lol.. and the mania just goes on and on...

We should create a 'Table of Contents' thread, which has links to every argument posited and then refuted. This way, when the next fallacious rebuttal is brought forth, we can refer to Article x.x in our lovely little table.

 

[Tonington]

.... But CO2 is somehow exempted from that same consideration, is it?

Yes. Because we have more than just a correlation.

I have given you links before that find less radiation escaping to space, find less energy escaping particularly in wavelengths dominated by greenhouse gases, and we have predictable phenomenon occuring which are directly related to an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Again, you prove that you are incapable of assimilating multiple pieces of information and putting them together. There is much more than a correlation.

Much more than, "Mars and Earth are warming, therefore the cause is probably the same".

 

[captain morgan]

Yes you have, and you've piled correlation upon correlation founded on assumptions, eliminated all form of competing elements (sorry - corrected for); all duct-taped together by statistical modeling, margins of error and massive reliance on corrective techniques.

A compelling argument indeed.

 

[mentalfloss]

Yes you have, and you've piled correlation upon correlation founded on assumptions, eliminated all form of competing elements (sorry - corrected for); all duct-taped together by statistical modeling, margins of error and massive reliance on corrective techniques.

A compelling argument indeed.

Nothing of what you said makes any sense, or is any indication of any of the arguments posited by Tonnington.

Firstly, none of what he has posted has been founded upon assumptions as you have stated. In fact he cites source material for all arguments that require some sort of explanation. If your amnesia is kicking in again, check out Tonnington's post #498.

By comparison, most of your posts are conjecture based on faulty analogies. Like your post #507 in which you attempted to discredit the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming by comparing it to the 4/5 dentists who recommended trident, lol.

I've put in the post numbers in case your amnesia starts acting up again. You can trace those numbers back to previous pages in this thread for easy access to prior deliberations.

Secondly, he has not 'eliminated' competing factors, as you've mentioned. In fact, he has already acknowledged other climate factors in addition to anthropogenic climate factors and accordingly attributes what influence those factors have on climate change.

In stark contrast, you have gone as far as to assume the entirety of the IPCC model is fraudulent with no actual foundation or evidence to suggest why. If anyone needs duct tape, it's probably yourself. I suggest you take a nice, fat piece and put it over your mouth or around your fingers unless you want to embarass yourself any further.

 

[captain morgan]

Nothing of what you said makes any sense, or is any indication of any of the arguments posited by Tonnington.

I guess that you have a reading comprehension problem.

Firstly, none of what he has posted has been founded upon assumptions as you have stated.

Other than that little teensy-weensy assumption that anthropogenic sources of CO2 are causing global warming?

Secondly, he has not 'eliminated' competing factors, as you've mentioned. In fact, he has already acknowledged other climate factors in addition to anthropogenic climate factors and accordingly attributes what influence those factors have on climate change.

Yeah, you're right. I suppose that's why solar issues are written-off in such a cavalier manner because you understand them so fully... Hell, in the last study he offered, they authors gave honorable mention to volcanic activity (but left out the massive eruptions that enshrouded the Earth in the past).

.. But those teeny little events that would mimic nuclear winter pale in comparison to anthro CO2.

In stark contrast, you have gone as far as to assume the entirety of the IPCC model is fraudulent with no actual foundation or evidence to suggest why. If anyone needs duct tape, it's probably yourself. I suggest you take a nice, fat piece and put it over your mouth or around your fingers unless you want to embarass yourself any further.

We've gone around this before. The IPCC is retracting their position on multiple fronts for a reason mentalfloss and that reason isn't because it was founded on truths.

You can deceive yourself 10 ways to Sunday on this, that's your business, but as the old expression goes; Don't piss down my back and try to convince me it's raining.

 

[Avro]

I
We've gone around this before. The IPCC is retracting their position on multiple fronts for a reason mentalfloss and that reason isn't because it was founded on truths.

.

Still waiting for these mulitple fronts example.

I already debunked two of them...you know...the answers you completely ignored.

Very objective of you.

 

[captain morgan]

Debunked?.. Really?

I guess that we differ on the degree(s) of latitude that we each maintain on the issues before it goes from mistake to fraud

 

[Avro]

Debunked?.. Really?

I guess that we differ on the degree(s) of latitude that we each maintain on the issues before it goes from mistake to fraud

You cited two suposed frauds.

Both debunked as frauds.

Keep trying though this is fun.

Any commissions exposing fraud?

Any convictions of fraud?

Anything at all?:lol:

 

[captain morgan]

You cited two suposed frauds. Both debunked as frauds.

3 actually, you are forgetting the unfortunate recalculation of the # of signatories... None of them debunked.

Any commissions exposing fraud?

Yes.. the court of public opinion.

Any convictions of fraud?

IPCC admission (indirect) through their many retractions... It doesn't get anymore concrete than an admission via retraction, does it?

Anything at all?:lol:

See above

 

[Avro]

3 actually, you are forgetting the unfortunate recalculation of the # of signatories... None of them debunked.

I answered the third

Yes.. the court of public opinion.

That's scientific or judicial?

Shall we go down that road?

Your arguments are getting weaker.

IPCC admission (indirect) through their many retractions... It doesn't get anymore concrete than an admission via retraction, does it?

Show the many retractions please.

See above

Did, same garbage.

 

[captain morgan]

I answered the third

That's scientific or judicial?

Shall we go down that road?

Your arguments are getting weaker.

Show the many retractions please.

1. Glad you answered the third but they are still frauds
2. Both
3. If you like
4. So says you
5. You can look them up yourself

 

[Avro]

1. Glad you answered the third but they are still frauds
2. Both
3. If you like
4. So says you
5. You can look them up yourself

You have nothing?

What a shock.

You did everything but give me a link to google.

:lol:

 

[captain morgan]

Wow... They aren't frauds because Avro says so. You also support the notion that AGW is factual. Case closed I guess, Avro has spoken.

All that's left is for you to call up and convene the UN and tell 'em what's what.

 

[Avro]

Wow... They aren't frauds because Avro says so. You also support the notion that AGW is factual. Case closed I guess, Avro has spoken.

All that's left is for you to call up and convene the UN and tell 'em what's what.

Show me the frauds.

Why is this so hard for you?

 

[captain morgan]

Look 'em up yourself Avro.