Death knell for AGW
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
So, for those not paying attention, ahem Scotty, here's why the goal posts have moved.
We know it's not carbon, or greenhouse gases because the only evidence is correlation (according to Scotty). And because correlation isn't evidence says Scotty, it's only coincidence because you need to show causation too. Wait a minute. That has been shown, a long time ago by John Tyndall in 1859.
Oh, so now we know that the "evidence" that Scotty said is only coincidence, is now actually evidence, he throws in that there isn't enough carbon to explain all the heat. We're supposed to believe what Scotty says here too apparently...
That is called moving goal posts, when you say it can't be carbon for one reason, and then change your tune when that reason is refuted.
Nice try Scotty. Better luck next time.
We know it's not carbon, or greenhouse gases because the only evidence is correlation (according to Scotty). And because correlation isn't evidence says Scotty, it's only coincidence because you need to show causation too. Wait a minute. That has been shown, a long time ago by John Tyndall in 1859.
Oh, so now we know that the "evidence" that Scotty said is only coincidence, is now actually evidence, he throws in that there isn't enough carbon to explain all the heat. We're supposed to believe what Scotty says here too apparently...
That is called moving goal posts, when you say it can't be carbon for one reason, and then change your tune when that reason is refuted.
Nice try Scotty. Better luck next time.
Nice job ton......facts are stubborn things.
....or in the infamous words of Ronald Reagan....facts are stupid things.
I've enjoyed this debate, keep up the good work.;-)
What a complete fail. 8O
Correlation can be coincidence, causation or a factor but in order to verify the relationship experiments and models need to be produced that can provide proof - neither of which have happened. In fact the models and experiments have only demonstrated the negligible effect carbon is having on the atmosphere. Which is what I have always maintained.
So no goal posts have moved but because you have only now figured out what I have been saying it explains why you have been failing this entire thread.
Perhaps there is a correlation to your comprehension problems and your dire hard belief in the carbon myth?
I have proved this already. I have said this all along!?!
I'm starting to suspect your stupid. :-?
LMFAO!!!!!! This is called you cluing in and paying attention to what someone is saying instead of relying on your obnoxious assumptions.
I even said I didn't think you understood what I was saying. I was right. lol
um... yeah ok... :roll:
Nice job ton......facts are stubborn things.
....or in the infamous words of Ronald Reagan....facts are stupid things.
I've enjoyed this debate, keep up the good work.;-)
Noise from the back of the short bus.
Watching you get owned by Tonnington is sure making me drool with delight.
I suppose as you get closer to being humiliated your accusations of everybody being stupid heads but you will get louder and you'll take your little ball and go home.
Ease up there metal head, it's only a forum that will change nothing....ever.
Says the person who doesn't understand elementary stats or science...that's funny.
Repeating yourself doesn't make your assertions correct. Models are based on science, and are only as good as the underlying science. They don't rely solely on correlations, but as I said already, the causation has been well established for nearly 150 years. Tyndall and others were investigating why the earth isn't much cooler. They discovered that some gases prevent heat from escaping. You can read about it at http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/general/history/JTyndall_biog_doc.pdf or other places.
You proved that carbon can't explain it all? No, other people have. You're just bringing up the red herrings. Of course carbon doesn't explain it all, who ever said such a silly thing? There's no carbon in nitrous oxide ( a very potent greenhouse gas) nor is there any in water vapour. There's no carbon involved in natural changes like solar irradiance either.
You conveniently ignore this every time. The strongest finger-print that shows a largely greenhouse gas induced warming is the cooling stratosphere. If it were natural changes from the sun, or orbital parameters driving the temperature changes, all layers of the atmosphere would warm. Instead we have a layer cooling when it should be warming. That is explainable by greenhouse physics.
Try to explain that. Just try. If you can explain that, maybe you also want to try to explain the decreasing difference in the diurnal temperature range.
Run along now. Don't come back until you can swim in the big pond without the water wings.
Scott, why is it so hard to admit that even if there is a problem with greenhouse gas emissions, you are not qualified to be the one having the debate?
That isn't to say you cant participate in the debate, it merely requires that you do more than repeat statements other have made, but in fact due research to see why both sides have made their respective statements and draw conclusions of fault there.
Right now you are just picking a side, picking a "great leader" from that side and repeating his claims verbatim, without understanding either what he's saying, nor what is opponents are saying.
That isn't to say you cant participate in the debate, it merely requires that you do more than repeat statements other have made, but in fact due research to see why both sides have made their respective statements and draw conclusions of fault there.
Right now you are just picking a side, picking a "great leader" from that side and repeating his claims verbatim, without understanding either what he's saying, nor what is opponents are saying.
Maybe you'd like an explanation of that drawing from the artist who inked it. plognark.com. Actually you probably wouldn't like it. 
That was my response to you, Tonnington and Zz.
You guys can't even figure out what my posts mean!?!?!
Everyone else can. :-?
So there seems little reason to continue this discussion with you people. You are wish thinkers on this topic.
If you can't even be objective enough to figure out what I'm saying then there is really no point.
So get back on the short bus and go fight your carbon boogie man :lol:
You guys can't even figure out what my posts mean!?!?!
Everyone else can. :-?
So there seems little reason to continue this discussion with you people. You are wish thinkers on this topic.
If you can't even be objective enough to figure out what I'm saying then there is really no point.
So get back on the short bus and go fight your carbon boogie man :lol:
Keep it going then, I never claimed to be a scientist nor will I pretend I am one. I already told who changed my mind on the subject......a scientist.
Anyways, waiting for your response to Tonnington.;-)