AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?

[captain morgan]

Those were the words you eventually posted after ducking the issue umpteen times, but the message was clear: The greenie AGW theories are too flimsy and baseless to address a system as complex as the Earths climatic system.

Your "multiple baselines" is your way of saying that every so often, you are forced to re-gig the baseline in order for the results to fit your fantasy-theory... Ofcourse your "multiple-baselines BS works and is proven, you ensure that by engineering the proverbial yard-stick to fit the theory.

Let me ask you this: Do you apply the same, retarded scientific method to the research you do at your job? Form a theory, test it, and when the results prove negative - alter the results to fit the original theory?

... And you have the balls to call others ignorant... Add-in arrogant and narrow-minded and you have a good working description of yourself.

 

[Tonington]

Those were the words you eventually posted after ducking the issue umpteen times, but the message was clear: The greenie AGW theories are too flimsy and baseless to address a system as complex as the Earths climatic system.

Like I said, you're ignorant. A scientific theory doesn't produce an equation. Scientific laws do. The theory of man-made climate change is streong, because all of those parameters I mentioned fit together coherently. When someone studies the temperature profile of the atmosphere, the result they get is consistent with results from studying the top of the atmosphere radiation flux.

I know you will ignore this, because you're just another example of someone who is selectively oblivious.

 

[captain morgan]

The theory of man-made climate change is streong, because all of those parameters I mentioned fit together coherently.

You still don't get it, do you? You are making them fit together the same way that you can make a puzzle piece fit with a hammer.

Is this the way your approach your research job? Do you fit the results to the theory and claim success?

 

[Tonington]

You still don't get it, do you? You are making them fit together the same way that you can make a puzzle piece fit with a hammer.

You're in denial...the results are what they are. They are consistent findings, and you have no cards to play except to make baseless assertions.

You're pathetic.

 

[captain morgan]

You're in denial...the results are what they are. They are consistent findings, and you have no cards to play except to make baseless assertions.

You're pathetic.

The irony is poetic; the abject denial of the existence of a basic and obvious flaw in your logic and the pre-programmed response is to throw out the Green-Messiah-Approved moniker of denier!

Generating results based on a moving baseline and fitting the theory to "predict" the results is high science, is it? I would expect nothing other than repeatable "consistent" findings every time... And that's exactly what you've been programmed to believe... Too bad that fewer and fewer scientists are pounding this drum any longer, let alone the public at large being disillusioned by the paper tiger that is crumpling a little bit more each and every day.


What a hoot...

 

[Tonington]

You're in denial, and making stuff up. It's not a hoot. A brain is a terrible thing to waste, though in your case the crime appears less grievous. Have fun, not hard to do when you're living in denial.

 

[captain morgan]

I guess that I made up the part about multiple baselines, eh?

Man, you've really sunk to a new low buddy

 

[Tonington]

I guess that I made up the part about multiple baselines, eh?

No...I gave you those answers, You were asking for one to use. Climatologists use many. Only deniers like yourself are pleased with one result, devoid of context.

 

[captain morgan]

No. You gave me excuses

 

[petros]

Science. Is that were I can dig up proof of someone's theory because it has been repeated in triplicate?

No. You gave me excuses

He sure did.

 

[captain morgan]

Science. Is that were I can dig up proof of someone's theory because it has been repeated in triplicate?

That isn't too hard when it pre-determined that the results must fit the theory

He sure did.

When in doubt, convince everyone that "they just don't understand". Failing that, revert to calling them a "denier"

 

[petros]

When you work in a corrupt industry full of sh*t science and hacks....

They [the fish-farm industry] said Atlantics wouldn't escape. They escaped. Then they said they might escape but wouldn't survive. We found them in the sea. Then they said they wouldn't go into river systems. We found them in the rivers. Then they said they might go in the river but they'd never reproduce. Now we see they reproduce. Given that sorry history of assurances I conclude that they don't know what they are talking about.

-- Lynn Hunter of the environmentalist David Suzuki Foundation

Maybe their model didn't work?

 

[captain morgan]

When you work in a corrupt industry full of sh*t science and hacks....

They [the fish-farm industry] said Atlantics wouldn't escape. They escaped. Then they said they might escape but wouldn't survive. We found them in the sea. Then they said they wouldn't go into river systems. We found them in the rivers. Then they said they might go in the river but they'd never reproduce. Now we see they reproduce. Given that sorry history of assurances I conclude that they don't know what they are talking about.

-- Lynn Hunter of the environmentalist David Suzuki Foundation

Maybe their model didn't work?

Ahhhh.. But their theories aren't really wrong... Well kinda.

You see, those statements were made using the old baseline. Since then, things have, well, uh, changed... Now we know different and ultimately, because those salmon will eventually die, we can say conclusively it was because they escaped.

I'm working on a statistical model to prove this... I'll get back to you when its done.

 

[petros]

Ahhhh.. But their theories aren't really wrong... Well kinda.

You see, those statements were made using the old baseline. Since then, things have, well, uh, changed... Now we know different and ultimately, because those salmon will eventually die, we can say conclusively it was because they escaped.

The solution to that problem was to hire H&K (same PR co that made up the Kuwati incubator bull**** stories) and toss huge amounts of money at a political party until regulations were changed.

Those fish guys must be taking pointers from the mining industry.

 

[captain morgan]

Maybe Suzuki got the intro to H&K from the mining companies that he invests in.

 

[petros]

Here is something that made me spray my morning coffee in regards to the fish mongers.

David Suzuki responded to the industry resort to spin-doctors by lamenting: "Over and over again the industries immediately hire PR flacks rather than saying, 'Gee, if these criticisms are real, we'd better do something'." H&K are not ordinary PR flaks. This time the wild salmon alliances are up against a whole new kind of opponent.

 

[Tonington]

No. You gave me excuses

You asked a stupid question, though to be fair plenty of people make similar claims. It's stupid to attribute one weather event to anthropogenic climate change. It's not making excuses to explain why it's a stupid claim. It's just an explanation. As to attributing climate change as a whole to the dominant forcing factors, well climate is average weather, and so there are many parameters associated with weather. hence, no single baseline.

Can you understand yet? Idiot.

 

[petros]

That must be why he uses them and Edelman?

 

[captain morgan]

You asked a stupid question, though to be fair plenty of people make similar claims. It's stupid to attribute one weather event to anthropogenic climate change. It's not making excuses to explain why it's a stupid claim. It's just an explanation. As to attributin g climate change as a whole, well climate is average weather, and so there are many parameters associated with weather. hence, no single baseline.

Can you understand yet? Idiot.

Don't confuse a basic question for a retarded answer.

 

[petros]

You asked a stupid question, though to be fair plenty of people make similar claims. It's stupid to attribute one weather event to anthropogenic climate change. It's not making excuses to explain why it's a stupid claim. It's just an explanation. As to attributing climate change as a whole to the dominant forcing factors, well climate is average weather, and so there are many parameters associated with weather. hence, no single baseline.

Can you understand yet? Idiot.

You should watch the dinner hour news where they bring up weather being driven by global warming daily.