Global Warming is over.

[Schnitzer318is]

Would it be possible then for you to stop claiming that by attempting to better control CO2 output humanity is going to wreck the global economy?

I mean that's just as much of a hypothesis isn't it? Haven't seen any real world data on it anywhere...cause it simply hasn't happened despite the attempts that have been made to move away from fossil fuels to renewable, clean energy.

I've given up trying to discuss AGW with gwb. He's accepted a point of view as true and ignores any and all data as skewed, misinterpreted, or some political conspiracy being assisted by ~99% of the scientific community. This isn't the first time he has posted an article that doesn't support his point of view as supporting it. I got no response the last time I pointed it out.

[cale]

So now more trees are bad rofl, nice Cale.

Definitely what I said.

You can't even respond to the topic while sharing one cohesive argument, it's just an accumulation of denier nonsense you've accumulated over the years. We get it, you don't believe in science, you didn't need to regurgitate that for the 50th time.

[gwb72tii]

for those interested in an interview with our new science advisor:

https://thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/william-happer-interview/

[gwb72tii]

and my comment about climate hypotheses being wrong, from a Nobel Laureate physicist, Richard Feynman, who was I believe apolitical, about how science is supposed to work:

In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.

If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is . . .  If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.

[cale]

and my comment about climate hypotheses being wrong, from a Nobel Laureate physicist, Richard Feynman, who was I believe apolitical, about how science is supposed to work:

In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.

If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is . . .  If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.

Great, you've now explained something to people who already understood it. Do you actually think anyone who's been vocal in this thread is unaware of this? Maybe you can share some more gems that everyone else learned in the 8th grade which you're just stumbling on now.

[saucers]

and my comment about climate hypotheses being wrong, from a Nobel Laureate physicist, Richard Feynman, who was I believe apolitical, about how science is supposed to work:

In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.

If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is . . .  If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.

Stop regurgitating Alex Epstein, he's a known Koch shill

[gwb72tii]

At the risk of triggering Cale, I found this:

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog?tag=Scientific+Fraud

For anyone interested in the subject of anthropogenic global warming, where the trace gas CO2 is now a pollutant, it is a worthy read.
The cause of global warming is solved.

[cale]

For anyone interested in science, please refer to some unemployed lawyers blog that looks like it just stepped out of the 90s.

k.

[gwb72tii]

this might interest some:

https://youtu.be/mqejXs7XgsU

[decay]

this might interest some:

https://youtu.be/mqejXs7XgsU

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5971098994001/

your own mouthpieces have turned on you, gwb.

[cale]

this might interest some:

https://youtu.be/mqejXs7XgsU

"It was warm before so it's ok now"

It took 4 "climate scientists" to get together and come up with an argument a high school student couldn't debunk? Anyone who can't understand what's wrong with that logic is a genuinely stupid.

[gwb72tii]

"It was warm before so it's ok now"

It took 4 "climate scientists" to get together and come up with an argument a high school student couldn't debunk? Anyone who can't understand what's wrong with that logic is a genuinely stupid.

And anyone that can’t see the science and logic in the argument is blind, eh?

[ForcedFirebird]

https://www.businessinsider.com/so-much-co2-planting-trees-cant-save-us-2017-5?utm_content=bufferde0ad&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer-bi&fbclid=IwAR3iKl6ybxaezIa9vZc7iyBRdH-x_1oqAKPQi7zw4-1GaBPbIp6k0IpqJeA

[decay]

And anyone that can’t see the science and logic in the argument is blind, eh?

you haven't answered me. the economic impacts of climate change are becoming evident, even to fox news. i get that you dislike it as a narrative because it originated from the left, first, but when it comes to it impacting our country's economy, and all of our jobs-

what is left for you to defend your position on, other than it's a quasi-religion for you?

[gwb72tii]

You’re arguing without saying it that man is the cause of our planet’s warming, which is not certain, and frankly satellite data doesn’t support.
What if you’re wrong?
NOAA’s land based temperature stations do not support AGW either. This is not made up data as is the temperature "corrections" from our friends at NASA.

And for anyone with an interest, this is a good read:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/21/cooling-down-the-hysteria-about-global-warming/