Conservatives don't understand science.

 

Einstein provided two predictions (tests) of his theory, the failure of either of which would refute General Relativity. He predicted the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, and the bending of starlight as it passed near the sun. Both were observed to be true.


 

So, Mr. Liberal, tell me the prediction(s) of the Man Made Global Warming theory, the failure of which would refute the theory. Or tell me the proof that the recent warming is caused by CO2, rather than just a natural occurrence like the similar 1910-1940 warming.


 

Or just waver your hands in the air and cry "consensus" like Oface.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

The liars are caught in a trap.  If they claim disaster in too soon a time line they will be discredited when it doesn't happen.  If they claim disaster in too long a time line nobody will care.  Al Gore babbled on about rising sea levels but it didn't stop him from buying oceanfront.  

 

Ignore what they say.  Instead, watch what they do.

---

The liars are caught in a trap. If they claim disaster in too soon a time line they will be discredited when it doesn't happen. If they claim disaster in too long a time line nobody will care. Al Gore babbled on about rising sea levels but it didn't stop him from buying oceanfront.


Ignore what they say. Instead, watch what they do.

Cool story, bro. Now tell us the one about the lizard people.

---

Einstein provided two predictions (tests) of his theory, the failure of either of which would refute General Relativity. He predicted the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, and the bending of starlight as it passed near the sun. Both were observed to be true.


So, Mr. Liberal, tell me the prediction(s) of the Man Made Global Warming theory, the failure of which would refute the theory. Or tell me the proof that the recent warming is caused by CO2, rather than just a natural occurrence like the similar 1910-1940 warming.


Or just waver your hands in the air and cry "consensus" like Oface.

The main prediction has always been that increased atmospheric CO2 derived from anthropogenic sources would be strongly correlated with increases in average global surface temperatures. This is irrespective of possible confounders such as El Nino, variations of Solar output, variation in cloud albedo, increases in aerosol formation (volcano eruptions) and even ice sheet formation etc etc... Considering all potential confounders the Earth's average surface temperature is rising and it is due primarily to human activities.


The great conservative failure has always been the inability to properly substantiate their claims with credible scientific evidence. Where is it? Conservative blogs that propagate psuedoscience-speak do not count. As they say the, burden of proof rests on the one making the claim. You say Global Warming is false so prove it.

---

Have you ever looked at the raw data from the ice cores

---

The main prediction has always been that increased atmospheric CO2 derived from anthropogenic sources would be strongly correlated with increases in average global surface temperatures. This is irrespective of possible confounders such as El Nino, variations of Solar output, variation in cloud albedo, increases in aerosol formation (volcano eruptions) and even ice sheet formation etc etc... Considering all potential confounders the Earth's average surface temperature is rising and it is due primarily to human activities.


The great conservative failure has always been the inability to properly substantiate their claims with credible scientific evidence. Where is it? Conservative blogs that propagate psuedoscience-speak do not count. As they say the, burden of proof rests on the one making the claim. You say Global Warming is false so prove it.

 

Every time they do you claim they're discredited or irreputable or heretical or any other thing you can come up with.

 

Every time you, meaning AGCC proponents, are wrong you just change the discussion or double down with more inflated claims of the apocalypse.

 

No matter what is said the minds aren't changing because the "science" they're based on keeps changing or is proven to be altered, false, manipulated, revised or anything else they can come up with to make the data fit the narrative.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Every time they do you claim they're discredited or irreputable or heretical or any other thing you can come up with.


Every time you, meaning AGCC proponents, are wrong you just change the discussion or double down with more inflated claims of the apocalypse.


No matter what is said the minds aren't changing because the "science" they're based on keeps changing or is proven to be altered, false, manipulated, revised or anything else they can come up with to make the data fit the narrative.

Yes, that's the false narrative. Another rightwing fantasy. Oh, were we supposed to believe your baseless claims?

---

Has anyone looked at the raw data from the ice cores?

---

Has anyone looked at the raw data from the ice cores?

Yes, the scientists. Are you mental? Wait, don't answer that.

---

I don't know what to believe. For years I considered chem trail conspiracy theorists to be nutjobs.


Now I am one after reading about cloud seeding and weather manipulation throughout the years.

---

Yes, the scientists. Are you mental? Wait, don't answer that.

The raw data doesnt denote causality. You literally see co2 up and surface temp remain static for centuries


Edit due to auto correct.

---

The raw data doesnt denote causality. You literally see cCongo up and surface temp remain static for centuries

Congo. Good movie. Hadn't thought about that one in a while. I remember liking the hippo scene. Anaconda was another good, cheesy monster movie.

---

Congo. Good movie. Hadn't thought about that one in a while. I remember liking the hippo scene. Anaconda was another good, cheesy monster movie.

 

An Inconvenient Truth was a pretty bad movie.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Einstein provided two predictions (tests) of his theory, the failure of either of which would refute General Relativity. He predicted the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, and the bending of starlight as it passed near the sun. Both were observed to be true.


 

So, Mr. Liberal, tell me the prediction(s) of the Man Made Global Warming theory, the failure of which would refute the theory. Or tell me the proof that the recent warming is caused by CO2, rather than just a natural occurrence like the similar 1910-1940 warming.


 

Or just waver your hands in the air and cry "consensus" like Oface.

 

Especially when there is none.

 

Some folks just can't admit they've been duped.  Probably more pride than ignorance, but both for sure.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Yes, the scientists. Are you mental? Wait, don't answer that.

 

You calling someone else mental... that's rich.  As you continue to coddle your precious rabidly like Golem.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Yes, that's the false narrative. Another rightwing fantasy. Oh, were we supposed to believe your baseless claims?

Unlike you, I dont care what you believe.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The main prediction has always been that increased atmospheric CO2 derived from anthropogenic sources would be strongly correlated with increases in average global surface temperatures. This is irrespective of possible confounders such as El Nino, variations of Solar output, variation in cloud albedo, increases in aerosol formation (volcano eruptions) and even ice sheet formation etc etc... Considering all potential confounders the Earth's average surface temperature is rising and it is due primarily to human activities.

 

It stopped rising for 18 years while CO2 increased. There were none of the "confounders" you mentioned during that period. Yet you apparently just waive your hands at the discrepancy between theory and reality. That's not what a scientist does, that's what a religious fanatic does.


 

"The world didn't end Tuesday? It will, I just made a mistake deciphering the scripture. Oh, yeah, it's July 14th at 10:42 AM"


 

 

 


 

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

The raw data doesnt denote causality. You literally see co2 up and surface temp remain static for centuries


Edit due to auto correct.

 

If anything it implies a reverse causality. CO2 levels rose after the planet warmed.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Unlike you, I dont care what you believe.

I don't care what y'all think. I'm just minding my business, updating the thread as new information comes out. You guys are the ones who feel the need to 'counter' every bit of information. It's cool tho; keep bumping this thread. I appreciate it

---

If you have questions or are just interested in the discussion, here is an AMA today about the recent events:

<a class="bbc_url" href='https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/4jwao6/science_ama_series_were_weather_and_climate/'>https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/4jwao6/science_ama_series_were_weather_and_climate/</a>


Don't be scared, JIB! Go over there and give em hell! You too, Pirkster! Go set em straight! Learn something, TAM! We are all counting on you!

---