Obama's Global Warming Claims Demolished (again)

[Guest]

Yes. Clear, unambiguous scientific fact

It's actually incredibly ignorant on a couple of points. I pulled it out for that reason, in case anyone felt that should reply to you for anything other than their personal amusement. One can generally play a game of denialist myth bingo with your posts, but I thought your assertion re the laws of physics was spectacular. Keep on posting.

Newscientist is a notorious climatist site that deals in climate pseudoscience for the explicit purpose of keeping the faith alive for one, last, bloody-fingernail moment, till the last lemming jumps.

Do some homework on the other side of the argument from climate realist scientists not wedded to government money or leftist ideology, D. There is not a shred of empirical evidence that CO2 drives or is a major controlling variable in global warming or cooling. The very idea that this single, minor trace gas, existing in vanishing small quantities in the atmosphere, of which the anthropogenic contribution is utterly trivial, is driving global warming (which is no longer occurring, but moving on...) is pure assumption, not empirical, observational science, and is not supported by any empirical evidence to date.

Climatists have yet to explain the many radical shifts in climate in the geologic past, when humans were not around, and especially, I would think, eras warmer than the present but in which atmospheric CO2 was below present levels, as well as colder periods when CO2 was significantly higher (or ages within Paleozoic times when CO2 levels averaged 20 to 30 times present levels), and until they do so, at a minimum, as a matter of serious empirical study, DAGW can't even be taken seriously as a hypothesis, let alone a serious theoretical model.

Plus, E., the models are wrong, and we now know they are. Completely. None of them have ever been validated and none of them agree with empirical measurements. Model predictions do not agree with satellite measurements, radiosonde measurements, or available paleoclimatological knowledge. The hot spot does not exist. 20th century warming was modest and well within natural variability, and never reached the peaks of either the MWP or Roman Warm Period.

Except for the bitterly clinging true believers and the our contemporary Gadianton Robbers seeking for power, DAGW/CAGW is dead.

[_Darth J]

But DNA and archaeology don't disprove the Book of Mormon, right, Droopy?

[_Droopy]

But DNA and archaeology don't disprove the Book of Mormon, right, Droopy?

On and on and on and on and on with your personal, feverish, fretting agenda.

Move along...

[_Darth J]

But DNA and archaeology don't disprove the Book of Mormon, right, Droopy?

On and on and on and on and on with your personal, feverish, fretting agenda.

Move along...

I'm just trying to figure out when we're supposed to rely on compelling, empirical scientific evidence, and when we're not.

Certainly it could not be the case that this is done on a self-serving, ad hoc basis, so I would like to know the consistent metric one should use in these matters.

I don't like monomania either, though, Droopy. You know who has monomania? The leftist secular liberal socialist communist leftist liberal secular leftist liberal communist socialist liberals.

[_Droopy]

I'm just trying to figure out when we're supposed to rely on compelling, empirical scientific evidence, and when we're not.

No you're not. You're throwing it into the fan fast and thick, for its own sake. That's all.

[_Darth J]

I'm just trying to figure out when we're supposed to rely on compelling, empirical scientific evidence, and when we're not.

No you're not. You're throwing it into the fan fast and thick, for its own sake. That's all.

So you cannot articulate how one is to know when we're supposed to rely on compelling, empirical scientific evidence, and when one is not?