Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[Wild Cobra]

I lost track of how many times the source material used the word "could."

http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/ngeo2407

[Wild Cobra]

Here is an interesting link:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2603.html

Consider:

News media, and certainly news about climate science, is meant to inform readers, at least in a free world. But the media always do so in a specific social, political and cultural context; therefore what drives news stories, their content, and the power they may exercise on the audience change with the context.

[boutons_deux]

consider: Wild Cobra is full of

[Wild Cobra]

We also find that the hiatus is primarily attributable to El Niño/Southern Oscillation-related variability and reduced solar forcing.

Interesting...

If these two natural variations can counteract the rise in greenhouse gasses, then greenhouse gasses are not as potent as claimed!

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2573.html

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And the point is? How many posts must I read from the start?

I only read the first... maybe half dozen. I see nothing that makes your claim accurate.

Please show me where that is at.

I just got done reading that. Anyone who wants to see WC looking like a moron click the link. It starts before that but that entire exchange is gold. It was the 'the ocean is just like a soda' bit of dumb here.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Shall I look up you claiming that Noah's flood was from a 'solar burp' combusting in the atmoshpere? That was fun.

[Wild Cobra]

Shall I look up you claiming that Noah's flood was from a 'solar burp' combusting in the atmoshpere? That was fun.

Your read that wrong. I never said that happened. I said there is reasons why it could have been. i never claimed it was.

Your reading comprehension is absolutely terrible.

And your "soda" claim...

I was only saying the same chemistry applies to as why a soda fizzes.

My God, you are a ing idiot.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your read that wrong. I never said that happened. I said there is reasons why it could have been. i never claimed it was.

Your reading comprehension is absolutely terrible.

And your "soda" claim...

I was only saying the same chemistry applies to as why a soda fizzes.

My God, you are a ing idiot.

The ocean is like a soda, going flat.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5458330

But it gets better. More gold after WC adds:

LOL...

No ing way. That would be like a research paper.

I do wonder however how much water we possibly gained, by maybe a CME that the earth's orbit went through. There could be some truth to the forty days and forty nights of rain, the Bible speaks of. Proxy evidence tells us that the earths oxygen level use to be higher, which would likely be required for dinosaurs to have existed.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5667534

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5458330

But it gets better. More gold after WC adds:



http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5667534

I suggest you look up the definition of "could."

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I suggest you look up the definition of "could."

So you think that the sun could have emitted hydrogen such that reacted with the atmosphere and caused the entire Earth to rain for 40 days?

You still think that is possible?

[Wild Cobra]

So you think that the sun could have emitted hydrogen such that reacted with the atmosphere and caused the entire Earth to rain for 40 days?

You still think that is possible?

I think if the right conditions persisted, like a stronger magnetic field, water could have been trapped for some time in the thermosphere and exosphere region. It could have taken centuries or millennias to ac ulate. Though rather unlikely, to dismiss such possibilities just because you don't like them, is rather unscientific. This is just a possibility that deniers of science like you dismiss.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think if the right conditions persisted, like a stronger magnetic field, water could have been trapped for some time in the thermosphere and exosphere region. It could have taken centuries or millennias to ac ulate. Though rather unlikely, to dismiss such possibilities just because you don't like them, is rather unscientific. This is just a possibility that deniers of science like you dismiss.

and how did the protons turn into water, WC?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

and ffs how is water going to get trapped in a magnetic field in the boundary to space??

[FuzzyLumpkins]

40 days worth of precipitation trapped in the exosphere.

You cannot make this up

[Wild Cobra]

40 days worth of precipitation trapped in the exosphere.

You cannot make this up

And you can't prove it impossible either.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And you can't prove it impossible either.

So how did it turn into water? how is molecular water going to conduct?

[Wild Cobra]

So how did it turn into water? how is molecular water going to conduct?

What does the solar wind + O2 do, spontaneously?

[TeyshaBlue]

And you can't prove it impossible either.

This is boutons stupid.

[Wild Cobra]

This is boutons stupid.

So...

Are you saying it is impossible?

And you talk about that level of stupidity...

[RandomGuy]

So?

These are modeled predictions.

The observations must be wrong since they disagree with 95% of the models!

That is the thing about science and the peer-review method. It self-corrects. We learn more as we go, and gather more data.

I am content to wait, take some mild actions to limit the worst-case scenarios, limit CO2 and the science will out to get us some fairly decent models of how the earths climate works.

[RandomGuy]

And you can't prove it impossible either.

Don't need to.

Rejected. I will not believe it until you can prove it.



Your claim, your burden of proof.

Get cracking pseudoscientist.

[Wild Cobra]

That is the thing about science and the peer-review method. It self-corrects. We learn more as we go, and gather more data.

I am content to wait, take some mild actions to limit the worst-case scenarios, limit CO2 and the science will out to get us some fairly decent models of how the earths climate works.

So then. You agree...

The science is not settled, like the alarmists say...

[Wild Cobra]

Don't need to.

Rejected. I will not believe it until you can prove it.



Your claim, your burden of proof.

Get cracking pseudoscientist.

I don't need to prove something that is very unlikely, but possible. Keep in mind, I never said this happened.

Every now and then, when a person plays video poker, a royal flush happens.

It is very unlikely, but possible.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What does the solar wind + O2 do, spontaneously?

Spontaneously? Nothing. The collision of the proton would likely have enough energy to split the diatom but that is about it. You would need a decent density in order to get a decent amount of reaction. The huge spaces between molecules in the outer atmosphere isn't going to do it.

So a huge plume of solar wind is combusting throughout the atmosphere and Noah and everything else on the planet survives and doesn't notice.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't need to prove something that is very unlikely, but possible. Keep in mind, I never said this happened.

Every now and then, when a person plays video poker, a royal flush happens.

It is very unlikely, but possible.

Not everything that you can think of is within the realm of possibility. Because you have a finite set of outcomes in 5 cards you can deduce the possibilities. Yours is a false analogy. You suck at logic.