[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I've never said that climate change is fake. Quite to the contrary I've consistently maintained that it is a constant.

But being consistently wrong isn't something to brag on. What you've "said" is complete speculation. You're arriving at a conclusion absent expertise, research, methodology or anything resembling scientific method behind it.

You're making the same mistake I criticize religions for: making up explanations for things beyond their scientific expertise. That's why the bible says god created this and that. Because its author scribbled down his own pet theory saying so and attempting to pass pure speculation as informed.

Now you're arguing that climate change has NOT been a constant? Really?

I suppose that explains why Toronto is still buried under the continental ice sheet.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Yes climate deniers have said that 2007. And hey've also said that "climate always changes." And they've also said there's an ice age coming. And they've also said that global warming is just a crock of shit. And they've also said that climate change is a hoax. They hold all these opinions simultaneously...

Well yeah...it's not an echo chamber, and it may be hard for somebody used to the groupthink of the warmism faith to understand how different people within a group can disagree with each other, but it's true. On our side that can happen.

In fact here's one I just discovered. You're going to like this.

Do you know who Tim Ball is? That Canadian skeptic your side gets all excited about concerning whether or not he's a for real "climatologist." That guy.

Well I just learned something about him. Here's what he actually believes.

$1:

There are two groups in the climate debate: those who believe human CO2 is causing global warming/climate change and those who don’t, respectively labeled Warmists and Skeptics. Warmists try to deny the difference, arguing skeptics are simply wrong. They refuse to debate, claiming the debate is over, which is like saying the science is settled. Both sides believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas causing warming, but disagree on the amount. Warmists claim it explains 90 percent, Skeptics an insignificant amount. Both avoid the real issue that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, as demonstrated in the book Slaying the Sky Dragon. Warmists claim their computer models prove it. Skeptics do it by talking about climate sensitivity. They are both wrong, but the Skeptics are still practicing science and will adjust their views. It’s the difference between the science and political science of climatology.

http://drtimball.com/2012/co2-is-not-a- ... re-period/

Boggled my mind a bit to learn he believed that about CO2 not being a greenhouse gas, but notice he also said this:

"Both sides believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas causing warming, but disagree on the amount."

http://drtimball.com/2012/co2-is-not-a- ... re-period/

[Zipperfish]

Hmmm. You were completely right.

Judith Curry's never said that "Back radiation is BS." or that there were no properties of a CO2 molecule that could lead to warming.

It was posted on an anti-Curry website (https://curryquotes.wordpress.com/) and attributed to her, but it was by someone in the comments section, not her (https://judithcurry.com/2012/09/18/skeptics-make-your-best-case-part-ii/#comment-241522). Quite the contrary, she has little patience it seems for the term "backradiation" (it is not used in a technical sense) or those that purport to disprove backradaition (https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98093).

I am kind of happy about that to be honest, because I have much more time for Judith Curry than most of the so-called skeptics.

Sorry for not fact-checking that.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Hmmm. You were completely right.

Judith Curry's never said that "Back radiation is BS." or that there were no properties of a CO2 molecule that could lead to warming.

It was posted on an anti-Curry website (https://curryquotes.wordpress.com/) and attributed to her, but it was by someone in the comments section, not her (https://judithcurry.com/2012/09/18/skeptics-make-your-best-case-part-ii/#comment-241522). Quite the contrary, she has little patience it seems for the term "backradiation" (it is not used in a technical sense) or those that purport to disprove backradaition (https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98093).

I am kind of happy about that to be honest, because I have much more time for Judith Curry than most of the so-called skeptics.

Sorry for not fact-checking that.

+5 for your usual display of intellectual honesty.

[Lemmy]

z

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy, I said that climate change is a constant and you mocked me for saying so. Ergo you appear to assert that climate is supposed to have a steady state.

Frankly, that seems to be the unsaid assertion of the majority of AGW alarmists is that climate is supposed to exist in a steady state and that external forces or inputs affect what would otherwise be a Utopian and perfect climate all around the world.

[Lemmy]

m

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Frankly, that seems to be the unsaid assertion of the majority of AGW alarmists is that climate is supposed to exist in a steady state and that external forces or inputs affect what would otherwise be a Utopian and perfect climate all around the world.

Well I'm certainly not an alarmist of any sort, but I challenge you to cite a single person who'd make that assertion. You're inventing up an enemy that doesn't exist. There's a medical term for that, you know.

If 'climate change' is a problem unto itself then the desired result is logically a steady-state climate that doesn't change.

Oh, and here's your 'single person' with a steady state climate theory:

http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/models ... e.1978.pdf

[Lemmy]

l

[Thanos]

[N_Fiddledog]

[N_Fiddledog]

[andyt]

The globalists are coming fer our air!

[Lemmy]

[q

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy's deleting his posts.

Interesting.

Lemmy, if you read this then maybe you could ask Hyack for help. He might be able to delete your posts for you.

All the best with whatever it is you're doing.