William Asher wrote:
Bob Cain wrote in
Nonsense. Unless one knows all the possible observables observation
cannot do that. In this specific case all possible observables and
possible causes are far from exhaustively known.

Then what is missing? Your answer has to make physical sense, agree with
available data, not invoke mechanisms that diverge from what is known
about geophysics, and not violate any fundamental laws of physics.

Would it be missing if I knew the answer to that?

If you write your answer as a set of lyrics to "A Wandering Minstrel I"
from The Mikado you can have ten bonus points and immunity for the next
elimination round.

:-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

Bob Cain wrote in
:

William Asher wrote:
Bob Cain wrote in
Nonsense. Unless one knows all the possible observables observation
cannot do that. In this specific case all possible observables and
possible causes are far from exhaustively known.

Then what is missing? Your answer has to make physical sense, agree
with available data, not invoke mechanisms that diverge from what is
known about geophysics, and not violate any fundamental laws of
physics.

Would it be missing if I knew the answer to that?


By claiming there *might* be something missing you imply you think you
know what it is. You imply that you know more than all the people who
make it their life's work to study climate because they have overlooked
something so obvious that it dominates the radiative forcing of CO2.
Alas, it turns out you are just blowing smoke with a high school debating
tactic and can't point to any specific mechanism that might be
responsible for the observed warming that fits the criteria I listed.

My point is that it is no longer enough to sit and speculate in a
skeptical sense using these relatively juvenile debating tactics. If you
skeptics want to be taken seriously, you have to start raising credible
scientific objections. Otherwise, people like me will bin you into the
set of people who are scientific kooks or those who object on political
grounds without any scientific understanding. Much as you skeptics like
to pat yourselves on the back for your perspicacity and insight into the
"conspiracy" of climate change and all the ways it *might* be wrong, when
the rubber hits the road none of you can really articulate an original
valid scientific thought as to why you are right and real climate
physicists are wrong. The fact that nobody of any importance really
takes you seriously moves you from being dangerous to kind of amusing.

--
Bill Asher

"William Asher" wrote in message
...
Bob Cain wrote in
:

William Asher wrote:
Bob Cain wrote in
Nonsense. Unless one knows all the possible observables observation
cannot do that. In this specific case all possible observables and
possible causes are far from exhaustively known.

Then what is missing? Your answer has to make physical sense, agree
with available data, not invoke mechanisms that diverge from what is
known about geophysics, and not violate any fundamental laws of
physics.

Would it be missing if I knew the answer to that?


By claiming there *might* be something missing you imply you think you
know what it is. You imply that you know more than all the people who
make it their life's work to study climate because they have overlooked
something so obvious that it dominates the radiative forcing of CO2.

Well, since you mention it, we know for fact that radiative forcing of CO2
is unknown and immeasurable. This reduces the whole AGW premise to
speculative nonsense.

Alas, it turns out you are just blowing smoke with a high school debating
tactic

You set it up. He knocked it down.

and can't point to any specific mechanism that might be
responsible for the observed warming that fits the criteria I listed.

Nor can you. The difference is that he isn't claiming to know. You AGW
cultists are claiming to know.

My point is that it is no longer enough to sit and speculate in a
skeptical sense using these relatively juvenile debating tactics.

Sitting and speculating is all you whackos have ever done. There is no real
science underlying the AGW premise.

If you
skeptics want to be taken seriously, you have to start raising credible
scientific objections. Otherwise, people like me will bin you into the
set of people who are scientific kooks or those who object on political
grounds without any scientific understanding.

AGW has no scientific basis. It's 100% propaganda, as you are displaying
here in this thread.

Much as you skeptics like
to pat yourselves on the back for your perspicacity and insight into the
"conspiracy" of climate change and all the ways it *might* be wrong, when
the rubber hits the road none of you can really articulate an original
valid scientific thought as to why you are right and real climate
physicists are wrong. The fact that nobody of any importance really
takes you seriously moves you from being dangerous to kind of amusing.

--
Bill Asher

"Claudius Denk" wrote in
:


"William Asher" wrote in message
...
Bob Cain wrote in
:

William Asher wrote:
Bob Cain wrote in
Nonsense. Unless one knows all the possible observables
observation cannot do that. In this specific case all possible
observables and possible causes are far from exhaustively known.

Then what is missing? Your answer has to make physical sense,
agree with available data, not invoke mechanisms that diverge from
what is known about geophysics, and not violate any fundamental
laws of physics.

Would it be missing if I knew the answer to that?


By claiming there *might* be something missing you imply you think
you know what it is. You imply that you know more than all the
people who make it their life's work to study climate because they
have overlooked something so obvious that it dominates the radiative
forcing of CO2.

Well, since you mention it, we know for fact that radiative forcing of
CO2 is unknown and immeasurable. This reduces the whole AGW premise
to speculative nonsense.

Alas, it turns out you are just blowing smoke with a high school
debating tactic

You set it up. He knocked it down.

and can't point to any specific mechanism that might be
responsible for the observed warming that fits the criteria I listed.

Nor can you. The difference is that he isn't claiming to know. You
AGW cultists are claiming to know.

My point is that it is no longer enough to sit and speculate in a
skeptical sense using these relatively juvenile debating tactics.

Sitting and speculating is all you whackos have ever done. There is
no real science underlying the AGW premise.

If you
skeptics want to be taken seriously, you have to start raising
credible scientific objections. Otherwise, people like me will bin
you into the set of people who are scientific kooks or those who
object on political grounds without any scientific understanding.

AGW has no scientific basis. It's 100% propaganda, as you are
displaying here in this thread.

Much as you skeptics like
to pat yourselves on the back for your perspicacity and insight into
the "conspiracy" of climate change and all the ways it *might* be
wrong, when the rubber hits the road none of you can really
articulate an original valid scientific thought as to why you are
right and real climate physicists are wrong. The fact that nobody of
any importance really takes you seriously moves you from being
dangerous to kind of amusing.

--
Bill Asher



C-babe:

Sweetikins, look, I never said there were unknown things that could be
affecting global temperature. I'm fairly convinced that climate
physicists have a fairly good handle on the possibilities, and as far as
things that don't invoke violations of physical laws go, the only thing
that really can explain the observed warming over the last 25 years is
anthropogenic CO2. I don't need to provide alternative explanations
since I am not proposing there are any, what's-his-name high school
master debater did.

You seem to be in the camp that CO2 isn't a radiatively active gas, even
though you have had experts tell you that is a wrong impression. It also
seems like you are scared. But of what? Nothing will change, it is not
like you will live to see meaningful regulation of anything. You have
nothing to fear. Really. Stop acting like a frightened child, man up
and try to understand what some really smart scientists have figured out.
No boogie men will come out of the closet, no black helicopters will
circle your house, you will still be able to sleep with a loaded pistol
and shotgun as comfort for when things go "bump" in the night, and Al
Gore won't come to rape your women (or woman, or lifelike silicone sex
doll, whatever). You've made it, you will live out your life in
splendor. Wooohooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

cue the confetti

--
Bill Asher

William Asher wrote:

Roidy:

The point is that Milankovitch cycles can't explain the observed warming
without resorting to bizarre physics. The point of fact is that nothing
except anthropogenic CO2 can explain the observed warming over the past
25 years or so without bizarre physics. Of course, you create bizarre
physics as a hobby so it is no wonder you doubt anthropogenic CO2 is
affecting the radiative balance of the atmosphere.

If there were no such thing as climate change, what would you do with
your time? Chemtrails? Scalar wave weaponry? Why is it that people who
are into stuff like that seem to get rung up on weird charges all the
time? Look what happened to Art Bell. Did you ever think they might be
coming for you next? You know, them.

Luckily I know they will never get because they know I support

Looks like that ice storm caused his connection to the
electrical grid to be broken.

Happy Global Warming.

On Dec 11, 12:56 am, William Asher

You seem to be in the camp that CO2 isn't a radiatively active gas, even
though you have had experts tell you that is a wrong impression. It also
seems like you are scared. But of what? Nothing will change, it is not
like you will live to see meaningful regulation of anything. You have
nothing to fear. Really. Stop acting like a frightened child, man up
and try to understand what some really smart scientists have figured out.

Now that is funny,,,HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You should man up and realize the burden of proof is upon these
'really smart scientists'. Not upon those that point out the flaws in
this burden of proof.

You should man up and realize that there is NO LEEWAY for these
'scientists' or their followers to falsify, omit or ignore any valid
and pertinent data.

You should also man up, and realize that the debate will never be over
as you try to achieve with this rhetoric which is dishonest and
ignores all of the valid scientists who reject this theoretical
belief. Anyone has the direct right to question and demand that these
'really smart scientists' elementize and explain in detail their
theory. Science is not some mystical thing which only the climate
scientists and theoretical physicists can understand, dillfuss.

The only problem with this, dillfuss, is that what you refer as
'really smart scientists', are only theoretical. There is no
application of direct science and in fact, direct science and actual
mathematical accounting is ignored and cannot support these false
theoretical applications

This theory is a product of discarded climate theory from classical
physics in which it was combined with the calculations of the sun's
energy as being a lump of burning coal, and the purely theoretical
schools of physics which did their best to reject the work of Planck
and Einstein, and was in turn directly rejected by Planck, Einstein
and Shrodinger.

Planck was head of Berlin University and thus the head of German
Physics, the postition he was given by Kirchoff. He in turn gave this
position to Shrodinger. Shrodinger abdicated this position when the
Nazis took power in 1933.
But Heisenberg, the master charlatan of theoretical physics, accepted
the postion abdicated by Shrodinger as head of theoretical science
under Hitler and accepted his black uniform and commission in the SS.

Einstein was thoroughly hated by academics for destroying their
postulative beliefs of the aether of space. The anti-sementism also
required that Einstein, who was Jewish, be written out as being the
founder of modern physics. Quantum mechanics relies on the Uncertainty
principle which gives allowance to violate or ignore the laws of
physics within the theory of atoms at a certain degree of smallness.
What a coincidence!! These new laws begin to apply right at the point
that direct science cannot confirm or deny the suppositions. The
academics loved this also, because it did not rely on Einstein. In
fact it allowed them to ignore Einstein and return to their classical
beliefs in waves.

AGW bases their theory on shortwaves of visible light, and longwave
radiation which is trapped by CO2 supposedly. According to Einstein
and Planck, and the photo electric effect, infrared and visible light
are electromagnetic radiation of different frequencies. Each photon
has a packet of energy of hv, which can also be denoted as a sum or
quantity of energy in ergs or electron volts.

Really smart scientists without any actual science or theoretical
science are not actually very smart. To merely repeat rhetoric in
order to gain certification or rhetorical repitition is not in
actuality demonstration of intelligence.

Physics has become nothing more than philosophical semantics and
playing with words and their definitions. Mathematics is perverted and
allowed modifications neccasary for invalid theory. Physics was begun
by Issac Newton who applied mathematics to the subjects of energy and
motion.

No valid mathematics. NO valid theoretical physics.
NO Law of the Conservation of Energy and Matter. Nothing but mental
masturbation from self infatuated idiots who claim the title of
'scientists' for themselves.

It is far too easy to prove that indoctrination in these theoretical
sciences and the politics within and around these theoretical
scientists, makes them some of the least objective people on earth and
entirely incapable of objectively and rationally doing science. But
then you are the one that doesn't believe in 'proof', so you can
ignore this statement.

KDeatherage
The AGWBunnies,
Beating the drum for their holy war,
They keep going,, and going,,,