Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
 

"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:

The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets
the gratuitous insult.

This coming from someone who never posts anything with content
worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay!

Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global
warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that.

What, specifically, would constitute proof?

A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water
at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor
is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof.
Any more questions?

Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
 

Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:

The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who gets
the gratuitous insult.
This coming from someone who never posts anything with content
worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay!

Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global
warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that.
What, specifically, would constitute proof?

A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water
at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor
is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof.
Any more questions?

Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming?

Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
 

"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:

The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who
gets the gratuitous insult.
This coming from someone who never posts anything with content
worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay!

Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global
warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that.
What, specifically, would constitute proof?

A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water
at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor
is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof.
Any more questions?

Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming?

Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible,
but if there were, then
a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water
at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor
is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof.
Any more questions?

Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
 

On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote:

"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:

The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who
gets the gratuitous insult.
This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth
reading. A few insults and - run awaay!

Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global
warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that.
What, specifically, would constitute proof?

A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by
an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar
water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even
distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically,
constitute proof. Any more questions?

Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming?

Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible,
but if there were, then
a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water
at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor
is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more
questions?

They have to show:
1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in past
warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon
interaction would have to be involved.
2) That we caused the CO2. This, too, would be difficult since simple
equilibrium chemistry indicates we've added very little CO2 to the
atmosphere.

Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms", since
the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity, this, too,
would be hard to prove.

Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
 

Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:

The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who
gets the gratuitous insult.
This coming from someone who never posts anything with content
worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay!

Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global
warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that.
What, specifically, would constitute proof?
A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water
at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor
is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof.
Any more questions?
Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming?

Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible,
but if there were, then

No proof possible because it can't possibly happen - zero credibility
points for you.

a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water
at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor
is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof.
Any more questions?

Nope, no additional circular logic required.

Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
 

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote:

"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:

The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who
gets the gratuitous insult.
This coming from someone who never posts anything with content worth
reading. A few insults and - run awaay!

Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global
warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that.
What, specifically, would constitute proof?
A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by
an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar
water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even
distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically,
constitute proof. Any more questions?
Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming?
Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible,
but if there were, then
a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water
at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor
is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof. Any more
questions?

They have to show:
1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in past
warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon
interaction would have to be involved.

Previously there were not 6 billion people on the Earth extracting fossil
fuels as fast as they can and dumping the burned effluent into the atmosphere.
So that eliminates comparisons to earlier pre-industrial evolutions of the
biosphere as a criteria. This has never happened before.

2) That we caused the CO2. This, too, would be difficult since simple
equilibrium chemistry indicates we've added very little CO2 to the
atmosphere.

Not according to the US Energy Information Agency. See figure 1;
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/bro...e/Chapter1.htm

Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms", since
the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity, this, too,
would be hard to prove.

A vast amount of online information to the contrary would make your
argument very hard to support.

Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
 

"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:

The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who
gets the gratuitous insult.
This coming from someone who never posts anything with content
worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay!

Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global
warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that.
What, specifically, would constitute proof?
A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by
an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water
at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution,
nor
is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof.
Any more questions?
Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming?

Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible,
but if there were, then

No proof possible because it can't possibly happen - zero credibility
points for you.


You interrupted at "if there were, then".
How many brownie points does that earn you?


a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water
at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor
is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof.
Any more questions?

Nope,
One brownie point for me, I interrupted you.
no
Two brownie points for me, I interrupted you.
additional
Three brownie points for me, I interrupted you.
circular
Four brownie points for me, I interrupted you.
logic required.
Five brownie points for me, I interrupted you.
I win your childish game 5:1.
Don't have much credibility, do you?

Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
 

Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:

The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who
gets the gratuitous insult.
This coming from someone who never posts anything with content
worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay!

Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global
warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that.
What, specifically, would constitute proof?
A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by
an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water
at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution,
nor
is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof.
Any more questions?
Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming?
Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible,
but if there were, then
No proof possible because it can't possibly happen - zero credibility
points for you.


You interrupted at "if there were, then".
How many brownie points does that earn you?

Your first sentence, which you had already posted previously, discredited
everything else you said. A second time.

When you altered the follow-ups it showed you are also a coward.

Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
 

On May 6, 5:28*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message

...





Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
.. .
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:

The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who
gets the gratuitous insult.
This coming from someone who never posts anything with content
worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay!

Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global
warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that.
What, specifically, would constitute proof?

*A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water
at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor
is it constant, but it would, specifically, *constitute proof.
Any more questions?

Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming?

Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible,
*but if there were, then
a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water
at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor
is it constant, but it would, specifically, *constitute proof.
Any more questions?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

yeah. you really want to see "polar water at -32 F"?

Ducking the Point (AGW "settled science")
 

"z" wrote in message
...
On May 6, 5:28 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message

...





Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
.. .
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:

The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being who
gets the gratuitous insult.
This coming from someone who never posts anything with content
worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay!

Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of global
warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to have that.
What, specifically, would constitute proof?

A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water
at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution,
nor
is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof.
Any more questions?

Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global warming?

Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be possible,
but if there were, then
a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar water
at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even distribution, nor
is it constant, but it would, specifically, constitute proof.
Any more questions?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

yeah. you really want to see "polar water at -32 F"?
========================================

No, I don't want to see it, it looks like this:
http://www.shultz.com/North%20Pole/P...20cap%2004.jpg
Any more questions?