Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

Communicate with fellow Zoners

Moderators: SkiDork, spanky, Bubba

madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by madhatter »

Rime & Reason wrote:
madhatter wrote:academia; where bullsh!t goes to get affirmed...it's been long since the day when university was for the best and brightest, now its for the dumbest and most capable of getting financial aid/student loans....safe spaces and trigger warnings for all...

no wonder none of em can find jobs...

Says the little guy with no college degree, sitting at home all day while his wife works at a university to support him.
hey hey its la cucaracha, get the raid...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Streamtracker
Black Carver
Posts: 491
Joined: Aug 29th, '11, 12:36
Location: Sunderland, MA

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Streamtracker »

madhatter wrote:
Streamtracker wrote:
Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:IF THERE IS NO ATMOSPHERIC WARMING WHY SHOULD THERE BE OTHER EFFECTS OF CO2?
It seems (seemed?) a reasonable hypothesis that the introduction of more CO2 into the atmosphere might increase the temperature of the atmosphere. Some of you think of this as a scientific truth rather than a hypothesis but I really don’t care.

The CO2 has been going up for the last 17 years and the atmospheric temperatures have not gone up. This is really not disputed. Some claim the earth is still heating (oceans) but almost no one claims there has been statistically significant ATMOSPHERIC warming for at least 15 years.

When this atmospheric temperature stasis started to occur there was lots of yelling that it wasn’t significant until the trend lasted longer. The first target was ten years. Then when the pause lasted ten years the target was changed to 15 years. Now that we have passed 15 years with no warming the “consensus” explanations have become interesting. Other factors (which the skeptics had been berated for considering as significant) were “masking” the warming. Or….The deep ocean was somehow stealing the heat which was not appearing in the atmosphere…without any heating in the intervening oceanic levels. Or…. We really shouldn’t worry about warming… what we should worry about is Climate Change!

Oh my.

Firstly climate has probably never been very stable in the history of the earth.

Our proxies for ancient temperature generally have low temporal resolution but nevertheless proxies like ice cores seem to show decadal variations at least as dramatic as our current changes. The CO2 changes are indeed more dramatic than any we can resolve with our low resolution proxies but the temperature changes are not. And there is a multitude of data showing weather events much more dramatic than our current events.

Secondly… how is this a scientific hypothesis?

In science you construct a chain of causal events which lead from a triggering factor to an outcome. When Global Warming first appeared as an idea all the activist scientists knew that no one would be scared if the outcome was merely a slightly warmer climate. So they extrapolated their theory to include more terrifying outcomes.

Because the atmosphere was hotter… methane would be released causing runaway warming.
Because the atmosphere was hotter…atmospheric water vapor would increase causing flooding
Because the atmosphere was hotter…species would be displaced as the seasonal patterns morphed.
Because the atmosphere was hotter…cyclonic activity would increase due to warmer ocean surface temperatures.
Because the atmosphere was hotter…droughts would increase because of increased evaporation
Because the atmosphere was hotter…mosquitoes would expand their range and terrorize northerners (ha!)
Because the atmosphere was hotter…ski resorts would have to close from lack of snow.
Because the atmosphere was hotter… tick outbreaks would destroy moose populations.
Because the atmosphere was hotter…well just fill in the blanks… as long as it is bad (NEVER GOOD EFFECTS)

All of these ideas were worthy of consideration because they had a chain of purported causal links to atmospheric warming which MIGHT be caused by increase in CO2.

They have NO scientific basis unless there is atmospheric warming.

Well for the last 17+ years there has been no atmospheric warming.

So none of these ideas have ANY scientific basis. Simple as that actually.

Any believers in the consensus can interrupt me here and explain, not with an internet link but an actual explanation (to show you understand it), HOW any of these effects would be CAUSED BY AN INCREASE IN CO2. Remember you CANNOT invoke an increase in atmospheric temperature because there has been none.

So, again... please explain, with a series of causal links (this is your hypothesis remember) how an increase in CO2 can increase flooding WITHOUT any increase in atmospheric temperature.

Remember NO LINKS, just a simple explanation. You should be able to explain ALL of them but I would like you to explain even one of them… just a simple explanation.

I don’t think you have one.

If you don’t have one… your faith in the consensus is merely an example of the magical thinking that pervades human cultures.

Which is fine… but it makes your shrieking at “deniers” deliciously ironic, as it seems you are the ones who have strayed from the path of science and become reliant on faith in authority.

You can change my mind with a simple explanation.
The Sgt. proving he is false expert again.

1) His whole post is in fact nonsense because the atmosphere has warmed over the least 17 years. by less than a rounding error of calculations based on data that may or may not be accurate...big deal...too bad you and others weren''t as easily swayed by reality as you are by belief on a whole host of subjects... That is a fact, a largely irrelevant one that most would dismiss, even more so if you actually told them by how much...not the lie the Sgt. keeps pushing. All five independent groups that analyze surface temperatures find warming in the last 17 years. Funny how the Sgt. fails to mention that.

2) No you do not need atmospheric warming every year or even in a stretch of a few years. Most of the extra heat goes elsewhere - only 1% into air. CO2 traps heat energy, where is goes in the planet is another matter. Learn this basic fact before parading as an expert.bla bla propaganda, bla bla I know everything, bla bla...

3) Who has time to counter all the lies and correct all the logical flaws this character posts here? who would listen to your BS anyway?Not me, I have 400 students to brainwash w liberal tripe that is only important to those with an agenda... this semester.
academia; where bullsh!t goes to get affirmed...it's been long since the day when university was for the best and brightest, now its for the dumbest and most capable of getting financial aid/student loans....safe spaces and trigger warnings for all...

no wonder none of em can find jobs...
What a pathetic response. Some how this clown is smarter than the group of 100's of scientists who work on the five independent data analyses.

The Sgt. should read the whole report on Ocean warming before making childish rantings like "bla bla propaganda, bla bla I know everything, bla bla...". He should also spend some time with the original sources and than maybe there a small chance he will understand it instead of being reactively dismissive.

Academia, where Nobel prize winners are minted.
The dumbest? Funny how the average GPA at my institution for incoming freshman has jumped from a 2.7 to a 3.8. I am teaching some incredibly bright and capable young people. You'd have to be really out of touch with higher eduction to make such claims.
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by madhatter »

Streamtracker wrote:
madhatter wrote:
Streamtracker wrote:
Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:IF THERE IS NO ATMOSPHERIC WARMING WHY SHOULD THERE BE OTHER EFFECTS OF CO2?
It seems (seemed?) a reasonable hypothesis that the introduction of more CO2 into the atmosphere might increase the temperature of the atmosphere. Some of you think of this as a scientific truth rather than a hypothesis but I really don’t care.

The CO2 has been going up for the last 17 years and the atmospheric temperatures have not gone up. This is really not disputed. Some claim the earth is still heating (oceans) but almost no one claims there has been statistically significant ATMOSPHERIC warming for at least 15 years.

When this atmospheric temperature stasis started to occur there was lots of yelling that it wasn’t significant until the trend lasted longer. The first target was ten years. Then when the pause lasted ten years the target was changed to 15 years. Now that we have passed 15 years with no warming the “consensus” explanations have become interesting. Other factors (which the skeptics had been berated for considering as significant) were “masking” the warming. Or….The deep ocean was somehow stealing the heat which was not appearing in the atmosphere…without any heating in the intervening oceanic levels. Or…. We really shouldn’t worry about warming… what we should worry about is Climate Change!

Oh my.

Firstly climate has probably never been very stable in the history of the earth.

Our proxies for ancient temperature generally have low temporal resolution but nevertheless proxies like ice cores seem to show decadal variations at least as dramatic as our current changes. The CO2 changes are indeed more dramatic than any we can resolve with our low resolution proxies but the temperature changes are not. And there is a multitude of data showing weather events much more dramatic than our current events.

Secondly… how is this a scientific hypothesis?

In science you construct a chain of causal events which lead from a triggering factor to an outcome. When Global Warming first appeared as an idea all the activist scientists knew that no one would be scared if the outcome was merely a slightly warmer climate. So they extrapolated their theory to include more terrifying outcomes.

Because the atmosphere was hotter… methane would be released causing runaway warming.
Because the atmosphere was hotter…atmospheric water vapor would increase causing flooding
Because the atmosphere was hotter…species would be displaced as the seasonal patterns morphed.
Because the atmosphere was hotter…cyclonic activity would increase due to warmer ocean surface temperatures.
Because the atmosphere was hotter…droughts would increase because of increased evaporation
Because the atmosphere was hotter…mosquitoes would expand their range and terrorize northerners (ha!)
Because the atmosphere was hotter…ski resorts would have to close from lack of snow.
Because the atmosphere was hotter… tick outbreaks would destroy moose populations.
Because the atmosphere was hotter…well just fill in the blanks… as long as it is bad (NEVER GOOD EFFECTS)

All of these ideas were worthy of consideration because they had a chain of purported causal links to atmospheric warming which MIGHT be caused by increase in CO2.

They have NO scientific basis unless there is atmospheric warming.

Well for the last 17+ years there has been no atmospheric warming.

So none of these ideas have ANY scientific basis. Simple as that actually.

Any believers in the consensus can interrupt me here and explain, not with an internet link but an actual explanation (to show you understand it), HOW any of these effects would be CAUSED BY AN INCREASE IN CO2. Remember you CANNOT invoke an increase in atmospheric temperature because there has been none.

So, again... please explain, with a series of causal links (this is your hypothesis remember) how an increase in CO2 can increase flooding WITHOUT any increase in atmospheric temperature.

Remember NO LINKS, just a simple explanation. You should be able to explain ALL of them but I would like you to explain even one of them… just a simple explanation.

I don’t think you have one.

If you don’t have one… your faith in the consensus is merely an example of the magical thinking that pervades human cultures.

Which is fine… but it makes your shrieking at “deniers” deliciously ironic, as it seems you are the ones who have strayed from the path of science and become reliant on faith in authority.

You can change my mind with a simple explanation.
The Sgt. proving he is false expert again.

1) His whole post is in fact nonsense because the atmosphere has warmed over the least 17 years. by less than a rounding error of calculations based on data that may or may not be accurate...big deal...too bad you and others weren''t as easily swayed by reality as you are by belief on a whole host of subjects... That is a fact, a largely irrelevant one that most would dismiss, even more so if you actually told them by how much...not the lie the Sgt. keeps pushing. All five independent groups that analyze surface temperatures find warming in the last 17 years. Funny how the Sgt. fails to mention that.

2) No you do not need atmospheric warming every year or even in a stretch of a few years. Most of the extra heat goes elsewhere - only 1% into air. CO2 traps heat energy, where is goes in the planet is another matter. Learn this basic fact before parading as an expert.bla bla propaganda, bla bla I know everything, bla bla...

3) Who has time to counter all the lies and correct all the logical flaws this character posts here? who would listen to your BS anyway?Not me, I have 400 students to brainwash w liberal tripe that is only important to those with an agenda... this semester.
academia; where bullsh!t goes to get affirmed...it's been long since the day when university was for the best and brightest, now its for the dumbest and most capable of getting financial aid/student loans....safe spaces and trigger warnings for all...

no wonder none of em can find jobs...
What a pathetic response. Some how this clown is smarter than the group of 100's of scientists who work on the five independent data analyses.

The Sgt. should read the whole report on Ocean warming before making childish rantings like "bla bla propaganda, bla bla I know everything, bla bla...". He should also spend some time with the original sources and than maybe there a small chance he will understand it instead of being reactively dismissive.

Academia, where Nobel prize winners are minted.
The dumbest? Funny how the average GPA at my institution for incoming freshman has jumped from a 2.7 to a 3.8. I am teaching some incredibly bright and capable young people. You'd have to be really out of touch with higher eduction to make such claims.
meaningless numbers...inflated by the same methods used to promote agw etc...bet yer local community college is "graduating" many of those 3.8 and 4.0 geniuses...there's just not a whole lot of there, there...


now I don't doubt that there are intelligent people earning degrees, perhaps 10 of your 400maybe a bit better IF you are at a quality STEM school but even then a lot of very incapable people will leave with degrees.....unfortunately the other 390 will be the ones who claim to be "higher educated" and imagine that means they actually know anything...extrapolate that out across every school in the country and ya got a whole lot of "educated" dumb@sses...

I have no idea what you do and don't know, I doubt yer an idiot ...

you clearly believe in what you do, just like a salesman truly believes in his product...ya still got a long way to go between drawing in some tire kickers and making the sale...outside the very liberal leftwing groupthink oriented sphere of "academia" is a whole lot of real world that isn't even remotely convinced...it just sounds like a bunch of obamacare quality promises to grubers...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

madhatter wrote:
Streamtracker wrote:
madhatter wrote:
Streamtracker wrote: The Sgt. should read the whole report on Ocean warming before making childish rantings like "bla bla propaganda, bla bla I know everything, bla bla...". He should also spend some time with the original sources and than maybe there a small chance he will understand it instead of being reactively dismissive.

Academia, where Nobel prize winners are minted.
The dumbest? Funny how the average GPA at my institution for incoming freshman has jumped from a 2.7 to a 3.8. I am teaching some incredibly bright and capable young people. You'd have to be really out of touch with higher eduction to make such claims.
meaningless numbers...inflated by the same methods used to promote agw etc...bet yer local community college is "graduating" many of those 3.8 and 4.0 geniuses...there's just not a whole lot of there, there...


now I don't doubt that there are intelligent people earning degrees, perhaps 10 of your 400maybe a bit better IF you are at a quality STEM school but even then a lot of very incapable people will leave with degrees.....unfortunately the other 390 will be the ones who claim to be "higher educated" and imagine that means they actually know anything...extrapolate that out across every school in the country and ya got a whole lot of "educated" dumb@sses...

I have no idea what you do and don't know, I doubt yer an idiot ...

you clearly believe in what you do, just like a salesman truly believes in his product...ya still got a long way to go between drawing in some tire kickers and making the sale...outside the very liberal leftwing groupthink oriented sphere of "academia" is a whole lot of real world that isn't even remotely convinced...it just sounds like a bunch of obamacare quality promises to grubers...
Yeah great call on that. No one can make me laugh more than Streamtracker...all the way down to his pretentious flying spaghetti monster head picture!

The king of pretentiousness: "I teach at a college" like that makes you smarter that ordinary folk.

I taught at a college...not a very impressive part of my resume actually. As I mentioned two of the dumbest people I ever met were on my thesis committee. Pretended to be molecular biologists but they were actually scammers who knew how to succeed in a pretty corrupt system. My work as a chemist in industry was much more challenging. In that work I was constantly interacting with "chemists" in academia and chemists in industry. I actually don't think I ever met a crappy industrial chemist but there were a few in academia that were dumber that the average human.

And the real comedy line about the high GPAs.....you were joking hopefully? That is honestly one of the dumest things ever posted on this forum.

If you think that the incoming college students are equal in academic talent to the previous generation....well to put it in simple terms you might understand...."dude you don't know d!ck"
Ski the edges!
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

Oh and....

Rogman or Streamtracker....because you NEVER ....not ever... respond to any of my actual (carefully-worded) questions...I will simple post the questions again and again until you answer.

SO... the current HISTORICAL HURRICANE DROUGHT....is that somehow caused by CO2? If not ...why not? Since you seem to infer that everything else is caused by the "elevated" CO2 levels.

And is this amazing drought a bad thing?

Did the alarmists somehow predict a hurricane drought?

Never heard that one but you guys say some amazing things. Maybe you would like to contend they predicted MORE hurricanes AND LESS hurricanes?....that would not be more absurd than some of the ideas you have posted.
Ski the edges!
steamboat1
Post Office
Posts: 4540
Joined: Sep 12th, '11, 21:53
Location: Brooklyn, NY/Pittsford,VT

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by steamboat1 »

Wow I got deleted
rogman
Postinator
Posts: 7011
Joined: Mar 27th, '06, 13:33
Location: In a maze of twisty little passages, all alike

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by rogman »

A major hurricane is defined strictly by wind speed. There have been a number of major storms that have been exacerbated by climate change. The most direct effect is increased rainfall in storms, not wind speed. I already cited Baton Rouge, Texas, and West Viginia from this year alone. Neither Irene nor Sandy were major hurricanes, but their effects were devastating due to rainfall and storm surge, not wind. So basically you're just cherry picking statistics. Again.
Image
User avatar
Mister Moose
Level 10K poster
Posts: 11596
Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
Location: Waiting for the next one

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Mister Moose »

rogman wrote:A major hurricane is defined strictly by wind speed. There have been a number of major storms that have been exacerbated by climate change. The most direct effect is increased rainfall in storms, not wind speed. I already cited Baton Rouge, Texas, and West Viginia from this year alone. Neither Irene nor Sandy were major hurricanes, but their effects were devastating due to rainfall and storm surge, not wind.
Yes hurricanes are categorized by wind speed on the Saffir-Simpson Scale. But there are many metrics that we judge these storms by: dollars of property loss, lives lost, amount of flooding, duration of flooding, numbers of those without power. The diameter of the wind field, the forward speed of the storm, and the speed of the wind all matter nearly equally. A narrow hard fast tight punch (cat 3) might cause less damage than a wide pummeling (Cat 1) that lasts for hours and hours. This variation in storm profile has been around for far longer than any AGW theory, and by itself doesn't prove anything.

I know higher ocean temperatures are a factor, but ocean temps in the Caribbean and the Gulf Stream (both higher and lower) are affected by more than just Global Warming. How can it be said with certainty that a specific storm was exacerbated by climate change? Wouldn't that require proof of what the conditions would have been without climate change? If you accept your statement, wouldn't everything in cyclonic storms be exacerbated due to climate change? Not just "a number of storms". That randomness no longer exists, that some storms being weaker due to climate change no longer will happen? And then there is the matter of degree. To what extent is a given storm worse?

Which storms were exacerbated by global warming, and which storms weren't? You're not going to pick high rainfall events like Baton Rouge, and then say the high rainfall is proof of the high rainfall are you? You would have to pick the storms for some other AGW reason (such as abnormal nearby ocean temperatures that week) to show the correlation to rainfall.
Image
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

rogman wrote:A major hurricane is defined strictly by wind speed. There have been a number of major storms that have been exacerbated by climate change. The most direct effect is increased rainfall in storms, not wind speed. I already cited Baton Rouge, Texas, and West Viginia from this year alone. Neither Irene nor Sandy were major hurricanes, but their effects were devastating due to rainfall and storm surge, not wind. So basically you're just cherry picking statistics. Again.

So was the LACK of hurricanes caused by CO2?

I can easily find dozens of predictions(by idiots you call scientists) for an INCREASE in NUMBER & STRENGTH of HURRICANES.

Do you DENY this SIMPLE FACT?

We are in a HISTORIC HURRICANE DROUGHT.

Do you DENY this SIMPLE FACT?

When a SCIENTIST says that his theories make a PREDICTION and then....

REALITY REFUTES THE PREDICTION...

The theory is flawed

Simple as that.

If you respond please respond to the SPECIFIC questions asked:

Is there a hurricane drought?

Did the alarmists (the IPCC) predict an increase in hurricanes or a hurricane drought?
Ski the edges!
Woodsrider
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1377
Joined: Jan 12th, '14, 21:34

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Woodsrider »

Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:
rogman wrote:A major hurricane is defined strictly by wind speed. There have been a number of major storms that have been exacerbated by climate change. The most direct effect is increased rainfall in storms, not wind speed. I already cited Baton Rouge, Texas, and West Viginia from this year alone. Neither Irene nor Sandy were major hurricanes, but their effects were devastating due to rainfall and storm surge, not wind. So basically you're just cherry picking statistics. Again.

So was the LACK of hurricanes caused by CO2?

I can easily find dozens of predictions(by idiots you call scientists) for an INCREASE in NUMBER & STRENGTH of HURRICANES.

Do you DENY this SIMPLE FACT?

We are in a HISTORIC HURRICANE DROUGHT.

Do you DENY this SIMPLE FACT?

When a SCIENTIST says that his theories make a PREDICTION and then....

REALITY REFUTES THE PREDICTION...

The theory is flawed

Simple as that.

If you respond please respond to the SPECIFIC questions asked:

Is there a hurricane drought?

Did the alarmists (the IPCC) predict an increase in hurricanes or a hurricane drought?
Yes... Yes you are an idiot. No I won't be more specific.
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

Woodsrider wrote: Yes... Yes you are an idiot. No I won't be more specific.

I adore you! You always make me laugh.

And you always add such lively details to the debate. Might I suggest " liar liar pants on fire" next time. I am sure your crew would be impressed.

And of course by NOT answering specific questions ( which is what REAL scientists do) you have proved my point. Thanks buddy!
Ski the edges!
Woodsrider
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1377
Joined: Jan 12th, '14, 21:34

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Woodsrider »

Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:
Woodsrider wrote: Yes... Yes you are an idiot. No I won't be more specific.

I adore you! You always make me laugh.

And you always add such lively details to the debate. Might I suggest " liar liar pants on fire" next time. I am sure your crew would be impressed.

And of course by NOT answering specific questions ( which is what REAL scientists do) you have proved my point. Thanks buddy!
I am pleased that I make you laugh. But I am not a scientist nor do I pretend to be one. I do however employ real scientists and convert their research into usefull products.
Edited to be nicer:
I would probably prefer to hire you into a sales position rather then into a scientist position. You are clearly a good bull shitter and you never give up and like the best salesmen you actually believe your lies.
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

Woodsrider wrote:
Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:
Woodsrider wrote: Yes... Yes you are an idiot. No I won't be more specific.

I adore you! You always make me laugh.

And you always add such lively details to the debate. Might I suggest " liar liar pants on fire" next time. I am sure your crew would be impressed.

And of course by NOT answering specific questions ( which is what REAL scientists do) you have proved my point. Thanks buddy!
I am pleased that I make you laugh. But I am not a scientist nor do I pretend to be one. I do however employ real scientists and convert their research into usefull products.
Edited to be nicer:
I would probably prefer to hire you into a sales position rather then into a scientist position. You are clearly a good bull shitter and you never give up and like the best salesmen you actually believe your lies.
I will let it stand at that. Your tone was indeed more civil a response than I deserved. Shows good character. I was trying to be funny but... well it is the internet!

Anyway I do think you are probably a bright and decent guy. I am actually a damn good scientists but I suppose I sound more like a combative normie. Salesman? well OK...whatever. Hope you live a long life,both because you seem nice and you will live to see my point of view about climate vindicated. It will be another "scientific consensus" that looks silly in the rear view mirror.
Ski the edges!
Woodsrider
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1377
Joined: Jan 12th, '14, 21:34

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Woodsrider »

Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:
Woodsrider wrote:
Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:
Woodsrider wrote: Yes... Yes you are an idiot. No I won't be more specific.

I adore you! You always make me laugh.

And you always add such lively details to the debate. Might I suggest " liar liar pants on fire" next time. I am sure your crew would be impressed.

And of course by NOT answering specific questions ( which is what REAL scientists do) you have proved my point. Thanks buddy!
I am pleased that I make you laugh. But I am not a scientist nor do I pretend to be one. I do however employ real scientists and convert their research into usefull products.
Edited to be nicer:
I would probably prefer to hire you into a sales position rather then into a scientist position. You are clearly a good bull shitter and you never give up and like the best salesmen you actually believe your lies.
I will let it stand at that. Your tone was indeed more civil a response than I deserved. Shows good character. I was trying to be funny but... well it is the internet!

Anyway I do think you are probably a bright and decent guy. I am actually a damn good scientists but I suppose I sound more like a combative normie. Salesman? well OK...whatever. Hope you live a long life,both because you seem nice and you will live to see my point of view about climate vindicated. It will be another "scientific consensus" that looks silly in the rear view mirror.
From your lips to god's ear. But I wouldn't bank on it.
User avatar
Mister Moose
Level 10K poster
Posts: 11596
Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
Location: Waiting for the next one

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Mister Moose »

Woodsrider wrote: I would probably prefer to hire you into a sales position rather then into a scientist position. You are clearly a good bull shitter and you never give up and like the best salesmen you actually believe your lies.
FYI the best salesmen understand the importance of credibility, reputation, future sales, and trust with their clients. They know the truth is far more important than a single sale, because the truth earns you a customer for life, and a referral network second to none.

Why are you hiring liars?
Image
Post Reply