A long series on climate change

[Cullion]

Nope.



The one in the dictionary, dumbass.

Are you, or are you not, a scientific researcher who has published original research papers in a peer-reviewed journal ?

You're certainly giving the impression that you're not.

I would share my works with you (I've done it for others when on-topic), but you're really not a peer of mine

You got that right.

More reading comprehension fail on your part.

Then why don't you explain what you really meant when you said you knew him ?

Not my fault you can't read.

I can read just fine, that's why I asked you this awkward little question.

Cat got your tongue ?

[W. Rabbit]

ROFL

So let's get this straight, Cullion told me

Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
You believe it. You say you're a scientist. But by your own admission you haven't even read the evidence.

And when I responded with a detailed response that included Muller's work on astrophysics, which I "knew",

I actually knew Muller from before his AWG work because of my astrophysics hobbies.

You took that to mean I was claiming to have personally met him?

I was correct. You are a class A British dumbass.

Good day.

[Cullion]

goodlun, you just posted the same graph twice. It shows temperature trending down, as CO2 increases. I don't think that's what you meant.

You also think that the trend you believe exists is suddenly apparent if we look at data over a century or so, but the problem with doing that is that you have to ignore even larger time periods where the trend you believe in disappears again. This game depends entirely on choosing the time-frame carefully to show the trend you want to see.

You almost said something intelligent here:

Natural variance from year to year in temperatures based on factors other than CO2

But that's exactly what current models don't account for or predict and that is why they shouldn't be used as the basis for policy decisions at this point

[Cullion]

ROFL

So let's get this straight, Cullion told me



And when I responded with a detailed response that included Muller's work on astrophysics, which I "knew",



You took that to mean I was claiming to have personally met him?

Yes, I took that to mean that when you said you knew him, it meant that you knew him. Not that you'd 'heard of' him.

Just like when you said you were a scientist, It meant that you were claiming that you were a scientist.

So what have you published? in which journals ? Why do you believe yourself to be 'a scientist' ?

Care to answer the other question you've left dangling?

Why do you keep saying good bye and then coming back ?

[W. Rabbit]

Yes, I took that to mean that when you said you knew him, it meant that you knew him. Not that you'd 'heard of' him.

I didn't say I'd heard of him. I said I knew Muller, as in I knew his work. (you kept accusing me of not reading things)

If I had ACTUALLY known him, obviously I would have called him up and asked him for a soundbyte.

Did you forget the entire first half of the thread, where you tried to use Muller to support your argument and I blew it away, much like Muller's Congressional testimony blew away the GOP who invited him?

So what have you published? in which journals ?

That is not the definition of a scientist, sorry. Every chemist who works in a lab isn't a scientist unless they publish? Posting my professional work isn't relevant to this thread, no matter what red herring you want to try to fry.

I work in applied sciences, dumbass.

Now I'd love to know if you have any academic or scientific credentials whatsoever that apply to this thread, since if anyone keeps arguing from authority, it's you.

Why do you keep saying good bye and then coming back ?

I'm a rabbit, we never stop running until we're dead.

[Cullion]

I didn't say I'd heard of him. I said I knew Muller, as in I knew his work. (you kept accusing me of not reading things)

If I had ACTUALLY known him, obviously I would have called him up and asked him for a soundbyte.

Did you forget the entire first half of the thread, where you tried to use Muller to support your argument and I blew it away, much like Muller's Congressional testimony blew away the GOP who invited him?

So when you say you 'know' somebody, you actually mean you've just heard of them.

You completely failed to refute anything I said, all you did was post pop-science articles giving op-ed piece summaries of what you thought at happened whilst refusing to read the emails yourself.

That is not the definition of a scientist, sorry. Every chemist who works in a lab isn't a scientist unless they publish?

I work in applied sciences, dumbass.

Ah, so you don't conduct original research.

Where was your Ph.D awarded and what was it's title?

Now I'd love to know if you have any academic or scientific credentials whatsoever that apply to this specific case.

I have a master's degree in computer science and have worked in the field of fluid mechanics simulation. However, I have not spent the thread claiming to be a scientist and disparaging other's credentials like you.

The fact that you appear to have been fantasising about being 'a scientist' just adds to the comedy value of your angry posts.

[goodlun]

goodlun, you just posted the same graph twice. It shows temperature trending down, as CO2 increases. I don't think that's what you meant.

I didn't mean to same graph twice I did mean to show the very short term graph of ~6 years showing yes we can see some small cooling while CO2 rises this is because of all the other factors that effect global temperature.

The other graph was suppose to be the 100 year one that shows that the overall temperature is higher.

You also think that the trend you believe exists is suddenly apparent if we look at data over a century or so, but the problem with doing that is that you have to ignore even larger time periods where the trend you believe in disappears again. This game depends entirely on choosing the time-frame carefully to show the trend you want to see.

The wider the view time window is the more it supports CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Once again we can go back and look at Ice core samples and expected global temperatures.

But that's exactly what current models don't account for or predict and that is why they shouldn't be used as the basis for policy decisions at this point

Yes this is why the models don't work its because of all the other factors other than CO2 that are next to impossible to predict. What your failing to see though is that CO2 is a green house gas. Your failing to comprehend that the global temperature is warmer with more CO2 than with out.

Natural variance doesn't change this. Volcanic eruptions that cancel out CO2 the particular orbit of the earth for that year, other meteorological effects, plus 1000s of other things that can cause a shift in climate doesn't make regulating one thing that we know causes warming a bad thing.

Now we can argue policy all day long that is something we can have a debate about.
Arguing if global warming is real? Not really the evidence is in and has been interpreted by 1000s of well qualified highly educated people who are subject matter experts. We can produce green house effect in the lab all day long any day.

In fact lets use this as an example. Everyday we could go into the lab and fire up a greenhouse effect experiment. Everyday the vessel with the greenhouse gasses in it is going to be warmer than the one that doesn't have it. However every day the green house gasses are not necessarily going to be warmer than one of the previous days non-greenhouse gas vessel. The labs initial temperature serves as your variance. The labs non-greenhouse gases temperatures in the summer are likely to be higher than your labs greenhouse gases temperatures in the winter. This data however doesn't disprove the existence of the greenhouse effect.

[W. Rabbit]

You completely failed to refute anything I said, all you did was post pop-science articles giving op-ed piece summaries of what you thought at happened whilst refusing to read the emails yourself.

Nope they were not op-ed pieces. More lying.

Ah, so you don't conduct original research.

Where was your Ph.D awarded and what was it's title?

Not going to entertain this bullshit any longer. Maybe I do original research, maybe I don't. I challenge you to find out on your own. All you need to do is ask the right people.

However, I have not spent the thread claiming to be a scientist and disparaging other's credentials like you.

Liar.

Yep, no disparaging except the credentials of thousands of scientists, the NSF, NASA, NOAA, Nature (A peer reviewed journal), Muller ("public rape")....I won't even bother listing the UK and international agencies you've disparaged.

The fact that you appear to have been fantasising about being 'a scientist' just adds to the comedy value of your angry posts.

Yeah imad, that's why you're posting Dustymars style and crying conspiracy like he did.

The neg varrot assault was his other trick, glad to see you respond appropriately.

[Cullion]

Nope they were not op-ed pieces. More lying.

People can see for themselves.

Not going to entertain this bullshit any longer. Maybe I do original research, maybe I don't. I challenge you to find out on your own.

Do you or don't you? At this point you sound like you were lying about being a scientist earlier. I think you ought to clear that up for the sake of your credibility in this and future threads about scientific subjects.

You've again called me a liar, but everything I've said has been sourced.

[W. Rabbit]

People can see for themselves.

Yep they can. You can't.

I think you ought to clear that up for the sake of your credibility

**** my credibility. LOL. In fact, here, take my credibility and shovel it up your ass.

You've again called me a liar, but everything I've said has been sourced.

Yes your lies source your other lies.

That's how the web is spun.