Report: Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Not as plentiful as fools such as yourself.

The childishness of your comeback is proof of everything I have said about your limited abilities.

Why can't warmists see, real science is proved by experimental tests. This is the difference between science and religion, we can't test faith, we can test scientific fact. If it isn't testable, it's not science.

Brian_G wrote:

Why can't warmists see, real science is proved by experimental tests.

It will be a cold day in you-know-where when we take the word of an idled cash-register repairman's word for what proves real science!

Especially when the demented parrot repeats the same ignorance of the existence of OBSERVATIONAL sciences. One does not demand experimental proof for the results of the OBSERVATIONAL sciences!

If climatology is an observational science, then there is no justification for climate mitigation policy!

Brian_G wrote:

If climatology is an observational science, then there is no justification for climate mitigation policy!

Non sequitur.

You have no reason to believe that only experimental sciences can be justification for policy. Unless, of course, the reason is that you are a demented parrot, a denialist monkey, an underpaid shill of the fossil-fuel industry.

Brian_G wrote:

If climatology is an observational science, then there is no justification for climate mitigation policy!

Dear demented parrot. The key to science is 'falsifiability'. Experiments are useful to falsify theoretical predictions, but we don't need it to be a benchtop experiment or to control variables exactly. What is needed is that the system can 'falsify' the theory by failure to correctly model the observations.

There is no distinction between lab experiment and 'observational' experiments. Even the theory of thermal expansion used in mercury thermometers cannot see or measure the motion of the atoms. All we can do is measure what we CAN observe and see if it fits the theory.

Any theory that provides an explanation of observed behavior, while having no exceptions and no exceptions to its predictive value is just 'science'. That includes AGW.

truthist wrote:

where you can read more on CO2 emissions: 27,245,758,000 tons in 2004 alone!

Yes, it is astonishing. But it isn't for just one year that CO2 dumping takes place. 250 years before 2004 man-made CO2 emissions dumped 3000 thousand thousand thousand thousand KGs into the air. In only the next 100 years another 3000 thousand thousand thousand thousand KGs of CO2 will enter the atmosphere.

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, it is astonishing. But it isn't for just one year that CO2 dumping takes place. 250 years before 2004 man-made CO2 emissions dumped 3000 thousand thousand thousand thousand KGs into the air. In only the next 100 years another 3000 thousand thousand thousand thousand KGs of CO2 will enter the atmosphere.

You left out the scariest part: it will take centuries for the natural carbon cycle to absorb all that carbon. In the meantime, it heats up the earth.

Climate mitigation is an experimental; it's never been tried or tested. Don't fall for pseudo science; if they can't prove it experimentally, it's not falsifiable. If we rely only on observation, we can't infer causality or recommend policy. Climate mitigation is a hoax and China, India and Russia all reject CO2 restrictions. They might rhetorically support other countries hamstringing their economies, but they aren't foolish enough to commit economic suicide.

There are many demented parrots here, some of them continually use terms like:
"3000 thousand thousand thousand thousand KGs"
Others:
"We must cut CO2 NOW."
And the best one:
"1 ºF temperature rise in 100 years?"

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
You left out the scariest part: it will take centuries for the natural carbon cycle to absorb all that carbon. In the meantime, it heats up the earth.

You are correct, considering the half-life of CO2 being over 100 years in Earth's atmosphere. But even when the natural carbon cycle absorbs that carbon (which it won't do if we continue CO2 dumping in Earth's atmosphere), it still represents a net excess in the natural process that most certainly will have its own unintended consequences, some consequences which we can understand now.

Earthling wrote:

There are many demented parrots here, some of them continually use terms like:
"3000 thousand thousand thousand thousand KGs"

You misrepresented my quote. It is '3000 thousand thousand thousand thousand KGs per century'.

Haven't seen any demented parrots able to calculate the amount of man-made CO2 entering the atmosphere per century. However, several demented AGW deniers fail to quote me correctly (& even repeatedly), thus showing their lack of knowledge to the true mass of man-made CO2 entering the atmosphere per century.

Earthling wrote:

There are many demented parrots here, some of them continually use terms like:
"3000 thousand thousand thousand thousand KGs"
Others:
"We must cut CO2 NOW."
And the best one:
"1 ºF temperature rise in 100 years?"

You forgot thier favorite sqauak, "denyer" and "troll". Then again what do you expect out of bird brains.

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Try again; Danzig was an appointee not a serving member of the navy. All you saw was a political piece that was placed on the web site as a favor. Notice that it was not written by anyone who is currently in the navy but at an institute of "Higher Learning". It had no document tracking number, which any official military document would have. It is an opinion piece.

Somehow it has more credence and credibility than anything you have written, including your response -- possibly because it is true and what you say is not

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually what you saw was someone feeding congress what they want to hear in order to get funding. A aingle phrase that sums up the whole thing was
"But the talk about transformation has essentially been that. It's been talk"
Talk all it was. Every one here would agree that congress loves to talk.

And what you are feeding us is the "unvarnished truth" as seen by a denialist in delusion...

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
You forgot thier favorite sqauak, "denyer" and "troll". Then again what do you expect out of bird brains.

Even for a troll, your response is pretty stupid -- but you have a tradition to uphold, I guess

And the indicators continue in the red, contrary to the trolls' yessing & conning each other:

http://www.costofwar.com/

And what you can do -- the list keeps growing:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/index.h...

And the climate indicators are in the red, too:

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/

Does CO2 stay in the air for 100 years? This hasn't been tested experimentally. CO2 can be washed from the air with rain, it feeds our plants and it's vital to our climate. Stop the fear, do the experimental work before making policy decisions.

Cousin Jethro wrote:

<quoted text>
Somehow it has more credence and credibility than anything you have written, including your response -- possibly because it is true and what you say is not

I still have beat anything you have posted.

You have yet to learn how to tell the difference from fact and fiction. Even more so when the fiction is someothing you wish to believe.