Weather or climate?

GopherWeatherGuy

Active member
I can't figure out why GopherWeatherGuy isn't expanding on his theory that the earth is a closed energy system in energy equilibrium, where energy just moves from one place to another and is always in perfect balance, thus the earth can't be warming. And I can't figure out why Victim2 isn't here agreeing with all of that nonsense, even though he hasn't the slightest clue what any of that means. Instead, GWG is posting dicpics. *Disappointing*
Because replying to dicpics is more fun than replying to posts where you put words in my mouth that I didn't say.
 

cncmin

Active member
Uh, that was me. My subtext with adding the humor is that the whole question of whether the Earth is warming is a joke, so why not make the thread a complete joke.
The humor was indeed worthwhile; though I was trying to give GWG hell over it (#28 in the quote), just 'cause. Oops = my fail ha.
 

cncmin

Active member
Because replying to dicpics is more fun than replying to posts where you put words in my mouth that I didn't say.
If this is true than I must be mis-remembering the bases of your explanation. I'll give it a second chance. Re-explain your personal theory as to how AGW is false and/or hoax again.
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Active member
If this is true than I must be mis-remembering the bases of your explanation. I'll give it a second chance. Re-explain your personal theory as to how AGW is false and/or hoax again.
I never once called AGW false or a hoax, just like I've never denied that it has warmed over the past 35 years. I've also never denied human impact. There are many reasons to believe the warming trend is more natural than based solely on human impact.

This has been my basic stance since day one. This is also why I've stopped engaging you on this topic. You haven't been able to comprehend my most basic stance since day one.
 

cncmin

Active member
I never once called AGW false or a hoax, just like I've never denied that it has warmed over the past 35 years. I've also never denied human impact. There are many reasons to believe the warming trend is more natural than based solely on human impact.

This has been my basic stance since day one. This is also why I've stopped engaging you on this topic. You haven't been able to comprehend my most basic stance since day one.
Right. And that's why even Victim2 thinks that your explanation of why AGW is false is a great one. :rolleyes: Do you really believe that if you looked back at the historical record here, that your posts on the subject would agree with what you just posted?

The warming trend is, quite obviously, some combination of HUMAN AND natural impact. The vast majority of researchers on the topic of AGW and the earth's climate believe that the human impact is by far the main driver, for reasons that they present in lucid explanations. Researchers are fairly split as to whether any natural trend over the timeframe of interest would have led to nearly insignificant warming or cooling. You know this. You can disagree, given that your thoughts are you own. But you have never presented a reasonable explanation for such either way.

I continue to give you a second chance to clarify your scientific explanation for your stance; clearly it must have been written very poorly, previously, if everyone here, even the science-denial crowd, thinks you're on their team.
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Active member
Right. And that's why even Victim2 thinks that your explanation of why AGW is false is a great one. :rolleyes: Do you really believe that if you looked back at the historical record here, that your posts on the subject would agree with what you just posted?

The warming trend is, quite obviously, some combination of HUMAN AND natural impact. The vast majority of researchers on the topic of AGW and the earth's climate believe that the human impact is by far the main driver, for reasons that they present in lucid explanations. Researchers are fairly split as to whether any natural trend over the timeframe of interest would have led to nearly insignificant warming or cooling. You know this. You can disagree, given that your thoughts are you own. But you have never presented a reasonable explanation for such either way.

I continue to give you a second chance to clarify your scientific explanation for your stance; clearly it must have been written very poorly, previously, if everyone here, even the science-denial crowd, thinks you're on their team.
I've asked this before and I'll ask it again, explain to me why the Earth has been warmer than it is now without human impact? And why am I supposed to think that can't happen again without humans being the main driver? Why must the climate always stay the same as it has been in our tiny fraction of time that we have data for? Especially when that has NEVER been reality.
 

diehard

Active member
ulentcnc is the "AGW expert" who a year ago had never heard of forcings. In fact he wasted a bunch of posts on attacking me for using the term to to explain climate change. You just can't make this stuff up. He literally knows nothing. Without googling progressive fraud lies he has nothing.

There is no valid research on AGW because the data has been tampered with and that is not debatable. The only explanation is that he is a global carbon tax advocate in the attempt to redistribute global wealth in the desire to bring about his utopian one world Marxist government.

That's all.

The tragedy here is that the "science" is so tampered with that we do not know what the facts are.
 

DougMN

Member
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html

You can't possibly get closer to Cartography than a tourist street map of Cartagena on a drug smuggling trip.
WTF does that comment even mean? I think I know, but your 2nd grade grasp of English makes your posts usually half insult/half puzzle. I post a link from Nasa and you post the Daily Mail. You are a joke. Nothing but a CONSTANT stream of incoherent garbage and insults and boasts that are proven wrong over and over. And when that happens, you are off to start the next garbage thread with poorly thought out comments and sources. You are a sad man.
 

cncmin

Active member
I've asked this before and I'll ask it again, explain to me why the Earth has been warmer than it is now without human impact? And why am I supposed to think that can't happen again without humans being the main driver? Why must the climate always stay the same as it has been in our tiny fraction of time that we have data for? Especially when that has NEVER been reality.
Well you're clearly not on the Denier Team. Thanks for clearing that up! :rolleyes:
 

diehard

Active member
There is no way of "forcings" cnc to get it. Entrench in ignorance and fraud. Especially the fraud and falsehoods. For over a decade now all the climate change models of the ClimateNazis has been wildly false and disproven. They have no cred at all.
 

GopherJake

Active member
There is no way of "forcings" cnc to get it. Entrench in ignorance and fraud. Especially the fraud and falsehoods. For over a decade now all the climate change models of the ClimateNazis has been wildly false and disproven. They have no cred at all.
Good post. What is your first language? Your English is really coming along. It's a very difficult language. Keep working at it.
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Active member
So explain it in terms that don't defy the laws of science and the laws of reality, already. Thanks.
I already have. You didn't listen and can't comprehend so I'm not going to waste my time again.

But it's funny that you label me a denier when I asked legitimate questions that actual climate scientists fail to answer. They do the same thing when questioned because they know their science is still just based on theories. It used to be standard to question new science. But when it comes to climate, you're not allowed to question it. I wonder why that is??
 

GoodasGold

Active member
Personally I prefer weather to climate because it's just easier. When I ask someone " hey, what's the climate like out there" or "what's the climate forecast for today?", they usually say "what the f*ck are talking about:confused:".
 

LesBolstad

Active member
I already have. You didn't listen and can't comprehend so I'm not going to waste my time again.

But it's funny that you label me a denier when I asked legitimate questions that actual climate scientists fail to answer. They do the same thing when questioned because they know their science is still just based on theories. It used to be standard to question new science. But when it comes to climate, you're not allowed to question it. I wonder why that is??
Because cncmin is an ignorant fraud. Pretending that he's smarter than he really is. Very sad. Most close minded poster here.
 

cncmin

Active member
I already have. You didn't listen and can't comprehend so I'm not going to waste my time again.

But it's funny that you label me a denier when I asked legitimate questions that actual climate scientists fail to answer. They do the same thing when questioned because they know their science is still just based on theories. It used to be standard to question new science. But when it comes to climate, you're not allowed to question it. I wonder why that is??
Unless you posted them years ago before I visited here, then you haven't posted a single question that couldn't be answered by logic or science. Clearly you think you have something important to say. Could you link to the place where you said it, or repeat it here, because I must have missed it? I believe this is my 4th request to you on the subject now.

By avoiding the request, it appears that you are trying to hide what the point you were making.
 

Latest profile posts

Top