Report: No "Global Warming" for 325 Months...

[JeremiahJohnson]

I knew there was something I smelled on you.

Go here: https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/break-room/365927-engineers.html#post5436237

You are ALWAYS five steps ahead of me! Must be because of my hybrid background.

 

[rhino]

You are ALWAYS five steps ahead of me! Must be because of my hybrid background.

Indeed . . . purity at all costs, sir! PURITY.


(says the Kentuckipino)

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

You too??? And your son??

Stinky stinky stinky!

Hey Rhino, know how to tell an extraverted engineer from an introverted engineer? The extraverted engineer looks at YOUR shoes while he talks to you. HA!

 

[rhino]

Hey Rhino, know how to tell an extraverted engineer from an introverted engineer? The extraverted engineer looks at YOUR shoes while he talks to you. HA!

HEHEHE!

That's a new one for me!

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

What's the difference between Engineers and Architects?

Engineers build weapons.

Architects build targets.

 

[chipbennett]

How is a scientific consensus built?

"Scientific consensus" is not even a thing.

Scientific pursuit thrives on the contrarian. True scientists want others to challenge their work, find the errors in the assumptions, methods, calculations, measurements, and analysis. True science doesn't look for ways to confirm something is true; rather, it seeks out ways that something can be disproved, and then tests those ways. If you run out of ways to disprove something, then your confidence that it is true increases.

There is no falsifiability in the Religion of Climate Change, because every phenomenon is attributed to climate change.

 

[rhino]

"Scientific consensus" is not even a thing.

Scientific pursuit thrives on the contrarian. True scientists want others to challenge their work, find the errors in the assumptions, methods, calculations, measurements, and analysis. True science doesn't look for ways to confirm something is true; rather, it seeks out ways that something can be disproved, and then tests those ways. If you run out of ways to disprove something, then your confidence that it is true increases.

There is no falsifiability in the Religion of Climate Change, because every phenomenon is attributed to climate change.

You only said that because human activity is clearly and irrevocably changing the global climate, thus influencing your mind to make you say what you just said.

[What I did thee? Did you see it?]

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

"Scientific consensus" is not even a thing.

Scientific pursuit thrives on the contrarian. True scientists want others to challenge their work, find the errors in the assumptions, methods, calculations, measurements, and analysis. True science doesn't look for ways to confirm something is true; rather, it seeks out ways that something can be disproved, and then tests those ways. If you run out of ways to disprove something, then your confidence that it is true increases.

There is no falsifiability in the Religion of Climate Change, because every phenomenon is attributed to climate change.

If you were a preacher, I'd definitely be in the choir. BAM!

Of course, you can't make much money that way. No, politics in science is the way to make money, I'm sure of it.

 

[chipbennett]

The OP's point is a current "pause" in warming about 14 years (above graph).

Additionally there was a pause from 1940 to 1975. In fact 1980 saw a spike in arctic sea ice.

So, the conclusion that this 1C increase over 100 years is human induced. The IPCC says it's "likely" which means 90% confidence. That is the part that a great number of people (myself included) have difficulty. Our period between 1940 and 1975 was a HUGE increase in production of greenhouse gasses by humans, yet global climate surface temperatures, air temperatures and ocean temperatures were relatively flat.

We are witnessing the largest industrial revolution in the history of mankind right now - China. World wide greenhouse gasses produced by humans is wildly on the rise. Yet, we are experiencing yet another "multi-decade" pause.

Why? If greenhouse gasses and thus humans are the driver, why?

Look at the 1940s. Good job on that effort to hide the decline!

 

[rhino]

Look at the 1940s. Good job on that effort to hide the decline!

SCIENCE DENIER!

 

[SteveM4A1]

Your false assumption is that you know anything about anyone commenting here, or our various levels or types of education. Further, your false assumption is that we give to craps about your algebra test.

You ARE wrong, but I couldn't care less about proving you wrong in your ad hominem, condescension, or appeal to authority.

As far as I'm concerned, you can go on believing that something that has gone from 0.0003 to 0.0004 mole fraction of the atmosphere drives variations in the climate, when climate variations an order of magnitude greater that what we have currently observed happened when that same molecule was 0.0002 (or less) of the atmosphere.

(I still need to read ahead, to see if you've beclowned yourself by mentioning "consensus"...)

Moles? Did you say something about moles?

 

[rhino]

Moles? Did you say something about moles?

One mole, no problem. A couple of dozen moles? Irritating?

One mol of moles? Out of control! I can only tolerate [6.022(10)^23 - 1] moles.

 

[chipbennett]

You only said that because human activity is clearly and irrevocably changing the global climate, thus influencing your mind to make you say what you just said.

[What I did thee? Did you see it?]

We're all Killiks* now.

* Or, for you Trekkies: the Borg?

 

[chipbennett]

One mole, no problem. A couple of dozen moles? Irritating?

One mol of moles? Out of control! I can only tolerate [6.022(10)^23 - 1] moles.

Calm down there, Avogadro.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I sense a pocket protector swap meeting about to break out in here.

 

[pudly]

I sense a pocket protector swap meeting about to break out in here.

I've got one with a picture of Einstein and another with Jean Luc Picard.

 

[88GT]

No kidding, I had a good friend in high school that wore a pocket protector.

 

[rhino]

We're all Killiks* now.

* Or, for you Trekkies: the Borg?

First of all, SWEET ENOLA GAY, son! You are a NERD!

Second, the "Borg" do not exist in any legitimate Star Trek context.

Calm down there, Avogadro.

I did get a little overwrought. I apologize!

I sense a pocket protector swap meeting about to break out in here.

No kidding, I had a good friend in high school that wore a pocket protector.

Oh, you have no idea!

In the fall of 1983, I along with all of my classmates were issued a pocket protector in our school supplies. It was Staedtler Mars blue with the company's logo printed in white on the front. They were included in our graphics kits.

Naturally I purchases my own aftermarket replacements in the ensuing years. I favor the classic white.

www.http://pocketprotectors.com/

I've got one with a picture of Einstein and another with Jean Luc Picard.

Einstein! Yes! Who is this "Jean Luc Picard"? A character from a coffee commercial?

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

No kidding, I had a good friend in high school that wore a pocket protector.

Why ddin't they just push the clicker on top of the pen before they put it back in their pocket?

 

[pudly]

Einstein! Yes! Who is this "Jean Luc Picard"? A character from a coffee commercial?

I totally understand. I was hoping to trade him for a "Scottie". Now there's an Engineer!