Off Topic Climate Change

[Angry_Physics]

What rules of physics are you using to definitively prove your claims then?

What does that question even mean?

What claim? I am not doing scientific research. They are not my "claims".

I am showing that the claims of alarmists have no evidence of note, nothing that cannot be explained by factors that have already happened in the past.

The claims come from you lot, that CO2 is going to destroy the planet.

Given there is no evidence for that in 600 million years of the planet's history (as far as we can tell) when levels were 5 6 7 10 times what they are today, it behooves those claiming it to prove it to a certain degree if they are going to embark on policies that will cost 18 to 30 trillion over 70 or 80 years.

A law of physics cannot determine what happens with the planet and its chaotic non linear coupled system. Such reduction is only done by people who have no clue what they are on about.

 

[Tobes]

What does that question even mean?

What claim? I am not doing scientific research. They are not my "claims".

I am showing that the claims of alarmists have no evidence of note, nothing that cannot be explained by factors that have already happened in the past.

The claims come from you lot, that CO2 is going to destroy the planet.

Given there is no evidence for that in 600 million years of the planet's history (as far as we can tell) when levels were 5 6 7 10 times what they are today, it behooves those claiming it to prove it to a certain degree if they are going to embark on policies that will cost 18 to 30 trillion over 70 or 80 years.

A law of physics cannot determine what happens with the planet and its chaotic non linear coupled system. Such reduction is only done by people who have no clue what they are on about.

You brought up the rules of physics to try and dispel the notion of current consensus you flip flopping clown.

I’ve made no claims, barring pointing out that all you do is search for articles that offer confirmation bias, for a supposed student of science you are completely closed to anything that doesn’t suit your narrow predetermined view. You’re binary in every sense.

 

[Angry_Physics]

You brought up the rules of physics to try and dispel the notion of current consensus you flip flopping clown.

I’ve made no claims, barring pointing out that all you do is search for articles that offer confirmation bias, for a supposed student of science you are completely closed to anything that doesn’t suit your narrow predetermined view. You’re binary in every sense.

sigh. You really don't grasp the subject at all.

I pointed out that consensus is not science. It is by definition agreement.
I demonstrated how consensus, agreement, has been against some of the best theoretical sciences we have now

I then explained why scientific theories that hold true (laws of physics are theories after all), by testing of the theory, experimenting and observing the results, and if the results are consistent with theoretical predictions, the theory is validated.

Now, AGW theory predicted this and that would happen by 2000, 2010 and 2020. All of those predictions failed. Sea level rise predictions failed, arctic ice predictions failed. Drought storm heatwave and flood predictions failed, and the core tenet of the theory, the build up of heat over the tropics, never materialised.

Now, today, the new predictions are made for 2100, after the failure of 30 year predictions.
Tell me how one tests predictions made about 80 years from now? We can test the law of gravity now, and any other law of physics, we can test and observe the results, we cannot do this for your "consensus" of doom in 2100. There is no evidence, and cannot be, for claims that something will happen in 2100.

And that is how theories about the laws of physics differ from AGW consensus and predictions, we can test the predictions based on theoretical laws of physics, like gravity or thermodynamics, fluids and so on. We can't test the theoretical predictions of AGW in 2100.

Educate yourself instead of throwing "clown" around, when clearly you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

All you do is ignore every salient point, and come back with unsubstantiated nonsense.

Your argument re total oil profits per year, vs total climate funding per year, was some of the best mental gymnastics I have ever observed, you tried to compare oil profits over 100 years to one year of climate cash, which is around 240 times total oil profits per year, relating to "oil shills funding" and your claims that all the money is in fossil fuel shilling.

Especially funny given all of the oil corps are on board with the trillions to be made from the renewable scam, a scam that drives energy costs up consistently. To quote Obama "My plan will make electricity prices skyrocket"

 

[Tobes]

sigh. You really don't grasp the subject at all.

I pointed out that consensus is not science. It is by definition agreement.

I then explained why scientific theories that hold true (laws of physics are theories after all), by testing of the theory, experimenting and observing the results, and if the results are consistent with theoretical predictions, the theory is validated.

Now, AGW theory predicted this and that would happen by 2000, 2010 and 2020. All of those predictions failed. Sea level rise predictions failed, arctic ice predictions failed. Drought storm heatwave and flood predictions failed, and the core tenet of the theory, the build up of heat over the tropics, never materialised.

Now, today, the new predictions are made for 2100, after the failure of 30 year predictions.
Tell me how one tests predictions made about 80 years from now? We can test the law of gravity now, and any other law of physics, we can test and observe the results, we cannot do this for your "consensus" of doom in 2100. There is no evidence, and cannot be, for claims that something will happen in 2100.

And that is how theories about the laws of physics differ from AGW consensus and predictions, we can test the predictions based on theoretical laws of physics, like gravity or thermodynamics, fluids and so on. We can't test the theoretical predictions of AGW in 2100.

Educate yourself instead of throwing "clown" around, when clearly you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

All you do is ignore every salient point, and come back with unsubstantiated nonsense.

Your argument re total oil profits per year, vs total climate funding per year, was some of the best mental gymnastics I have ever observed, you tried to compare oil profits over 100 years to one year of climate cash, which is around 240 times total oil profits per year, relating to "oil shills funding" and your claims that all the money is in fossil fuel shilling.

Especially funny given all of the oil corps are on board with the trillions to be made from the renewable scam

You’ve made that claim about oil profits vs climate ‘funding’ before and never corroborated it despite me asking on more than one occasion.

 

[Angry_Physics]

You’ve made that claim about oil profits vs climate ‘funding’ before and never corroborated it despite me asking on more than one occasion.

I posted sources, you are a liar, you are left with lies. I posted sources in the very post discussing it. I used NYT or Washington post as a source, as both of them promote climate change and cant be called a denier source I added the numbers for total oil profits

N you said "ugh but over many decades oil profits are.."

 

[Tobes]

I posted sources, you are a liar, you are left with lies. I posted sources in the very post discussing it. I used NYT or Washington post as a source, as both of them promote climate change and cant be called a denier source

I asked you on this very thread and you ignored my post. Try again.

 

[Angry_Physics]

I asked you on this very thread and you ignored my post. Try again.

You asked me for the same sources I gave you before? You assume I read your post? I had to read it to ignore the request.

 

[Tobes]

You asked me for the same sources I gave you before? You assume I read your post? I had to read it to ignore the request.

I asked to qualify your comment, and you didn’t, I assumed you’d chosen not to for some reason.

I don’t remember you giving me anything relating to this before, I won’t call you a liar though, as I may have merely forgotten and I’m not as knee jerk as you mate.

 

[Angry_Physics]

I asked you on this very thread and you ignored my post. Try again.

It is so ****ing funny that you of all people claim I only look at sources I want to You are a pathological liar.

"The $1.5 trillion global “climate change industry” grew at between 17 and 24 percent annually from 2005-2008, slowing to between 4 and 6 percent following the recession with the exception of 2011’s inexplicable 15 percent growth, according to Climate Change Business Journal."

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/30/377086.htm

That was several years ago

Future projections

Climate Change Is a $26 Trillion Growth Opportunity. 5 Business Models to Consider Today
https://www.inc.com/maureen-kline/climate-change-a-26-trillion-growth-opportunity.html
To claim oil companies would not want in on this 20ish trillion growth opportunity, is so ******ed it makes my brain bleed.

You must log in or register to see images

https://srsroccoreport.com/worlds-l...le-as-profits-vaporize-while-debts-skyrocket/


As we can see, even at 2004 profits, which were much better, doesn't come close to the climate cash. If I was like you, I'd have just gone on today's low oil price to paint a bigger disparity.

So, you claim oil companies are hiring shills to prevent the very growth industry they could make trillions from? You cant fix stupid.

Stop embarrassing yourself, it's making me wince. You are the denier

 

[Looney Leftie]

What I do notice about you and @Tobes is, you claim victory based solely on your perspectives, which also requires you omit much in order to do so.

I prefer to let the details, data, research, specifics speak for themselves.

Ah the self preservation of fragile internet egos.. is something to behold.
At least you both understand a tenet of the Art of War, namely, deny battles you cant win. (and you do this by making it a personal to and fro, as that is your level)

You do realise I saw this post before you edited it.

You've basically looked in a mirror and shouted at your reflection

 

[Angry_Physics]

You do realise I saw this post before you edited it.

You've basically looked in a mirror and shouted at your reflection

yet no argument to support that claim while I demonstrated what I said was true, and Tobes went and validated it thereafter, and now ^ you are doing same

This is the first actual evidence for anything, that you have posted

Both of you think in lazy language, and so post in lazy language.

[HASHTAG]#Fodder[/HASHTAG]

 

[Looney Leftie]

then proceeds to write multiple posts

He can't help himself, which is why prodding him is so amusing.

 

[Angry_Physics]

He can't help himself, which is why prodding him is so amusing.

You reclassify not being able to stand on the merit of your own posts' claims as "poking me".

Bless you

 

[Angry_Physics]

always funny when the loser claims it was only a practice shot.

 

[Looney Leftie]

always funny when the loser claims it was only a practice shot.

It's funnier when the person doing the shooting isn't aiming to hit

You must log in or register to see media

 

[Angry_Physics]

It's funnier when the person doing the shooting isn't aiming to hit

You must log in or register to see media

I'd believe you if it were not for the fact that you went down this road only after your attempts to back up your claims didn't work out well

But I like your sense of humour

 

[Tobes]

It is so ****ing funny that you of all people claim I only look at sources I want to You are a pathological liar.

"The $1.5 trillion global “climate change industry” grew at between 17 and 24 percent annually from 2005-2008, slowing to between 4 and 6 percent following the recession with the exception of 2011’s inexplicable 15 percent growth, according to Climate Change Business Journal."

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/30/377086.htm

That was several years ago

Future projections

Climate Change Is a $26 Trillion Growth Opportunity. 5 Business Models to Consider Today
https://www.inc.com/maureen-kline/climate-change-a-26-trillion-growth-opportunity.html
To claim oil companies would not want in on this 20ish trillion growth opportunity, is so ******ed it makes my brain bleed.

You must log in or register to see images

https://srsroccoreport.com/worlds-l...le-as-profits-vaporize-while-debts-skyrocket/


As we can see, even at 2004 profits, which were much better, doesn't come close to the climate cash. If I was like you, I'd have just gone on today's low oil price to paint a bigger disparity.

So, you claim oil companies are hiring shills to prevent the very growth industry they could make trillions from? You cant fix stupid.

Stop embarrassing yourself, it's making me wince. You are the denier

That’s merely a conflation of estimates of turnover related to cleaner technology not specifically towards climate change.

You claimed that oil profits are outstripped by climate funding.

Try again.

 

[Angry_Physics]

That’s merely a conflation of estimates of turnover related to cleaner technology not specifically towards climate change.

You claimed that oil profits are outstripped by climate funding.

Try again.

"Thats merely" oil profits vs climate money and climate money projections, from serious sources.

Then you pretty much ignore the facts then say try again. Not one attempt to demonstrate how I am wrong.

You denier

"You claimed that oil profits are outstripped by climate funding"

yes by 200 times at least. 2004 profits which are greater than profits in 2018 and climate funding has increased since 2006/7 by a lot (the context is where all the money is, oil shilling or climate funding)

You are obviously a complete and utter moron

 

[Looney Leftie]

I'd believe you if it were not for the fact that you went down this road only after your attempts to back up your claims didn't work out well

But I like your sense of humour

Poor old phdee, still thinks I'm interested in an in depth discussion where I take the time to pull your posts apart.

I'd rather finish building my garden fence before the footy starts.

So keep filling the pages and I'll keep laughing.

 

[Angry_Physics]

Poor old phdee, still thinks I'm interested in an in depth discussion where I take the time to pull your posts apart.

I'd rather finish building my garden fence before the footy starts.

So keep filling the pages and I'll keep laughing.

Now you claim to know what I am thinking. Typical internet fare

I merely point out the facts as they stand. You aint laughing, but keep pretending to do so

You've no climate arguments that hold water, so you quit, quitty quitterson