Talk-Polywell.org

oh wow, you should have led with that. we have a published scientist in the room! what journal have you published in? can you provide a link to your article? In support of the fraud you believe in, you are here lying to us now. I have said nothing which could be reasonably misinterpreted as my clai...

would be simple enough to just take a plane to antartic, drill an ice core, and look at it yourself, and see that the ice layers don't correspond to the official record. It is already an established fact the fossil record does not have the resolution to resolve such climatic effects over only a few...

Possibly also trials for attempted crimes against humanity. As an aside I don't understand why the oil companies who had money and forewarning didn't capitalize by dumping a load of cash in to R&D to find and profit from a load of solutions. Since they had something of a first mover advantage and t...

would be simple enough to just take a plane to antartic, drill an ice core, and look at it yourself, and see that the ice layers don't correspond to the official record. It is already an established fact the fossil record does not have the resolution to resolve such climatic effects over only a few...

Again, you are welcome to submit your own research to a reputable peer reviewed journal. Bear in mind that you need to publish your method and data to the extent that other people can verify your results. It's already been done. The warmists ignore it. It's the warmists who seem unable to produce d...

If any one hasn't caught on yet, my responses fit a very predictable pattern: * they have already taken x into account, here's x:... But you don't provide evidence x was taken into account, and as with the NOAA UHI related link I've provided, they haven't taken it into account. Are you frickin' bli...

Also, among other things you'll have to explain, is how Venus's atmosphere got destroyed by a runaway greenhouse effect. To which the obvious reply would be that Venus receives twice as much sunlight as does the Earth, which could mean the system was pushed beyond the point at which negative feedba...

right... i don't think that climatologists failed to take into account the physics of water in their climate models! :lol: I don't think they failed , I think they deliberately ignored it so they could make their models demonstrate warming. You missed my point entirely: the first thing about climat...

No they don't, and can you not think for yourself? You need to look up the fallacies of "Argumentum Ad Verecundiam", and "Argumentum ad Populum". You are falling victim to both of these means of misleading people. Actually I'm just saying scientists already take therse things into account. You can ...

If any one hasn't caught on yet, my responses fit a very predictable pattern:

* they have already taken x into account, here's x:...

* you are welcome to provide empirical evidence to support your claim.

Let these two patterns be recognized and help guide discussion towards a more productive end.

Yes, the evidence that you have provided for that extraordinary conspiracy claim is overwhelming. And there is, of course, no evidence to the contrary. Overall that seems like the simplest explanation (okham's razor) - a massive worldwide conspiracy to fabricate data, and the burden of proof for it...

When I said "there is no debate", that included: ,,, * whether or not humans are a significant contribution to these changes, to what extent, and to what end. So, everything, from "is gas a thing?" to "are humans causing the climate to become hotter", is a thoroughly answered question, for which th...

On a side question, about two years ago they launch a satellite that could examine the full dayside or night side sphere and magically determine how much energy the earth absorbed and radiated back out into space on a day to day basis. anyway I have not heard of any data from it. Has anyone? It pro...

pbeter, scientists account for all of these things. No they don't, and can you not think for yourself? You need to look up the fallacies of "Argumentum Ad Verecundiam", and "Argumentum ad Populum". You are falling victim to both of these means of misleading people. Actually I'm just saying scientis...

The problem with the AGW proponents is have a complete disregard for scientific method. There are multiple factors influencing the global temperatures: 1. Periodic variations in the output of the fusion reactor called Sun. 2. Variations in dust contend of the atmosphere and its impact on global alb...