Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[dwma]

...
If you guys were older, I'd ask you if you believe tobacco causes cancer to form a baseline of opinions.

In a simplistic world, I'd basically answer 'no'.  If it did, all smokers would get cancer and no non-smokers would.

Obviously tobacco use contributes to at least several kinds of cancer.  It increases the risk of said.

I call bullshit on the 2nd-hand smoke scam.  ....

But that's not the way the question was posed or what it implies.  Among fervent leftists, "second hand smoke" is one item on a litmus test of whether you are a retrograde knuckle dragging Repugnantan.  Others include your attidue on Bush Jr.  (Hate is required), attitude on vaccines (watch out!  you'll be stereotyped an Anti-Vaxer).

DWMA can probably recite the entire current Creed, if we are nice.  Basically it's top down promulgated, so probably today it includes the transgender, same sex bathrooms, whatever the latest crap is being pushed.  Personally I don't care much except insofar as it becomes anti-scientific.

An actual discussion on vaccines, second hand smoke, or climate change is not sought, but agreement with whatever form of a three word or one line meme on the subject was cited.   Anyway this is off the subject, lol...

I think this wins the award of the most incoherent babbling wrong post in all 186+ pages.  Congrats Spendalus. Here's a cookie?

You can't follow a logical train of thought, so you make up views of your opponents and attack those.

At least I think thats what you are trying to do here?

lol

We call this an Ad Hominem argument.

Except it isn't an argument.  It is a random attack with nonsense about nonsense.

lol

[Psi]

It should be expected that humans play a part in global warming,(smoke stacks, space exploration, etc.)  however it goes way beyond things we are capable of or understand enough to alter. Earth is slipping out of orbit, that's fact, it happens, plays a large part in ice ages of which another cannot be far off, plates are shifting, ice is melting, weight increases all while slipping out of orbit causing many of things in question,  the mayans had it right............or were very close on when next ice age comes and its not that far off. 

[Spendulus]

It should be expected that humans play a part in global warming,(smoke stacks, space exploration, etc.)  however it goes way beyond things we are capable of or understand enough to alter. Earth is slipping out of orbit, that's fact, it happens, plays a large part in ice ages of which another cannot be far off, plates are shifting, ice is melting, weight increases all while slipping out of orbit causing many of things in question,  the mayans had it right............or were very close on when next ice age comes and its not that far off. 

It's generally accepted as true that we are close to another ice age, or "overdue" for one.  But what's this about "slipping out of orbit?"  There is no thing such as slipping out of an orbit unless a greater gravitational force causes such a thing.

That makes no sense.  Are you trying to describe the Mishelovich orbital cycles?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

The Earth's orbit is an ellipse. The eccentricity is a measure of the departure of this ellipse from circularity. The shape of the Earth's orbit varies in time between nearly circular (low eccentricity of 0.000055) and mildly elliptical (high eccentricity of 0.0679)[3] with the mean eccentricity of 0.0019 as geometric or logarithmic mean. The major component of these variations occurs on a period of 413,000 years (eccentricity variation of ±0.012). A number of other terms vary between components 95,000 and 125,000 years (with a beat period 400,000 years), and loosely combine into a 100,000-year cycle (variation of −0.03 to +0.02). The present eccentricity is 0.017 and decreasing.

[Psi]

laymans terms "slipping out of orbit " , as the cycles suggest, where we are in relation to sun, moon changes over time, as ice melts weight is re-distributed over earth, tides moving water, that affects our orbit, the weight shifts while we spin on axis, creates shifts in plates as earth "re-forms" to a certain degree, causing more changes increasing scale of change faster.  I would also go so far as to suggest our atmosphere is weaker at these points, preventing  it from deflecting direct hits from big asteroids, which creates ice age.  I forget where, but read that it is already showing in our spines as gravitational pull declines, our spin on axis becomes less circular, taking on more of an elongated elliptical, causing even greater change.

[Spendulus]

laymans terms "slipping out of orbit " , as the cycles suggest, where we are in relation to sun, moon changes over time, as ice melts weight is re-distributed over earth, tides moving water, that affects our orbit, the weight shifts while we spin on axis, creates shifts in plates as earth "re-forms" to a certain degree, causing more changes increasing scale of change faster.  I would also go so far as to suggest our atmosphere is weaker at these points, preventing  it from deflecting direct hits from big asteroids, which creates ice age.  I forget where, but read that it is already showing in our spines as gravitational pull declines, our spin on axis becomes less circular, taking on more of an elongated elliptical, causing even greater change.

Okay, I understand now.  None of these effects are true on orbital changes over time.

We can accurately predict orbits forward or backwards for hundreds of thousands of years.  The programs that do this literally use hundreds of variables in their computations.  However, "the bible" on orbits was Mier IIFC written in the 1920s, and it would give you a hundred thousand year prediction with in a few hours.

[Wilikon]

Why I Changed My Mind on Climate Change

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QmkHr0W5Vk

[Psi]

" The present eccentricity is 0.017 and decreasing" =change     You refuted your own theory
We can accurately predict orbits forward or backwards for hundreds of thousands of years.  The programs that do this literally use hundreds of variables in their computations.  However, "the bible" on orbits was Mier IIFC written in the 1920s, and it would give you a hundred thousand year prediction with in a few hours. " --
Might want to re-check the program as they are only as good as the commands given.  So since the '20's scientist have known and can prove this yet nobody actually believed until some idiot wins an election babbling about it, then everyone changed mind, suspicious to say least.  Why does NASA use specific points for re-entry ? Weakness in Ozone layer, below the dust up there are all these gasses that make up our atmosphere, carbon laced is heavier, so stays at near bottom -playing a part what your referring to as climate change, now in our climate all these leaky nuclear reactors,  fuel dumps by every plane in air, smoke stacks ,etc.......play a part but not at level your saying. Had the "greediest generation the world will ever know" (bboomers) chosen to plant trees, control pollution, etc , sure things would be different but still bad. Put something on an axis and spin it ( experiment and  add light weight anywhere, add a fan, use gas not air even, change occurs as the "tightness" of spin erodes.

I do believe we need to change things, there is no doubt, problem is current regimes use "fear-mongering" as a tactic, and this is one of their babies, trusting the people that created the problem isn't usually a good thing, their scientists say what they are paid to say, just like their dr.'s. makes arguing with them about it a waste of time.

[Spendulus]

" The present eccentricity is 0.017 and decreasing" =change     You refuted your own theory
We can accurately predict orbits forward or backwards for hundreds of thousands of years.  The programs that do this literally use hundreds of variables in their computations.  However, "the bible" on orbits was Mier IIFC written in the 1920s, and it would give you a hundred thousand year prediction with in a few hours. " --
Might want to re-check the program as they are only as good as the commands given.  So since the '20's scientist have known and can prove this yet nobody actually believed until some idiot wins an election babbling about it, then everyone changed mind, suspicious to say least.  ...

Not a program, simply the basic equations of orbital mechanics.  Established by Kepler hundreds of years ago.

Has nothing to do with opinions or elections, etc.

[Spendulus]

...

We call this an Ad Hominem argument.

Except it isn't an argument.  It is a random attack with nonsense about nonsense.

lol
[/quote]Defining oneself as Trolling...

[Wilikon]

https://mitgsl.mit.edu/news-events/islamophobia-accelerating-global-warming

[Wilikon]

Great Lakes Go from ‘Climate Change-Induced’ Low Water Levels to Record Highs in 3 Years

Between 2010 and 2013 residents of the states surrounding the Great Lakes were told that climate change was permanently altering their environment and the record low water levels being recorded in the lakes may be the new normal. But now, only three years later, news reports are worried about beach erosion because the lakes have rebounded to record high levels of water.

This week, throughout the Chicago media landscape, as well as in reports in Michigan and Wisconsin, stories about a loss of swimming areas on public beaches are filling airwaves and newspaper pages. Residents and city officials are warning citizens that water levels in Lake Michigan and the other lakes are so high that the shallow swimming areas have been reduced as the water rises. Reports are also express worry over beach erosion and fears that the rising water is a danger to other infrastructure like roads.

In Chicago, DNAInfro.com, for instance, notes that water levels have risen a whopping four feet since 2013 and the new water is “swallowing up beaches.”

According to the Army Corps of Engineers, the water has risen 15 inches higher than this time last year and may rise another six inches before the summer heat starts its cycle of evaporation.

The Chicago Tribune reports that the northern suburb of Evanston is losing beachfront property. “All our beaches are shrinking,” Evanston parks director Lawrence Hemingway said.

For its part, Chicago’s Fox affiliate worries that the city’s lakeshore bike path is being destroyed by the higher water levels.

The Detroit Free Press also noted that the high water is erasing beaches and the water is at highs not seen since the 1990s.

Lake Michigan, of course, isn’t the only lake rising. As a report from April about Lake Huron points out, all the lakes are rising.

But even as these news outlets are shocked and concerned about the record high levels of water filling the Great Lakes to overflowing today, only a few short years ago these same sort of news outlets were worried that the lakes were irreversibly shrinking and that climate change was desolating both commerce and the environment.

In 2013, for instance, Chicago’s Public Television WTTW bemoaned a “dramatic” change in the climate that was warming the lakes, lowering water levels, and threatening to destroy commerce and the environment.

The local PBS story also went national as the PBS Newshour ran stories on the environmental disaster the lakes were experiencing.

In 2012 National Geographic sonorously warned that the “climate-related trend” was on the verge of laying waste to the region.

Crain’s Detroit was also writing in 2013 that communities living on the edges of the region’s monumental bodies of water were going to have to “adapt” to the new normal of climate change.

Naturally, far left sources were absolutely sure that global warming was drying up the lakes. In 2013 far left website Think Progress worried its readers with claims that climate change was “damaging” the lakes and would present “implications for the environment and the economy.”

The Natural Resource Defense Council even contemplated lawsuits to prevent cities on the lakes from tapping into them as a source of water.

On the other hand, less alarmist stories noted that the water level was affected by things other than global warming. In 2013 USA Today properly noted that some of the water drop was a result of the massive dredging campaigns launched by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a project meant to allow shipping and transportation to more easily ply the waters of the Great Lakes.

Still, it is amazing to see the difference in coverage. Today, with water levels hitting record highs, news reporters and city officials worry over their loss of beachfront property and not a word is mentioned of climate change. Yet only three years ago the same officials and news reporters were sure that climate change was here to stay and we’d better get used to the shrunken Great Lakes.

What a difference a few years makes.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/10/great-lakes-go-from-climate-change-induced-low-water-levels-to-record-highs-in-3-years/


--------------------------------------------------
Aren't they tired of being wrong?

[Spendulus]

Great Lakes Go from ‘Climate Change-Induced’ Low Water Levels to Record Highs in 3 Years

Between 2010 and 2013 residents of the states surrounding the Great Lakes were told that climate change was permanently altering their environment and the record low water levels being recorded in the lakes may be the new normal. But now, only three years later, news reports are worried about beach erosion because the lakes have rebounded to record high levels of water.

This week, throughout the Chicago media landscape, as well as in reports in Michigan and Wisconsin, stories about a loss of swimming areas on public beaches are filling airwaves and newspaper pages. Residents and city officials are warning citizens that water levels in Lake Michigan and the other lakes are so high that the shallow swimming areas have been reduced as the water rises. Reports are also express worry over beach erosion and fears that the rising water is a danger to other infrastructure like roads.

In Chicago, DNAInfro.com, for instance, notes that water levels have risen a whopping four feet since 2013 and the new water is “swallowing up beaches.”

According to the Army Corps of Engineers, the water has risen 15 inches higher than this time last year and may rise another six inches before the summer heat starts its cycle of evaporation.

The Chicago Tribune reports that the northern suburb of Evanston is losing beachfront property. “All our beaches are shrinking,” Evanston parks director Lawrence Hemingway said.

For its part, Chicago’s Fox affiliate worries that the city’s lakeshore bike path is being destroyed by the higher water levels.

The Detroit Free Press also noted that the high water is erasing beaches and the water is at highs not seen since the 1990s.

Lake Michigan, of course, isn’t the only lake rising. As a report from April about Lake Huron points out, all the lakes are rising.

But even as these news outlets are shocked and concerned about the record high levels of water filling the Great Lakes to overflowing today, only a few short years ago these same sort of news outlets were worried that the lakes were irreversibly shrinking and that climate change was desolating both commerce and the environment.

In 2013, for instance, Chicago’s Public Television WTTW bemoaned a “dramatic” change in the climate that was warming the lakes, lowering water levels, and threatening to destroy commerce and the environment.

The local PBS story also went national as the PBS Newshour ran stories on the environmental disaster the lakes were experiencing.

In 2012 National Geographic sonorously warned that the “climate-related trend” was on the verge of laying waste to the region.

Crain’s Detroit was also writing in 2013 that communities living on the edges of the region’s monumental bodies of water were going to have to “adapt” to the new normal of climate change.

Naturally, far left sources were absolutely sure that global warming was drying up the lakes. In 2013 far left website Think Progress worried its readers with claims that climate change was “damaging” the lakes and would present “implications for the environment and the economy.”

The Natural Resource Defense Council even contemplated lawsuits to prevent cities on the lakes from tapping into them as a source of water.

On the other hand, less alarmist stories noted that the water level was affected by things other than global warming. In 2013 USA Today properly noted that some of the water drop was a result of the massive dredging campaigns launched by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a project meant to allow shipping and transportation to more easily ply the waters of the Great Lakes.

Still, it is amazing to see the difference in coverage. Today, with water levels hitting record highs, news reporters and city officials worry over their loss of beachfront property and not a word is mentioned of climate change. Yet only three years ago the same officials and news reporters were sure that climate change was here to stay and we’d better get used to the shrunken Great Lakes.

What a difference a few years makes.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/10/great-lakes-go-from-climate-change-induced-low-water-levels-to-record-highs-in-3-years/


--------------------------------------------------
Aren't they tired of being wrong?

They are NEVER WRONG.  Because, climate change.

[dwma]

...

We call this an Ad Hominem argument.

Except it isn't an argument.  It is a random attack with nonsense about nonsense.

lol

Defining oneself as Trolling...

For a guy who puts so much effort into trying to convince people he is smart,  you sure have a hard time figuring out the formatting tags.

I can't really quote it without just breaking the formatting a second time but refer above.

[Spendulus]

...

We call this an Ad Hominem argument.

Except it isn't an argument.  It is a random attack with nonsense about nonsense.

lol

Defining oneself as Trolling...

For a guy who puts so much effort into trying to convince people he is smart....

Fascinating.   Somehow actually addressing scientific questions and answering problems is defined as "Trying to convince people of how smart you are....." 

I guess we wouldn't have that problem if we just left everything to faith.  And after all, those Scientists know all that stuff.  And they know best for us all.  And there are these people who explain what the Scientists say and they use words we can understand, and tell us how to be Environmentally Correct.    Plus we have Regulators.  And there's the Temperature Adjustment Board.  Plus they tell us we can save the planet by recycling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC3CZBDz7Wg

I am content to just get my one bowl of thin soup every day and stay quiet.

<<sarcasm>>

[dwma]

...

We call this an Ad Hominem argument.

Except it isn't an argument.  It is a random attack with nonsense about nonsense.

lol

Defining oneself as Trolling...

For a guy who puts so much effort into trying to convince people he is smart....

Fascinating.   Somehow actually addressing scientific questions and answering problems is defined as "Trying to convince people of how smart you are....." 

I guess we wouldn't have that problem if we just left everything to faith.  And after all, those Scientists know all that stuff.  And they know best for us all.  And there are these people who explain what the Scientists say and they use words we can understand, and tell us how to be Environmentally Correct.    Plus we have Regulators.  And there's the Temperature Adjustment Board.  Plus they tell us we can save the planet by recycling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC3CZBDz7Wg

I am content to just get my one bowl of thin soup every day and stay quiet.

<<sarcasm>>

You do address some questions and as far as a global warming skeptic you are far more knowledgeable than most.  There is far more to it, which obviously goes over your head. You don't understand your own mental disorders while they're quite obvious to others. Again you're just going off on random shit ...  you poor thing and your diseased mind. It'll be ok though buddy.

Your nutball ranting misses the mark yet again.  I only selectively support recycling and think Penn and Teller are fake intellectuals who are usually out of their league.  I once went to their show and fell asleep.  (Blame the cocktails I had at the bar?? )

[hdbuck]

...

We call this an Ad Hominem argument.

Except it isn't an argument.  It is a random attack with nonsense about nonsense.

lol

Defining oneself as Trolling...

For a guy who puts so much effort into trying to convince people he is smart....

Fascinating.   Somehow actually addressing scientific questions and answering problems is defined as "Trying to convince people of how smart you are....." 

I guess we wouldn't have that problem if we just left everything to faith.  And after all, those Scientists know all that stuff.  And they know best for us all.  And there are these people who explain what the Scientists say and they use words we can understand, and tell us how to be Environmentally Correct.    Plus we have Regulators.  And there's the Temperature Adjustment Board.  Plus they tell us we can save the planet by recycling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC3CZBDz7Wg

I am content to just get my one bowl of thin soup every day and stay quiet.

<<sarcasm>>

You do address some questions and as far as a global warming skeptic you are far more knowledgeable than most.  There is far more to it, which obviously goes over your head. You don't understand your own mental disorders while they're quite obvious to others. Again you're just going off on random shit ...  you poor thing and your diseased mind. It'll be ok though buddy.

Your nutball ranting misses the mark yet again.  I only selectively support recycling and think Penn and Teller are fake intellectuals who are usually out of their league.  I once went to their show and fell asleep.  (Blame the cocktails I had at the bar?? )

I'd blame your intellectual void?!

[Spendulus]

...

We call this an Ad Hominem argument.

Except it isn't an argument.  It is a random attack with nonsense about nonsense.

lol

Defining oneself as Trolling...

For a guy who puts so much effort into trying to convince people he is smart....

Fascinating.   Somehow actually addressing scientific questions and answering problems is defined as "Trying to convince people of how smart you are....." 

I guess we wouldn't have that problem if we just left everything to faith.  And after all, those Scientists know all that stuff.  And they know best for us all.  And there are these people who explain what the Scientists say and they use words we can understand, and tell us how to be Environmentally Correct.    Plus we have Regulators.  And there's the Temperature Adjustment Board.  Plus they tell us we can save the planet by recycling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC3CZBDz7Wg

I am content to just get my one bowl of thin soup every day and stay quiet.

<<sarcasm>>

You do address some questions and as far as a global warming skeptic you are far more knowledgeable than most.  There is far more to it, which obviously goes over your head. You don't understand your own mental disorders while they're quite obvious to others. Again you're just going off on random shit ...  you poor thing and your diseased mind. It'll be ok though buddy.

Your nutball ranting misses the mark yet again.  I only selectively support recycling and think Penn and Teller are fake intellectuals who are usually out of their league.  I once went to their show and fell asleep.  (Blame the cocktails I had at the bar?? )

I'd blame your intellectual void?!

A slight flicker of understanding is occurring in my dull brain. 

Someone who does not understand science and cannot even use words of science is passing judgement on scientific facts and theories that he does not understand.

That's quite interesting.

Should such be encouraged, or discouraged?

Let's ask Lysenko.

[dwma]

...

We call this an Ad Hominem argument.

Except it isn't an argument.  It is a random attack with nonsense about nonsense.

lol

Defining oneself as Trolling...

For a guy who puts so much effort into trying to convince people he is smart....

Fascinating.   Somehow actually addressing scientific questions and answering problems is defined as "Trying to convince people of how smart you are....." 

I guess we wouldn't have that problem if we just left everything to faith.  And after all, those Scientists know all that stuff.  And they know best for us all.  And there are these people who explain what the Scientists say and they use words we can understand, and tell us how to be Environmentally Correct.    Plus we have Regulators.  And there's the Temperature Adjustment Board.  Plus they tell us we can save the planet by recycling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC3CZBDz7Wg

I am content to just get my one bowl of thin soup every day and stay quiet.

<<sarcasm>>

You do address some questions and as far as a global warming skeptic you are far more knowledgeable than most.  There is far more to it, which obviously goes over your head. You don't understand your own mental disorders while they're quite obvious to others. Again you're just going off on random shit ...  you poor thing and your diseased mind. It'll be ok though buddy.

Your nutball ranting misses the mark yet again.  I only selectively support recycling and think Penn and Teller are fake intellectuals who are usually out of their league.  I once went to their show and fell asleep.  (Blame the cocktails I had at the bar?? )

I'd blame your intellectual void?!

A slight flicker of understanding is occurring in my dull brain. 

Someone who does not understand science and cannot even use words of science is passing judgement on scientific facts and theories that he does not understand.

That's quite interesting.

Should such be encouraged, or discouraged?

Let's ask Lysenko.

If you say so. I got an A in the first semester of engineering physics and only went to class to grab the syllabus and realized what was required. It is a fine school, not Ivey league but the best in a very large state. Rumor as the time was that the course was a course to weed out people.  My point is not to brag about my intellectual prowess, that is your thing. I can readily admit areas where I am ignorant, but I'm not the one thinking they're more correct than the vast majority of active practicing scientists who are on some completely unprecedented global conspiracy.

You keep trying to paint me as having no clue when I am just a bit ignorant on terminology and all the complexities behind this subject. I at least appreciation the complexities as I've written simulations before dealing with complicated subjects. So you pick on me for being dumb and I pick on you for being a crackpot lunatic.  Chuckle.  I wonder who is more correct ?

[Spendulus]

...

We call this an Ad Hominem argument.

Except it isn't an argument.  It is a random attack with nonsense about nonsense.

lol

Defining oneself as Trolling...

For a guy who puts so much effort into trying to convince people he is smart....

Fascinating.   Somehow actually addressing scientific questions and answering problems is defined as "Trying to convince people of how smart you are....."  

I guess we wouldn't have that problem if we just left everything to faith.  And after all, those Scientists know all that stuff.  And they know best for us all.  And there are these people who explain what the Scientists say and they use words we can understand, and tell us how to be Environmentally Correct.    Plus we have Regulators.  And there's the Temperature Adjustment Board.  Plus they tell us we can save the planet by recycling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC3CZBDz7Wg

I am content to just get my one bowl of thin soup every day and stay quiet.

<<sarcasm>>

You do address some questions and as far as a global warming skeptic you are far more knowledgeable than most.  There is far more to it, which obviously goes over your head. You don't understand your own mental disorders while they're quite obvious to others. Again you're just going off on random shit ...  you poor thing and your diseased mind. It'll be ok though buddy.

Your nutball ranting misses the mark yet again.  I only selectively support recycling and think Penn and Teller are fake intellectuals who are usually out of their league.  I once went to their show and fell asleep.  (Blame the cocktails I had at the bar?? )

I'd blame your intellectual void?!

A slight flicker of understanding is occurring in my dull brain.  

Someone who does not understand science and cannot even use words of science is passing judgement on scientific facts and theories that he does not understand.

That's quite interesting.

Should such be encouraged, or discouraged?

Let's ask Lysenko.

If you say so. I got an A in the first semester of engineering physics and only went to class to grab the syllabus and realized what was required. It is a fine school, not Ivey league but the best in a very large state. Rumor as the time was that the course was a course to weed out people.  My point is not to brag about my intellectual prowess, that is your thing. I can readily admit areas where I am ignorant, but I'm not the one thinking they're more correct than the vast majority of active practicing scientists who are on some completely unprecedented global conspiracy.

You keep trying to paint me as having no clue when I am just a bit ignorant on terminology and all the complexities behind this subject. I at least appreciation the complexities as I've written simulations before dealing with complicated subjects. So you pick on me for being dumb and I pick on you for being a crackpot lunatic. Chuckle.  I wonder who is more correct ?

Looks like I already covered the subject of you being completely ignorant on the subjects you talk about.  Has nothing to do with whatever subject in whatever school, however if you want to I'll be happy to restrict the subject with to to a specific grade level.  6th?

Odd, though as 1st semester physics at the high school level covers gas and temperature relations and partial pressure relations.  As well as phase relationships, temperature changes, heat of fusion, and equilibrium.  Have you successfully unlearned these things?

[dwma]

Looks like I already covered the subject of you being completely ignorant on the subjects you talk about.  Has nothing to do with whatever subject in whatever school, however if you want to I'll be happy to restrict the subject with to to a specific grade level.  6th?

Odd, though as 1st semester physics at the high school level covers gas and temperature relations and partial pressure relations.  As well as phase relationships, temperature changes, heat of fusion, and equilibrium.  Have you successfully unlearned these things?

This is what I mean. You're completely wrong about so much, but you still try to make yourself come across as smart.  You do this via insulting intelligence of those who argue with you.  I have not shown an inability to not understand anything. I've used terms like radiosity which are not particulary accurate for things that apparently do not even have a single word to define it.

For a guy who is wrong in a huge way and would be considered a lunatic in many educated circles, you try your best to paint yourself as super smart and above everyone else who disagrees. (aka the vast majority)  Then you fail basic shit like formatting of your messages.

The interesting part to me is the absolute desperation in your replies trying to convince someone (yourself?) that you are far beyond everyone's understanding.  I started pointing out things changing in major ways, but you'll find some little bit of evidence countering some scientist's claims at some point. Then you and the few other guys who need the psychological boost all rally around it. Oh that guy was wrong !!  That sorta shit.

That counter evidence will still be completely dwarfed by all the evidence in the other direction which OF COURSE you will not bring up and seem to ignore when brought up before you. I think it is hard to argue with certain types of evidence. You're limited in what types of evidence you can refute with your toolbox. The temperatures you have the fall back of bias. When you see the artic ice disappeaaring to the degree it is, you can't really argue that away unless you say that all the data is completely falsified including maps etc.

Anyway, I hope you guys are right. This has been interesting to me. I wish I could give you guys interesting data, but the world is full of why to believe in global warming.