# An overwhelming body of data and still we have climate deniers



## Boston1 (Sep 3, 2016)

Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ? 

The science is extremely clear on this one. Hell there's a stronger consensus  concerning climate shift or the theory of rapid global climate shift than there is a consensus on gravity so how is it there exist this ideological death grip on denial ? 

I've tackled the issue from a number of different angles usually starting with a review of the science, but the science is overwhelmingly in full support of the theory, at which point the deniers simply reject science, gravity ;--) a round planet ;--) little things like that and then stamp their feet insisting its all some kinda comunist hoax designed to take their rights away LOL. 

So the idea with this particular thread is to draw out any deniers we might have left in the world and hear them out. 

Name your poison ? inquiring minds want to know ;--) 

Oh and PS, lets keep it clean and polite


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2016)

_An overwhelming body of data and still we have climate deniers_

climate: the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.

Who could ever deny climate?


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Sep 3, 2016)

Too many times the "overwhelming data" has been found to be fudged. They wouldn't need to do that if GLOBULL warming was indeed the real deal


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 3, 2016)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Too many times the "overwhelming data" has been found to be fudged. They wouldn't need to do that if GLOBULL warming was indeed the real deal



How do they make a thermometer ? 

They calibrate it against a standard ;--) 

Thats not fudging, thats calibrating, same goes for tape measures ;--)


----------



## OldLady (Sep 3, 2016)

Sometimes this whole conversation reminds me of the sinking of Valhalla in Erik the Viking.
As they slowly sink into the sea smiling and waving and without a clue


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Sep 3, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Too many times the "overwhelming data" has been found to be fudged. They wouldn't need to do that if GLOBULL warming was indeed the real deal
> ...



What thermometer did they use in...oh say 320 AD? LOL They've been caught fudging data and numbers, save your BS loon


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Sep 3, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> An overwhelming body of data and still we have climate deniers



I've never met anyone who has denied there is a climate.


----------



## Old Yeller (Sep 3, 2016)

I'm such a "denier" I won't enter GW threads.  More hogwarsh from liberal wana-be thieves.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 3, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?
> 
> The science is extremely clear on this one. Hell there's a stronger consensus  concerning climate shift or the theory of rapid global climate shift than there is a consensus on gravity so how is it there exist this ideological death grip on denial ?
> 
> ...



All they have in the way of "data" are computer models based on estimates. As the old saying goes, garbage in/garbage out.

Why do we still deny? Well I can only speak for myself. My two best subjects in grade school, college and post-grad were science and history. I know the history of science too. Science has been more wrong than right historically. Scientists used to say that they learned a lot even when they we're wrong. There have been hoaxes committed by scientists, there have been cases of fraud, and too many times governments, kings, religious leaders, and rulers of all sorts have had influence over science.

Today, a powerful and corrupt political party has control. Scientists are human, they want the things we all want and many have college loan debt to pay. They go where the money is and the money is in climate change. They are not going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Scientists have been for sale for many many decades, probably more so now.

There has been fraud, scandal, and intimidation connected with climate change "science". These things have resulted in a great deal of non-scientific predictions that have of course fallen flat.

If you know science and history as I do, you know that climate change as it is defined today, has no basis in any real science. It's a political football, nothing more.


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 3, 2016)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



Um, no, no ones been caught fudging data, actually they have a process called peer review to ensure that the data is accurate. 

What your suggesting is basically the worlds biggest conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists over hundreds of years LOL. Its simply impossible. 

Why would you think its all just fudged data ? Most scientists are still eating cold pizza and drinking warm bear, trying to figure this stuff out. If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get. 

Oh and its not so hard to figure out the temp hundreds and even thousands of years ago. Multiple techniques are used each having been calibrated just like that tape measure or any newer thermometer and compared against existing data. Its really not that tricky of a process.


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 3, 2016)

num_nut said:


> I'm such a "denier" I won't enter GW threads.  More hogwarsh from liberal wana-be thieves.



So its all some kinda liberal conspiracy ? ;--) 

And how is it that the data supporting this liberal conspiracy dates back long before there ever were liberals ?


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 3, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?
> ...



BZZZZZZZZZ

WRONG

they have tons and tons of data which they compare one to another to ensure accuracy. Simple laboratory tests confirm the finding well over a hundred years ago by Arrhenious of CO2 being a green house gas. All the bitter arguments to the contrary, most of the data used in the formation of climate theory is rock solid. We've come a long way since alchemy was the name of the game 

So of course we know what happens when you release millions of tons of it into the atmosphere. It gets warmer ;--) its really quite simple 

Your complaint about models entirely misinformed, they are quite accurate concerning climate. I think you might be confused by the terms weather and climate. Weather is subject to innumerable edge effects, climate on the other hand is relatively straight forward.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Sep 3, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud

German Professor: NASA Has Fiddled Climate Data On 'Unbelievable' Scale

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

NOAA Caught Fudging "Global Warming" Data AGAIN


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


*
If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.
*
Is that what happened to Nobel Prize winning scientist, Michael Mann?


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 3, 2016)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



Wrong on all counts. Calibrating the tape measure is not the fudging data, its building a better tape measure. You can argue fudged data till you are blue in the face but what your really saying is you refuse to acknowledge that any measuring device requires calibration. The more complex the devise, the more detailed the calibration and the greater the chance the initial calibration will require adjustment ;--)


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Sep 3, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



LOL You're a know nothing on an obscure message board and also a leftist twatwaffle...I'm not apt to take you serious


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 3, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



Mann ( who I've spoken to on several occasions ) didn't misreport anything, he simple didn't include his calculations in his original, and took his time releasing them, which as I recall he eventually did. 

Mann, actually has done a great job and been a real mover in the field of climate science. He won that Nobel for a reason, he's good.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Sep 3, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...




Nobels are worthless given Obungles won one


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 3, 2016)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



Interesting, so your technique is to declare the other guy a "know nothing" and bail out of the conversation. Thats a great scientific argument, lets go with that.

What would happen if you attempted to publish a refutation on a paper and that was the body of your work ?

Do you think the review board would even remotely consider that a valid position ? I mean if you are all that familiar with getting work published, surely you'd present a better argument. ;--)

Maybe you can explain to us how the increase in CO2 won''t lead to warming.


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 3, 2016)

Lot


SassyIrishLass said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Lots of people I don't like or admire won Nobels for one thing or another. But in the hard sciences its quite an accomplishment


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Sep 3, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



I provided links....you provided your own bias opinion. You may go now I am bored with you


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 3, 2016)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



So links to work that isn't peer reviewed or even remotely anything other than ideology based journalism with little or no merit is what you prefer to consider rather than hard science peer reviewed and published in journals which depend on their accuracy to maintain their reputation and viability ?

Very interesting, yet you say you are familiar with history and science ?

Have you ever actually studied climate science ?

Or do you entirely depend on journalistic opinion pieces that frankly, lack in both integrity and accuracy ?

As an example your first link was written by a guy named Josh at a site called "the NO TRICK ZONE" 

Really ?????? 

And this is the basis of your informed denial of climate change ? 

This is exactly why I started the thread. So far we have denial based of a complete misrepresentation of the calibration process, and off a journalist and his conspiracy theories which he writes up at a site called the No Trick Zone. 

 Brilliant, simply brilliant


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


*
Mann ( who I've spoken to on several occasions ) didn't misreport anything,*

Seriously?
*
He won that Nobel for a reason, he's good.*

What was the reason? When did he win?


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Sep 3, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



You've only offered your opinion and let's face facts, your track record is horrendous. Have a nice day


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 3, 2016)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



LOL you know nothing of my track record but are instead descending into personal insults as just another avoidance.

The fact is if you add greenhouse gassed to the atmosphere you inevitably end up with warming. Considering the residency time of that material and you end up with an overall change in the climate system.

Its really quite simple.

So what is this about my track record again ???? ;--)

fact is you have no viable argument against the theory of rapid global climate change


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Sep 3, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



I'm done with you, respond to me again and I'll ignore you. You're not  worth the time nor effort


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 3, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



As I recall he was a contributing author 2007 IPCC. Give me a moment to look it up as its been a long time since I payed much attention to that end of this particular issue


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 3, 2016)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



In other words you have no viable scientific argument against the theory and so your going to take your ball and bat and go home ? Well thats certainly a compelling position. 

But thank you for playing. As I suspected, while denial still exists, its mostly as a form of cognitive dissonance more than anything else


----------



## PredFan (Sep 3, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



BZZZZ! Wrong. No one is claiming that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. The problem with the rest of your nonsense is that it hasn't gotten any warmer. Unless of course you continue the AGW practice of fraud and/or cherry picking the data.

You know noting apparently about CO2 sinks, nor the other natural ways the earth consumes or absorbs excess CO2. 

the rest of the stuff you simply invented out of nothing.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 3, 2016)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



Real science doesn't need all of that fraud. Real scientists are open to criticism and corrections to what they discover.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 3, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


Yeah, go with that, not


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 3, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...




LOL No warming eh, wow, even the deniers own temp study showed massive warming

See Berkley Earth Temp results


----------



## Manonthestreet (Sep 3, 2016)

In the time it took you to type that 1 more bogus tipping point passed you by


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 3, 2016)

PredFan said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Real science finds overwhelming evidence supporting the theory of climate change. Your singing fraud and real scientists is hardly a viable scientific rebuttal refuting the evidence to date.

Again your position appears based on basic denial and cognitive dissonance as you nor anyone else responding to my request has even remotely detailed a scientific argument outlining a science based rebuttal of the data. 

Anyone else want to play :--) I haven't played the climate denial game in a while but so far. Nothing new here


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Any luck in your search?


----------



## westwall (Sep 3, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?
> 
> The science is extremely clear on this one. Hell there's a stronger consensus  concerning climate shift or the theory of rapid global climate shift than there is a consensus on gravity so how is it there exist this ideological death grip on denial ?
> 
> ...








Um, because it's based almost entirely on computer models that are crap.  There is precious little real empirical data that supports the AGW theory.


----------



## eflatminor (Sep 3, 2016)

Nobody denies the climate changes or that humans, just like every species, impacts all elements of the environment, including the weather.

None of that gives you the right to impose your progressive nonsense on others.  If you're so sure the glaciers are melting, move inland.


----------



## westwall (Sep 3, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...







Really?  Mann WON a Nobel?  Do tell...  When exactly did he win it and for what?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 3, 2016)

westwall said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?
> ...


Mr. Westwall, as has been pointed out to you before, real scientists have shown your statement to be false many times in many ways. Here is one of them from one of the leading glaciologists in the world.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 3, 2016)

westwall said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?
> ...







Latest Global Temps «  Roy Spencer, PhD

*Is that a computer model, Mr. Westwall? *


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 3, 2016)

westwall said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Mr. Westwall, I have been asking you for the last five years, when are you going to present the evidence that will demolish AGW Theory at the annual AGU Conference in San Francisco? You claim to be a Phd Geologist, and a member of the AGU as well as the Royal Society. So that should be easy for you. Care to share when your time will be at the convention?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 3, 2016)

*2006 Wikipedia CD Selection*





Grinnell Glacier in Glacier National Park (US) showing recession since 1850 of 1.1 km USGS

*Glacier retreat* is one of the most important topics in the field of glaciology. Worldwide there has been a general reduction in size of glaciers, especially in mid-latitude mountain ranges such as the Himalayas, Alps, Rocky Mountains, Cascade Range, and the Andes as well as isolated tropical summits such as Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa. Since accurate measurement techniques and the ability to record changes photographically became widespread in the mid-19th century, glaciers have been in a state of recession in almost every region of the Earth. The demise of glaciers in arid regions has potential widespred impacts on water supplies during droughts and dryer seasonal periods in locations such as the Andes of South America and Himalayas in Asia. Since the end of the last glacial maximum 14,000 years ago, glaciers across the world have been retreating, but the more recent trend since the end of the Little ice age around the year 1850, has been for a much faster general retreat of glaciers worldwide. This glacier retreat has become much more significantly pronounced since 1980.

In historic times, glaciers grew during the Little Ice Age, a cool period from about 1550 to 1850. Subsequently, until about 1940, glaciers around the world retreated as the climate warmed. Glacial retreat declined and reversed, in many cases, from 1950 to 1980 as a slight global cooling occurred. However since 1980, glacial retreat has become increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that it has threatened the existence of many of the glaciers of the world. The retreat of mountain glaciers, notably in western North America, Asia, the Alps, Indonesia and Africa, and tropical and sub-tropical regions of South America, has been used to provide qualitative support to the rise in global temperatures since the late 19th century. Also of great importance is the substantial retreat and acceleration since 1995 of a number of key outlet glaciers of the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheet that may foreshadow a rise in sea level.



Europe have been among some of the most photographed and studied on Earth, especially in the Alps. Since the dawn of photography we have visible conclusive evidence that since the mid 19 century, all of the glaciers of Europe have been in a general state of retreat.


*Alps*

*click on link for more information.*

*Glacier retreat*

*Glacier Retreat in Alaska








The Dead and the Dying - through the glaciers of Tutka Valley
READ ARTICLE

Last winter's meager snowfall was followed by volcanic ash, then a warm sunny spring, melting the mountains back to bare ice and rock. Even amongst high peaks, the usual snow slopes were boulders and scree, bare rock fields with barely a hint of vegetation. Some of the dime-sized patches of moss might not have seen sun in years. Some of the rock might never have seen sun at all. It was a good time to visit the dead and the dying - the glaciers not long for this world.

Across the globe, glaciers are retreating. This melting has accelerated dramatically in the past few decades. Alaska is no exception, with 98% of the state's glaciers shrinking, losing over 20 cubic miles of ice each year. Globally, the melting of glaciers contributes to sea level rise. Locally, glacial retreat can change river and ecosystem dynamics.



Read more: Glacier Retreat in Alaska

Read more: Glacier Retreat in Alaska*

I can and have also posted USGS photos of glaciers taken a hundred years ago and those taken at present. Are you claiming that those are computer constructs, Mr. Westwall?


----------



## westwall (Sep 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...









Ohh lookey here olfraud can't comprehend what he's spewing.  Color me unsurprised.


----------



## westwall (Sep 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...








As soon as they decide to not deny papers that refute their preconceived positions.


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 4, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Clearly you are not reading along. Man was a contributing author ( along with about 50 others ) to the nobel prize wining 2007 IPCC report. The IPCC received the award, however the IPCC report was a conglomeration of numerous efforts. Ergo its reasonable to offer an equal share of the credit to each of the contributing authors, even if they aren't all specifically names ( actually only two were actually identified and neither of them actually contributed any science to the IPCC )


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 4, 2016)

westwall said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?
> ...



Yikes 

Dead wrong. There is endless empirical data that directly supports the theory. 

Also models have been extremely accurate in predicting changes. 

see
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...NVq4qW5ptHZDXtKMjXRNOw&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc


----------



## Vigilante (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


And the Obomanation won the Nobel Peace prize 14 days into office....that award is USELESS!


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 4, 2016)

eflatminor said:


> Nobody denies the climate changes or that humans, just like every species, impacts all elements of the environment, including the weather.
> 
> None of that gives you the right to impose your progressive nonsense on others.  If you're so sure the glaciers are melting, move inland.



I wasn't aware other species drill for oil. 

Any chance you can send us a photo of say, chipmunks, all standing around an oil rig waiting for that next big strike ?????


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 4, 2016)

westwall said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



2007 co author IPCC. No he was not named but what it the IPCC but its authors ? Actually the two that were named along with the IPCC weren't even authors. So yeah, all 50 or so might easily lay claim to being apart of the 2007 peace prize


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



So Michael Mann did not win a Nobel Prize.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



*So yeah, all 50 or so might easily lay claim to being apart of the 2007 peace prize*

But if he said he won, he'd be lying.


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 4, 2016)

Personal attacks are a sure s


westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




Really, a climate denier in charge of the climate thread. Thats entertaining


----------



## Vigilante (Sep 4, 2016)




----------



## Boston1 (Sep 4, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



He and a group of about 50 other authors, in a work published by the IPCC did receive a Nobel in 2007. While it would be misleading to claim any one person received the 2007 award it is reasonable to note that each of the contributing authors were directly involved in winning the award. 

If your entire argument against the theory is based off some deniers desperately clinging to minutia like this, then your desperate to find flaw. 

the facts are that if you add millions of pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere every day for decades, your going to eventually alter the atmospheric chemistry


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 4, 2016)

Vigilante said:


>




Most of the climate scientists I know are living in basic poverty. The lie that scientists are making a killing off climate science is just ridiculous.

If you want to spread lies like this why don't you tell us what the average salary of a climate scientist is and lets just see how accurate your claim really is

See

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...Qiy2ulr6xXfZfDqnIAeWww&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc


----------



## Vigilante (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


I fear you LIE about this, as much as you do about man made climate change! If they weren't making a DECENT living off of it, do you really think  they would be doing it?


----------



## westwall (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Personal attacks are a sure s
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> ...








What's a "climate denier"?  Anybody with a brain KNOWS that climate is always changing.  What's hilarious is people thinking that it doesn't.


----------



## westwall (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...










Boston1 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...







Models have catastrophically failed.  Unless you consider a 300% error "accurate".  Show us some empirical studies please.  No computer models JUST empirical data.  Two should cover it.  I asked another member here to produce two for us over a month ago and so far no joy.  If it's so "easy" I would have expected to see one by now.  Is it possible you have no idea what empirical means?


----------



## westwall (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...






Wow.  You almost sound like good old mikey.  Here's the reality....  This is just another example of the unethical behavior exhibited by the climatologists at the heart of the CLIMATEGATE scandal.  Over, and over, and over again it has been shown that they used shoddy methodology, made catastrophic errors in calculations, and falsified data.  And people like you ignore that completely.  Why?  Why do you ignore obvious ethical violations?

*Michael Mann Retracts False Nobel Prize Claims in Humiliating Climbdown*


"Disgraced Penn State University (PSU) climatologist, Michael Mann, concedes defeat in his bogus claims to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Mann’s employer this weekend began the shameful task of divesting itself of all inflated claims  on university websites and official documentation that Mann was ever a Peace Prize recipient with Al Gore and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Thanks to a tip off from respected climate researcher, Dr. Klaus Kaiser, myself and Tom Richard (who scooped the original Nobel story) obtained “before and after” copy images from PSU websites as records of this damning retraction. (see below)."

Michael Mann Retracts False Nobel Prize Claims in Humiliating Climbdown


----------



## Muhammed (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?
> 
> The science is extremely clear on this one. Hell there's a stronger consensus  concerning climate shift or the theory of rapid global climate shift than there is a consensus on gravity so how is it there exist this ideological death grip on denial ?
> 
> ...


Do you have some kind of straw man fetish, Chicken Little?


----------



## PredFan (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Yup, cherry picking. Called it!


----------



## PredFan (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



lol, you do nothing to dispute claims but you say you do and then you pretend your too smart and can't get a challenger. What a fucking moron..

Listen, here's the only thing I need to say and it destroys your argument: if it's such a scientific certainty, why the fraud?


----------



## eflatminor (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody denies the climate changes or that humans, just like every species, impacts all elements of the environment, including the weather.
> ...



A logical fallacy from a lefty.  Color me shocked.

I said all species impact the environment.  I did not say each did so in the same manner.

But you knew that, which makes you a disingenuous straw man.

And we should let the likes of you control the energy markets?  Yea, pass.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



*He and a group of about 50 other authors, in a work published by the IPCC did receive a Nobel in 2007. While it would be misleading to claim any one person received the 2007 award it is reasonable to note that each of the contributing authors were directly involved in winning the award.*

So when Michael Mann claimed he won......he was lying.
*
If your entire argument against the theory is based off some deniers desperately clinging to minutia like this, then your desperate to find flaw.*

The flaws go much further than Michael Mann's lies.


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 4, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I'm not seeing where he claimed he did. His page states  
"He contributed, with other IPCC authors, to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize." 
So it looks like your off on a tangent splitting hairs, IE avoiding the facts of climate shift.


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 4, 2016)

Vigilante said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



Clearly you don't understand that some people chose a field of work which is their passion rather than a cash cow. 

Again you are merely avoiding the topic on hand. Do you have a viable scientific position against the theory of climate change ? Because it looks like you are focussed on the low wages involved instead of the science discovered


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 4, 2016)

westwall said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Personal attacks are a sure s
> ...



Whats hilarious is that some folks are incapable of realizing that something like "the rate of change" is critical to the ecosystem


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 4, 2016)

westwall said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



LOL 300% your funny. Models have been highly accurate erring on the low side if anything, mostly because the IPCC didn't want to appear alarmist. 

Obviously your not reading along or you'd have seen the Berkley Earth study I presented a link to. Pure empirical data ;--) no model involved there ;--) Just a simple temp graph you refuse to acknowledge ;--) 

Again your position is based off turning a blind eye to the facts, IE cognitive dissonance


----------



## westwall (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...










Care to support that with some real evidence.  Not some made up computer model crap.   Here's the deal junior, there have been MANY times when global temperatures have climbed very rapidly, the most recent being the MWP (which your hero Mann tried to erase from the history books....wonder why?) and not a single terribly thing that your hero's bleat about has ever occurred.  Not one.

How do you rationalize that away?


----------



## westwall (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...








Show us a prediction that came true.  I can show you page after page after page of predictions that all failed.  It has gotten so bad that they no longer dare make a prediction as they will be shown wrong very quickly.  How many winters have we had where there is no snow as Dr. Viner famously predicted back in 1991?  Hmm?  Or how about that ice free Arctic.  How many years ago was it supposed to be open water?  Hmmm?


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 4, 2016)

westwall said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Yikes

You do have a penchant for ideological diatribe don't you. Any science concerning climate shift you are even aware of ?????

The site you linked to is an op ed piece from an ultra right wing climate denier who's credentials are hardly comparable to our worlds top scientists who virtually ALL agree that climate change is a serious threat


----------



## westwall (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...









Just as an FYI, this level of willful ignorance is more accurately described as "INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY" and is a hallmark of the AGW crowd.  Just sayin.   The reason why you can't "find it" is because he was FORCED to retract it.  Duh....  I posted this in direct response to your earlier question.  Clearly you chose to ignore that fact.  Funny, you clowns ALL ignore facts.  Why is that?


*Michael Mann Retracts False Nobel Prize Claims in Humiliating Climbdown*

Michael Mann Retracts False Nobel Prize Claims in Humiliating Climbdown


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



_Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having "created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming."_

Michael E. Mann - Timeline | Facebook

_Of those 2,000 thank-you-note recipients, only one (as far as we know) has claimed to be a Nobel laureate in an actual Superior Court legal complaint - __no fewer than three times__ (paragraphs 2, 5 and 17)._

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/michael-mann-complaint.pdf

The fraudulent Nobel Laureate


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



*If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.*

Do they lose funding if they lie about the Nobel Prize?


----------



## westwall (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...










Oh?  Did the author I quoted falsely claim to be a Nobel recipient?  No?  I suggest it is YOU who are the political ideologue clown boy.  Dude, you're not very good at this are you!  Here's the deal silly boy, when you are relying for your arguments on ethically challenged people, who have been FORCED to retract claims that they have made, you have lost your mind.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


Wrong Again...all modeling fails with 100% certainty.  Model outputs you tout as empirical evidence are not.  same old crap just a different day from alarmists..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


I am a meteorologist with a degree in atmospheric physics, please provide these so called models for me, Ive never seen them before and I work in this field.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Lets put some real facts to your factually challenged position.

The earth has varied in CO2 levels over its life time and has been as high as 7,000ppm and as low as 150ppm.  We know from the Paleo record that low CO2 levels (below 280ppm) cause foliage to die and plants to become starved. During times of high CO2 concentrations the plants become huge and heavy.

The fact is, the earths average CO2 level for most of its existence has been around 1,500ppm and shows a delayed response (by 200-800 years) following the earths temperature changes. CO2 has never driven temperature change due to the water cycle and its direct effect of rendering CO2 mute.

During the life of the planet, the temperature range is only about 12 deg C and it ranges within that boundary despite the level of CO2 being high or low. Again showing us that CO2 can not cause a runaway green house effect.





Its really amazing how uniformed people make outlandish claims about climate and mans impact without perspective.Tell me, where is the atmospheric hot spot, that must be present if the AGW hypothesis was correct, is? (I'll give you a hint... conduction and convection within the water cycle wont allow it to appear)


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 4, 2016)

westwall said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




No problem

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...DzsH5wBAnz5wBatNBYsAhw&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc

Once again your phony claim has absolutely zero merit in reality. 

And once again I'm betting you will ignore the actual science in favor of your preferred idiological based belief .


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 4, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



As a meteorologist you read the weather and try and look pretty on TV. Sorry but climate and weather are two different things. 

As for your curiosity concerning climate see previous link to IPCC predictions vs actual. ;--)


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 4, 2016)

“An overwhelming body of data and still we have climate deniers”

We’ll always have deniers – even as their beachfront property is going underwater they’ll still be in denial.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 4, 2016)

“Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?”

Both.

But it’s mostly political.

That’s why virtually everyone in denial is a conservative.

Conservatives who propagate the wrongheaded notion that addressing climate change will result in everyone being ‘forced’ to live in multifamily dwellings without A/C, massive job losses, and cars being ‘confiscated’ and driving ‘outlawed.’  

The usual rightwing demagoguery and fear-mongering.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



And you ignore that I am an atmospheric physicist. Nice brush off and attempt to avoid the facts I posted..  Tell me again where your mid tropospheric hot spot is..

Love the mimicking Crick crap of "I gave you a link to the IPCC..."


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 4, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?”
> 
> Both.
> 
> ...



Its called FACTS.. and the fact the left uses none..


----------



## Votto (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?
> 
> The science is extremely clear on this one. Hell there's a stronger consensus  concerning climate shift or the theory of rapid global climate shift than there is a consensus on gravity so how is it there exist this ideological death grip on denial ?
> 
> ...



That's OK.  We have a government that denies Hillary should not be in prison.

We all be crazy like.

Speaking of which, do you know the difference between Hillary and a battery?


You can charge a battery.


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Oh and PS, lets keep it clean and polite




Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other, the Arctic?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 4, 2016)

Now this is priceless...

I just posted how water vapor is basically muting CO2's retarding release of energy and Willis Eschenbach posted a continuing conversation over at WUWT about the IPCC modeling and the failures of Working Group 5's work and modeling failures.


> However, there is little agreement about the size or even the sign of the cloud feedback. Cloud feedback is the change in the net CRE that we can expect from a 1°C change in temperature. The models say that cloud feedback is a 0.69 ± 0.10 W/m2 INCREASE in downwelling radiation for each additional degree of temperature. In other words, if there is a small warming, the models say the clouds amplify it to make a large warming. This implies a positive correlation between temperature and the net CRE.
> 
> Fortunately, the CERES data can give us actual observational data regarding this question. Figure 2 shows the correlation between temperature and the net CRE.
> 
> ...



The facts show that clouds and water vapor are net NEGATIVE forcings, not positive as the IPCC suggests in AR5.

Doing the math shows the failure... a net change of over -1.62 deg C.. This is a massive error causing modeling failure.

Cloud Feedback


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 4, 2016)

This is one of my favorite excerpts from AR5 WG1 Chapter 7 SOD (which was removed from the final version) this is what they actually wrote describing their confidence in positive cloud feedback,

“This conclusion is reached by considering a plausible range for unknown contributions by processes yet to be accounted for, in addition to those occurring in current climate models.”

This screams 'were guessing cause we don't know'.... A real confidence builder in the IPCC and their assumptions.


----------



## westwall (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...









This is a joke right?   The facts are that the global temps have not gone up save in the feverish imaginations, and falsified data sets that these clowns release.  If you look at the local weather records they all show either no increase or a slight decrease in temperature.  It's only when they are all amalgamated that they suddenly show a rise in temp.  The magic of science fiction.


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 4, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



LOL you are clinging with a death grip to a false accusation in leu of facing the subject at hand. Mann's site does not claim "he" won a Nobel, it claims he was a coauthor of a work that won a Nobel. You are desperately making mountains out of mole hills. 

The facts are what they are, tens of thousands of scientists have all come to the same conclusion in what's the largest consensus view of any science. Hell the theory of gravity doesn't have a 98+% consensus. 

The science is in, the predictions are accurate, the empirical evidence is overwhelming, yet you go on and on about one man and a presumed claim. 

Pretty lame excuses in the denial world these days


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 4, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




Which just goes to prove you are refusing to follow the links provided. I linked to Skepticalscience, not the IPCC concerning the IPCC accuracy issue. 

There is no issue. The IPCC is extremely accurate in its climate predictions, yes, many of which are based off model projections. 

PS if you are an atmospheric physicist, please link to what papers you have had peer reviewed and published that refute the theory of Rapid Global Climate Change ;--) or do you have nothing to say to your peers that might actually be anything other than ideological based denial


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 4, 2016)

westwall said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You are hallucinating, the four major temp studies all agree, there is significant warming. Even the Berkley Earth study, which actually found a touch MORE warming 

See


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


Too funny..

I can see you are not interested in the facts and you are only interested in destroying those who don't toe your religious line. Your a religious fanatic following the liars at SkepticalShit web site.. Dana Nuttercellie and John Cook are NOT reliable. I Provided you with a link to the math and some data which you promptly ignored. Your nothing but a left wing pathetic troll.

Pardon me while I ignore your attempt to find fault with me personally...


----------



## PredFan (Sep 4, 2016)

Vigilante said:


>



This right here is the truth


----------



## PredFan (Sep 4, 2016)

If there was any truth at all to man caused climate change, there wpuld be no need for the fraud, corruption, and intimidation that is occurring now.

"Believe or be punished" is very unscientific.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 4, 2016)

another way this scam works is that they corral deniers into the ridiculous argument of wether or not the planet is warming. That is the WRONG argument. The correct argument is wether or not man has anything to do with the alleged warming. The reason they don't want to argue that is because they have exactly zero proof that man has anything to do with it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?
> 
> The science is extremely clear on this one. Hell there's a stronger consensus  concerning climate shift or the theory of rapid global climate shift than there is a consensus on gravity so how is it there exist this ideological death grip on denial ?
> 
> ...



Well gee whiz --- to have a consensus -- you have to have a SPECIFIC question. What Question(s) is this "consensus" of yours based on. 

Is there a consensus of scientists who claim that just a 2deg "trigger" will cause RUNAWAY GW ???   

Need an answer on that --- but you MIGHT OUGHTA READ a real survey of climate scientists Just out from Bray and von Storch --- before you answer this. THEY asked over 80 questions and got NO complete consensus on most any of the important stuff. Other than "is the Earth warming a bit" and "might man play a role in this".  

NO CONSENSUS on runaway warming due to the speculated positive feedbacks and accelerations that WE HAVE NEVER measured --- NONE... Just hysteria and repetition. 

And BTW --- we've done this dance a couple months back and you didn't hold up  all that well for all your phony confidence and flair...


----------



## jc456 (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


Where exactly does it warm? And who has that data?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



*you are clinging with a death grip to a false accusation*

I falsely accused him of lying when he claimed he won? LOL!





He shared the prize? Cool! So they split the cash? LOL!
*
You are desperately making mountains out of mole hills.*

No. Just pointing out the lies of a lying liar.

*The facts are what they are, tens of thousands of scientists have all come to the same conclusion in what's the largest consensus view of any science.*

Tens of thousands? What happened to 77/79?
*
The science is in, the predictions are accurate,*

Where did any warmer predict the pause?


----------



## westwall (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...








Of course they agree, they are derived from the SAME SOURCE you moron.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



EVERYTHING in the temp record more or less USED to agree from 1979 and later. You see -- they are still DAILY monkeying with temperatures in the 30's and 40's. Making them COLDER so that more current records can be broken by 0.04 degs and make the news. THen RETRACT that statement a week later when nobody is paying attention. 

That's been going on for decades. But the BIGGER issue is that when SATELLITES came along in 1979 --- everybody lined up in that time period from 79 til about 1998. 

And THEN --- all the thermometer based measurements started DEPARTING from the Satellite record. They DESPERATELY needed to AVOID the raw temperature readings and create some warming. So they not only IGNORED the satellite data (I'm talking about NASA GISS -- the "space systems" guys) but brought in "reanalysis" and brought back 100 year old ocean surface water temperatures methods from NOAA to AVOID using the satellite record..  EXCEPT for those areas of the globe where the readings went in their favor,. 

Harder to fart with 10 satellites than 30,000 thermometers right ????????????????? 

Even if you are the fucking "space systems" guys....


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 4, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



LOL religion, Another awesome dodge to avoid the science 

How about the Kotch funded guy who flip flopped once he's spent millions on the Berkley study 

The Koch-Funded Scientist Who Came In From The Cold: Muller Warns We’re in “Dangerous Realm” of “Very Steep Warming”

See 
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...RXou3LKeu1db5NjPNRqGZw&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc

Again you guys are blithering every last ounce of denial you can think of and failing completely to address any of the science that vastly supports the theory


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 4, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Your truth, which is based off an ideological position, certainly NOT a review of how many scientists and staff are working on this issue vs the available money to support them. 

In the end you have NOTHING to back up this ridiculous claim which in the end, is nothing more than another way you DENY the science. 

The science is extremely clear


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 4, 2016)

Vigilante said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


Dumb fuck, if I didn't make 100K a year as a millwright, do you think I would do that job? The average tenured professor makes only 20K more than I do, for many, many years of education. Just because you are an ignorant bastard, doesn't mean that everyone is or should be.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 4, 2016)

westwall said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


*What a liar you are, Mr. Westwall. I have produced two numerous times from 1981.*

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 4, 2016)

westwall said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


*Stupid ass, we know why. A rapid increase in GHGs in the atmosphere.*





CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 4, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


You are no such thing. You have demonstrated your abysmal knowledge of science repeatedly. In short, you are a liar. And very much a poster child for the deniers.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 4, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



By what means did they MEASURE this "rate of rise" for the PETM?  And what is the TEMPORAL ACCURACY of the proxy? Better than 40 years?        LOL

EDITED --- Forget it man --- SkepShitScience stuff? The .... 



> Our climate has accumulated
> 2,395,818,422
> Hiroshima atomic bombs
> of heat since 1998


       ..................... people?????????????

And all from ONE BOREHOLE in Antarctica? Do you even read this stuff?  Resolution they USED during extinction was 800 years per SLICE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Let me repeat --  800 years per slice at the HIGHEST resolution. 

What do you divine about our rate versus the study rate if it's IMPOSSIBLE to assess a rate of a period shorter than 1000 years or so in the freaking study ????????????????????????????


----------



## westwall (Sep 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...









You speak of his ideological position while spouting off about the morality of climate change and the need to punish people for inflicting it.  Irony thy name is boston.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 4, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?
> ...


So, Mr. Flacaltenn, you are now basing your denial on a supposed 'runaway' climate change. Care to link to peer reviewed papers that put that at a 2 degree increase? A 2 degree increase is where most are saying that we will  see disruptive effects on agriculture and infrastructure. Not doom, just major costs to our society.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 4, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Amazing... So you've ALREADY forgotten the IPCC statements that I put up here just DAYS AGO and said that within DAYS -- you'd be denying those "trigger" statements ever existed. How right I am again..   

You forget who is actually IN CHARGE of the AGW movement. It's orgs like the IPCC and Govts. NOT SCIENCE. They hang hooks on credible statements that are barfed out by activist scientist and that BECOMES "the science".  We fail to communicate because you don't understand that SCIENTISTS do not control this movement or the debate. So what MATTERS is organizations like the IPCC having a countdown clock in "Days Left to Save the Planet" before their big conferences and BLASTING the media with this concept of irreversible runaway warming just WEEKS ahead if no action is taken. 

Seriously buddy -- you don't remember this discussion? Just a week ago? 

Humorous video destroys Global Whiners


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 4, 2016)

That's really the problem isn't it OldRocks? And we probably MAYBE agree that the influence makers in the AGW movement are ABUSING the science and misrepresenting it tto the public. BIG TIME.. You can't moan about "where is the science behind "trigger" points and runaway calamity" when the point is --- that stuff has been muffled and reduce from impending doom 25 years ago to the "maybe" that always was in scientific theory land.  But  Hansen and a few other radicals gave the media and the movers/shakers cover and credibility to quote them and neglect to tell anybody that THAT science is not settled and nowhere NEAR as probable as it once was.


----------



## Crick (Sep 5, 2016)

Yeah.. that Hansen,






Just an alarmist hack.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2016)

Crick said:


> Yeah.. that Hansen,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's his "revised" version circa 2006 to save face. If the data was any older --- in would be hand written. 

Yeah the alarmist hack who gave interviews about the oceans boiling away..  That one..


----------



## Crick (Sep 5, 2016)

The one whose unamended 1980 model runs are better than ANYTHING EVER produced by ANYONE not including AGW in the model.

FACT.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 5, 2016)

Average


flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Bwhaaaaaa.. Contends a better than 40 year resolution to substantiate his so call "fastest rise ever" from ice, which partially melts yearly and re-freezes making resolution of less than 500 years impossible.. They have been listening to John Cook and Dana Nuttercellie's lies to long.. There's not a single shred of science left to support their contentions.. ITS ALL CONJECTURE!!!!  (Yes, its a CON!)


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 5, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Love the appeals to authority and the name calling, all while ignoring the facts i presented and focusing on personal destruction.. The straw man arguments of the Koch Foundation which gave Hansen and Mann 50 million for research...  too dam funny!

You have nothing.. Except broken models which have failed 100% of the time.. They have failed so badly that they now adjust the empirical evidence (making it corrupted and useless garbage) in an effort to make their failures valid..  Up thread I post just one reason why the models fail and why the so called sensitivity number was bogus. I even linked the math to support it. But you link back to SkepticalShitScience as your proof.. Known liars.. Priceless... And you cant even make one logical argument *you* can articulate...

You really should get some new scripting editors to tell you what to say..They don't know shit about AGW or the Hypothesis.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 5, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



Your so called science is CRAP!  Tell me why EVERY MODEL FAILED to predict Hurricane Hermine's path and intensity?


----------



## Crick (Sep 5, 2016)

What a maroon.  You are just TOO easy.  The real question is why did YOU, someone who claims to be a meteorologist and an atmospheric physicist tell us the storm was going to die over Hispaniola and Cuba?  YOU were the one with the fucked up forecast.  Every weather forecaster I read or listened to or saw down here in Florida said there was an excellent chance it would reorganize and strengthen BECAUSE OF THE HOT FUCKING WATER IN THE GULF.

My fucking god are you stupid.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 5, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Too many times the "overwhelming data" has been found to be fudged. They wouldn't need to do that if GLOBULL warming was indeed the real deal
> ...



Non sequitur.   "Calibrating" isn't what they did.  Fudging is what they did.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 5, 2016)

Crick said:


> What a maroon.  You are just TOO easy.  The real question is why did YOU, someone who claims to be a meteorologist and an atmospheric physicist tell us the storm was going to die over Hispaniola and Cuba?  YOU were the one with the fucked up forecast.  Every weather forecaster I read or listened to or saw down here in Florida said there was an excellent chance it would reorganize and strengthen BECAUSE OF THE HOT FUCKING WATER IN THE GULF.
> 
> My fucking god are you stupid.


Your computer models are nothing more than wild ass guesses.  None of them are accurate for more than a day ahead.  Yet, you believe so-called "climate scientists" can predict the temperature decades from now.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 5, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...




From the East Anglia archives...

"They also suggest that *pro-global warming scientists fudge data to get the results they are looking for.* Just over a month ago, on September 28, 2009, Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones of the Hadley Centre about his efforts to get the right-sized "blip" in temperatures of the 1940s:

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So,* if we could reduce the ocean blip *by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this.

*It would be good to remove at least part *of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip".
Global Warming Bombshell



They should be in jail.


----------



## westwall (Sep 5, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Too many times the "overwhelming data" has been found to be fudged. They wouldn't need to do that if GLOBULL warming was indeed the real deal
> ...









Ummmm, I hate to break it to ya, but you calibrate *BEFORE* you take measurements silly boy.  You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about do you.....  Sad..


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Sep 5, 2016)

westwall said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



Good catch


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 5, 2016)

westwall said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



You guys are funny. The most technologically advanced systems take the longest and are the most difficult to calibrate. In the real world, rather than in the imaginations of deniers, scientists take their time, double and triple check everything, and then compare data with existing systems. Sometimes ;--) some systems, need a little extra effort to get them reading just right.

Its called reality, something our locals deniers are clearly not familiar with ;--) 

Damn entertaining tho ;--) All the nonsense, the ridiculous graphs minus the margins of error, lacking the resolution to even remotely see todays spikes in CO2 CH4 and temp. Nice backflips though, yet not one scientifically valid rebuttal to the overwhelming body of evidence in support of the Theory of Rapid Global Climate Change ;--) 

Keep trying though, and when and if you do ever come up with something, publish it ;--) if you can Hahahahahaahahahahaha


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 5, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?
> 
> The science is extremely clear on this one. Hell there's a stronger consensus  concerning climate shift or the theory of rapid global climate shift than there is a consensus on gravity so how is it there exist this ideological death grip on denial ?
> 
> ...


No one denies climate changes.


----------



## westwall (Sep 5, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...








Funny how they are "calibrating" measurements that were taken 50 years ago.  Like I said dude, you know nothing about that which you are speaking and are intellectually dishonest to boot.  A double whammy of dolt hood.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2016)

No real good excuse for mucking DAILY with temperature records from the 30s and 40s.  But that's what happening. See post 122 above for the recipe to cooking the books. 

Probably just "adjusting" for rise of Nazi Germany war machine and all the "urban heat island" of it..


----------



## SSDD (Sep 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?
> 
> The science is extremely clear on this one. Hell there's a stronger consensus  concerning climate shift or the theory of rapid global climate shift than there is a consensus on gravity so how is it there exist this ideological death grip on denial ?
> 
> ...



You claim that an overwhelming body of data support the claim that man and his CO2 emissions are altering the global climate.  One would think that an overwhelming body of evidence regarding a thing that is observable, measurable and quantifiable would have plenty of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence...I have been asking for over a decade now for some observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....

You claim that it is out there in abundance....lets see some of it.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Maybe you can explain how altering temperature data from 50, 60, even more than 100 years ago has made the record more accurate.  Do you think that we were incapable of making accurate temperature readings in the 60's and earlier?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



And yet...you can't seem to manage a scrap of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the A in AGW.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Whats hilarious is that some folks are incapable of realizing that something like "the rate of change" is critical to the ecosystem



I keep hearing that from you guys...tell me, what sort of evidence do you have that would indicate that the rate of change we are seeing now...(a fraction of a degree in the past 100 years) is any different from the rate of change previous warm periods experienced?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Yikes
> 
> You do have a penchant for ideological diatribe don't you. Any science concerning climate shift you are even aware of ?????
> 
> The site you linked to is an op ed piece from an ultra right wing climate denier who's credentials are hardly comparable to our worlds top scientists who virtually ALL agree that climate change is a serious threat



So you don't like the source?....what of it....any actual evidence that the information is wrong?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 6, 2016)

westwall said:


> Oh?  Did the author I quoted falsely claim to be a Nobel recipient?  No?  I suggest it is YOU who are the political ideologue clown boy.  Dude, you're not very good at this are you!  Here's the deal silly boy, when you are relying for your arguments on ethically challenged people, who have been FORCED to retract claims that they have made, you have lost your mind.



It is always fun watching these guys attempt to defend the indefensible.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> LOL you are clinging with a death grip to a false accusation in leu of facing the subject at hand. Mann's site does not claim "he" won a Nobel, it claims he was a coauthor of a work that won a Nobel. You are desperately making mountains out of mole hills.



Cruise on over to Bill Clinton's web site and see how much time he spends discussing his impeachment....crooks tend to not spend much time talking about the times they got caught.



Boston1 said:


> The facts are what they are, tens of thousands of scientists have all come to the same conclusion in what's the largest consensus view of any science. Hell the theory of gravity doesn't have a 98+% consensus.



That's the claim..and it is a damned interesting one...since there isn't the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...one must wonder...if this claimed consensus exists...exactly what is it based upon?


----------



## Markle (Sep 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



You really need to do a bit of UNBIASED research.  Allow me to assist you.

*As you know, Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University.  Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information.  The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever.  Data used by the United Nations IPCC and NASA findings came from EAU.*



*14th February, 2010*

*
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing (it has now been disclosed that all the “raw data” was DUMPED! 

There has been no global warming since 1995 

Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
*
Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be. 


WHAT????


[…]

*Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.*



Phil Jones has said that he considered suicide for his part in this worldwide scam.


Let us also recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports.  It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them -- in violation of Freedom of Information laws.  In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like _Science _and _Nature_. 


We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative."  No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities.  But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken.  Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.


Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995


----------



## Markle (Sep 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Nobel Prize, impressive.  Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama "won" the Nobel PEACE Prize after being in office TWO WEEKS.  How many wars are we involved in today?


----------



## Markle (Sep 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



As you know, "peer reviewed" in the world of "Global Warming", now known as "Climate Change" since GW no longer is arguable, means nothing.  The potentates prohibit articles with opposing views and suck up to each other to assure themselves grants.  FOLLOW THE MONEY!


----------



## Markle (Sep 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



*BERKLEY? *
*



*


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 6, 2016)

"overwhelming" body of data from a handful of scientists!!!

Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: debunked, demolished, staked through the heart - Breitbart

The 97 Percent Solution

Where Did ’97 Percent’ Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From?


The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'


The "body of data" is rigged.........its always been rigged. We have a 1.5 trillion dollar industry connected to renewable energy. Damn straight its gonna be rigged!!

And btw......if its so "decided", why do the biggest organizations in the world that monitor temperatures keep getting caught fucking with the data?


----------



## PredFan (Sep 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



And you seem to think that simply restating the same bull shit over and over makes it true.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2016)

Markle said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



He lied. Surprise. He didn't win the Nobel Prize.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 6, 2016)

Thread summary:

All the deniers here literally have nothing but loopy conspiracy theories that their political cult ordered them to parrot. Every denier on this thread is a member of the right-wing-fringe extremist political cult. In an attempt to glorify their fringe political cult, they proudly parrot all of their cult's official propaganda. All of them are comically bad at actual science and logic.

In contrast, mainstream climate science crosses all political boundaries all across the world. That's because it's actual science.

So how does this end? It doesn't. The denier cult keeps circling the drain, but it never dies completely, at least not until the last denier dies of old age. They're irrelevant even now, reduced to making noise on message boards.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “An overwhelming body of data and still we have climate deniers”
> 
> We’ll always have deniers – even as their beachfront property is going underwater they’ll still be in denial.


where has that happened? And why did Al Gore buy some recently?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Thread summary:
> 
> All the deniers here literally have nothing but loopy conspiracy theories that their political cult ordered them to parrot. Every denier on this thread is a member of the right-wing-fringe extremist political cult. In an attempt to glorify their fringe political cult, they proudly parrot all of their cult's official propaganda. All of them are comically bad at actual science and logic.
> 
> ...



*They're irrelevant even now*

Which is proven by Obama's cap and trade legislation......wait what?


----------



## westwall (Sep 6, 2016)

Markle said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...







Actually, it was so bad it earned itself a new name "pal reviewed".  In one case the mans wife was his peer reviewer.  Talk about a corrupt system.


----------



## westwall (Sep 6, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Thread summary:
> 
> All the deniers here literally have nothing but loopy conspiracy theories that their political cult ordered them to parrot. Every denier on this thread is a member of the right-wing-fringe extremist political cult. In an attempt to glorify their fringe political cult, they proudly parrot all of their cult's official propaganda. All of them are comically bad at actual science and logic.
> 
> ...









Post summary....  "I have nothing factual so I will rely on people who have been proven to lie about their achievements, who's very professional reputations and money derive from maintaining a fraud, and I am too stupid to either understand, or am too financially tied up with them, to report truthfully, on anything."

That about sum you up mammy?


----------



## hauke (Sep 6, 2016)

im from germany, in germany the consensus of scientists politicians and people is : that global warming is real, and that the society should do everything we can as one of the most developed countrys in the world with the nr 4 global economy do to stop global warming


----------



## westwall (Sep 6, 2016)

hauke said:


> im from germany, in germany the consensus of scientists politicians and people is : that global warming is real, and that the society should do everything we can as one of the most developed countrys in the world with the nr 4 global economy to stop global warming








Yes, and they jumped on the green energy bandwagon so that you folks pay 4 times more for your energy than we do.  And it failed.  Germany has stopped the wind and solar subsidies and approved new coal fired power plants so that people like you don't freeze in the winter.  Nobody wants pollution.  However, only a moron wishes to kill other people because their energy systems don't work.

Verstehen sie?


----------



## hauke (Sep 6, 2016)

everyone is responsible for his own deeds.
if you think your only doing 1 billions of the crime against nature.
its your responsibility, your not responsible for what the other 7 billion do, but you are 100% responsible for what you do

your 100% responsible for your part in murdering earth


----------



## hauke (Sep 6, 2016)

remember kansas city


----------



## westwall (Sep 6, 2016)

hauke said:


> everyone is responsible for his own deeds.
> if you think your only doing 1 billions of the crime against nature.
> its your responsibility, your not responsible for what the other 7 billion do, but you are 100% responsible for what you do
> 
> your 100% responsible for your part in murdering earth








"Murdering" the Earth?  Do you have any idea how retarded that sounds?   The Earth is going to be keepin on, keepin on for billions of years after I am long gone.  I suggest you actually go to school and learn something because you *REALLY* have no idea what you're blabbering about.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 6, 2016)

westwall said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Or in the matter of John Cook and his 97% lie, it was himself using aliases..multiple..  We call this self review..  A deception to give your work credibility it does not deserve. This is the reason Skeptical(Shit)Science is not reliable nor is anything on the site.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 6, 2016)

hauke said:


> im from germany, in germany the consensus of scientists politicians and people is : that global warming is real, and that the society should do everything we can as one of the most developed countrys in the world with the nr 4 global economy do to stop global warming


And unfortunately you would be wrong..  Lots of feelings and drama but very short on facts to support your drama. Germany also prohibits dissenting views on AGW.  Lies cant stand the light so you outlaw the light.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



If it's extremely clear -- then you should have NO PROBLEM giving a forecast temperature anomaly for 2050.. Or predicting the ACE (hurricane activity) for 2100.  Or defining a "trigger temperature" over which the planet will commit suicide. 

You ARE aware that ALL of key metrics in the SEVERITY of GW have been constantly revised DOWNWARD since the 80s --- right ?????  Under what circumstances is "the science settled" and yet projections for doom keep getting revised?  

I need answers to all that or I might consider all your "bluster" just denial.. 

At LEAST --- Tell us how about telling us HOW MANY Climate Scientists are thoroughly convinced that storms are ALREADY being influenced by the 0.6degC in your lifetime?


----------



## hauke (Sep 6, 2016)

explenation :
if you use a car and produce co 2 and the rest its just a tiny part of whats killing the ecosystem of earth.
but its exactly your part. your not responsible for the rest of the 7 billion people, your responsible for yourself and your part.

you are responsible for yourself.

you can t control anyone else, but you can control yourself do your job


and your responsible for your 5 billionth part of killing the enviroment and the world.

your responsible for yourself


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


So friend, why was it 70 degrees in Chicago Saturday and 92 degrees Monday?  Did your folks predict that?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

hauke said:


> explenation :
> if you use a car and produce co 2 and the rest its just a tiny part of whats killing the ecosystem of earth.
> but its exactly your part. your not responsible for the rest of the 7 billion people, your responsible for yourself and your part.
> 
> ...


well why don't you first prove I've done any of that.  measured proof.  empirical evidence proof, that you can make such silly statements.  please the class is waiting.


----------



## westwall (Sep 6, 2016)

hauke said:


> explenation :
> if you use a car and produce co 2 and the rest its just a tiny part of whats killing the ecosystem of earth.
> but its exactly your part. your not responsible for the rest of the 7 billion people, your responsible for yourself and your part.
> 
> ...







How does CO2 "kill" the Earth?  Do you even understand that CO2 is the very bottom of the food chain for this planet?  Do you understand that if CO2 were to magically vanish, you, and all life on this planet would be snuffed out?  Do you even understand the very basics or are you so wrapped up in your religious fanaticism that you will ignore all facts in pursuit of your goal to enslave the poor of this world so they can better serve the wealthy elite?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

westwall said:


> hauke said:
> 
> 
> > explenation :
> ...


I love uninformed warmers, they do show their ignorance well.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 6, 2016)

hauke said:


> explenation :
> if you use a car and produce co 2 and the rest its just a tiny part of whats killing the ecosystem of earth.
> but its exactly your part. your not responsible for the rest of the 7 billion people, your responsible for yourself and your part.
> 
> ...



"You're responsible for YOURSELF" is 180 degrees contradictory to the program you are pushing with the GW "agenda".  FORCING folks to screw in certain lightbulbs or ponying up $BILLs in GW "fairness" to the 3rd world is what you're after. Or eventually KILLING people with the flaky shit you call energy "alternatives".. 

You don't have a BASIS for deciding what i drive because you don't know jackshit about my "carbon footprint".  With one child -- I could drive 3 different HUMMERS and still be greener than you...


----------



## hauke (Sep 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> hauke said:
> 
> 
> > explenation :
> ...


theres science, empirical evidence collected by scientists.

but i don t expect you to belive in science, youl just keep fucking the world


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2016)

hauke said:


> you dont care shit about science, you don t care shit about the world you don t care shit about your children, all you care about is to keep fuckine the way you love to fuck everything



Stop enslaving poor electrons to write your posts.....you're killing them!!!!


----------



## hauke (Sep 6, 2016)

because i know what god wants

we humans have to choose by ourselfs what god wants


----------



## westwall (Sep 6, 2016)

hauke said:


> because i know what god wants






So you are admitting that AGW is a religious movement and that only anti science religious nut cases believe in it.  Is that what you are stating?  For the record?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2016)

hauke said:


> because i know what god wants



You're making his electrons scream............


----------



## hauke (Sep 6, 2016)

in the garden i choose eternal life.

i can t be killed im immortal

if the sun goes supernova, i will live, im immortal

yes if the sun goes supernova ill have problems, but i won t die

if a nuclear weapon explodes next to me ill have a slight problem of body integrety for the next 2 hours

my personality is part of reality, i can t die, even if i wanted to, i can t die

thats why god said not to eat of the tree of eternal life

im eternal

i can t die


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 6, 2016)

hauke said:


> because i know what god wants
> 
> we humans have to choose by ourselfs what god wants



Pope Francis??   Is that YOU??


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

hauke said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > hauke said:
> ...


funny coming from someone who has no idea what science is.  You haven't a clue bubba.  not one.  You should go read up on what science processes are and then you can show me the experiment that shows CO2 is evil.  Run along now and let's look over your next post.


----------



## hauke (Sep 6, 2016)

combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation have caused the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to increase by about 43% since the beginning of the age of industrialization. Volcanoes emit between 0.2 and 0.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, while human activities emit about 29 billion tons.Carbon dioxide is a [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas']greenhouse gas, absorbing and emitting infrared radiation at its two infrared-active vibrational frequencies (see Structure and bonding above). This process causes carbon dioxide to warm the surface and lower atmosphere, while cooling the upper atmosphere. The increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2, and thus in the CO2-induced greenhouse effect, is the reason for the rise in average global temperature since the mid-20th century. Although carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas primarily responsible for the rise, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and various other long-lived greenhouse gases also contribute. Carbon dioxide is of greatest concern because it exerts a larger overall warming influence than all of those other gases combined, and because it has a long atmospheric lifetime.[/URL]


----------



## hauke (Sep 6, 2016)

do you have any scientificly verifiable facts or are you just a crazy person ?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 6, 2016)

hauke said:


> explenation :
> if you use a car and produce co 2 and the rest its just a tiny part of whats killing the ecosystem of earth.
> but its exactly your part. your not responsible for the rest of the 7 billion people, your responsible for yourself and your part.
> 
> ...




Then why are you using s computer or a smart. Phone?


.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

hauke said:


> combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation have caused the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to increase by about 43% since the beginning of the age of industrialization. Volcanoes emit between 0.2 and 0.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, while human activities emit about 29 billion tons.Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, absorbing and emitting infrared radiation at its two infrared-active vibrational frequencies (see Structure and bonding above). This process causes carbon dioxide to warm the surface and lower atmosphere, while cooling the upper atmosphere. The increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2, and thus in the CO2-induced greenhouse effect, is the reason for the rise in average global temperature since the mid-20th century. Although carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas primarily responsible for the rise, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and various other long-lived greenhouse gases also contribute. Carbon dioxide is of greatest concern because it exerts a larger overall warming influence than all of those other gases combined, and because it has a long atmospheric lifetime.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 6, 2016)

hauke said:


> combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation have caused the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to increase by about 43% since the beginning of the age of industrialization. Volcanoes emit between 0.2 and 0.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, while human activities emit about 29 billion tons.Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, absorbing and emitting infrared radiation at its two infrared-active vibrational frequencies (see Structure and bonding above). This process causes carbon dioxide to warm the surface and lower atmosphere, while cooling the upper atmosphere. The increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2, and thus in the CO2-induced greenhouse effect, is the reason for the rise in average global temperature since the mid-20th century. Although carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas primarily responsible for the rise, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and various other long-lived greenhouse gases also contribute. Carbon dioxide is of greatest concern because it exerts a larger overall warming influence than all of those other gases combined, *and because it has a long atmospheric lifetime*.


You really are clueless..  All this time I thought it was an act...

Lets start with the half-life of CO2...  You do understand it has been noted to be as low as 3 years and as long as 21 years.. The earths natural carbon sinks naturally increase uptake as the levels rise and over a very short time the half-life becomes near zero.  Our current level of CO2 is far below the average for this planet which is around 1500ppm over its life span.. Water vapor renders CO2 warming effect mute and as the empirical evidence now shows, a total disconnect between CO2 and temperature. The temp is now falling and CO2 is rising.. the exact opposite of your religious dogma..

You've been lied to by your teachers and now your unquestioning belief in AGW is exposing you to public ridicule..


----------



## westwall (Sep 6, 2016)

hauke said:


> combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation have caused the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to increase by about 43% since the beginning of the age of industrialization. Volcanoes emit between 0.2 and 0.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, while human activities emit about 29 billion tons.Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, absorbing and emitting infrared radiation at its two infrared-active vibrational frequencies (see Structure and bonding above). This process causes carbon dioxide to warm the surface and lower atmosphere, while cooling the upper atmosphere. The increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2, and thus in the CO2-induced greenhouse effect, is the reason for the rise in average global temperature since the mid-20th century. Although carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas primarily responsible for the rise, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and various other long-lived greenhouse gases also contribute. Carbon dioxide is of greatest concern because it exerts a larger overall warming influence than all of those other gases combined, and because it has a long atmospheric lifetime.









Mankind is responsible for 5% of the total global CO2 budget.  FIVE percent.  All the rest is natural dude.


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 6, 2016)

westwall said:


> hauke said:
> 
> 
> > because i know what god wants
> ...



LMAO yeah thats it, those of us who understand the science and comprehend just why 98+% of climate scientists agree with the theory are anti science. 

I suppose I should say thank you for that one, I'm in from a long day in the park tracking Grizzly bears with one of my scientist friends and I was just about ready to just turn in, then you came along with that knee slapper and now I think I'll go hit up the pub and let some of the other guys have a good laugh ;--) 

Cheers 

PS 

Pages and pages later and still, no credible evidence is being presented that refutes the theory. And if you did have credible evidence why haven't you published it ??????? 

I call BS on the ENTIRE denial movement, its ideological nonsense and thats all it is.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > hauke said:
> ...


The old you know science more than us ploy post! Lmao


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > hauke said:
> ...


No evidence to support your supposed theory. How's that?


----------



## westwall (Sep 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > hauke said:
> ...








You "understand" science?  That, my good man, is laughable.   What has not been published by any one of your hero's is empirical data to support the theory.  In the scientific world YOU are making the extraordinary claim.  Thus it is up to YOU to support it.  Our position is everything that we have seen is common, and nothing more than natural variability.  In other words we are making NO CLAIMS.  

That is you, thus the scientific method, you know that thing you clowns violate and run away from all of the time.... IT demands that you support your silly claim. 

So GET TO IT!


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

westwall said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Again, I'd like an 'exact' button


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > hauke said:
> ...


Citing John Cooks infamous, debunked, and total lie of "97%consensus" as proof of AGW...

I will bet that you cant even articulate what the original Man Made Global Warming hypothesis is.

An appeal to authority.. followed by gibberish.. followed by demands to have someone else provide proof of HIS CLAIMS and then debunk his rhetoric, which he never ever provides proof of.

Standard alarmist drivel..


----------



## SSDD (Sep 7, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Average
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> ...



Both crick and rocks like to make claims about the rate of change at present being unprecedented...far beyond any change that happened in the past...and when you ask them for the proxy reconstruction that gave them the sort of resolution they need to make such statements...crick doesn't provide anything and rocks provides a study with a resolution of 800 years....it is all just to ridiculous for words and yet...that is the state of climate science.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 7, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Thread summary:
> 
> All the deniers here literally have nothing but loopy conspiracy theories that their political cult ordered them to parrot. Every denier on this thread is a member of the right-wing-fringe extremist political cult. In an attempt to glorify their fringe political cult, they proudly parrot all of their cult's official propaganda. All of them are comically bad at actual science and logic.
> 
> ...




Opinions are ghey

I back my shit with tons of links ( see previous page ).......you lob bombs and sling mud only.

Noise?

s0n......you are prolific in the realm of noise!! I could find hundreds of posts that are almost exactly like the one above.............knew it when I first saw that ghey cat avatar what we'd be dealing with in here = a pussy pseudo-male.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 8, 2016)

So boston...in your OP you claimed an overwhelming body of data...since you haven't posted the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...are you admitting by your silence that there is none?...or that if there is, you can't find it?


----------



## Crick (Sep 8, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Citing John Cooks infamous, debunked, and total lie of "97%consensus" as proof of AGW...



Show us where John Cook's 97% was shown to be a lie.  By Legates?

HAHAHAHAAAAhahahaaaaa... what a maroon!


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 8, 2016)

97% of taxpayer funded left wing liar/fudgebakers want their government checks to continue...


THANKS....


----------



## Crick (Sep 8, 2016)

The climate scientist's consensus in agreement with the IPCC conclusions is supported by the peer reviewed work of:

*Oreskes, 2004*
A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[9] The essay concluded that there is ascientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

*STATS, 2007*
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; 41% say they thought the effects of global warming would be near catastrophic over the next 50–100 years; 44% say said effects would be moderately dangerous; 13% saw relatively little danger; 56% say global climate change is a mature science; 39% say it is an emerging science.[10] [11]

*Bray and von Storch, 2008*
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Germany, conducted an online survey in August 2008, of 2,059 climate scientists from 34 different countries, the third survey on this topic by these authors.[12] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 375 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18%. The climate change consensus results were published by Bray,[13] and another paper has also been published based on the survey.[14]

The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.[12]

In the section on climate change impacts, questions 20 and 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 20, "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" Answers: 67.1% very much convinced (7), 26.7% to some large extent (5–6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2–4), none said not at all. Question 21, "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" Answers: 34.6% very much convinced (7), 48.9% being convinced to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not convinced at all (1).[12]

*Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009*
This paper is an abridged version of the Zimmerman 2008 MS thesis; the full methods are in the MS thesis.[15] A web-based poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the Earth and Environmental Sciences department, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. The survey was designed to take less than two minutes to complete. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures had generally risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. 76 out of the 79 respondents who "listed climate science as their area of expertise, and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change", thought that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Of those 79 scientists, 75 out of the 77 answered that human activity was a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures, a sample size which would result in a margin of error of 11 percentage points. The remaining two were not asked, because in question one they responded that temperatures had remained relatively constant. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent respectively thinking that human activity was a significant contributing factor. In summary, Doran and Zimmerman wrote:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[16]

*Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010*



97–98% of the most published climate researchers say humans are very likely causing most global warming.[17] In another study 97.4% of publishing specialists in climate change say that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.[16]

Anderegg _et al._, in a 2010 paper in the _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America_ (PNAS), reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers, based on authorship of scientific assessment reports and membership on multisignatory statements about anthropogenic climate change. The number of climate-relevant publications authored or coauthored by each researcher was used to define their 'expertise', and the number of citations for each of the researcher's four highest-cited papers was used to define their 'prominence'. Removing researchers who had authored fewer than 20 climate publications reduced the database to 908 researchers but did not materially alter the results. The authors of the paper say that their database of researchers "is not comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community," but say that since they drew the researchers from the most high-profile reports and public statements, it is likely that it represents the "strongest and most credentialed" researchers both 'convinced by the evidence' (CE) and 'unconvinced by the evidence' (UE) on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change.[17][18]

Anderegg _et al._ drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[17]

The methodology of the Anderegg _et al._ study was challenged in PNAS by Lawrence Bodenstein for "treat[ing] publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise". He would expect the much larger side of the climate change controversy to excel in certain publication metrics as they "continue to cite each other's work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation".[19]Anderegg _et al._ replied that Bodenstein "raises many speculative points without offering data" and that his comment "misunderstands our study's framing and stands in direct contrast to two prominent conclusions in the paper.[20]

Another criticism of the Anderegg _et al._ study was that dividing the researchers into just two groups, "unconvinced" and "convinced," doesn't capture the nuances of scientific views. This "reinforces the pathological politicization of climate science," Roger Pielke Jr. wrote. Co-author Prall said that "It would be helpful to have lukewarm [as] a third category," but added that the paper provides a measure of the scientific prominence of researchers who identify with certain views.[18]

*Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011*
In an October 2011 paper published in the _International Journal of Public Opinion Research_, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 998 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists, and 489 returned completed questionnaires. Of those who replied, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century. 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring," 5% disagreed, and 12% didn't know.[21][22]

When asked "What do you think is the % probability of human-induced global warming raising global average temperatures by two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years?’’: 19% of respondents answered less than 50% probability, 56% said over 50%, and 26% didn't know.[22]

When asked what they regard as "the likely effects of global climate change in the next 50 to 100 years," on a scale of 1 to 10, from Trivial to Catastrophic: 13% of respondents replied 1 to 3 (trivial/mild), 44% replied 4 to 7 (moderate), 41% replied 8 to 10 (severe/catastrophic), and 2% didn't know.[22]

*Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012*
Lefsrud and Meyer surveyed members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA), a professional association for the petroleum industryin Alberta. The aims of the study included examining the respondents' "legitimation of themselves as experts on 'the truth', and their attitudes towards regulatory measures."[23]Writing later, the authors added, "we surveyed engineers and geologists because their professions dominate the oil industry and their views on climate change influence the positions taken by governments, think tanks and environmental groups."[24]

The authors found that 99.4% agreed that the global climate is changing but that "the debate of the causes of climate change is particularly virulent among them." Analyzing their responses, the authors labelled 36% of respondents 'comply with Kyoto', as "they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause."[23] 'Regulation activists' (10%) "diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life." Skeptical of anthropogenic warming (sum 51%) they labelled 'nature is overwhelming' (24%), 'economic responsibility' (10%), and 'fatalists' (17%). Respondents giving these responses disagreed in various ways with mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, expressing views such as that climate change is 'natural', that its causes are unknown, that it is harmless, or that regulation such as that represented by Kyoto Protocol is in itself harmful.[23]

They found that respondents that support regulation (46%) ('comply with Kyoto' and 'regulation activists') were "significantly more likely to be lower in the organizational hierarchy, younger, female, and working in government", while those that oppose regulation ('nature is overwhelming' and 'economic responsibility') were "significantly more likely to be more senior in their organizations, male, older, geoscientists, and work in the oil and gas industry".[23] Discussing the study in 2013, the authors ask if such political divisions distract decision-makers from confronting the risk that climate change presents to businesses and the economy.[24]

*John Cook et al., 2013*
Cook _et al._ examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW, 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.[25]

In their discussion of the results in 2007, the authors said that the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW is as expected in a consensus situation,[26] adding that "the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved on to other topics."[25]

In _Science & Education_ in August 2013 David Legates and three coauthors reviewed the corpus used by Cook _et al._ In their assessment, "inspection of a claim by Cook _et al._(Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1% consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3% endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic."

However, as the paper took issue in the definition of consensus, the definition of consensus was split into several levels: In the end, of all the abstracts that took a position on the subject, 22.97% and 72.50% were found to take an explicit but unquantified endorsement position or an implicit endorsement position, respectively. The 0.3% figure represents abstracts taking a position of "Actually endorsing the standard definition" of all the abstracts (1.02% of all position-taking abstracts), where the "standard definition" was juxtaposed with an "unquantified definition" drawn from the 2013 Cook _et al._ paper as follows:


The unquantified definition: "The consensus position that humans are causing global warming"
The standard definition: As stated in their introduction, that "human activity is very likely causing most of the current warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)"
Criticism was also made to the "arbitrary" exclusion of non-position-taking abstracts as well as other issues of definitions. [27]

Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Mörner, who question the consensus, were cited in a _Wall Street Journal_ article by Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer disputing the 97% figure, as climate scientists who assert that Cook misrepresented their work.[28]

Climate economist Richard Tol has also been a persistent critic of the Cook _et al._ paper, arguing that the authors "used an unrepresentative sample, left out much useful data, used biased observers who disagreed with the authors of the papers they were classifying nearly two-thirds of the time, and collected and analysed the data in such a way as to allow the authors to adjust their preliminary conclusions as they went along".[29] Cook _et al._ replied to Tol's criticisms, pointing out that "the 97% consensus has passed peer-review, while Tol's criticisms have not".[30]

A new paper[31] by Rasmus E. Benestad, Dana Nuccitelli, Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland, and John Cook examined the quality of the 3% of peer-reviewed papers discovered by this work to reject the consensus view. They discovered that "replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases".

*Powell, 2013*
James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[32]This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[33]


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2016)

*97–98% of the most published climate researchers*

Makes me laugh.....every time I see it.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 9, 2016)

Only a person of profoundly flawed character would even try to defend the consensus at this point....congratulations crick.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 9, 2016)

The climate has been changing since the day the Earth was formed and will continue to do so no matter how much Liberals raise taxes and no matter how many freedoms they try and take from us.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 9, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...




"Um, no, no ones been caught fudging data,..." Oh really? Time to get your Google fixed:
*NASA Exposed in 'Massive' New Climate Data Fraud - Principia ...*
principia-*scientific*.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-*climate*-*data*-fraud/
Nov 24, 2015 - NASA Exposed in 'Massive' New Climate Data Fraud ... temperature data series, as relied on by the UN and government climate scientists. ... Thus the issue of man-made global warming has taken on a whole new meaning: ...
*German Professor: NASA Has Fiddled Climate Data On 'Unbelievable ...*
www.breitbart.com/.../german-professor-nasa-fiddled-*climate*-*data*-unb...Breitbart News
Nov 24, 2015 - Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert is a retired geologist and data computation expert. ... But the activist scientists at NASA GISS – initially led by James Hansen .... CO2 levels change after the climate changes not before.
*NOAA Tampers With Data To Erase The Global Warming 'Hiatus' | The ...*
dailycaller.com/.../noaa-fiddles-with-*climate*-*data*-to-erase-the-15-yea...The Daily Caller
Jun 4, 2015 - BREAKING: NOAA Fiddles With Climate Data To Erase The 15-Year Global Warming‘Hiatus’. ... National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming: They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the ...
*The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever ...*
www.telegraph.co.uk › ... › Environment › Global WarmingThe Daily Telegraph
Feb 7, 2015 - When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the ... by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on ... Yet these are the very records on whichscientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”. .... Don't get caught out by foreign exchange rates.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> The climate scientist's consensus in agreement with the IPCC conclusions is supported by the peer reviewed work of:
> 
> *Oreskes, 2004*
> A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[9] The essay concluded that there is ascientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
> ...


 The WHo's Who of climate liars list...  Too funny ..

They all used the same failed approach of throwing out the larger body of evidence disproving the lie..  But your buddy cook took it to a whole new level of making false names and credentials so he could review his own work...

Legates Et Al exposed them all of their applying of bias and never asking the scientists.




Funny how every one of the people you list have huge grants from DOE and other federal agencies..


----------



## jc456 (Sep 9, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The climate scientist's consensus in agreement with the IPCC conclusions is supported by the peer reviewed work of:
> ...


Billy, I stand by my original claim that there is not one scientist not paid by the government that believes in AGW. Not one.  how fking strange is that. I say it says everything.


----------



## Crick (Sep 9, 2016)

And where is your evidence?


----------



## westwall (Sep 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> And where is your evidence?









Ummmm, the scientists themselves.  Every single one of them is on the AGW gravy train.  Every.  Single. One.


----------



## Crick (Sep 9, 2016)

Now Frank is suggesting that it's only scientists that are government employees.  I would like to see the evidence that leads him to that conclusion.  Do you have some?

For you, I want to ask, how did the "Gravy Train" get started?  It wasn't always there.  A preponderance of climate scientists believed in AGW well before the government ever got interested in it.  Why?


----------



## westwall (Sep 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> Now Frank is suggesting that it's only scientists that are government employees.  I would like to see the evidence that leads him to that conclusion.  Do you have some?
> 
> For you, I want to ask, how did the "Gravy Train" get started?  It wasn't always there.  A preponderance of climate scientists believed in AGW well before the government ever got interested in it.  Why?









I doubt that highly.  But, "consensus" is a political term anyway.  It is far, far from a scientific one.   Heck I used to believe in AGW too.  It was a good theory until it was actually tested.  Once actual testing began instead of relying on computer modeling, that's when the wheels came off.   Amazingly enough (not really) that's when all of the data falsification began as well.


----------



## Crick (Sep 10, 2016)

To what "testing" do you refer and what evidence do you have that data were falsified (aside from the fact that some were adjusted upwards and some were adjusted downwards)?


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 10, 2016)




----------



## LaDexter (Sep 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> what evidence do you have that data were falsified




1. British Court ruling = proves every "study" claiming Antarctic melt was FUDGED and hence FRAUD
2. ClimateGate - "hide the decline" is not science, it is FUDGING busting in action
3. The entire claim of ocean rise, busted for a)no net ice melt ongoing on Earth b) no islands sinking except those on the lip of the PROF


Your whole case is FRAUD.  The only thing your side has is the Deliberate misinterpretation of the urban heat sink on the surface ground temperature series, the only temperature series showing warming in the RAW DATA.


----------



## IanC (Sep 12, 2016)

from an old thread...

NoTricksZone Not here to worship what is known but to question it 8211 Jacob Bronowski. Climate news from Germany in English 8211 by Pierre L. Gosselin






hmmmm.....the new thermometers were phased in the 80's and 90's, I wonder if it shows in the temperature history? maybe.







this little story from Germany brings a few questions to mind. why did it take so long for it to come out? the data is seven years old. perhaps more importantly the author is 73 years old, hahahahaha.


----------



## IanC (Sep 12, 2016)

the comment above does not prove fraud, or even fudging. it shows that the decisions made on how to adjust the data are arbitrary.

it is odd that the adjustments always seem to increase the trend in surface station data though


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 12, 2016)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


This woman is an American trying to pass herself off as Irish. Talk about fudging.


----------



## IanC (Sep 15, 2016)

IanC said:


> from an old thread...
> 
> NoTricksZone Not here to worship what is known but to question it 8211 Jacob Bronowski. Climate news from Germany in English 8211 by Pierre L. Gosselin
> 
> ...




No comments to this? 

This guy took it upon himself to check the veracity of just one of the numerous adjustments being made to temperature history. It failed spectacularly here. 

Just an outlier? Perhaps. The problem is that new methodologies are put in place and the old ones are discarded. 

Would you like to see the comparison between the 95, 00, 05, 10, and 2015 methods? Good luck with that because it isn't possible. But we do know that every new methodology adds more cooling to the past and more warming to the recent. As well as smoothing out that pesky and inconvenient warming to the 40's and then cooling to the 70's.

Some adjustments are always necessary. But inconvenient ones like UHI seem to get short shrift. While others are large even though the research behind them seems shoddy at best.


----------



## Crick (Sep 23, 2016)

So global warming is a massive conspiracy with perfect security.  No one ever confesses.  No one is ever caught.  Seems perfectly reasonable...


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 23, 2016)

Bull.  Plenty have come forward, saying their grants were canceled for concluding no warming.  They just don't get any media coverage.


----------



## IanC (Sep 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> So global warming is a massive conspiracy with perfect security.  No one ever confesses.  No one is ever caught.  Seems perfectly reasonable...




Every time you don't want to discuss a particular topic you simply deflect by invoking the strawman of conspiracy theory.

The changes to temperature datasets have been blatantly open, at least in results if not methodology.

The main reason is groupthink. I would like to think that the reason for sloppy and biased choices is the honest belief in the Noble Cause. That getting the warning out on possible disaster overwhelmed the primacy of having actual solid evidence. 

Now I am not so sure. Scientific integrity has been contorted by outside influences. You get rewarded for consensus opinions, punished for straying. Lauded on one side, scorned on the other.

I have looked at much of the evidence and in the end found most of the conclusions drawn to be exaggerated and unfounded by the data provided. 

My example above showed one scientist making an independent finding that the adjustment in place for moving from one type of instrument to another was flawed. I then investigated the studies that developed that adjustment and found a hodgepodge of findings that didn't really support the arbitrary and generalized final number.

I have found the same sloppiness in many climate science topics. Collecting data is good but making arbitrary conclusions on what is often ambiguous evidence is bad. It is not proper science at any rate.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 23, 2016)

Cellblock2429 said:


> The climate has been changing since the day the Earth was formed and will continue to do so no matter how much Liberals raise taxes and no matter how many freedoms they try and take from us.



We'll even if it was all natural shouldn't we be ready to adapt to it? Or are you one of those that believe in being blind.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 23, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > what evidence do you have that data were falsified
> ...








its amazing when you place all of their failed models in the same graph with empirical data showing no warming.. But their confidence level in their lie is always increasing even when it shows them liars..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 23, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> > The climate has been changing since the day the Earth was formed and will continue to do so no matter how much Liberals raise taxes and no matter how many freedoms they try and take from us.
> ...



*We'll even if it was all natural shouldn't we be ready to adapt to it?*

We'll have more money to adapt to it, if we haven't wasted 10s of trillions on windmills.
And if we don't wreck our economy by punishing carbon.


----------



## IanC (Sep 24, 2016)

Not that I recommend it any time soon but it is easy to inject sunlight reflecting aerosols into the high atmosphere if we ever need to cool things down.

Unfortunately there is no easy way to warm things up if it starts getting cold, unless you count ineffectual CO2.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 24, 2016)

IanC said:


> Not that I recommend it any time soon but it is easy to inject sunlight reflecting aerosols into the high atmosphere if we ever need to cool things down.
> 
> Unfortunately there is no easy way to warm things up if it starts getting cold, unless you count ineffectual CO2.



Methane. Drill into the arctic deposits.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 25, 2016)

Matthew said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Not that I recommend it any time soon but it is easy to inject sunlight reflecting aerosols into the high atmosphere if we ever need to cool things down.
> ...



First good suggestion you've had Matthew... Combusting methane is better than unused escaping methane. Great way to "save the planet".


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> > The climate has been changing since the day the Earth was formed and will continue to do so no matter how much Liberals raise taxes and no matter how many freedoms they try and take from us.
> ...


what does it mean to be ready.  like what?


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 26, 2016)

Yeah, get the gas right.... umm....

never mind Earth climate is controlled by where land is, not by minor fluctuations of trace atmospheric gasses (that do not alter temperature)....


----------



## Crick (Sep 27, 2016)

Never mind that LaDexter is incredibly ignorant AND delusional.

Surely you've been asked how, if what you claim were true, the Earth's climate could take huge swings at a rate thousands and thousands of times faster than plate tectonics moves things in and out of the polar regions.  

So, what was your answer?


----------



## Boston1 (Oct 6, 2016)

Yikes, and the denial continues 

Any of our deniers comprehend the symptoms of Dunning-Kruger syndrome ;--)


----------



## SSDD (Oct 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Yikes, and the denial continues
> 
> Any of our deniers comprehend the symptoms of Dunning-Kruger syndrome ;--)




Yes...its common among warmer cultists.....belief in claims for which evidence that doesn't exist....and belief that certain data is evidence when in fact it isn't....Sure that you have the science on your side when in fact, most of you wouldn't recognize science if it bit you on your ass.

Just to prove my point...I challenge you to provide one piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis...  Now if you are not a victim of Dunning-Kruger syndrome...you will readily admit that no such data exists....if you are a victim, then you will go on about consensus...and settled science, and deniers while not providing a single shred of the sort of evidence I asked for...all the while never realizing that you believe such evidence exists but none can be found....


----------



## Boston1 (Oct 6, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Bull.  Plenty have come forward, saying their grants were canceled for concluding no warming.  They just don't get any media coverage.



Bull is right

I call Bull 

If you can't document multiple cases where grants were cancelled specifically because of their findings then your claim is complete BS


----------



## Boston1 (Oct 6, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Yikes, and the denial continues
> ...



LOL clearly you don't comprehend the term. 

Although this particular instance of ignorance I'd chalk up to cognitive dissonance rather than Dunning-Kruger syndrome. 

You simply can't incorporate the concept into your preferred view and so you not only fail to recognize the true symptoms of Dunning-Kruger syndrome but you ignorantly move on attributing a false definition of the term. 

WOW 

You just proved my point perfectly. 

When all you really had to do in order to cure your ignorance was just look it up. Which you didn't, why ? Because you aren't going to learn, what you don't want to know ;--) 

The *Dunning–Kruger effect* is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of those of low ability to recognize their ineptitude and evaluate their ability accurately.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Exactly as predicted....talk, talk, talk...while not making me your bitch by providing some piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis...and on and on you will go while never providing the first piece of such evidence and never realizing that you aren't providing it because it simply doesn't exist...were you not a poor victim of the syndrome, you would grasp why you are unable to provide the requested information and re-evaluate your position...but that will never happen because you believe yourself to be superior and far to intelligent to have been fooled so badly.

So now your turn...go on with your insults, and tell us all how smart you are and how stupid I am while still not providing the first shred of the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions that you believe exist in such abundance.

And just for context...I have spent decades looking for such evidence as I ask for...since I always base my position on the evidence....I would not ask for such evidence if I thought there was a chance in hell that you could provide it...for that matter, if such evince existed, I wouldn't be asking as I would be an AGW believer.


----------



## Boston1 (Oct 6, 2016)

LOL

So you prefer to maintain your confusion regarding your misunderstanding of the terminology involved in our conversation and you insist I engage that conversation which you clearly don't comprehend.

Brilliant evasion but

Not going to work.

Should you ever decide to actually learn the meaning of the terms involved, feel free, however, engaging your rhetoric while pandering to your obvious cognitive dissonance is no way to forward a productive conversation.

Cheers and thanks for playing
You proved my point beautifully

Love
B


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> *Um, no, no ones been caught fudging data,* actually they have a process called peer review to ensure that the data is accurate.
> 
> What your suggesting is basically the worlds biggest conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists over hundreds of years LOL. Its simply impossible.
> 
> ...




That is LITERALLY the funniest thing I've ever read on these boards. You cultists are insane of course, but that is out in left field.

Claims Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 were false, says UN scientist


----------



## Boston1 (Oct 6, 2016)

So you're just going to skip the fact that you don't comprehend the terminology and move on to pretend there's problems with climate science.

That'll work

At the least it will help you maintain your preferred belief, rather than face the truth, which in the end is your main goal. Truth requires an open mind and a willingness to learn new concepts, ignorance on the other hand, revels in the Dunning-Kruger Effect


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> So you're just going to skip the fact that you don't comprehend the terminology and move on to pretend there's problems with climate science.
> 
> That'll work
> 
> At the least it will help you maintain your preferred belief, rather than face the truth, which in the end is your main goal. Truth requires an open mind and a willingness to learn new concepts, ignorance on the other hand, revels in the Dunning-Kruger Effect



To save the Earth, I'm going to recycle.

Right now I'm generating electricity by burning recycled......tires.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> LOL
> 
> So you prefer to maintain your confusion regarding your misunderstanding of the terminology involved in our conversation and you insist I engage that conversation which you clearly don't comprehend.
> 
> ...




And still not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions.....how predictable..since no such evidence exists...and still you remain completely ignorant as to why you haven't provided any such data.  I can play this all day every day,  you idiot...I am the one who has asked for evidence....you are the one completely unable to provide said evidence...and on and on it will go, becoming more evident with each exchange that you are just talking and will never be able to provide anything like the evidence I have requested....it will be equally evident that you remain unaware that you are being laughed at precisely because you continue to believe you hold the superior position even though you remain completely unable to provide even the first piece of the evidence you so fervently believe exists....

So carry on....reply again...and fail to provide even one shred of the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis that you believe exists....and perhaps ask yourself, how I managed to request the one thing you believe exists in abundance but which you seem not to be able to find.....anywhere.

By the way...in this exchange, it is you who is evading....I asked up front for something which you clearly believe exists....you keep replying, but don't seem to be able to deliver...nor will you ever be able to deliver.  The question now is whether you are bright enough to know that you are being played and made a fool of.  If so, you will tuck tail and run...and not be seen here again...if not...well....pretend superiority and again....fail to deliver the requested evidence.


----------



## Boston1 (Oct 6, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > So you're just going to skip the fact that you don't comprehend the terminology and move on to pretend there's problems with climate science.
> ...



Probably not your best option. Even a pyrolysis system converting the tires most efficiently isn't going to negate the fact that your burning a fossil fuel. You'd be better off burning wood and burying the tires ;--( 

Another little darling about recycling is that the redistribution back to the point of manufacture can be more energy intensive than the initial production process. Unfortunately this is true for most recyclables in most rural environments. Unless we are talking about plastics accumulation on the sea shore communities, in which case collection and conversion is going to have to be a key part of any recovery process. 

My take is we need to conduct a managed divestment and use of fossil fuels to renewables and carbon neutral fuels. 

I have ;-)


----------



## Boston1 (Oct 6, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > LOL
> ...



You want to insist on engaging in a conversation, yet you clearly don't comprehend the language of the conversation. 

So how is it you expect to comprehend the conversation itself ???


----------



## SSDD (Oct 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Carry on in any manner you like...it will be entertaining.  

I responded to a suggestion on your part that AGW skeptics suffer from  Dunning-Kruger syndrome..a condition in which low ability individuals suffer from the illusion of superiority.  I then decided to demonstrate to everyone but you (since you are incapable of seeing your failure) that it is AGW believers that are more likely to suffer from the syndrome than skeptics by asking for information which you all believe exists, but in fact doesn't.    Being a low ability individual, who believes himself to be superior, you were bound to point out to me that you are in fact superior and perhaps throw out some impotent insult while never grasping the fact that you weren't...nor ever would be able to provide the requested observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....the very thing that all of us skeptics want to see....the thing that would convince us that there is merit in the AGW hypothesis...the very thing that doesn't exist.  Which then leads to the question....if no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence exists....why then are you  warmers convinced that the AGW hypothesis has merit?...and why do you defend it so vehemently if you don't in fact, suffer from Dunning-Kruger.....or are simply dupes incapable of thinking for yourselves?  Either explanation is perfectly acceptable...and in my opinion, it is more likely that you are just dupes.

Perhaps it is cruel of me, but I enjoy pushing the buttons of idiots...I ask for that which I know you can't deliver...and watch the incredible mental gyrations and gymnastics and outrageous mental masturbation that you engage in an effort to avoid simply stating that no real observed, measured, quantified evidence exists which supports the claim that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions....you will go to any length to avoid admitting the very thing you are doing every time you fail to provide the requested evidence.  

It is akin to a child whose face is covered in cookie denying that he or she has been eating cookies....You believe you are superior and have all the evidence and us skeptics are idiots but when asked to deliver the goods...you can't deliver...you can only dodge...and I do so enjoy watching the variations on the dodge.

So I have no expectations regarding the conversation other than to be entertained by your dance whose steps are supposed to proclaim your superiority and distract me from the fact that you are completely unable to provide the evidence of AGW which I asked you straight out for.


----------



## Boston1 (Oct 6, 2016)

LOL

perfect example of gas lighting or lamp lighting as I learned it 

You responded to your imaginary view of Dunning-Kruger syndrome, which you've now amended

Lets try and keep your BS straight OK ;--)

Perhaps it is cruel of me, but I enjoy watching the deniers worm and squirm in a desperate attempt to maintain their level of ignorance such that they might maintain there preferred view. That ones called cognitive dissonance ;--)

So now that we have established that you will only acknowledge the actually meaning of the terminology involved when embarrassed sufficiently to do so; lets move on to gain a better understanding of exactly what YOU mean when you use the term "observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" a group of qualifiers that could mean just about anything, particularly when you've already shown a level of willingness to simply invent your own definitions


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Sorry, can't see your reply, these tires burn a bit smoky.


----------



## Boston1 (Oct 6, 2016)

Yeah, I didn't thing so 

LOL


----------



## westwall (Oct 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> LOL
> 
> perfect example of gas lighting or lamp lighting as I learned it
> 
> ...







Pardon me, but you were provided a link to a very clear example of the IPCC lying about the Himalayan glaciers.  That is what is called a fact.  A fact that you claimed did not exist.  The only person displaying the DK effect in this thread is you.  And that in spades.


----------



## Boston1 (Oct 6, 2016)

westwall said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > LOL
> ...



LOL No I was provided a link to a denial website which misrepresented the science. Hardly a fact, more like a sham of both ignorance and idiocy. 

How about if you face the science and leave off the false representation of fact. Science deals in the preponderance of data and the overwhelming consensus of many sciences overlapping in their agreement concerning the theory of climate shift


----------



## westwall (Oct 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...








Fine.  Show us some empirical evidence.  Do you even know what that means?


----------



## The Professor (Oct 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



One of us is th-th-th-that's all folks looney tunes and I sure hope it's you.  From what I know, Michael Mann did not receive a Noble Prize. He falsely claimed he did but had to retract his claim when his scam was discovered.

“Disgraced Penn State University (PSU) climatologist, Michael Mann, concedes defeat in his bogus claims to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Mann’s employer this weekend began the shameful task of divesting itself of all inflated claims on university websites and official documentation that Mann was ever a Peace Prize recipient with Al Gore and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

Michael Mann Retracts False Nobel Prize Claims in Humiliating Climbdown

I suggest that anyone who would lie about receiving a Noble Prize to bolster his credibility would lie about other things as well to achieve his agenda.

I will comment on the false science in another post.  I just wanted to set the record straight regarding "Noble Prize winner" Michael Mann.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> LOL
> 
> perfect example of gas lighting or lamp lighting as I learned it
> 
> ...



And as predicted...not the first shred of the observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that was requested.  As to what such data may look like...were the words to difficult for you to understand?  Being such a superior intellect, I wouldn't have guessed that would have been the case, but here...I will provide accepted definitions for you.

observed- to watch, view, or note for a scientific, official, or other special purpose

measured- the act or process of ascertaining the extent, dimensions, or quantity something

quantified- to discover or express the quantity of

empirical- derived from or guided by experience or experiment

The reason I ask for such evidence is because the atmosphere, and the things that happen within it are observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical events...and for one to make rational claims regarding an observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical entity, one needs observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in order to support said claims.

I can't think of any physical science, involved in the study of actual visible events happening in real time out in nature which does not deal almost exclusively in observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence...except climate science which uses precious little and has none supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his so called greenhouse gas emissions.

As far as your claim that I am squirming in a desperate attempt to maintain my level of ignorance...I can only assume that you have reading comprehension problems...I am asking in a very straight forward manner for you to provide the information that would change my position on the issue.  I want to be convinced...you all say that the sort of evidence I request exists in abundance...you claim that the overwhelming scientific consensus is built upon it...you claim that the sort of evidence I request is so ubiquitous that it has settled the science...I have looked...and looked...and looked.  I can't find it.  One would think that if such evidence exists that it would be impossible for a skeptic to avoid ...it would be everywhere.  Clearly it isn't.

So I am asking for it as clearly as I possibly can.  The only one squirming here is you....trying to maintain your illusion of superiority and being on the correct side while not being able to grant a straight forward request for observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence relating to an observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical event that is happening to an observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical entity.  Such evidence either exists or it doesn't...if it does enlighten me...show it to me so that I can be on the right side of the issue....if it doesn't, you really should ask yourself why you are convinced.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2016)

westwall said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > LOL
> ...



It is fun to watch isn't it?...and a bit sad.  Interesting to note the varying depth of the illusion.  Some cut and run as soon as they realize that what we are asking for, they can't deliver....the run off and never show up on that particular thread again...only to begin again with the same lame claims on a different thread...and some will stick it out....literally dragging their intellect (such as it is) through the sewer for post after post and never, ever providing the straight forward information and evidence that us skeptics are sincerely asking for.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



So now you really are squirming in order to maintain your level of ignorance...you might have went to the site, but you certainly didn't read it....my guess is that you clicked on the link...saw "The Guardian" and simply assumed that no actual information could be there and then came straight back claiming that it was a denier web site....confident in your ability to maintain your level of ignorance.  

Had you actually read the information, you would have found a clear link to the IPCC itself admitting precisely what the article stated...that the claims made in the IPCC report were, IN FACT, false.  Here, from the IPCC web site:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf



> It has, however, recently come to our attention that a paragraph in the 938-page Working Group II contribution to the underlying assessment2 refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly.



Now, in the face of an admission by the IPCC themselves that the claim that they published was false, I am very interested to see what length you will go to in order to maintain your present level of ignorance.


----------



## IanC (Oct 7, 2016)

The Professor said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




To be fair...there were a lot of lead IPCC writers who got those letters and put them in their c. vit. Their institutions also went overboard crowing about N P winners, usually not pointing out it was a Peace Prize and not a science prize. It was mostly back slapping all around, until the N P committee put an end to it. 

I am much more concerned about the actual fraudulent methods that Mann employed, and refused to correct after they were pointed out. Like the upsidedown Tiljander proxies, or 'Mike's Nature trick', to name a few.


----------



## westwall (Oct 7, 2016)

Hey  *Boston1  I'm still waiting for you to post some empirical evidence.  Do you know what empirical means?  Cue Jeopardy music.....*


----------



## IanC (Oct 7, 2016)

These jokers come I here and insult us for not believing their heroes. 

Hopefully when they leave again they have a little anxiety that they don't know quite as much as they think they did.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2016)

westwall said:


> Hey  *Boston1  I'm still waiting for you to post some empirical evidence.  Do you know what empirical means?  Cue Jeopardy music.....*



I gave him a definition....


----------



## Boston1 (Oct 7, 2016)

LOL you guys are sooooo predictable. 

There's a study about you guys if anyone cares to read it 

PDF
http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu....yetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf

Quote 

NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Stephan Lewandowsky University of Western Australia

Klaus Oberauer
University of Zurich and University of Western Australia

Gilles Gignac University of Western Australia

(in press, Psychological Science) 

Abstract

Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N

> 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ≃ .80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists. 

End Quote 

So you clowns want empirical evidence 

No problem LOL


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> LOL you guys are sooooo predictable.
> 
> There's a study about you guys if anyone cares to read it
> 
> ...



How many trillions should we waste on windmills...to reduce temps in 2080 by 0.1 degrees?


----------



## westwall (Oct 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> LOL you guys are sooooo predictable.
> 
> There's a study about you guys if anyone cares to read it
> 
> ...









That is what is known as a non sequitur silly boy.  Soooooo...once again.  Please provide us with some empirical evidence to support your bullshit.  It's really that simple.  I think you're just too stupid to even come up with a basic one.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> So you clowns want empirical evidence
> 
> No problem LOL



So that passes for observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his so called greenhouse gas emissions?

It is certainly evidence that the climate is changing...but then, no one is arguing that the climate is not changing.  The climate is always changing...warming...cooling...one or the other.  That graph is not, evidence of any sort that man is in any way responsible.

Your graph takes the typical warmist short view.  Warmers love to take the short view and claim that the climate today is unprecedented....if one takes a longer view, however, one sees that the climate today is in no way unusual, unprecedented, or disturbing.  Your graph goes back to 1750 and paints a disturbing picture to someone who might not think to take a longer view....looking back to 1750 is half an eye blink in geological history.  Here, take a look at a more comprehensive picture of the climate....instead of looking back two and a half centuries, look back 10,000 years.  This is  data from the Greenland GISP2 ice core.   As you can see
your graph deliberately starts at a very cold period in time in an effort to make the present warming appear much more substantial than it is.  By taking a longer look back, we see that the present warming is insignificant in comparison to even the Medieval warming which was just a bit warmer than the present...the Roman warming was considerably warmer, and the Minoan warming was even warmer than that.

As you can see, most of the past 10,000 years has been considerably warmer than the present.  That being the case, one must ask why you believe the slight warming we have seen over the past 100 years is man made considering the very wide span of natural variability?  How do you suppose that graph of yours is evidence that man is altering the global climate






And just so you don't fall for the false claim that the warm periods reflected in this graph were local and affected only small parts of the northern hemisphere, allow me to provide you with a graph derived from the Vostok ice cores...taken in Vostok, Antarctica...which show the same signatures in the past 10,000 years but continue the long view back over 400,000 years.  As you can see, in the past half a million years, there have been quite a few times when temperatures have been warmer than the present.






I will say, that it is always interesting to see what passes, in your minds, for evidence that mankind is altering the global climate with his so called greenhouse gas emissions.  I can only guess that you have never bothered to take a longer look back in history...(part of that maintaining your level of ignorance thing)...and as such have no idea as to the actual range of natural variability on this planet with regard to the temperature.  It becomes more clear all the time how low the threshold of proof is within the mind of those who believe the AGW claims.  You see a graph showing a very short period in geological time which shows a modest temperature rise and to you that is proof of mankind altering the global climate.  Tell me, does seeing a longer view of the temperature history alter your position, or do you still believe your knowledge is superior and that mankind is altering the global climate....that the present climate is unprecedented....that catastrophe is on its way?  Can you maintain your present level of ignorance having seen a longer view of the temperature of planet earth?  Since you have looked this far, lets go all the way...here is what is believed to be the best reconstruction available of the temperature history of earth.  As you can see, compared to most of the history of the earth....the present climate is positively cold.  Now, taking a look at this very long view,  if you had to make a prediction...even if mankind did not exist on the planet...which way do you think the temperature trend would be going for the next 40 to 60 million years?


----------



## Boston1 (Oct 7, 2016)

westwall said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > LOL you guys are sooooo predictable.
> ...



LOL, another perfect example

Lets review

Quote
a patient suffering of lateral neglect won't "see" one side of the world, won't draw it, and won't touch it. When asked why, the patient will answer that it was not important or that there was no reason to consider it; never that he or she couldn't perceive it. Anosognosia is what inspired Dunning and Kruger for the effect that takes their name: the "Dunning-Kruger Syndrome". It affects people who grossly overestimate their abilities or their knowledge. But Dunning and Kruger have been often misinterpreted by defining their effect as "_stupid people don't realize that they are stupid_". No, it is a much wider effect and it hits intelligent people in particular. It is typical of very intelligent people to be unable to realize their limits.


This kind of anosognosia is especially bad with science, in particular climate science. The Web is infested with people who suffer of a form of climate science neglect syndrome. They are not stupid;  on the contrary, some of them they can display considerable creativity and inventive to support the idea that climate is not changing, or that change is not caused by human activity, or that everything is an evil plot to enslave humankind. Their problem is that they completely fail to perceive the complexity of the subject. They can't see that climate science is not about whether grapes were cultivated in England during the Middle Ages or about the letters that some scientists wrote to each other more than 10 years ago. You just can't convince them that their vision of the world is limited. The same is true with a variety of conspiracy theories based on failing to understand the complexity of the subject: chemtrails, cold fusion, abiotic oil, and many more.


Anosognosia is easily recognizable in such extreme forms. But, in milder forms, it affects all of us. It is such an easy mistake to believe that we know something well enough to act on it and then suddenly discovering that we don't. I have my horror stories about myself to tell you on this point; I am sure you have yours. And those are cases where we understood that we were making a mistake. What's scary about anosognosia is when you don't even realize that there is a problem. Think that, most likely, there is something out there, something we can't even imagine, that's going to affect us deeply. But what? How can we perceive something that we cannot perceive? How do we manage "unknown unknowns"?


Still, as long as our brain is not physically damaged, we have at least a fighting chance to understand our mistakes and to be prepared for the unexpected that may crash upon us all of a sudden. But there is a much larger problem that has to do with society as a whole: it seems to be suffering of a bad case of cognitive neglect syndrome. Read "Monoculture" by F. S. Michaels and you'll see what I mean.

End Quote

So lets try showing you that again ;--)






So in answer to SSDO, what could the cause of this radical departure of from the norm be ???? its either you start dreaming up all kinds of mythical monsters or you accept that the departure is directly attributable to fossil fuels.

So now whats your excuse ;--)

PS
Love all the groovy little graphs that don't have the resolution to accurately depict either the rate or the effect of todays alterations in the atmospheric chemistry


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Being cooler than the norm for the past 10,000 years is a departure from the norm, but as your short view graph shows, we are moving in the direction of the norm so I don't see cause for alarm.  This graph shows me that natural variability covers a very large range...so again, how about some observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the claim that MANKIND is altering the global climate with his so called greenhouse gas emissions.  A graph showing a changing temperature would only be evidence that man is causing the change to a cretin...are you a cretin fooled by anything that even looks "science"?

By the way...did you notice how large the uncertainty bars get the further back in your graph you go...acording to your graph...1750 may have been nearly as warm as today.


----------



## westwall (Oct 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...










You blabber a LOT.  I am still waiting for some empirical evidence.  I hear you were provided with a definition of what that means.  Hop to it junior.


----------



## Boston1 (Oct 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



LOL your funny. 

Why are you cherry picking one data set ;--) 

Could it be that by only considering ONE data set instead of ALL the data you are able to maintain your ignorance ;--) 

Also I can't help but notice that the Minoan warm period, the Roman warming and the Medieval warming were ALL localized events and hardly represent the global situation we see with climate change today. 

Riddle me this. 
Why is it in all the events depicted on this graph there is no corresponding forcing agent within the atmospheric chemistry OTHER than in todays event. CO2 and CH4 

:--) 

Love 
B


----------



## Boston1 (Oct 7, 2016)

westwall said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



LOL you are a perfect example of lateral neglect syndrome

Quote

Anosognosia is easily recognizable in such extreme forms. But, in milder forms, it affects all of us. It is such an easy mistake to believe that we know something well enough to act on it and then suddenly discovering that we don't. I have my horror stories about myself to tell you on this point; I am sure you have yours. And those are cases where we understood that we were making a mistake. What's scary about anosognosia is when you don't even realize that there is a problem. Think that, most likely, there is something out there, something we can't even imagine, that's going to affect us deeply. But what? How can we perceive something that we cannot perceive? How do we manage "unknown unknowns"?


Still, as long as our brain is not physically damaged, we have at least a fighting chance to understand our mistakes and to be prepared for the unexpected that may crash upon us all of a sudden. But there is a much larger problem that has to do with society as a whole: it seems to be suffering of a bad case of cognitive neglect syndrome. Read "Monoculture" by F. S. Michaels and you'll see what I mean.


More and more, our culture seems to confine itself within narrow limits that don't include entities such as climate change, peak oil, ecosystem collapse, and much more. All that is relegated to the category of unknown unknowns, totally outside the bounds of perception; even outside the bounds of the imaginable. As it is not perceived, it is not understood, it is not discussed, it is not acted upon. And, whatever is going to crash on us all of a sudden, we are totally unprepared for it.


Unfortunately, one of the things I learned from my daughter is that there is no cure for this syndrome.

End Quote

So just for fun lets present you with a portion of the pertinent data and see if you can see it this time ;--)


----------



## westwall (Oct 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...










This is now an official warning.  This post is called "TROLLING".  It has nothing to do with the OP.  I asked you for a specific thing that DOES pertain to the OP.  Now hop to it.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2016)

westwall said:


> You blabber a LOT.  I am still waiting for some empirical evidence.  I hear you were provided with a definition of what that means.  Hop to it junior.



By his definition, what he is doing is squirming....an attempt to maintain his level of ignorance rather than admit that he can't come up with the sort of information we are asking for.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...





s0n......you're not getting it. Nobody is caring about the science in 2016. Of the radar of virtually all voters in 2016........there are 20 concerns that beat it in the lastest PEW Poll..........its on the bottom with gun control!! Glad to post it up by request!!

At the same time, after 20+ years of bomb throwing by alarmists, solar power still provides less than 1% of our electricity needs.........wind provides about 3%. Laughable.............and by 2040, combined with still be less than 10% ( well......so says the Obama EIA ).

The science debate is but a hobby for people with nothing better to do...........not making a difference in the real world = nobody cares.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> LOL your funny.
> 
> Why are you cherry picking one data set ;--)



Project much?  I showed you at least 3 data sets...while you have provided 1 graph.



Boston1 said:


> Could it be that by only considering ONE data set instead of ALL the data you are able to maintain your ignorance ;--)



Except I haven't considered only one data set...I have been looking for observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting AGW for decades...haven't found it because it doesn't exist...

And insofar as ice core data sets go, GISP and Vostok are the gold standard...Your graphs show several surface records which are heavily adjusted, but they don't match the satellite record...and the satellite record is closely correlated with over a million radiosondes that have been sent up into the atmosphere directly gathering temperature and other meteorological data...I would be much more likely to trust a million plus radiosondes that all say the same thing than a heavily massaged surface record.



Boston1 said:


> Also I can't help but notice that the Minoan warm period, the Roman warming and the Medieval warming were ALL localized events and hardly represent the global situation we see with climate change today.



In today's information age, I would say that it would take quite a bit of work to maintain your level of ignorance, but apparently you are willing to do the work...Did you not see the signature of all those warm periods in the Vostok ice core data take from Antarctica?....But I will go you even better, just to demonstrate the level of searching I have done in looking for actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the AGW hypothesis....You name a region in the world...and I will provide you with a peer reviewed study that finds a signature of at least one of the warming periods shown on my graphs...all studies don't go back 10,000 years.



Boston1 said:


> Riddle me this.
> Why is it in all the events depicted on this graph there is no corresponding forcing agent within the atmospheric chemistry OTHER than in todays event. CO2 and CH4



Riddle me this...why can you not find any observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that shows that either CO2 or CH4 cause any increase in temperature out in the open atmosphere....observed, measured, quantified, empirical data showing that those gasses cause an increase in temperature in the open atmosphere would certainly qualify as the sort of data that I asked for.

The simple fact is that we don't know enough about what drives the temperature to know what causes warming or cooling.  We have hypotheses, but nothing like enough actual evidence to begin to say for sure.   Insofar as "forcing" agents go...we have nothing there but hypothesis either at this point in time...certainly nothing like observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to say how much forcing any agent may cause...whether its forcing is positive or negative...or even if the suspected agents indeed force anything.  Again, this is why I am supremely confident that you won't be able to provide anything like the sort of data I have asked for...it simply doesn't exist...and like it or not, all the claims of AGW are nothing more than guesses, assumptions, and baseless claims.


Now...about that observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis I asked for....lets see it....convince me...I am asking for data...you claim that it exists...I want to be convinced...stop squirming and deliver.


----------



## Boston1 (Oct 7, 2016)

westwall said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I notified the site of your pulling rank and falsely accusing me of Trolling. The post clearly presents data specific to the topic at hand and also directly addresses the subject of our latest few posts 

If you don't have the courage to face your own ignorance and openly discuss the issues at hand then thats fine, you are not required to participate in the discussion. However, acting like a five year old who can't have his way is hardly the way to fairly moderate a topic. 

You should be banned from moderating any science based discussion since you are a science denier yourself. Hardly sheds a positive light on the forum to have a climate denier in charge of anything. 

PS 
I don't do warnings, threaten me one time and I'm off to the owners. You are an ignorant and simply can't grasp the concepts involved. 

So you start in with the threats. 

real adult of ypou but it does prove one thing

Your argument can't stand an informed debate


----------



## Boston1 (Oct 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Gass lighting again eh

You showed this graph and I responded to this graph. Its just one data set was the answer and what it is falsely trying to compare is arguable localized weather events with established global climate

Man you are desperate to find flaw aren't you ?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2016)

westwall said:


> This is now an official warning.  This post is called "TROLLING".  It has nothing to do with the OP.  I asked you for a specific thing that DOES pertain to the OP.  Now hop to it.



Trolls troll....its what they do.  He needs to do it in order to be able to tell himself how superior he is to us skeptics.  We all know that he will never be able to provide the requested data...you may as well ask him to deliver the data on a flying pig.  

It really wasn't going anywhere interesting...I doubt that he understood much of the psychobabble he was posting....I do love to watch them squirm though...and very much like to see what passes for actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in their minds.


----------



## Boston1 (Oct 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > This is now an official warning.  This post is called "TROLLING".  It has nothing to do with the OP.  I asked you for a specific thing that DOES pertain to the OP.  Now hop to it.
> ...



You guys are desperate to bail. Its OK most cognitive dissonant people will eventually react poorly when confronted with overwhelming evidence that threatens their preferred view. 

The fact is that there is only ONE thing thats changed in the last few hundred years that can account for the sudden increase in temps. Burning of fossil fuels ;--) 

Time to grow up people 

Climate shift is very real and the cause is obvious


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> I notified the site of your pulling rank and falsely accusing me of Trolling. The post clearly presents data specific to the topic at hand and also directly addresses the subject of our latest few posts



So you are a crybaby and a tattletale as well?...not surprising.  Of course, you are trolling....the OP of this post is a claim of an "overwhelming" body of data supporting the AGW hypothesis.  Both Westwall and myself are asking for some of it....not all of it...not even a lot of it...just a piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting the hypothesis...You then go on ad nauseum with some psychobabble that you are clearly cutting and pasting from the internet...but aren't delivering on the requests which relate directly to the OP...that is called trolling.



Boston1 said:


> If you don't have the courage to face your own ignorance and openly discuss the issues at hand then thats fine, you are not required to participate in the discussion. However, acting like a five year old who can't have his way is hardly the way to fairly moderate a topic.



The issue at hand is your inability to provide us skeptics with the data we are asking for.  If it exists...then show it to us and convince us that the AGW hypothesis has merit....That is as far from the syndrome you claim we suffer from as possible....far from claiming that I have all the answers and can learn nothing...I am asking for real world data to convince me...you can't deliver because it doesn't exist.



Boston1 said:


> I don't do warnings, threaten me one time and I'm off to the owners. You are an ignorant and simply can't grasp the concepts involved.



You seem to be ignorant of the fact that you can't provide the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data to support the AGW hypothesis.


----------



## westwall (Oct 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...









OK.  You really ARE so stupid you don't understand.  This is not empirical evidence dipshit.  This is merely a graph.  A graph that attempts to prove causation by correlation.  What is the 2nd axiom of science?  CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!  Now.  Try again.  Present me a study (do you know what those are) that uses no computer modelling, that shows a human influence.  It's really that simple.  Now.  Hop to it junior.

The remedial science lessons to you are over.  Time for you to grow up and learn how to do the basics and not spew propaganda.


----------



## westwall (Oct 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...







Big whoop.  You are obviously trolling.  Psychology has nothing to do with the subject as any ten year old knows.  It is you that can't handle debate dumbshit.,  I have asked you for the very simplest level of support for your claims and all you can do is trot out propaganda and psycho babble.  That is not discussing anything but your gross stupidity.


----------



## Boston1 (Oct 7, 2016)

Psychology has everything to do with denial 

For instance, you've clearly been given empirical evidence in the form of multiple studies which all agreed with one another about whats happening to temp, yet some members, after having demanded empirical evidence are unable to even acknowledge that the information has been provided. This represents more of a psychological break from reality than it does a scientific argument to the contrary. Most of the deniers are basically just having psychological problems. 

Which directly relates to the OP and the topic tittle. Overwhelming evidence supporting climate change science and yet we still have deniers. 

Hell we still have people who believe the earth is flat too but yeah. Its a psychological problem. The science is in kids ;--)


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Gass lighting again eh



Maybe you don't know what gas lighting is...Here, let me help

gas lighting - to cause (a person) to doubt his or her sanity through the use of psychological manipulation

How do you suppose I am psychologically manipulating you?  



Boston1 said:


> You showed this graph and I responded to this graph. Its just one data set was the answer and what it is falsely trying to compare is arguable localized weather events with established global climate



Far be it from me to use only one source......and I asked you to name a region on earth...entirely up to you...and I would provide you with at a peer reviewed study showing that the signature of the warming was found there as well...far from being a localized weather event...those warming periods were global in nature...as evidenced by their fingerprint being worldwide...

Temperature of Planet Earth - Gerg's Net










Boston1 said:


> Man you are desperate to find flaw aren't you ?



Of course not...you exposed it with your first post...which is why I asked for the very thing that you would never be able to produce because it simply doesn't exist....and since this thread isn't about psychological weaknesses, I am not going to go into any sort of description...suffice it to say that by asking for that which you can't deliver...you have been being played like a cheap accordion since this exchange began.

Now about that observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that you believe exists....lets see it.


----------



## Boston1 (Oct 7, 2016)

westwall said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




Yeah I reported your post

Insulting a poster is hardly the act of impartial moderation. 

Also falsely accusing someone of breaking the rules isn't going to fly either. Oh it might just be that the sites owners aren't all that impartial themselves but I figure your hopeless and going over your head is my best bet. 

The fact is that a guy who has no clue of science shouldn't be in charge of a science thread 

The chart provided is all the empirical evidence you need ;--) to show that multiple major university studies all show the same result ;--) 






Four major studies all showing the same thing 

And we know exactly whats causing it ;--)


----------



## Boston1 (Oct 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Gass lighting again eh
> ...



See post 264


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> You guys are desperate to bail. Its OK most cognitive dissonant people will eventually react poorly when confronted with overwhelming evidence that threatens their preferred view.



Far from it....I can ask for data that you can't deliver all day.  



Boston1 said:


> The fact is that there is only ONE thing thats changed in the last few hundred years that can account for the sudden increase in temps. Burning of fossil fuels ;--)



Really?  So you are claiming that climate science knows all of the factors that affect the climate...and to what degree they effect the climate...and to what degree they effect and alter the degree to which they themselves affect the climate?....is that what you are claiming?  If it is, then you really are out there.





Boston1 said:


> Time to grow up people
> 
> Climate shift is very real and the cause is obvious



I can only guess that you believe that CO2 rising to a whopping 390ppm or so is responsible for the warming we have seen...your graph represents a correlation, but not a causation...you should learn the difference....one is real...the other is not.

Aside from that, lets resist a graph I already posted...again not even warmers argue that this graph is anything other than representative of our best knowledge of the past earth climate.  See the black line...it represents atmospheric CO2 concentrations...Note that CO2 was close to 1000ppm,  600ppm higher than the present level when the earth's climate started slipping into the ice age that continues to this day.


----------



## IanC (Oct 7, 2016)

I can't believe that no one has called out B1 on the Moon Hoax paper. 

I know it's not climate science per se, but it is meant to slur skeptics and support consensus. 

It certainly had all the familiar themes of climate science. Fraudulent data collection, insane data mining for absurd results, failure to release the data publicly or its collection methodology, plus other frauds in funding and privacy concerns. 

And when it was properly retracted , Lewandowsky claimed it was because of  threats, so he wrote another paper doubling down on his idiocy.


----------



## westwall (Oct 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...





When I am partaking in a thread I am nothing more than a member just like you.  Your continued douchebaggery is duly noted.  Now.  Are you ever going to provide a study or are you only going to flap your gums and snivel?


----------



## hjmick (Oct 7, 2016)

> An overwhelming body of data and still we have climate deniers




I know of no one, I repeat, NO ONE, who denies climate.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Psychology has everything to do with denial
> 
> For instance, you've clearly been given empirical evidence in the form of multiple studies which all agreed with one another about whats happening to temp, yet some members, after having demanded empirical evidence are unable to even acknowledge that the information has been provided. This represents more of a psychological break from reality than it does a scientific argument to the contrary. Most of the deniers are basically just having psychological problems.
> 
> ...



In case you haven't noticed, throughout this entire exchange...it is you who is denying...you deny everything presented to you...graphs that represent the gold standard of ice core temperature reconstructions which no one in climate science argues with..you deny...temperature reconstructions from GERGS net...
Australian snow, snow weather and hydrology.. you deny....is there any data from any source which contradicts what you believe that you will not deny?  You are right that psychology has a great deal to do with denial...what you don't realize is that in this conversation, you are the denier.  We are asking for observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the AGW hypothesis...and the best you can do is show some graphs which show a weak correlation between CO2 and temperature and proclaim your OPINION that the only factor that could account for the present temperature is CO2...

Here is a graph with sufficient resolution to see the correlation of increasing CO2 to temperature...it doesn't look to impressive to me.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



So lets see the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the correlation.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> When I am partaking in a thread I am nothing more than a member just like you.  Your continued douchebaggery is duly noted.  Now.  Are you ever going to provide a study or are you only going to flap your gums and snivel?



He is going to slap his gums and snivel...and now he will play the part of the poor abused victim of authority to his utmost ability.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> See post 264



Re post 264...

You said



> For instance, you've clearly been given empirical evidence in the form of multiple studies which all agreed with one another about whats happening to temp, yet some members, after having demanded empirical evidence are unable to even acknowledge that the information has been provided. This represents more of a psychological break from reality than it does a scientific argument to the contrary. Most of the deniers are basically just having psychological problems.
> 
> Which directly relates to the OP and the topic tittle. Overwhelming evidence supporting climate change science and yet we still have deniers.
> 
> Hell we still have people who believe the earth is flat too but yeah. Its a psychological problem. The science is in kids ;--)




You gave me empirical evidence that the temperature is increasing.  That was never at issue...the graphs I showed you also indicated that the temperature was increasing.  I never claimed otherwise.  But then you go on to say that evidence that the temperature is increasing is evidence that man is causing the increase...that simply is not true...you then went on to say that there could be only one cause for the temperature increase which implies that climate science knows every factor which influences the climate...the degree to which each factor influences the climate, and even the degree to which each factor influences the other factors...such a claim couldn't be further from the truth.   Climate science, in recent years, has been much more willing to admit that they are just beginning to understand what factors influence the climate and that they have much to learn.

So unless you can provide observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the claim that CO2 is increasing the global temperature, I am afraid that you have failed...corelation is not causation...nor will it ever be....that isn't science.....that is pseudoscience.

And your last claim..."the science is in"  brings the entire issue to a fine point...if the science is in, then lets see it...show me the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that increased so called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are responsible for the warming.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 8, 2016)

The Professor said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




AND.....that poster is probably a Red Sox fan, too!!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 8, 2016)

westwall said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



His game is demonetization and attaching shameful tags to those with whom he disagrees.  Standard Alyinsky tactics and democrat ploy to silence those who can prove him wrong.

He has not yet learned that some of us don't give a shit about his political hack bull shit and will call him a liar and deceiver.

But I digress,  you cant fix stupid.

The earths systems are cyclical and predictable..  CO2 can not be a fixed to any changes in our climate by empirical evidence..  No cause and effect has been proven. And to date, no one has produced any empirical evidence that is capable of linking them.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 8, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...





One would have expected the entire scam to collapse in on itself after the exposure of the East Anglia emails.

Yet...just as the Japanese soldier Hiroo Onoda continued to fight the war 30 years after his emperor surrendered......they shoulder on for a lost cause.


----------



## IanC (Oct 8, 2016)

I keep expecting someone in authority for the climate science field to break ranks and point out that climate alarmism is nothing more than an extreme case of the precautionary principle gone amuck. 

Perhaps it will take someone from outside the field. Where are the new Feynmans?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 8, 2016)

IanC said:


> I keep expecting someone in authority for the climate science field to break ranks and point out that climate alarmism is nothing more than an extreme case of the precautionary principle gone amuck.
> 
> Perhaps it will take someone from outside the field. Where are the new Feynmans?


That would be like committing suicide on national TV.. He would be stripped of all credibility by his political enemies very quickly. This is why most wait until they retire, collect their pensions and then go rouge by telling the truth.. Thirty or so folks from NASA did exactly this.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 8, 2016)

(CNSNews.com) -- President Obama’s statements on global warming are “dead wrong,” said Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever, who rejected the president's claims that man-made global warming is causing climate change.

“I think Obama is a clever person, but he gets bad advice. Global warming is all wet,” Giaever said in a speech entitled Global Warming Revisited he gave on July 1 to scientists from 90 countries attending the 65th annual Nobel Laureate Meeting in Lindau, Germany.

"I would say that global warming basically is a non-problem. Just leave it alone, it will take care of itself,” he added."
Nobel Winner to Obama on Global Warming: 'Mr. President, You're Wrong'


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 12, 2016)

Even if the body of data is enormous, its not mattering s0ns!! Who cares if the data is overwhelming if its not having any effect in the real world...............

http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/...i-solar-energy-jobs-way-down-report-says.html


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 12, 2016)

Heres what the alarmist nutters don't get............dummies think a few inches of rain out of a hurricane in North Carolina that is linked to climate change because some idiot says it is is going to make them say, "FUCK NATURAL GAS!!"

Publications - Research & Commentary: Shale Revolution Has Been a Giant Boon to Ohio’s Economy | Heartland Institute


I don't think so.............


*Ohio...............+114,000 jobs.*


Who's not winning?


----------



## Crick (Oct 16, 2016)

Go rouge?

What point are you actually trying to make Ian?  What is the difference between "alarmism" and "the precautionary principle gone amuck"?  You seem to be saying that the deniers need a new term for alarmism.

And, pray tell, on what do you base that it has "gone amuck"?


westwall said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



TROLLING?  Are you fucking kidding?  His comments are precisely on-topic.


----------



## Crick (Oct 16, 2016)

westwall said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




I have also reported your behavior to management, Westwall.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...




For what? Boston is trying to use a blog that is trying to confuse the audience ...wants to use psychology to mumble jumble and cover up junk science which the AGW cult clearly is and they even admit its about social economic change..


----------



## Crick (Oct 16, 2016)

I see you completely failed to comprehend his post.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> I see you completely failed to comprehend his post.




I comprehend it all right a lot of mumble jumble to hide the fact he has no evidence. 

That stuff could go both ways...



The AGW cult has a physlogical narracasit problem, no matter what they learned in school about the climate history of the earth they continue to think they are special and witnessing a earth changing event....


Dude we have been hearing the end of the earth forever..


When are you going to realize we are still leaving the last ice age, a warm planet is better then an ice ball

*
And the planet don't have a thermostat 


We all know what your end game is just like with Obama care you don't care how you lie and Bullshit..you want it your way.*


----------



## jc456 (Oct 16, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I see you completely failed to comprehend his post.
> ...


Ask them for evidence and everyone of them to a man state we got it. We didn't, but they say it anyway. Five years I've seen squat. Can you say liars!


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 16, 2016)

jc456 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



They don't have it never did that's why they are so upset/ defensive...they want to "believe"...and we are supposed to share their " beliefs"

Its like me saying look at the statistics , the computer models...the Chicago cubs can't lose....


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 16, 2016)

bear513 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




Damn I thought they were a cult, maybe I am wrong they look at this like I look at the cubbies..and when they end up losing ..I say wait till next year...for 108 years now and counting..



.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 17, 2016)

Crick said:


> I see you completely failed to comprehend his post.



Sorry crick...but it is you who failed to comprehend...and one more piece of the puzzle falls into place as to how you have been so thoroughly duped....


----------



## Crick (Oct 30, 2016)

SID, why don't you explain for us what poster Boston meant?  Demonstrate for us your superior comprehension.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> SID, why don't you explain for us what poster Boston meant?  Demonstrate for us your superior comprehension.




LOL.....when you are winning though, there is no reason to explain oneself. The OP is a deep matrix guy........ but when you take a step back and do a little connecting of the dots, you realize that the "body of evidence" isn't mattering in the real world.


Dismal ratings for DiCaprio’s Global Warming Epic ‘Before the Flood’ – beaten by ‘Bubble Guppies’

Only members of the religion, engaged in a perpetual activity of navel gazing in here, are not getting it..............


----------



## Crick (Nov 5, 2016)

I thought the big argument with deniers was that science wasn't a popularity contest.  That seems to be ALL you think it is.


----------

