# Geologists On Global Climate Change



## Liminal (May 4, 2015)

The Geological Society of America concurs with the scientific evidence.   
The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change


----------



## Ernie S. (May 4, 2015)

All one really has to know about the report is:

*REFERENCES CITED
Reports*

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2007, Summary for policymakers, in Climate Change 2007: The physical science basis: Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 18 p.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2001, Summary for policymakers, in Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report: Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 34 p.
National Academies of Science (2005). Joint academes statement: Global response to climate change. (http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf)
National Research Council (2011). America's Climate Choices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 144 p.
IPCC has discredited itself, so anything from them is highly suspect.
In addition, as I started reading, I read that satellite data hadn't shown a temperature rise so they adjusted data until it did. IPCC all over again???


----------



## Liminal (May 4, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> All one really has to know about the report is:
> 
> *REFERENCES CITED
> Reports*
> ...



I'm sure everyone is fortunate to have someone around who knows all one really has to know.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 4, 2015)

Yet you will continue to buy into pseudo-science supported by data fudged to support the desired results. The IPCC are scam artists. The email scandals alone should put Phil Jones in the cell next to Bernie Madoff.


----------



## Liminal (May 4, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Yet you will continue to buy into pseudo-science supported by data fudged to support the desired results. The IPCC are scam artists. The email scandals alone should put Phil Jones in the cell next to Bernie Madoff.


Yes, I fully understand the counter narratives being posed.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 4, 2015)

And it doesn't bother you that they fudge numbers, leave out conflicting studies and alter models to ensure the "right" results because you believe what you are told.

That's so sad, really. I have this bridge for sale in Brooklyn....


----------



## Liminal (May 4, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> And it doesn't bother you that they fudge numbers, leave out conflicting studies and alter models to ensure the "right" results because you believe what you are told.
> 
> That's so sad, really. I have this bridge for sale in Brooklyn....


More opinions in the mix to cloud the issue, that's the purpose of contrived counter narratives.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 4, 2015)

Can't comment on bogus research, huh?


----------



## Liminal (May 4, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Can't comment on bogus research, huh?


I'm not a scientist, how would I know bogus research if I saw it?


----------



## Ernie S. (May 4, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Can't comment on bogus research, huh?
> ...


Can you read?


----------



## Liminal (May 4, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


Yes, I can spell and count too.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (May 4, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Can't comment on bogus research, huh?
> ...



Are you claiming you have to be a scientist to know bogus research when you see it?   That is quite a claim, Liminal!   I believe you are 100% wrong!


----------



## Ernie S. (May 4, 2015)

_ Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao — accept it as a given that the media and the science establishment routinely exaggerate the issue of climate change. However, unlike the majority of their academic colleagues — who flatly deny that any such problem exists — they go a step further and actively endorse a policy of dishonesty as a way to force through desired policy objectives.

The abstract of their paper notes:

It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it _ex post_ induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the _ex ante_ perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous._

_LINK_


----------



## Ernie S. (May 4, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Then read my previous post.


----------



## Liminal (May 4, 2015)

Jeremiah said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


How would you know it was bogus without a scientist to interpret the data for you?


----------



## Liminal (May 4, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> _ Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao — accept it as a given that the media and the science establishment routinely exaggerate the issue of climate change. However, unlike the majority of their academic colleagues — who flatly deny that any such problem exists — they go a step further and actively endorse a policy of dishonesty as a way to force through desired policy objectives.
> 
> The abstract of their paper notes:
> 
> ...


More opinions, we can sure use more of those.


----------



## Liminal (May 4, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


Since you put it that way I'll try extra hard to comply with your requests.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 4, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > _ Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao — accept it as a given that the media and the science establishment routinely exaggerate the issue of climate change. However, unlike the majority of their academic colleagues — who flatly deny that any such problem exists — they go a step further and actively endorse a policy of dishonesty as a way to force through desired policy objectives.
> ...


An admission that the data is fudged on purpose is an opinion????


----------



## Ernie S. (May 4, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


See that you do!


----------



## Liminal (May 4, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


Objection Your Honor, concludes facts not in evidence.


----------



## Liminal (May 4, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


Aye aye sir.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 4, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Then I was correct to assume that you can't read.


----------



## mamooth (May 4, 2015)

There's really no point in presenting facts and logic to the hardcore deniers. Such conspiracy cultists weren't reasoned into their beliefs, so they can't be reasoned out of them.

Deniers embrace denialism for the emotional comfort it gives them, the warm fuzzy feeling of belonging to a cult that gives them all the answers and removes any need to think. To get such creatures of emotion to leave their cult, we have to make it emotionally painful for them to remain, and we do that through laughter and mockery.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 4, 2015)

We deny AGW because there is no AGW. It's as simple as that.


----------



## Liminal (May 4, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


That's actually not a problem since all your posts read like a comic book.


----------



## Liminal (May 4, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> We deny AGW because there is no AGW. It's as simple as that.


I'm sure it's just that simple.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 4, 2015)

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. In the meantime, Ernie has obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen.

Problem is, it is not just weather records that are being presented. We have the thawing of the arctic, the shrinking North Polar Ice Cap, the Ice Caps of Greenland and Antarctica losing billions of tons of ice per year, and almost all of our alpine glaciers in rapid retreat. GHGs in the atmosphere are at a level unseen for millions of years. But the deniars just continue to state that nothing is happening.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 4, 2015)

AGW is the science of pointing at the Weather Channel and yelling, MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!!"


----------



## Liminal (May 4, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> AGW is the science of pointing at the Weather Channel and yelling, MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!!"


If they were smart they'd invest in mountain top real estate.

Antarctic ice shelves are melting dramatically study finds Environment The Guardian


----------



## Ernie S. (May 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > We deny AGW because there is no AGW. It's as simple as that.
> ...


Quite. Prove otherwise with empirical experimentation. No computer models, no fudged data. Let's see that, then we can talk. Lest you forget, there has been no warming (the "W" in AGW) in quite a while.


----------



## westwall (May 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> The Geological Society of America concurs with the scientific evidence.
> The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change







Big deal.  Appeals to authority are logic fails.  They are pandering to the grant givers.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 5, 2015)

So, all the geologists in every nation around the world are pandering to grant givers. Except, of course, noble Walleyes who is fighting the good fight for the right. 

What a load of crap. Only a tiny minority of scientists are now denying the effects of the man created GHGs. Men like Lindzen and Singer that willingly whored their credentials to the tobacco companies and are now doing so for the energy companies. 

What Walleyes is claiming is that there is some international organization handing out big grants to anybody that will lie about global warming. But not naming the organization. Or are you claiming that all the governments of the world are in on a conspiracy to convince us of the danger of a changing climate? What would be the reason for that? Gonna pull the big "COMMIE" boogyman out of the closet, Walleyes? 

The AGU, GSA, the Royal Society, and all the scientific organizations involved in Physics and Chemistry state in no uncertain terms that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Yes, that is authority. Far more so than some fellow claiming a Phd in Geology on a right wing message board, and then often showing a decided lack of knowledge concerning that discipline.


----------



## IanC (May 5, 2015)

the bureaucratic panels that produce these statements are often at odds with the rank and file.

several years ago we had an argument over the executive board of the APS (?). the president used his authority to make stunning selections of non scientists in many important areas of governance. executive statements are more about political correctness than the opinions of the members.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 5, 2015)

Really, Ian? You know that there was only one scientific society that was forced to change it's statement concerning global warming. You want me to put the history of that here?


----------



## Liminal (May 5, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



No doubt we can rely on your vast wealth of knowledge and experience to interpret the data.  Right professor?  In much the same way as a German Shepherd understands calculus.


----------



## Liminal (May 5, 2015)

westwall said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > The Geological Society of America concurs with the scientific evidence.
> ...


Why it s so tricky for geologists to think about climate change.


----------



## IanC (May 5, 2015)

IanC said:


> the bureaucratic panels that produce these statements are often at odds with the rank and file.
> 
> several years ago we had an argument over the executive board of the APS (?). the president used his authority to make stunning selections of non scientists in many important areas of governance. executive statements are more about political correctness than the opinions of the members.




I was wrong, it was the AGU. he put Chris Mooney on the Board of executives. a psychotic anti-Republican than makes rdean look sane by comparison. and he has no science credentials, which apparently doesnt matter if you're on the warmers' side


----------



## Manonthestreet (May 5, 2015)

If he couldn't ID bogus research if he saw it.....how can he take a position at all..... No doubt his position is we should do as we are told.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Deflection..... Why is it that you AWG cultists can't answer a question except with an ad hom?


----------



## Liminal (May 5, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


Feel free to explain how you would know the difference between empirical data and bogus information.   What would you base that on?


----------



## Ernie S. (May 5, 2015)

Suffice it to say, I have some training and experience that would allow me to judge


----------



## Ernie S. (May 5, 2015)

Your surrender is accepted.


----------



## Liminal (May 5, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Suffice it to say, I have some training and experience that would allow me to judge


Why the mystery then?  Please elaborate.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 5, 2015)

You've established the pattern here, pal. Direct questions need no be answered.


----------



## Liminal (May 5, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> You've established the pattern here, pal. Direct questions need no be answered.


That's just about what I expected.


----------



## Liminal (May 5, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> AGW is the science of pointing at the Weather Channel and yelling, MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!!"



The only science known to climate change deniers is the science of mass media deception.   It's funny to watch them repeat the same hackneyed phrases over and over again, as if they had actual meaning.  The foundation of their fable is that all the scientists who agree that the climate is changing, for what ever reason, are obviously getting government grants or are in the direct employ of the government, thereby creating a conflict of interest and bogus science.  A claim none of the deniers ever bothers to substantiate, in any way, shape , or form.   The whole premise is a laughably childish preemptive tactic, designed to distract from the obvious conclusion that the small minority of scientists who deny climate change are all obviously in the employ of energy corporations and right wing institutions.


----------



## westwall (May 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > AGW is the science of pointing at the Weather Channel and yelling, MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!!"
> ...








The only people who have a mantra is the warmist silly people.  Just repeat after me, "the science is settled", "the science is settled", "the science is settled", "the science is settled" ad infinitum....  It's all you got.


----------



## jc456 (May 5, 2015)

mamooth said:


> There's really no point in presenting facts and logic to the hardcore deniers. Such conspiracy cultists weren't reasoned into their beliefs, so they can't be reasoned out of them.
> 
> Deniers embrace denialism for the emotional comfort it gives them, the warm fuzzy feeling of belonging to a cult that gives them all the answers and removes any need to think. To get such creatures of emotion to leave their cult, we have to make it emotionally painful for them to remain, and we do that through laughter and mockery.


what is it deniers deny?


----------



## jc456 (May 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > We deny AGW because there is no AGW. It's as simple as that.
> ...


well you still haven't proved it.


----------



## jc456 (May 5, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. In the meantime, Ernie has obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen.
> 
> Problem is, it is not just weather records that are being presented. We have the thawing of the arctic, the shrinking North Polar Ice Cap, the Ice Caps of Greenland and Antarctica losing billions of tons of ice per year, and almost all of our alpine glaciers in rapid retreat. GHGs in the atmosphere are at a level unseen for millions of years. But the deniars just continue to state that nothing is happening.


where is the ice cap shrinking?  on earth?  prove it.


----------



## jc456 (May 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > AGW is the science of pointing at the Weather Channel and yelling, MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!!"
> ...


hahahaahahahahahahahahahahhaa


----------



## jc456 (May 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > AGW is the science of pointing at the Weather Channel and yelling, MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!!"
> ...


it's funny to see the warmers drift from the questions from the other side.  They have no answers, ask a question, get a model.  It isn't how it works.  See that's what you don't see.  We see that the earth is not agreeing with the models and the data is being adjusted to prove the models, they , warmers, admit it is recalculated, several on here from the warmers admit it, state all data needs to be adjusted, got into a discussion with car odometers and calibration needs as a an argument on why. So if you want to post here that the data isn't adjusted, then you are on the wrong side of that argument.


----------



## jc456 (May 5, 2015)

westwall said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


consensus, consensus, consensus.......


----------



## Liminal (May 5, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Is that the consensus on FOX News?


----------



## Liminal (May 5, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


Perhaps we should ask a geologist.
Geologists and climate change denial


----------



## Liminal (May 5, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Your most eloquent rebuttal.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 5, 2015)

I have been watching videos from the AGU fall conferance since 2009. I have yet to see anything presented there that would give the deniers any comfort. And even the latest issue of Geology, the Geological Society of America's journal, has a good deal of information concerning past climate changes.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 5, 2015)

One of those videos.


----------



## Liminal (May 5, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> I have been watching videos from the AGU fall conferance since 2009. I have yet to see anything presented there that would give the deniers any comfort. And even the latest issue of Geology, the Geological Society of America's journal, has a good deal of information concerning past climate changes.


I think when some people refer to "geologists" they mean this kind of geologist.
Geology Jobs Geologist Salary News Oil and Gas Jobs


----------



## Ernie S. (May 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Perhaps we should ask someone with no financial or political stake.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 6, 2015)

DPA Climate Change



AAPG supports expanding scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate specifically including the geological, solar, and astronomic aspects of climate change. Research should include understanding causes of past climate change and the potential effects of both increasing and decreasing temperatures in the future. This research should be undertaken by appropriate agencies involved in climate research and their associated grant and contract programs.
*Learn more:*
Read AAPG's publication that further discusses worldwide climate. Thefirst chapter of _Geological Perspectives of Global Climate Change_ is provided here as a PDF.

You may order this bookedited by Lee Gerhard, William Harrison, and Bernold Hanson through the AAPG Store.

Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, American Academy for the Advancement of Science, and American Meteorological Society. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum-case scenarios forecast in some models.
AAPG supports research to narrow probability ranges on the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global climate. • AAPG supports reducing emissions from fossil fuel use as a worthy goal. (However, emission reduction has an economic cost, which must be compared to the potential environmental gain).
*Part of the current global warming policy statement on the part of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Current because they changed it recently. The rest of the story;

American Association of Petroleum Geologists - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Global warming controversy[edit]
In 2006 the AAPG was criticized for selecting author Michael Crichton for their Journalism Award for Jurassic Park and "for his recent science-based thriller State of Fear", in which Crichton exposed his skeptical view of global warming.[6] Daniel P. Schrag, a geochemist who directs the Harvard University Center for the Environment, called the award "a total embarrassment" that he said "reflects the politics of the oil industry and a lack of professionalism" on the association's part.[7] The AAPG's award for journalism lauded "notable journalistic achievement, in any medium, which contributes to public understanding of geology, energy resources or the technology of oil and gas exploration." The name of the journalism award has since been changed to the "Geosciences in the Media" Award.[8]

The criticism drew attention to the AAPG's 1999 position statement[9] formally rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate. The Council of the American Quaternary Association wrote in a criticism of the award that the "AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming."[10]

As recently as March 2007, articles in the newsletter of the AAPG Division of Professional Affairs stated that "the data does not support human activity as the cause of global warming"[11] and characterize the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports as "wildly distorted and politicized."[12]

2007 AAPG revised position[edit]
Acknowledging that the association's previous policy statement on Climate Change was "not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members",[13] AAPG's formal stance was reviewed and changed in July 2007.

There were enough members that threatoned to drop their membership in the Society, that the board had to change the statement.
*


----------



## Old Rocks (May 6, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > I have been watching videos from the AGU fall conferance since 2009. I have yet to see anything presented there that would give the deniers any comfort. And even the latest issue of Geology, the Geological Society of America's journal, has a good deal of information concerning past climate changes.
> ...


They don't see this kind of Geologist in the news;

American Geophysical Union AGU - YouTube


----------



## Old Rocks (May 6, 2015)

More on what geologists are doing at present. On the right you see many other videos concerning geologists investigations here on earth and our solar system.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


what difference does it make?  You afraid of Fox news eh?


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


it's all it deserved.  Post something that is original and factual and then you'd get a different reply.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> One of those videos.


I didn't see a pot of gold!!!


----------



## Liminal (May 6, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


No, all your posts are at about the same level, all stupid superficial nonsense.   Not much to you, is there little man.


----------



## Liminal (May 6, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


What difference does it make?  None, except you obviously have never had any original thoughts of your own.


----------



## Liminal (May 6, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


That must mean no one you know.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


what is it you'd like to know?  See until you present an experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures, almost everything else you discuss is hog wash.  You prove to me the skeptic, that CO2 does anything to temperatures.  Not a model of some persons idea of what is supposed to happen, no, experimental or observed.  To date zip, dada, none.  That's who I am. I'm a person who needs to see evidence to be lured down a hallway or in an alley.  I'm not stupid, no matter what you think.  Your stupid pills don't work with me.


----------



## Liminal (May 6, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


It's funny to watch you pretend to know what any scientific data means or how to put it into a context.  As if you actually understand something, rather than just mouthing what you've heard on FOX News.


----------



## Liminal (May 6, 2015)

There are no scientists of any kind anywhere on this thread, or even anywhere on this forum.   A whole lot of liars though, no shortage of those.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


hahahahahahaha I see you are an obsessionist.  Obsessed with Fox news.  I don't watch it.  But hey, it's your favorite son so stick with it.  Again, ask me what you want to know instead of going off half cocked on something you have no knowledge of.  Ask.  What? I'm not a scientist, the majority of the world isn't.  What is it you are trying to say, you have no actual experiment or evidence to support your claim?  Oh, I've seen that on here over and over again. So pal, just post up that there experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does to temperatures.  A JC original, ask anyone on here.


----------



## Liminal (May 6, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Why would I ever ask anyone here anything?  Are you kidding or what? And am I really supposed to take your little display of out of context, completely meaningless factoids seriously?


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


no more than anyone takes your fiction serious. Ok?  So what now.  What is it you want out of the discussion?


----------



## Liminal (May 6, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


What fiction is that?  I haven't presented any theories.  I leave that all up to you scholars.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


and who might they be, the ones fudging data?  hahahahahahahaha


----------



## Old Rocks (May 6, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > One of those videos.
> ...


No, you don't see anything at all. None so blind as those that will not see. 

You have the world's knowledge at your fingertips, and remain willfully ignorant.


----------



## Liminal (May 6, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


As if you or anyone else on this forum would know the difference.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


funny thing, there isn't any of the knowledge being presented here. Your posts are long and very boring, since most of what you post is not fact.    I see posts of stupid from you and yours daily here.  I look for one thing and one thing only and to date still not presented.  See the arctic still has ice.  Why?  Why with doom and gloom about because the atmosphere increased in CO2 by 120 PPM?  Why isn't the earth cooperating with the lies? Why?  I merely look for those reasons.  To date with all of the internet pages out there and web sites nothing.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


I know you don't


----------



## orogenicman (May 6, 2015)

westwall said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > The Geological Society of America concurs with the scientific evidence.
> ...



Not really.  There are no authorities in science, only experts.  But it would be stupid to rely in the expert opinion of a mechanic instead of a brain surgeon about the chances of surviving a brain tumor, and it is just as stupid to rely on the opinion of a former dj instead of one of the most prestigious Earth science organizations around on matters of climate change.


----------



## orogenicman (May 6, 2015)

IanC said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > the bureaucratic panels that produce these statements are often at odds with the rank and file.
> ...



The GSA is not the AGU.  The former is the topic here.


----------



## orogenicman (May 6, 2015)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > There's really no point in presenting facts and logic to the hardcore deniers. Such conspiracy cultists weren't reasoned into their beliefs, so they can't be reasoned out of them.
> ...



What is it you deniers don't deny?


----------



## orogenicman (May 6, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. In the meantime, Ernie has obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen.
> ...


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


me, a denier?  since when?  How is it you get there?


----------



## orogenicman (May 6, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Gee, a denier denying his denial.  How quaint.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


pretty video.  what was the point of it.  The arctic is full of ice today?


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


a what?  The only thing I deny personally is that you know anything.  I can deny that all day.  Not sure what it is you think I might deny beyond that.  What is it?  Can you name it?


----------



## orogenicman (May 6, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Watch 28 Years of Old Arctic Ice Disappear in One Minute Climate Central


----------



## orogenicman (May 6, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Gee, a denier denying his denial. How quaint.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


nice movie, who played in it?


----------



## orogenicman (May 6, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Gee, a denier denying his denial. How quaint.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


I am quite the man.  Thanks, I believe in logic, you should try it sometime.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


PeeWee Herman!!!!!!


----------



## orogenicman (May 6, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



This is a classic example of a forum troll.  He asks for clarification of the video.  And when given that clarification, he grabs his man thing and thinks of Pee Wee Herman.  Do you think you will ever join the grown ups in this conversation?


----------



## orogenicman (May 6, 2015)

<Crickets chirping>


----------



## westwall (May 6, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...









Yeah sure.  The fact remains that a geologist, or a physicist, or a chemist has a better foundation in the real world than any climatologist will ever have.  Thus, the claim that a chemist, or a physicist can't possibly understand the special "science" that climatologists present is ridiculous on its face.

They aren't special, and the sad fact is based on very recent example they suck so bad at math that I wouldn't take anything they say as gospel, to include what they had to eat for lunch, without an investigation first.


----------



## westwall (May 6, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...








Pretty video.  What does it look like now?


----------



## orogenicman (May 6, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Except there was no mention above of chemists or physicists  Are you having a spas attack?  Because you've been a denier like forever, and now it seems that you are saying that you agree with the GSA's position.  How strange is that?


----------



## orogenicman (May 6, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You know the answer to that question and even where to look.  Don't be obtuse.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


huh?  you making that comment after your last three posts.  the old I know you are but what am I Pee Wee Herman phrases, and I'm the troll. LOFNNNL  Son, post up the cryosphere figures or pictures.  that is the only true Arctic data I would ever trust.  here you go, hmmm, doesn't seem to follow your video.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


dude you love that word don't you  ' d  e  n  i  e  r ' You must go to sleep with the word in your head.  The fact you use it so frequently infers you are one of the biggest on here.


----------



## westwall (May 6, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







No, like all good scientists I am a sceptic.  That's what scientists are supposed to aspire to.  Color me unsurprised that a political whore like you would not understand that.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 6, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Can't comment on bogus research, huh?
> ...


Then why are you pontificating a position if you are CLUELESS?


----------



## orogenicman (May 7, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



So your response is to parrot Anthony Watt, is it?  Oh dear.


----------



## westwall (May 7, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








No, my response was to show you Dr. Feynman explaining the Scientific Method to a class.  Were you not a total idiot you would understand what the good doctor was saying.  Especially the part where he says "it doesn't matter who says what, if it's wrong...it's WRONG".

Advice you should heed.


----------



## orogenicman (May 7, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Are scientists skeptical?  Indeed we are.  But not so skeptical that we allow out brains to fall out.


----------



## westwall (May 7, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







The "science is settled" is the most asinine comment a so called scientist could make.


----------



## Liminal (May 7, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


Two questions here; Why are you people all so fucking stupid all the time?
And who's pontificating anything, fuck wit?  I've spent most of the thread pointing out how none of the deniers actually know anything about any kind of science.   That's about as much as I need to do to demonstrate how ignorant and dishonest all deniers are.


----------



## Liminal (May 7, 2015)

Climate change deniers.......all liars all the time.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 7, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Climate change deniers.......all liars all the time.



Denier is a cult word, one never used by real scientists


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 7, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Yes, we know. Climate "Science" is different and is held to a looser standard, so loose that all you do is point at the Weather Channel and yell, "Manmade Global Warming!  Denier!!"


----------



## westwall (May 7, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...








Pontificating you ask?  Why you of course.  Anybody who tells others to park their brain at the door and not question what they are being told is not discussing science, they are espousing religious belief.


----------



## jc456 (May 7, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


I see you continue to show everyone how your only purpose here is to troll and not speak into the OP.  I see.  that would make you LOSING!!!!


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 7, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Too Funny;

All you do is call names. Instead of discussing the "proof", you tell us that you dont know anything about it and then in the next breath tell us were idiots for not following you.  Who is more foolish, The fool or the one that follows?

The appeal to authority is like the Church telling us the world was flat... Funny that the Catholic Church is once again playing that game and they are wrong again.


----------



## Liminal (May 7, 2015)

westwall said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Of your many fields of expertise we can now count religion among them.  It's really quite an impressive internet resume you've built for yourself.


----------



## Liminal (May 7, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Another religious scholar weighs in on science.


----------



## Liminal (May 7, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


I have no idea what this incoherent word jumble means.


----------



## Liminal (May 7, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change deniers.......all liars all the time.
> ...


How would you know?  You certainly didn't learn anything from any real scientists on this forum. that's for sure.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 7, 2015)

Liminal said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



I learned that the AGWCultists are the only ones using the words Denier and Consensus, neither of which are words found in science


----------



## Liminal (May 7, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


You seem a little confused, you're mixing up science with politically motivated semantics.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 7, 2015)

Poor ol' Frankie Boy is permantly confused. His aliens from his hollow moon kidnapped him once and the things they did left him permanantly confused. Of course, an altenative theory is that he has always been just batshit crazy. 

For the 'Conservatives', there is no science other than political science. Trumps reality, observations, and evidence.


----------



## jc456 (May 7, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Poor ol' Frankie Boy is permantly confused. His aliens from his hollow moon kidnapped him once and the things they did left him permanantly confused. Of course, an altenative theory is that he has always been just batshit crazy.
> 
> For the 'Conservatives', there is no science other than political science. Trumps reality, observations, and evidence.


says the man with no proof of any of the claims.  Zip nada,  right old socks?


----------



## jc456 (May 7, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


hahahahahahahaahhaahaha you're still LoSiNg.


----------



## Liminal (May 7, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Poor ol' Frankie Boy is permantly confused. His aliens from his hollow moon kidnapped him once and the things they did left him permanantly confused. Of course, an altenative theory is that he has always been just batshit crazy.
> ...


This is why people like you are known as deniers.


----------



## Liminal (May 7, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Is English your first language?


----------



## kwc57 (May 7, 2015)

Liminal said:


> The Geological Society of America concurs with the scientific evidence.
> The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change


 
Wow!  This is huge.  A bunch of guys who study rocks agree with the global warming hoax.  Who is next, astrophysicists?  Cryptozoologists?  ISIS?


----------



## Liminal (May 7, 2015)

kwc57 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > The Geological Society of America concurs with the scientific evidence.
> ...


I'd love for someone to explain exactly how this global conspiracy of scientists and governments actually works.   The deniers always seem to be a short on details like that.


----------



## jc456 (May 7, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


is it yours?


----------



## jc456 (May 7, 2015)

Liminal said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


it seems when push comes to shove, you have no evidence to support your claim.  What's up with that?


----------



## Liminal (May 7, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...


What claim is that?  I don't make any claims, unlike you, professor, I don't claim to be able to understand the science or put it into any kind of context.  We apparently have a number of people on this thread claiming they have special knowledge that enables them to interpret the data.   Any time anyone on an internet forum makes a claim like that I assume they're lying.


----------



## jc456 (May 7, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


I never claimed anything here. I merely request proof of claims from the warmers on here.  You seem to follow those waters, so I made an assumption you were claiming that the earth is doomed by CO2 cause some greedy scientists said so.  I just want their evidence.  Call me funny that way, I don't just believe, I research and find out both sides.  Right now, the side making the claim is losing because mother nature isn't producing the results the models claimed.  What say you?


----------



## jc456 (May 7, 2015)

BTW, someone from a detergent company claims their detergent takes out stains better than another company, must first prove it does before I buy it.  See how that works?

I'd say that is pretty much the same in any industry.  Why do climate scientists merely think they get to make a claim unchallenged?  I don't get it.  What are their big sweaty blls so afraid of?  Oh yeah, money.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 7, 2015)

Liminal said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



And your what, a paid forum disinformation poster?  You get to deiced who is an is not credible and who is or is not a scientist?   Pathetic... No proof just an appeal to authority even though the authority you use cites debunked and falsified science, the IPCC. ROFLMAO... what a shill...


----------



## Muhammed (May 7, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Can't comment on bogus research, huh?
> ...


Basically you are admitting that you are not intelligent enough to know the difference.


----------



## Muhammed (May 7, 2015)

mamooth said:


> There's really no point in presenting facts and logic to the hardcore deniers. Such conspiracy cultists weren't reasoned into their beliefs, so they can't be reasoned out of them.
> 
> Deniers embrace denialism for the emotional comfort it gives them, the warm fuzzy feeling of belonging to a cult that gives them all the answers and removes any need to think. To get such creatures of emotion to leave their cult, we have to make it emotionally painful for them to remain, and we do that through laughter and mockery.


So, could you explain the logical reasoning that you've used to become a global warming doomsday cultist?


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


I say you have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


Feel free to demonstrate your incredible scientific expertise on this issue.


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Have you ever said anything smart?  Ever?


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Looks just like more evidence of FOX News educated experts on this thread.  I guess that's about as much as they know.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Real scientists don't call people "Deniers"


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Hey genius, I'm not a real scientist, and neither are you, and neither is anyone else on this forum.


----------



## kwc57 (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


 
Find a grownup to explain it to you and get off your mom's computer.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Yet you, with admittedly, no scientific knowledge, buy into the claims of a cult who's track record for being right is dismally poor, who's integrity has been proven non existent and who stand to become very wealthy if allowed to continue the scam.

But then, you are a Liberal. You bought into "If you like your plan, you can keep it", you want to replace one failure with a serial liar who has built a campaign chest with bribes for preferential treatment of foreign investors.

I expect little more.


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Feel free to explain how this diabolical global conspiracy of scientists and governments actually works.   Let's explore the details of the denier myths.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 8, 2015)

As soon as you show me scientific proof of AGW, which will be impossible, since the earth has not warmed for a number of years.


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> As soon as you show me scientific proof of AGW, which will be impossible, since the earth has not warmed for a number of years.


In other words: You lap up whatever fabricated narratives you were already predisposed to believe.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 8, 2015)

No, I use simple logic. IPCC has been shown to be liars, have admittedly fudged data and purposefully excluded scholarly work, based on a predetermined agenda.
Why would any sane person "lap THAT up"?


----------



## kwc57 (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


 
Pull your head out of your ass and use Google.  You'll be amazed when you learn that reality doesn't match up to the data models and that data has to be manipulated to make the models work.  There is plenty more, but you seem to be a horse that doesn't drink when led to water.


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> No, I use simple logic. IPCC has been shown to be liars, have admittedly fudged data and purposefully excluded scholarly work, based on a predetermined agenda.
> Why would any sane person "lap THAT up"?


So no idea how this global conspiracy works then huh?  That is very surprising, particularly since that's part of the foundation of the deniers' premise.


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

kwc57 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


All meaningless data for you because you don't know anything about any kind of science.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



The irony of that post is all telling!


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

So based on the actual science: Has the Earth been cooling or warming? or do you still want to cherry pick through a warming period?


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...


There is no one on this forum with enough knowledge or expertise to interpret any kind of scientific data.   Just some liars with a lot of opinions.


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> So based on the actual science: Has the Earth been cooling or warming? or do you still want to cherry pick through a warming period?


More nearly relevant data, taken in isolation and out of context.  The reason you do that is because you only know what you hear on FOX News.


----------



## Muhammed (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > No, I use simple logic. IPCC has been shown to be liars, have admittedly fudged data and purposefully excluded scholarly work, based on a predetermined agenda.
> ...


The I in IPCC stands for *"Intergovernmental"*. That's proof that the conspiracy is global in nature.


----------



## Muhammed (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


You speak for yourself.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Says the AGW cult believer..


----------



## kwc57 (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > So based on the actual science: Has the Earth been cooling or warming? or do you still want to cherry pick through a warming period?
> ...


 
This is rich.  This fuckknot who isn't a climate scientist and admits he hasn't a clue about the underlying science is taking everyone else to task for the same thing simply because he read on a bunch of liberal bedwetter sites somewhere that a bunch of scientists told him the science is settled.  Unfuckingbelievable!  Hey, I've got some ocean front property in Arizona I think you might be interested in.  You can trust me, I know ocean front property in Arizona. I'm an expert.  I would mislead you or anything because I might make money off the deal.  Climb back up on your turnip truck and stick your head back up your ass where we can't hear you.  Asshat.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > So based on the actual science: Has the Earth been cooling or warming? or do you still want to cherry pick through a warming period?
> ...



Another irony laced posted from the AW cult members..

That is the temperature record done by geologists. so now you dispute actual science?

That is typical for an AGW cult member and proof who the real danger to science they really are.


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


You have a very low standard for "proof".


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

kwc57 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


That must explain the massive, diabolical, international conspiracy of scientists and governments....all plotting together to subvert freedom, destroy democracy and individual liberties.


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


I think it's ironic how often you use the word ironic inappropriately.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Says the irony impaired AGW cult member..


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Yes they want something like 47 Trillion (just about the entire economy of the world) to fight man made global climate change.

Yet there is absolutely no proof that humans are causing the climate to change..


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...


They?  They who?


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Fucking psycho, nut job conspiracy theorists....that's what deniers are.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Fucking psycho, nut job conspiracy theorists....that's what deniers are.



Yes those wacky AGW cult members are, glad you can finally admit that!


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Fucking psycho, nut job conspiracy theorists....that's what deniers are.
> ...


So tell everyone all about the insidious "they" who conspire against freedom.


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



In this case I speak for you.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



The far left that you support!

That was easy! Also the those at the UN wish to do this to redistribute the worlds wealth to combat the non-existent human caused global climate change.

Trillions have been spent trying to push this agenda vs the billions that have been spent to actually figure out how our climate system actually works..


----------



## Muhammed (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


I speak for me. You speak for yourself.

You have admitted that you lack knowledge and expertise on the subject. You vehemently express some very strong opinions for someone who is admittedly ignorant of the subject.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > No, I use simple logic. IPCC has been shown to be liars, have admittedly fudged data and purposefully excluded scholarly work, based on a predetermined agenda.
> ...


The post you quoted how the hoax works. Can you not read?


----------



## Ernie S. (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Yet you're convinced you are right..... How could you be? Did Al Gore explain it all to you?


----------



## Ernie S. (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Fucking psycho, nut job conspiracy theorists....that's what deniers are.
> ...


Everyone needs religion. Even atheists.


----------



## depotoo (May 8, 2015)

I've had scientists I know,  tell me, personally, in the climate field  that the data is  manipulated. 





Liminal said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Yep!

Gaia hypothesis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Old Rocks (May 8, 2015)

So Boys, all them thar pointy headed scientists are taking blow torches and melting the alpine glaciers. And the snuck off with all the winters snow this year in the Sierras, Cascades, and Blues.
Damned sneaky scientists keep melting the ice in the Arctic Ocean, and doing away with the permafrost.


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


Please elaborate on the global cooperation of governments on this issue.   How did they all come to agree?  Did Obama twist their arms?


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

depotoo said:


> I've had scientists I know,  tell me, personally, in the climate field  that the data is  manipulated.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You don't know any scientists.


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


I'm convinced that the childish conspiracy theories cooked up by the deniers are all obviously laughable horse shit.


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


A subject on which neither you, nor anyone else on this forum,  has ever demonstrated anything but Wikipedia level knowledge.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Yes because you do not believe in science and the AGW religious dogma trumps real science! That is to be expected from an AGW cult member..


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


The simple minded FOX based explanation that no one ever bothers to substantiate.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Oh my these little AGW cult members are just as irony impaired as their far left counter parts. Of course many of them are one in the same..


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


You don't know the difference between science and FOX News.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



And there it is the far left religious propaganda rolling out without question or hesitation.


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


You still don't understand the concept of irony.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Even more far left propaganda not based in reality or science..


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Another irony impaired post from the far left/AGW cult crowd.


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


So how would you like to substantiate your claim?  Can you?  I mean with actual facts, not superficial characterizations.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Prove CO2 "drives" climate!

Come on prove it!


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

I already know the answer.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> I already know the answer.



So in other words you can not prove CO2 "drives" climate, just like all the AGW cult members.

Not even James Hansen can prove it..


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > I already know the answer.
> ...


Please feel free to show evidence of the global conspiracy of scientists and governments.  And while you're at it, maybe you can prove the other part of the denier fable, you know, the one about how all the climate change scientists are working for the government.  I'd love to see the evidence of that.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


I wasn't there. Were you?


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


No, but I'll bet you can imagine it.  And I'm sure your imagination works best after watching FOX News.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


And we're convinced of the opposite. The difference is, we have seen the emails that uncovered the conspiracy.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


I rarely, if ever watch FoxNews. I probably spend more time laughing at MSNBC than watching the leading cable news provider.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Please feel free to show how CO2 "drives" climate..


----------



## Ernie S. (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


He's going to now tell you that none of us here are climate scientists and that you are full of shit. His evidence?


"I SAID so!"


----------



## depotoo (May 8, 2015)

Actually, I do.





Liminal said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > I've had scientists I know,  tell me, personally, in the climate field  that the data is  manipulated.
> ...


----------



## Muhammed (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


You are admittedly ignorant, so how the fuck would you know? Please explain your reasoning.


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


You're convinced of nothing.  You can't even be honest about your own opinions.....which aren't even really yours.


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


I don't have to be a genius to see how smart you are.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


*Rather, I will let scientists from the American Institute of Physics do that;*

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

_In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future._


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

depotoo said:


> Actually, I do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Uh huh.  Third hand accounts of nothing are always so compelling.


----------



## Muhammed (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


The ignorant fool has already admitted that he doesn't know jack shit.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Real scientists don't call people "Deniers"
> ...


Once again you prove you are an idiot... You started off with letting us know you dont know crap about science or how your beloved global warming is happening and now you prove your an idiot by simply make false statements about other people whom you haven't a clue about who they are or what they are..  

Are all alarmists this stupid? (come to think of it Mantooth and Old Fraud are close to the same way)


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



So that would be a NO! You can not prove it..


----------



## Old Rocks (May 8, 2015)

Dr. Richard Alley, one of the foremost glaciaologists in the world;


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Once again that does not prove CO2 "drives" climate..

This has been debunked already..


----------



## Muhammed (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


IQ=158. 

The odds of your IQ being within 50 points of mine are very slim.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Dr. Richard Alley, one of the foremost glaciaologists in the world;



The AGW cult just keeps proving that they have nothing!







So in the grand scheme of things is the Earth warming or Cooling?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


Really? By whom and with what evidence? Care to show a link? It would be best that it be to an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal.


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


So then you have a high IQ but you're still completely full of shit; congratulations.


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


So where's the evidence of global conspiracy?  Haven't seen any yet?  Must be because you guys are so full of shit all the time.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



That your post does NOT prove that CO2 "[drives" climate?

WOW you are so desperate..

It was debunked before you posted it..


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Of course you haven't seen it as you dismiss anything the AGW cult tells you to dismiss.


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


And once again you've shown that you are the undisputed expert of jack shit.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. Richard Alley, one of the foremost glaciaologists in the world;
> ...


Sheesh, still insisting on proving yourself a really dumb fuck, aren't you. In the grand scheme of things, our species has only been around for about 200,000 years. And we know from evidence from the geological record, when there has been very rapid climate and temperature changes, there have been periods of extinction. And much it takes to push the planet into one of those periods we do not know, but there is the possibility we may find out.


----------



## Liminal (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


Aren't you embarrassed to talk so much with no argument to support your alleged position?  You should be.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


I dismiss silly shit from obese junkies on the AM radio, and the rantings of a fake British Lord, as well as that of an undegreed ex-TV weatherman. Present me with real evidence for your position.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



So once again when real science is introduced into the equation, the AGW cult run from it like the plague..

In the grand scheme of things the human existence on this planet is finite anyway.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



This coming from one that has admitted they know nothing on the subject, the irony of such comments..


----------



## Muhammed (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Howso?

Could you explain why you think I'm "full of shit", so to speak? Is it because I disagree with Al Gore?


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



WOW... such big words from a baby... Does mommy still change your diapers? You need to let her know that they need to be changed again.. There is shit pouring from your mouth that needs to be cleaned up..

You have successfully shown that you are 100% pure Bull Shit and a purposeless troll..


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



You have yet to prove that CO2 "drives" climate and you demand proof from others? Now that is comedy!

Even James Hansen can not prove this, so your attempts just show what true tool to the AGW cult you are..


----------



## Old Rocks (May 8, 2015)

Now what real science did you introduce? The chart you present showed the earth cooling as the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere diminished. That is exactly what the scientists have been pointing out. That as GHGs diminish, the earth cools, as they increase, it warms. That is exactly what that chart shows. See the deep dip in the Ordivician? That represents a time when the Appalachians towered as high as the present Himalayas, and the weathering of the rock rapidly diminished the atmospheric CO2, creating a brief period of glaciation at that time.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Now what real science did you introduce? The chart you present showed the earth cooling as the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere diminished. That is exactly what the scientists have been pointing out. That as GHGs diminish, the earth cools, as they increase, it warms. That is exactly what that chart shows. See the deep dip in the Ordivician? That represents a time when the Appalachians towered as high as the present Himalayas, and the weathering of the rock rapidly diminished the atmospheric CO2, creating a brief period of glaciation at that time.



See how these AGW cult members are?

James Hansen the farther of this movement can NOT prove that CO2 "drives" climate. No datasets or source code has ever been presented to prove this AGW cult religious dogma.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


Once again, a whole shit pot full of unbacked assertations. Nothing but flap yap from an empty skull.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Yes we know that is what you do and we call you out on it, are you claiming to finally accepting that now?


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Now what real science did you introduce? The chart you present showed the earth cooling as the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere diminished. That is exactly what the scientists have been pointing out. That as GHGs diminish, the earth cools, as they increase, it warms. That is exactly what that chart shows. See the deep dip in the Ordivician? That represents a time when the Appalachians towered as high as the present Himalayas, and the weathering of the rock rapidly diminished the atmospheric CO2, creating a brief period of glaciation at that time.



You know full well that CO2 is NOT coupled with temperature and it does not drive it. You have been shown many times that CO2 rise LAGS warming by 200-800 years. We left the LIA some 200 years ago and all CO2 increase can be shown to correlate to it. 

The Graph Kosh provided shows how CO2 lags the temp trend 100% of the time..


----------



## Old Rocks (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


Call me out for what, you silly ass? For presenting what the scientists are saying? For presenting the evidence that they are finding? 

Oh yes, Hansen was not the father of the idea of global warming. That title belongs to Svante Arrhenius. A Swedish chemist who wrote a rather priescent paper in 1896, in which he predicted the effect of doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere. Came very close to present numbers.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 8, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Now what real science did you introduce? The chart you present showed the earth cooling as the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere diminished. That is exactly what the scientists have been pointing out. That as GHGs diminish, the earth cools, as they increase, it warms. That is exactly what that chart shows. See the deep dip in the Ordivician? That represents a time when the Appalachians towered as high as the present Himalayas, and the weathering of the rock rapidly diminished the atmospheric CO2, creating a brief period of glaciation at that time.
> ...


And you are totally full of shit.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 8, 2015)

CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician

An argument used against the warming effect of carbon dioxide is that millions of years ago, CO2 levels were higher during periods where large glaciers formed over the Earth's poles. This argument fails to take into account that solar output was also lower during these periods. The combined effect of sun and CO2 show good correlation with climate(Royer 2006). The one period that until recently puzzled paleoclimatologists was the late Ordovician, around 444 million years ago. At this time, CO2 levels were very high, around 5600 parts per million (in contrast, current CO2 levels are 389 parts per million). However,glaciers were so far-reaching during the late Ordovician, it coincided with one of the largest marine mass extinction events in Earth history. How did glaciation occur with such high CO2 levels? Recent data has revealed CO2 levels at the time of the late Ordovicianice age were not that high after all.

Past studies on the Ordovician period calculated CO2 levels at 10 million year intervals. The problem with such coarse data sampling is the Ordovician ice age lasted only half a million years. To fill in the gaps, a 2009 study examined strontium isotopes in the sediment record (Young 2009). Strontium is produced by rock weathering, the process that removesCO2 from the air. Consequently, the ratio of strontium isotopes can be used to determine how quickly rock weathering removed CO2 from the atmosphere in the past. Using strontium levels, Young determined that during the late Ordovician, rock weathering was at high levels while volcanic activity, which adds CO2 to the atmosphere, dropped. This led toCO2 levels falling below 3000 parts per million which was low enough to initiate glaciation - the growing of ice sheets.

*What the scientists have found.*


----------



## Muhammed (May 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Dr. Richard Alley, one of the foremost glaciaologists in the world;


He's obviously an insane idiot.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Were you staring into a mirror when you typed that?


Please! With a straight face, sit there and tell me you see no hypocrisy in that statement. If you do, I will simply put you on permanent ignore because you are too fucking stupid to waste any more time on.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


The problem with peer review is that peers with an agenda get to decide what gets reviewed.

It's kind of like CBS reviewing NBC's fall line up.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


And what is your IQ? 37?


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Lets just see who is full of shit, shall we?







And Old Crock proves he is a lying shit head!


----------



## Ernie S. (May 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


But you fall hook line and sinker for a seminary dropout and former Vice President with no scientific credentials other that a claim to have invented the internet.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Hypocrisy! AGW is founded on unbacked "assertations". Computer models don't show what you want? Fudge data. Someone with actual credentials disputed your "science"? Exclude their work from your journal. Not sure you can garner support? Make wildly exaggerated claims of impending doom.

And you support your science with naught but ad homonym attacks on your adversaries.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 9, 2015)

*Ernie, baby, you are so full of it. You have yet to support your dimwitted bullshit with a single paper from a real scientist. I have posted links to scientific organizations and to peer reviewed scientific papers. And here is another from one of the best scientific organizations in the world, the USGS;*

PRISM3D Global Warming Analysis Climate and Land Use Change Research and Development Program

*PRISM3D: Global Warming Analysis*
The PRISM3D reconstruction is a high-resolution, multi-faceted description of the mid Pliocene, which is the most recent warm period similar to what is expected in the coming century. The reconstruction has been used to ground-truth model simulations of mid-Pliocene climate and evaluate model capabilities to simulate climate conditions much different than today. PRISM3D is the most detailed global reconstruction of climate and environmental conditions older than the last glacial maximum (18-21 ka). It includes a new deep ocean temperature reconstruction, an expanded and refined sea surface temperature field, and revised and updated vegetation, topography, land ice and sea ice data sets. PRISM researchers collaborate with multiple modeling groups to explore Pliocene climate and improve our understanding of the climate system and possible future climate conditions. Future research will focus on regional climate dynamics with emphasis on processes, multiple environmental proxies, and a shorter time interval within the mid Pliocene. 

*Why is this research important?*

Over the course of geologic history, global temperatures have changed in response to a multitude of climate forcings. Estimates of global warming during the mid-Piacenzian Age of the Pliocene Epoch (3.264 - 3.025 Ma) suggest that temperatures were up to 2°C greater than today. This level of warming is within the range of IPCC estimates of global temperature increases for the 21st century, and no other time period in the past three million years approaches this level of warming. Although scientists have identified the primary forcing mechanisms that contribute to global warming, there is uncertainty about the relative impact of each forcing and associated feedbacks. Reconstructions of SST and other paleoenvironmental parameters provide a synoptic view of the Earth during an interval considerably warmer than modern, enhancing abilities to model the response of the Earth system to episodes of warming.


----------



## Muhammed (May 9, 2015)

Uncertainty?

AKA, bullshit!


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Prove me wrong


----------



## Muhammed (May 9, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Dr. Richard Alley, one of the foremost glaciaologists in the world;


Maybe Ricky should try giving a lecture when he's not freaking out on acid.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 9, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> *Ernie, baby, you are so full of it. You have yet to support your dimwitted bullshit with a single paper from a real scientist. I have posted links to scientific organizations and to peer reviewed scientific papers. And here is another from one of the best scientific organizations in the world, the USGS;*
> 
> PRISM3D Global Warming Analysis Climate and Land Use Change Research and Development Program
> 
> ...



Too Funny:
  You cite a 3D model which fails 100% of the time outside of 36 hours... A model which fails in short time spans means it has huge error bars which become all encompassing as time increases showing the model useless.

Old Fraud really needs some basic analytical science training.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Hahahaha from you? You know shit but you are funny


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


----------



## Muhammed (May 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


On your part, you have already admitted that you are ignorant regarding the subject. 

On my part, we are talking about decades of research. I cannot totally educate you about everything from my extensive research in a USMB post. 

There are these things called libraries. Visit one sometime.


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



Really?  Perhaps you can provide us with links to these peer reviewed papers you've authored on the subject.


----------



## Muhammed (May 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Perhaps you cannot comprehend the difference between acedemics and scientists.


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



I can tell the difference between someone who has actually done research, and a wannabe who makes a boast and then doesn't support it with facts.


----------



## Muhammed (May 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


I challenge you to state the supposed "facts" that you are speaking of, and support them with evidence. And explain the relevance.


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



I have already challenged you to post links to your so-called "research", which you have yet to do.


----------



## Muhammed (May 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


"Research" and "links" are not mutually inclusive, except in the minds of extremely stupid people.


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



So what you are saying is that you lied when you claimed "On my part, we are talking about decades of research".  What research, where?


----------



## Dot Com (May 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


so you have nothing. Thats all you had to say.


----------



## Muhammed (May 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Do you have any evidence whatsoever that I am lying? Or are you just full of shit?


----------



## Muhammed (May 9, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Only an extremely unintellegent person would come to that ridiculous conclusion.


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...




What other reason is there for your refusal to back up your claim?


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



Even the dumbest person on the planet can see through your tripe.


----------



## Dot Com (May 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


----------



## Dot Com (May 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Is that supposed to be a linked source?


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Bump

<crickets chirping>


----------



## Ernie S. (May 9, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> *Ernie, baby, you are so full of it. You have yet to support your dimwitted bullshit with a single paper from a real scientist. I have posted links to scientific organizations and to peer reviewed scientific papers. And here is another from one of the best scientific organizations in the world, the USGS;*
> 
> PRISM3D Global Warming Analysis Climate and Land Use Change Research and Development Program
> 
> ...


https://www.heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Why do left wing morons make ridicules requests and then fail to do themselves what they demand of others?

Its a fucking anonymous board you moron and yet you demand that someone tell you who they are so you and your cult members can harass and impugn them... Are you a stalker too?  Are your cult members stalkers? 

For all we know you are a left wing radical zealot fool who makes stupid demands.. Wait, that describes you to a T...


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



Why is it ridiculous to insist that someone who claims to have conducted scientific research to demonstrate their claims by providing physical evidence that supports them?  I have posted links to my work in the past.  I have no problem doing that.  So why does this guy have a problem with it, unless he was flat out lying.


----------



## Muhammed (May 9, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...


No, it's a logical deduction.


----------



## Muhammed (May 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


I've never claimed to be an author in the first place.

Perhaps you should show some sort of proof that Al Gore's private jet is the cause of deleterious global warming.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


So which one is you?


----------



## Muhammed (May 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I've seen none of your links. 

Feel free to post them right now.


----------



## Liminal (May 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


And yet none of you denier dummies can substantiate any part of your global conspiracy theories.   Which part of the denier fables are we supposed to believe?


----------



## Liminal (May 9, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


No doubt you're quick study on Wikipedia.


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



So you are admitting that you lied.  Good to know.  Al Gore?  Bhwhahahahahahahaha!

You wankers never give up, do you?


----------



## Liminal (May 9, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Why do you ask?  Is it because you can't count past 37 or what?


----------



## Liminal (May 9, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


If you were half as smart as you think you are, you'd be about twice as smart as I think you are.


----------



## Muhammed (May 9, 2015)

The AGW doomsday cultists are the ones making extraordinary claims, therefore the onus them to show some extraordinary evidence to back up their claims if they want any person who is not a total fucking idiot and fool to take them seriously.


----------



## Muhammed (May 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


IQ = 158

So Mr. admittedly ignorant on the subject, ask yourself what your's is.


----------



## Liminal (May 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


And?


----------



## Liminal (May 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> The AGW doomsday cultists are the ones making extraordinary claims, therefore the onus them to show some extraordinary evidence to back up their claims if they want any person who is not a total fucking idiot and fool to take them seriously.


That doesn't sound even remotely like a scientifically based argument, more of politically minded rebuttal.


----------



## Liminal (May 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Ask yourself?  Is that how you came up with your IQ score?  Huh genius?


----------



## Muhammed (May 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > The AGW doomsday cultists are the ones making extraordinary claims, therefore the onus them to show some extraordinary evidence to back up their claims if they want any person who is not a total fucking idiot and fool to take them seriously.
> ...


It's a logically-based argument. 

Put up or shut up, bitch. Where's your proof that Al Gore's jets are the cause of deleterious global warming?


----------



## Liminal (May 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Real genius rebuttal there.   Another fucking phony....big surprise.


----------



## Muhammed (May 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


A 160 IQ on the Stanford-Binet exam is considered "genius". I scored a couple points lower than genius level, but still smarter than 99.99% of the general population.


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The narrator, naturally.


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



JSTOR An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


----------



## Muhammed (May 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Your concession is respectfully accepted.


----------



## Muhammed (May 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


LOL so you cannot. Why is that not a suprise?


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



Click on the link, Einstein.


----------



## Muhammed (May 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


You have already admitted that you are ignorant regarding the subject, so you have no room to judge.


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



You have never admitted to your own ignorance, even though it is rather obvious.  Go figure.


----------



## Liminal (May 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


That must explain why you sound so average, so unexceptional, mediocre, and uninspired.


----------



## Liminal (May 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


I don't have to be a genius to see that you don't know anything about anything.


----------



## Liminal (May 9, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


Without FOX News for guidance, you have no idea what you believe or why.


----------



## Muhammed (May 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Already did that and within a few seconds determined it to be irrelevant regarding the subject..

Where is your proof that human produced carbon dioxide is causing deleterious global warming?


----------



## Liminal (May 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


This answer is evidence enough.


----------



## Muhammed (May 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Howso?


----------



## Liminal (May 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Deniers have so few sources to cite for their fables, always grasping at straws.  You don't even bother doing that much.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

*If you read it, get back to us, if not, don't bother.*


----------



## Muhammed (May 9, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


I don't need to read it. I am an expert regarding the science.

Can you prove that Al Gore's CO2 spewing out of his private jet is causing deleterious global warming or not?

That is the relevant question.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


I told you before. I rarely watch FoxNews. Get another slogan from DNC headquarters, OK?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Ernie S. (May 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Sources have been cited. I can not read and comprehend for you.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 9, 2015)

Really? Obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and un-degreed ex-TV weathermen.


----------



## Liminal (May 9, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


And of course you can personally vouch for the credibility of those sources, because of your vast wealth of knowledge.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 9, 2015)

As you can vouch for yours.....

I'd rather put my money on the realists than on the liars.
IPCC has been discredited so often that a sane man wouldn't believe anything from them


----------



## Muhammed (May 9, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


I think the forum can take that as a big, fat no.

You have no evidence or proof whatsoever. Zero, zip, nada!

Scientists have known this long before the climategate scandal.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 9, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Really? Obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and un-degreed ex-TV weathermen.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



There is irony in your post.... Your the one who stated that you dont know jack shit about climate or the science behind it..


----------



## Muhammed (May 9, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Really? Obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and un-degreed ex-TV weathermen.


Attacking sources?

Remember, you are the one making extrordinary claims, therefore the onus is on you to provide some extraordinary evidence to back up those claims. Attacking sources for being experts does not back up your DAGW bullshit.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (May 9, 2015)

This was from 2006.

So what ?


----------



## Muhammed (May 9, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


I don't think he gives a shit. He has admitted that he is ignorant regarding the subject. Facts, logic and science don't mean jack to the willfully ignorant. They remain willfully ignorant for a reason.


----------



## Muhammed (May 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Ad hominem logical fallacy.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Perhaps you could ask for some specific information. I mean it appears you are requesting everything he's ever learned. BE SPECIFIC


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


He didn't ask for anything special. Duh...... Fool


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Of what? You didn't ask for anything fool


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Ask me


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


And still smarter than you


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



You asked me to post something I had published.  So that's what I did.

As for the proof you are asking for, science isn't about proof.  When you figure that out, come back, and we'll talk some more.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> The AGW doomsday cultists are the ones making extraordinary claims, therefore the onus them to show some extraordinary evidence to back up their claims if they want any person who is not a total fucking idiot and fool to take them seriously.


Exactly, times ten


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Sure it is you fool! Now I know you're not a geologist


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



Really?  What have you published?


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



No, I'm asking for ANYTHING he's ever published.


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Reread the posts, moron.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > The AGW doomsday cultists are the ones making extraordinary claims, therefore the onus them to show some extraordinary evidence to back up their claims if they want any person who is not a total fucking idiot and fool to take them seriously.
> ...


You already claimed you don't understand, that's wasted time


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



Science is not about proof.  Science is about evidence.  Mathematics and philosophy are about proof.  Science is not.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


I did peewee


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Yes it is stupid


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Well, apparently the big words went over your head, so maybe you should use a dictionary while you read.


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



No it is not, and never has been.  There are no proofs in science.  There is only empirical evidence and empirically based interpretations of the evidence.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


He never claimed he did, perhaps you should reread his post moron squared


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Hahahaha what a fool


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Right, then he has no pony in this show, and neither do you, I might add.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


You wouldn't know if it hit you in the face


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You are only fooling yourself, bubba.

Common misconceptions about science I Scientific proof Psychology Today

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


I have as much as anyone


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


I supposed you think a hypothesis is theory right?


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


So you're one eh? Funny


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


How does that work if you don't know? Dude that's hilarious


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


How would you know?


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Really? Obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and un-degreed ex-TV weathermen.


More than you have


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Hahahaha debunked ten times at least


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


That's obviously all you do


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Only in that alternate reality in which you live.  Nowhere else.


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



WTF?  Are you drunk or what?


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Right? Definitely different than yours


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Well do you?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 10, 2015)

Back to geology and climate change


----------



## Old Rocks (May 10, 2015)

More geology and climate change;


----------



## Old Rocks (May 10, 2015)

Health issues in a changing climate;


----------



## Muhammed (May 10, 2015)

[VIDEO]


----------



## Muhammed (May 10, 2015)

[VIDEO]


----------



## Muhammed (May 10, 2015)

[VIDEO]


----------



## Muhammed (May 10, 2015)

[VIDEO]


----------



## Liminal (May 10, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


I guess you just like keeping all your really smart thoughts to yourself, maybe you're saving the good stuff for later.


----------



## Liminal (May 10, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> As you can vouch for yours.....
> 
> I'd rather put my money on the realists than on the liars.
> IPCC has been discredited so often that a sane man wouldn't believe anything from them


And how would you know the difference without FOX News to tell you?


----------



## Dot Com (May 10, 2015)

One would think that a geologist would at least not be a denier. OH WAIT!!!  There is that Walleyes user  Old Rocks


----------



## Liminal (May 10, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Because both you and he are completely full of shit, neither one of you has presented anything like any kind of actual evidence to support your views.   I challenge what your views are based on.   I say you guys are all either too stupid to know or too dishonest to say.  You have no idea what you really believe or why.


----------



## Liminal (May 10, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


You're just plain lazy.


----------



## Liminal (May 10, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


FOX News has apparently given some people the idea that every fact is open to idle speculation and ideological interpretation.


----------



## Liminal (May 10, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


You still don't understand irony.


----------



## Liminal (May 10, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


You are an expert of nothing, you aren't even a good internet forum liar.


----------



## Liminal (May 10, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


I'm still waiting to see the evidence of your imaginary, massive, diabolical, global conspiracy of scientists and governments.   I wonder why Edward Snowden didn't reveal any of those secrets?


----------



## Liminal (May 10, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


Ah yes, the insidious, ever present evil of "they",   as described for you on FOX News every day.


----------



## Liminal (May 10, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...


They don't need sources, they have their opinions.


----------



## Liminal (May 10, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


You are evidently a very stupid little man.  Why do you bother posting on a public forum?  Aren't you embarrassed for people to know how ignorant you are? Even anonymously, you should be embarrassed.


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Nah, you don't deserve them


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Why do you?  you know nothing

By the way your own admission


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > As you can vouch for yours.....
> ...


What does Fox News have to do with anything here?


----------



## Ernie S. (May 10, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


He doesn't know. He's just following orders.


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


I know


----------



## Liminal (May 11, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Just part of the massive, diabolical, global conspiracy of scientists and governments.


----------



## Liminal (May 11, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


FOX News is the anti science channel, and your primary source of information.


----------



## Liminal (May 11, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


I know enough to know that you don't know anything about anything.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 11, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


How's the pay?


----------



## Ernie S. (May 11, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


You probably watch more FoxNews than JC and I.


----------



## IanC (May 11, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...




It's funny how some Americans have such a small world view. I have basically never watched FoxNews or listened to Rush Limbaugh yet you seem to think they are of utmost importance. I have on occasion listened to CNN and the excretable MSNBC. Their PC lies and exaggerations would lead anyone to disbelief of anything they said. Only my opinion of course. Perhaps if you listen to bullshit long enough you start to believe it. I prefer to think things out by myself.


----------



## Liminal (May 11, 2015)

IanC said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


It's now become way more than obvious that you watch FOX News all the time.


----------



## Liminal (May 11, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


You mean you don't know?


----------



## Ernie S. (May 11, 2015)

Liminal said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


----------



## Ernie S. (May 11, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


It's apparent that I know way more than you.


----------



## IanC (May 11, 2015)

Liminal said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...




It may well be that Fox is just as slanted and full of shit as CNN, I really don't know. Why do you think it's so important? Are you on of those people who are too lazy to think for yourself and just turns over their thinking and opinions to someone else? It certainly appears so.


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


so, what is it they do that bothers you?


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


so we're even? hahahahahahahahaha


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


he has to, I don't.


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2015)

Liminal said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


again, what is your problem with them?  What is it they do?


----------



## Liminal (May 11, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


Well then, why not take this opportunity to explain exactly how this global conspiracy of scientists and governments works.   Show some evidence, feel free to elaborate on the details.


----------



## Liminal (May 11, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


They reinforce mindlessly simplistic narratives for people who were already predisposed to believe them.


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


holy crap, you really don't know anything.  That's okay we're used to it.  but that is really a stupid question.


----------



## Liminal (May 11, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


No, you're wrong again.   You can't even begin to present an honest rebuttal.


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


how do they do that, do they run into every home and beat down those who watch and don't think like them?  What does that even mean? you need to drop off that stupid virus soon.


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


rebuttal to what? you already posted that you don't know anything related to climate.  So what is it you're looking for?


----------



## Liminal (May 11, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


I can think of no more stark example of FOX News inspired superficiality than your posts.


----------



## Liminal (May 11, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


A reasonable explanation for the global conspiracy theories, let's start there.


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


wow, I don't work for them, I don't listen to them, I don't watch them, I do nothing with them.  Maybe they sound like me. Maybe they listen to the public.  But dude, you don't know shit and it seems you do watch and listen to them.


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


again, it is in other threads on here.  Do you read them?  I have.  Why should I give you information when it is publicly available to you with a little research?  you sound lazy.  Look up:'emails from east anglia university".  Let's get you started slowly.


----------



## Liminal (May 11, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


That must be why you repeat what you hear almost verbatim.


----------



## Liminal (May 11, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


In other words:  There is no evidence of any kind to establish the deniers hair brained global conspiracy theories.


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


what is it you think I hear?  I read, do research, I don't listen to anyone.  Anyone!! You are the fox lover friend.  you have to be, why else would you think anyone else would be?  oh, unless someone told you to say it and paid you for it.  how funny is that friend?  you are an outdated tool.


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


so you ask me for information, I give it to you and you don't go read it.  yep a loser washed up tool.


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Yep, because that's what it's called. yes I do.  I use the internet like I've already stated. yes i did my own independent, unbiased, nonpartisan objective study. yes that's what I did, professor? naw, just a concerned citizen doing my part so I can talk about objectively.  I have an open mind, i am willing to listen to the opposing view. It's just that all researched data states that temperatures drive CO2 and not vice versa.  So when someone on the opposing side could ever prove that CO2 drives temperature you have a winner.  Till then, it has all been Losing.


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Well you admitted you have nothing so what's your point?  he was spot on.


----------



## Muhammed (May 13, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Wikileaks already released them years before the Snowden leak.

The fact that you were unaware of that fact is even more evidence that you have no clue.


----------



## Liminal (May 13, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


And you were just about to show the evidence that substantiates your claim, any minute now.  Right?


----------



## Muhammed (May 13, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


What claim are you speaking of, Mr. Admittedly Ignorant?

And if you are as ignorant as you claim to be, how would you even comprehend it in the first place?


----------



## Muhammed (May 13, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


False dichotomy.

You know damn well that it is science and truth that motivates my responses in this thread.

And since you have already admitted to being ignorant of the subject, perhaps it would be more educational for you to listen to the experts in the thread such as myself rather than trolling.


----------



## SSDD (May 13, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



There is no global conspiracy...that is an all purpose straw man fabricated by warmers to throw out in an attempt to derail any discussion on the failures of climate science.  What there is is the blatantly obvious  tendency for big government types to make government bigger.



> If you are an economic member of the regulating class, a global bureaucracy instigated by the alleged need to regulate CO2 emissions would be terrific: more jobs, power, and money for bureaucrats and their allies. You would be part of what would effectively become a ruling class, free to tax a captive population whatever they could bear and pay yourselves whatever you “know” you’re worth.



Now do you want to try and make the case that any of the major players in climate science are not big government types...that they don't get their money primarily from the government...or that big government types aren't always trying to make the government bigger?  Maybe you would like to make the case that CO2 and its worldwide regulation wouldn't serve to make government bigger?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 13, 2015)

LOL. Nice!!!!!!!!!  You silly ass, you just contradicted your first paragraph with your second. Since all the National Academies of Sciences around the world are in agreement that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger, then you are stating that all these people and governments must be in on a conspiracy if it is not.


----------



## Muhammed (May 13, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> _blah.. blah..)_ Since all the National Academies of Sciences around the world are in agreement _( blah..blah.._


I'm not impressed by appeal to authority or bandwagon logical fallacies because I can think for myself.


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. Nice!!!!!!!!!  You silly ass, you just contradicted your first paragraph with your second. Since all the National Academies of Sciences around the world are in agreement that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger, then you are stating that all these people and governments must be in on a conspiracy if it is not.


what?  dude, you're in outer space with this post.  Why don't you pull the quote that contradicts his own statement. Anytime BTW.


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


again, what evidence do you want us to provide?


----------



## SSDD (May 13, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. Nice!!!!!!!!!  You silly ass, you just contradicted your first paragraph with your second. Since all the National Academies of Sciences around the world are in agreement that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger, then you are stating that all these people and governments must be in on a conspiracy if it is not.



And which of these political heads of these scientific acadamies (which are the ones making these statements) are you saying are not big government types?


----------



## Liminal (May 13, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Yet not one of you half wit deniers has even bothered to present any evidence to support your claims.   Why is that?


----------



## Liminal (May 13, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


How can you provide what you don't have, or understand if you did.


----------



## Liminal (May 13, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


No global conspiracy?  Then please feel free to explain how so many governments and scientists around the world agree?  Did they all meet at the Holiday Inn one day and discuss it?  Are they all friends on Facebook?


----------



## Dot Com (May 13, 2015)

96% of scientists are in on the conspiracy. Fox news said so and besides, they just are!!!


----------



## Liminal (May 13, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> 96% of scientists are in on the conspiracy. Fox news said so and besides, they just are!!!


FOX News says so, that settles it.


----------



## orogenicman (May 13, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > _blah.. blah..)_ Since all the National Academies of Sciences around the world are in agreement _( blah..blah.._
> ...



Is it an appeal to authority when the world's scientists agree on the gravitational constant?


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


I asked now three times, what is it you are looking for?  evidence of what claim?


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


about what?


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > 96% of scientists are in on the conspiracy. Fox news said so and besides, they just are!!!
> ...


I see you all watch fox news.  You're the only ones.


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2015)

Liminal said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


again, you having no knowledge of any actual events and data, should pull yourself from the discussion. It's obvious you have no idea of what you're discussing. now again, what is it you think we are claiming? answer the fnnn question Lucy!


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


why is magnetic north moving?


----------



## Ernie S. (May 13, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


We're waiting for you to provide evidence that can't be refuted. You AWG cultists have discredited yourselves repeatedly and lost all credibility.


----------



## Muhammed (May 13, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


When you ask someone to prove you wrong, you are committing a logical fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof.

Your theory is that CO2 produced by human activity is causing deleterious climate change. The onus is on you to prove it. The burden of proof is not on those who are skeptical of your extraordinary claim.


----------



## Muhammed (May 13, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


That is a logical fallacy known as a false analogy.


----------



## orogenicman (May 13, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



Because it has always moved.  The outer core is not stationary.  It moves under convection, and in so doing produces the geomagnetic field.  Why do you ask?


----------



## orogenicman (May 13, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



Not at all.  The world's scientists also by and large agree that global warming is occurring and has a significant human component.  So is that an appeal to authority or a recognition of the validity of climate science?


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


just pointing out that there is another part of the earth's make up we don't know.  We have no idea why it moves or where it will end up.  But, we know it exists.  Just like gravity.  we know of it, we can study it, but we don't know it.


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


dude, again, it is just your scientists that go to the extreme on this.  We've pointed that out before.  There is no known proof of what humans actually do.  you can't provide that proof either.  Talking like you have it is lying.


----------



## orogenicman (May 13, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



No known proof of what humans actually do?  I drive.  I can prove that I drive by filming me driving.  I can invite you over and let you watch me drive.  I can invite others over to watch, therefore offering independent witnesses to the fact that I can drive.  No known proof of what humans actually do?  Are you daft?


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


that's ok I don't need to see you driving.  I'm sure that helps you do your daily routines. But it doesn't prove that your causing anything to the climate.  It just doesn't and again, you can't prove it does.


----------



## Muhammed (May 13, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


It's a fallacious appeal to authority because the experts disagree.

And the most often cited proponents of the theory have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be using unscientific methods to forward their theories.


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. Nice!!!!!!!!!  You silly ass, you just contradicted your first paragraph with your second. Since all the National Academies of Sciences around the world are in agreement that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger, then you are stating that all these people and governments must be in on a conspiracy if it is not.









You mean to say that when the fraud is recognized for what it is, the result will be a clear and present danger to their pocket books and reputations?  Is that what you meant to say?  I agree.  This fraud is going to destroy several careers.  The sooner the better.


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...









No, an appeal to authority is only used when you are arguing opinion.  The gravitational constant....is.  Just like the speed of light is a known quantity.  Those are called facts.  Let me know when the AGW crowd starts dealing in facts.


----------



## orogenicman (May 13, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Right, because 30+ billion tons of ghgs emitted yearly by humans into the atmosphere can never do any damage, much like the carcinogens in cigarettes are totally inert. Oh wait...


----------



## orogenicman (May 13, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



No, actually the bulk of scientists do agree.  Your problem is that you can't handle the truth.  And likely never will.  And that's on you.


----------



## orogenicman (May 13, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



30 billion+ tons of ghgs emitted into the atmosphere by humans each year is also a known quantity.


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








30 billion tons into an atmosphere that weighs QUADRILLIONS of tons.  Get a grip silly boy.  It's much ado about nothing.


----------



## orogenicman (May 13, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



If there were evidence that concentrations of ghgs in ppm in the atmosphere were essentially inert, you'd have a point.  The fact is that at 280ppm, CO2 keeps the Earth from completely freezing over.  And that concentration is only 70% of what is currently resident in the atmosphere.  So these "much ado about nothing" concentrations are actually critical wrt the Earth's energy balance.  Until the past two centuries, the concentrations of CO2 and CH4 had never exceeded about 280 ppm and 790 ppb, respectively. Current concentrations of CO2 are about 400 ppm and CH4 levels exceed 1,770 ppb. Both numbers are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years.  You know this is true.  Denying the facts for political or religious expediency is dishonest, to say the least.


----------



## Muhammed (May 13, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


That's another fallacious false analogy. Are you capable of presenting an argument regarding your adamant ideological position concerning the controversial subject without resorting to various logical fallacies?

If you cannot, maybe you should consider the possibility that you may be wrong.


----------



## orogenicman (May 13, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Well, it is certain that you can do nothing more than post statements in denial of the facts.  Certainly you cannot refute any of the science.  So I won't try to bring the proverbial mountain to you, Muhammed, since you deny the mountain even exists.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 13, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Is that supposed to be a big number?


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








How about presenting evidence that a trace gas can do anything you claim.  Yes, CO2 is a GHG.  There's no doubt of that.  However, in the concentrations present in our atmosphere it has no power at all.  The dominant GHG is water vapor.  Will always be water vapor, and has always been water vapor.

You all can bleat about the supposedly falling sky but evidence in abundance says you're full of shit.  The only "evidence" you have, any of you, is the fevered imaginations, and the science fiction created in the computer models that climatology is built upon.  There is no data supporting ANYTHING you claim.

None.


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...








To people with no knowledge of science it is...


----------



## Old Rocks (May 13, 2015)

Walleyes, the whole of the geological and physics community says otherwise. Why should we believe an anonymous poster on a message board over real scientists. And Orogenicman has presented his credentials as a published scientist, you have not.


----------



## Dot Com (May 13, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Walleyes, the whole of the geological and physics community says otherwise. Why should we believe an anonymous poster on a message board over real scientists. And Orogenicman has presented his credentials as a published scientist, you have not.


True. Any geologist, worth their weight in salt, would stop w/ the rose-colored glasses routine.


----------



## orogenicman (May 13, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



No power at all?  Really?  So what you are saying is that once CO2 (from your own admission, a greenhouse gas) gets into the atmosphere (which contains the same air that you find in greenhouses and in all the laboratory experiments conducted over the past 100 years to determine that it is a greenhouse gas) then it magically becomes inert. You're a creationist, so my question to you is did god do it (make it inert), or was it some other magical sky daddy we have yet to hear from?

Okay, you deniers bleep and bleep that you need evidence, well I need evidence that your claim that I am full of shit on this issue has any merit (this should be fun).  Demonstrate that 100 years of chemistry and physics is wrong, but you and all the other Imhofe/Koch lackeys are right.  And since you are (allegedly) an earth scientist with an advanced degree, you can even write a peer reviewed paper, and perhaps even win a Nobel Prize for your efforts.  Come on, grasshopper, put your money where your friggin mouth is.


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Demonstrate that CO2 can have any effect on our atmosphere in the vanishingly small concentration that it enjoys.  It's your theory, you have to show us.  And computer models don't count.


----------



## orogenicman (May 13, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You first, professor.   Demonstrate that 100 years of chemistry and physics is wrong, but you and all the other Imhofe/Koch lackeys are right.  And since you are (allegedly) an earth scientist with an advanced degree, you can even write a peer reviewed paper, and perhaps even win a Nobel Prize for your efforts.  Come on, grasshopper, put your money where your friggin mouth is.  Or are you too cowardly?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 13, 2015)

Come on, Walleyes, demonstrate that one gram of potasium cyanide cannot possibly affect you because it is such a vanishing small amount of material compared to your body weight.


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







I didn't make the claim.  YOU made the claim, that means it is up to you to support that claim.

That's how science works.  Which, were you a first year geologist would KNOW.  I don't have to prove anything.  I get the privilege of shooting holes through your presentation.  That's the very nature of the scientific method.

And why is that?  Because, as any thinking person knows, it is far easier to show something is wrong than to show it is correct.  That's why the null hypothesis was developed.  And color us unsurprised that the world of climatology tries to reverse centuries of development and stand the scientific method on its head trying like hell to baffle people with BS.


----------



## orogenicman (May 13, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



But you did make the claim.  And I quote:

"Yes, CO2 is a GHG.  There's no doubt of that.  However, in the concentrations present in our atmosphere it has no power at all."

Your words, verbatum.  I challenge you to support that claim with peer reviewed work.  Otherwise, you should toss your degree because it is worthless.


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Yes, my words.  Which counter YOUR words which claim that vanishingly small amounts of CO2 control the global temperature and even a slight rise in CO2 will cause an "inexorable" rise in global temperature.  

Over to you buckwheat.


----------



## orogenicman (May 13, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



So I will simply conclude here that you have no evidence to support your claim, and are nothing but a troll spouting ad hominem and straw man arguments, like all the other deniers.  Congratulations.


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Once again I refer you to the scientific method.  You made the claim.  I countered it.  Learn how the system works or take your balls and go home.  I don't have time to waste on children.


----------



## Muhammed (May 13, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Your concession is respectfully accepted.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 13, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


You sure your not old crocks twin?  Posting endless (and meaningless) stupid shit adhominem attacks.

If you can read..(heavy on the* IF* because it seams like your posting as a sock-puppet) why dont you Google UN AGENDA 21 and read it... Your ignorant ass might learn something... then again maybe NOT!


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> View attachment 41217
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> ...







He's his socko more like.  Olfraud has so many here he's almost a village all by hisself!


----------



## orogenicman (May 13, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The weight of peer reviewed scientific knowledge supports the fact that ghgs warm the Earth.  No amount of political wrangling on your part, or that of any other denier is going to change that fact.  But you made the extraordinary claim that ghgs (particularly, CO2) does not warm the planet, and so the burden of proof is on your, humpty dumpty, to support that claim.  So either be a man and support your claim with peer reviewed scientific evidence or admit that you have nothing, and are merely trolling this thread.


----------



## orogenicman (May 13, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Agenda 21 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

*Agenda 21* is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development


Yeah, what an evil conspiracy that one is.  (facepalm)


----------



## orogenicman (May 13, 2015)

westwall said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 41217
> ...



Wow, even more conspiracy theories.  Take yer meds, Mr. Mod.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 14, 2015)

HEY Warmers! I'll put it very simply. Would you trust bill clinton with your wife?
Why? Because he's proven time and again that he is not to be trusted. Then, why the hell do you trust IPCC?


----------



## Muhammed (May 14, 2015)

Still, after 400+ posts, the AGW nutters have provided no evidence whatsoever that CO2 produced by humans is harming our environment.

They are nothing but brainwashed fools.

They're like the stubborn old lady who falls for a scam from some fake Nigerian prince promising to make them rich. The "prince" asks for some good faith money, say $10,000 and promises glorious riches in return. The mark sends the money but never gets the fortune promised. Then the prince asks for more money. At this point, deep inside the mark knows they've been conned out of $10,000. But then their ego overrides their common sense. Their inflated and fragile ego cannot admit that they've been scammed. After all, they are way to smart to be conned out of ten grand so easily. So the mark doubles down and sends the con even more money. Again and again. Until the mark is penniless and in debt.

It's a classic con known as the confidence game. For it to work the mark must be too full of greed and pride to see that they are being scammed.


----------



## orogenicman (May 14, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Still, after 400+ posts, the AGW nutters have provided no evidence whatsoever that CO2 produced by humans is harming our environment.
> 
> They are nothing but brainwashed fools.
> 
> ...



Let me ask you something.  Do you think that the fact of AGW is going to be determined one way or another in this thread, in this forum, on USMB?  If you truly believe that, you should seek counseling because, damn.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 14, 2015)

AGW has been determined........ To be a fraud.


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








You talking about the corrupt ones that are based solely on computer models?  Those are the only "studies" that show that.  The empirical data shows that CO2 has NO effect on global temps.  The data shows us that the very theory is false.  Long wave IR can't penetrate deep enough into the oceans to cause even the slightest bit of warming.

That is a fact.  You talk about computer models but as any SCIENTIST will tell you, computer models are not data.  Never have been, never will be.


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...






Why?  I already KNOW you're one of olfrauds socks.  You insulted me with an ofraud insult, that only he uses.  You forgot which persona you were.  Silly boy.


----------



## orogenicman (May 14, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Once again, you make the same claim and yet have provided zero evidence to support it.  What data, where?  You should burn your alleged degree because it is obviously not worth the paper it is printed on.


----------



## orogenicman (May 14, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You really should never go off your meds, dude, because, damn.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


My, what a fucked up liar you are, Walleyes. I post only, here or anyplace else, under the screen name of Old Rocks. That you are a mod, and knowing that accusation is a lie, still make it, tells all there is to say about your character.


----------



## Dot Com (May 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


He must be grasping at straws. A tried-&-true rw debating tactic

as to the OP, I suspect 96% of geologists agree that AGW is real.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2015)

At least that. I have yet to meet a real geologist that denies that the world is warming. And most can tell exactly how GHGs work. After all, a well founded base in Physics is one of the requirements for a degree in Geology.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> At least that. I have yet to meet a real geologist that denies that the world is warming. And most can tell exactly how GHGs work. After all, a well founded base in Physics is one of the requirements for a degree in Geology.


 

Yeah....but they reject the whole "man-made" thing. And after all, the whole CO2 angle is not science but rather theory.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 14, 2015)

Dot Com said:


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


 

No need for those who dont embrace the AGW view to grasp at straws. When you are winning, its the other side taking to despearate measures. And lets face it......20 years of AGW bomb throwing and they havent moved the goalposts one single yard in terms of public policy. That means the science isnt mattering. Well......it might be on public forums in the nether-regions of the internet but thats nothing more than a hobby. In the real world, the science isnt mattering.........and thats all that matters s0n!! Carbon tax schemes died ouot years ago and renewable energy is still a joke = the science isnt mattering.


----------



## jc456 (May 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


I agree, you are a f'd up liar.


----------



## mamooth (May 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> At least that. I have yet to meet a real geologist that denies that the world is warming. And most can tell exactly how GHGs work. After all, a well founded base in Physics is one of the requirements for a degree in Geology.



Westwall is obviously a petroleum engineer, one who spent most of his career in management. That's why he has so little understanding of the real world.

It's common for petroleum engineers to try to fake being scientists. They're into denialism for the sake of their stock portfolio.


----------



## Liminal (May 14, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


And once again I'll ask for an answer to a simple question:  Where is the evidence to support the claims that climate scientists all around the world are involved in a conspiracy with governments to suppress to truth about global climate change?  Asked many times, not answered once.


----------



## Liminal (May 14, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


I have no idea what this incoherent word jumble means.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 14, 2015)

Far easier to understand than your stock and trade.


----------



## Liminal (May 14, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


No, you're wrong again, you got it backwards.  The burden of proof is on you to substantiate the deniers claim of scientists and governments conspiring to suppress the truth about global climate change.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 14, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


It's all there in the emails, idiot. They are crooks and liars, and you are willing to bet the world's economy on admittedly fabricated data.


----------



## Liminal (May 14, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


So no evidence of any kind then....big surprise.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 14, 2015)

I don't really need to present evidence to refute fradulent claims. See how that works?


----------



## Liminal (May 14, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> I don't really need to present evidence to refute fradulent claims. See how that works?


And again, you wouldn't have any way of distinguishing the difference without some media outlet to tell you.


----------



## Muhammed (May 14, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...





Liminal said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...





Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


I never claimed that they were actual scientists in the first place.


----------



## SSDD (May 15, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



And once again, conspiracy is your argument...it is a fraudulent argument as are most warmer arguments, but if it is all you have, it is all you have.  There is no conspiracy, there is the natural tendency of big government types to increase the size of government....now perhaps, you can say which of those promoting AGW, and all of the government control required to bring it under control are not big government types....or receive their funding from big government types....or perhaps, you could tuck your "conspiracy" argument into a nice tight wad and shove it up your ass where your head apparently resides.

Your question has been answered...just because you don't like the answer does not negate the fact that it has been answered.


----------



## Liminal (May 15, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Wrong again, the conspiracy of scientists and governments is the foundation of the deniers argument.  You don't even know what you stand for, what you believe, or why.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2015)

Liminal said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...










Who benefits from the fraud?  Government most of all because it gets almost total control over peoples lives.  What government doesn't love that, and of course the super rich who must manage all the money that the poor and middle class once controlled but has been taken away from them because , well, you know, they're too stupid to understand how to take care of themselves.

Follow the money and the rest of the fraud becomes self evident to thinking people.  When will you learn how to think?


----------



## Muhammed (May 15, 2015)

He's willfully ignorant and refuses to educate himself.


----------



## Liminal (May 15, 2015)

More opinions to substantiate nothing.


----------



## Liminal (May 15, 2015)

westwall said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Not a very scientific analysis, sounds more like a political opinion.


----------



## mamooth (May 15, 2015)

Political opinions are all the deniers have ever had, being they are first and foremost loyal acolytes of a political cult. Hence, we constantly see all the bizarre rants about the VastSecretGlobalSocialistConspiracy.

Denialism isn't the actual cult. Right wing extremism is the cult, and every denier here is a proud member of that cult. Denialism is just one of many cult mantras that the cult members are required to chant. For example, such cultists also commonly believe that DDT is harmless, that abiotic oil exists in vast quantities, and that ozone depletion was all a scam.

In direct contrast, mainstream climate science is non-political, crossing all political boundaries across the globe. That's because it's actual science.


----------



## SSDD (May 15, 2015)

Liminal said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Sorry but it isn't....failure of science to provide any actual empirical evidence that the CO2 produced by mankind is altering the global climate is the foundation of our argument...again, your conspiracy argument is just a straw man.

You don't think scientists who favor big government can use their position to provide information that will be used by those in government to grow government?  Of course you don't because clearly, history isn't your thing.

Do you think some "conspiracy" was involved to grow the welfare state and swell the government in the process?  Social scientists who favored big government were perfectly willing to provide paper after paper in support of the welfare state and people in government who favored the welfare state and the money and power the growth of the welfare state afforded them were more than willing to use those papers to justify the growth of the welfare state and in turn the growth of government....and fund more papers pronouncing the benefits of the welfare state.   

There were plenty of social scientists who were opposed to the growth of the welfare state and plenty of papers published predicting the disaster of the welfare state but like climate skeptics, funding was difficult for them to get and their predictions went mostly unconsidered, and unheeded.  So here we are in the 21st century, and we see the predictions of those opposed to the growth of the welfare state were, in fact, correct...and we see that the welfare state was a disaster which cost hundreds of billions of dollars, caused incalculable suffering by creating generational dependence upon government handouts, and actually lifted very few, if any people out of poverty.

The point is that science that supported the growth of government was produced by willing participants who were funded by big government types in order to, in fact, grow government.  It didn't involve any conspiracy...it was just the undeniable tendency for those who believe big government is good to do what they can to assure the continued growth of government and to restrict, whenever possible, access to those who may be seen as competition, who don't favor big government.  

Poor science that depends almost entirely on failing models is where climate science stands today...just as poor science based almost entirely on poor models was where social science stood back in the day when the welfare state was the brass ring waiting to be grasped by big government types.

You are the one claiming conspiracy....us skeptics are saying bad science and reality is proving us correct at every turn.  When the models which are the foundation of climate science are diverging further away from reality every day, who in their right mind continues to support the models?...other than those who see them as a means to continue to grow government?


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2015)

Liminal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...








That's because that's what climatology has devolved into.  Politics pure and simple.  That's why they have to rely on "consensus" science.  That is the science of politics and nothing else.

There IS no science behind the fear mongering.  None.  There is science fiction in the form of computer models that are less than worthless.  That's all you have.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Political opinions are all the deniers have ever had, being they are first and foremost loyal acolytes of a political cult. Hence, we constantly see all the bizarre rants about the VastSecretGlobalSocialistConspiracy.
> 
> Denialism isn't the actual cult. Right wing extremism is the cult, and every denier here is a proud member of that cult. Denialism is just one of many cult mantras that the cult members are required to chant. For example, such cultists also commonly believe that DDT is harmless, that abiotic oil exists in vast quantities, and that ozone depletion was all a scam.
> 
> In direct contrast, mainstream climate science is non-political, crossing all political boundaries across the globe. That's because it's actual science.







Sure it is.  Mainstream climate "science" is purely about political and economic control.  Show us one thing that climatologists have suggested that actually reduces pollution.  Go ahead I dare you.


----------



## Muhammed (May 15, 2015)

If it's more than one of them involved in the purposeful deception, it is, by definition, a conspiracy.


----------



## Liminal (May 15, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Some interesting theories in your political diatribe, none of which does anything to substantiate the deniers claims of scientists suppressing the real truth about global climate change.


----------



## Liminal (May 15, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> If it's more than one of them involved in the purposeful deception, it is, by definition, a conspiracy.


It would have to be, wouldn't it.  I wonder who's directing this insidious, diabolical, global conspiracy?


----------



## Dot Com (May 15, 2015)

Liminal said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Get used to it. The deniers here are "one trick ponies"


----------



## Liminal (May 15, 2015)

westwall said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Just unfortunate I guess that you never provide any compelling evidence to support your opinions.


----------



## Liminal (May 15, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


I thought they could come with something, anything, even a little bit of anything.  But no, just the same hackneyed phrases supported by nothing.


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

Liminal said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


so I see you still deny the facts! what a true denier.


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > If it's more than one of them involved in the purposeful deception, it is, by definition, a conspiracy.
> ...


uh the ones working in the governments?  The ones who control the world? the ones who lie and cheat?  yep them.

Edit: remember obama care?  who got representation on that?


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


what's the trick?


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

Liminal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


and your compelling evidence is where?


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


I see, still no empirical evidence.


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

I love the pee wee herman game you all like to use.  You must watch his films often.


----------



## Liminal (May 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> I love the pee wee herman game you all like to use.  You must watch his films often.


Another compelling rebuttal, no doubt based on intensive scientific research.


----------



## Muhammed (May 15, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


So, are you a climategate denier?

Do you deny that those e-mails are authentic?


----------



## Liminal (May 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


You don't have any facts, just more opinions about your perception of out of context snippets of information.


----------



## Muhammed (May 15, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > If it's more than one of them involved in the purposeful deception, it is, by definition, a conspiracy.
> ...


Why?


----------



## rdean (May 15, 2015)

Just the fact that scientists are saying it means to right wingers, it's discredited.  Right wingers on the USMB think scientists have no integrity, live off their education, contribute nothing and lie about everything.  You just can't trust them.


----------



## Liminal (May 15, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


I see Inspector Clouseau, the e-mails tell the whole story, obviously evidence of global conspiracy of 97% of climate scientists, every government of every civilized nation on earth, defense planners, private industries....all making contingency plans for nothing.  Yes Inspector, I think you've uncovered the enormity of the conspiracy.


----------



## SSDD (May 15, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Some interesting theories in your political diatribe, none of which does anything to substantiate the deniers claims of scientists suppressing the real truth about global climate change.



Observation is not theory. 

 And neither I, nor anyone I am aware of is making any real claim that scientists are suppressing the "real truth" about global climate change any more than the truth about what the welfare state was going to become  was suppressed.  There are plenty of papers being published that are skeptical of the AGW hypothesis, just as many papers were published pointing out where the welfare state was headed.  Those papers that are skeptical, by the way, are nearly always based on observation and empirical evidence as opposed to modeling which make up most of the pro AGW literature.  All one need do is be willing to look at the published material and not be blinded by political ideology...then and now.  The very fact that one side is dependent on empirical evidence and the scientific method, while the other is heavily dependent on modeling which is dubious at best, and data manipulation should provide a clue to anyone who possesses actual critical thinking skills.

Then, as now, funding was scarce for people not promoting the big government solution...and then as now, the mainstream press is heavily invested in seeing the growth of government and the AGW hypothesis is the clearest path to that goal at present.  When the AGW hypothesis has finally been put to rest, then the press, and big government types will move on to the next clearest path.

The fat that you must fabricate straw men to divert the conversation rather than relentlessly press forward the mountains of empirical evidence that prove the AGW hypothesis should give you a clue...that being, that there are no mountains of empirical evidence in support of the failed AGW hypothesis....and therein lies another clue that I am sure you are either not intelligent enough to figure out, or to politically motivated to take seriously.


----------



## SSDD (May 15, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > If it's more than one of them involved in the purposeful deception, it is, by definition, a conspiracy.
> ...



Are straw men arguments really all you have?


----------



## SSDD (May 15, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Get used to it. The deniers here are "one trick ponies"



Project much?  It is us skeptics who are asking for actual observed empirical evidence....it is you warmers who can't produce and inevitably resort to straw men, appeals to authority, and simple lies.


----------



## SSDD (May 15, 2015)

Liminal said:


> You don't have any facts, just more opinions about your perception of out of context snippets of information.



Claiming a lack of context does not make it so...just more straw men arguments.


----------



## Liminal (May 15, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Some interesting theories in your political diatribe, none of which does anything to substantiate the deniers claims of scientists suppressing the real truth about global climate change.
> ...


Wrong again, it's the deniers straw man, not mine.  Of course we should acknowledge how far most of the deniers have come on this issue.   They all used to deny that climate change was happening at all, now most of them only say that the obvious changes in global climate are not man made.   It's only the hard core ideologues who deny climate change all together.


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

Liminal said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


still wrong.  my god, at least get the argument right.  Climates have always changed.  We've all said that since the beginning of the discussion.  No one has ever stated that climates do not change.  get it right.


----------



## Liminal (May 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The US Senate's leading scientific expert on global climate change believes it's all in God's hands....so we have nothing to worry about.


----------



## mamooth (May 15, 2015)

westwall said:


> Sure it is.  Mainstream climate "science" is purely about political and economic control.  Show us one thing that climatologists have suggested that actually reduces pollution.  Go ahead I dare you.



Restricting coal use.

That was easy.

Seriously, why did you ask such a question, when the answer was so obvious?


----------



## SSDD (May 15, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Wrong again, it's the deniers straw man, not mine.  Of course we should acknowledge how far most of the deniers have come on this issue.   They all used to deny that climate change was happening at all, now most of them only say that the obvious changes in global climate are not man made.   It's only the hard core ideologues who deny climate change all together.



It seems to me that it is the warmers who deny climate change....they seem to believe that the climate has been static for the entire history of the earth and any change at all must be due to the internal combustion engine...

Unprecedented is a common buzzword among warmers.  Can you point to anything whatsoever in the present climate that is actually unprecedented?  Can you point to anything in the present climate that is even coming close to the limits of natural variability?

Does it not strike you as odd that the atmospheric CO2 has continued to rise at about 2.2 ppm per year since we started measuring while mankinds CO2 production has increased about 300% in the past few decades alone?  How far do the numbers have to be off before you begin to ask yourself if you are being suckered?  Is there anything at all that would convince you that the AGW hypothesis is wrong?


----------



## mamooth (May 15, 2015)

The rate of temperature increase is unprecedented, obviously. Outside of coming out of an ice age, that is. But as the earth is not coming out of an ice age now, it's clearly unprecedented.

And the CO2 increase has been accelerating. See that slope? It's not a straight line. It curves up. Accelerating.






So, how many times do we have to point out you've been totally wrong before you finally admit you've wasted years acting as a brainless bleating cultist? Give us a number, so we know when to expect your admission.

Also, we've given you a list several times before of things that would falsify AGW theory. In return, we've asked deniers what would falsify denialsim, and always gotten crickets. Deniers consider denialism to be unfalsifiable, being it's a religion to them.


----------



## Muhammed (May 15, 2015)

Here is a chart of the changing levels of CO2 at the Mauna Loa observatory put into much better perspective.






At first glance it may look like a blank chart, but it's not.

The CO2 levels are actually indicated on the chart. It's that line at the bottom.


----------



## Wuwei (May 15, 2015)

The ERBE and CERES satellite data sets directly provided total radiation output from the earth since 1984. The measured solar minus measured LW output shows strong deficit that would cause warming. There is about .68 to .85 W/m^2 more energy coming into the earth than leaving. This is what leads almost all scientists on both sides of the controversy to believe that the earth is warming.

It's very simple. The earth is receiving more energy than it's losing. This is determined by direct measurements, and not by some climate model.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Here is a chart of the changing levels of CO2 at the Mauna Loa observatory put into much better perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh my, another dumb fuck playing games. Were I to show you a graph of what one gram of potassium cyanide looked like compared to your body weight, it would look the same. And that one gram, ingested, would destroy the very complex organism that you are. A very small amount of the right material can derail a very complex system, and that is what is happening with the GHG's in the atmosphere. 

But, of course, in your vast wisdom, you absolutely know that a small amount of something cannot affect a vastly larger system. So go ahead and take the pill and prove it.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


I would dearly love to have the opportunity to kick Inhofe's balls right up under his armpits. The man is a liar, corrupt to the core, and a danger to our nation.


----------



## Muhammed (May 16, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a chart of the changing levels of CO2 at the Mauna Loa observatory put into much better perspective.
> ...


Your argument is ridiculous. It is an example of a logical fallacy known as a false analogy.

Why must you global warming alarmists continuously resort to logical fallacies?


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2015)

mamooth said:


> The rate of temperature increase is unprecedented, obviously. Outside of coming out of an ice age, that is. But as the earth is not coming out of an ice age now, it's clearly unprecedented.



Really?  What proxy are you using to give you the half century resolution that would be required to make such a claim?  My bet is none...it is just something you say with no idea that it is not true.



mamooth said:


> And the CO2 increase has been accelerating. See that slope? It's not a straight line. It curves up. Accelerating.



I see a slight uptick around 1975 and another around 1998...both were short lived and the rest of the graph shows a pretty steady increase of slightly more than 2 ppm per year....certainly not an acceleration even though our CO2 output has increased by hundreds of percent in the past half century....



mamooth said:


> So, how many times do we have to point out you've been totally wrong before you finally admit you've wasted years acting as a brainless bleating cultist? Give us a number, so we know when to expect your admission.



All you need do is provide some empirical proof that I am wrong.  So far, none has been forthcoming...much like your CO2 chart...it bears out my statement that CO2 has been steadily increasing at around 2.2 ppm since we have been measuring even though our own CO2 output is increasing steadily....where do you think it is going if it has a residence time in the atmosphere of hundreds of years as you warmer wackos claim?



mamooth said:


> Also, we've given you a list several times before of things that would falsify AGW theory. In return, we've asked deniers what would falsify denialsim, and always gotten crickets. Deniers consider denialism to be unfalsifiable, being it's a religion to them.



Sorry, but you haven't....but feel free to provide one.


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> The ERBE and CERES satellite data sets directly provided total radiation output from the earth since 1984. The measured solar minus measured LW output shows strong deficit that would cause warming. There is about .68 to .85 W/m^2 more energy coming into the earth than leaving. This is what leads almost all scientists on both sides of the controversy to believe that the earth is warming.
> 
> It's very simple. The earth is receiving more energy than it's losing. This is determined by direct measurements, and not by some climate model.



Outgoing LW at the top of the atmosphere is increasing....contrary to the prediction of the AGW hypothesis...no hot spot = failure of the AGW hypothesis.  If one adheres to the the scientific method....a single failed prediction made by a hypothesis should result in the hypothesis being scrapped and a new one formulated...how many failures must warmers have before they realize that the hypothesis is flawed?


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



It is all they have...and anger born of frustration at the failure of their hypothesis and nature's unwillingness to cooperate.


----------



## Wuwei (May 16, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Outgoing LW at the top of the atmosphere is increasing....contrary to the prediction of the AGW hypothesis...no hot spot = failure of the AGW hypothesis. If one adheres to the the scientific method....a single failed prediction made by a hypothesis should result in the hypothesis being scrapped and a new one formulated...how many failures must warmers have before they realize that the hypothesis is flawed?


You misunderstood the point. The ERBE and CERES satellite data are actual measurements that have nothing to do with climate modeling. Those actual measurements show that the earth is receiving more energy than it is emitting. That extra energy can lead to atmosphere temperature increase, or ice melting, or ocean temperature increase, and higher sea levels or some combination.


----------



## Liminal (May 16, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The ERBE and CERES satellite data sets directly provided total radiation output from the earth since 1984. The measured solar minus measured LW output shows strong deficit that would cause warming. There is about .68 to .85 W/m^2 more energy coming into the earth than leaving. This is what leads almost all scientists on both sides of the controversy to believe that the earth is warming.
> ...


It's fun to watch you guys pretend to know something about science.


----------



## Dot Com (May 16, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Now THAT is scary!!! yet flat earther repubs see nothing wrong w/ basing the pursuit of scientific research contingent on a book of fairy tales


----------



## IanC (May 16, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> The ERBE and CERES satellite data sets directly provided total radiation output from the earth since 1984. The measured solar minus measured LW output shows strong deficit that would cause warming. There is about .68 to .85 W/m^2 more energy coming into the earth than leaving. This is what leads almost all scientists on both sides of the controversy to believe that the earth is warming.
> 
> It's very simple. The earth is receiving more energy than it's losing. This is determined by direct measurements, and not by some climate model.





Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Outgoing LW at the top of the atmosphere is increasing....contrary to the prediction of the AGW hypothesis...no hot spot = failure of the AGW hypothesis. If one adheres to the the scientific method....a single failed prediction made by a hypothesis should result in the hypothesis being scrapped and a new one formulated...how many failures must warmers have before they realize that the hypothesis is flawed?
> ...




I think you are confused on the accuracy of the deficit at TOA. While the precision of the trends may be robust the actual difference between output and input is arbitrarily set.


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> You misunderstood the point. The ERBE and CERES satellite data are actual measurements that have nothing to do with climate modeling. Those actual measurements show that the earth is receiving more energy than it is emitting. That extra energy can lead to atmosphere temperature increase, or ice melting, or ocean temperature increase, and higher sea levels or some combination.



And you sidestepped the point....the AGW hypothesis says that outgoing LW at the TOA should be dropping...it is increasing and has been for quite some time....that constitutes a failure of the hypothesis....the AGW hypothesis predicts a tropospheric hot spot...it isn't there...another failure of the hypothesis.  How many failures of the hypothesis are required before climate science admits that the hypothesis is flawed and goes back to the drawing board?


----------



## mamooth (May 16, 2015)

The hot spot is there. The longwave is dropping. Remember, you lying about the science doesn't make the science wrong. It just makes you a raging cult liar.

This is usually where you prove your dishonesty by posting a sourceless confusing mystery graph, followed by your refusal to tell your source, even when directly asked. If you'd like, we can go another round with that.

It clearly enrages you that every prediction of AGW theory has been proven, while every prediction of your denier pseuoscience has failed. The data says you're an open fraud, so you try fabricating more data, and you get caught and revealed as a fraud yet again, and down you go in the denier death spiral.


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2015)

mamooth said:


> The hot spot is there. The longwave is dropping. Remember, you lying about the science doesn't make the science wrong. It just makes you a raging cult liar.



Sorry hairball....the hot spot is missing and always has been...a million radiosondes say so and I know that you hate that the LW at the TOA is increasing, but alas, it is....even your bud crick can acknowledge that...fact is fact.

As to the charts, its all lies with you all the time isn't it.  I gave you a NOAA chart that stated exactly what the KNMI chart said....but here it is again.







The only one enraged is you, because your hypothesis is failing at every turn and nature simply refuses to cooperate with the hoax....your anger and bitterness is clearly expressed in every word you post.  Sucks to be you...


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 16, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Two liberal posters, or should I say posers, who truly are one trick phonies... All you two have is ad-hominem attacks, lies, and deceit.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 16, 2015)

mamooth said:


> The hot spot is there. The longwave is dropping. Remember, you lying about the science doesn't make the science wrong. It just makes you a raging cult liar.
> 
> This is usually where you prove your dishonesty by posting a sourceless confusing mystery graph, followed by your refusal to tell your source, even when directly asked. If you'd like, we can go another round with that.
> 
> It clearly enrages you that every prediction of AGW theory has been proven, while every prediction of your denier pseuoscience has failed. The data says you're an open fraud, so you try fabricating more data, and you get caught and revealed as a fraud yet again, and down you go in the denier death spiral.



Prove it Snageltooth..  The Satellite data shows it does not exist.  Your fantasy models are the only thing which even remotely implies that it exists..


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 16, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I love the pee wee herman game you all like to use.  You must watch his films often.
> ...


Considering that yours have never dealt with any sort of real science, them's is pretty big words for and 8 year old.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 16, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> The ERBE and CERES satellite data sets directly provided total radiation output from the earth since 1984. The measured solar minus measured LW output shows strong deficit that would cause warming. There is about .68 to .85 W/m^2 more energy coming into the earth than leaving. This is what leads almost all scientists on both sides of the controversy to believe that the earth is warming.
> 
> It's very simple. The earth is receiving more energy than it's losing. This is determined by direct measurements, and not by some climate model.



That is an incorrect assumption..  We have been losing about -0.65W/M^2 for over two decades.  Your calculations refuse to acknowledge much of the convection cycle which shows that the loss might even be two or three times that amount. The race to find more places to hide the missing heat has been going on for 20 years. Places where we have little or no ability to verify the alleged hiding spot..  Deep oceans, Mid troposphere, Stratosphere.. and on and on....


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 16, 2015)

Liminal said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



The ignorant fool Liminal speaks from his totally ignorant position.. His mother and fathers basement, on their computer, and refuses to try and find a job....  Oh wait Clown would suit him well...


----------



## IanC (May 16, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You misunderstood the point. The ERBE and CERES satellite data are actual measurements that have nothing to do with climate modeling. Those actual measurements show that the earth is receiving more energy than it is emitting. That extra energy can lead to atmosphere temperature increase, or ice melting, or ocean temperature increase, and higher sea levels or some combination.
> ...



It is true that IF the longwave at TOA is increasing (without a decrease in shortwave) then the Earth is moving towards a less warming equilibrium, or even cooling.

The hotspot has not been found, except by those who torture the data and replace actual temperature data with wind shear proxy. I believe they called it wind vector in the recent paper because they didn't want the derision of their last paper brought up again.

CO2 theory has failed repeatedly, it is time to redo the hypothesis with more rea


----------



## mamooth (May 16, 2015)

SSDD said:


> As to the charts, its all lies with you all the time isn't it.  I gave you a NOAA chart that stated exactly what the KNMI chart said....but here it is again.



Like I said, posting a mystery graph is a form of lying on your part.

Saying "It came from KNMI" is not a source. Exactly what did somebody plot from KNMI? Show us exactly what buttons to push to reproduce the plot. What was the data source? Was it corrected for satellite drift and similar things, or was it uncorrected raw data? The sinusoidal nature of it makes one immediately suspect it's not been corrected for drift.

If you didn't fake it, that should be easy. But you won't do it. Because you did fake it, and everyone knows it.


----------



## mamooth (May 16, 2015)

IanC said:


> The hotspot has not been found, except by those who torture the data and replace actual temperature data with wind shear proxy. I believe they called it wind vector in the recent paper because they didn't want the derision of their last paper brought up again.



Just because another denier sacred cow was slain, burned and the ashes scattered is no reason to invoke yet another conspiracy theory.

Well, from your POV, it probably is.


----------



## IanC (May 16, 2015)

Which sacred cow is that?


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 16, 2015)

mamooth said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The hotspot has not been found, except by those who torture the data and replace actual temperature data with wind shear proxy. I believe they called it wind vector in the recent paper because they didn't want the derision of their last paper brought up again.
> ...



The only Sacred Cow being burned right now is the diseased and dying one named CAGW..


----------



## mamooth (May 16, 2015)

"There is no tropospheric hotspot!" was one of most most sacred denier sacred cows.

It died long ago, but deniers have been propping up its rotting corpse. Now the zombie sacred cow has been decapitated, and they don't know what to do.


----------



## mamooth (May 16, 2015)

Billionaire oil company CEO demands geology professors be fired, because he doesn't like the results of their work that linked fracking to earthquakes.

Oil CEO Wanted University Quake Scientists Dismissed Dean s E-Mail - Bloomberg Business

Just another day in the Peoples Democratic Republic of Denierstan. If the science bothers you, censor it.


----------



## Wyld Kard (May 16, 2015)

mamooth said:


> There's really no point in presenting facts and logic to the hardcore deniers. Such conspiracy cultists weren't reasoned into their beliefs, so they can't be reasoned out of them.
> 
> Deniers embrace denialism for the emotional comfort it gives them, the warm fuzzy feeling of belonging to a cult that gives them all the answers and removes any need to think. To get such creatures of emotion to leave their cult, we have to make it emotionally painful for them to remain, and we do that through laughter and mockery.


 


> There's really no point in presenting facts and logic to the hardcore deniers.


Really?
What facts and logic are you referring to, because they must be as elusive as your intelligence is on the subject.  

Because all you and the other warmist nutjobs have been doing is claiming global warming / climate change is real by posting bullshit and trying to convince others that is the truth.


----------



## Wyld Kard (May 16, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. In the meantime, Ernie has obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen.
> 
> Problem is, it is not just weather records that are being presented. We have the thawing of the arctic, the shrinking North Polar Ice Cap, the Ice Caps of Greenland and Antarctica losing billions of tons of ice per year, and almost all of our alpine glaciers in rapid retreat. GHGs in the atmosphere are at a level unseen for millions of years. But the deniars just continue to state that nothing is happening.


 


> AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.


Just because you keep posting that particular group of words over and over, *does not make it true*, dumbass.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 16, 2015)

mamooth said:


> "There is no tropospheric hotspot!" was one of most most sacred denier sacred cows.
> 
> It died long ago, but deniers have been propping up its rotting corpse. Now the zombie sacred cow has been decapitated, and they don't know what to do.



prove it snagletooth...


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 16, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Billionaire oil company CEO demands geology professors be fired, because he doesn't like the results of their work that linked fracking to earthquakes.
> 
> Oil CEO Wanted University Quake Scientists Dismissed Dean s E-Mail - Bloomberg Business
> 
> Just another day in the Peoples Democratic Republic of Denierstan. If the science bothers you, censor it.



What do you demand when scientists fake a link. Scientific fraud by those men needs to be addressed by termination. But then you think fraud is ok when it serves your political purpose.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2015)

Wildcard said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. In the meantime, Ernie has obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen.
> ...


OK, dear little corksmoker, link us to Scientific Societies that AGW is not real. Same for National Academies of Science and major Universities. You cannot, because there are none. So you are just flapping yap.


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Sure it is.  Mainstream climate "science" is purely about political and economic control.  Show us one thing that climatologists have suggested that actually reduces pollution.  Go ahead I dare you.
> ...


What are you replacing its power with to keep humans alive?


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Tell them to show the real data. That's simple right?


----------



## IanC (May 17, 2015)

mamooth said:


> "There is no tropospheric hotspot!" was one of most most sacred denier sacred cows.
> 
> It died long ago, but deniers have been propping up its rotting corpse. Now the zombie sacred cow has been decapitated, and they don't know what to do.




The only zombie science going on is Sherwood's further attempt at finding the hot spot with tortured wind data.

Anyone looking for background info on this subject could go over to JoNova's blog. Lots of links and background discussion.


----------



## Liminal (May 21, 2015)




----------



## Old Rocks (May 22, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...


Show that they are not showing the real data. That simple.


----------



## jc456 (May 22, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


look real hard at the title.  I know you all have issues with comprehending words like majority, reconstruction, expected, could and should.  But here is a link and again, in the title the word to pay attention to is reconstruction.

I know this is difficult for you, but that word means the data in the report has been touched.  So, not the raw data.  holy crap, why is this such a difficult thing for you?

credit: National Academies Press
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2 000 Years

Title:
*SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTIONS FOR THE LAST 2,000 YEARS*

additionally, here right from the FAQs page at the GISS:
 credit GISS:
link,
Data.GISS GISTEMP -- Frequently Asked Questions

abstract:
*"Q.* _Does GISS deal directly with raw (observed) data?_
*A.* No. GISS has neither the personnel nor the funding to visit weather stations or deal directly with data observations from weather stations. GISS relies on data collected by other organizations, specifically, NOAA/NCDC's Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) v3 adjusted monthly mean data as augmented by Antarctic data collated by UK Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) and also NOAA/NCDC's Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) v3b data."

Please, show me where there are graphs using raw data sets.


----------



## jc456 (May 22, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


here from another thread in the forum:



Billy_Bob said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > I've learnt to do about one post of data then leave the invincible deniers to it. Invincible ignorance is after all invincible.
> ...



Again, note the highlighted word adjusted.


----------



## orogenicman (May 22, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Recall that it was Westwall himself who argued that data must be calibrated/adjusted for it to have any meaning - on this we are both in complete agreement).


----------



## jc456 (May 22, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


so why all the hoopla then when I are anyone uses the phrases that the data is adjusted.  If you know it is, why do you need me or anyone to provide info proving it.  What a laugh.

I'm not Westwall, I am jc and I want to see a graph of the raw data.


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2015)

The fact is that the AGW hypothesis has failed...the lack of a tropospheric hot spot is a clear failure.  If climate science were an actual science and not a political movement, that failure alone would be enough to discredit the hypothesis and send them back to the drawing board for another hypothesis that had some predictive power.  Instead, due to a clear lack of eithics, climate science ignores failures and grabs on to every possible weather occurrence and claims it is due to AGW....

One failure of a hypothesis is enough to invalidate it....how many failures has the AGW hypothesis experienced so far?

What sort of science predicts more and less Antarctic ice, more and fewer fires, the rotation of the earth itself both speeding up and slowing down, more and less rain, more and fewer coral reefs, more and less snow,  oceans becoming more and less salty, more and less antarctic ice, stronger and weaker winds, more and fewer hurricanes, more and fewer tornadoes, warmer and colder winters, fish getting larger and smaller, more and fewer mosquitoes, and on and on and on.

Tell me, do you really take proclamations from a "science" that is all over the board like that seriously?...or do you see climate science as simply a means to a political end...that end being more government?


----------



## orogenicman (May 22, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You are the one who has a problem with it.  Every data set in science has had some adjustment made to it.  Every single one.  They are meaningless without it.  I've said this repeatedly.  How many times does it need to be said?


----------



## jc456 (May 22, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


you're exactly right, I have a problem with adjusted data sets in reference to temperature across the globe.  Yep, fact.  I cry foul at every graph because of it.  I'm sure you've seen them all.and yet, you and yours wanted me to prove my claim that all datasets shown are adjusted.  What a bunch of nut jobs.  My god man, if you know it and proud of it, then stand tall and pronounce when I claim it as such.  why do you retreat into a hole and shimmer and shake like I have lied?  what a bunch of friggn bobbleheads..

again, me, jc, wants to see the raw data.  The data that says what was actually captured by the thermometers.  I also would like to know if the thermometers collect at the one thousandth or hundredth data point.


----------



## orogenicman (May 22, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



But JC, that is only because you are an idiot who doesn't know the first thing about scientific databases.


----------



## jc456 (May 22, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


well the idiot that I am, wants to see the evidence.  you know, the raw data that says the globe is warming.  Not someone's mathematical readjustment done to happy out a model.


----------



## Wyld Kard (May 22, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




Hey dumbass, when are you going to post something that is truthful, factual, and based on real science that proves what you've been claiming about AGW?

Oh that's right, you can't.   

You'll just continue to post more bullshit, trying to convince others of your brainwashed beliefs.


----------



## orogenicman (May 22, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Then I suggest you get off your rump and either subscribe to a relevant peer reviewed publication, or if you are too cheap or poor,  go to the friggin library.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 22, 2015)

Wildcard said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...


TheOther Greenhouse Gases. Theories are discussed in the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)

_*To get an overview, start with Summary: the Story in a Nutshell and then come back here.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
*_
You can continue to stupidly flap yap, or actually read what real scientists have to say on the subject. I am sure it will be the former.


----------



## Wyld Kard (May 22, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





No matter what you post trying to prove AGW/CC is real, and that it's man-made and that it's a threat, it's all *BULLSHIT*!  

You're just too ignorant to realize it.


----------



## jc456 (May 22, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


No, I want the assholes who make claims To actually prove them. So I'm still waiting. And currently proclaim there is no warming in 18 years because assholes can't accurately prove differently. Kapeesh

Have fun at the library


----------



## jc456 (May 22, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


1234times now


----------



## orogenicman (May 22, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



In other words, you are too lazy to do anything resembling research yourself.  You're like a child who wants what he wants when he wants it and doesn't want to work for it himself.  Oh dear.


----------



## jc456 (May 22, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Why do I need to? I'm not making any claims and I call bullshit on yours . So burden of proof is on you. Sorry bubba


----------



## orogenicman (May 22, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Actually, you have made many wild claims that you have not supported, and continue to do so.    Climate change science is accepted science.  So I have no burden to prove anything.  That's the way it works, bubba, and when you aren't a scientist, and understand nothing about the science, you either support your claims by educating yourself and then posting refutations, or you sit at the kiddy table with all the other denier losers.  It's up to you.


----------



## jc456 (May 22, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Doesn't matter who I am, facts remain there is zippolla evidence to any of what you claim. I'll say again the burden of proof has failed continues to fall and will continue to fail. Sorry bubba

Prove me wrong.  Hahahaha


----------



## jc456 (May 22, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


By the way, I claim nothing other than liars are liars and I have a forum of facts for my proof


----------



## Old Rocks (May 23, 2015)

*Geologists on global warming, just in case we have forgotten the title of this thread;*

*The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

Rationale*
Scientific advances in the first decade of the 21st century have greatly reduced previous uncertainties about the amplitude and causes of recent global warming. Ground-station measurements have shown a warming trend of ~0.8 °C since the mid-1800s, a trend consistent with (1) retreat of northern hemisphere snow and Arctic sea ice in the last 40 years; (2) greater heat storage in the ocean over the last 50 years; (3) retreat of most mountain glaciers since 1850; (4) an ongoing rise of global sea level for more than a century; and (5) proxy reconstructions of temperature change over past centuries from archives including ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments, boreholes, cave deposits and corals. Both instrumental records and proxy indices from geologic sources show that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries (National Research Council, 2006).

Measurements from satellites, which began in 1979, initially did not show a warming trend, but later studies (Mears and Wentz, 2005; Santer et al., 2008) found that the satellite data had not been fully adjusted for losses of satellite elevation through time, differences in time of arrival over a given location, and removal of higher-elevation effects on the lower tropospheric signal. With these factors taken into account, the satellite data are now in basic agreement with ground-station data and confirm a warming trend since 1979. In a related study, Sherwood et al. (2005) found problems with corrections of tropical daytime radiosonde measurements and largely resolved a previous discrepancy with ground-station trends. With instrumental discrepancies having been resolved, recent warming of Earth’s surface is now consistently supported by a wide range of measurements and proxies and is no longer open to serious challenge.

The geologic record contains unequivocal evidence of former climate change, including periods of greater warmth with limited polar ice, and colder intervals with more widespread glaciation. These and other changes were accompanied by major shifts in species and ecosystems. Paleoclimatic research has demonstrated that these major changes in climate and biota are associated with significant changes in climate forcing such as continental positions and topography, patterns of ocean circulation, the greenhouse gas composition of the atmosphere, and the distribution and amount of solar energy at the top of the atmosphere caused by changes in Earth's orbit and the evolution of the sun as a main sequence star. Cyclic changes in ice volume during glacial periods over the last three million years have been correlated to orbital cycles and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, but may also reflect internal responses generated by large ice sheets. This rich history of Earth's climate has been used as one of several key sources of information for assessing the predictive capabilities of modern climate models. The testing of increasingly sophisticated climate models by comparison to geologic proxies is continuing, leading to refinement of hypotheses and improved understanding of the drivers of past and current climate change.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 23, 2015)

*More geologists;*

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action

 Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. 

Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes. Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

 Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long‐ understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

 Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 23, 2015)

*From Britain;*

https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/~/media/...Change Statement final   new format.pdf?la=en

The Council of the Society is issuing this statement as part of the Society’s work “to promote all forms of education, awareness and understanding of the Earth and their practical applications for the benefit of the public globally”. The statement is intended for non-specialists and Fellows of the Society. It is based on analysis of geological evidence, and not on analysis of recent temperature or satellite data, or climate model projections. It contains references to support key statements, indicated by superscript numbers, and a reading list for those who wish to explore the subject further.

What are the grounds for concern? 

The last century has seen a rapidly growing global population and much more intensive use of resources, leading to greatly increased emissions of gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, from the burning of fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal), and from agriculture, cement production and deforestation. Evidence from the geological record is consistent with the physics that shows that adding large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere warms the world and may lead to: higher sea levels and flooding of low-lying coasts; greatly changed patterns of rainfall2 ; increased acidity of the oceans 3,4,5,6; and decreased oxygen levels in seawater7,8,9.

 There is now widespread concern that the Earth’s climate will warm further, not only because of the lingering effects of the added carbon already in the system, but also because of further additions as human population continues to grow. Life on Earth has survived large climate changes in the past, but extinctions and major redistribution of species have been associated with many of them. When the human population was small and nomadic, a rise in sea level of a few metres would have had very little effect on Homo sapiens. With the current and growing global population, much of which is concentrated in coastal cities, such a rise in sea level would have a drastic effect on our complex society, especially if the climate were to change as suddenly as it has at times in the past. Equally, it seems likely that as warming continues some areas may experience less precipitation leading to drought. With both rising seas and increasing drought, pressure for human migration could result on a large scale.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 23, 2015)

The vast majority of those engaged in earth sciences consider the threat of continued increases in GHGs in the atmosphere will create huge problems for us and our descendents.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> *Geologists on global warming, just in case we have forgotten the title of this thread;*
> 
> *The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change
> 
> ...


* 
Ground-station measurements have shown a warming trend of ~0.8 °C since the mid-1800s, a trend consistent with*

Wow, 0.8 degrees in the last 150 years. I'm surprised that such a rapid warming, unprecedented is the way I've heard it described recently, hasn't already killed us all.


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Geologists on global warming, just in case we have forgotten the title of this thread;*
> ...


Basically it's been warming since the ice ages that's what that statedWho didn't know that?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 24, 2015)

Not at all. It has been in a cooling trend since the highs of about 6000 to 8000 years ago. You supply a link for your statement, and I will supply multiple links for mine.


----------

