97% of Warmer posts are total crap

[CrusaderFrank]

1. CO2 does not drive the climate
2. Science is not done by Consensus, you're thinking of "Project Runway"
3. Global Warming Petition Project 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs
4. The Warmer have been caught with their thumb on the scale so many times their "facts" must be in dispute
5. THEY HAVE FAILED TO PRODUCE ONE SINGLE EXPERIMENT THAT SHOWS A TEMPERATURE INCREASE FROM ADDING 100, 200, 400ppM OF CO2.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Denialist!

Polluter!

Big Oil propagandist!

Racist!

Hater!

Neoconfederate!

Cat kicker!

Your mother sews socks that smell!

 

[SSDD]

Not much substance to post when you are promoting a hoax.

 

[bripat9643]

Not much substance to post when you are promoting a hoax.

One thing I've noticed about Warmist posts is that every one of them consists almost entirely of logical fallacies. People who resort to logical fallacies are either stupid or dishonest.

 

[mamooth]

How many more whining threads to you plan to make today, Frank? That's something you don't see the rational people doing, making endless whining threads.

Of course, I like it when deniers squeal. It tells me I'm punching a sore spot, so I should keep it up. And their tears of impotent rage are like a fine wine.

 

[Ernie S.]

So in other words, you've got nothing of substance with which to debate him so you declare victory by ad hominem.

Very good!

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Not much substance to post when you are promoting a hoax.

One thing I've noticed about Warmist posts is that every one of them consists almost entirely of logical fallacies. People who resort to logical fallacies are either stupid or dishonest.

LOL.

I see what you did there.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How many more whining threads to you plan to make today, Frank? That's something you don't see the rational people doing, making endless whining threads.

Of course, I like it when deniers squeal. It tells me I'm punching a sore spot, so I should keep it up. And their tears of impotent rage are like a fine wine.

So, what's your AGW Theory? Can you state it in a manner that would lend itself to scientific testing?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

1. CO2 does not drive the climate
2. Science is not done by Consensus, you're thinking of "Project Runway"
3. Global Warming Petition Project 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs
4. The Warmer have been caught with their thumb on the scale so many times their "facts" must be in dispute
5. THEY HAVE FAILED TO PRODUCE ONE SINGLE EXPERIMENT THAT SHOWS A TEMPERATURE INCREASE FROM ADDING 100, 200, 400ppM OF CO2.

1. CO2 is, however, working on its learner's permit.
2. Runways and science had something in common, though, so ....
3. Wait. WHUT????!!!! I can't do all that tough technical math stuff, but is that like more than 6%?
4. A false allegation of a fact is not a fact. It's just a lie.
5. But but but -- Consensus!

 

[Old Rocks]

1. CO2 does not drive the climate
2. Science is not done by Consensus, you're thinking of "Project Runway"
3. Global Warming Petition Project 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs
4. The Warmer have been caught with their thumb on the scale so many times their "facts" must be in dispute
5. THEY HAVE FAILED TO PRODUCE ONE SINGLE EXPERIMENT THAT SHOWS A TEMPERATURE INCREASE FROM ADDING 100, 200, 400ppM OF CO2.

Oh yes, that OISM petition. Been proven to be mostly fraudulent names time and again.

Simply, all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities have policy statements that state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Now all you knuckle dragging 'Conservatives' can flap yap all you want, but it is meaningless without evidence to back up your assertations. And you have none.

For the most part, you are some of the dumbest bastards I have ever communicated with. From denial of obvious science, to belief in a hollow moon, you guys are real losers. The profs at the university would call you hopeless fools.

 

[Old Rocks]

Geological Society of America

http://earthscience.ucr.edu/docs/gcec/GSA Climate Change Position Statement.pdf

Position Statement
The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning. GSA also supports statements on the global climate change issue made by the joint national academies of science (June, 2005), American Geophysical Union (December, 2003), and American Chemical Society (2004). GSA strongly encourages that the following efforts be undertaken internationally:
(1) adequately research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful, science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare for, and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and (4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on global climate.

 

[Old Rocks]

American Meteological Society

2012 AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

Why is climate changing?

Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation. While large amounts of CO2 enter and leave the atmosphere through natural processes, these human activities are increasing the total amount in the air and the oceans. Approximately half of the CO2 put into the atmosphere through human activity in the past 250 years has been taken up by the ocean and terrestrial biosphere, with the other half remaining in the atmosphere. Since long-term measurements began in the 1950s, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Having been introduced into the atmosphere it will take a thousand years for the majority of the added atmospheric CO2 to be removed by natural processes, and some will remain for thousands of subsequent years.

Water vapor also is an important atmospheric greenhouse gas. Unlike other greenhouse gases, however, the concentration of water vapor depends on atmospheric temperature and is controlled by the global climate system through its hydrological cycle of evaporation-condensation-precipitation. Water vapor is highly variable in space and time with a short lifetime, because of weather variability. Observations indicate an increase in globally averaged water vapor in the atmosphere in recent decades, at a rate consistent with the response produced by climate models that simulate human-induced increases in greenhouse gases. This increase in water vapor also strengthens the greenhouse effect, amplifying the impact of human-induced increases in other greenhouse gases.

Human activity also affects climate through changes in the number and physical properties of tiny solid particles and liquid droplets in the atmosphere, known collectively as atmospheric aerosols. Examples of aerosols include dust, sea salt, and sulfates from air pollution. Aerosols have a variety of climate effects. They absorb and redirect solar energy from the sun and thermal energy emitted by Earth, emit energy themselves, and modify the ability of clouds to reflect sunlight and to produce precipitation. Aerosols can both strengthen and weaken greenhouse warming, depending on their characteristics. Most aerosols originating from human activity act to cool the planet and so partly counteract greenhouse gas warming effects. Aerosols lofted into the stratosphere [between about 13 km (8 miles) and 50 km (30 miles) altitude above the surface] by occasional large sulfur-rich volcanic eruptions can reduce global surface temperature for several years. By contrast, carbon soot from incomplete combustion of fossil fuels warms the planet, so that decreases in soot would reduce warming. Aerosols have lifetimes in the troposphere [at altitudes up to approximately 13 km (8 miles) from the surface in the middle latitudes] on the order of one week, much shorter than that of most greenhouse gases, and their prevalence and properties can vary widely by region.

 

[Old Rocks]

American Chemical Society

Climate Change Impacts
The Earth’s climate is the product of complex, highly dynamic, and often nonlinear, interactions among physical, chemical, and biological processes occurring at many scales in the atmosphere; at terrestrial, fresh water and marine surfaces; and in the depths of the oceans and landforms. While recent research advances in Earth systems science have greatly strengthened our understanding of prior and current climate properties and processes, our ability to quantitatively predict how the future climate will respond to continued and increasing greenhouse-gas and fine-particle emissions is still limited. Even more limited is our ability to precisely predict how the Earth’s ecological and human systems will respond to climate changes.

However, comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem. This sober conclusion has been recently reconfirmed by an in-depth set of studies focused on “America’s Climate Choices” (ACC) conducted by the U.S. National Academies (NRC, 2010a, b, c, d). The ACC studies, performed by independent and highly respected teams of scientists, engineers, and other skilled professionals, reached the same general conclusions that were published in the latest comprehensive assessment conducted by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007). Recently, some errors in the IPCC (2007) reports have been acknowledged and questions about the transparency of the IPCC process have been raised. An independent review by the InterAcademy Council (IAC), a collaboration of the world’s leading national science academies, found “that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall and has served society well,” and that “through its unique partnership between scientists and governments, the IPCC has heightened public awareness of climate change, raised the level of scientific debate, and influenced the science agendas of many nations.” (IAC, 2010) The IAC also recommended managerial and procedural improvements that would strengthen future assessments.

 

[SSDD]

Watch how fast those change if the APS alters its stance on the hoax.

 

[Old Rocks]

Not only will that not happen, the APS is going to harden it's stance on the fact that we are right now seeing the effects of the GHGs in the atmosphere. Scientifically illiterate people like SSDD will once again scream conspiracy.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Not only will that not happen, the APS is going to harden it's stance on the fact that we are right now seeing the effects of the GHGs in the atmosphere. Scientifically illiterate people like SSDD will once again scream conspiracy.

The "fact."



Saying something you want to believe is true and claiming it's a "fact" doesn't MAKE it a fact, Moldy Socks.

We are supposed to take your ASSertion on "faith?"

This is why we refer to your AGW crap claims as the AGW "Faith."

Gaia be praised.

 

[percysunshine]

Snerk...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

1. CO2 does not drive the climate
2. Science is not done by Consensus, you're thinking of "Project Runway"
3. Global Warming Petition Project 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs
4. The Warmer have been caught with their thumb on the scale so many times their "facts" must be in dispute
5. THEY HAVE FAILED TO PRODUCE ONE SINGLE EXPERIMENT THAT SHOWS A TEMPERATURE INCREASE FROM ADDING 100, 200, 400ppM OF CO2.

Oh yes, that OISM petition. Been proven to be mostly fraudulent names time and again.

Simply, all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities have policy statements that state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Now all you knuckle dragging 'Conservatives' can flap yap all you want, but it is meaningless without evidence to back up your assertations. And you have none.

For the most part, you are some of the dumbest bastards I have ever communicated with. From denial of obvious science, to belief in a hollow moon, you guys are real losers. The profs at the university would call you hopeless fools.

The American Physics Society finally caught up with you scammers. You grabbed their checkbook and forged their signature on your fake "science" now we'll see what you do when you have to present your case.

Maybe one or two of your Climate Scammers signed the petition as Mickey Mann Mouse, so what. 99.99% of the other signatures are accurate and verified.

You're as fake as "Nobel Laureate" Mickey "Tree Ring" Mann

 

[HelenaHandbag]

How many more whining threads to you plan to make today, Frank? That's something you don't see the rational people doing, making endless whining threads.

Of course, I like it when deniers squeal. It tells me I'm punching a sore spot, so I should keep it up. And their tears of impotent rage are like a fine wine.

So, what's your AGW Theory? Can you state it in a manner that would lend itself to scientific testing?

Denialist!

 

[Old Rocks]

Climate Change Statement Review

Climate Change Statement Review
Supporting Documents
Charge to the POPA Subcommittee to Review Climate Change Statement
Framing Document for Workshop
Complete Transcript of Workshop
APS Climate Change Statement Workshop Expert Bios
Related Information
2007 APS Climate Change Statement
Panel on Public Affairs
POPA 2014 Energy & Environment Subcommittee
The American Physical Society formally reviews its statements every five years. In accordance with that process, the APS Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) formed a Subcommittee to review its Climate Change Statement. The members of the Subcommittee are: Steven Koonin (chair), Phillip Coyle, Scott Kemp, Tim Meyer, Robert Rosner and Susan Seestrom. The Charge to the Subcommittee was approved by POPA and the APS Executive Board and is included in the Supporting Documents links.
As part of the POPA-approved process, on January 8, 2014 the Subcommittee convened a workshop with six climate experts. The Subcommittee used that meeting to delve more deeply into aspects of the IPCC consensus view of the physical basis of climate science. In doing so, it hoped to illuminate for itself, for the APS membership, and for the broader public both the certainties and boundaries of current climate science understanding. The framing document, expert bios, and the complete transcript for the workshop are included in the Supporting Documents links.
The workshop was the first step in a deliberative process. As a membership organization of over 50,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous scientific standards in developing all its statements. If the Subcommittee recommends updating the existing APS Climate Change Statement, then, consistent with APS by-laws, all APS members will be given an opportunity to review the statement and provide input during a comment period.