AGW Question

[SSDD]

I did not attempt to prove anything. Of course I have not shown evidence of anything. Neither did you.

There is where you are wrong...

There is where I'm wrong? I think you have misread my statement. I said I have not shown evidence of anything. How can you say I'm wrong on that? The rest of your post is on a different tangent than my claim that the graph that BillyBob posted is questionable.

No...neither you, nor anyone on this board, nor any climate scientist has shown any observed, measured, quantified data to substantiate the AGW hypothesis... As to demonstrating that a hypothesis has failed, all one need do is show failed predictions which exist in abundance insofar as the predictive capacity of the AGW hypothesis....one failed prediction is enough to send a hypothesis to the scrap heap in any real science whereas the AGW hypothesis has left history littered with failed predictions stretching back for decades now.

 

[PK1]

...
belief in the AGW hypothesis...learn something.

There you go again, calling a theory a hypothesis.

Hypothesis - A statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability.

Theory - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

There you go...not knowing the difference between hypothesis and theory.
... the AGW hypothesis....

---
I see we have another science bozo.
You are referring to the AGW scientific theory, right?
That is not the same as a scientific hypothesis, which is a basis of a particular research study.
.

 

[PK1]

---
I hope you are not a scientist; you obviously know little about scientific methods, theories, and their variances across scientific disciplines.

People like you must be flabbergasted with thoughts like "We can land on the moon and return, yet we can't even predict the weather 3 days out, or predict which person becomes a murderer, etc".

Unless you understand the scientific details (& philosophy of science) behind scientific investigations in particular fields, you would be literally stupid to claim their research is flawed, let alone quacking "cult".

If your conspiracy theorists want to actually make a dent with your claims, have your alternative hypotheses or data interpretations vetted thru established NAS-type scientists in their field (climatology or very similar) and any disputes can be openly cross-examined & reviewed, like in a court of law. Go ahead and use your preferred real scientists to represent your views.

Using this forum for your anti-AGW rants only reinforces your cultish views.
.

But you chose no to answer the simple question in the OP
Why's that?

---
Huh?
I did not provide an answer to your confirmation-biased Q because I am not a climate scientist and i do NOT know the detailed theoretical issues to suppose if they "suppose".

In other simpler words, for the simple Y/N minded, my honest answer is ... I don't know
.

And you question my qualifications, yet you do not posses the skill set to make any determination, while demanding evidence of my degree's......

I presented verifiable and repeatable facts to MEM and he has done everything to duck and dodge the questions the observations of empirical evidence create, which show the CAGW premise false.

Its rather funny you also choose to attack my credentials and not the empirical evidence I provided. The evidence is what is up for debate. Can you provided empirical evidence which shows your position true that is not a fantasy model? Or are you simply here to accept your so called consensus, use no cognitive thought or critical thinking skills and spew the agenda?

---
I do not pretend to be a climate scientist.
You are a climate scientist?
Why did you not respond to my post #91? Cannot?

Again ...
Please cite a published journal article that represents your research & interpretation ...
.

I am not your puppet bitch and I am not the point or topic of debate.

---
Au contraire, you are a puppet bitch for the AGW denier cult.
If you pretend to be a climate scientist, which you clearly are not, then you must supply the scientific contrarian evidence.
I repeat ...
Please cite a published journal article that represents your research & interpretation ...

To help you, feel free to use this source of scientific journals:

Climate Sci. Journals
.

 

[jc456]

Well of course you are speechless....I asked for actual observed, measured, quantified evidence to support your belief in the AGW hypothesis....did I expect you to admit that you have none....nor could you find any? Of course not.....so what do you do?...pretend speechlessness.

As to the scientific community's record of being poor...do some research...learn something.

There you go again, calling a theory a hypothesis.

hahahahhahahahahahahaha, what theory are you referring to?

 

[PK1]

There is where you are wrong...

No...neither you, nor anyone on this board, nor any climate scientist has shown any observed, measured, quantified data to substantiate the AGW hypothesis...

---
WTF? Have you only read the AGW denier claims?
How about the professional opinions of the leading science academies in the world, who agree with AGW:
USA, UK, Russia, Germany, Japan, China, India, France, Italy, Canada, Brasil.
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

That pdf was from 2005. Since then, there have been very, very, very few (less than 1%) scientific publications opposed to the AGW theory.
.

 

[jc456]

You clearly are unaware of how often the consensus is dead wrong....

Science tests things out. The science isn't wrong. The hypothesis being tested can turn out to be wrong. and Global Warming is not a hypothesis, it is a theory Hypothesis vs Theory - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

and you are attacking the messengers because you cannot attack the science. and when you do attempt to attack the science, you are shown to be a complete and utter fool

he is not attacking you, he is questioning your ability to know differences. Like, there is no scientific evidence that states CO2 causes temperature increases. NONE. so how can one have a theory if one doesn't have evidence? See, if you believe in the supposed theory, then you have committed to the lie. So he is attacking your inability to see a lie and post nonsense that you know isn't true.

 

[PK1]

you cannot attack the science. and when you do attempt to attack the science, you are shown to be a complete and utter fool

...
there is no scientific evidence that states CO2 causes temperature increases. NONE.

---
Don't embarrass yourself.
From the scientific community:

"human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases – including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide – to rise well above pre-industrial levels. Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured".

"there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring1. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities."
.

 

[jc456]

There is where you are wrong...

No...neither you, nor anyone on this board, nor any climate scientist has shown any observed, measured, quantified data to substantiate the AGW hypothesis...

---
WTF? Have you only read the AGW denier claims?
How about the professional opinions of the leading science academies in the world, who agree with AGW:
USA, UK, Russia, Germany, Japan, China, India, France, Italy, Canada, Brasil.
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

That pdf was from 2005. Since then, there have been very, very, very few (less than 1%) scientific publications opposed to the AGW theory.
.

do you even know what an opinion is? You think opinion is fact? hahahahaahahahahahahahahaha thanks for the laugh today, holy shit sherlock, that's a fkn knee slapper for sure.

 

[jc456]

you cannot attack the science. and when you do attempt to attack the science, you are shown to be a complete and utter fool

...
there is no scientific evidence that states CO2 causes temperature increases. NONE.

---
Don't embarrass yourself.
From the scientific community:

"human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases – including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide – to rise well above pre-industrial levels. Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured".

"there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring1. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities."
.

yeah, you go with that, the rest of the world will live in reality where climate has not changed and the 18 year pause is still on going. Yeppers there Rudolph. Go read AR5 from the IPCC, your illegitimate group. Even they know.

 

[PK1]

There is where you are wrong...

No...neither you, nor anyone on this board, nor any climate scientist has shown any observed, measured, quantified data to substantiate the AGW hypothesis...

---
WTF? Have you only read the AGW denier claims?
How about the professional opinions of the leading science academies in the world, who agree with AGW:
USA, UK, Russia, Germany, Japan, China, India, France, Italy, Canada, Brasil.
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

That pdf was from 2005. Since then, there have been very, very, very few (less than 1%) scientific publications opposed to the AGW theory.
.

do you even know what an opinion is? You think opinion is fact?.

---
Go ahead and continue displaying your science ignorance, if you don't want to learn about its methods.
No, i do not think opinion is fact. Did i ever say so?
I simply cited references from scientists who have opinions based on their evidence.
Science deals with probabilities, esp if research is complicated with multivariate analyses, but i don't expect noobs like you to understand that.

Given your skepticism, you must be a God disbeliever, right?
.

 

[jc456]

There is where you are wrong...

No...neither you, nor anyone on this board, nor any climate scientist has shown any observed, measured, quantified data to substantiate the AGW hypothesis...

---
WTF? Have you only read the AGW denier claims?
How about the professional opinions of the leading science academies in the world, who agree with AGW:
USA, UK, Russia, Germany, Japan, China, India, France, Italy, Canada, Brasil.
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

That pdf was from 2005. Since then, there have been very, very, very few (less than 1%) scientific publications opposed to the AGW theory.
.

do you even know what an opinion is? You think opinion is fact?.

---
Go ahead and continue displaying your science ignorance, if you don't want to learn about its methods.
No, i do not think opinion is fact. Did i ever say so?
I simply cited references from scientists who have opinions based on their evidence.
Science deals with probabilities, esp if research is complicated with multivariate analyses, but i don't expect noobs like you to understand that.

Given your skepticism, you must be a God disbeliever, right?
.

I believe in fate. Where do you supposed that comes from? Opinions are opinions. Doh!!!!!!!

Feel free to post up the evidence and not some opinion.

 

[PK1]

There is where you are wrong...

No...neither you, nor anyone on this board, nor any climate scientist has shown any observed, measured, quantified data to substantiate the AGW hypothesis...

---
WTF? Have you only read the AGW denier claims?
How about the professional opinions of the leading science academies in the world, who agree with AGW:
USA, UK, Russia, Germany, Japan, China, India, France, Italy, Canada, Brasil.
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

That pdf was from 2005. Since then, there have been very, very, very few (less than 1%) scientific publications opposed to the AGW theory.
.

do you even know what an opinion is? You think opinion is fact?.

---
Go ahead and continue displaying your science ignorance, if you don't want to learn about its methods.
No, i do not think opinion is fact. Did i ever say so?
I simply cited references from scientists who have opinions based on their evidence.
Science deals with probabilities, esp if research is complicated with multivariate analyses, but i don't expect noobs like you to understand that.

Given your skepticism, you must be a God disbeliever, right?
.

I believe in fate. Where do you supposed that comes from? Opinions are opinions. Doh!!!!!!!

Feel free to post up the evidence and not some opinion.

---
You believe in "fate"? What is that? Can you even define that, let alone provide ANY evidence for it?

I'm sure the latest IPCC report AR5 (2014) has some references to climate research evidence. Check out Topic 1 (p39), then go ahead and contact or review the research from dozens upon dozens of scientists cited in the Report's appendices:
http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

If you want more detail, feel free to look at the many journals on related research:
Climate Sci. Journals
.

 

[jc456]

No...neither you, nor anyone on this board, nor any climate scientist has shown any observed, measured, quantified data to substantiate the AGW hypothesis...

---
WTF? Have you only read the AGW denier claims?
How about the professional opinions of the leading science academies in the world, who agree with AGW:
USA, UK, Russia, Germany, Japan, China, India, France, Italy, Canada, Brasil.
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

That pdf was from 2005. Since then, there have been very, very, very few (less than 1%) scientific publications opposed to the AGW theory.
.

do you even know what an opinion is? You think opinion is fact?.

---
Go ahead and continue displaying your science ignorance, if you don't want to learn about its methods.
No, i do not think opinion is fact. Did i ever say so?
I simply cited references from scientists who have opinions based on their evidence.
Science deals with probabilities, esp if research is complicated with multivariate analyses, but i don't expect noobs like you to understand that.

Given your skepticism, you must be a God disbeliever, right?
.

I believe in fate. Where do you supposed that comes from? Opinions are opinions. Doh!!!!!!!

Feel free to post up the evidence and not some opinion.

---
You believe in "fate"? What is that? Can you even define that, let alone provide ANY evidence for it?

I'm sure the latest IPCC report AR5 (2014) has some references to climate research evidence. Check out Topic 1 (p39), then go ahead and contact or review the research from dozens upon dozens of scientists cited in the Report's appendices:
http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

If you want more detail, feel free to look at the many journals on related research:
Climate Sci. Journals
.

sure once you explain how it is they agree with the pause and yet CO2 went up?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well of course you are speechless....I asked for actual observed, measured, quantified evidence to support your belief in the AGW hypothesis....did I expect you to admit that you have none....nor could you find any? Of course not.....so what do you do?...pretend speechlessness.

As to the scientific community's record of being poor...do some research...learn something.

There you go again, calling a theory a hypothesis.

Hypotheses?

Theory?

What difference does it make?

The AGWCult treats them as the same -- totally irrelevant!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Debate the data I posted. I am not your puppet bitch and I am not the point or topic of debate.

This is the problem with left wing nut bags such as yourself. You want to discredit those who disagree with you on a professional basis to shut them up. I won't play your childish games.

This is the data you posted. It links to photobucket.com

The legend on your graph claims it comes from NOAA. But the following graph is a direct link to NOAA.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009.gif
It is quite different than your photobucket graph. I would think that the graph below accurately reflects what NOAA has published but the one you presented does not have a viable link to the fundamental source. The graph below shows more clearly that CO2 has a modest long term correlation with CO2, Although I certainly believe that the caption is correct - CO2 is not a thermostat.

Yeah, in 1880 we accurately measured temperature to a tenth of a degree

Sureeeeeeeeeeee

 

[PK1]

---
WTF? Have you only read the AGW denier claims?
How about the professional opinions of the leading science academies in the world, who agree with AGW:
USA, UK, Russia, Germany, Japan, China, India, France, Italy, Canada, Brasil.
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

That pdf was from 2005. Since then, there have been very, very, very few (less than 1%) scientific publications opposed to the AGW theory.
.

do you even know what an opinion is? You think opinion is fact?.

---
Go ahead and continue displaying your science ignorance, if you don't want to learn about its methods.
No, i do not think opinion is fact. Did i ever say so?
I simply cited references from scientists who have opinions based on their evidence.
Science deals with probabilities, esp if research is complicated with multivariate analyses, but i don't expect noobs like you to understand that.

Given your skepticism, you must be a God disbeliever, right?
.

I believe in fate. Where do you supposed that comes from? Opinions are opinions. Doh!!!!!!!

Feel free to post up the evidence and not some opinion.

---
You believe in "fate"? What is that? Can you even define that, let alone provide ANY evidence for it?

I'm sure the latest IPCC report AR5 (2014) has some references to climate research evidence. Check out Topic 1 (p39), then go ahead and contact or review the research from dozens upon dozens of scientists cited in the Report's appendices:
http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

If you want more detail, feel free to look at the many journals on related research:
Climate Sci. Journals
.

sure once you explain how it is they agree with the pause and yet CO2 went up?

---
So, no definition for "fate"?

I think i've wasted enough time on people (you & others) who are not interested in science & its evidence/interpretations.
You guys already made up your minds to reflect your political preferences.
.

 

[jc456]

do you even know what an opinion is? You think opinion is fact?.

---
Go ahead and continue displaying your science ignorance, if you don't want to learn about its methods.
No, i do not think opinion is fact. Did i ever say so?
I simply cited references from scientists who have opinions based on their evidence.
Science deals with probabilities, esp if research is complicated with multivariate analyses, but i don't expect noobs like you to understand that.

Given your skepticism, you must be a God disbeliever, right?
.

I believe in fate. Where do you supposed that comes from? Opinions are opinions. Doh!!!!!!!

Feel free to post up the evidence and not some opinion.

---
You believe in "fate"? What is that? Can you even define that, let alone provide ANY evidence for it?

I'm sure the latest IPCC report AR5 (2014) has some references to climate research evidence. Check out Topic 1 (p39), then go ahead and contact or review the research from dozens upon dozens of scientists cited in the Report's appendices:
http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

If you want more detail, feel free to look at the many journals on related research:
Climate Sci. Journals
.

sure once you explain how it is they agree with the pause and yet CO2 went up?

---
So, no definition for "fate"?

I think i've wasted enough time on people (you & others) who are not interested in science & its evidence/interpretations.
You guys already made up your minds to reflect your political preferences.
.

You wouldn't know what science was if it hit you in the face. Just post up some evidence my friend that's all I ever ask so far the board is 0 for 1000.

By the way open up a dictionary and look up f a t e. Learn yourself something son

 

[PK1]

---
Go ahead and continue displaying your science ignorance, if you don't want to learn about its methods.
No, i do not think opinion is fact. Did i ever say so?
I simply cited references from scientists who have opinions based on their evidence.
Science deals with probabilities, esp if research is complicated with multivariate analyses, but i don't expect noobs like you to understand that.

Given your skepticism, you must be a God disbeliever, right?
.

I believe in fate. Where do you supposed that comes from? Opinions are opinions. Doh!!!!!!!

Feel free to post up the evidence and not some opinion.

---
You believe in "fate"? What is that? Can you even define that, let alone provide ANY evidence for it?

I'm sure the latest IPCC report AR5 (2014) has some references to climate research evidence. Check out Topic 1 (p39), then go ahead and contact or review the research from dozens upon dozens of scientists cited in the Report's appendices:
http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

If you want more detail, feel free to look at the many journals on related research:
Climate Sci. Journals
.

sure once you explain how it is they agree with the pause and yet CO2 went up?

---
So, no definition for "fate"?

I think i've wasted enough time on people (you & others) who are not interested in science & its evidence/interpretations.
You guys already made up your minds to reflect your political preferences.
.

Just post up some evidence ...

open up a dictionary and look up f a t e.

---
Why don't you get your head out of the toilet and look at the ABUNDANT evidence in the AR5 pdf i provided in my post #152? Does it strain your 1st grade brain?
Prefer simple explanations like "God did it?".

Fate has several definitions & they differ by dictionary; that's why i asked for yours.
Ok then, here's a definition from Merriam-Webster that fits your simplistic mind:
"the three goddesses who determine the course of human life in classical mythology".
You have evidence for your belief?
LOL.
.

 

[jc456]

I believe in fate. Where do you supposed that comes from? Opinions are opinions. Doh!!!!!!!

Feel free to post up the evidence and not some opinion.

---
You believe in "fate"? What is that? Can you even define that, let alone provide ANY evidence for it?

I'm sure the latest IPCC report AR5 (2014) has some references to climate research evidence. Check out Topic 1 (p39), then go ahead and contact or review the research from dozens upon dozens of scientists cited in the Report's appendices:
http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

If you want more detail, feel free to look at the many journals on related research:
Climate Sci. Journals
.

sure once you explain how it is they agree with the pause and yet CO2 went up?

---
So, no definition for "fate"?

I think i've wasted enough time on people (you & others) who are not interested in science & its evidence/interpretations.
You guys already made up your minds to reflect your political preferences.
.

Just post up some evidence ...

open up a dictionary and look up f a t e.

---
Why don't you get your head out of the toilet and look at the ABUNDANT evidence in the AR5 pdf i provided in my post #152? Does it strain your 1st grade brain?
Prefer simple explanations like "God did it?".

Fate has several definitions & they differ by dictionary; that's why i asked for yours.
Ok then, here's a definition from Merriam-Webster that fits your simplistic mind:
"the three goddesses who determine the course of human life in classical mythology".
You have evidence for your belief?
LOL.
.

Everyday there's some reference to fate bubba!

Again you didn't answer why the pause when CO2 went up bubba. It's in there

 

[Billy_Bob]

There is where you are wrong...

No...neither you, nor anyone on this board, nor any climate scientist has shown any observed, measured, quantified data to substantiate the AGW hypothesis...

---
WTF? Have you only read the AGW denier claims?
How about the professional opinions of the leading science academies in the world, who agree with AGW:
USA, UK, Russia, Germany, Japan, China, India, France, Italy, Canada, Brasil.
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

That pdf was from 2005. Since then, there have been very, very, very few (less than 1%) scientific publications opposed to the AGW theory.
.

do you even know what an opinion is? You think opinion is fact?.

---
Go ahead and continue displaying your science ignorance, if you don't want to learn about its methods.
No, i do not think opinion is fact. Did i ever say so?
I simply cited references from scientists who have opinions based on their evidence.
Science deals with probabilities, esp if research is complicated with multivariate analyses, but i don't expect noobs like you to understand that.

Given your skepticism, you must be a God disbeliever, right?
.

Models are NOT EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND...

You trot out your appeals to authority and they use failed models..

Post up their evidence.. Lets see what it is your basing your religion on.. I dare you..