AGW Question

[Billy_Bob]

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.
.

The stupid, it burns....

Tell me moron, what model has predicted anything right? As far as i am aware, no model has predicted anything right and fails its predictive phase of theroy falsification..

Even IPCC AR5 has missed their most recent barrage of predictions (I forgot, they are now projections so they cant be held responsible for being wrong and falsifying their theroy)

 

[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?
.

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

---
Oh, another atheist.
The AR5 has lots of evidence.
Which do you dispute in that pdf i provided?
Unlike "God", science is falsifiable.
If you don't like the evidence presented, then cite an opposing argument by a real climate scientist, which you are not.
.

 

[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?
.

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

---
Oh, another atheist.
The AR5 has lots of evidence.
Which do you dispute in that pdf i provided?
Unlike "God", science is falsifiable.
If you don't like the evidence presented, then cite an opposing argument by a real climate scientist, which you are not.
.

Hahahaha got nothing to say I see

 

[Billy_Bob]

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?
.

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

---
Oh, another atheist.
The AR5 has lots of evidence.
Which do you dispute in that pdf i provided?
Unlike "God", science is falsifiable.
If you don't like the evidence presented, then cite an opposing argument by a real climate scientist, which you are not.
.

AR5 is based on modeling.. No empirical evidence was used... Another epic fail...

 

[SSDD]

...
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.
.

No, I am referring to the AGW 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.

If you can point to the observed, measured, quantified data either observed in nature or via repeatable scientific experiment that resulted in the hypothesis being raised to the status of theory...I, for one, would be thrilled to see it...otherwise, stop whining and accept the fact that you believe in a hypothesis...a failed hypothesis.

 

[SSDD]

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.
.

OK...so which part of that do you believe is actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the AGW hypothesis....do you even know what observed, measured quantified evidence is? hint....it doesn't come out of failing computer models.

 

[SSDD]

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."
.

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."
.

So lets see some of it...I have been asking for decades for a single bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data in support of the AGW hypothesis and have yet to see any...not one bit...I get people like you posting links to exactly the sort of clap trap that you posted thinking, apparently that there was some actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical data there, but alas, there is none...I can only conclude that the idiots who have been taken in buy this hoax simply don't know what constitutes actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical data.

 

[SSDD]

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..

Well, they are evidence of the failure of the AGW hypothesis....they are, in fact, the AGW hypothesis incarnate and the basis of the string of failed predictions going back for decades...they have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the hypothesis is, in fact flawed....if the hypothesis were correct, there would be no failed predictions...such is the nature of science....no one ever dropped a rock up....so went the predictive capacity of the hypothesis of gravity and why it is no longer a hypothesis...

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Rhetorical bs aside, Global Warming is not a hypothesis, it is a theory.

And a weatherman is not a climate scientist

 

[Billy_Bob]

Rhetorical bs aside, Global Warming is not a hypothesis, it is a theory.

And a weatherman is not a climate scientist

What an ass clown..

CAGW is a hypothesis.. It has not reached theroy because it has not been quantified. What an ignorant fool.

And weathermen generally attend atmospheric physics courses becasue they must know what drives the weather patterns in order to forecast it..

Again you fail at basic cognitive thought.. TWICE.. You and your climastrologists and their crystal balls, seer stones, tarot cards and bones...

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Climate change and global warming are NOT the same thing! And rhetoric, is no substitute for science. And a weatherman is not a climate scientist, anymore than a student who takes a biology course is somehow magically, a biologist.

came across a site that uses science Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Questions (FAQ)

 

[Billy_Bob]

Climate change and global warming are NOT the same thing! And rhetoric, is no substitute for science. And a weatherman is not a climate scientist, anymore than a student who takes a biology course is somehow magically, a biologist.

came across a site that uses science Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Questions (FAQ)

You really are fucking halfwit moron..

If you say 'climate change', you really mean 'man made global warming'.. You see, its you folks who have clouded the terminology so badly, as to confuse the general public and make them believe in something that is a lie..

And here you are calling the real scientist who are looking into how the planet functions stupid becasue they do not believe your lies and deceptions..

Gawd are you stupid!

 

[jc456]

Rhetorical bs aside, Global Warming is not a hypothesis, it is a theory.

And a weatherman is not a climate scientist

wow, are you really posting that. No other warmer would post that. They know the experiment hasn't been done. son you should learn how to be a scientist first before jumping out in traffic.

 

[jc456]

Rhetorical bs aside, Global Warming is not a hypothesis, it is a theory.

And a weatherman is not a climate scientist

And a weatherman is not a climate scientist

Why not?

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Believing a weatherman is a climate scientist, is like believing the Sun revolves around the Earth

[mistype had the word NOT in the above sentence]

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus

 

[Billy_Bob]

Believing a weatherman is not a climate scientist, is like believing the Sun revolves around the Earth

Wow...

You cant remember the last point you made, that weathermen were NOT scientists.. Now you say they are..

Make up your dam mind and quit running in circles..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus

More consensus garbage...

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Believing a weatherman is not a climate scientist, is like believing the Sun revolves around the Earth

Wow...

You cant remember the last point you made, that weathermen were NOT scientists.. Now you say they are..

Make up your dam mind and quit running in circles..

Wowza! A mistype (not) has you playing 'gotcha' as if that makes any of your arguments more credible ad valid.

you are a tool. for sure, a tool.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus

More consensus garbage...

Sure. everyone like you knows NASA faked the moon landings



THE RIGHT WING WILL SOON BE CALLING FOR DEFUNDING OF NASA

NASA uses the term CONSENSUS

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: News

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Questions (FAQ)

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Carbon Dioxide

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Temperature

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Effects