An overwhelming body of data and still we have climate deniers

[flacaltenn]

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

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

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

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

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

No problem

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjP0PjSvfbOAhUT32MKHYYlC18QFggcMAA&url=http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-overestimate-global-warming.htm&usg=AFQjCNE7zSj1vqvRMpK9tWt_5erzP_QRdg&sig2=DzsH5wBAnz5wBatNBYsAhw&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc

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

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

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

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

See

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Boston1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too funny..

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

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

LOL religion, Another awesome dodge to avoid the science

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

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

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

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

 

[Boston1]

This right here is the truth

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

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

The science is extremely clear

 

[Old Rocks]

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

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

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

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

 

[Old Rocks]

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

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

See

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwiz_p6XgvXOAhVN32MKHZ0JDtIQFggkMAI&url=http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/&usg=AFQjCNFCzrvxOOdAicmgOOXThWn-6LnKpA&sig2=Qiy2ulr6xXfZfDqnIAeWww&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc

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

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

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

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

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

Oh and PS, lets keep it clean and polite

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

Yikes

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

Also models have been extremely accurate in predicting changes.

see
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiZ0qD9_fTOAhVKVWMKHetCB68QFggjMAE&url=https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm&usg=AFQjCNEt1SAbb2X1J537IypO3Dg2vEHVmw&sig2=NVq4qW5ptHZDXtKMjXRNOw&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc

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

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

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

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

 

[Old Rocks]

Personal attacks are a sure s

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you rationalize that away?

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

CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event

 

[Old Rocks]

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

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

See

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwiz_p6XgvXOAhVN32MKHZ0JDtIQFggkMAI&url=http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/&usg=AFQjCNFCzrvxOOdAicmgOOXThWn-6LnKpA&sig2=Qiy2ulr6xXfZfDqnIAeWww&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc

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

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

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

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

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

Oh and PS, lets keep it clean and polite

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

Yikes

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

Also models have been extremely accurate in predicting changes.

see
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiZ0qD9_fTOAhVKVWMKHetCB68QFggjMAE&url=https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm&usg=AFQjCNEt1SAbb2X1J537IypO3Dg2vEHVmw&sig2=NVq4qW5ptHZDXtKMjXRNOw&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[flacaltenn]

Personal attacks are a sure s

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

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

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

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

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

How do you rationalize that away?

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

CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[westwall]

This right here is the truth

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

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

The science is extremely clear

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

 

[Old Rocks]

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

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

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

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

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

Oh and PS, lets keep it clean and polite

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[flacaltenn]

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

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

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

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

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

Oh and PS, lets keep it clean and polite

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Humorous video destroys Global Whiners

 

[flacaltenn]

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

 

[Crick]

Yeah.. that Hansen,

Just an alarmist hack.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah.. that Hansen,

Just an alarmist hack.

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

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

 

[Crick]

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

FACT.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Average

Personal attacks are a sure s
Really, a climate denier in charge of the climate thread. Thats entertaining

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

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

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

How do you rationalize that away?

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

CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too funny..

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

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

LOL religion, Another awesome dodge to avoid the science

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

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

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwid9LrT2PbOAhUN1GMKHU7mBTgQFgg3MAQ&url=https://thinkprogress.org/the-koch-funded-scientist-who-came-in-from-the-cold-muller-warns-were-in-dangerous-realm-of-very-1e2b9bf4e0e8&usg=AFQjCNE6eiiOw5nCjGEBfXGyfNqviIfyXw&sig2=RXou3LKeu1db5NjPNRqGZw&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc

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

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

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

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

 

[Billy_Bob]

This right here is the truth

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

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

The science is extremely clear

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

 

[Crick]

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

My fucking god are you stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

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

How do they make a thermometer ?

They calibrate it against a standard ;--)

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

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