Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[SAT]

"What's Known
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.

The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.

An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).

The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.

Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet."

Human activities means anthropomorphic.

Virtual certainty is another way of saying beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your denials are faith based. Acceptance of the current state of knowledge is fact based.

 

[Oddball]

You should be sourcing your quotes, pal.

After that, you should probably find better sources than enviroloon websites, stating opinion as fact.

 

[SAT]

The link was provided earlier in the thread. We're still discussing the same link.

Here it is again.

State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

 

[Oddball]

Right....Because we all know the EPA bureaucrats don't have any financial and regulatory dogs in the hunt.

 

[Douger]

Global warming skeptics suspected climate change scientists were hiding data. So the skeptics paid for a new study to find the real truth. The results are in! And they're identical to previous results: Humans are heating up the earth.

University of California physics professor Richard Muller, one of the most vocal skeptics, gathered a team of 10 scientists, mostly physicists, including 2011 Nobel Physics Prize winner Saul Perlmutter, to create the Berkeley Earth Project.

Muller et. al. thought that data from weather stations used for previous studies may have been off because those located close to cities would record artificially warm temperatures. So the Berkeley Earth Project used new methods to re-analyze data from 40,000 weather stations. And guess what? The resulting graph looks almost exactly the same as the graphs from previous studies.

Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

Fucking murkinz are idiots.
Get a 12 passenger van on July 4. Put two people in it, one smoking, and roll up the windows.
Go for a ride.
Put 10 more people in it, six of them smoking. Continue your journey.
Get wifey or your mommy to read and explain this reply.

 

[Si modo]

The link was provided earlier in the thread. We're still discussing the same link.

Here it is again.

State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

"Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms. Answering these questions will require advances in scientific knowledge in a number of areas:"

Exactly what those persons you call "deniers" say.

Get a grip. You are making a fool of yourself.

But, more importantly: you clearly have no idea what science even is and you soil science with your politics.

 

[SAT]

The link was provided earlier in the thread. We're still discussing the same link.

Here it is again.

State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

"Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms. Answering these questions will require advances in scientific knowledge in a number of areas:"

Exactly what those persons you call "deniers" say.

Get a grip. You are making a fool of yourself.

But, more importantly: you clearly have no idea what science even is and you soil science with your politics.

No. That is not what deniers say. Deniers say that human caused global warming is a myth, or a hoax. They are factually wrong, and they are operating from a faith based perspective.

 

[Oddball]

The skeptics call the anthropogenic Goebbels warming hoax a hoax, because you can't swing a cat without hitting a warmist "scientist" who hasn't been caught fudging the facts to outright lying out their asses.

 

[Si modo]

The link was provided earlier in the thread. We're still discussing the same link.

Here it is again.

State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

"Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms. Answering these questions will require advances in scientific knowledge in a number of areas:"

Exactly what those persons you call "deniers" say.

Get a grip. You are making a fool of yourself.

But, more importantly: you clearly have no idea what science even is and you soil science with your politics.

No. That is not what deniers say. Deniers say that human caused global warming is a myth, or a hoax. They are factually wrong, and they are operating from a faith based perspective.

Thanks for answering what a 'denier' is in your mind.

Until the science supports that warming is caused by humans (in some sort of significant manner), claiming that humans are the cause of warming is nothing but a belief.

And, the EPA states exactly that - the scientific questions remain - what I quoted.

 

[SAT]

The EPA link specifically states that warming is caused by humans in a significant manner.

Please review the section that says what is known with virtual certainty.

Human activity is in there.

You are denying scientific reality.

That is your right as a free person, but that does not change the facts.

 

[Si modo]

The EPA link specifically states that warming is caused by humans in a significant manner.

....

No, it does not.

 

[Oddball]

The EPA link is worthless, as they have a vested interest in the claim.

Getting back to the thread subject, as set forth in the OP, Muller has been exposed as a liar....By his own colleague, no less.

Scientists who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague | Mail Online

 

[Si modo]

The EPA link is worthless, as they have a vested interest in the claim.

....

True, and that interest is having more significance as an agency, but more importantly, having much more power as an agency.

This is DC. Power is everything.

Irrespective of that, the kid doesn't even understand what s/he reads.

Getting back to the thread subject, as set forth in the OP, Muller has bee exposed as a liar....By his own colleague, no less.

Scientists who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague | Mail Online

I'll have to look at that.

 

[SAT]

And this is why you're laughed at as conspiracy theorists.

When facts come to light that you do not like, you attack the EPA as biased.

 

[Si modo]

And this is why you're laughed at as conspiracy theorists.

When facts come to light that you do not like, you attack the EPA as biased.

Look, kid. There is no evidence that warming is caused by man-made CO2. There is no evidence it isn't.

You BELIEVE it is, but that's all you have - beliefs. Just like any religion.

 

[Oddball]

And this is why you're laughed at as conspiracy theorists.

When facts come to light that you do not like, you attack the EPA as biased.

This is why you warmist moonbats are laughed at and mocked as cultists.

You can't even face the fact that your "scientists" have been caught red-handed lying out their asses.

 

[daveman]

The EPA link is worthless, as they have a vested interest in the claim.

Getting back to the thread subject, as set forth in the OP, Muller has been exposed as a liar....By his own colleague, no less.

Scientists who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague | Mail Online

Not only did he fudge the data, he also bastardized the peer-review process.

AGW simply isn't science.

 

[westwall]

Then you're naive.

Some of the energy companies have pushed denialism from the beginning. That's the ONLY reason for the debate, that a few corporate-funded deniers got equal time with actual researchers.

Denialism is anti-science. The OP is yet more proof that we are having human caused global warming. At this point, denialism is entirely faith based, and evidence cannot convince you.

I suppose that depends on what you think science is. If science is propaganda that supports the party line, then you have it exactly right.

If science is empirically reviewing real data, then you are wrong.

Right now the politicians that promote this warmer line of poop say there is warming and that there is an increase in CO2 and that the two are connected.

No proof yet of the connection.

GISS, RSS UAH, Hadley and the NOAA Argo Array all have data that reveals cooling since 2002. While CO2 has risen consistantly over the last 100 years, temperature has increased and decreased over the same period.

Our current warming started in about 1600 while the Industrial Revolution did not start until 100 years later.

The folks you are calling denialists are really the scientists. They are still seeking the data to prove or falsify the hypothesis. The folks you call scientists are politicians. They are seeking power and funding.

You personaly do not understand the argument, the science or the motivations of this debate. You would be well served to try to understand these before blindly proclaiming the baseless and misleading tripe put forth by the politicians you mistake for scientists.

So with all that "cooling" going on in the last decade, how is it that the same decade is the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement???? And temperature has not increased and decreased during the period. Temperature has increased and leveled off between increases, but the normal decreases between warming cycles have disappeared. Something is interfering with the natural cooling cycles between warming cycles!!!

Ahhh, but grasshopper...it truly wasn't. Only Hansen and his cronies published things that said it was warmer. Empirical evidence shows otherwise. Something about early snows, longer winters, harsher winters etc. You know, winters the last 4 years running have been colder then normal as evidenced by all the millions of critters dying all over the world from COLD. Funny that, i havn't seen a SINGLE report of millions of critters dying from heat...have you?

 

[westwall]

"What's Known
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.

The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.

An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).

The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.

Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet."

Human activities means anthropomorphic.

Virtual certainty is another way of saying beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your denials are faith based. Acceptance of the current state of knowledge is fact based.

Actually it's you who are faith based. All you have are computer models that tell you (and you believe) that it is getting warmer. On the other hand, for the past 4 years running the winters have been so harsh worldwide that MILLIONS of animals are dying from the cold.

Funny how there hasn't been a single report of millions of creatures dying from the heat. Don't you think? Reverend?

 

[westwall]

The link was provided earlier in the thread. We're still discussing the same link.

Here it is again.

State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

"Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms. Answering these questions will require advances in scientific knowledge in a number of areas:"

Exactly what those persons you call "deniers" say.

Get a grip. You are making a fool of yourself.

But, more importantly: you clearly have no idea what science even is and you soil science with your politics.

No. That is not what deniers say. Deniers say that human caused global warming is a myth, or a hoax. They are factually wrong, and they are operating from a faith based perspective.

Please show us then, all the empirical data to support your claim. No computer models are allowed. Only empirical data.