Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[westwall]

This is exactly why the ignorant need to keep their grimy little political fingers out of science.

Popper's philosophy was totally accepted by the scientific community to keep exactly this sort of shit out of science for exactly this reason.

Then we have the political hacks and the postmodern shits who attempt to soil it on a regular basis.

If one doesn't have the aptitude to understand even the elementary basics of the fundamental philosophy of science, they need to stay the fuck away from it for the good of science.

And, for the sake of their own pride, if they have any.

You cannot believe that you're fooling anyone with this post.

Rolling Thunder schooled you on your complete misunderstanding of correlation, and you blew it off like you were a blind man.

The OP is about a man who went into this TRYING to disprove human caused global warming, and now, as the OP says, he is eating crow.

The earth is unquestionably in a warming trend, and that trend is virtually certainly caused by greenhouse gases, which are the result of human activity.

Denial time is over. Let's work on the problem, and stop pretending that what you're engaged in is anything other than politics.

trolling blunder couldn't school a baboon on how to wipe it's ass. trolling blunder like you have the scientific aptitude of a gnat. You fundamentally can't or won't understand the basic underpinnings of the scientific method.

Si, like myself are actual, real scientists. We actually do know and respect the scientific method, something you play at. We live it. There's a HUGE difference.

 

[Si modo]

This is exactly why the ignorant need to keep their grimy little political fingers out of science.

Popper's philosophy was totally accepted by the scientific community to keep exactly this sort of shit out of science for exactly this reason.

Then we have the political hacks and the postmodern shits who attempt to soil it on a regular basis.

If one doesn't have the aptitude to understand even the elementary basics of the fundamental philosophy of science, they need to stay the fuck away from it for the good of science.

And, for the sake of their own pride, if they have any.

You cannot believe that you're fooling anyone with this post.

Rolling Thunder schooled you on your complete misunderstanding of correlation, and you blew it off like you were a blind man.

The OP is about a man who went into this TRYING to disprove human caused global warming, and now, as the OP says, he is eating crow.

The earth is unquestionably in a warming trend, and that trend is virtually certainly caused by greenhouse gases, which are the result of human activity.

Denial time is over. Let's work on the problem, and stop pretending that what you're engaged in is anything other than politics.

trolling blunder couldn't school a baboon on how to wipe it's ass. trolling blunder like you have the scientific aptitude of a gnat. You fundamentally can't or won't understand the basic underpinnings of the scientific method.

Si, like myself are actual, real scientists. We actually do know and respect the scientific method, something you play at. We live it. There's a HUGE difference.

You know it must be bad when, while I was responding to them, I actually was thinking they make Rocks look good.

 

[westwall]

Thank you for confirming that you are dodging the observation that the difference in the lows of each leveling off period quantifies man's contribution to global warming.

It does correlate with it, but correlation is not causation.

Thus, my lack of comment.

Still bobbing and weaving as you dodge the issue. You asked how to quantify man's contribution to global warming. There are multiple warming influences, natural and man made. The natural influences operate in cycles of warming and cooling, and man made influences warm steadily.

The man made and natural influences modulate each other. When both man made and natural influences both warm they add together. When the natural influences cool they are opposed by the man made influences which are still warming and stunt the cooling. The man made influences have neutralized the cooling cycles and thus the increase in the low averages of the natural cooling cycles from cooling cycle to cooling cycle gives you an empirical quantification of man made global warming.

As the deniers have stated in this thread, we are 10 years into what should be a 30 year cooling cycle, but we are still warming, more slowly than the previous 20 years, but warming none the less. This last decade is the warmest in the history of direct instrument measurement. It seems the man made warming is so strong nature can no longer stop it completely 10 years into the cycle, but can only slow it down. It will be interesting to see if we are still warming in another 5 years when the natural cooling is at its max!

Please show us where the globe is still warming. BEST says that warming hasn't occured for the last 10 to 11 years.

 

[westwall]

You cannot believe that you're fooling anyone with this post.

Rolling Thunder schooled you on your complete misunderstanding of correlation, and you blew it off like you were a blind man.

The OP is about a man who went into this TRYING to disprove human caused global warming, and now, as the OP says, he is eating crow.

The earth is unquestionably in a warming trend, and that trend is virtually certainly caused by greenhouse gases, which are the result of human activity.

Denial time is over. Let's work on the problem, and stop pretending that what you're engaged in is anything other than politics.

trolling blunder couldn't school a baboon on how to wipe it's ass. trolling blunder like you have the scientific aptitude of a gnat. You fundamentally can't or won't understand the basic underpinnings of the scientific method.

Si, like myself are actual, real scientists. We actually do know and respect the scientific method, something you play at. We live it. There's a HUGE difference.

You know it must be bad when, while I was responding to them, I actually was thinking they make Rocks look good.

These clowns are really, really bad representations of the US public education system. My gosh, you make it as plain as day and they don't understand. SAT thinks he's being cute trying to lead us down the Primrose Path but he's not smart enough to formulate questions to get us there.

Pathetic and embarassing; if he was smart enough to understand just how moronic he's being.

 

[RollingThunder]

Is there scientific evidence that the warming is significantly caused by man made CO2?

Surely, you'll post that scientific evidence and put this silliness to rest immediately.

There is indeed scientific evidence that the current abrupt warming is "significantly caused" by mankind's CO2 emissions. It has been shown to you repeatedly but you are a braindead troll so you just close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and shout la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la and pretend you didn't see or hear it. The fact that you keep asking for "the evidence" when you in such fierce partisan denial of the reality of the evidence even when you see it just demonstrates what a complete brainwashed troll you are, you silly little cretin.

 

[Si modo]

Is there scientific evidence that the warming is significantly caused by man made CO2?

Surely, you'll post that scientific evidence and put this silliness to rest immediately.

There is indeed scientific evidence that the current abrupt warming is "significantly caused" by mankind's CO2 emissions. It has been shown to you repeatedly but you are a braindead troll so you just close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and shout la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la and pretend you didn't see or hear it. The fact that you keep asking for "the evidence" when you in such fierce partisan denial of the reality of the evidence even when you see it just demonstrates what a complete brainwashed troll you are, you silly little cretin.

I asked for science. You did not provide that.

When discussing science and making scientific decisions and conclusions, science is the only thing that matters.

 

[RollingThunder]

Is there scientific evidence that the warming is significantly caused by man made CO2?

Surely, you'll post that scientific evidence and put this silliness to rest immediately.

There is indeed scientific evidence that the current abrupt warming is "significantly caused" by mankind's CO2 emissions. It has been shown to you repeatedly but you are a braindead troll so you just close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and shout la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la and pretend you didn't see or hear it. The fact that you keep asking for "the evidence" when you in such fierce partisan denial of the reality of the evidence even when you see it just demonstrates what a complete brainwashed troll you are, you silly little cretin.

I asked for science. You did not provide that.

When discussing science and making scientific decisions and conclusions, science is the only thing that matters.

The problem here is that you are an ignorant little denier cult retard and you wouldn't know "science" if it bit you.

I did provide the science right here.

You won't respond to the science. You just keep denying that it exists. It does exist and it is very clear. Stop avoiding dealing with it with your lame evasions. But then that's all ya got, punk. Lame evasions and futile denial of reality.

 

[Si modo]

There is indeed scientific evidence that the current abrupt warming is "significantly caused" by mankind's CO2 emissions. It has been shown to you repeatedly but you are a braindead troll so you just close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and shout la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la and pretend you didn't see or hear it. The fact that you keep asking for "the evidence" when you in such fierce partisan denial of the reality of the evidence even when you see it just demonstrates what a complete brainwashed troll you are, you silly little cretin.

I asked for science. You did not provide that.

When discussing science and making scientific decisions and conclusions, science is the only thing that matters.

The problem here is that you are an ignorant little denier cult retard and you wouldn't know "science" if it bit you.

I did provide the science right here.

You won't respond to the science. You just keep denying that it exists. It does exist and it is very clear. Stop avoiding dealing with it with your lame evasions. But then that's all ya got, punk. Lame evasions and futile denial of reality.

That's a blog, not science.

If you are unclear on what science means, I described it earlier.

 

[westwall]

Is there scientific evidence that the warming is significantly caused by man made CO2?

Surely, you'll post that scientific evidence and put this silliness to rest immediately.

There is indeed scientific evidence that the current abrupt warming is "significantly caused" by mankind's CO2 emissions. It has been shown to you repeatedly but you are a braindead troll so you just close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and shout la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la and pretend you didn't see or hear it. The fact that you keep asking for "the evidence" when you in such fierce partisan denial of the reality of the evidence even when you see it just demonstrates what a complete brainwashed troll you are, you silly little cretin.

Really? Where prey tell is that "evidence"? Oh, wait, don't tell m it's a computer model right? Yes I thought so. Those are useless. Remember those same computer models were telling there would be no snow in winter and hurricanes would be more powerful and frequent. OOOOOPPPPS!

 

[westwall]

There is indeed scientific evidence that the current abrupt warming is "significantly caused" by mankind's CO2 emissions. It has been shown to you repeatedly but you are a braindead troll so you just close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and shout la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la and pretend you didn't see or hear it. The fact that you keep asking for "the evidence" when you in such fierce partisan denial of the reality of the evidence even when you see it just demonstrates what a complete brainwashed troll you are, you silly little cretin.

I asked for science. You did not provide that.

When discussing science and making scientific decisions and conclusions, science is the only thing that matters.

The problem here is that you are an ignorant little denier cult retard and you wouldn't know "science" if it bit you.

I did provide the science right here.

You won't respond to the science. You just keep denying that it exists. It does exist and it is very clear. Stop avoiding dealing with it with your lame evasions. But then that's all ya got, punk. Lame evasions and futile denial of reality.

That makes the claim that the increased CO2 levels are attrributable to man, but makes no real effort to prove it. They provide no empirical data to support their contention and then resort to pure horsecrap to prove a link between increased CO2 content and global temps. In other words they rely on correlation as proof of causation, a fundamental denial of the scientific method.

You need to learn how to read.

 

[Si modo]

I asked for science. You did not provide that.

When discussing science and making scientific decisions and conclusions, science is the only thing that matters.

The problem here is that you are an ignorant little denier cult retard and you wouldn't know "science" if it bit you.

I did provide the science right here.

You won't respond to the science. You just keep denying that it exists. It does exist and it is very clear. Stop avoiding dealing with it with your lame evasions. But then that's all ya got, punk. Lame evasions and futile denial of reality.

That makes the claim that the increased CO2 levels are attrributable to man, but makes no real effort to prove it. They provide no empirical data to support their contention and then resort to pure horsecrap to prove a link between increased CO2 content and global temps. In other words they rely on correlation as proof of causation, a fundamental denial of the scientific method.

You need to learn how to read.

But, but, but....we were told that poster 'schooled us' on correlation not equaling causation?

 

[westwall]

The problem here is that you are an ignorant little denier cult retard and you wouldn't know "science" if it bit you.

I did provide the science right here.

You won't respond to the science. You just keep denying that it exists. It does exist and it is very clear. Stop avoiding dealing with it with your lame evasions. But then that's all ya got, punk. Lame evasions and futile denial of reality.

That makes the claim that the increased CO2 levels are attrributable to man, but makes no real effort to prove it. They provide no empirical data to support their contention and then resort to pure horsecrap to prove a link between increased CO2 content and global temps. In other words they rely on correlation as proof of causation, a fundamental denial of the scientific method.

You need to learn how to read.

But, but, but....we were told that poster 'schooled us' on correlation not equaling causation?

Hey! I never said they were smart!

 

[edthecynic]

It does correlate with it, but correlation is not causation.

Thus, my lack of comment.

Still bobbing and weaving as you dodge the issue. You asked how to quantify man's contribution to global warming. There are multiple warming influences, natural and man made. The natural influences operate in cycles of warming and cooling, and man made influences warm steadily.

The man made and natural influences modulate each other. When both man made and natural influences both warm they add together. When the natural influences cool they are opposed by the man made influences which are still warming and stunt the cooling. The man made influences have neutralized the cooling cycles and thus the increase in the low averages of the natural cooling cycles from cooling cycle to cooling cycle gives you an empirical quantification of man made global warming.

As the deniers have stated in this thread, we are 10 years into what should be a 30 year cooling cycle, but we are still warming, more slowly than the previous 20 years, but warming none the less. This last decade is the warmest in the history of direct instrument measurement. It seems the man made warming is so strong nature can no longer stop it completely 10 years into the cycle, but can only slow it down. It will be interesting to see if we are still warming in another 5 years when the natural cooling is at its max!

Please show us where the globe is still warming. BEST says that warming hasn't occured for the last 10 to 11 years.

This is a perfect example of why no honest person has any respect for CON$. Even after it was pointed out to you that the chart is NOT from BEST, you just continue to lie and say that it is from BEST. The chart is from the denier think-tank the Global Warming Policy Foundation. It says so right on the graph, so you knew you were lying when you said "BEST says."

 

[Oddball]

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes...

 

[konradv]

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes...

So what? Weren't we in a solar minimum? "Hide the decline" from that source and you have the contribution of man. Of course, the deniers only want us to consider the sun when it suits their argument. Now it seems they want to forget.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes...

I have peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate and awesome too.

Science = settled.

Prosecutor: Did you murder Ron Brown and Nicole?

OJ: Yes, but only just

See, it means OJ didn't do it to a 95% statistically significant level or something Beavis

 

[CrusaderFrank]

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes...

So what? Weren't we in a solar minimum? "Hide the decline" from that source and you have the contribution of man. Of course, the deniers only want us to consider the sun when it suits their argument. Now it seems they want to forget.

While we're on the topic of thing we want to forget.

Remember this?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes...

So what? Weren't we in a solar minimum? "Hide the decline" from that source and you have the contribution of man. Of course, the deniers only want us to consider the sun when it suits their argument. Now it seems they want to forget.

So what? Weren't we in a solar minimum?

What? We need to take the sun into account when discussing "climate change"?
Man-made CO2 isn't the only factor?

 

[Oddball]

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes...

So what? Weren't we in a solar minimum? "Hide the decline" from that source and you have the contribution of man. Of course, the deniers only want us to consider the sun when it suits their argument. Now it seems they want to forget.

Wait a minute.....You mean to say that the great big yellow thing in the sky, that comprises 99.8% of the mass of entire solar system, has something to do with the Earf's climate?!?!?!?!?

Well, I'll be dipped!

 

[edthecynic]

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes...

Well Dupe, you've sunk to parroting CF's bullshit, but you've gone even lower. You don't provide a link to the whole quote like CF does. Shame on you!

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.