Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[SAT]

If she's a professional working scientist, then she does have a case for the sorry state of science.

 

[daveman]

Of course not. He's an AGW cultist. They don't do science. They do religion.

That shoe would be on your foot.

Regarding the state of the evidence, the EPA link points out that the processes involved in global warming are well understood. Is that sentence understood by the deniers? Do you understand that they are working from an existing body of knowledge?

Here's a rebuttal to the "there is no evidence" claim.

‘There is no evidence’—Yes, there is | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

Here's a response to the complaint about computer models.

‘Climate models are unproven’—Actually, GCM’s have many confirmed successes under their belts | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

Blogs aren't science. You seem to be incapable of grasping that simple fact.

 

[Si modo]

Oh, another sea change!!!! Last night, you wanted to look at the SCIENCE. Now you're content with a mere abstract. But an abstract won't have the actual DATA, so how are you going to wow us with your skillz?

Global Warming and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent

So, you think that abstract (and the subsequent paper itself) supports your claim that warming is due to man made CO2.

Stunning.

THIS is your contribution? More sneering? You asked for the science, you claimed you could read the article if I gave you the information, and you're back in a few minutes with absolutely nothing of substance to say? Talk about epic fail.

Comment on the SCIENCE. The SCIENCE you demanded has been brought to you. Now say something about the SCIENCE and not about the poster.

Well as the abstract does nothing even close to supporting your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming, there is no need to look further.

Ummm, that's the purpose of an abstract, you know.

Do you have anything that supports your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming?

 

[SAT]

Si, the Journal of Climatology is a research journal. You have to pay to read it online, they don't give it away for free.

Please don't let your anger blind you to this-I'm not asking that you agree with that POV. Just that such articles exist.

Let's get even simpler. Do you agree that there is such a publication as the Journal of Climatology?

LOL.

There is a consensus that evolution has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen on earth as long as there is life here.

There is a consensus that GHGs increase heat on the surface of the earth in accordance with the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. There is a consensus that we are rapidly increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere.

There is a consensus among those with a brain that Sis is a lying political troll. All that flap yap without a single referance to real science is just deflection from the fact that you cannot present a single bit of real science to support your political postitions.

What he said.

I've tried the simplest of questions, starting with "Is the Earth getting hotter?" That question was met with various expressions of fear, including Si sourly admitting that the Earth has gotten hotter over the last 130 years.

I tried to point out that there might be a reason that there's a correlation between package delivery and global warming. That was met with fear as well.

Now I can't even get Si to admit that there are research papers purporting to show evidence of AGW. She says if I can't post a link to them, they don't exist. She thinks reality is dependent on my posting a link.

Somehow I don't think Popper would be too proud of that. KWIM?

I understand some have to pay for the paper.

But, go ahead and provide the citation that you believe supports your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of any warming. I assure you I will be able to inspect the paper.

Time to follow through.

 

[daveman]

Explain the significance of a non-falsifiable hypothesis.

Here, this should help you.

Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, I want you to explain it in your own words then apply it to the global warming hypothesis. Explain to us how global warming can be responsible for causing less snow to fall in winter and at the same time causing more snow to fall in winter.

Reference the unfalsifiability problem to more rain/less rain, bird migrations longer/bird migrations shorter, Earths rotation to slow down/Earths rotation to speed up, North Atlantic Cyclone activity to increase/North Atlantic Cyclone activity to decrease.

All of these mutually exclusive predictions, and many many more have been claimed by the AGW alarmist camp. Please explain how the problem of unfalsifiability affects these predictions. In your own words.

A complete list of things caused by global warming.

Nothing but fear-mongering by people who operate solely on emotion.

 

[Si modo]

Si, the Journal of Climatology is a research journal. You have to pay to read it online, they don't give it away for free.

Please don't let your anger blind you to this-I'm not asking that you agree with that POV. Just that such articles exist.

Let's get even simpler. Do you agree that there is such a publication as the Journal of Climatology?



What he said.

I've tried the simplest of questions, starting with "Is the Earth getting hotter?" That question was met with various expressions of fear, including Si sourly admitting that the Earth has gotten hotter over the last 130 years.

I tried to point out that there might be a reason that there's a correlation between package delivery and global warming. That was met with fear as well.

Now I can't even get Si to admit that there are research papers purporting to show evidence of AGW. She says if I can't post a link to them, they don't exist. She thinks reality is dependent on my posting a link.

Somehow I don't think Popper would be too proud of that. KWIM?

I understand some have to pay for the paper.

But, go ahead and provide the citation that you believe supports your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of any warming. I assure you I will be able to inspect the paper.

Time to follow through.

You've provided nothing on which to follow through.

 

[RollingThunder]

My claim is that there is no science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

That's your idiotic claim, all right. A claim that you can't back up in any way. A claim that virtually the entire world scientific community disagrees with, which makes you a certifiable part of the lunatic fringe right up there with the Flat Earth Society screwballs.

Actually there is lots of such evidence and some of it has been shown to you over and over but you refuse to look at it or acknowledge it. And that is the way you maintain your delusions - you simply don't look at the evidence and instead, keep on denying that it exists as an article of faith in your denier cult dogmas. You are a troll.

 

[daveman]

the stupid is strong in this one.

You haven't made a single post in this thread that was anything other than stupid. Your contribution has been nothing but tired, baseless insults-no useful information, no well-thought out arguments, nothing. Big fat zero.

I see why you're upset. He's horning in on your schtick.

 

[SAT]

Surface and satellite-based observations show a decrease in Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent during the past 46 years. A comparison of these trends to control and transient integrations (forced by observed greenhouse gases and tropospheric sulfate aerosols) from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory and Hadley Centre climate models reveals that the observed decrease in Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent agrees with the transient simulations, and both trends are much larger than would be expected from natural climate variations. From long-term control runs of climate models, it was found that the probability of the observed trends resulting from natural climate variability, assuming that the models' natural variability is similar to that found in nature, is less than 2 percent for the 1978–98 sea ice trends and less than 0.1 percent for the 1953–98 sea ice trends. Both models used here project continued decreases in sea ice thickness and extent throughout the next century.

Global Warming and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent

 

[daveman]

the stupid is strong in this one.

Yeah, we know, everybody is saying that about you. Bold of you though to admit it so forthrightly. Most of the other denier cultists won't admit that they are total retards but you have the courage to be honest. Congratulations on being an honest idiot.

Everyone?

I haven't said that. You're a liar.

 

[SAT]

I understand some have to pay for the paper.

But, go ahead and provide the citation that you believe supports your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of any warming. I assure you I will be able to inspect the paper.

Time to follow through.

You've provided nothing on which to follow through.

Surface and satellite-based observations show a decrease in Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent during the past 46 years. A comparison of these trends to control and transient integrations (forced by observed greenhouse gases and tropospheric sulfate aerosols) from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory and Hadley Centre climate models reveals that the observed decrease in Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent agrees with the transient simulations, and both trends are much larger than would be expected from natural climate variations. From long-term control runs of climate models, it was found that the probability of the observed trends resulting from natural climate variability, assuming that the models' natural variability is similar to that found in nature, is less than 2 percent for the 1978–98 sea ice trends and less than 0.1 percent for the 1953–98 sea ice trends. Both models used here project continued decreases in sea ice thickness and extent throughout the next century.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/286/5446/1934.short

Again. I have.

 

[Si modo]

My claim is that there is no science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

That's your idiotic claim, all right. A claim that you can't back up in any way. ....

I'm sorry. I would back it up if it were possible to prove a negative, that is.

 

[daveman]

If she's a professional working scientist, then she does have a case for the sorry state of science.

She's getting it right. You're being an idiot. You haven't the first clue about how science works. You've been programmed by your lefty blogs, and you mistake that for independent rational thought.

Good job, asshat.

 

[daveman]

So, you think that abstract (and the subsequent paper itself) supports your claim that warming is due to man made CO2.

Stunning.

THIS is your contribution? More sneering? You asked for the science, you claimed you could read the article if I gave you the information, and you're back in a few minutes with absolutely nothing of substance to say? Talk about epic fail.

Comment on the SCIENCE. The SCIENCE you demanded has been brought to you. Now say something about the SCIENCE and not about the poster.

Well as the abstract does nothing even close to supporting your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming, there is no need to look further.

Ummm, that's the purpose of an abstract, you know.

Do you have anything that supports your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming?

You mean besides wishful thinking? No.

 

[Si modo]

Time to follow through.

You've provided nothing on which to follow through.

Oh, I have.

What part of supporting your claim confuses you so much?

You have not supported your claim. You can type whatever you want but that is zero support.

 

[del]

the stupid is strong in this one.

You haven't made a single post in this thread that was anything other than stupid. Your contribution has been nothing but tired, baseless insults-no useful information, no well-thought out arguments, nothing. Big fat zero.

well, you sure told me.

tissue?

 

[RollingThunder]

the stupid is strong in this one.

Yeah, we know, everybody is saying that about you. Bold of you though to admit it so forthrightly. Most of the other denier cultists won't admit that they are total retards but you have the courage to be honest. Congratulations on being an honest idiot.

Everyone?

I haven't said that. You're a liar.

But davedumb, you're one of the other denier cult retards I was referring to and you're not intelligent enough to say anything meaningful so you don't count. (Except maybe on your fingers and toes.)

 

[SAT]

Surface and satellite-based observations show a decrease in Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent during the past 46 years. A comparison of these trends to control and transient integrations (forced by observed greenhouse gases and tropospheric sulfate aerosols) from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory and Hadley Centre climate models reveals that the observed decrease in Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent agrees with the transient simulations, and both trends are much larger than would be expected from natural climate variations. From long-term control runs of climate models, it was found that the probability of the observed trends resulting from natural climate variability, assuming that the models' natural variability is similar to that found in nature, is less than 2 percent for the 1978–98 sea ice trends and less than 0.1 percent for the 1953–98 sea ice trends. Both models used here project continued decreases in sea ice thickness and extent throughout the next century.

Again. Do you understand the words in bold?

Global Warming and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent

 

[Si modo]

Yeah, we know, everybody is saying that about you. Bold of you though to admit it so forthrightly. Most of the other denier cultists won't admit that they are total retards but you have the courage to be honest. Congratulations on being an honest idiot.

Everyone?

I haven't said that. You're a liar.

But davedumb, you're one of the other denier cult retards I was referring to and you're not intelligent enough to say anything meaningful so you don't count.

Feel better, now?

 

[Si modo]

Surface and satellite-based observations show a decrease in Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent during the past 46 years. A comparison of these trends to control and transient integrations (forced by observed greenhouse gases and tropospheric sulfate aerosols) from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory and Hadley Centre climate models reveals that the observed decrease in Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent agrees with the transient simulations, and both trends are much larger than would be expected from natural climate variations. From long-term control runs of climate models, it was found that the probability of the observed trends resulting from natural climate variability, assuming that the models' natural variability is similar to that found in nature, is less than 2 percent for the 1978–98 sea ice trends and less than 0.1 percent for the 1953–98 sea ice trends. Both models used here project continued decreases in sea ice thickness and extent throughout the next century.

Again. Do you understand the words in bold?

Global Warming and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent

And?