Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[gslack]

I hope you've been reading the full article that goes with the abstract I posted. You did assure me you had access.

Then, could you share your thoughts on this?

Quantifying the human contribution to global warming

Quantifying the human contribution to global warming
Posted on 3 September 2010 by dana1981

The amount of warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 may be one of the most misunderstood subjects in climate science. Many people think the anthropogenic warming can't be quantified, many others think it must be an insignificant amount. However, climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.

It's another golden opportunity for you.

More diversion? You make a bold claim and then can't defend it so you make another one?

Please since you refuse to man up from your earlier claim, or admit I cited a science journal, explain something to me oh science expert...

how does "peer-review" work? Describe the process in your own words...

EDIT: WAIT A TICK.. I know that line...."I hope you've been reading the full article that goes with the abstract I posted. You did assure me you had access. "

LOL thought I recognized you...HAHAHAHAHAAHA!

 

[SAT]

Some of the articles at that source may be reliable, but if you want a good laugh, look at this other article they have about AGW:

The argument of this paper is that sustainability requires a new worldview-paradigm. It critically evaluates Gore’s liberal-based environmentalism in order to show how “shallow ecologies” are called into question by deeper ecologies.

Sustainability | Free Full-Text | Automobility: Global Warming as Symptomatology

That's kind of funny talk for a scientific article. KWIM?

Philosophers aren't scientists.

First of all, it's funny talk for any scholarly abstract. Do you at least understand that? It reeks of politics. I thought you had some great familiarity with abstracts and journals. Another one bites the dust.

Second, aren't you the one going on about Karl Popper? You know, the philosopher of science? You think ol Karl would have approved of a philosopher seeding an abstract with such petty political sniping?

 

[SAT]

I hope you've been reading the full article that goes with the abstract I posted. You did assure me you had access.

Then, could you share your thoughts on this?

Quantifying the human contribution to global warming

Quantifying the human contribution to global warming
Posted on 3 September 2010 by dana1981

The amount of warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 may be one of the most misunderstood subjects in climate science. Many people think the anthropogenic warming can't be quantified, many others think it must be an insignificant amount. However, climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.

It's another golden opportunity for you.

More diversion? You make a bold claim and then can't defend it so you make another one?

Please since you refuse to man up from your earlier claim, or admit I cited a science journal, explain something to me oh science expert...

how does "peer-review" work? Describe the process in your own words...

EDIT: WAIT A TICK.. I know that line...."I hope you've been reading the full article that goes with the abstract I posted. You did assure me you had access. "

LOL thought I recognized you...HAHAHAHAHAAHA!

Peer review means that other scientists review the methodology.

I backed up my claim.

You don't recognize me.

 

[del]

I hope you've been reading the full article that goes with the abstract I posted. You did assure me you had access.

Then, could you share your thoughts on this?

Quantifying the human contribution to global warming



It's another golden opportunity for you.

More diversion? You make a bold claim and then can't defend it so you make another one?

Please since you refuse to man up from your earlier claim, or admit I cited a science journal, explain something to me oh science expert...

how does "peer-review" work? Describe the process in your own words...

EDIT: WAIT A TICK.. I know that line...."I hope you've been reading the full article that goes with the abstract I posted. You did assure me you had access. "

LOL thought I recognized you...HAHAHAHAHAAHA!

Peer review means that other scientists review the methodology.

You don't recognize me.

looks like somebody's been busted.

 

[Si modo]

Some of the articles at that source may be reliable, but if you want a good laugh, look at this other article they have about AGW:



Sustainability | Free Full-Text | Automobility: Global Warming as Symptomatology

That's kind of funny talk for a scientific article. KWIM?

Philosophers aren't scientists.

First of all, it's funny talk for any scholarly abstract. Do you at least understand that? It reeks of politics. I thought you had some great familiarity with abstracts and journals. Another one bites the dust.

Second, aren't you the one going on about Karl Popper? You know, the philosopher of science? You think ol Karl would have approved of a philosopher seeding an abstract with such petty political sniping?

(Pssssst. Philosophers aren't scientists.)

 

[del]

Philosophers aren't scientists.

First of all, it's funny talk for any scholarly abstract. Do you at least understand that? It reeks of politics. I thought you had some great familiarity with abstracts and journals. Another one bites the dust.

Second, aren't you the one going on about Karl Popper? You know, the philosopher of science? You think ol Karl would have approved of a philosopher seeding an abstract with such petty political sniping?

(Pssssst. Philosophers aren't scientists.)

link?

 

[Si modo]

First of all, it's funny talk for any scholarly abstract. Do you at least understand that? It reeks of politics. I thought you had some great familiarity with abstracts and journals. Another one bites the dust.

Second, aren't you the one going on about Karl Popper? You know, the philosopher of science? You think ol Karl would have approved of a philosopher seeding an abstract with such petty political sniping?

(Pssssst. Philosophers aren't scientists.)

link?

Shall I blog about it?

 

[SAT]

Philosophers aren't scientists.

First of all, it's funny talk for any scholarly abstract. Do you at least understand that? It reeks of politics. I thought you had some great familiarity with abstracts and journals. Another one bites the dust.

Second, aren't you the one going on about Karl Popper? You know, the philosopher of science? You think ol Karl would have approved of a philosopher seeding an abstract with such petty political sniping?

(Pssssst. Philosophers aren't scientists.)

Philosophers are scholars. The original scholars. An ancient discipline devoted to wisdom. Do you grasp that the writing in that abstract is peculiar for a scholarly article? I don't expect the other two posters to realize it, but you're the one claiming to be an educated person.

 

[gslack]

I hope you've been reading the full article that goes with the abstract I posted. You did assure me you had access.

Then, could you share your thoughts on this?

Quantifying the human contribution to global warming



It's another golden opportunity for you.

More diversion? You make a bold claim and then can't defend it so you make another one?

Please since you refuse to man up from your earlier claim, or admit I cited a science journal, explain something to me oh science expert...

how does "peer-review" work? Describe the process in your own words...

EDIT: WAIT A TICK.. I know that line...."I hope you've been reading the full article that goes with the abstract I posted. You did assure me you had access. "

LOL thought I recognized you...HAHAHAHAHAAHA!

Peer review means that other scientists review the methodology.

You don't recognize me.

No now see I actually explained the process, you did not so please do so now....

And yes I do recognize you... I knew I would sooner or later... the whole "if you have access" line gave you away... I remember your BS using that tactic before.. I never forget an idiot... And your game was so utterly pathetic its hard to forget... Same tactics to a tee. From the BS about peer review to the crap linking to science journal abstracts and claiming we have to buy a subscription to see it.. You claimed you had one and anybody concerned about the science would have a subscription to all the best journals.. You claimed you were a student then.. You and your friend tried to play "smart guys" in the thread and do a few posts of mutual kiss assing and faked nonsense using googled terms...

oh yeah I recognize your shtick pal... I will go find your other ID now, the posts are still here and I bet your new act is word for word like the last one..

 

[Si modo]

First of all, it's funny talk for any scholarly abstract. Do you at least understand that? It reeks of politics. I thought you had some great familiarity with abstracts and journals. Another one bites the dust.

Second, aren't you the one going on about Karl Popper? You know, the philosopher of science? You think ol Karl would have approved of a philosopher seeding an abstract with such petty political sniping?

(Pssssst. Philosophers aren't scientists.)

Philosophers are scholars. The original scholars. An ancient discipline devoted to wisdom. Do you grasp that the writing in that abstract is peculiar for a scholarly article? I don't expect the other two posters to realize it, but you're the one claiming to be an educated person.

(Psssst. This is a scientific topic.)

 

[SAT]

First of all, it's funny talk for any scholarly abstract. Do you at least understand that? It reeks of politics. I thought you had some great familiarity with abstracts and journals. Another one bites the dust.

Second, aren't you the one going on about Karl Popper? You know, the philosopher of science? You think ol Karl would have approved of a philosopher seeding an abstract with such petty political sniping?

(Pssssst. Philosophers aren't scientists.)

link?

The link was earlier in the thread, when the article was brought up.

(Pssssst. Philosophers aren't scientists.)

link?

Shall I blog about it?

Let's stop the pretense that you would discuss the topic if only you had the science. Science blogs, the NASA website, these are perfectly acceptable sources. When someone brings you an abstract, you don't even grasp the significance of what it says.

 

[SAT]

(Pssssst. Philosophers aren't scientists.)

Philosophers are scholars. The original scholars. An ancient discipline devoted to wisdom. Do you grasp that the writing in that abstract is peculiar for a scholarly article? I don't expect the other two posters to realize it, but you're the one claiming to be an educated person.

(Psssst. This is a scientific topic.)

Pssst, you're faking your way through this. Go read the link, go read your Popper link, get back to me.

 

[Si modo]

(Pssssst. Philosophers aren't scientists.)

link?

The link was earlier in the thread, when the article was brought up.

link?

Shall I blog about it?

Let's stop the pretense that you would discuss the topic if only you had the science. Science blogs, the NASA website, these are perfectly acceptable sources.

....

Hmmmm. I wonder how a reference to a blog would go over in a scientific paper?

Personally, I wouldn't try.

But, I'm not a shameless idiot.

 

[SAT]

No now see I actually explained the process, you did not so please do so now....

And yes I do recognize you... I knew I would sooner or later... the whole "if you have access" line gave you away... I remember your BS using that tactic before.. I never forget an idiot... And your game was so utterly pathetic its hard to forget... Same tactics to a tee. From the BS about peer review to the crap linking to science journal abstracts and claiming we have to buy a subscription to see it.. You claimed you had one and anybody concerned about the science would have a subscription to all the best journals.. You claimed you were a student then.. You and your friend tried to play "smart guys" in the thread and do a few posts of mutual kiss assing and faked nonsense using googled terms...

oh yeah I recognize your shtick pal... I will go find your other ID now, the posts are still here and I bet your new act is word for word like the last one..

I explained peer review adequately for this discussion. More than.

I'm a new poster to this board. I do not post under any other names here. I have never used another name here.

Si used the phrase "I assure you I have access". I was mocking her with it, as she clearly is terrified to comment on anything except other posters.

Most scholarly journals require a subscription. I'm not the only one who knows this.

See you guys again Sunday. We'll pick up where we left off.

 

[Si modo]

No now see I actually explained the process, you did not so please do so now....

And yes I do recognize you... I knew I would sooner or later... the whole "if you have access" line gave you away... I remember your BS using that tactic before.. I never forget an idiot... And your game was so utterly pathetic its hard to forget... Same tactics to a tee. From the BS about peer review to the crap linking to science journal abstracts and claiming we have to buy a subscription to see it.. You claimed you had one and anybody concerned about the science would have a subscription to all the best journals.. You claimed you were a student then.. You and your friend tried to play "smart guys" in the thread and do a few posts of mutual kiss assing and faked nonsense using googled terms...

oh yeah I recognize your shtick pal... I will go find your other ID now, the posts are still here and I bet your new act is word for word like the last one..

I explained peer review adequately for this discussion. More than.

I'm a new poster to this board. I do not post under any other names here. I have never used another name here.

Si used the phrase "I assure you I have access". I was mocking her with it, as she clearly is terrified to comment on anything except other posters.

Most scholarly journals require a subscription. I'm not the only one who knows this.

See you guys again Sunday. We'll pick up where we left off.

You are half right. I am terrified. I'm terrified that our educational system produces folks like you.

It's a tragedy.

 

[westwall]

You're not in a battle with me. You're in a battle with reality. Those always end with reality on top.

Global warming causes climate instability. I'm not sure where you're getting the accusations above, but what you're calling contradictions may be that you've heard varying predictions about the effects of climate change.

How can climate instability cause mutually opposing conditions in the same geographic area. The accusations above are all peer reviewed papers put forth by the AGW cult.

Here is a short list for you with links to the papers....they are each one side of the same argument. Published by AGW supporters. This shows the unfalsifiable nature of AGW "theory".

Now, in your own words, tell us how we can explain these very problematic papers. And this is a very small number of what's out there. And you are correct, I'm not having a battle with you. You're having a battle with reality, and it's all of your own manufacture.


Amazon rainforests green-up with sunlight in dry season

Amazon forests did not green-up during the 2005 drought

Climate change and geomorphological hazards in the eastern European Alps

ingentaconnect Impact of a climate change on avalanche hazard

Effect of global warming on the length-of-day

Ocean bottom pressure changes lead to a decreasing length-of-day in a warming climate

If those articles read as you say, then it suggests that there's still debate within the scientific community about the effects-but not about the reality of AGW.

Wrong as usual. A theory is only a theory so long as it's testable and falsifiable. If neither of those is possible the theory is no more and you have entered into the world of psychics and pseudo science.

 

[gslack]

No now see I actually explained the process, you did not so please do so now....

And yes I do recognize you... I knew I would sooner or later... the whole "if you have access" line gave you away... I remember your BS using that tactic before.. I never forget an idiot... And your game was so utterly pathetic its hard to forget... Same tactics to a tee. From the BS about peer review to the crap linking to science journal abstracts and claiming we have to buy a subscription to see it.. You claimed you had one and anybody concerned about the science would have a subscription to all the best journals.. You claimed you were a student then.. You and your friend tried to play "smart guys" in the thread and do a few posts of mutual kiss assing and faked nonsense using googled terms...

oh yeah I recognize your shtick pal... I will go find your other ID now, the posts are still here and I bet your new act is word for word like the last one..

I explained peer review adequately for this discussion. More than.

I'm a new poster to this board. I do not post under any other names here. I have never used another name here.

Si used the phrase "I assure you I have access". I was mocking her with it, as she clearly is terrified to comment on anything except other posters.

Most scholarly journals require a subscription. I'm not the only one who knows this.

See you guys again Sunday. We'll pick up where we left off.

Yeah I'd run too if I knew an anal retentive professional asshole like myself had taken an interest in a recognized pattern in my posts..

You didn't explain squat phony.. I did.. you talked out of your butt again.. I know you bud, you had a pal and you both had nearly the same MO. You two worked as a team most of the time until someone noticed it then you backed off.. I remember you it was a thread about alternative fuels or something like it where I had to deal with this exact same kind of crap you are pulling now..

I may not be able to prove you are the same person (its the internet and at least 2 years now) but I will make sure I figure when, which thread, and what posts.. I dislike fakes, and I dislike recycled fakes using false credentials to try and pretend some higher station or knowledge..

i am a lowly Data Dink, a contractor to boot... And I know as much as I have taught myself. When I find I don't know I get off my ass and find out. I don't claim to be a scientist or an expert in a field just to appear the victor in an argument in an internet forum or anywhere else. That is about as pathetic as a person can get in my opinion..

 

[westwall]

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.

Computer models are not evidence silly person. All of AGW is based on computer models.

 

[westwall]

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

What part of CLIMATE MODEL don't you understand? COMPUTER MODELS ARE NOT EMPIRICAL DATA YOU SILLY PERSON.

 

[Si modo]

Philosophers are scholars. The original scholars. An ancient discipline devoted to wisdom. Do you grasp that the writing in that abstract is peculiar for a scholarly article? I don't expect the other two posters to realize it, but you're the one claiming to be an educated person.

(Psssst. This is a scientific topic.)

Pssst, you're faking your way through this. Go read the link, go read your Popper link, get back to me.

OMG.

You really are a bonafide idiot.