Enough is enough - use RICO to restore science respect.

[Billy_Bob]

Myths vs. Facts: Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act
Myth: The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails prove that temperature data and trends were manipulated.

Fact: Not true. Petitioners say that emails disclosed from CRU provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data. The media coverage after the emails were released was based on email statements quoted out of context and on unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy. The CRU emails do not show either that the science is flawed or that the scientific process has been compromised. EPA carefully reviewed the CRU emails and found no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results.

Myth: The jury is still out on climate change and CRU emails undermine the credibility of climate change science overall.

Fact: Climate change is real and it is happening now. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have each independently concluded that warming of the climate system in recent decades is "unequivocal." This conclusion is not drawn from any one source of data but is based on multiple lines of evidence, including three worldwide temperature datasets showing nearly identical warming trends as well as numerous other independent indicators of global warming (e.g., rising sea levels, shrinking Arctic sea ice). Some people have "cherry-picked" a limited selection of CRU email statements to draw broad, unsubstantiated conclusions about the validity of all climate science.

Myth: The CRU emails and several errors found in the most recent IPCC report undermine the credibility of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

Fact: The IPCC's primary conclusions are based on an assessment of thousands of individual studies and collective insights from the comprehensive climate science literature. Although many errors were alleged, EPA confirmed only two errors. The small number of documented errors are not central to IPCC's main conclusions or to EPA's Endangerment Finding. In a report of such magnitude, a few errors do not undermine the credibility of the entire work of the IPCC. The process used by the IPCC stands as one of the most comprehensive, rigorous, and transparent ever conducted on a complex set of scientific issues.

Myth: EPA misstepped when it did not do its own scientific analysis of climate change to inform the Endangerment Finding and instead relied on existing scientific assessments.

Fact: EPA relied on major scientific assessments, including reports from the U.S. Global Change Research Program, National Academy of Sciences, and IPCC, because they represent the best available information to determine the state of climate change science. These assessments are designed to address the breadth and scope of all published literature and undergo multiple levels of rigorous review. This approach ensures that EPA benefits from the depth and strength of thousands of climate scientists.

Myths vs. Facts: Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act | Climate Change | US EPA

You had better revisit your facts... most are conjecture and out right fabrications.. Gawd I love it when they cry "CONSENSUS" when the facts do not support their position.

 

[daws101]

Let me refute your bull shit with facts..

Legates Et Al...

Funny how Cook and Nuttercellie threw out all but 77 papers because they didn't say what they wanted.. Kind of like Mann throwing out 17 of his trees and keep just the one that appeared to prove him right... Never mind the majority that said his theory was bull shit. Most ethical scientists would have revisited their theroys..

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?


The Empirical Evidence
As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Let me refute your bull shit with facts..

Legates Et Al...

Funny how Cook and Nuttercellie threw out all but 77 papers because they didn't say what they wanted.. Kind of like Mann throwing out 17 of his trees and keep just the one that appeared to prove him right... Never mind the majority that said his theory was bull shit. Most ethical scientists would have revisited their theroys..

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?


The Empirical Evidence
As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

You keep on drinking the SKS boys kookaid...

Here are the facts on CO2 and they dont include a positive reaction by water vapor either.

Too funny that you cant produce even basic facts or evidence to support your religious dogma. The graph clearly shows that the warming you folks were screaming about didn't happen and can not happen.. If we had seen a temp rise as illustrated by the 2010 mark you might have had a chance... That just shows how wrong your models are and why they have failed.

How does it feel to be shown how totally wrong you idiots are?

 

[DonaldFG]

Too funny that you cant produce even basic facts or evidence to support your religious dogma. The graph clearly shows that the warming you folks were screaming about didn't happen and wont..

How does it feel to be shown how totally wrong you idiots are?

False documents and propaganda are amazingly easy to create. However, centuries of research and the volumes of factual data cannot be refuted by propaganda.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Too funny that you cant produce even basic facts or evidence to support your religious dogma. The graph clearly shows that the warming you folks were screaming about didn't happen and wont..

How does it feel to be shown how totally wrong you idiots are?

False documents and propaganda are amazingly easy to create. However, centuries of research and the volumes of factual data cannot be refuted by propaganda.

Lets expose you for the anti-science person you are..

First of all here is the LOG for CO2:

This is confirmed by empirical experiment in Boulder Colorado's Atmospheric Lab. This shows the rate of expected warming in a closed cylinder by CO2 and empirical evidence in our open atmosphere.

The graph in my previous post was that of Dr Spencer with my annotations.

Dr Spencer plotted the natural variation rate and the CO2 enhanced rate that the IPCC and the EPA uses as justification for their endangerment finding and power grabs.

The rise in temp is consistent with the empirical lab results and the IPCC's own AR1 stating the natural variation rate for temp rise.

Given the empirical data and the IPCC's own finding of the natural variation rate, there is no warming that can be attributed to CO2. The EPA's endangerment finding is not only a lie but it is soundly refuted by empirical evidence.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Let me refute your bull shit with facts..

Legates Et Al...

Funny how Cook and Nuttercellie threw out all but 77 papers because they didn't say what they wanted.. Kind of like Mann throwing out 17 of his trees and keep just the one that appeared to prove him right... Never mind the majority that said his theory was bull shit. Most ethical scientists would have revisited their theroys..

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?


The Empirical Evidence
As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

I just shredded your "predicted effect" as garbage by empirical evidence.

 

[bripat9643]

You mean "pal reviewed," not peer reviewed.

 

[PredFan]

You're saying everybody's reputation is for sale. Not true!

Not everybody, but there are so few that aren't there for the money and prestige that it makes little difference. For instance, if you publish science that goes against global warming, your career is over. No one is interested in "knowledge" if it kills the cash cow. That is a fact.

What cash cow? The climatologist community isn't making any money from this. Just their normal paychecks.

Yes numbskull, that cash cow. They aren't going to do anything to jeopardize their careers, and reporting anything other than what the government wants to hear will end their careers and their paychecks. That should be simple enough for even you to understand.

 

[westwall]

Wasn't there a headline or two in the last week or so warning of a coming mini ice age?

And that's good because the climate change kooks have been one ice age down since they warned one was on the way 35-40 years ago.

Misinformation is rampant. That is why we need to clean up all the garbage disguised as facts. Those who create fake facts should be held accountable. Global warming is affecting the climate, so what does lying get you? So far the warming oceans are having a huge impact on the weather.

Prove it is man made and then prove how much man contributes

Read. IPCC Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report

Read it when it first came out. Please show us the part that shows actual science and not opinion, or haven't YOU read it yet? On the other hand maybe you don't understand the difference between facts and opinions?

The consensus opinion is based on volumes of scientific facts accumulated over centuries. Even Exxon scientists saw it happening back in the fifties as Hartmann's video exposes. This is why their denial and fraudulent statements are criminal.

Consensus opinion is first off an appeal to authority so is by definition a logic fail (look it up) and secondly consensus is the language of politicians, NOT scientists. The consensus opinion was that the Earth was flat. Scientists proved that assertion wrong. The only fraud being committed is by the climatologists who have perverted science and actively committed scientific fraud to perpetrate the largest confidence game in the history of mankind.

I would LOVE to see this bullshit go to court. There we get to introduce the evidence that your hero's try like hell to bury. I suggest your wish might not end the way you think.

 

[daws101]

Let me refute your bull shit with facts..

Legates Et Al...

Funny how Cook and Nuttercellie threw out all but 77 papers because they didn't say what they wanted.. Kind of like Mann throwing out 17 of his trees and keep just the one that appeared to prove him right... Never mind the majority that said his theory was bull shit. Most ethical scientists would have revisited their theroys..

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?


The Empirical Evidence
As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

I just shredded your "predicted effect" as garbage by empirical evidence.

Also funny that when you clowns say that you are without fail wrong.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Let me refute your bull shit with facts..

Legates Et Al...

Funny how Cook and Nuttercellie threw out all but 77 papers because they didn't say what they wanted.. Kind of like Mann throwing out 17 of his trees and keep just the one that appeared to prove him right... Never mind the majority that said his theory was bull shit. Most ethical scientists would have revisited their theroys..

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?


The Empirical Evidence
As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

You keep on drinking the SKS boys kookaid...

Here are the facts on CO2 and they dont include a positive reaction by water vapor either.

View attachment 53497

Too funny that you cant produce even basic facts or evidence to support your religious dogma. The graph clearly shows that the warming you folks were screaming about didn't happen and can not happen.. If we had seen a temp rise as illustrated by the 2010 mark you might have had a chance... That just shows how wrong your models are and why they have failed.

How does it feel to be shown how totally wrong you idiots are?

The funny part is you believing you are .

No, the funny part is watch'in you alarmists with your heads up your asses get beat down with facts.. Now that's funny..

 

[Billy_Bob]

You mean "pal reviewed," not peer reviewed.

That's the best you could do?

Why dont you trot your silly little liberal alarmist ass over to SKS and get some more BS for me to shred.. I'm sure Miriam O'Brien's site HOTWHOOPER can bring me some laughs too..

WHy dont you try using your brain for once and thinking the problem through and using real science, not the political made up crap you have been posting.

 

[daws101]

Let me refute your bull shit with facts..

Legates Et Al...

Funny how Cook and Nuttercellie threw out all but 77 papers because they didn't say what they wanted.. Kind of like Mann throwing out 17 of his trees and keep just the one that appeared to prove him right... Never mind the majority that said his theory was bull shit. Most ethical scientists would have revisited their theroys..

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?


The Empirical Evidence
As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

I just shredded your "predicted effect" as garbage by empirical evidence.

Also funny that when you clowns say that you are without fail wrong.

Poor little libtard, is that all you got? no facts, just your wrong? no evidence, no rebutal...??

When you present credible evidence then you might be on to something.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You mean "pal reviewed," not peer reviewed.

That's the best you could do?

Why dont you trot your silly little liberal alarmist ass over to SKS and get some more BS for me to shred.. I'm sure Miriam O'Brien's site HOTWHOOPER can bring me some laughs too..

WHy dont you try using your brain for once and thinking the problem through and using real science, not the political made up crap you have been posting.

Oh like the shit you're spewing?

Funny; The data for everything I posted is publicly available and open for review. And everything you posted is hidden.. Hmmmmmmmm... I wonder why its hidden?

 

[bripat9643]

Let me refute your bull shit with facts..

Legates Et Al...

Funny how Cook and Nuttercellie threw out all but 77 papers because they didn't say what they wanted.. Kind of like Mann throwing out 17 of his trees and keep just the one that appeared to prove him right... Never mind the majority that said his theory was bull shit. Most ethical scientists would have revisited their theroys..

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?


The Empirical Evidence
As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

You keep on drinking the SKS boys kookaid...

Here are the facts on CO2 and they dont include a positive reaction by water vapor either.

View attachment 53497

Too funny that you cant produce even basic facts or evidence to support your religious dogma. The graph clearly shows that the warming you folks were screaming about didn't happen and can not happen.. If we had seen a temp rise as illustrated by the 2010 mark you might have had a chance... That just shows how wrong your models are and why they have failed.

How does it feel to be shown how totally wrong you idiots are?

The funny part is you believing you are .

The funny part is that you idiots believe you haven't been proven totally wrong.

 

[daws101]

Let me refute your bull shit with facts..

Legates Et Al...

Funny how Cook and Nuttercellie threw out all but 77 papers because they didn't say what they wanted.. Kind of like Mann throwing out 17 of his trees and keep just the one that appeared to prove him right... Never mind the majority that said his theory was bull shit. Most ethical scientists would have revisited their theroys..

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?


The Empirical Evidence
As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

You keep on drinking the SKS boys kookaid...

Here are the facts on CO2 and they dont include a positive reaction by water vapor either.

View attachment 53497

Too funny that you cant produce even basic facts or evidence to support your religious dogma. The graph clearly shows that the warming you folks were screaming about didn't happen and can not happen.. If we had seen a temp rise as illustrated by the 2010 mark you might have had a chance... That just shows how wrong your models are and why they have failed.

How does it feel to be shown how totally wrong you idiots are?

The funny part is you believing you are .

The funny part is that you idiots believe you haven't been proven totally wrong.

Maybe because "we"haven't?
Also you clowns has this habit of premature ejaculations of victory.

 

[bripat9643]

Let me refute your bull shit with facts..

Legates Et Al...

Funny how Cook and Nuttercellie threw out all but 77 papers because they didn't say what they wanted.. Kind of like Mann throwing out 17 of his trees and keep just the one that appeared to prove him right... Never mind the majority that said his theory was bull shit. Most ethical scientists would have revisited their theroys..

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?


The Empirical Evidence
As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

You keep on drinking the SKS boys kookaid...

Here are the facts on CO2 and they dont include a positive reaction by water vapor either.

View attachment 53497

Too funny that you cant produce even basic facts or evidence to support your religious dogma. The graph clearly shows that the warming you folks were screaming about didn't happen and can not happen.. If we had seen a temp rise as illustrated by the 2010 mark you might have had a chance... That just shows how wrong your models are and why they have failed.

How does it feel to be shown how totally wrong you idiots are?

The funny part is you believing you are .

The funny part is that you idiots believe you haven't been proven totally wrong.

Maybe because "we"haven't?
Also you clowns has this habit of premature ejaculations of victory.

Of course you have been proven totally and utterly wrong. You're just too stupid to know it. The empirical evidence proves you wrong every year for the last 20 years.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Let me refute your bull shit with facts..

Legates Et Al...

Funny how Cook and Nuttercellie threw out all but 77 papers because they didn't say what they wanted.. Kind of like Mann throwing out 17 of his trees and keep just the one that appeared to prove him right... Never mind the majority that said his theory was bull shit. Most ethical scientists would have revisited their theroys..

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?


The Empirical Evidence
As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

Ya do know sheep that mars atmosphere is made up of 95% C02

 

[daws101]

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?


The Empirical Evidence
As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

You keep on drinking the SKS boys kookaid...

Here are the facts on CO2 and they dont include a positive reaction by water vapor either.

View attachment 53497

Too funny that you cant produce even basic facts or evidence to support your religious dogma. The graph clearly shows that the warming you folks were screaming about didn't happen and can not happen.. If we had seen a temp rise as illustrated by the 2010 mark you might have had a chance... That just shows how wrong your models are and why they have failed.

How does it feel to be shown how totally wrong you idiots are?

The funny part is you believing you are .

The funny part is that you idiots believe you haven't been proven totally wrong.

Maybe because "we"haven't?
Also you clowns has this habit of premature ejaculations of victory.

Of course you have been proven totally and utterly wrong. You're just too stupid to know it. The empirical evidence proves you wrong every year for the last 20 years.

false

 

[bripat9643]

You keep on drinking the SKS boys kookaid...

Here are the facts on CO2 and they dont include a positive reaction by water vapor either.

View attachment 53497

Too funny that you cant produce even basic facts or evidence to support your religious dogma. The graph clearly shows that the warming you folks were screaming about didn't happen and can not happen.. If we had seen a temp rise as illustrated by the 2010 mark you might have had a chance... That just shows how wrong your models are and why they have failed.

How does it feel to be shown how totally wrong you idiots are?

The funny part is you believing you are .

The funny part is that you idiots believe you haven't been proven totally wrong.

Maybe because "we"haven't?
Also you clowns has this habit of premature ejaculations of victory.

Of course you have been proven totally and utterly wrong. You're just too stupid to know it. The empirical evidence proves you wrong every year for the last 20 years.

false

Wrong again.