Experts Shred Obama Administration's Laughably Fraudulent Climate Scam

[Old Rocks]

Ol' Frankie boy believes in a hollow moon and so many other whack-a-doodle theories.

 

[SSDD]

It is settled science that GHGs cause warming. It is not settled at what rate the warming will progress. Even less settled is what kind of feedbacks we will get from such things as increased atmospheric water, permafrost, ocean clathrates, and the warming of the oceans. Throw in aerosols from dirty industrial development, and it gets very hard to predict not only what will happen, but the rate at which it is going to happen. I am quite sure we have some inevitable surprises in store. Some of which may not be all that pleasant.

Please show your proof that GHGs cause warming. I'm still waiting as are many others here. Still nadda.

here a link of a failed attempt to prove it.

http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/...-fair-project/

It has been posted many times, silly ignoramous.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

That is a site of the Amercan Institute of Physics, a scientific society composed of scientific socities.

Still waiting for you to tell us whether anything approaching proof of AGW can be found in that bit of dogma.

Its like posting Genesis as proof to support young earth creationism.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[sameech]

There are too many data gaps for us to upend civilization based on some theory. Our weather history isn't even that long or abundant, and there is ample evidence that the data is being finessed to get the desired outcomes. There is also data suggesting it has been both warmer and colder in human history. AGW is still unproven in my mind, and "peer reviewed" does not mean crap to anybody other than the "peers" as it is the epitome of "group think". Sorry, but if you expect me to believe something, then it is your duty to convince me, and so far, I am unconvinced on this issue.

 

[Crick]

That you aren't convinced is not the result of any flaws in the scientific evidence. It is the result of your prejudices and your ignorance.

 

[SSDD]

That you aren't convinced is not the result of any flaws in the scientific evidence. It is the result of your prejudices and your ignorance.

The you are convinced is evidence if your gullibility

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Crick]

I don't consider the world's active climate scientists to be a gullible lot nor do I consider myself gullible for accepting the opinion of the vast majority of them.

You, on the other hand, have no valid, significant or meaningful scientific arguments against AGW. You tell us how the public doesn't care. Does that refute the science? No. You make really poor cases against the professional integrity of individual scientists. Does that refute the science? No. You go on and on about the recent pause in surface warming? Does that refute the science? No. You whine that the world's press has begun to treat you as you actually deserve to be treated: a very small minority of scientifically unsupported but vocal extremists with undeservedly generous funding from your fossil fuel benefactors. Does that refute the science? No.

I will simply continue to follow the work of real climate scientists and take what consensuses they form as the likeliest and most accurate description of what is actually taking place in the Earth's climate. Being real scientists, they will treat theories as theories, they will admit that they do not know what they do not know, they will not claim more than their actual finding support, they will tell us when they make mistakes, they will accept and make use of the suggestions and corrections of their peers; they will continuously work towards the best possible understanding of the truth. These are habits YOU should look to get more of from the people to whom you look for reference as it has not been the case with you heretofore.

 

[jc456]

That you aren't convinced is not the result of any flaws in the scientific evidence. It is the result of your prejudices and your ignorance.

Just because you don't need proof before buying in doesn't mean we all do. It's ashame folks like you have a personal agenda rather than having a rational discussion. you are the epitome of a jerk, sorry no nice way to characterize you. Oh, you still have zero evidence of your claims. ZERO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Crick]

That you aren't convinced is not the result of any flaws in the scientific evidence. It is the result of your prejudices and your ignorance.

Just because you don't need proof before buying in doesn't mean we all do. It's ashame folks like you have a personal agenda rather than having a rational discussion. you are the epitome of a jerk, sorry no nice way to characterize you. Oh, you still have zero evidence of your claims. ZERO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

 

[jc456]

That you aren't convinced is not the result of any flaws in the scientific evidence. It is the result of your prejudices and your ignorance.

Just because you don't need proof before buying in doesn't mean we all do. It's ashame folks like you have a personal agenda rather than having a rational discussion. you are the epitome of a jerk, sorry no nice way to characterize you. Oh, you still have zero evidence of your claims. ZERO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Sorry, but what is this link to prove?

 

[Crick]

That evidence exists supporting the position of the vast majority of the world's climate scientists: that GHG emissions from human activities are the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years. That is, that when you said "Oh, you still have zero evidence of your claims. ZERO!" you were demonstrably incorrect.

 

[jc456]

That evidence exists supporting the position of the vast majority of the world's climate scientists: that GHG emissions from human activities are the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years. That is, that when you said "Oh, you still have zero evidence of your claims. ZERO!" you were demonstrably incorrect.

I'm sorry, but I read the report and I don't find any conclusion that states that there is evidence collected to date that the increase of CO2 caused an increase in temperature. In fact, they seem to scratch their head on where the heat went. Oh, yeah the ocean.

I'll go with this one paragraph to their uncertainty.

"The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998 to 2012 as compared to the period 1951 to 2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from natural internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that natural internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of natural internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse"

But hey, who cares, they're right even though the data doesn't support the models. The observed summary report is so full of 'likely' and 'very likely' terms that they ought to be ashamed of themselves for not denouncing the models immediately and call for the scientific groups to regroup. they should have demanded that. Again 98% of the models were wrong. 98%. And you expect people with minds and logic to not see through the ruge? right.

I also like the reference back to 1950 when how old is the earth anyway? This report is garbage in my eyes snce they don't dismiss the models in error of the observed data they received. tsk, tsk shame on them.

 

[Crick]

Your comments indicate that you did not understand even the text you quoted.

And to suggest that AR5 (or any of the four prior reports available at the URL I provided) contains no evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes warming is patent nonsense. The rather obvious conclusion is that you have NOT read the report (it is several thousand pages long) and that, as you have shown us, what you may have read, you likely did not understand.

 

[jillian]

That you aren't convinced is not the result of any flaws in the scientific evidence. It is the result of your prejudices and your ignorance.

Just because you don't need proof before buying in doesn't mean we all do. It's ashame folks like you have a personal agenda rather than having a rational discussion. you are the epitome of a jerk, sorry no nice way to characterize you. Oh, you still have zero evidence of your claims. ZERO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you mean just because you IGNORE the scientific proof and he doesn't, right?

 

[jc456]

That you aren't convinced is not the result of any flaws in the scientific evidence. It is the result of your prejudices and your ignorance.

Just because you don't need proof before buying in doesn't mean we all do. It's ashame folks like you have a personal agenda rather than having a rational discussion. you are the epitome of a jerk, sorry no nice way to characterize you. Oh, you still have zero evidence of your claims. ZERO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you mean just because you IGNORE the scientific proof and he doesn't, right?

Show me the proof. I've been asking for it. Giving me a report lead by a group with an agenda and refuse to consider opposing positions, is sad.

The fact is there is no evidence to show that an increase of CO2 causes, big word there, causes an increase in temperatures. The AR5 report admits that CO2 increases occurred, yet the observed temperatures did not increase as models predicted they would. I didn't write that they did. And their reason? Oh this that and the other natural event and sun spots I supposed. nope, I am not falling prey into someone's agenda. Just provide that one experiment that shows increases in CO2 causes, again big word, causes an increase in temperatures. To date that experiment has not surfaced. Yet their is mountains of evidence. So out of the mountain comes, NOTHING!

 

[Crick]

Before you criticize someone (like jc456) you should walk a mile in their shoes. They you'll be a mile away and you'll have his shoes.

--SNL comedian whose name I don't recall.

 

[Crick]

Just because you don't need proof before buying in doesn't mean we all do. It's ashame folks like you have a personal agenda rather than having a rational discussion. you are the epitome of a jerk, sorry no nice way to characterize you. Oh, you still have zero evidence of your claims. ZERO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you mean just because you IGNORE the scientific proof and he doesn't, right?

Show me the proof. I've been asking for it. Giving me a report lead by a group with an agenda and refuse to consider opposing positions, is sad.

The fact is there is no evidence to show that an increase of CO2 causes, big word there, causes an increase in temperatures. The AR5 report admits that CO2 increases occurred, yet the observed temperatures did not increase as models predicted they would. I didn't write that they did. And their reason? Oh this that and the other natural event and sun spots I supposed. nope, I am not falling prey into someone's agenda. Just provide that one experiment that shows increases in CO2 causes, again big word, causes an increase in temperatures. To date that experiment has not surfaced. Yet their is mountains of evidence. So out of the mountain comes, NOTHING!

Are you attempting to reject CO2 as a greenhouse gas or the greenhouse effect in its entirety.

Just trying to figure out how hard to laugh.

 

[jc456]

Your comments indicate that you did not understand even the text you quoted.

And to suggest that AR5 (or any of the four prior reports available at the URL I provided) contains no evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes warming is patent nonsense. The rather obvious conclusion is that you have NOT read the report (it is several thousand pages long) and that, as you have shown us, what you may have read, you likely did not understand.

I'm only interested in what they found from the observed data. And what they found I posted. Anything else out of that report is mumbo jumbo my man! Like I also stated, 'likely' 'very likely' phrases which means there is no causal data to support the models.

 

[Crick]

Let me try something I used the other day. If you've spent some time here, you've probably seen graphs showing the absorption spectra of CO2. That is, graphs have been put up here that show the level and frequency of light absorbed by CO2. Now ask yourself how such data is determined.

 

[jc456]

you mean just because you IGNORE the scientific proof and he doesn't, right?

Show me the proof. I've been asking for it. Giving me a report lead by a group with an agenda and refuse to consider opposing positions, is sad.

The fact is there is no evidence to show that an increase of CO2 causes, big word there, causes an increase in temperatures. The AR5 report admits that CO2 increases occurred, yet the observed temperatures did not increase as models predicted they would. I didn't write that they did. And their reason? Oh this that and the other natural event and sun spots I supposed. nope, I am not falling prey into someone's agenda. Just provide that one experiment that shows increases in CO2 causes, again big word, causes an increase in temperatures. To date that experiment has not surfaced. Yet their is mountains of evidence. So out of the mountain comes, NOTHING!

Are you attempting to reject CO2 as a greenhouse gas or the greenhouse effect in its entirety.

Just trying to figure out how hard to laugh.

Did I say that? No. I said, there is no causal evidence to support that CO2 alone can cause an increase in temperature, and as I wrote, no evidence has yet to be given showing that causal experiment. None!
So provide that experiment!

 

[Crick]

I'm only interested in what they found from the observed data. And what they found I posted. Anything else out of that report is mumbo jumbo my man! Like I also stated, 'likely' 'very likely' phrases which means there is no causal data to support the models.

You believe that short paragraph was everything they found.

I see.

And you found everything else to be mumbo jumbo.

I see.

Case closed.