Hottest year on record-

[skookerasbil]

Skooks, 3 weeks until the government paid AGW posters drop to zero

Unless the Admin bans me...I'll still be here.

Indeed.........the most compelling thing in 2017 on this FORUM is the race for most prolific fag between Matthew and Mamooth. We will also be seeing how far into the shitter AGW theory has fallen a year from now.

Man, you must be insane...The most prolific fag is between westwall, Billbob, and Skookerasbil. Those all take turns blow each other.

Whatever you say s0n..........you're a social oddball and you know it!! The level of naïve screams it!

Gun to my head though, I will admit I think Mamooth has you beat in the area of enjoying the bumpy cucumber delivery in here, but not by a whole lot......the ghey cat is a dead giveaway!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

lol......so the "hottest" was by............ready for this............0.1 degree!!!

You see folks, any time you see a thread started by an AGW guy, your radar needs to come up when you see these vague terms like, "warmest"......."hottest"........"largest increase"........"rise"......"heating"..........

Notice......they never compare it to another number. These bozo's will consistently refer to "hottest" if it is referencing a 0.1 or 0.2 rise in temperature. They also post up maps with vivid colors, particularly red so it leaves the stoopid viewer thinking, "Oh fuck........that's hot as shit!!".

Any time you ask a progressive the question, "As compared to what?"........their argument immediately looks silly.

That is smaller than their +/- 0.3 deg C margin of error which means its total bull shit..

 

[Crick]

Skooks, 3 weeks until the government paid AGW posters drop to zero

Unless the Admin bans me...I'll still be here.

Indeed.........the most compelling thing in 2017 on this FORUM is the race for most prolific fag between Matthew and Mamooth. We will also be seeing how far into the shitter AGW theory has fallen a year from now.

I for one will be helping their lies and fabrications to be exposed... Now these left wing PoS are going to have to put up their data and their adjustments and justify them... Its going to be an epic beat down..

Pray tell, what do you think will change around here? Will the thousands of already published papers somehow disappear? And if you plan on keeping up the level of discourse you've engaged in so far, mainstream science has absolutely zero about which to worry. I have no difficulty seeing you and/or Trump engaging in some book burning, but in the days of digital media, that's a little harder to pull off effectively. So, give us some details. What do you think is going to change in the world during the brief period Trump manages to stay in office without being impeached, convicted, jailed or simply assassinated?

 

[SSDD]

Indeed.........the most compelling thing in 2017 on this FORUM is the race for most prolific fag between Matthew and Mamooth. We will also be seeing how far into the shitter AGW theory has fallen a year from now.

Haven't you got a brown envelop to collect from the fossil fuel society of America as part of your payment for spreading BS on this forum?

Where do I sign up to get some of those oil company $$ for voicing my skeptical position...I have been a skeptic since the ice age scare days and haven't seen the first penny...you seem to know something about them handing out $$ that I don't...so lets hear it...where do I sign up?....who do I talk to?....do you have an address?....

Or are you just spewing mindless conspiracy theories?

 

[SSDD]

Actually, millions of people care, little boy. Even on this one message board there a tonne of threads on the subject. AGW science is fact.

Hey Dr. Grump....how about providing some of that observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis that you claim exists...and that the climate pseudoscientists you know have in abundance....you ran away from the thread where I made the request, and you even stopped answering the instant messages I sent you regarding your claims....

Guess you were just lying and simply can't find any observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis..

Just because nimrods like you say different, doesn't mean much.

But when all of you believers combined can't produce the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis...that does mean something.

I mean, going by all the posts I've seen on here so far, almost to a person you guys voted for Trump - one of the dumbest candidates in election history - not of just the US but the western world. Ever.

That "dummy" as you say has a net worth of about 4.5 billion....how many billions do you have. You apparently believe that most people are smarter than him...how many of them have even 1 billion...much less 4.5 of them?...money doesn't flow to stupidity in the private sector...money only flows to stupidity within government...hopefully Trump can put at least, a temporary end to that bit of stupidity.

If you can vote for such a vacuous, narcissistic, pussy-grabbing racist, why would you have any credibility on such a serious topic as AGW science?

Guess you never played sports....coach used to always tell us to grab them by the balls and squeeze...of course, there was never any actual ball squeezing...of course I grew up in a different time but grabbing them by the pussy is just one more expression...wouldn't expect a bitter humorless liberal to get it...you sissys live to be offended...

And since none of you, and all of climate pseudoscience can produce the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis, how much actual credibility does that give you and yours...hint...absolutely zero.

Hint: you don't. Doesn't help having an avatar that instantly makes me think "moron".

Yours makes me think you dream of trump naked...(shudders) but that doesn't change the fact that you just can't find anything like the evidence you claimed existed, and said that you could produce but don't seem to be able to find....

 

[Crick]

Actually, millions of people care, little boy. Even on this one message board there a tonne of threads on the subject. AGW science is fact.

Hey Dr. Grump....how about providing some of that observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis that you claim exists...and that the climate pseudoscientists you know have in abundance....you ran away from the thread where I made the request, and you even stopped answering the instant messages I sent you regarding your claims....

Guess you were just lying and simply can't find any observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis..

Just because nimrods like you say different, doesn't mean much.

But when all of you believers combined can't produce the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis...that does mean something.

I mean, going by all the posts I've seen on here so far, almost to a person you guys voted for Trump - one of the dumbest candidates in election history - not of just the US but the western world. Ever.

That "dummy" as you say has a net worth of about 4.5 billion....how many billions do you have. You apparently believe that most people are smarter than him...how many of them have even 1 billion...much less 4.5 of them?...money doesn't flow to stupidity in the private sector...money only flows to stupidity within government...hopefully Trump can put at least, a temporary end to that bit of stupidity.

If you can vote for such a vacuous, narcissistic, pussy-grabbing racist, why would you have any credibility on such a serious topic as AGW science?

Guess you never played sports....coach used to always tell us to grab them by the balls and squeeze...of course, there was never any actual ball squeezing...of course I grew up in a different time but grabbing them by the pussy is just one more expression...wouldn't expect a bitter humorless liberal to get it...you sissys live to be offended...

And since none of you, and all of climate pseudoscience can produce the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis, how much actual credibility does that give you and yours...hint...absolutely zero.

Hint: you don't. Doesn't help having an avatar that instantly makes me think "moron".

Yours makes me think you dream of trump naked...(shudders) but that doesn't change the fact that you just can't find anything like the evidence you claimed existed, and said that you could produce but don't seem to be able to find....

So, even after having seen 40 graphs of it, you still insist "The Physical Science Basis" contains no empirical evidence of AGW. You are the one who is lying here and everyone... EVERYONE knows it.

PS, he's right about your avater SID. It says "Bevis and Butthead" loud and clear.

 

[SSDD]

So, even after having seen 40 graphs of it, you still insist "The Physical Science Basis" contains no empirical evidence of AGW. You are the one who is lying here and everyone... EVERYONE knows it.

I have seen the graphs...and none of them support the AGW hypothesis...but it has become more clear to me why you and yours have been taken in by the scam...you simply aren't smart enough to understand the topic...for example...you posted this graph as evidence of AGW...

When in fact, the graph the authors of the study used was this:

And what the graph is actually showing is that the claims made by the AGW hypothesis are simply not happening... The red and blue lines are measurements taken by the IRIS instrument in 1970 on the Nimbus 4 spacecraft...the black line is the measurement taken by the IMG instrument on the Japanese ADEOS satellite in 1997...over a single location in the central pacific with no clouds...As you can see, in the CO2 band, the two are damned near identical after 27 years of steady atmospheric CO2 increase....In fact, the differences are so slight that they fall within the margin of error of the instruments themselves....The `spectral range' is given as 600-3,000 for IMG, and 400-1,600 for IRIS.....The `spatial field of view' is given as 8 km x 8 km for IMG, 100 km x 100 km for IRIS.....The `spectral resolution' is given as 0.1 to 0.25 for IMG, 2.8 for IRIS..the differences between the instruments are so different that some variation between their measurements is inevitable....

Far from being empirical evidence that the AGW hypothesis is correct...it is empirical evidence that the AGW hypothesis is terribly flawed...

Such fundamental errors in understanding are rife within the believer cult...it is little wonder that they have been able to convince you with so much smoke and mirrors...hell, you can't even look at a simple graph and grasp what it is saying...or you are just a f'ing liar and will post any amount of bullshit in an attempt to fool someone into your cult...

 

[Crick]

So, even after having seen 40 graphs of it, you still insist "The Physical Science Basis" contains no empirical evidence of AGW. You are the one who is lying here and everyone... EVERYONE knows it.

I have seen the graphs...and none of them support the AGW hypothesis...but it has become more clear to me why you and yours have been taken in by the scam...you simply aren't smart enough to understand the topic...for example...you posted this graph as evidence of AGW...

When in fact, the graph the authors of the study used was this:

And what the graph is actually showing is that the claims made by the AGW hypothesis are simply not happening... The red and blue lines are measurements taken by the IRIS instrument in 1970 on the Nimbus 4 spacecraft...the black line is the measurement taken by the IMG instrument on the Japanese ADEOS satellite in 1997...over a single location in the central pacific with no clouds...As you can see, in the CO2 band, the two are damned near identical after 27 years of steady atmospheric CO2 increase....In fact, the differences are so slight that they fall within the margin of error of the instruments themselves....The `spectral range' is given as 600-3,000 for IMG, and 400-1,600 for IRIS.....The `spatial field of view' is given as 8 km x 8 km for IMG, 100 km x 100 km for IRIS.....The `spectral resolution' is given as 0.1 to 0.25 for IMG, 2.8 for IRIS..the differences between the instruments are so different that some variation between their measurements is inevitable....

Far from being empirical evidence that the AGW hypothesis is correct...it is empirical evidence that the AGW hypothesis is terribly flawed...

Such fundamental errors in understanding are rife within the believer cult...it is little wonder that they have been able to convince you with so much smoke and mirrors...hell, you can't even look at a simple graph and grasp what it is saying...or you are just a f'ing liar and will post any amount of bullshit in an attempt to fool someone into your cult...

My plot came directly from www.ipcc.ch. What is the source of yours?

 

[mamooth]

alas hairball, your graph is the fake.

The source of my graph:

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

The source of your graph:

?

We don't know where your graph came from. As is always the case, you refuse to show where your bogus data came from.

If you're not a proud cult fraudster, you should be able to do what I did. Link to Wood For Trees directly, and show exactly how to reproduce your graph. If it did come from Wood For Trees, that should be no problem for you.

This issue isn't going away. You just got busted for outright fraud. You owe the board an explanation. Were you the originator of the fraud, or were you just brainlessly parroting something from one of your cult websites?

 

[SSDD]

So, even after having seen 40 graphs of it, you still insist "The Physical Science Basis" contains no empirical evidence of AGW. You are the one who is lying here and everyone... EVERYONE knows it.

I have seen the graphs...and none of them support the AGW hypothesis...but it has become more clear to me why you and yours have been taken in by the scam...you simply aren't smart enough to understand the topic...for example...you posted this graph as evidence of AGW...

When in fact, the graph the authors of the study used was this:

And what the graph is actually showing is that the claims made by the AGW hypothesis are simply not happening... The red and blue lines are measurements taken by the IRIS instrument in 1970 on the Nimbus 4 spacecraft...the black line is the measurement taken by the IMG instrument on the Japanese ADEOS satellite in 1997...over a single location in the central pacific with no clouds...As you can see, in the CO2 band, the two are damned near identical after 27 years of steady atmospheric CO2 increase....In fact, the differences are so slight that they fall within the margin of error of the instruments themselves....The `spectral range' is given as 600-3,000 for IMG, and 400-1,600 for IRIS.....The `spatial field of view' is given as 8 km x 8 km for IMG, 100 km x 100 km for IRIS.....The `spectral resolution' is given as 0.1 to 0.25 for IMG, 2.8 for IRIS..the differences between the instruments are so different that some variation between their measurements is inevitable....

Far from being empirical evidence that the AGW hypothesis is correct...it is empirical evidence that the AGW hypothesis is terribly flawed...

Such fundamental errors in understanding are rife within the believer cult...it is little wonder that they have been able to convince you with so much smoke and mirrors...hell, you can't even look at a simple graph and grasp what it is saying...or you are just a f'ing liar and will post any amount of bullshit in an attempt to fool someone into your cult...

My plot came directly from www.ipcc.ch. What is the source of yours?

From Harries 2006...an update of Harries 2001 which only served to confirm that another 9 years of increasing atmospheric CO2 failed to make any change in the IR at the top of the atmosphere in the CO2 wavelength...

https://www.eumetsat.int/cs/idcplg?...veAs=1&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased

In addition, the graph you posted never appeared in Harries 2001...just more evidence that nothing from the IPCC is to be trusted...here is a link to Harries 2001...note that your graph doesn't show up there even though you referenced Harries 2001 as the source....

http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~mlau/Griggs-07-IRIS-IMG-AIRS.pdf

 

[Billy_Bob]

So, even after having seen 40 graphs of it, you still insist "The Physical Science Basis" contains no empirical evidence of AGW. You are the one who is lying here and everyone... EVERYONE knows it.

I have seen the graphs...and none of them support the AGW hypothesis...but it has become more clear to me why you and yours have been taken in by the scam...you simply aren't smart enough to understand the topic...for example...you posted this graph as evidence of AGW...

When in fact, the graph the authors of the study used was this:

And what the graph is actually showing is that the claims made by the AGW hypothesis are simply not happening... The red and blue lines are measurements taken by the IRIS instrument in 1970 on the Nimbus 4 spacecraft...the black line is the measurement taken by the IMG instrument on the Japanese ADEOS satellite in 1997...over a single location in the central pacific with no clouds...As you can see, in the CO2 band, the two are damned near identical after 27 years of steady atmospheric CO2 increase....In fact, the differences are so slight that they fall within the margin of error of the instruments themselves....The `spectral range' is given as 600-3,000 for IMG, and 400-1,600 for IRIS.....The `spatial field of view' is given as 8 km x 8 km for IMG, 100 km x 100 km for IRIS.....The `spectral resolution' is given as 0.1 to 0.25 for IMG, 2.8 for IRIS..the differences between the instruments are so different that some variation between their measurements is inevitable....

Far from being empirical evidence that the AGW hypothesis is correct...it is empirical evidence that the AGW hypothesis is terribly flawed...

Such fundamental errors in understanding are rife within the believer cult...it is little wonder that they have been able to convince you with so much smoke and mirrors...hell, you can't even look at a simple graph and grasp what it is saying...or you are just a f'ing liar and will post any amount of bullshit in an attempt to fool someone into your cult...

My plot came directly from www.ipcc.ch. What is the source of yours?

From Harries 2006...an update of Harries 2001 which only served to confirm that another 9 years of increasing atmospheric CO2 failed to make any change in the IR at the top of the atmosphere in the CO2 wavelength...

https://www.eumetsat.int/cs/idcplg?...veAs=1&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased

In addition, the graph you posted never appeared in Harries 2001...just more evidence that nothing from the IPCC is to be trusted...here is a link to Harries 2001...note that your graph doesn't show up there even though you referenced Harries 2001 as the source....

http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~mlau/Griggs-07-IRIS-IMG-AIRS.pdf

Interesting....

But it is linked on Skeptical (shit) Science even though it is not part of the paper or its supporting documents. SkS being deceptive...? Crick falling for it? NAwwwwww that would never happen...

 

[SSDD]

So, even after having seen 40 graphs of it, you still insist "The Physical Science Basis" contains no empirical evidence of AGW. You are the one who is lying here and everyone... EVERYONE knows it.

I have seen the graphs...and none of them support the AGW hypothesis...but it has become more clear to me why you and yours have been taken in by the scam...you simply aren't smart enough to understand the topic...for example...you posted this graph as evidence of AGW...

When in fact, the graph the authors of the study used was this:

And what the graph is actually showing is that the claims made by the AGW hypothesis are simply not happening... The red and blue lines are measurements taken by the IRIS instrument in 1970 on the Nimbus 4 spacecraft...the black line is the measurement taken by the IMG instrument on the Japanese ADEOS satellite in 1997...over a single location in the central pacific with no clouds...As you can see, in the CO2 band, the two are damned near identical after 27 years of steady atmospheric CO2 increase....In fact, the differences are so slight that they fall within the margin of error of the instruments themselves....The `spectral range' is given as 600-3,000 for IMG, and 400-1,600 for IRIS.....The `spatial field of view' is given as 8 km x 8 km for IMG, 100 km x 100 km for IRIS.....The `spectral resolution' is given as 0.1 to 0.25 for IMG, 2.8 for IRIS..the differences between the instruments are so different that some variation between their measurements is inevitable....

Far from being empirical evidence that the AGW hypothesis is correct...it is empirical evidence that the AGW hypothesis is terribly flawed...

Such fundamental errors in understanding are rife within the believer cult...it is little wonder that they have been able to convince you with so much smoke and mirrors...hell, you can't even look at a simple graph and grasp what it is saying...or you are just a f'ing liar and will post any amount of bullshit in an attempt to fool someone into your cult...

My plot came directly from www.ipcc.ch. What is the source of yours?

His plot came directly from the work itself as he posted... but you failed to read..or are intentionally obtuse about...

He doesn't read...and he doesn't understand any of this.....he depends on cult priests to spoon feed him his talking points....the very idea that he has any sort of education in the hard science of engineering is just laughable...but maybe he does....just as someone always graduates at the top of the class....someone always has to be at the bottom of the class and scrapes by the skin of their teeth....and in the educational environment today where you don't actually have to learn anything in order to progress, I guess it is entirely possible...maybe his parents have money and bought him a degree at a private school...

 

[RealDave]

I'm not ignorant you fool. I'm sick of hearing crying assholes bitch about the same crap every fuvking day!

So you don't give a shit about your or your children's future. Good to know.

Actually we do...that is why we spend time trying to protect them from people like you who would have us all reduced to the economic level of the 1970's soviet union...bread lines and all if you had your way.

You only care about you wallet and what your political leaders tell you.

You must really hate your children. The majority of climate scientists tell you that their future could be difficult unless we cut back on emissions and you ignore it. Cutting back on emissions is not killing our econmy.

Oh wait, you are one of those people who think that companies can not prosper unless we allow therm to pollute. Like a good little Republican.

 

[RealDave]

lol......so the "hottest" was by............ready for this............0.1 degree!!!

You see folks, any time you see a thread started by an AGW guy, your radar needs to come up when you see these vague terms like, "warmest"......."hottest"........"largest increase"........"rise"......"heating"..........

Notice......they never compare it to another number. These bozo's will consistently refer to "hottest" if it is referencing a 0.1 or 0.2 rise in temperature. They also post up maps with vivid colors, particularly red so it leaves the stoopid viewer thinking, "Oh fuck........that's hot as shit!!".

Any time you ask a progressive the question, "As compared to what?"........their argument immediately looks silly.

145 out of the 15 hottest years on record have been since 2000. But hey, that doesn't mean anything to dumbasses like you.

 

[RealDave]

So, even after having seen 40 graphs of it, you still insist "The Physical Science Basis" contains no empirical evidence of AGW. You are the one who is lying here and everyone... EVERYONE knows it.

I have seen the graphs...and none of them support the AGW hypothesis...but it has become more clear to me why you and yours have been taken in by the scam...you simply aren't smart enough to understand the topic...for example...you posted this graph as evidence of AGW...

When in fact, the graph the authors of the study used was this:

And what the graph is actually showing is that the claims made by the AGW hypothesis are simply not happening... The red and blue lines are measurements taken by the IRIS instrument in 1970 on the Nimbus 4 spacecraft...the black line is the measurement taken by the IMG instrument on the Japanese ADEOS satellite in 1997...over a single location in the central pacific with no clouds...As you can see, in the CO2 band, the two are damned near identical after 27 years of steady atmospheric CO2 increase....In fact, the differences are so slight that they fall within the margin of error of the instruments themselves....The `spectral range' is given as 600-3,000 for IMG, and 400-1,600 for IRIS.....The `spatial field of view' is given as 8 km x 8 km for IMG, 100 km x 100 km for IRIS.....The `spectral resolution' is given as 0.1 to 0.25 for IMG, 2.8 for IRIS..the differences between the instruments are so different that some variation between their measurements is inevitable....

Far from being empirical evidence that the AGW hypothesis is correct...it is empirical evidence that the AGW hypothesis is terribly flawed...

Such fundamental errors in understanding are rife within the believer cult...it is little wonder that they have been able to convince you with so much smoke and mirrors...hell, you can't even look at a simple graph and grasp what it is saying...or you are just a f'ing liar and will post any amount of bullshit in an attempt to fool someone into your cult...

My plot came directly from www.ipcc.ch. What is the source of yours?

His plot came directly from the work itself as he posted... but you failed to read..or are intentionally obtuse about...

He doesn't read...and he doesn't understand any of this.....he depends on cult priests to spoon feed him his talking points....the very idea that he has any sort of education in the hard science of engineering is just laughable...but maybe he does....just as someone always graduates at the top of the class....someone always has to be at the bottom of the class and scrapes by the skin of their teeth....and in the educational environment today where you don't actually have to learn anything in order to progress, I guess it is entirely possible...maybe his parents have money and bought him a degree at a private school...

Where did you get your PhD in Climate Science?

 

[SSDD]

You only care about you wallet and what your political leaders tell you.[/quote]

I do care about keeping the lions share of what I earn...and I contribute a fair portion of that to charities of MY choice...

You must really hate your children.

No..I love them dearly...which is why I try to protect them from people like you who would happily drag the country off to hell in a hand basket with the best of intentions....the same intentions that killed millions upon millions in the old soviet union...china, cambodia..korea...etc...

The majority of climate scientists tell you that their future could be difficult unless we cut back on emissions and you ignore it. Cutting back on emissions is not killing our economy.

First off...climate science is a soft science...meaning that it is a less rigorous course of study than the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, engineering, meteorology, etc...a person with a masters in any hard science could teach any subject in the climate science curriculum while a graduate of the climate science curriculum would be lost in most classrooms of the hard science curricula....and far from a majority of people in the hard sciences agree with the soft science of climate science...

And then there is the fact that climate science can't provide the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the AGW hypothesis.

Oh wait, you are one of those people who think that companies can not prosper unless we allow therm to pollute. Like a good little Republican.

And once again...you couldn't possibly be more wrong...I favor draconian fines for illegal polluters...fines of a magnitude that it would bankrupt the guilty company or corporation...and mandatory prison sentences that would run into decades....punishment of such magnitude that no one in their right mind would even attempt to skirt the laws...as I have stated repeatedly on this board

Cleary, you think emotionally and don't bother to learn facts...which goes a long way towards explaining why you have fallen for the AGW scam...really, when you make an emotional appeal, claiming that I must not love my kids rather than making a rational argument showing observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of your argument...you have lost.

 

[SSDD]

So, even after having seen 40 graphs of it, you still insist "The Physical Science Basis" contains no empirical evidence of AGW. You are the one who is lying here and everyone... EVERYONE knows it.

I have seen the graphs...and none of them support the AGW hypothesis...but it has become more clear to me why you and yours have been taken in by the scam...you simply aren't smart enough to understand the topic...for example...you posted this graph as evidence of AGW...

When in fact, the graph the authors of the study used was this:

And what the graph is actually showing is that the claims made by the AGW hypothesis are simply not happening... The red and blue lines are measurements taken by the IRIS instrument in 1970 on the Nimbus 4 spacecraft...the black line is the measurement taken by the IMG instrument on the Japanese ADEOS satellite in 1997...over a single location in the central pacific with no clouds...As you can see, in the CO2 band, the two are damned near identical after 27 years of steady atmospheric CO2 increase....In fact, the differences are so slight that they fall within the margin of error of the instruments themselves....The `spectral range' is given as 600-3,000 for IMG, and 400-1,600 for IRIS.....The `spatial field of view' is given as 8 km x 8 km for IMG, 100 km x 100 km for IRIS.....The `spectral resolution' is given as 0.1 to 0.25 for IMG, 2.8 for IRIS..the differences between the instruments are so different that some variation between their measurements is inevitable....

Far from being empirical evidence that the AGW hypothesis is correct...it is empirical evidence that the AGW hypothesis is terribly flawed...

Such fundamental errors in understanding are rife within the believer cult...it is little wonder that they have been able to convince you with so much smoke and mirrors...hell, you can't even look at a simple graph and grasp what it is saying...or you are just a f'ing liar and will post any amount of bullshit in an attempt to fool someone into your cult...

My plot came directly from www.ipcc.ch. What is the source of yours?

His plot came directly from the work itself as he posted... but you failed to read..or are intentionally obtuse about...

He doesn't read...and he doesn't understand any of this.....he depends on cult priests to spoon feed him his talking points....the very idea that he has any sort of education in the hard science of engineering is just laughable...but maybe he does....just as someone always graduates at the top of the class....someone always has to be at the bottom of the class and scrapes by the skin of their teeth....and in the educational environment today where you don't actually have to learn anything in order to progress, I guess it is entirely possible...maybe his parents have money and bought him a degree at a private school...

Where did you get your PhD in Climate Science?

I don't have a PhD in any science as if that mattered...what exactly do you think is the error in the argument I have put forth? Do you think that people need a PhD to grasp science and scientific principles? Are you that poorly educated that you find that you must trust someone based on the letters behind their name? If so, rather than railing at me over the AGW scam, you should be railing at the educational system that has failed you so miserably.

 

[miketx]

I'm not ignorant you fool. I'm sick of hearing crying assholes bitch about the same crap every fuvking day!

So you don't give a shit about your or your children's future. Good to know.

Actually we do...that is why we spend time trying to protect them from people like you who would have us all reduced to the economic level of the 1970's soviet union...bread lines and all if you had your way.

You only care about you wallet and what your political leaders tell you.

You must really hate your children. The majority of climate scientists tell you that their future could be difficult unless we cut back on emissions and you ignore it. Cutting back on emissions is not killing our econmy.

Oh wait, you are one of those people who think that companies can not prosper unless we allow therm to pollute. Like a good little Republican.

de·flec·tion
dəˈflekSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: deflection; plural noun: deflections; noun: deflexion; plural noun: deflexions

1. the action or process of deflecting or being deflected.
   "the deflection of the light beam"
   • the amount by which something is deflected.
     "an 11-mile deflection of the river"
   • The liberal modus operandi.

 

[RealDave]

You only care about you wallet and what your political leaders tell you.

I do care about keeping the lions share of what I earn...and I contribute a fair portion of that to charities of MY choice...

You must really hate your children.

No..I love them dearly...which is why I try to protect them from people like you who would happily drag the country off to hell in a hand basket with the best of intentions....the same intentions that killed millions upon millions in the old soviet union...china, cambodia..korea...etc...

The majority of climate scientists tell you that their future could be difficult unless we cut back on emissions and you ignore it. Cutting back on emissions is not killing our economy.

First off...climate science is a soft science...meaning that it is a less rigorous course of study than the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, engineering, meteorology, etc...a person with a masters in any hard science could teach any subject in the climate science curriculum while a graduate of the climate science curriculum would be lost in most classrooms of the hard science curricula....and far from a majority of people in the hard sciences agree with the soft science of climate science...

And then there is the fact that climate science can't provide the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the AGW hypothesis.

Oh wait, you are one of those people who think that companies can not prosper unless we allow therm to pollute. Like a good little Republican.

And once again...you couldn't possibly be more wrong...I favor draconian fines for illegal polluters...fines of a magnitude that it would bankrupt the guilty company or corporation...and mandatory prison sentences that would run into decades....punishment of such magnitude that no one in their right mind would even attempt to skirt the laws...as I have stated repeatedly on this board

Cleary, you think emotionally and don't bother to learn facts...which goes a long way towards explaining why you have fallen for the AGW scam...really, when you make an emotional appeal, claiming that I must not love my kids rather than making a rational argument showing observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of your argument...you have lost.[/QUOTE]
Bullcrap. You just said that we can't reduce emissions because it hurts our economy. In saying that, you are telling us companies can't prosper without spewing emissions.

You keep saying things & running away from them.

Everyone is evidently duped but you. Funny chit, Mr Denier.

 

[RealDave]

I have seen the graphs...and none of them support the AGW hypothesis...but it has become more clear to me why you and yours have been taken in by the scam...you simply aren't smart enough to understand the topic...for example...you posted this graph as evidence of AGW...

When in fact, the graph the authors of the study used was this:

And what the graph is actually showing is that the claims made by the AGW hypothesis are simply not happening... The red and blue lines are measurements taken by the IRIS instrument in 1970 on the Nimbus 4 spacecraft...the black line is the measurement taken by the IMG instrument on the Japanese ADEOS satellite in 1997...over a single location in the central pacific with no clouds...As you can see, in the CO2 band, the two are damned near identical after 27 years of steady atmospheric CO2 increase....In fact, the differences are so slight that they fall within the margin of error of the instruments themselves....The `spectral range' is given as 600-3,000 for IMG, and 400-1,600 for IRIS.....The `spatial field of view' is given as 8 km x 8 km for IMG, 100 km x 100 km for IRIS.....The `spectral resolution' is given as 0.1 to 0.25 for IMG, 2.8 for IRIS..the differences between the instruments are so different that some variation between their measurements is inevitable....

Far from being empirical evidence that the AGW hypothesis is correct...it is empirical evidence that the AGW hypothesis is terribly flawed...

Such fundamental errors in understanding are rife within the believer cult...it is little wonder that they have been able to convince you with so much smoke and mirrors...hell, you can't even look at a simple graph and grasp what it is saying...or you are just a f'ing liar and will post any amount of bullshit in an attempt to fool someone into your cult...

My plot came directly from www.ipcc.ch. What is the source of yours?

His plot came directly from the work itself as he posted... but you failed to read..or are intentionally obtuse about...

He doesn't read...and he doesn't understand any of this.....he depends on cult priests to spoon feed him his talking points....the very idea that he has any sort of education in the hard science of engineering is just laughable...but maybe he does....just as someone always graduates at the top of the class....someone always has to be at the bottom of the class and scrapes by the skin of their teeth....and in the educational environment today where you don't actually have to learn anything in order to progress, I guess it is entirely possible...maybe his parents have money and bought him a degree at a private school...

Where did you get your PhD in Climate Science?

I don't have a PhD in any science as if that mattered...what exactly do you think is the error in the argument I have put forth? Do you think that people need a PhD to grasp science and scientific principles? Are you that poorly educated that you find that you must trust someone based on the letters behind their name? If so, rather than railing at me over the AGW scam, you should be railing at the educational system that has failed you so miserably.

It does matter. You are claiming you can read these graphs & charts & know what they mean. Now you tells you know nothing about Climate science & nothing about science. Do you even have a degree? A high school diploma? You brought up this subject. Don't run away from it.



I'll put mu educatiuon against your any day.