How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[SSDD]

I am not enough of a dumb fuck to sit here and even pretend I am qualified to explain to you the science behind AGW. You have no idea how much you don't understand. A climate scientist would laugh at you.

I'm not asking you to explain anything...I am asking for A SINGLE PIECE OF OBSERVED, MEASURED EVIDENCE WHICH SUPPORTS THE MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE HYPOTHESIS OVER NATURAL VARIABILITY.

Just one single piece of observed, measured evidence. And like I said...it won't be coming from you either...or anyone else because no such evidence exists. So I know pretty much what I understand and what I don't...and I know that without any actual evidence to support the claim..the claim is bullshit...and I know that anyone who believes in a claim without evidence to support it is not standing on scientific ground...they are expressing their faith...

 

[Confounding]

I am not enough of a dumb fuck to sit here and even pretend I am qualified to explain to you the science behind AGW. You have no idea how much you don't understand. A climate scientist would laugh at you.

I'm not asking you to explain anything...I am asking for A SINGLE PIECE OF OBSERVED, MEASURED EVIDENCE WHICH SUPPORTS THE MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE HYPOTHESIS OVER NATURAL VARIABILITY.

Just one single piece of observed, measured evidence. And like I said...it won't be coming from you either...or anyone else because no such evidence exists. So I know pretty much what I understand and what I don't...and I know that without any actual evidence to support the claim..the claim is bullshit...and I know that anyone who believes in a claim without evidence to support it is not standing on scientific ground...they are expressing their faith...

You are disputing the claims of scientists all over the world that have studied and practiced this stuff their entire adult lives. You are an arrogant jackass. I will not entertain this conversation beyond that.

 

[SSDD]

You are disputing the claims of scientists all over the world that have studied and practiced this stuff their entire adult lives. You are an arrogant jackass. I will not entertain this conversation beyond that.

I am saying that there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability. I will also state categorically, that there has never been a paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses.

You aren't producing any observed, measured evidence to contradict me...all you are doing is engaging in a logical fallacy...if any such evidence existed, you wouldn't be able to escape it..it would be everywhere..people would be using it for their signature lines on these forums...it would be on billboards...comercials...on cans of coke...but it isn't because it doesn't exist.

So if no observed, measured evidence exists that supports AGW over natural variability..and if it has never been measured and quantified in a paper, exactly what is the consensus based on if not politics and money?

 

[Confounding]

You are disputing the claims of scientists all over the world that have studied and practiced this stuff their entire adult lives. You are an arrogant jackass. I will not entertain this conversation beyond that.

I am saying that there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability. I will also state categorically, that there has never been a paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses.

You aren't producing any observed, measured evidence to contradict me...all you are doing is engaging in a logical fallacy...if any such evidence existed, you wouldn't be able to escape it..it would be everywhere..people would be using it for their signature lines on these forums...it would be on billboards...comercials...on cans of coke...but it isn't because it doesn't exist.

So if no observed, measured evidence exists that supports AGW over natural variability..and if it has never been measured and quantified in a paper, exactly what is the consensus based on if not politics and money?

You disagree with the vast majority of scientists all over the world as well as every scientific institution. I don't.

 

[SSDD]

You are disputing the claims of scientists all over the world that have studied and practiced this stuff their entire adult lives. You are an arrogant jackass. I will not entertain this conversation beyond that.

I am saying that there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability. I will also state categorically, that there has never been a paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses.

You aren't producing any observed, measured evidence to contradict me...all you are doing is engaging in a logical fallacy...if any such evidence existed, you wouldn't be able to escape it..it would be everywhere..people would be using it for their signature lines on these forums...it would be on billboards...comercials...on cans of coke...but it isn't because it doesn't exist.

So if no observed, measured evidence exists that supports AGW over natural variability..and if it has never been measured and quantified in a paper, exactly what is the consensus based on if not politics and money?

Your views on AGW directly contradict the views of scientists and scientific institutions all over the world. That is an observable fact.

So what? My views on whether or not cholesterol caused heart disease directly contradicted nearly every doctor and medical institution and doctor in the world...now they agree with me...my views on whether stress caused stomach ulcers contradicted nearly every medical institution and doctor in the world...now they agree with me...my views on whether or not salt caused high blood pressure contradicted nearly every medical institution and doctor in the world...now they agree with me.

If you have ever looked at the history of science, you know that on practically every scientific topic you can name, the consensus has been wrong...especially where new fields of study such as climate are involved...science is an evolving, learning process. The very idea that climate science sprung forth complete, all knowing, and never wrong is laughable...Climate science is in its infancy...at this point, we don't even know what we don't know regarding what drives the climate...

 

[Confounding]

So what?

You are ignorant compared to them. Despite any cute anecdotes you might have those scientists are leaps and bounds more qualified to have an opinion than you because they understand more about it than you ever will. You think you understand this better than the scientists do after clicking through some climate change blogs? That's completely preposterous. Also I don't know about you personally, but it goes beyond just disagreement with most "skeptics." Often it's claimed that the scientists are deliberately deceiving us. Anybody that actually understands how science and peer review work knows that that's completely ridiculous. Every climate scientist on Earth wants to be the one that proves AGW isn't actually happening. That person will go down in history.

 

[Crick]

Not "will" go down... "would"

 

[SSDD]

So what?

You are ignorant compared to them.

You don't know the first thing about me...so you have shown that you tend to operate based on what you feel rather than what you know...

Despite any cute anecdotes you might have those scientists are leaps and bounds more qualified to have an opinion than you because they understand more about it than you ever will.

So you say, and think...and yet, I can pinpoint what sort of evidence you can provide and can't provide with perfect certainty...

You think you understand this better than the scientists do after clicking through some climate change blogs?

Again...I can predict with perfect certainty exactly what sort of evidence you can provide and what you can't provide...it is the evidence that you can't provide that tells the story...

Every climate scientist on Earth wants to be the one that proves AGW isn't actually happening. That person will go down in history.

Right...every climate scientist wants to be the one to prove AGW isn't actually happen and cut off a multi trillion dollar stream of money over the foreseeable future and go back to the days where the best gig they could possibly hope for was as a weather man on a local news network...

 

[SSDD]

I am amazed that these assholes have the arrogance to question the work and integrity of scientists all over the fucking world that have dedicated their lives to this stuff.

So we should just go along with being wrong? Do you know how often science has been wrong over the years? They have been wrong on practically every scientific topic you c

These are the people that know more about it than anybody, and your response to their findings is "Bullshit, you're lying." You morons looked at a couple of graphs on some bullshit conspiracy blog websites and you think you're qualified to dispute the findings of the most qualified people on Earth. This is completely motivated by partisan bullshit for you people. You think there's some leftist conspiracy involving all of the climate scientists but there really isn't. You're just fucking stupid, seriously.[/QUOTE]

Not "will" go down... "would"

Whats the matter skidmark...don't want to explore any more of those hundreds of skeptical papers published last year alone? Guess you don't get much exposure to the fact that the hypothesis is failing in your little world insulated from reality...

 

[Crick]

Have you put up links to any of them? Because I don't find them. People like Naomi Orestes and James Powell, searching through tens of thousands of published papers don't find them. So... where are they?

 

[Confounding]

You don't know the first thing about me...so you have shown that you tend to operate based on what you feel rather than what you know...

You've demonstrated enough so far for me to fairly make a few assumptions.

So you say, and think...and yet, I can pinpoint what sort of evidence you can provide and can't provide with perfect certainty...

I don't care about your interpretation of the evidence because you're not a climate scientist. I won't ask for your opinion if I need open heart surgery either. What is your job? What have you spent your life doing for a living? When it comes to whatever that is I'd be interested in your input on the matter.

Again...I can predict with perfect certainty exactly what sort of evidence you can provide and what you can't provide...it is the evidence that you can't provide that tells the story...

You can parrot bullshit you read on skeptic blogs designed to fool people like you into not trusting scientists.

Right...every climate scientist wants to be the one to prove AGW isn't actually happen and cut off a multi trillion dollar stream of money over the foreseeable future and go back to the days where the best gig they could possibly hope for was as a weather man on a local news network...

You just don't understand how science works. Scientists make a living on destroying each other's ideas. If there was some kind of conspiracy/corruption it wouldn't last long at all because legitimate scientists would blow it out of the water.

 

[Confounding]

So we should just go along with being wrong? Do you know how often science has been wrong over the years?

You only know about the times it was wrong because it's a self-correcting system. Who do you think uncovered those mistakes? People that aren't scientists? Science embraces mistakes because it increases our understanding. You really have no idea how deep of an insult it is to men of science for you to suggest some of the shit that you do.

Whats the matter skidmark...don't want to explore any more of those hundreds of skeptical papers published last year alone? Guess you don't get much exposure to the fact that the hypothesis is failing in your little world insulated from reality...

And there are thousands of studies that support it each year. There is some truth in your words though. Crick has demonstrated that he doesn't look at this issue like a scientist.

 

[Confounding]

Furthermore the skepticism should be left to the minority of climate scientists that disagree with the consensus. The rest of us should sit around waiting to see the results of their disagreements.

SSDD

I accuse you of having a position motivated by politics rather than science.

 

[SSDD]

You've demonstrated enough so far for me to fairly make a few assumptions.

So far your assumptions have been markedly wrong...but I guess that people who live by assuming can't be worried about how often they are wrong...

I don't care about your interpretation of the evidence because you're not a climate scientist. I won't ask for your opinion if I need open heart surgery either. What is your job? What have you spent your life doing for a living? When it comes to whatever that is I'd be interested in your input on the matter.

We aren't talking about interpreting evidence...we are talking about a lack of observed measured evidence... What I do is irrelevant to whether climate science has made its case or not....assuming that my profession is important to that question is just one more logical fallacy on your part....

You can parrot bullshit you read on skeptic blogs designed to fool people like you into not trusting scientists.

I don't know that I have ever seen anyone stating frankly that there is no observed, measured evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and I don't need a blog to tell me what to think...I spend a great deal of time reading the actual literature...

You just don't understand how science works. Scientists make a living on destroying each other's ideas. If there was some kind of conspiracy/corruption it wouldn't last long at all because legitimate scientists would blow it out of the water.

Of course I understand how science works...which is why I can say in perfect confidence that there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....and that there is not a single piece of observed measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...and that there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses...

I can say those things in perfect confidence that neither you, nor anyone else is going to suddenly produce actual observed, measured evidence to prove me wrong...it isn't going to happen because the evidence doesn't exist...you believe in smoke and mirrors, and the opinion of people who should be producing evidence rather than spouting their opinions...

 

[Confounding]

The scientists think there's enough evidence to support their claims. I'll take their word over your uninformed interpretation of the situation.

 

[SSDD]

Have you put up links to any of them? Because I don't find them. People like Naomi Orestes and James Powell, searching through tens of thousands of published papers don't find them. So... where are they?

Guess you can't read.....post 176. Then let me know which sort of skeptical papers you would like to see from there...I gave you a host of choices.

 

[SSDD]

You only know about the times it was wrong because it's a self-correcting system.

Correct....scientists propose a hypothesis then begin testing that hypothesis against reality...if the hypothesis proves itself useful in predicting outcomes, then more testing is done looking for weakness in the hypothesis...and if the hypothesis makes a predictive failure, the hypothesis is falsified....then work begins on a new hypothesis that is stronger than the one that experienced predictive failure.

This is where climate science establishes that it is engaged in pseudoscience and not actual science...the past 3 decades or so are littered with predictive failures of both the greenhouse hypothesis and AGW since each relies on the other...Neither has been altered from the original hypothesis....that isn't science...in pseudoscience, a hypothesis can have as many predictive failures as it wants...it really doesn't matter so long as the funding continues...

Who do you think uncovered those mistakes?

So when climate science makes predictions based on the AGW hypothesis, and those predictions fail, why do they not scrap the hypothesis and work on a better one?...why do they not change the hypothesis so that the failures it has experienced do not continue to happen?

And there are thousands of studies that support it each year. There is some truth in your words though. Crick has demonstrated that he doesn't look at this issue like a scientist.

[/quote]

But not a single published paper in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses...that is the claim that AGW makes, but no paper exists in which the claimed warming has ever been physically measured and quantified...so what is the consensus based on?

 

[SSDD]

Have you put up links to any of them? Because I don't find them. People like Naomi Orestes and James Powell, searching through tens of thousands of published papers don't find them. So... where are they?

Why, yes I have...over on the "how do we know humans are causing climate change" thread...post #176 I think.... You want me to start posting them here as well?

 

[Crick]

This IS "How do we know humans are causing climate change".

 

[SSDD]

Furthermore the skepticism should be left to the minority of climate scientists that disagree with the consensus. The rest of us should sit around waiting to see the results of their disagreements.

So you think we should just blindly trust them and accept whatever they say because they are scientists? Is that what you are suggesting.....That they be self policing? That whatever they say government should do, that that should just be done without regard to the consequences? Is that what you are saying? Sort of like blind faith in religious leaders?

I accuse you of having a position motivated by politics rather than science.

Baseless accusation since I am the one asking for scientific evidence...and you are the one telling me that I should just trust them whether they can produce any evidence at all...you are the one suggesting that we just accept on blind faith that they are correct and have our best interests at heart...