Last Chance for Warmer to Explain AGW Theory

[Crick]

Are you ever going to provide some REASON that anyone might think your contention has any basis?

Ever?

 

[SSDD]

Are you ever going to provide some REASON that anyone might think your contention has any basis?

Ever?

Epic failure of the climate models is reason enough...the models are the greenhouse effect and AGW hypotheses incarnate and they fail to match observation...in fact, they can't even hind cast....if a model can't even duplicate the observed past, it is undoubtedly a failure...since the models are the hypotheses incarnate...and they fail...the hypotheses are failures as well.

Why aren't they then dumped?....follow the money.

 

[Crick]

That the Earth has been warming is not from a model.
That the only viable cause for that warming is the greenhouse effect is not from a model.
That the dominant reason for an increased greenhouse effect is the elevated level of CO2 and massive deforestation worldwide is not from a model.
The humans are the cause of both those effects is not from a model.

If you want to get somewhere in this discussion, you might try sticking closer to the truth.

 

[Youch]

Okay....I can cite data and websites all day long. And I will, if needed. Battles of website citations rarely amounts to much. But this is backwards. The widespread assumption is that the earth is warming and that humans are causing it. The case for both of those things has not been made outside the federal grant establishment. It is a movement, a religion.....meaning, it is a belief system, an ideology. And similar to religion, it is a very hard thing to actually prove. So in order for this argument to be put in the correct order, one must first prove the contention that the earth is warming and that humans are causing it. Justify the billions being spent! Justify the insane growth and power of the EPA? Evidence must first be advanced before an argument can be made. Let me give you an example....government has expanded EXPONENTIALLY since it first used climate as a device to control and expand, yet not a single polar bear has even noticed warming, not a single human, for that matter. The hockey stick was debunked. Rational people look to the sun. Rational people look at weather and climate patters of the last 20 years. Rational people see that spikes in CO2 were occurring long before the Industrial Revolution. You seem my point? What on earth do you have to prove your contention that I am supposed to disprove? Just look at recent patterns without all the distortion from grant recipients.

Now, don't confuse my desire for proof, as far too many have, that I ignore issues such as mass deforestation.... those are a different topic. As a conservative, I am down 100% for conserving natural resources...but again, not the same issue. Sorry, I felt compelled to differentiate, due to my long experience debating this issue on other forums.

 

[jc456]

That the Earth has been warming is not from a model.
That the only viable cause for that warming is the greenhouse effect is not from a model.
That the dominant reason for an increased greenhouse effect is the elevated level of CO2 and massive deforestation worldwide is not from a model.
The humans are the cause of both those effects is not from a model.

If you want to get somewhere in this discussion, you might try sticking closer to the truth.

That you fail to provide evidence of what happens with 120PPM of CO2 is fact, you be ........... LoSiNg

 

[Crick]

Okay....I can cite data and websites all day long. And I will, if needed. Battles of website citations rarely amounts to much. But this is backwards.

I do not believe citing reference sources to be backwards. I believe it to be a necessary ingredient to making a valid argument.

The widespread assumption is that the earth is warming and that humans are causing it. The case for both of those things has not been made outside the federal grant establishment.

That is untrue. Cook et al's recent survey of the literature found thousands of studies which found or were based on the assumption of the validity of AGW. Those were not restricted to "the federal grant establishment". Besides which, you have no grounds to imply a projected bias of federal grants.

It is a movement, a religion.....meaning, it is a belief system, an ideology. And similar to religion, it is a very hard thing to actually prove.

You began this piece seeming to present a reasonable position. I see that was a false impression. I also see that you are one of the disappointingly large number of people with the mistaken belief that the role of science is to prove facts.

So in order for this argument to be put in the correct order, one must first prove the contention that the earth is warming and that humans are causing it.

Wrong. What is required is the exercise of rational judgement and political leadership to make decisions based on the best possible information. That information overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the Earth is warming and that human GHGs are the primary cause. Outside the denier demesne, that point is indisputable.

Justify the billions being spent! Justify the insane growth and power of the EPA? Evidence must first be advanced before an argument can be made.

Go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and read AR1, AR2, AR3, AR4 and AR5. Then come back and explain to us where you ever got the idea there was any shortfall of evidence.

Let me give you an example....government has expanded EXPONENTIALLY since it first used climate as a device to control and expand, yet not a single polar bear has even noticed warming, not a single human, for that matter.

Government has not expanded exponentially, period. And if you'd like to see some humans that have noticed the effects of global warming, talk to the residents of the Philippines and ask them of their experiences with Typhoon Haiyan. Wander the UN heartland and ask people what they've experienced during recent polar vortices? Ask people who've seen their crops and flocks affected by changes in natural seasonal timings. You claim you have no evidence but then seem to have no trouble coming to conclusions without any.

The hockey stick was debunked.

This is the deepest of the denier self disinformation. The hockey stick curve has not been debunked. It is a reflection of what several environmental parameters have actually done and the literature is filled with a variety of hockey stick shaped data graphs. Even the original MBH paleotemperature chart has not be "debunked". Since its original publishing, it has been revised and improved, but it still shows a dramatic and - in the last several millenia at least - unprecedented rise in temperature and GHG levels during the last 150 years.

Rational people look to the sun.

Scientists have studied the sun in detail for a great long while. Those rational scientists have found that the changes in the sun's output have NOT been anywhere near sufficient to be the cause of the warming we've undergone. That is clearly and firmly established.

Rational people look at weather and climate patters of the last 20 years.

That would not be the rational course, that would be the cherry-picker course. Did you think that wouldn't be obvious?

Rational people see that spikes in CO2 were occurring long before the Industrial Revolution. You seem my point?

At no time prior to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution were increased CO2 levels caused by human activities. So, what is your point?

What on earth do you have to prove your contention that I am supposed to disprove? Just look at recent patterns without all the distortion from grant recipients.

How about you provide some evidence that "grant recipient" have "distorted" their data results? You are asking us to accept a patently unbelievable contention (massive, long term conspiracy) with NO evidence whatsoever.

Now, don't confuse my desire for proof, as far too many have, that I ignore issues such as mass deforestation.... those are a different topic. As a conservative, I am down 100% for conserving natural resources...but again, not the same issue. Sorry, I felt compelled to differentiate, due to my long experience debating this issue on other forums.

Apparently, despite you "long experience", you have failed to learn the logic of argument.

 

[jc456]

I

Apparently, despite you "long experience", you have failed to learn the logic of argument.

I guess you FAIL at that. You're a kick dude. Except you still haven't completed the original request of showing evidence that 120- PPM of CO2 does anything. Argument FAIL!!!!!!!!! LoSiNg

BTW, way to open up gram ma ma's cabinet and regurgitating all of that mumbo jumbo soup!!!!!!

 

[SSDD]

That the Earth has been warming is not from a model.

But the manner in which the earth is warming is not as the models have predicted.

the only viable cause for that warming is the greenhouse effect is not from a model.

Are you claiming that climate science even knows all the variables...much less has accounted for them? Are you really claiming that we know and have accounted for every variable on and outside our planet that can alter the climate? Are you really making that claim? If so, then once again...you have proven yourself to be a bald faced liar who will say anything in an effort to support your belief.

the dominant reason for an increased greenhouse effect is the elevated level of CO2 and massive deforestation worldwide is not from a model.

A greenhouse effect has never been observed, measured, or quantified except within the confines of a model so yes...it is from a model

And you wouldn't know the truth if it bit a chunk out of your ass.

 

[jc456]

Are you ever going to provide some REASON that anyone might think your contention has any basis?

Ever?

So are you?

 

[Crick]

Go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and read AR5

 

[jc456]

AR5

prove it, provide the paragraph from that report that shows 120 PPM drves climate. I've read it, Also show where any added CO2 has caused a temperature increase.

 

[mamooth]

It's like we're being asked to show gravity pulls things down, yet the poor addled denier kooks actually wonder why they keep getting ignored.

Kooks, we're ignoring you because you're stupid and dishonest. That's the same reason why the whole world ignores you. Talking to you is pointless, except for when we're seeking some comic relief.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and read AR5

^ Not a lab experiment

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's like we're being asked to show gravity pulls things down, yet the poor addled denier kooks actually wonder why they keep getting ignored.

Kooks, we're ignoring you because you're stupid and dishonest. That's the same reason why the whole world ignores you. Talking to you is pointless, except for when we're seeking some comic relief.

So, if AGW works as dependably as gravity you should have no problem with a lab experiment showing how a 120PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature and lowers pH

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's like we're being asked to show gravity pulls things down, yet the poor addled denier kooks actually wonder why they keep getting ignored.

Kooks, we're ignoring you because you're stupid and dishonest. That's the same reason why the whole world ignores you. Talking to you is pointless, except for when we're seeking some comic relief.

^ Not a lab experiment

 

[jc456]

It's like we're being asked to show gravity pulls things down, yet the poor addled denier kooks actually wonder why they keep getting ignored.

Kooks, we're ignoring you because you're stupid and dishonest. That's the same reason why the whole world ignores you. Talking to you is pointless, except for when we're seeking some comic relief.

No, we're asking you to provide and experiment that shows that 120 PPM is dangerous. That it will cause mass extinctions. Increases temperatures, causes climate caos. That's what we're asking you.

Now from you, you act like we asked you to measure the circumference of the earth on your hands and knees. No, it's much simpler than that, just that one of a thousand experiments you boast about. Well stop boasting and show us.

Oh, and if you are ignoring me ..........................Winning

 

[Crick]

For one:

AR5, Summary for Policy Makers, Section C, Drivers of Climate Change, pg 11

 

[CrusaderFrank]

For one:

AR5, Summary for Policy Makers, Section C, Drivers of Climate Change, pg 11

^ Still not a lab experiment

 

[jc456]

For one:

AR5, Summary for Policy Makers, Section C, Drivers of Climate Change, pg 11

BTW, in the report Section C is page 13, and what paragraph would you like to quote as to what your point is? I'm not re-reading looking for something you surely have already found.

Continued actions of a punk!!!!!

 

[jc456]

For one:

AR5, Summary for Policy Makers, Section C, Drivers of Climate Change, pg 11

Can you tell me what the hell this even means from the section you provided?:


"Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system.
{2–14} "

What understanding of the climate? If they understood the climate, they wouldn't need more modeling. And what evidence, there is absolutely nothing in that statement that is proof of anything? That's how nuts these nutjobs are. And you want me to take this crap seriously?

No, provide me real evidence, observed evidence of what 120 PPM of CO2 does to climate. They don't know.