Let's see the evidence

[Crick]

Even Lord Monckton, Willie Soon, David Legates, and Matt Biggs have a better grasp on what is really occurring in our atmosphere. They even admit their own model may yet still be to high and it is a simplified one well below the IPCC crap. Current RSS observations show a ZERO forcing.

Only the adulterated records that have been molested show any resemblance to the IPCC claims.

Source

WUWT cartoons? No thanks. Do you not know how to find peer reviewed studies?

So now IPCC projections are cartoons... And peer reviewed science, which the above paper is, is now worthless too... Will you fools get your dam story straight! I though Peer reviewed was the standard you needed? Now i see that it must conform to the cult dogma to be accepted.

Got it..

That graph did not come from the IPCC. It came from Watts Up With That. So... no thanks.

 

[Liminal]

So then you apparently believe that discussions on public forum constitute the context to understand climate science. Is that right?

You come onto a message board and criticize the posters here for using a message board?

What restraints do you find in this venue to the communication of scientific information?

The only restraints to communicating scientific information here is the almost complete lack of any scientific knowledge.

 

[westwall]

I and others have been putting evidence up here for a great long while. I and other represent the mainstream view. The vast majority of the world's scientists hold positions similar to mine and disagree with yours. You, therefore, have the extraordinary claim and it is YOUR responsibility to provide some evidence.

I see that so far NO ONE has made the slightest attempt to provide any of the evidence I requested; evidence that ought to be in surplus were your positions to be correct or were you to have any actual reason to hold them.

No. All you idiots post up are OPINIONS. That and science fiction. No facts.

 

[Crick]

So then you apparently believe that discussions on public forum constitute the context to understand climate science. Is that right?

You come onto a message board and criticize the posters here for using a message board?

What restraints do you find in this venue to the communication of scientific information?

The only restraints to communicating scientific information here is the almost complete lack of any scientific knowledge.

I agree with you that it is lacking in general, but that is not intrinsic to the message board venue. We can link to articles, put in extensive quotes, graphics, the works. There is nothing inherently a-scientific about message boards.

So what is the context you accused me of failing to address. You said:

So then you apparently believe that discussions on public forum constitute the context to understand climate science. Is that right?

I haven't paid close attention to your postings, but what I have seen from you is simply more of this. Have you actually made any attempt to participate in any of the discussions here or are you just here to make yourself feel better by insulting folks?

 

[jc456]

I take it that you are refusing to answer my question. Whatever.

I actually like talking about this stuff. I am asking you a direct question so that I don't have to assume what your position is. That's how conversation works.

Facepalm

I'm sorry, jc, but you're just not qualified to take part in this conversation.

and yet you have never once provided the experimental evidence that proves 120ppm does anything to temperature. I have and you can't disprove it, F off you jack monkey

 

[jc456]

YOU ARE A LAIR!

Eh? A lair?

Eh, a scientist?

 

[jc456]

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Do you think in all the various work utilized by the IPCC to assemble AR5 there is no empirical evidence?

Ding, ding, ding!

 

[jc456]

B

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Do you think in all the various work utilized by the IPCC to assemble AR5 there is no empirical evidence?

You keep posting carp and I will keep calling it crap.. Quit posting crap and show me the real science. I have read the IPCC document and its baseless sensitivity pontifications. The appeal to authority is a sure sign that you have no evidence. You should just admit that you have nothing.

In your estimation then, "best guess" is now scientific fact.

Carp? You seem to suffer from dyslexia. Is that the case?

AR5 is based on scientific studies published in peer reviewed journals. It is assembled by dozens of leading experts and reviewed by hundreds of other scientists. The number of comments taken into account before final publication numbers in the tens of thousands.

The climate sensitivity value, like all parameters, projections, conclusions and observations, originated with multiple, peer-reviewed studies by experts. It was most certainly not "baseless".

That you should apparently be unaware of these points tells me that either you have NOT read "the IPCC document" and are lying or that you read it but did not understand it.

bullshit

 

[jc456]

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Do you think in all the various work utilized by the IPCC to assemble AR5 there is no empirical evidence?

You keep posting carp and I will keep calling it crap.. Quit posting crap and show me the real science. I have read the IPCC document and its baseless sensitivity pontifications. The appeal to authority is a sure sign that you have no evidence. You should just admit that you have nothing.

In your estimation then, "best guess" is now scientific fact.

Carp? You seem to suffer from dyslexia. Is that the case?

AR5 is based on scientific studies published in peer reviewed journals. It is assembled by dozens of leading experts and reviewed by hundreds of other scientists. The number of comments taken into account before final publication numbers in the tens of thousands.

The climate sensitivity value, like all parameters, projections, conclusions and observations, originated with multiple, peer-reviewed studies by experts. It was most certainly not "baseless".

That you should apparently be unaware of these points tells me that either you have NOT read "the IPCC document" and are lying or that you read it but did not understand it.

It's nothing more than an opinion document fool!

 

[Crick]

I take it that you are refusing to answer my question. Whatever.

I actually like talking about this stuff. I am asking you a direct question so that I don't have to assume what your position is. That's how conversation works.

Facepalm

I'm sorry, jc, but you're just not qualified to take part in this conversation.

and yet you have never once provided the experimental evidence that proves 120ppm does anything to temperature. I have and you can't disprove it, F off you jack monkey

Like I said and as you've just demonstrated once again, you're just not qualified to take part in this conversation.

 

[Crick]

I and others have been putting evidence up here for a great long while. I and other represent the mainstream view. The vast majority of the world's scientists hold positions similar to mine and disagree with yours. You, therefore, have the extraordinary claim and it is YOUR responsibility to provide some evidence.

I see that so far NO ONE has made the slightest attempt to provide any of the evidence I requested; evidence that ought to be in surplus were your positions to be correct or were you to have any actual reason to hold them.

No. All you idiots post up are OPINIONS. That and science fiction. No facts.

You've been buried in peer reviewed science. You've got diddly squat in the way of evidence. So, take your ignorant squallering and go fuck yourself, asshole.

 

[jc456]

I take it that you are refusing to answer my question. Whatever.

I actually like talking about this stuff. I am asking you a direct question so that I don't have to assume what your position is. That's how conversation works.

Facepalm

I'm sorry, jc, but you're just not qualified to take part in this conversation.

and yet you have never once provided the experimental evidence that proves 120ppm does anything to temperature. I have and you can't disprove it, F off you jack monkey

Like I said and as you've just demonstrated once again, you're just not qualified to take part in this conversation.

Hahahaha, you've proven you're not. Seems your board presence is all lies. You're not a scientist either, you just admitted it what qualifies you?

 

[jc456]

I and others have been putting evidence up here for a great long while. I and other represent the mainstream view. The vast majority of the world's scientists hold positions similar to mine and disagree with yours. You, therefore, have the extraordinary claim and it is YOUR responsibility to provide some evidence.

I see that so far NO ONE has made the slightest attempt to provide any of the evidence I requested; evidence that ought to be in surplus were your positions to be correct or were you to have any actual reason to hold them.

No. All you idiots post up are OPINIONS. That and science fiction. No facts.

You've been buried in peer reviewed science. You've got diddly squat in the way of evidence. So, take your ignorant squallering and go fuck yourself, asshole.

You must not be Bo since you've never provided diddly

 

[Billy_Bob]

Even Lord Monckton, Willie Soon, David Legates, and Matt Biggs have a better grasp on what is really occurring in our atmosphere. They even admit their own model may yet still be to high and it is a simplified one well below the IPCC crap. Current RSS observations show a ZERO forcing.

Only the adulterated records that have been molested show any resemblance to the IPCC claims.

Source

WUWT cartoons? No thanks. Do you not know how to find peer reviewed studies?

So now IPCC projections are cartoons... And peer reviewed science, which the above paper is, is now worthless too... Will you fools get your dam story straight! I though Peer reviewed was the standard you needed? Now i see that it must conform to the cult dogma to be accepted.

Got it..

That graph did not come from the IPCC. It came from Watts Up With That. So... no thanks.

NO.. It is part of a peer reviewed paper... but then I expected you to do exactly what you did and ignore it after lying about its origin. I even included the excerpt to the partially published credits that were being called for by two left wing cranks who were screaming that the Paper was incomplete.

Below is the Link to the published and peer reviewed paper.
http://wmbriggs.com/public/Monckton.et.al.pdf

Below is the link to the full Credits and Citations.
http://static-content.springer.com/...2/MediaObjects/11434_2014_699_MOESM1_ESM.docx

 

[westwall]

I and others have been putting evidence up here for a great long while. I and other represent the mainstream view. The vast majority of the world's scientists hold positions similar to mine and disagree with yours. You, therefore, have the extraordinary claim and it is YOUR responsibility to provide some evidence.

I see that so far NO ONE has made the slightest attempt to provide any of the evidence I requested; evidence that ought to be in surplus were your positions to be correct or were you to have any actual reason to hold them.

No. All you idiots post up are OPINIONS. That and science fiction. No facts.

You've been buried in peer reviewed science. You've got diddly squat in the way of evidence. So, take your ignorant squallering and go fuck yourself, asshole.

No, you've presented "peer reviewed" studies that are based wholly on computer models. Any 1st year geology student can tell you that computer models are not facts. Further any scientist can show you that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove a theory correct, but you can prove a theory false. No theory can be exhaustively tested under every possible condition. That's why you twits run the hell away from making any sort of prediction. If you predict your little theory can be falsified. That's what science does. It proves things WRONG. Not "right".

If you had half the brains of an ant you would know this.

 

[Billy_Bob]

If you think AR5 is based solely on models, then you have not read it.

You just pegged my BullShit meter... ALL of the predictions are due to climate modeling, every single one along with their failures..

 

[IanC]

Crick- I see by my alerts you have still not answered my direct question.

 

[Crick]

If you think AR5 is based solely on models, then you have not read it.

You just pegged my BullShit meter... ALL of the predictions are due to climate modeling, every single one along with their failures..

God are you STUPID. Have you got some OTHER way to make a projection? Oh, of course. The DENIER method. Just fucking make it up.

And, again, if you think AR5 is nothing but projections, you still haven't read it.

What a fucking moron!

 

[Crick]

Crick- I see by my alerts you have still not answered my direct question.

I see by my senses and my brain that you still haven't presented any evidence to support your position and you still haven't identified the mystery fucking question you've got your panties in such a bind over. Get back to me when you grow up.

 

[IanC]

Crick- I see by my alerts you have still not answered my direct question.

I see by my senses and my brain that you still haven't presented any evidence to support your position and you still haven't identified the mystery fucking question you've got your panties in such a bind over. Get back to me when you grow up.

why dont you grow up and answer the question?