MTP: Climate Change Discussion - no Deniers

[Slyhunter]

No, YOU are uninformed. You demonstrated it quite clearly with your previous post.

I cited Wikipedia than posted the actual references to those comments. If you'd like to claim they're bogus, let me know. I can bring up the original citations

Dickwad

Wikipedia is an editable source, not reliable.

 

[Crick]

The references I provided are NOT editable and ARE reliable.

 

[Slyhunter]

The references I provided are NOT editable and ARE reliable.

I believe wikipedia is a editable source but even if it wasn't it's also a left wing biased web site.

 

[Crick]

Don't be a fucking idiot. The four references I posted all footnoted to the text are NOT editable. They are the sources of or support the statements made. Your objections are bullshit. If you think something I have posted is false, show us.

 

[SSDD]

Oh my. Are you really that uninformed?

I haven't had to go here in some time, but I guess you're new here.

From Wikipedia Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia
.

Opinion: a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

 

[Slyhunter]

Don't be a fucking idiot. The four references I posted all footnoted to the text are NOT editable. They are the sources of or support the statements made. Your objections are bullshit. If you think something I have posted is false, show us.

It's a Liberal web site, got nothing to prove. Liberals lie.

 

[toobfreak]

Watching Meet the Press. They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change. They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled. Now it is time to discuss solutions. I applaud Meet the Press. Time to push deniers and their pseudo science to the curb or back into closet.

Right, Jerkslaw. You found a TV show that tells you what you want to believe, they have barred any dissenting opinions from speaking there presenting alternate ideas or data, operate from the position that their theories alone are wholly right and undeniable and now you applaud them as the defacto standard for hard science reporting.

 

[skookerasbil]

Watching Meet the Press. They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change. They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled. Now it is time to discuss solutions. I applaud Meet the Press. Time to push deniers and their pseudo science to the curb or back into closet.

Right, Jerkslaw. You found a TV show that tells you what you want to believe, they have barred any dissenting opinions from speaking there presenting alternate ideas or data, operate from the position that their theories alone are wholly right and undeniable and now you applaud them as the defacto standard for hard science reporting.

Lol....check the ratings in that episode of MEET THE DEPRESSED .....about 150 people tuned in!

 

[westwall]

The references I provided are NOT editable and ARE reliable.

Virtually nothing you post is reliable.

 

[SSDD]

But I would prove their data is false from the 1880 global average temperature

Gods.

What I like is the way temperatures from the Medieval warm period are used to deny recent 'warming' as being unusual or excessive. As if daily temperatures were recorded then.

Temperature record of the past 1000 years - Wikipedia

Medieval Warm Period - Google My Maps

Visit the map...every red ballon represents a study that found the MWP to have been warmer than the present...every blue balloon finds that it was slightly cooler than the present during the MWP..click on the balloon and you will get the basics of the study and a link to the entire study...Your map doesn't jibe with literally hundreds of studies that found the MWP to have been both warmer than the present, and global in nature.

 

[Crick]

What do you believe the MWP temperatures mean to the AGW theory?

 

[Ame®icano]

The references I provided are NOT editable and ARE reliable.

Yeah, references to Slate. Wait... to Slate? LOL Great references, shitstain.

It figures, the average global warming believer will accept anything they hear from the left wing propaganda.

Here is little reminder... scientists like to talk about their GCMs (General Circulation Models). According to those scientists, the doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2C, depending on a GCM used.

The General Circulation Models, and the IPCC, predict 2-8C of warming because AGW theory assumes a positive H2O feedback. They assume that if CO2 causes a little warming, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor and that more water vapor will lead to a lot of warming.

The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average H2O feedback rate. Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 20 years. They are all trending too high. Every single one.

In the late 1990's the modelers themselves stated that "if they missed their predictions for more then a decade that would falsify AGW theory." Have they done that? Nope, they doubled down.

In fact, they're still not providing any data to suggest a +H2O feedback either now or in Earth's past.

If there is no +H2O feedback then we literally have nothing to worry about. Of course, all that is hidden from average leftist global warming believer, as long these nuts don't know the fact, there will be more funding.

Politicians, citizens, activists, surprisingly even a lot of scientists are not just ignoring it, but hiding these theories and the math. In their mind it's simply "CO2 = bad" and "experts say we're warming faster then ever.

 

[danielpalos]

No, YOU are uninformed. You demonstrated it quite clearly with your previous post.

I cited Wikipedia than posted the actual references to those comments. If you'd like to claim they're bogus, let me know. I can bring up the original citations

Dickwad

Wikipedia is an editable source, not reliable.

Wikipedia is usually easy enough for the right wing to read and understand.

 

[westwall]

No, YOU are uninformed. You demonstrated it quite clearly with your previous post.

I cited Wikipedia than posted the actual references to those comments. If you'd like to claim they're bogus, let me know. I can bring up the original citations

Dickwad

Wikipedia is an editable source, not reliable.

Wikipedia is usually easy enough for the right wing to read and understand.

That seems to be more of a requirement for you lefty's. Simple, and moronic, and if you don't like what it says edit it to conform to your personal beliefs. Pretty much describes you to a "T".

 

[SSDD]

What do you believe the MWP temperatures mean to the AGW theory?

For one all those research projects lay to rest that bullshit hockey stick...and the idea that today's climate is somehow unusual or unprecedented...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Watching Meet the Press. They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change. They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled. Now it is time to discuss solutions.

A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change

I applaud Meet the Press. Time to push deniers and their pseudo science to the curb or back into closet. Choose your metaphor. They are just standing in the way and are no more than obstructionists.

We need to discuss only solutions and adaptations.

From post one is this hilarious statement:

" They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled."

Anyone who says the science is settled is an idiot and ignorant on how science research runs in the real world.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Where is that broiling red "hotspot"?

Been waiting for it to show up using Satellite data, but golly gee whiz it always manage to hide on us, even warmists/alarmists never answer that question with real Satellite data, they use bogus explanations that are stupid as hell, but warmists/alarmists like stupid as hell bogus rationalizations in their desperate attempt to keep their AGW delusion alive a bit longer until they reach socialist orgasm!

Here is what really looks like that utterly destroys the "hot spot" baloney the IPCC created years ago:

"The three diagrams above (using data from HadAT and HadCRUT4) show the linear trend of the temperature change since 1979 between 20oN and 20oS to be ca. 0.00089oC/month at the surface, 0.00095oC/month at 300 hPa, and -0.00009oC/month at 200 hPa, corresponding to 0.10698, 0.11414 and -0.01022oC/decade, respectively (see bar chart above).

Thus, these radiosonde and surface meteorological data from the Equatorial region do not at the moment display the signature of enhanced greenhouse warming. With the observed warming rate of about 0.10698oC/decade at the surface, a warming rate of about 0.21-0.31oC/decade would have been expected at the 200 and 300 hPa levels to comply with the prognosis on this derived from the CO2 hypothesis."

LINK

 

[SSDD]

From post one is this hilarious statement:

" They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled."

Anyone who says the science is settled is an idiot and ignorant on how science research runs in the real world.

This is what settled science looks like....

s - d / t speed = distance / time

v = d / t velocity - displacement / time

a = (vf - vi) / t or delta v / t acceleration is equal to (final v - initial v) / time (m/s2)

g = 10 m /s2 Gravity = 10 m/s2 (acceleration of a free falling object)

f = ms force = mass * acceleration

Run the experiments a million times and the results will always be the same...every f'ing time...run 10 climate models and you will get 10 results...they not only don't agree with observations, they don't even agree with each other....

The only thing that is settled is the fact that it is pseudoscience....if the science were settled, then there would be a greenhouse effect law...and you would still have skeptics...

 

[Sunsettommy]

From post one is this hilarious statement:

" They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled."

Anyone who says the science is settled is an idiot and ignorant on how science research runs in the real world.

This is what settled science looks like....

s - d / t speed = distance / time

v = d / t velocity - displacement / time

a = (vf - vi) / t or delta v / t acceleration is equal to (final v - initial v) / time (m/s2)

g = 10 m /s2 Gravity = 10 m/s2 (acceleration of a free falling object)

f = ms force = mass * acceleration

Run the experiments a million times and the results will always be the same...every f'ing time...run 10 climate models and you will get 10 results...they not only don't agree with observations, they don't even agree with each other....

The only thing that is settled is the fact that it is pseudoscience....if the science were settled, then there would be a greenhouse effect law...and you would still have skeptics...

They are too stupid to realize that their published 100+ modeling runs are ALL different in their results, which means it isn't credible. Can't decide which one is the "correct" one therefore accept them all!

 

[Billy_Bob]

That should be easy enough to answer. The U.S. military, in studies conducted by the Pentagon, did in fact deem AGW a security threat, and, even more, AGW was deemed a "threat multiplier".

They also deem cooling as a national security threat as starvation and death will tear the nation apart... So is it also a problem?