No Evidence

[miketx]

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. 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.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burins of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.


I have been asking for just a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the claims of climate alarmists for decades now and have never received the first piece.

I see alarmists claiming that such evidence exists all the time...sometimes they even post what passes for evidence in their minds like THIS. There is certainly observed, and measured data there, but none of it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, and none of it even begins to establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...those things are certainly assumed in the example linked to, but there certainly is no evidence to support the assumption. And there is no paper there in which the hypothesized warming due to our production of CO2 has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called greenhouse gasses. Again, it is assumed, but assumptions based on lose correlation over a very short period of geological time are less than worthless in any scientific examination of an entity as large, variable, and chaotic as the global climate.

So there you go...I have stuck my chin out...I have made 3 very deliberate, and concise statements regarding the state of climate science and the evidence that mankind is having an effect on the global climate.

It is the complete absence of evidence challenging the 3 statements above that explain why I am a skeptic.

Prove me wrong. Don't tell me about the evidence that exists......don't tell me about the evidence you might believe you have produced...Step up to the plate and produce the evidence that I have quite clearly declared does not exist...

And when you can't, ask yourself why it is that you believe what you do regarding man made climate change.

Lack of evidence does not mean it hasn't happened.

 

[SSDD]

Lack of evidence does not mean it hasn't happened.

Lack of evidence certainly doesn't mean that it has...Real science might have a concern regarding a lack of evidence...alarmism, on the other hand really doesn't care, so long as the message of alarm is spread...whether it is warranted or not.

 

[Wuwei]

Never happened...but the way you interpret and torture information in your mind, I have no doubt that you believe you have disproven.....something.

Nope you continue to torture the laws of physics that are in every textbook.

.

.

 

[miketx]

Lack of evidence does not mean it hasn't happened.

Lack of evidence certainly doesn't mean that it has...Real science might have a concern regarding a lack of evidence...alarmism, on the other hand really doesn't care, so long as the message of alarm is spread...whether it is warranted or not.

In other words it's all talk and bullshit. Got it.

 

[SSDD]

Lack of evidence does not mean it hasn't happened.

Lack of evidence certainly doesn't mean that it has...Real science might have a concern regarding a lack of evidence...alarmism, on the other hand really doesn't care, so long as the message of alarm is spread...whether it is warranted or not.

In other words it's all talk and bullshit. Got it.

Till such time as some actual observed, measured evidence can be offered up to substantiate the claims...yes..it is just talk and bullshit. Can you find a single piece of observed, measured evidence to challenge either the first or second statement?....or a single published, peer reviewed paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and blamed on our so called greenhouse gasses?

If you can't...what else would it be other than talk and bullshit?

 

[SSDD]

Never happened...but the way you interpret and torture information in your mind, I have no doubt that you believe you have disproven.....something.

Nope you continue to torture the laws of physics that are in every textbook.
.

So you are saying that you agree with this statement precisely as it is written?:

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

 

[miketx]

Lack of evidence does not mean it hasn't happened.

Lack of evidence certainly doesn't mean that it has...Real science might have a concern regarding a lack of evidence...alarmism, on the other hand really doesn't care, so long as the message of alarm is spread...whether it is warranted or not.

In other words it's all talk and bullshit. Got it.

Till such time as some actual observed, measured evidence can be offered up to substantiate the claims...yes..it is just talk and bullshit. Can you find a single piece of observed, measured evidence to challenge either the first or second statement?....or a single published, peer reviewed paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and blamed on our so called greenhouse gasses?

If you can't...what else would it be other than talk and bullshit?

That's all it is, and it's actually a scam to bilk the taxpayers out of more.

 

[SSDD]

Lack of evidence does not mean it hasn't happened.

Lack of evidence certainly doesn't mean that it has...Real science might have a concern regarding a lack of evidence...alarmism, on the other hand really doesn't care, so long as the message of alarm is spread...whether it is warranted or not.

In other words it's all talk and bullshit. Got it.

Till such time as some actual observed, measured evidence can be offered up to substantiate the claims...yes..it is just talk and bullshit. Can you find a single piece of observed, measured evidence to challenge either the first or second statement?....or a single published, peer reviewed paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and blamed on our so called greenhouse gasses?

If you can't...what else would it be other than talk and bullshit?

That's all it is, and it's actually a scam to bilk the taxpayers out of more.

That's not what I think..but offering up a logical fallacy rather than a bit of evidence that challenges any of my 3 statements speaks volumes... Does it not bother you that no such evidence exists?

 

[jc456]

entropy would be reduced if energy moved spontaneously from a less organized state (cool) to a more organized state (warm)

Absolutely true, but we are talking about radiation not being constricted. Equilibrium radiation exchange does not change entropy.

but, but, but..... too fking funny

 

[jc456]

Never happened...but the way you interpret and torture information in your mind, I have no doubt that you believe you have disproven.....something.

Nope you continue to torture the laws of physics that are in every textbook.

.

.

and still no observation of cold moving spontaneously to warm. not one piece of evidence.

 

[jc456]

Lack of evidence does not mean it hasn't happened.

Lack of evidence certainly doesn't mean that it has...Real science might have a concern regarding a lack of evidence...alarmism, on the other hand really doesn't care, so long as the message of alarm is spread...whether it is warranted or not.

In other words it's all talk and bullshit. Got it.

Exactly mike.

 

[Crick]

As you know perfectly well, there are thousands of published studies that support the IPCC conclusions. THAT is where those conclusions came from. The idea that all those scientists are willfully lying (to somehow get rich on research grants) or that they are all incompetent in some sort of complimentary way (ie, they all make the same mistakes) is simply preposterous.

 

[jc456]

As you know perfectly well, there are thousands of published studies that support the IPCC conclusions. THAT is where those conclusions came from. The idea that all those scientists are willfully lying (to somehow get rich on research grants) or that they are all incompetent in some sort of complimentary way (ie, they all make the same mistakes) is simply preposterous.

so crick, not trying to be a complete prick, but can you explain how 'studies' is 'observed and measured'?

 

[Crick]

Most of the studies contain empirical data. That said, the rejection of all models (that don't support your conclusions) is unwarranted. There is no other way to produce projections or forecasts of future behavior, calling them no better than guesses is factually incorrect and, to be honest, the empirical data don't support you either. You and yours have chosen to hold a belief not supported by any of the evidence: empirical, experimental or modeled.

 

[Wuwei]

Never happened...but the way you interpret and torture information in your mind, I have no doubt that you believe you have disproven.....something.

Nope you continue to torture the laws of physics that are in every textbook.
.

So you are saying that you agree with this statement precisely as it is written?:

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I agree with the original statement

Clausius Statement of the Second Law
One of the earliest statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics was made by R. Clausius in 1850. He stated the following.

“It is impossible to construct a device which operates on a cycle and whose sole effect is the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body”.​

Clausius Statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

There are many statements of the second law that are exactly that. Nothing more. Nothing less. Do you believe those?

 

[jc456]

Most of the studies contain empirical data. That said, the rejection of all models (that don't support your conclusions) is unwarranted. There is no other way to produce projections or forecasts of future behavior, calling them no better than guesses is factually incorrect and, to be honest, the empirical data don't support you either. You and yours have chosen to hold a belief not supported by any of the evidence: empirical, experimental or modeled.

Science is about proving hypotheticals. That means obverved

 

[Crick]

For the umpteenth time, it is not possible to prove anything in the natural sciences. It will always be due to good physics, successful predictions and a preponderance of the evidence.

 

[SSDD]

As you know perfectly well, there are thousands of published studies that support the IPCC conclusions. THAT is where those conclusions came from. The idea that all those scientists are willfully lying (to somehow get rich on research grants) or that they are all incompetent in some sort of complimentary way (ie, they all make the same mistakes) is simply preposterous.

And yet you don't seem to be able to come up with a single published paper in which the hypothetical warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses...not a single one.

 

[SSDD]

Most of the studies contain empirical data. That said, the rejection of all models (that don't support your conclusions) is unwarranted. There is no other way to produce projections or forecasts of future behavior, calling them no better than guesses is factually incorrect and, to be honest, the empirical data don't support you either. You and yours have chosen to hold a belief not supported by any of the evidence: empirical, experimental or modeled.

It might be helpful to develop a model which can mirror reality before you start making predictions and asking for trillions of dollars based on there predictions...

 

[Crick]

Hmm... have you ever seen a diagram like this?