Oh well...Another global warming protest delayed by cold...

[Procrustes Stretched]

skookerasbil

I love the posts by the AGW mental cases that always speak to "the facts"......."the consensus"......"the science"........as if saying it over and over makes it an absolute.( lol....the typical snooty arrogance of the modern progressive ). But this methodical stunt has impressed nobody in the past 25 years.........in 2014, nobody except these mental cases care about global warming as has been displayed vividly in major poll after major poll!!

To be fair........in the early 2000's the AGW community had made some strides, but in recent years, in the wake of numerous bomb thrower predictions that have turned out to be dud's, they have just been tuned out by a clear majority = fAiL. The fact that the president has to do anything climate change related via executive fiat means that the public has called bs on all of this crap!!

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet

So now NASA scientists and most every single climate scientist is a progressive?

Try refuting some of the facts on NASA's web site. should be easy for a genius like you

 

[Billy_Bob]

I love the posts by the AGW mental cases that always speak to "the facts"......."the consensus"......"the science"........as if saying it over and over makes it an absolute.( lol....the typical snooty arrogance of the modern progressive ). But this methodical stunt has impressed nobody in the past 25 years.........in 2014, nobody except these mental cases care about global warming as has been displayed vividly in major poll after major poll!!

To be fair........in the early 2000's the AGW community had made some strides, but in recent years, in the wake of numerous bomb thrower predictions that have turned out to be dud's, they have just been tuned out by a clear majority = fAiL. The fact that the president has to do anything climate change related via executive fiat means that the public has called bs on all of this crap!!

Dante's appeal to authority is what has me laughing. He cant even dispute the empirical evidence that shows CO2 has no roll in climate control or sensitivity (as it relates to modeling), yet he want to spew his appeal to a failed hypothesis. Every single model (which are not empirical evidence of any sort) fail outside of 24 hours in all of their predictions. The current divert from model output and reality is now at 3.2 deg C. that is 10X the standard deviations and models for all other things in physics are considered total failures at just +2 standard deviations.

Every Paper he cites is an appeal to their superior authority and lack any credibility or science to back it up. They used data homogenization and infilling to get their model outputs which they claim are empirical evidence. NO CREDIBLE SCIENTISTS CLAIMS MODEL OUTPUTS AS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE! Yet he cant see or is unwilling to see their own statements damming them. I learned long ago that arguing with an idiot is pointless.

His endless posts of elitist superiority and endless appeals to authority are the same kind of crap that stalled science in the 1300's, when the earth was 'flat'.. Now this same stupidity is going to send millions to their deaths when the cooling takes hold. over a trace gas that has no empirical evidence to support their suppositions..

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante's appeal to authority is what has me laughing

So you also have no clue what an 'appeal to authority' is either?

Well shucks, what a surprise.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I love the posts by the AGW mental cases that always speak to "the facts"......."the consensus"......"the science"........as if saying it over and over makes it an absolute.( lol....the typical snooty arrogance of the modern progressive ). But this methodical stunt has impressed nobody in the past 25 years.........in 2014, nobody except these mental cases care about global warming as has been displayed vividly in major poll after major poll!!

To be fair........in the early 2000's the AGW community had made some strides, but in recent years, in the wake of numerous bomb thrower predictions that have turned out to be dud's, they have just been tuned out by a clear majority = fAiL. The fact that the president has to do anything climate change related via executive fiat means that the public has called bs on all of this crap!!

Dante's appeal to authority is what has me laughing. He cant even dispute the empirical evidence that shows CO2 has no roll in climate control or sensitivity (as it relates to modeling), yet he want to spew his appeal to a failed hypothesis. Every single model (which are not empirical evidence of any sort) fail outside of 24 hours in all of their predictions. The current divert from model output and reality is now at 3.2 deg C. that is 10X the standard deviations and models for all other things in physics are considered total failures at just +2 standard deviations.

Every Paper he cites is an appeal to their superior authority and lack any credibility or science to back it up. They used data homogenization and infilling to get their model outputs which they claim are empirical evidence. NO CREDIBLE SCIENTISTS CLAIMS MODEL OUTPUTS AS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE! Yet he cant see or is unwilling to see their own statements damming them. I learned long ago that arguing with an idiot is pointless.

His endless posts of elitist superiority and endless appeals to authority are the same kind of crap that stalled science in the 1300's, when the earth was 'flat'.. Now this same stupidity is going to send millions to their deaths when the cooling takes hold. over a trace gas that has no empirical evidence to support their suppositions..

Dante has never claimed to know about CO2 in this thread. What Dante has done is challenged you to show what you claim is junk science, to be exactly that -- junk science. Should be easy to do for somebody with your scientific expertise.

refute some facts, or any fact on NASA's web page on climate science: Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Questions FAQ

 

[jc456]

Who cares. The graph I posted showed that CO2 rises after warming.

No, it didn't. You're directly lining up the CO2 and temp measurements from the ice cores, which is wrong. The air bubbles in each ice layer (which give the CO2 measurement) are younger than the ice (which gives the temperature measurement) in each ice layer . To match dates correctly, the CO2 line has to be shifted left a few thousand years. Given the ambiguity involved, it's hard to tell which came first, the CO2 or the higher temps.

But even if you didn't mess that up, you'd still be failing in another way. The present is not going to act like the past if conditions are much different in the present. And conditions are different. A clever third grader could spot the logical error that you're depending on here. Rest assured that the actual scientists don't make such a basic error.

This is merely more of that. Further, we KNOW that CO2 increases plant growth. You are falling for the oldest scam in the book. The reality is this "CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION". It's a fundamental precept of science.

The scientists directly measure the outgoing longwave IR squeezing down in the CO2 bands, the downward backradiation increasing, and the heat balance changing. Those are smoking guns that have nothing to do with correlation or models.

The entire totality of global warming theory rested on the fact that temperature was rising along with CO2 content. That correlation STOPPED 18 years ago.

Fantasy statistics don't count. Real world, 2014 was the hottest year ever, and the temperature trend has been steadily upwards the whole time.

Thus, the only foundation that they had to build their theory on, was destroyed.

This is where the scientific method shows its value.

Global warming science is a superb example of the scientific method. Climate scientists had a theory, made predictions based on that theory, and saw those predictions come true, over and over, for decades running. That's why global warming science has such credibility, because of its long record of success according to the scientific method.

Deniers? They refuse to even make predictions. That's how averse to the scientific method they are. They seem to think that screaming at the other guy proves their own theory.

dude/ dudette, again....ahem, provide the experiment that shows 120 PPM of CO2 increases temperatures. We keep ending back here, because you fail to do so and keep writing crap!!!

 

[jc456]

NASA has an opinion based on a consensus of scientists who study/practice climate science:

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
​

One can disagree with NASA, but based on what? What expertise? What science? What evidence?

There is this 'evidence': Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.)​

Consensus is the language of politics, not science. Remember that. If I ask a scientist what the speed of light is, he'll tell me "it's 186,282 miles per second. He won't say "well, the scientific consensus is"...

That 97% number has likewise been shown to be fraudulent repeatedly, and yet you drones continue to trot that bullshit meme out as if it is a talisman. It isn't. It is sheer and utter bullshit.

Consensus is a word. Scientific consensus is a term that has existed way before climate science came into being. You are not sounding nutty. Although I do enjoy challenging you I am serious about asking what and why people believe what they do. I have seen and heard scientists on television specials and documentaries use the phrase "well, the scientific consensus is" when asked specific questions about things having nothing to do with climate science. Now enough of this red herring.

Scientific consensus can be wrong. Nothing new here, but this does not make your case "They've been wrong before, so they are wrong now"

I think you are coming around to the reality that you do not actually dispute a single scientific fact put out by NASA on the subject of climate science

But consensus has no basis in scientific literature other than as a political tool. I dispute the causal relationship that NASA claims. I don't dispute that CO2 levels are rising. That is normal. I don't dispute that the globe has been warming. That has been going on in a cyclical way for 14,000 years.

I dispute the claim that 2014 was one of the ten warmest years. Even NASA backpedaled away from that claim when it became evident that their claim couldn't stand up to even the most rudimentary of tests.

I dispute that CO2 has any effect on global temperatures whatsoever. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas, is not in question. However, the Earth is not a closed system. It is an open system. Thus the greenhouse effect of CO2 is eliminated. The DOMINANT GHG in the Earths atmosphere is water vapor. The water vapor acts as a blanket to keep heat from escaping to space. If we had no water vapor the Earths temp would be 123C on the sun side and -233C on the night side. Just like the Moon.

Most importantly is the fact that we simply don't know very much about what drives global temperatures period. We now know for a fact that CO2 has no effect. The global temps have been level for the last 18 years while the CO2 content has increased at a dramatic rate. That is one thing we do know.

But that's it.

Let us keep the facts straight: NASA did NOT backpedal on the warmest year record. They were pushed into admitting it was a 38% likelihood. They still think 2014 was probably the warmest year given the data available, the data they have. Do you have other/opposing data? From where?

In a press release...Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’ --- Nasa admited that considering the margin of error, it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all --- the Nasa press release failed to mention this --- GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent.

Do you dispute the 38% likelihood, and if you do based on what evidence? Or is your issue with the way the press release inferred some things?
​

"I dispute that CO2 has any effect on global temperatures whatsoever...Most importantly is the fact that we simply don't know very much about what drives global temperatures period. We now know for a fact that CO2 has no effect."

You even appear to be misrepresenting a supposed fact:

Fact: Since 1999, multiple technical, peer reviewed articles have been available that demonstrate exactly the opposite conclusion. CO2 changes lagged temperature changes as temperature increased or decreased. Temperature changed and then, several hundred years later, CO2 levels changed. Since a cause does not follow an effect, this indicates that CO2 is not a primary driver of climate change...

Empirical Tests Myths - CO2 and Climate Change​

The site above appears to be mostly concerned with monetary costs of regulation. That is as political as it gets, but even there you have misrepresented what they say. Maybe they mislead people like you?

.......... The amount of warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 may be one of the most misunderstood subjects in climate science. Many people think the anthropogenic warming can't be quantified, many others think it must be an insignificant amount. However, climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.
How do we know more CO2 is causing warming ​

It appears you are one who is using politics or something to make your points
.

You have still failed at refuting one single fact on the NASA page.
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Questions FAQ

Dante, dude, did you even read what you posted?

"they still think that probably", now there is conviction if I ever read it!!!

 

[orogenicman]

Who cares. The graph I posted showed that CO2 rises after warming.

No, it didn't. You're directly lining up the CO2 and temp measurements from the ice cores, which is wrong. The air bubbles in each ice layer (which give the CO2 measurement) are younger than the ice (which gives the temperature measurement) in each ice layer . To match dates correctly, the CO2 line has to be shifted left a few thousand years. Given the ambiguity involved, it's hard to tell which came first, the CO2 or the higher temps.

But even if you didn't mess that up, you'd still be failing in another way. The present is not going to act like the past if conditions are much different in the present. And conditions are different. A clever third grader could spot the logical error that you're depending on here. Rest assured that the actual scientists don't make such a basic error.

This is merely more of that. Further, we KNOW that CO2 increases plant growth. You are falling for the oldest scam in the book. The reality is this "CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION". It's a fundamental precept of science.

The scientists directly measure the outgoing longwave IR squeezing down in the CO2 bands, the downward backradiation increasing, and the heat balance changing. Those are smoking guns that have nothing to do with correlation or models.

The entire totality of global warming theory rested on the fact that temperature was rising along with CO2 content. That correlation STOPPED 18 years ago.

Fantasy statistics don't count. Real world, 2014 was the hottest year ever, and the temperature trend has been steadily upwards the whole time.

Thus, the only foundation that they had to build their theory on, was destroyed.

This is where the scientific method shows its value.

Global warming science is a superb example of the scientific method. Climate scientists had a theory, made predictions based on that theory, and saw those predictions come true, over and over, for decades running. That's why global warming science has such credibility, because of its long record of success according to the scientific method.

Deniers? They refuse to even make predictions. That's how averse to the scientific method they are. They seem to think that screaming at the other guy proves their own theory.

dude/ dudette, again....ahem, provide the experiment that shows 120 PPM of CO2 increases temperatures. We keep ending back here, because you fail to do so and keep writing crap!!!

It was cute the first time you posted this bogus question (that you don't actually want the answer to). Now, it is just another dead post by someone who contributes nothing to this forum and yet gets protected by a certain like-minded moderator (I'm not naming names here, of course).

 

[jc456]

I love the posts by the AGW mental cases that always speak to "the facts"......."the consensus"......"the science"........as if saying it over and over makes it an absolute.( lol....the typical snooty arrogance of the modern progressive ). But this methodical stunt has impressed nobody in the past 25 years.........in 2014, nobody except these mental cases care about global warming as has been displayed vividly in major poll after major poll!!

To be fair........in the early 2000's the AGW community had made some strides, but in recent years, in the wake of numerous bomb thrower predictions that have turned out to be dud's, they have just been tuned out by a clear majority = fAiL. The fact that the president has to do anything climate change related via executive fiat means that the public has called bs on all of this crap!!

Dante's appeal to authority is what has me laughing. He cant even dispute the empirical evidence that shows CO2 has no roll in climate control or sensitivity (as it relates to modeling), yet he want to spew his appeal to a failed hypothesis. Every single model (which are not empirical evidence of any sort) fail outside of 24 hours in all of their predictions. The current divert from model output and reality is now at 3.2 deg C. that is 10X the standard deviations and models for all other things in physics are considered total failures at just +2 standard deviations.

Every Paper he cites is an appeal to their superior authority and lack any credibility or science to back it up. They used data homogenization and infilling to get their model outputs which they claim are empirical evidence. NO CREDIBLE SCIENTISTS CLAIMS MODEL OUTPUTS AS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE! Yet he cant see or is unwilling to see their own statements damming them. I learned long ago that arguing with an idiot is pointless.

His endless posts of elitist superiority and endless appeals to authority are the same kind of crap that stalled science in the 1300's, when the earth was 'flat'.. Now this same stupidity is going to send millions to their deaths when the cooling takes hold. over a trace gas that has no empirical evidence to support their suppositions..

Dante has never claimed to know about CO2 in this thread. What Dante has done is challenged you to show what you claim is junk science, to be exactly that -- junk science. Should be easy to do for somebody with your scientific expertise.

refute some facts, or any fact on NASA's web page on climate science: Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Questions FAQ

well sir, we have been looking for this magical experiment that proves that adding 120 PPM of CO2 increases temprature. See in 1901 a scientist by the name of Herr Koch proved it didn't. Now I ask you, are you disputing Herr Koch? If so, please provide the experiment. EXPERIMENT!!!! Lab work and all.

 

[jc456]

Who cares. The graph I posted showed that CO2 rises after warming.

No, it didn't. You're directly lining up the CO2 and temp measurements from the ice cores, which is wrong. The air bubbles in each ice layer (which give the CO2 measurement) are younger than the ice (which gives the temperature measurement) in each ice layer . To match dates correctly, the CO2 line has to be shifted left a few thousand years. Given the ambiguity involved, it's hard to tell which came first, the CO2 or the higher temps.

But even if you didn't mess that up, you'd still be failing in another way. The present is not going to act like the past if conditions are much different in the present. And conditions are different. A clever third grader could spot the logical error that you're depending on here. Rest assured that the actual scientists don't make such a basic error.

This is merely more of that. Further, we KNOW that CO2 increases plant growth. You are falling for the oldest scam in the book. The reality is this "CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION". It's a fundamental precept of science.

The scientists directly measure the outgoing longwave IR squeezing down in the CO2 bands, the downward backradiation increasing, and the heat balance changing. Those are smoking guns that have nothing to do with correlation or models.

The entire totality of global warming theory rested on the fact that temperature was rising along with CO2 content. That correlation STOPPED 18 years ago.

Fantasy statistics don't count. Real world, 2014 was the hottest year ever, and the temperature trend has been steadily upwards the whole time.

Thus, the only foundation that they had to build their theory on, was destroyed.

This is where the scientific method shows its value.

Global warming science is a superb example of the scientific method. Climate scientists had a theory, made predictions based on that theory, and saw those predictions come true, over and over, for decades running. That's why global warming science has such credibility, because of its long record of success according to the scientific method.

Deniers? They refuse to even make predictions. That's how averse to the scientific method they are. They seem to think that screaming at the other guy proves their own theory.

dude/ dudette, again....ahem, provide the experiment that shows 120 PPM of CO2 increases temperatures. We keep ending back here, because you fail to do so and keep writing crap!!!

It was cute the first time you posted this bogus question (that you don't actually want the answer to). Now, it is just another dead post by someone who contributes nothing to this forum and yet gets protected by a certain like-minded moderator (I'm not naming names here, of course).

Herr Koch 1901. I posted it. Post yours and we'll call it completed. Until then, you lose.

 

[jc456]

Can somebody PLEASE refute the facts on NASA's climate science page?

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Questions FAQ

Please justify the alterations of the record.. You think these people walk on water... Justify their actions! Homogenization is deception and it always has been. Why do you think the CRU dumped empirical evidence once their ADJUSTED AND HOMOGENIZED DATA was created?

Walk on water? What people? You are at odds with the scientific consensus and that is okay. But why do you attack consensus as a source? Does it threaten your agenda?

You have yet to refute a single fact on NASA's climate science page: Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Questions FAQ

Hey Dante, you admit you are no scientist, so accept the fact that there is no consensus in science. Why do you oppose that statement if you have no idea about it? Seems you really love the koolaide. Dude you're wrong, you've been proven wrong about ten times on here. You keep posting the same post and shows you as the troll. You have no evidence of anything of which you speak, you have links that others with knowledge explained why they were debunked. face it you don't know!!!!!!! WiNniNg

here from Wikipedia:

"Most models of scientific change rely on new data produced by scientific experiment. Karl Popper proposed that since no amount of experiments could ever prove a scientific theory, but a single experiment could disprove one, science should be based on falsification.[6] Whilst this forms a logical theory for science, it is in a sense "timeless" and does not necessarily reflect a view on how science should progress over time."

 

[jc456]

I love the posts by the AGW mental cases that always speak to "the facts"......."the consensus"......"the science"........as if saying it over and over makes it an absolute.( lol....the typical snooty arrogance of the modern progressive ). But this methodical stunt has impressed nobody in the past 25 years.........in 2014, nobody except these mental cases care about global warming as has been displayed vividly in major poll after major poll!!

To be fair........in the early 2000's the AGW community had made some strides, but in recent years, in the wake of numerous bomb thrower predictions that have turned out to be dud's, they have just been tuned out by a clear majority = fAiL. The fact that the president has to do anything climate change related via executive fiat means that the public has called bs on all of this crap!!

Dante's appeal to authority is what has me laughing. He cant even dispute the empirical evidence that shows CO2 has no roll in climate control or sensitivity (as it relates to modeling), yet he want to spew his appeal to a failed hypothesis. Every single model (which are not empirical evidence of any sort) fail outside of 24 hours in all of their predictions. The current divert from model output and reality is now at 3.2 deg C. that is 10X the standard deviations and models for all other things in physics are considered total failures at just +2 standard deviations.

Every Paper he cites is an appeal to their superior authority and lack any credibility or science to back it up. They used data homogenization and infilling to get their model outputs which they claim are empirical evidence. NO CREDIBLE SCIENTISTS CLAIMS MODEL OUTPUTS AS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE! Yet he cant see or is unwilling to see their own statements damming them. I learned long ago that arguing with an idiot is pointless.

His endless posts of elitist superiority and endless appeals to authority are the same kind of crap that stalled science in the 1300's, when the earth was 'flat'.. Now this same stupidity is going to send millions to their deaths when the cooling takes hold. over a trace gas that has no empirical evidence to support their suppositions..

Dante has never claimed to know about CO2 in this thread. What Dante has done is challenged you to show what you claim is junk science, to be exactly that -- junk science. Should be easy to do for somebody with your scientific expertise.

refute some facts, or any fact on NASA's web page on climate science: Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Questions FAQ

challenge? why do you get to challenge anyone if you don't know the science or about CO2? You fail to understand how this all works. You are therefore, like me, irrelevant to the experts. And experts support both sides. You probably are unaware of this, see you have you head buried in a toilet bowl blowing bubbles. You are also in no position to expect anything from anyone on here. You can rant and rave your mumbo jumbo all you want, you know it isn't being considered as relevant. Just so you know.

 

[jc456]

skookerasbil

I love the posts by the AGW mental cases that always speak to "the facts"......."the consensus"......"the science"........as if saying it over and over makes it an absolute.( lol....the typical snooty arrogance of the modern progressive ). But this methodical stunt has impressed nobody in the past 25 years.........in 2014, nobody except these mental cases care about global warming as has been displayed vividly in major poll after major poll!!

To be fair........in the early 2000's the AGW community had made some strides, but in recent years, in the wake of numerous bomb thrower predictions that have turned out to be dud's, they have just been tuned out by a clear majority = fAiL. The fact that the president has to do anything climate change related via executive fiat means that the public has called bs on all of this crap!!

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet

So now NASA scientists and most every single climate scientist is a progressive? YES

Try refuting some of the facts on NASA's web site. should be easy for a genius like you

and the short answer to your question is see in line with the question.

 

[william the wie]

skookerasbil

I love the posts by the AGW mental cases that always speak to "the facts"......."the consensus"......"the science"........as if saying it over and over makes it an absolute.( lol....the typical snooty arrogance of the modern progressive ). But this methodical stunt has impressed nobody in the past 25 years.........in 2014, nobody except these mental cases care about global warming as has been displayed vividly in major poll after major poll!!

To be fair........in the early 2000's the AGW community had made some strides, but in recent years, in the wake of numerous bomb thrower predictions that have turned out to be dud's, they have just been tuned out by a clear majority = fAiL. The fact that the president has to do anything climate change related via executive fiat means that the public has called bs on all of this crap!!

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet

So now NASA scientists and most every single climate scientist is a progressive? YES

Try refuting some of the facts on NASA's web site. should be easy for a genius like you

and the short answer to your question is see in line with the question.

You are assuming AGW cultists have brains despite proving in this thread that they don't what's wrong with you?