Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[TyroneSlothrop]

I presume that you are aware that the hoax of 97% is just that, a hoax.

I have sources that say otherwise...what are your sources ?

Consensus confirmed: 97% of climate scientists agree

Upon what observed, measured, quantified evidence is that agreement based? There is none, so what else might bring about such an agreement....a big old bucket full of money would facilitate that sort of agreement even more than hard scientific evidence if any even existed...what sort of faith should one put in science that can reach such an agreement with no actual observed, measured, quantified evidence to support their hypothesis?

Read the links provided for that information

 

[Markle]

I assume that you know you are lying.

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements the state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Now you are stating that all these scientists around the world are in on a grand conspiracy to fool us all. Hope you have plenty of aluminum foil for your hats.

Yep, just follow the MONEY.

I presume that you are aware that the hoax of 97% is just that, a hoax.

I have sources that say otherwise...what are your sources ?

Consensus confirmed: 97% of climate scientists agree

What a hoot!

A "source" with nothing, whatsoever about where it is based, who runs it or who is the staff.

Keep up the good work. You're quite a lot of fun!

 

[SSDD]

I presume that you are aware that the hoax of 97% is just that, a hoax.

I have sources that say otherwise...what are your sources ?

Consensus confirmed: 97% of climate scientists agree

Upon what observed, measured, quantified evidence is that agreement based? There is none, so what else might bring about such an agreement....a big old bucket full of money would facilitate that sort of agreement even more than hard scientific evidence if any even existed...what sort of faith should one put in science that can reach such an agreement with no actual observed, measured, quantified evidence to support their hypothesis?

Read the links provided for that information

There is no observed, measured, quantified evidence held within the links...but if you think there is, by all means bring it here so we can all see what passes for observed, measured, quantified evidence in your mind....

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

There is no observed, measured, quantified evidence held within the links...but if you think there is, by all means bring it here so we can all see what passes for observed, measured, quantified evidence in your mind....

If you have anything other than your opinion which is irrelevant and uninformed by all means post it

He believes climate change is a hoax – which 70 percent of Americans disagree with – and once tweeted that global warming is a Chinese conspiracy to steal U.S. manufacturing jobs. In the past, he has said that cold and snowy weather disproves climate change. The idea of this man shaping environmental policy should make any sensible American cringe.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

]

Yep, just follow the MONEY.

You are a lot of fun too Bro .. enjoy
Exxon Exposed for Spending Millions on Climate Change Denial
Corporate America pays to send global warming deniers to Capitol Hill
Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks .



Leaked Email Reveals Who's Who List of Climate Denialists ...
In the months before the debut of the new documentary film "Merchants of Doubt," long-time climate denialist Fred Singer contacted more than two dozen bloggers, public relations specialists and scientists asking for help in derailing the documentary's release.

"Can I sue for damages?" Singer asked in an email last October. "Can we get an injunction against the documentary?"

Singer is one of the "merchants of doubt" identified in the documentary, as are a number of other recipients of his email. The documentary, released nationwide last week, exposes the small network of hired pundits and scientists helping to sow doubt about climate science and delay legislative action on global warming in the United States.

Singer's email became public earlier this week when it was leaked to journalists.

Many of those copied on the email thread, such as Singer and communications specialist Steven Milloy, have financial ties to the tobacco, chemical, and oil and gas industries and have worked to defend them since the 1990s. Others seem relatively new to the denialist camp, such as climate scientist Judith Curry. All, however, have been vocal before Congress, on broadcast news or on the Internet in arguing that human activity is not the primarily driver of climate change.

Here is InsideClimate News' guide to those who were on the emails, in alphabetical order:

 

[SSDD]

There is no observed, measured, quantified evidence held within the links...but if you think there is, by all means bring it here so we can all see what passes for observed, measured, quantified evidence in your mind....

If you have anything other than your opinion which is irrelevant and uninformed by all means post it

That's the whole point I am trying to make to you....the AGW scam is nothing but opinion....it isn't based on observed, measured, quantified evidence...it is based on models that fail over and over... Can you provide any observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis to prove that the whole thing isn't just based on opinion?

Clearly you can't...you make claims that the observed, measured, quantified evidence is in this link, or that link, or the other link...but when asked to bring it here, neither you, nor any of your warmist buds can step up and provide any such data whatsoever...and the ones that do provide something aren't providing data that supports the A in AGW...

Clearly all you have is opinion....I never claimed to have any data....my claim is that it doesn't exist and every post in which you people fail to post it only bolsters my claim...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

That's the whole point I am trying to make to you....the AGW scam is nothing but opinion....it isn't based on observed, measured, quantified evidence...

AGW is based on Science what you just said is beyond absurd ...its Just ridiculous ... you explain away the findings of the UK met, The Japan Met, NOAA, NASA and all the others as non Science and a "conspiracy" without you producing a shred of anything to back it up...

 

[SSDD]

That's the whole point I am trying to make to you....the AGW scam is nothing but opinion....it isn't based on observed, measured, quantified evidence...

AGW is based on Science what you just said is beyond absurd ...its Just ridiculous ... you explain away the findings of the UK met, The Japan Met, NOAA, NASA and all the others as non Science and a "conspiracy" without you producing a shred of anything to back it up...

Science is observation, measurement, quantification, etc....if the anthropogenic component of AGW is base on science, then surely you can provide some observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of that anthropogenic component...If you can't....which is obvious, then you should be wondering why you can't, and exactly what prompted this seeming scientific agreement when no actual observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered from out here in the observable, measurable, quantifiable world seems to exist.....then, if you were a thinking person, you would begin to ask yourself what else might bring a large number of people into agreement....and among the few things that might accomplish the task...money....large quantities of money is first on the list....then apply Occam's razor...

By the way...I am not "explaining away" anything....I am asking upon what observed, measured, quantified evidence it is based...and clearly it is based on none because you guys can't produce it and if it existed, there would be no place on earth a skeptic could go to escape it...in fact, if it existed, there would be no skeptics...do you see anyone arguing that there is no gravity, or that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west?.....observation, measurement, and quantification make believers of skeptics in quick time.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Sorry crick...you were the one doing the interpreting...the statements were perfectly straight forward admissions to fabricating data...here, let me refresh your memory....and your interpretation may be interesting to those who missed it the first time...
..

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

In November 2009, the servers at the University of East Anglia in Britain were illegally hacked and emails were stolen. When a selection of emails betweenclimatescientists were published on the internet, a few suggestive quotes were seized upon by many claiming global warming was all just a conspiracy. A number of independent enquiries have investigated the conduct of the scientists involved in the emails. All have cleared the scientists of any wrong doing:

1. In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that"there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded"The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."
2. In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".
3. In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found"no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".
4. In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining"there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".
5. In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the IndependentClimate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that"we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."
6. In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and"found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."
7. In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found"In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found"The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".
8. In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found"no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".
9. In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded"Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".

Can't help but notice that you deliberately left off the quotes from your reply...that is your answer?....simply ignore the clear statements of data fabrication and go on with the claims that the investigators didn't manipulate data? That is not as funny as crick's "rationalization" but it does typify the warmer mindset...

This cant b true...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Got anything like an actual rebuttal to his claims..

Sure. This busts Tony Heller's latest fraud most convincingly.

“Steve Goddard” Busted | The Great White Con

We know what you'll do now. It's the same thing you always do. You're just going to scream insults at the author, and at me, as a way to cover your screaming retreat.

Miriam Obrien's site... HOTWHOOPER..... is your proof? Seriously???

And where did they get their so called data? I dont see any links to their supporting evidence? Contrived bull shit! and your eating it up...

Steve placed links to his data and methods, why cant you?

 

[jc456]

That's the whole point I am trying to make to you....the AGW scam is nothing but opinion....it isn't based on observed, measured, quantified evidence...

AGW is based on Science what you just said is beyond absurd ...its Just ridiculous ... you explain away the findings of the UK met, The Japan Met, NOAA, NASA and all the others as non Science and a "conspiracy" without you producing a shred of anything to back it up...

Exactly

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Science is observation, measurement, quantification, etc....if the anthropogenic component of AGW is base on science, then surely you can provide some observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of that anthropogenic component...If you can't....which is obvious, .

All of that is contained in the links I provided....all you do is keep repeating your "schtick" that this is not science etc etc ...you never under any circumstance provide anything but your dogged insistence your word is the same as Science...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Got anything like an actual rebuttal to his claims..

Sure. This busts Tony Heller's latest fraud most convincingly.

“Steve Goddard” Busted | The Great White Con

We know what you'll do now. It's the same thing you always do. You're just going to scream insults at the author, and at me, as a way to cover your screaming retreat.

Miriam Obrien's site... HOTWHOOPER..... is your proof? Seriously???

And where did they get their so called data? I dont see any links to their supporting evidence? Contrived bull shit! and your eating it up...

Steve placed links to his data and methods, why cant you?

where is your data LOL you are the one making the grand claims that all of Science is corrupt except you...but you provide ZERO DATA ZERO

 

[Markle]

Actually, the FACTS are easy to find. The AGW's just refuse to acknowledge them.

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'
What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?

By
JOSEPH BAST And

ROY SPENCER
May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET
840 COMMENTS

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy,Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.

Read more at:
The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Actually, the FACTS are easy to find. The AGW's just refuse to acknowledge them.
The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'
What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?
By
JOSEPH BAST And

ROY SPENCER
May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

The link is to a Wall Street Editorial and is not an article on facts just opinions ...the same as you all do here on this thread...
WSJ's shameful climate denial: The scientific consensus
..........................................
Shoot and a miss: Wall Street Journal op-ed attacks 97% climate consensus | Climate Science Watch
Attempts to refute the consensus have been widely discredited. Bast and Spencer reference one thoroughly debunked “Petition Project” with 31,000 supposed signatures. The project contains numerous false signatories and its organizers have admitted “there’s no way of filtering out a fake.” The project is run by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which in the past has argued that nuclear weapon dangers have been exaggerated and that the Y2K bug would end the world. Its leader Art Robinson is skeptical of evolution, HIV-AIDS and believes that nuclear waste should be used to “enhance” Oregon’s drinking water.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

This is Joseph Bast

Published a paper denying Global Warming which used the names of dozens of scientists without their permission. He later conceded that his organization had been wrong to present the scientists as people who personally and professionally doubted the proof of humankind's impact on the climate, though he refused to respond to the demands from dozens of those scientists to have their names removed entirely from the web-published "paper."
Source: desmogblog.com

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Another global warming contrarian paper found to be unrealistic and Innacurate



What our paper shows is that Spencer and Braswell’s model was flawed on a very basic level, in such a way that it could have predicted wildly low climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases. Whatever sensitivity their model predicts, the true value is probably significantly higher, and therefore probably in the range indicated by the IPCC.

Spencer and Braswell might object that their paper says ocean temperature measurements “might not provide a very strong constraint on our estimates of climate sensitivity.” Let’s just say that Roy Spencer forgot to include that little detail when he recently told a U.S. Senate committee, “Our most recent peer-reviewed paper on this subject... has arrived at a climate sensitivity of only 1.3 degree C for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide, based upon a variety of global measurements, including warming of the global oceans since the 1950s.”

 

[jc456]

Got anything like an actual rebuttal to his claims..

Sure. This busts Tony Heller's latest fraud most convincingly.

“Steve Goddard” Busted | The Great White Con

We know what you'll do now. It's the same thing you always do. You're just going to scream insults at the author, and at me, as a way to cover your screaming retreat.

Miriam Obrien's site... HOTWHOOPER..... is your proof? Seriously???

And where did they get their so called data? I dont see any links to their supporting evidence? Contrived bull shit! and your eating it up...

Steve placed links to his data and methods, why cant you?

where is your data LOL you are the one making the grand claims that all of Science is corrupt except you...but you provide ZERO DATA ZERO

Dude, seriously, why don't you just post the observed science that you, you claim is happening? Come on man!

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Dude, seriously, why don't you just post the observed science that you, you claim is happening? Come on man!

Post something that is different from you simply repeating over and over that Science is sham..post a link post something that supports your position

 

[Old Rocks]

Spencer is not only a creationist, he also was caught in an error that was seriously negligent on his part in interpreting the data from the satellites. In fact, Dr. Spencer is one more serious error or omission from suffering the same shunning as Dr. Lindzen. You screw up big time in science, and you lose credibility to the point that you better go to work lying for the Heritage Foundation, because you no longer have credibility in science.