Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[ScienceRocks]

The people that want us all to live in the 18th century don't have much sanity or credibility. We'll see how my forecast turns out but I'd bet dollars to donuts that I'll be closer then the ice age freaks. We'd have to cool down globally nearly 1.6c for us to be in the climate little ice(18th century!), while we'd only need to stair step slightly about .1c compared to 2008-2012 temperatures for me to be right in the next 3-6 years under a neutral pattern.

 

[SSDD]

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...

No it isn't...which is precisely why you aren't copying and pasting as fast as your hands can go to slap me down with the overwhelming mass of observed, measured, quantified data supporting the A in the AGW hypothesis....I don't provide anything because my whole point is that there is nothing to provide....the whole AGW scam is based on models which have been failing miserably for decades...we are, after all, talking about the atmosphere and what goes on in it....all of it being observable, measurable, and quantifiable....and yet, not the first bit of observed, measured quantified evidence....

Keep proving my point by not providing the first shred of actual evidence gathered out in the real world that supports the A in AGW....I understand your reluctance to bring anything here by the way....everything that has been posted as supposed evidence supporting the A in AGW has not....it has been evidence of something, but not evidence supporting the A in AGW...and when asked how they believe the evidence they presented supported the A in AGW....there have been no answers....

 

[SSDD]

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

Again...his whole point is that there is no data....we don't need to bring data although the entire history of the earth supports our claims that there is nothing going on in the climate that is even approaching the boundaries of natural variability....you guys are claiming that man is causing global climate change and yet, you can't bring a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data forward to support that claim...we keep asking and you guys keep proving that you can't find it...if any such data existed, there would be no place on earth a skeptic could go to escape it...

 

[SSDD]

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

So what does that have to do with the fact that he is correct on the 97%....or non existence of the 97%? Logical fallacy is hardly a rational argument...

 

[SSDD]

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

My position is superbly supported by your inability to provide even the first bit of observed, empirical, quantified evidence to support the A in AGW....that's the whole point....My claim is that there is none...there is nowhere that I can go to get data that does not exist....you claim it does, and that it exists in abundance...so you should be able to provide enough to overwhelm me...and yet, you can't seem to bring the first bit here...that supports my claim in spades...and exposes your claim as clap trap...

 

[SSDD]

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.

And yet, the satellite data closely tracks with the radiosonde data....actual thermometers sent up into the atmosphere to take actual measurements....observed, measured, quantified data that jibes closely with spencer's satellite data while your models continue to diverge further and further away from actual observation....THE ATMOSPHERE IS DENIER......

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

My position is superbly supported.

Your position consists of endlessly repeating all of science is corrupt and only you know the truth...my position on the other hand is supported by 97 % of Climate scientist, The UK Met agency, The Japan Met Agency, NOAA ,NASA and most other Climate and weather related agencies in the world ...those are the facts..you are isolated

 

[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

So what does that have to do with the fact that he is correct on the 97%....or non existence of the 97%? Logical fallacy is hardly a rational argument...

He conflated apples and oranges ...it was amply explained in the link...the issue is "do 97 % of scientist believe in AGW"...the answer is yes...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Again...his whole point is that there is no data......

You have no data ...your position is that if you endlessly repeat that climate science is wrong and you are Right that you do not have to show anything to support that ..just by your saying it magically it becomes true...By the way you ought to tell your fellow Republican Global warming is BS some are taking it quite seriously...maybe you should call them and "tell them the truth " LOL

Go and tel them they are making a big mistake


WASHINGTON
S. Florida Republicans lead their party from climate change denial
Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo and Democratic Rep. Ted Deutch, whose South Florida districts are already enduring increased flooding, salt water intrusion and other effects of rising sea levels, are leading the first truly bipartisan congressional effort to tackle climate change.

Joined by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Miami Republican, they’ve formed a caucus that uses an unusual “buddy system” in which each Democratic member must bring along a Republican colleague willing to renounce party orthodoxy and stop minimizing the peril – or even existence – of global warming.


Read more here: S. Florida Republicans lead their party from climate change denial

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

you guys are claiming that man is causing global climate change.

No one supports your position and much less any data...
You guys is defined by almost all of the Climate Scientist and the following Scientific and Governmental agencies:
Office of Planning and Research - List of Organizations
List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations. (Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action) ..


endlessly repeating that you are right and "those guys" are wrong is in a word "stupid"

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

My position is superbly supported ..

I found someone who does support your position

Tennessee pastor claims all scientists are abandoning evolution for UFOs and aliens which is God

Roy Spencer abandoned evolution a while back LOL

 

[Wyatt earp]

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

So what does that have to do with the fact that he is correct on the 97%....or non existence of the 97%? Logical fallacy is hardly a rational argument...

He conflated apples and oranges ...it was amply explained in the link...the issue is "do 97 % of scientist believe in AGW"...the answer is yes...

"Believe" WTF? How about some facts to back up that Belief?

Fucking Cult.



.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

"Believe" WTF? How about some facts to back up that Belief?

Fucking Cult.
.

Figure 2: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate changea nd unconvinced by the evidence with a given number of total climate publications(Anderegg 2010).

 

[Wyatt earp]

"Believe" WTF? How about some facts to back up that Belief?

Fucking Cult.
.

Figure 2: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate changea nd unconvinced by the evidence with a given number of total climate publications(Anderegg 2010).

No matter how much you scream it get back to us with the Questioner of those 97% "scientist" and not some zealot using looking for random terms in papers


.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

No matter how much you scream it get back to us with the Questioner of those 97% "scientist" and not some zealot using looking for random terms in papers


.

You are just some entitled white Right wing moron ..learn some science grow up ...idiot LOL

Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record. Data sources: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Met Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit and the Japanese Meteorological Agency.
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Errors Cited in Assessing Climate Data - The New York Times
\
... John R. Christy and Roy W.Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, conceded yesterday that they had made a mistake

Bad Week for Roy “Wrong-Way” Spencer | Climate Denial Crock

Roy Spencer's Great Blunder, Part 1 -

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

• 
  
  American Association for the Advancement of Science
  "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
  
  
• 
  
  American Chemical Society
  
  "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
  
  
• 
  
  American Geophysical Union
  
  "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
  
  
• 
  
  American Medical Association
  
  "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
  
  
• 
  
  American Meteorological Society
  
  "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
  
  
• 
  
  American Physical Society
  
  "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
  
  
• 
  
  The Geological Society of America
  
  "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah, but the 'Conservatives' have an obese junkie and a fake British Lord to tell them the real truth. And when they are told for the 50th time that the Earth is cooling, they will put on their parkas, and step out into the sunny 90 degree weather, assuring everyone that they will freeze to death if they do not do likewise.

 

[Billy_Bob]

A shit load of appeals to authority and no science to back up any claim your making.. The run in circles never stops. Claim you have consensus, claim you have science, claim your political groups agenda statements are fact based on failed modeling..

But not once is real, observed, quantifiable data found or used..

Your chicken little cries of doom and gloom are hype and pure grade - A bull shit.. Designed so the masses will give up their freedoms, their ability to feed themselves, and make all of us dependent on your communist, top down, control government..

Your problem now is more and more people are waking up to the fact you have no facts and its all bull shit lies and deceptions.. And that scares the hell out of you.. as it should!

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

A shit load of appeals to authority and no science to back up any claim your making..

what backs up your opinions...where is your science...how come you make the outlandish claim that Science is corrupt yet cannot come up with any facts any documents or documentation to back that up...no links no nothing...my posts have links ...have information ..all you ninnies do is keep repeating your opinions over and over as though that is going to make your opinions magically outweigh Science.... My posts contain information links and documentation...all you all do is keep repeating over and over your opinions...