Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[Billy_Bob]

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...

Climategate opened up the real lies and games they are and were playing, yet you deny this. Its well documented. Even the latest papers by Thomas Karl was shown a fraud and manipulation, using real world facts.. But just like the claim that fire in Alberta was caused by GHG's that old fraud made were horse crap so are your appeals.. The fact that you refuse to see these very visible facts is on you and your cult.. it will come back to haunt you. And yet you have no observable or quantifiable facts to support your position. That speaks volumes about the piles of garbage you spout based on models with no predictive powers and fail with 100% certainty, in less than 3 days.. Model outputs are pure fantasy.. There inability to predict even a fart 30 seconds out show just how far from reality they are.

Something tells me you would get in a plane that falls out of the sky when modeled and then when it crashes you will claim success....

 

[Billy_Bob]

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 -

Hotwhopper, SkepticalScience(John the liar Cook and Dana Nuttercellie) and the New York Slime.. Opinion pieces based on fantasy models.. Funny; not one real, observable fact to be seen...

 

[jc456]

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...

no, they don't

 

[jc456]

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

well post up the observed data. Dude, you're making statements like you can't get your own way, rather than providing documents to back the story. We're only right in that there has been zero observed, measured data to support the claims of CO2 and man. Just zero. Zero plus Zero = Zero. nadda, nothing, absolutely nothing. and any other variant of null you can muster. So, no, I don't think I'm right, I'm telling them they haven't proved it. Big ass difference chamberlain.

 

[jc456]

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"

exactly again.

 

[jc456]

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

the IPCC conceded the 15 year pause. DOH!!!!!

Can't have a pause if the noitalls say it's escalating. Explain how that works for the class.

 

[SSDD]

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

Regardless of your attempted deflection...my position is that there is absolutely no observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....and I can't help but notice that you aren't even attempting to bring any here......it should make you wonder why you can't simply pop out to google and get some...

 

[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...

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...

Actually they don't...but then facts aren't really what you guys are about....for example....your complete inability to bring a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence forward supporting the A in AGW...

 

[SSDD]

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

There is no data....none whatsoever and no amount of twisting, turning, shucking and jiving, ducking and covering, etc is going to make that fact go away...if there were any observed, measured, quantified data you would surely bring it here and slap me down with it...not happening though...so what do you think that 97% consensus that you believe exists is based on if there is no actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in the hypothesis?

Go and tel them they are making a big mistake

Actually it should be you who is asking why they have no observed, measured, quantified evidence...they have made you believe that it exists somewhere but clearly it doesn't...why aren't you questioning that?

 

[SSDD]

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"

And the fact remains that there isn't the fist shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...why does that not bother you? If I believed a thing and someone claimed that there was no evidence to support my belief, I would bring the hard evidence upon which my belief was based forward to show them how wrong they are....if, upon looking for the evidence I thought existed, I could not find it...not even the first bit, rather than whining to the person who challenged my belief, I would be wondering why I believed what I did when there was, in fact, no observed, measured, quantified evidence to support that belief, and indeed, why I ever held the belief in the first place...regardless of who said that it is true...

 

[SSDD]

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

And still not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW....how stupid does it make you feel to keep on defending climate science when they can't provide you with even one shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW that you could post here to shut me up? And rather than bring the actual evidence to support your belief, you post some guy going on about UFO's....it is you who is operating from a position of faith...it is you who believes when no evidence exists to support your belief...it is you who is standing there empty handed unable to provide any observed, measured, quantified evidence to throw in my face to show me how wrong I am...

 

[SSDD]

"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).

Which evidence would it be that has the skeptics unconvinced? There is no obser

"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).

Which evidence would it be that has left the skeptics unconvinced? There is no observed, measured, quantified evidence which is why they are skeptics....you know, the number of people who can't see the emperors new clothes is always quite small...because the number of people who can think for themselves is always quite small...you continue to believe, and attempt to defend the indefensible when it should, according to you, be so easy to grab a bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence from the internet to bring here to show the skeptics how wrong they are...who is being fooled here? Not me...I have my eyes wide open and am seeing you and yours completely unable to bring forward the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence to support what you believe.

 

[SSDD]

"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).

Which evidence would it be that has the skeptics unconvinced? There is no obser

"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).

Which evidence would it be that has left the skeptics unconvinced? There is no observed, measured, quantified evidence which is why they are skeptics....you know, the number of people who can't see the emperors new clothes is always quite small...because the number of people who can think for themselves is always quite small...you continue to believe, and attempt to defend the indefensible when it should, according to you, be so easy to grab a bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence from the internet to bring here to show the skeptics how wrong they are...who is being fooled here? Not me...I have my eyes wide open and am seeing you and yours completely unable to bring forward the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence to support what you believe.

 

[Wuwei]

.my position is that there is absolutely no observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....and I can't help but notice that you aren't even attempting to bring any here......

Are you bringing that crap to this thread too? You were already shown the evidence in the thread you started.
In Support of the A in AGW

You keep harping on the same thing! You were given observed, measured quantified evidence that there is back radiation from the greenhouse gasses hitting earth. The only point you had in rebuttal is to lie about the laws of physics. You were soundly rebutted against that too.

 

[SSDD]

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

Lot of big important sounding names there...surely they have some observed, measured, quantified evidence to support what they are saying....and if it exists, surely they have posted it out on the internet to shut up the skeptics....go out and cut and paste a bit of it to bring it here...

And when you can't find it, ask yourself upon what are they making their claims?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

And when you can't find it, ask yourself upon what are they making their claims?

Again you simply repeat nonsense ..those are Scientific Organization...the dat has been collected go look at it LOL

all you do is pretend your statements counter the statements of Scientific Agencies..they are based on science ..you are based on "repeating stupid"..Science on my side nothing on your side excpt your opinions which are nonsense

 

[jc456]

And when you can't find it, ask yourself upon what are they making their claims?

Again you simply repeat nonsense ..those are Scientific Organization...the dat has been collected go look at it LOL

all you do is pretend your statements counter the statements of Scientific Agencies..they are based on science ..you are based on "repeating stupid"..Science on my side nothing on your side excpt your opinions which are nonsense

dude what part of there isn't any evidence there don't you understand? I mean, we've been there, and, there isn't any evidence "there". Post some up of what it is you think is? Show us dude.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Which evidence would it be that has left the skeptics unconvinced?

I am sure you can come up with data or at least a link to someone or some agency that says there is no AGW ...but all you do is keep repeating nonsense

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

dude what part of there isn't any evidence there don't you understand? I mean, we've been there, and, there isn't any evidence there. Post some up of what it is you think is? Show us dude.

what part of all the Scientific evidence supports my position is it that you do not understand ...all Scientific Organizations supports my posit5ion and you have no links no information to offer ...

 

[jc456]

I knew you couldn't produce any, and I agree it is hilarious that you think there is evidence "there"