Proof of AGW fraud

[Grumblenuts]

why is it that you don’t seem to be able to produce any observed measured data to support your claims?

Been done. Science! Going on for centuries now. Even blind squirrels can't help finding nuggets here and there. You "don't seem" willing to acknowledge any of it. Yet you can't help using it again and again to argue against its very existence. Swine demanding the casting of ever more pearls to pee and shit all over.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Cherry picking and ignoring valid data which calls your beliefs into question...

I checked out the first for kicks and giggles, Sherlock, and boy was it crap! The author has zero climate science credentials. Put your best foot forward there did you? Why would anyone continue? Sadomasochism? You're an idiot.

 

[SSDD]

why is it that you don’t seem to be able to produce any observed measured data to support your claims?

Been done. Science! Going on for centuries now. Even blind squirrels can't help finding nuggets here and there. You "don't seem" willing to acknowledge any of it. Yet you can't help using it again and again to argue against its very existence. Swine demanding the casting of ever more pearls to pee and shit all over.

Same old lie. What is to acknowledge? You guys don’t post up any actual science.. And when I go looking at the actual scientific literature, ie peer reviewed published papers, there is nothing there that even remotely supports the opinion pieces you guys typically post. Do feels free to post some actual science that supports your position.

I wasn’t, always a skeptic...but I have always referenced the actual literature...If you look at the actual science as opposed to news magazines, and opinion pieces, it is hard to not become skeptical of the mainstream message.

 

[SSDD]

why is it that you don’t seem to be able to produce any observed measured data to support your claims?

Been done. Science! Going on for centuries now. Even blind squirrels can't help finding nuggets here and there. You "don't seem" willing to acknowledge any of it. Yet you can't help using it again and again to argue against its very existence. Swine demanding the casting of ever more pearls to pee and shit all over.

What is it like to have to make excuse after excuse for not being able to post up a single piece of real evidence to support your claim.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

[SSDD]

Cherry picking and ignoring valid data which calls your beliefs into question...

I checked out the first for kicks and giggles, Sherlock, and boy was it crap! The author has zero climate science credentials. Put your best foot forward there did you? Why would anyone continue? Sadomasochism? You're an idiot.

So what was your specific problem with his findings? Like I said, i am sure that the reviewers and publishers would be interested in reviewing any errors in the paper they missed.

Or is a logical fallacy regarding the author the best you can do?

 

[Grumblenuts]

What is like to be in constant denial of Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet?

 

[SSDD]

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

So which part do that do you believe to be observed measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability? If you cant manage a cut and paste, then just name the paragraph.

It is always interesting to see what passes for evidence among you people..

 

[SSDD]

What is like to be in constant denial of Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet?

You are the only one in denial here...I am posting up actual peer reviewed published science...you on the others hand only seem to be able to respond with logical fallacy.

 

[SSDD]

Cherry picking and ignoring valid data which calls your beliefs into question...

I checked out the first for kicks and giggles, Sherlock, and boy was it crap! The author has zero climate science credentials. Put your best foot forward there did you? Why would anyone continue? Sadomasochism? You're an idiot.

Is an ad hominem really the best you can do?

The ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy associated with trying to undermine the opponent's arguments by personal attacks, through attacking their character or skill level, etc. The ad hominem attack uses an accepted fact about a person to undermine their credibility despite the lack of causal connection between the two parts of the argument.

Do you have any specific complaint about the technical aspect of the paper? Any evidence that he is wrong? The reviewers and publishers didn’t..what did you find wrong with it?

 

[SSDD]

What is like to be in constant denial of Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet?

I asked which part of that you thought was observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. What’s the matter? Embarrassed to even point anything out?

 

[Grumblenuts]

I am posting up actual peer reviewed published science

Bullshit.

evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability

By definition, there can be no "AGW hypothesis" that doesn't account for what you call "natural variability." AGW and any non-AGW are additive, not distinct. And the data makes plain that we would be experiencing cooling rather than warming were it not for the AGW portion. So the the non-AGW portion is negative. Now just how could a negative produce record positive warming year after year? I know, insane denial!

the term commonly refers to the observed and continuing increase in average air and ocean temperatures since 1900 caused mainly by emissions of greenhouse gases in the modern industrial economy.[5] In the modern context the terms global warming and climate change are commonly used interchangeably,[6] but climate change includes both global warming and its effects, such as changes to precipitation and impacts that differ by region.[7][8] Many of the observed changes in climate since the 1950s are unprecedented in the instrumental temperature record, and in historical and paleoclimate proxy records of climate change over thousands to millions of years.[2]

an·thro·po·gen·ic
/ˌanTHrəpōˈjenik/
adjective

1. (chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) originating in human activity.
   "anthropogenic emissions of sulfur dioxide"

 

[SSDD]

I am posting up actual peer reviewed published science

Bullshit.

evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability

By definition, there can be no "AGW hypothesis" that doesn't account for what you call "natural variability." AGW and any non-AGW are additive, not distinct. And the data makes plain that we would be experiencing cooling rather than warming were it not for the AGW portion. So the the non-AGW portion is negative. Now just how could a negative produce record positive warming year after year? I know, insane denial!

So are you saying that the AGW hypothesis is unfalsifiable, or are you saying that man made climate change is indistinguishable from natural variability?

]the term commonly refers to the observed and continuing increase in average air and ocean temperatures since 1900 caused mainly by emissions of greenhouse gases in the modern industrial economy.[5

OK..so that is a claim...where is the observed measured evidence that the warming is due to greenhouse gasses. When did we change from natural warming out of the little ice age to man made warming and where is the evidence that we weren’t going to warm at lest to the temperature prior to the onset of the little ice age...because we are still not as warm as it was prior to the onset of the LIA?

In the modern context the terms global warming and climate change are commonly used interchangeably,[6] but climate change includes both global warming and its effects, such as changes to precipitation and impacts that differ by region.[7][8] Many of the observed changes in climate since the 1950s are unprecedented in the instrumental temperature record, and in historical and paleoclimate proxy records of climate change over thousands to millions of years.[2]

That claim is simply a lie. There are literally hundreds of published papers finding that there is nothing happening in the present climate that is in any way unprecedented.

Here is the gold standard (according to climate science) GISP2 temperature reconstruction which shows temperature changes far greater, and far faster than anything we have seen. And do note that it is cooler now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years. Keep in mind that this is n ice core taken above the arctic circle and reflects arctic temperatures. Ice cores taken in the Antarctic show a very similar record over the past 10,000 years and be reminded that climate science has stated clearly that the arctic regions are the canaries in the coal mine and what happens in those regions follows across the globe.

And here is a link to literally hundreds of papers that show that in the past, in various locations on the globe, it has bee warmer,cooler, wetter and dryer than it is today.

Medieval Warm Period - Google My Maps

The link will take you to a global map where you will find green,red,yellow and blue location markers. The red markers indicate locations where studies have been done that found the temperature to have been warmer than the present prior to the onset of the little ice ge...the blue markers indicate cooler, the green markers indicate wetter, the yellow markers indicate drier conditions...the gray markers indicate little change since the onset of the LIA.

Do feel free to point out something specific in the climate today that you believe is unprecedented.

Do i think any amount of science will alter your belief on the topic? No. Your position is clearly based on politics and not actual science as evidenced by the fact that you post opinion pieces in support of your belief rather than actual science. But someone else who is perhaps interested in actual science may find the links I posted informative.

 

[jc456]

Well, that's exciting. Each having been declared "Winner" by another at least once it appears we have a tie. Congratulations, you're all clearly very wet. A most predictable effect of soaking long in denial!

cyn·i·cal
/ˈsinək(ə)l/
adjective

1. 1.
   believing that people are motivated by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity.
   "her cynical attitude"
2. 2.
   concerned only with one's own interests and typically disregarding accepted or appropriate standards in order to achieve them.
   "a cynical manipulation of public opinion"

de·ni·er1
/dəˈnīər/
noun

1. a person who denies something.
   "a prominent denier of global warming"

Facts aren’t your friend

 

[jc456]

why is it that you don’t seem to be able to produce any observed measured data to support your claims?

Been done. Science! Going on for centuries now. Even blind squirrels can't help finding nuggets here and there. You "don't seem" willing to acknowledge any of it. Yet you can't help using it again and again to argue against its very existence. Swine demanding the casting of ever more pearls to pee and shit all over.

And yet, still dumbfounded cause you can’t post observed data!

 

[Grumblenuts]

So are you saying that the AGW hypothesis is unfalsifiable, or are you saying that man made climate change is indistinguishable from natural variability?

I said what I meant quite coherently. Neither of your stupid either/or assertions there follows logically at all. You really can't read, can you? No wonder you're so ready to believe denial crap makes sense and is "peer reviewed." The Kochs don't pay all those big bucks to fabricate truth.

And here is a link to literally hundreds of papers that show that in the past, in various locations on the globe, it has bee warmer,cooler, wetter and dryer than it is today.

No shit, Sherlock. None of those had industrial revolutions. Currently we do. Grow up. Face reality.

 

[jc456]

I am posting up actual peer reviewed published science

Bullshit.

evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability

By definition, there can be no "AGW hypothesis" that doesn't account for what you call "natural variability." AGW and any non-AGW are additive, not distinct. And the data makes plain that we would be experiencing cooling rather than warming were it not for the AGW portion. So the the non-AGW portion is negative. Now just how could a negative produce record positive warming year after year? I know, insane denial!

the term commonly refers to the observed and continuing increase in average air and ocean temperatures since 1900 caused mainly by emissions of greenhouse gases in the modern industrial economy.[5] In the modern context the terms global warming and climate change are commonly used interchangeably,[6] but climate change includes both global warming and its effects, such as changes to precipitation and impacts that differ by region.[7][8] Many of the observed changes in climate since the 1950s are unprecedented in the instrumental temperature record, and in historical and paleoclimate proxy records of climate change over thousands to millions of years.[2]

an·thro·po·gen·ic
/ˌanTHrəpōˈjenik/
adjective

1. (chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) originating in human activity.
   "anthropogenic emissions of sulfur dioxide"

So your position is the earth should be engulfed in ice? It was, it’s been melting before you existed, it will continue barring another ice age! Look up in the daytime sky and see that bright yellow object? It’s the sun, it warms our planet!

 

[jc456]

So are you saying that the AGW hypothesis is unfalsifiable, or are you saying that man made climate change is indistinguishable from natural variability?

I said what I meant quite coherently. Neither of your stupid either/or assertions there follows logically at all. You really can't read, can you? No wonder you're so ready to believe denial crap makes sense and is "peer reviewed." The Kochs don't pay all those big bucks to fabricate truth.

And here is a link to literally hundreds of papers that show that in the past, in various locations on the globe, it has bee warmer,cooler, wetter and dryer than it is today.

No shit, Sherlock. None of those had industrial revolutions. Currently we do. Grow up. Face reality.

Industrial revolution,

 

[Grumblenuts]

I've been farting in your general direction.. Feeling warmer?

 

[jc456]

I've been farting in your general direction.. Feeling warmer?

Naw, but your posts do stink