Sattelite Data Show 2015 Was NOT EVEN CLOSE to Being Hottest on Record.

[80zephyr]

That tenth of a degree puts us over 1 degree C. for the total increase since the industrial age began. And the generally accepted danger level is a 2 degree increase. Well, given that the present temperature is representative of the GHGs in the atmosphere 30 to 50 years ago, we are going to blow right by the 2 degree mark.

If the theory were correct, there would not be a "pause". Not one model predicted what is happening today. An honest scientist would admit to failure. Today, that would mean a funding cut....so its not gonna happen.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Berkely Earth says you can shove your satellite data where the sun don't shine

2015 'unambiguously' the hottest year on record, says report

Note the reality about your sacred HIATUS as well.

Bwhahahahaha. This is hilarious. The warmers fighting among themselves to determine who has the "correct" data.

And we are supposed to invest trillions in some solution while they can't even agree if warming is happening?

Priceless!!

Mark

 

[Crick]

You would classify me as a "warmer". The fellow I was addressing is most definitely a "denier", such as yourself. Like most things I suppose, you have gotten this wrong.

 

[80zephyr]

You would classify me as a "warmer". The fellow I was addressing is most definitely a "denier", such as yourself. Like most things I suppose, you have gotten this wrong.

Afraid not. I deal in reality, and I can see that one claim is not like the other, therefore, even they can't agree, and they are all "experts".

BTW, being an "expert" on the climate doesn't mean much. That science is so new and our knowledge so limited, it would be like a cave man trying to do brain surgery with a club.

Mark

 

[mamooth]

NASA disagrees with you.

No, the video had the NASA people. They agree with me, and say that you're a kook.

You showed us a 1997 article. Got anything recent from NASA? Didn't think so. That's because NASA knows the satellites stink now. 1997 was before the satellites began drifting away from the balloon measurements. That is, before the satellites became unreliable.

And if you think there are only a few stations on the surface, you're too ignorant of the topic to be wasting the time of the grownups.

 

[mamooth]

If the theory were correct, there would not be a "pause".

There wasn't a pause. That failed denier fairy tale died hard in 2015. Try to keep up.

Not one model predicted what is happening today.

Quite the contrary. The models pegged it dead on. You're parroting nonsense because you don't know any better. Your cult fed you a line of bull, and you believed.

An honest scientist would admit to failure.

The scientists are honest, while your side is proudly and pathologically dishonest. That's why the whole planet now holds you in deserved contempt, and correctly defines you as the brainwashed acolyte of a liars' cult.

Today, that would me an a funding cut....so its not gonna happen.

Mark

Such reality-defying conspiracy theories are literally all that your cult has left. That demonstrates how your cult is on life support.

 

[80zephyr]

NASA disagrees with you.

No, the video had the NASA people. They agree with me, and say that you're a kook.

You showed us a 1997 article. Got anything recent from NASA? Didn't think so. That's because NASA knows the satellites stink now. 1997 was before the satellites began drifting away from the balloon measurements. That is, before the satellites became unreliable.

And if you think there are only a few stations on the surface, you're too ignorant of the topic to be wasting the time of the grownups.

Of course the satellites are unreliable. They have to be. Because if they weren't, it would sink the warmers. Isn't it funny how all these experts tell us how infallible they are, and when their own data screws them over, they can still say that they are infallible?

Every time they are wrong, they make some bullshit excuse as to why they were wrong. So, it begs the question: if they were wrong before, what makes them think they are now correct?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

If the theory were correct, there would not be a "pause".

There wasn't a pause. That failed denier fairy tale died hard in 2015. Try to keep up.

Not one model predicted what is happening today.

Quite the contrary. The models pegged it dead on. You're parroting nonsense because you don't know any better. Your cult fed you a line of bull, and you believed.

An honest scientist would admit to failure.

The scientists are honest, while your side is proudly and pathologically dishonest. That's why the whole planet now holds you in deserved contempt, and correctly defines you as the brainwashed acolyte of a liars' cult.

Today, that would me an a funding cut....so its not gonna happen.

Mark

Such reality-defying conspiracy theories are literally all that your cult has left. That demonstrates how your cult is on life support.

There is only one cult here. The warming cult.

Mark

 

[Old Rocks]

Now just because every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world states that you are full of shit could not indicate that you might be wrong, could it? Oh, I know, all them thar pointy headed scientists are a bunch of pinko Commies. You silly asses are all the same, brainless, and determined to stay that way.

 

[Old Rocks]

Big Gap between What Scientists Say and Americans Think about Climate Change

What the scientists say

 

[80zephyr]

Now just because every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world states that you are full of shit could not indicate that you might be wrong, could it? Oh, I know, all them thar pointy headed scientists are a bunch of pinko Commies. You silly asses are all the same, brainless, and determined to stay that way.

Like I said, I deal in reality. If I had a nickle for every time a warmer admitted to be wrong but stated that THIS time was different...I'd have a lot of nickles.

Mark

 

[Crick]

Old Rocks statements regarding the national scientific society's statements is absolutely correct. The scientists of this planet say you're wrong jc.

 

[jc456]

Old Rocks statements regarding the national scientific society's statements is absolutely correct. The scientists of this planet say you're wrong.

well Judith Curry is a scientist and she says differently. So?

And was a member of the APS, and part of group to write a statement, and her input and others input was not used in the APS statement. so, how scientific can it be if it was all made up?

 

[Crick]

Like I said, I deal in reality. If I had a nickle for every time a warmer admitted to be wrong but stated that THIS time was different...I'd have a lot of nickles.

Mark

Your statement is clear proof that you do NOT deal in reality. The world's scientists, by an overwhelming margin, tell us that the world is getting warmer and that human GHG emissions are the primary cause.

 

[jc456]

Like I said, I deal in reality. If I had a nickle for every time a warmer admitted to be wrong but stated that THIS time was different...I'd have a lot of nickles.

Mark

Your statement is clear proof that you do NOT deal in reality. The world's scientists, by an overwhelming margin, tell us that the world is getting warmer and that human GHG emissions are the primary cause.

crick, that is something you can't prove. give it up already.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well now, jc, just post for us where Dr. Curry says that there is no warming, and that the GHGs have no effect.

 

[jc456]

Well now, jc, just post for us where Dr. Curry says that there is no warming, and that the GHGs have no effect.

why, I didn't say that in here? Why would I need to do that? Why don't you show us the names on the statements from the places you say prove scientifically your side? Let's see all who agree with all the statements. Can you do that?, or are you just making a statement to make a statement and you know you can't prove it?

 

[Old Rocks]

Izhar Cohen
[FONT=Georgia, serif]Why Climate Skeptics Are Wrong[/FONT]

At some point in the history of all scientific theories, only a minority of scientists—or even just one—supported them, before evidence accumulated to the point of general acceptance. The Copernican model, germ theory, the vaccination principle, evolutionary theory, plate tectonics and the big bang theory were all once heretical ideas that became consensus science. How did this happen?
An answer may be found in what 19th-century philosopher of science William Whewell called a “consilience of inductions.” For a theory to be accepted, Whewell argued, it must be based on more than one induction—or a single generalization drawn from specific facts. It must have multiple inductions that converge on one another, independently but in conjunction. “Accordingly the cases in which inductions from classes of facts altogether different have thus jumped together,” he wrote in his 1840 book The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, “belong only to the best established theories which the history of science contains.” Call it a “convergence of evidence.”
Consensus science is a phrase often heard today in conjunction with anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Is there a consensus on AGW? There is. The tens of thousands of scientists who belong to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Medical Association, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, the Geological Society of America, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and, most notably, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change all concur that AGW is in fact real. Why?
It is not because of the sheer number of scientists. After all, science is not conducted by poll. As Albert Einstein said in response to a 1931 book skeptical of relativity theory entitled 100 Authors against Einstein, “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.” The answer is that there is a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry—pollen, tree rings, ice cores, corals, glacial and polar ice-cap melt, sea-level rise, ecological shifts, carbon dioxide increases, the unprecedented rate of temperature increase—that all converge to a singular conclusion. AGW doubters point to the occasional anomaly in a particular data set, as if one incongruity gainsays all the other lines of evidence. But that is not how consilience science works. For AGW skeptics to overturn the consensus, they would need to find flaws with all the lines of supportive evidence andshow a consistent convergence of evidence toward a different theory that explains the data. (Creationists have the same problem overturning evolutionary theory.) This they have not done.
Rather long, but sums up the findings of scientists. And if you want the names of the scientists on the board of the various Scientific Societies, they are on the sites of those societies. Look them up for yourself.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well now, jc, just post for us where Dr. Curry says that there is no warming, and that the GHGs have no effect.

why, I didn't say that in here? Why would I need to do that? Why don't you show us the names on the statements from the places you say prove scientifically your side? Let's see all who agree with all the statements. Can you do that?, or are you just making a statement to make a statement and you know you can't prove it?

On the contrary, you are the one making flap yap statements. After all, I have repeatedly given you links, while you given none.

 

[jc456]

Well now, jc, just post for us where Dr. Curry says that there is no warming, and that the GHGs have no effect.

why, I didn't say that in here? Why would I need to do that? Why don't you show us the names on the statements from the places you say prove scientifically your side? Let's see all who agree with all the statements. Can you do that?, or are you just making a statement to make a statement and you know you can't prove it?

On the contrary, you are the one making flap yap statements. After all, I have repeatedly given you links, while you given none.

socks, I have to apologize, I stated Curry made her statement about the NAS and it was the APS. You didn't include them in your rant. My bad.