To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[CrusaderFrank]

Ahhhhh, the magic of the internet.

You pointed to a few people who made predictions of an ice-free arctic by now. And then you fraudulently claimed that meant it's the scientific consensus, even though some of those same articles pointed out it's not the consensus.

Now, what is the consensus? Honest people will check IPCC AR5.

http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session36/p36_doc3_approved_spm.pdf
---
Based on an assessment of the subset of models that most closely reproduce the climatological mean state and 1979-2012 trend of the Arctic sea ice extent, a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in September before mid-century is
likely
---

That is, the consensus is < 1 million km^2 by 2050.

Naturally, you're going to keep ignoring the actual consensus in favor of your imaginary consenus. Good luck with that. Your fellow cultists here will keep giving you accolades for faithfully repeating ThePartyLine, but the rest of the world knows you're lying, and thus will keep on ignoring you.

AR5 has none of these:

A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, to examine the validity of a hypothesis, or to determine the efficacy of something previously untried. The process of conducting such a test; experimentation. An innovative act or procedure.
Experiment | Define Experiment at Dictionary.com

Experiments. Can you say, "Experiment"?

 

[westwall]

Ahhhhh, the magic of the internet.

You pointed to a few people who made predictions of an ice-free arctic by now. And then you fraudulently claimed that meant it's the scientific consensus, even though some of those same articles pointed out it's not the consensus.

Now, what is the consensus? Honest people will check IPCC AR5.

http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session36/p36_doc3_approved_spm.pdf
---
Based on an assessment of the subset of models that most closely reproduce the climatological mean state and 1979-2012 trend of the Arctic sea ice extent, a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in September before mid-century is
likely
---

That is, the consensus is < 1 million km^2 by 2050.

Naturally, you're going to keep ignoring the actual consensus in favor of your imaginary consenus. Good luck with that. Your fellow cultists here will keep giving you accolades for faithfully repeating ThePartyLine, but the rest of the world knows you're lying, and thus will keep on ignoring you.

Ummmmm, AR 5 came out AFTER the predictions failed....moron. So. Now we know that you are as incompetent at reading a calendar as you are at understanding basic science. That's quite an accomplishment dude. Can you at least tell time so you know when it's time to go to bed?

 

[mamooth]

Define what you mean when you say the adjustments make the warming smaller

Absolute temp, or trend?

Trend.

Define which adjustments. Land or oceans? Since, say 2000, or before?

Combined.

Scientists don't ever say "Look only at the land temperatures", so addressing only the land temperature adjustments makes zero sense and would obviously be a dishonest deflection. Scientists do say "Look at the combined temperatures", therefore any honest person addresses the combined adjustments. Those adjustments have resulted in showing _less_ warming. Conspiracy theory go boom.

The Pooh flinging monkey wants to take credit for adjustments made to ocean temps a long time ago. Pre Hockeystick, pre Hansen.

So Ian says adjustments don't count if they're older. That's how he's still clinging to his failed conspiracy theory.

So, according to Ian, the scientists are openly and fraudulently adjusting the land temperatures, but those same scientists, for inexplicable reasons, are refusing to fraudulently adjust the ocean temperatures, even though such adjustments would have a vastly bigger payoff.

Interesting, how the conspiracy can be both diabolically clever and completely inept.

And he wants to ignore the ever greater land adjustments since 2000.

Goddard/McIntyre/WUWT conspiracy theories are so 2014.

Everyone has seen the comparisons between global temp graphs from the 70s and 80s, and the ones from the 00s and 10s. The overlapping section shows cooling of the pre 1950 numbers and warming after. Which changes the shape of the graphs and increases the upward trend.

The reverse, actually, provided you include the ocean adjustments that you work so hard to ignore.

And to paraphrase Orwell, some adjustments are more equal than others. The urban heat island effect has no effect on most temp datasets, except for BEST which actually finds it has a cooling effect!!!. Amazing what the clever sillies can come up with when they want to show a counter intuitive result

Bad science and logic on your part, not to mention conspiracy nuttery. Can you explain the physical mechanism that causes an urban site to heat up faster than a rural site, even though the layout and surrounding area didn't change? That is what you're saying has to happen. You're claiming fraud because you fail at the science. You know, the usual. Intelligent people understand that there's no physical reason for the trend at an urban station to differ from the trend at rural station.

 

[mamooth]

Ummmmm, AR 5 came out AFTER the predictions failed....moron.

So after I show AR4 saying the same thing, what excuse are you going to use then?

If you'll just throw out that excuse now, you can save me the trouble of looking it up. If you need a little more time to fabricate something, I understand.

 

[westwall]

Ummmmm, AR 5 came out AFTER the predictions failed....moron.

So after I show AR4 saying the same thing, what excuse are you going to use then?

If you'll just throw out that excuse now, you can save me the trouble of looking it up. If you need a little more time to fabricate something, I understand.

Feel free. Show us the exact line. Thank you.

 

[westwall]

Define what you mean when you say the adjustments make the warming smaller

Absolute temp, or trend?

Trend.

Define which adjustments. Land or oceans? Since, say 2000, or before?

Combined.

Scientists don't ever say "Look only at the land temperatures", so addressing only the land temperature adjustments makes zero sense and would obviously be a dishonest deflection. Scientists do say "Look at the combined temperatures", therefore any honest person addresses the combined adjustments. Those adjustments have resulted in showing _less_ warming. Conspiracy theory go boom.

The Pooh flinging monkey wants to take credit for adjustments made to ocean temps a long time ago. Pre Hockeystick, pre Hansen.

So Ian says adjustments don't count if they're older. That's how he's still clinging to his failed conspiracy theory.

So, according to Ian, the scientists are openly and fraudulently adjusting the land temperatures, but those same scientists, for inexplicable reasons, are refusing to fraudulently adjust the ocean temperatures, even though such adjustments would have a vastly bigger payoff.

Interesting, how the conspiracy can be both diabolically clever and completely inept.

And he wants to ignore the ever greater land adjustments since 2000.

Goddard/McIntyre/WUWT conspiracy theories are so 2014.

Everyone has seen the comparisons between global temp graphs from the 70s and 80s, and the ones from the 00s and 10s. The overlapping section shows cooling of the pre 1950 numbers and warming after. Which changes the shape of the graphs and increases the upward trend.

The reverse, actually, provided you include the ocean adjustments that you work so hard to ignore.

And to paraphrase Orwell, some adjustments are more equal than others. The urban heat island effect has no effect on most temp datasets, except for BEST which actually finds it has a cooling effect!!!. Amazing what the clever sillies can come up with when they want to show a counter intuitive result

Bad science and logic on your part, not to mention conspiracy nuttery. Can you explain the physical mechanism that causes an urban site to heat up faster than a rural site, even though the layout and surrounding area didn't change? That is what you're saying has to happen. You're claiming fraud because you fail at the science. You know, the usual. Intelligent people understand that there's no physical reason for the trend at an urban station to differ from the trend at rural station.

"Trend" A nice word that the faithers abuse endlessly. The trend from 14,000 years ago has been to get warmer. Your point? You see admiral, it's not just a word that you can abuse. We can use it correctly. Something you don't seem capable of.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Remember AR5's 93% of excess heat gets eaten by the ocean?

Here's AR1, "Over half of the solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface is first absorbed by the ocean, where it is stored and redistributed by ocean currents before escaping to the atmosphere, largely as latent heat of evaporation, but also as long-wave radiation"

93% is over half, right? But to hide the decline the needed 93%

 

[sealybobo]

Go to France and tell them GW is a hoax. They'll laugh at you.

Lets see if the GOP nominee will get up on stage and deny global warming. Bet they won't. And if they do, they'll lose the general election.

it isn't an issue. how many times must a libturd hear that? Why would any candidate say anything on climate, leaders from 196 couldn't even come to an agreement on it. So it died on the vine in Paris!!!! get it died on the vine???????

Oh its an issue. Its one of the issues you guys don't win the White House.

New Wisconsin utility regulator says volcanos worse than cars for greenhouse gas

Look how many times you guys are wrong about climate change.

How many times we were wrong, lmao were not the ones that have been making the predictions over the past 40 years ya frickin moron.

Like hell, you stupid ass. You asses were claiming right up to 2000 that there was no warming. Then you changed you claim that it was all natural cycles. And when it was shown that you could not show the cycles, you changed it to 'the warming is good for you'. Except many thousands of people in this nation have lost their homes to fires or floods created by the predicted weather extremes this year. Why don't you just give up on your lies.

You fucking liar, let's see links...


All your nut case AGW cult failed predictions are well documented

Did you see China's having another smog emergency? They can't deny the problem.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

it isn't an issue. how many times must a libturd hear that? Why would any candidate say anything on climate, leaders from 196 couldn't even come to an agreement on it. So it died on the vine in Paris!!!! get it died on the vine???????

Oh its an issue. Its one of the issues you guys don't win the White House.

New Wisconsin utility regulator says volcanos worse than cars for greenhouse gas

Look how many times you guys are wrong about climate change.

How many times we were wrong, lmao were not the ones that have been making the predictions over the past 40 years ya frickin moron.

Like hell, you stupid ass. You asses were claiming right up to 2000 that there was no warming. Then you changed you claim that it was all natural cycles. And when it was shown that you could not show the cycles, you changed it to 'the warming is good for you'. Except many thousands of people in this nation have lost their homes to fires or floods created by the predicted weather extremes this year. Why don't you just give up on your lies.

You fucking liar, let's see links...


All your nut case AGW cult failed predictions are well documented

Did you see China's having another smog emergency? They can't deny the problem.

smog is global warming????

 

[sealybobo]

Oh its an issue. Its one of the issues you guys don't win the White House.

New Wisconsin utility regulator says volcanos worse than cars for greenhouse gas

Look how many times you guys are wrong about climate change.

How many times we were wrong, lmao were not the ones that have been making the predictions over the past 40 years ya frickin moron.

Like hell, you stupid ass. You asses were claiming right up to 2000 that there was no warming. Then you changed you claim that it was all natural cycles. And when it was shown that you could not show the cycles, you changed it to 'the warming is good for you'. Except many thousands of people in this nation have lost their homes to fires or floods created by the predicted weather extremes this year. Why don't you just give up on your lies.

You fucking liar, let's see links...


All your nut case AGW cult failed predictions are well documented

Did you see China's having another smog emergency? They can't deny the problem.

smog is global warming????

Yup

 

[Crick]

Here, Crick. Since you clearly never heard of an experiment either

A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, to examine the validity of a hypothesis, or to determine the efficacy of something previously untried. The process of conducting such a test; experimentation. An innovative act or procedure.
Experiment | Define Experiment at Dictionary.com

Why don't you show us an experiment that fails; one that suggests going 280 t0 400 ppm WON'T cause warming.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here, Crick. Since you clearly never heard of an experiment either

A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, to examine the validity of a hypothesis, or to determine the efficacy of something previously untried. The process of conducting such a test; experimentation. An innovative act or procedure.
Experiment | Define Experiment at Dictionary.com

Why don't you show us an experiment that fails; one that suggests going 280 t0 400 ppm WON'T cause warming.

Squid Ink Crick back to avoiding the truth.

That's not how science works dipshit

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here, Crick. Since you clearly never heard of an experiment either

A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, to examine the validity of a hypothesis, or to determine the efficacy of something previously untried. The process of conducting such a test; experimentation. An innovative act or procedure.
Experiment | Define Experiment at Dictionary.com

Why don't you show us an experiment that fails; one that suggests going 280 t0 400 ppm WON'T cause warming.

Proves there's no Bigfoot, or Megalodon, or chupacabra

 

[Wyatt earp]

Oh its an issue. Its one of the issues you guys don't win the White House.

New Wisconsin utility regulator says volcanos worse than cars for greenhouse gas

Look how many times you guys are wrong about climate change.

How many times we were wrong, lmao were not the ones that have been making the predictions over the past 40 years ya frickin moron.

Like hell, you stupid ass. You asses were claiming right up to 2000 that there was no warming. Then you changed you claim that it was all natural cycles. And when it was shown that you could not show the cycles, you changed it to 'the warming is good for you'. Except many thousands of people in this nation have lost their homes to fires or floods created by the predicted weather extremes this year. Why don't you just give up on your lies.

You fucking liar, let's see links...


All your nut case AGW cult failed predictions are well documented

Did you see China's having another smog emergency? They can't deny the problem.

smog is global warming????

He always wants to equate air pollution with climate change

 

[mamooth]

"Trend". A nice word that the faithers abuse endlessly. The trend from 14,000 years ago has been to get warmer.

And the trend for the last 6000 years was cooling, until very recently. That's how we know the current warming is not part of a natural cycle.

So, quite an impressive failure on your part. If the most recent part of a cycle is down, it's dumb to declare the trend is up, yet it's what you just did.

You see admiral, it's not just a word that you can abuse. We can use it correctly.

As you just demonstrated, you're unable to do any science correctly. At science, you fail harder than any other person on this board. Given the competition, that's saying something. You're smarter than most of the other finalists, but you focus all of your intelligence on being a failure, so you do it better.

Something you don't seem capable of.

Take a lesson here. If you're unable to respond to my content but still feel the need to get pissy, just lie down until it passes. That will spare you from further humiliation.

 

[mamooth]

Feel free. Show us the exact line. Thank you.

Precipitation Extremes and Droughts - AR4 WGI Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections
----
The projected reduction is accelerated in the Arctic, where some models project summer sea ice cover to disappear entirely in the high-emission A2 scenario in the latter part of the 21st century.
---

So, the 2007 AR4 predicted even slower melt than the 2013 AR5. AR5 said 2050, AR4 said "latter part of the 21st century."

And that means the consensus as of 2007 was definitely _not_ that all the ice would melt by 2013.

Do you want me to go back to AR3 now?

 

[sealybobo]

How many times we were wrong, lmao were not the ones that have been making the predictions over the past 40 years ya frickin moron.

Like hell, you stupid ass. You asses were claiming right up to 2000 that there was no warming. Then you changed you claim that it was all natural cycles. And when it was shown that you could not show the cycles, you changed it to 'the warming is good for you'. Except many thousands of people in this nation have lost their homes to fires or floods created by the predicted weather extremes this year. Why don't you just give up on your lies.

You fucking liar, let's see links...


All your nut case AGW cult failed predictions are well documented

Did you see China's having another smog emergency? They can't deny the problem.

smog is global warming????

He always wants to equate air pollution with climate change

As you should

 

[Old Rocks]

In creating air pollution, you are creating two components, the gaseous part, and the particulate. The particulate reflects sunlight, and actually cools the atmosphere. However, it settles out rather quickly, a couple of years or so. The gaseous part, CO2, and other gases, stick around from decades to centuries. And they definately warm the atmosphere. Eliminate the worst of the particulate, as we have here in the US, and you still have the gaseous.

 

[Billy_Bob]

How many times we were wrong, lmao were not the ones that have been making the predictions over the past 40 years ya frickin moron.

Like hell, you stupid ass. You asses were claiming right up to 2000 that there was no warming. Then you changed you claim that it was all natural cycles. And when it was shown that you could not show the cycles, you changed it to 'the warming is good for you'. Except many thousands of people in this nation have lost their homes to fires or floods created by the predicted weather extremes this year. Why don't you just give up on your lies.

You fucking liar, let's see links...


All your nut case AGW cult failed predictions are well documented

Did you see China's having another smog emergency? They can't deny the problem.

smog is global warming????

Yup

Smog = Smoke + Water Vapor (FOG)... it is not caused by global warming... I see your in the club with Crick and Old Crock. How is the "Idiots are Us" club making out these days? Wait... Failure is easily seen!

 

[Wyatt earp]

Like hell, you stupid ass. You asses were claiming right up to 2000 that there was no warming. Then you changed you claim that it was all natural cycles. And when it was shown that you could not show the cycles, you changed it to 'the warming is good for you'. Except many thousands of people in this nation have lost their homes to fires or floods created by the predicted weather extremes this year. Why don't you just give up on your lies.

You fucking liar, let's see links...


All your nut case AGW cult failed predictions are well documented

Did you see China's having another smog emergency? They can't deny the problem.

smog is global warming????

Yup

Smog = Smoke + Water Vapor (FOG)... it is not caused by global warming... I see your in the club with Crick and Old Crock. How is the "Idiots are Us" club making out these days? Wait... Failure is easily seen!

Well at least with old rock he admitted a few months ago his end game was along the lines of Naomi Klein, he is worried about his grandkids and the AGW cult scared him to think the future is doom and gloom...