To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[Crick]

Failure? After Paris? Knowing that almost every single climate scientists on the planet accepts AGW? The only failure we're going to suffer will be the common one - that all will suffer due to the shortsighted greed and ignorance of people exactly like you.

 

[Crick]

The 1998 el Nino made that a particularly warm year. No one has ever claimed that AGW wasn't overlain onto natural trends. But the current natural trend is one of DECREASING temperatures. Many of your compatriots have claimed that all or most observed warming is due to falsified temperature data. How many deniers have rejected Karl et al 2015 as pure manipulation? All of them, including you.

Actually, yes you have. The claim is that AGW is THE ONLY cause of warming. That no matter what given a rise in CO2 the corresponding global temp increase would be, in the words of your hero's, "inexorable". They were wrong. They have been wrong for the last 18 years.

So, are you suggesting you can quote me rejecting natural variability?

 

[sealybobo]

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!

You're so dumb. Smog is caused by companies and that causes agw. Now stfu

 

[Crick]

smog
Photochemical smog is produced when sunlight reacts with nitrogen oxides and at least one volatile organic compound (VOC) in the atmosphere. Nitrogen oxides come from car exhaust, coal power plants, and factory emissions.

What Causes Smog?
Question: What Causes Smog?

Answer: Smog is produced by a set of complex photochemical reactions involving volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides and sunlight, which form ground-level ozone.

Smog-forming pollutants come from many sources such as automobile exhaust, power plants, factories and many consumer products, including paint, hairspray, charcoal starter fluid, chemical solvents, and even plastic popcorn packaging.

Smog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Smog is a type of air pollutant. The word "smog" was coined in the early 20th century as a portmanteau of the words smoke and fog to refer to smoky fog.[1] The word was then intended to refer to what was sometimes known as green soup fog, a familiar and serious problem in Mexico from the 19th century to the mid 20th century. This kind of visible air pollution is composed of nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, ozone, smoke or particulates among others (less visible pollutants include carbon monoxide, CFCs and radioactive sources). Man-made smog is derived from coal emissions, vehicular emissions, industrial emissions, forest and agricultural fires and photochemical reactions of these emissions.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Failure? After Paris? Knowing that almost every single climate scientists on the planet accepts AGW? The only failure we're going to suffer will be the common one - that all will suffer due to the shortsighted greed and ignorance of people exactly like you.

LOL!! Wow people who want $ from the USA agree in what do you call it today, is it warming or change?

 

[sealybobo]

Failure? After Paris? Knowing that almost every single climate scientists on the planet accepts AGW? The only failure we're going to suffer will be the common one - that all will suffer due to the shortsighted greed and ignorance of people exactly like you.

LOL!! Wow people who want $ from the USA agree in what do you call it today, is it warming or change?

Semantics. You guys have been hung up with Gw. Just call it man made climate change. Call it unhealthy pollution.

 

[Crick]

I was showing reason to agree with you. Smog is produced primarily by the combustion of fossil fuels.

 

[sealybobo]

I was showing reason to agree with you. Smog is produced primarily by the combustion of fossil fuels.

I ask every Gw denier if its a problem in china they can't see a foot past their noses and they all agree living like that is no good.

Go green.

 

[Old Rocks]

A problem for them, a problem for us. Over a quarter of the mercury pollution in the air in Oregon originates in China.

 

[SSDD]

AR5. There, done. Just like it was done all the years you've been repeating this already answered meme of yours.

Talking out your ass again crick? Is that the only place you can talk from? You said that people who tell you that data is somewhere and then send you out to look for it are just talking out of their asses....you going to cut and paste that experiment from AR5 and bring it here? We all know that you aren't because we all know that it isn't there.

 

[SSDD]

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.

The climate models are a very expensive experiment that have failed miserably...what they claim is not happening and every day they diverge further from observation even with constant adjustment of the models and the observed data.

 

[Crick]

I have twice now posted graphs of climate models doing a very decent job of hindcasting. The only significant (apparent) failure in recent years has been that they did not predict a pause taking place. And now we find that, in fact, they were correct and no pause did take place.

What you are obviously attempting to bluff your way around - particularly since you people love to bad mouth models - is the utter failur of ANY GCM to hindcast the last century without making use of the greenhouse effect and its enhancement due to human GHG emissions and deforestation.

You think climate models are expensive? Wait till you get the bill for moving New York, Miami and New Orleans to high ground.

 

[SSDD]

I have twice now posted graphs of climate models doing a very decent job of hindcasting. The only significant (apparent) failure in recent years has been that they did not predict a pause taking place. And now we find that, in fact, they were correct and no pause did take place.

And in typical fashion, you can't get anything from a graph...I am sure that you believe they say what you say they say but really guy...your history with graphs is comical.

 

[Crick]

I have twice now posted graphs of climate models doing a very decent job of hindcasting. The only significant (apparent) failure in recent years has been that they did not predict a pause taking place. And now we find that, in fact, they were correct and no pause did take place.

And in typical fashion, you can't get anything from a graph...I am sure that you believe they say what you say they say but really guy...your history with graphs is comical.

You believe Spencer and Christy's graph, it's the only one you've got and it's been roundly and clearly refuted as intentionally deceptive CRAP. Why don't you use your graphing expertise to explain to us why you reject these data?

I could keep going but management is going to start getting unhappy with the bandwidth this is eating. The search page has well over a hundred more of these.

What have YOU got?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I have twice now posted graphs of climate models doing a very decent job of hindcasting. The only significant (apparent) failure in recent years has been that they did not predict a pause taking place. And now we find that, in fact, they were correct and no pause did take place.

What you are obviously attempting to bluff your way around - particularly since you people love to bad mouth models - is the utter failur of ANY GCM to hindcast the last century without making use of the greenhouse effect and its enhancement due to human GHG emissions and deforestation.

You think climate models are expensive? Wait till you get the bill for moving New York, Miami and New Orleans to high ground.

Yes, once you add in a whole new data set of imaginary "warming" of the deep ocean, the pause magically disappears

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Why do the faith based AGW proclaimers insist on denying the validity of all the legitimate criticism of the AGW Faith's unsupported pet theory?

The AGW Faith Based Proclaimers who are engaged in the ongoing denial must be paranoid -- or just basically not very honest.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I have twice now posted graphs of climate models doing a very decent job of hindcasting. The only significant (apparent) failure in recent years has been that they did not predict a pause taking place. And now we find that, in fact, they were correct and no pause did take place.

And in typical fashion, you can't get anything from a graph...I am sure that you believe they say what you say they say but really guy...your history with graphs is comical.

You believe Spencer and Christy's graph, it's the only one you've got and it's been roundly and clearly refuted as intentionally deceptive CRAP. Why don't you use your graphing expertise to explain to us why you reject these data?

I could keep going but management is going to start getting unhappy with the bandwidth this is eating. The search page has well over a hundred more of these.

What have YOU got?

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/hawkins1.png

^ Observations have a pause starting 1995

That's YOUR chart of OBSERVATIONS, not models

 

[Crick]

That's YOUR chart of OBSERVATIONS, not models

CMIP = Coupled Model Intercomparison Project

Didn't you notice where the graph reads "42 different CMIP5 models"?


God are you stupid

 

[SSDD]

That's YOUR chart of OBSERVATIONS, not models

CMIP = Coupled Model Intercomparison Project

Didn't you notice where the graph reads "42 different CMIP5 models"?

And did you not read on spencer's graph where it reads 72 CPIP-5 models...clearly your graph is cherry picked...Your graph leaves off almost 60% of the available models in order to give the appearance that models are not doing so bad...typical of warmer data...put together with a preconceived notion of what it should say and any data that disagrees is out the window.

God are you stupid

God you are gullible...and stupid...and a lying sack...where is that empirical evidence that you claimed proved the most basic claim of the AGW hypothesis?

 

[Crick]

The graphs I posted were the result of feeding "GCM, hindcasting, climate models" into Google.

You have all repeatedly claimed that ALL GCMs fail. That I show any that succeed refutes you. And I have shown more total models than you've put up from Spencer. If you think I haven't quite gotten there, I can just go back to Google and get a hundred more graphs.

If you want someone to take Spencer's shite seriously, why don't you attempt to refute the points made in HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception without falling back on simply insulting its author. Show us that Spencer did NOT do what she shows us that he did. Show us that it did NOT have the effects on the comparison that she shows us it did. I'll bet money you can't do it and I'll win.