To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[flacaltenn]

What's funny is you call us deniers yet can never quite pinpoint what we're supposed to be denying. Here's a fact for you to mull over, there is not a single carbon control program that mandates a reduction in production. Not one. You merely have to pay for the privilege of polluting.

A sulfur dioxide cap-and-trade program was implemented starting in 1995. SO2 emissions are down 40% since then. Hence, it has been conclusively demonstrated that "paying for the privilege" results in reduced pollution.

Now if the reality was as dire as the claims don't you think the pushers of this bullshit would actually try and stop the "polluting" rather than merely profiting from it?

The answer is that you're pushing bullshit there by way of two big lies -- that such programs don't work, and that those pushing them are profiting from it.

However, if you're that dead set against capitalism, the socialist Europeans cut their SO2 emissions 70%, using conventional regulation by government decree. Would that socialist solution be more to your liking, given how the evil capitalist influence has been removed from it?

Retard;

SO2 was mandated to be reduced and scrubbed from US emissions over 25 years ago. They are not allowed to put it into the atmosphere moron... You cant buy that privilege in the US...

But one thing that helped get us there were the pollution trading credits. Never really fully implemented, but it's a viable concept.. The deal is --- if the program WORKS -- sometime in the future you won't need it anymore.

CO2 is not pollution.

Do you want to make to make plants starve to death and people freeze to death?

How much energy will the sun output in the year 2055? Do you have any proof? Any whatsoever?


If not, then you have just conceded the debate.

Hey.. Hold your fire. I just said that in the post before this one. Maybe you didn't understand the convo. Mammy was talking about cap and trade for CO2 and comparing that to the PREVIOUS cap and trade that was done for REAL pollutants. Like NOx and SOx and particulates. I was referring to THOSE pollution trading credits.

Is it that you guys have itchy trigger fingers?? (yup Muhammed -- that's a joke)..

 

[Wyld Kard]

To be an AGW believer is to be delusional

 

[Wyld Kard]

I'll go with them getting caught fudging the data...that's no conspiracy, that's a fact.

Who do you believe has been "fudging the data" and what is your evidence?

Google is your friend, try it and enlighten yourself

Crick won't dare do that. He's scared of finding out something different then the bullshit that he so faithfully believes in.

 

[Crick]

When people tell me to go hit Google, it tells me they haven't got shit and they're just hoping I'll find something. I want to know who YOU believe has been fudging the data and what YOU believe to the evidence. If you cannot say, then you haven't got an argument. You're simply parroting something you've heard with no comprehension on your part. So why don't you take that sassy Irish ass to YOUR friend Google and find something with which you might enlighten us all (and, obviously, that would be YOU FIRST).

 

[SSDD]

When people tell me to go hit Google, it tells me they haven't got shit and they're just hoping I'll find something..

That's like when you claim that the empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming has already been posted or that you have posted it already but when asked point blank, you can never seem to manage to provide it? Like that bucky?

Duped and a hypocrite..

 

[Crick]

I've provided it to you on multiple occasions. It goes like this: www.ipcc.ch, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis. Familiar? Everyone here knows I've given it to you and a dozen other deniers before now and they all wonder why you're not addressing the empirical evidence it provides - in abundance - that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I've provided it to you on multiple occasions. It goes like this: www.ipcc.ch, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis. Familiar? Everyone here knows I've given it to you and a dozen other deniers before now and they all wonder why you're not addressing the empirical evidence it provides - in abundance - that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming.

Not one lick of empirical evidence... just the IPCC modeling which we have clearly shown fraudulent.

NEXT FAIL!

 

[SSDD]

I've provided it to you on multiple occasions. It goes like this: www.ipcc.ch, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis. Familiar? Everyone here knows I've given it to you and a dozen other deniers before now and they all wonder why you're not addressing the empirical evidence it provides - in abundance - that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming.

There are only two possible responses to your claim..either you don't know what empirical evidence is or you are a lying sack.

If you think there is something there that constitutes empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes temperature to increase, then by all means either post it, or tell me where you believe it might be found....because I have looked at all of it and not found anything at all that someone who knows the first thing about the scientific method would construe as empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes temperature to increase....

So can you point to empirical evidence in that steaming pile or not? Answer: of course you can't.

 

[SSDD]

I've provided it to you on multiple occasions. It goes like this: www.ipcc.ch, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis. Familiar? Everyone here knows I've given it to you and a dozen other deniers before now and they all wonder why you're not addressing the empirical evidence it provides - in abundance - that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming.

Not one lick of empirical evidence... just the IPCC modeling which we have clearly shown fraudulent.

NEXT FAIL!

It would be funny if it weren't so tragic...it is like a bible thumper pointing to the King James Bible as empirical proof of whatever point he was trying to make.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I've provided it to you on multiple occasions. It goes like this: www.ipcc.ch, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis. Familiar? Everyone here knows I've given it to you and a dozen other deniers before now and they all wonder why you're not addressing the empirical evidence it provides - in abundance - that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming.

Not one lick of empirical evidence... just the IPCC modeling which we have clearly shown fraudulent.

NEXT FAIL!

It would be funny if it weren't so tragic...it is like a bible thumper pointing to the King James Bible as empirical proof of whatever point he was trying to make.

Yup that's their bible
The hockey stick graph is their crucifix
Naomi Klien is their virgin Mary
And Michael Mann is their high priest

 

[Crick]

I've provided it to you on multiple occasions. It goes like this: www.ipcc.ch, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis. Familiar? Everyone here knows I've given it to you and a dozen other deniers before now and they all wonder why you're not addressing the empirical evidence it provides - in abundance - that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming.

Not one lick of empirical evidence... just the IPCC modeling which we have clearly shown fraudulent.

NEXT FAIL!

It would be funny if it weren't so tragic...it is like a bible thumper pointing to the King James Bible as empirical proof of whatever point he was trying to make.

Yup that's their bible
The hockey stick graph is their crucifix
Naomi Klien is their virgin Mary
And Michael Mann is their high priest

If you, SID and you Billy Boy, ACTUALLY want to claim that AR5 contains no empirical data, we might be able to find some room for you at the local Utterly Deluded Arch Conservatives Lacking Facts support group.

 

[Old Rocks]

I've provided it to you on multiple occasions. It goes like this: www.ipcc.ch, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis. Familiar? Everyone here knows I've given it to you and a dozen other deniers before now and they all wonder why you're not addressing the empirical evidence it provides - in abundance - that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming.

Not one lick of empirical evidence... just the IPCC modeling which we have clearly shown fraudulent.

NEXT FAIL!

It would be funny if it weren't so tragic...it is like a bible thumper pointing to the King James Bible as empirical proof of whatever point he was trying to make.

Yup that's their bible
The hockey stick graph is their crucifix
Naomi Klien is their virgin Mary
And Michael Mann is their high priest

Sheesh. Such silly flap yap.

Go ahead and present some peer reviewed papers that show that GHGs do not absorb outgoing IR and warm the atmosphere. You cannot, because there are none. Go ahead and show us where the cryosphere for this planet is gaining ice. You cannot, because we are losing ice in a big way. Go ahead and show us that the whole of the planets surface is cooling. You cannot, because it has been rapidly warming. And show that we have not changed the CO2 from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm, the CH4 from around 800 ppb to over 1800 ppb.

You cannot, so all you do is post nonsense about 'religion'. I guess that you think that religion is a bad thing from your posts.

 

[Crick]

A few observations regarding "The Physical Science Basis", Working Group I of Assessment Report 5 for SSDD and Billy Bob, who both claim AR5 contains no empirical data.

Not one lick of empirical evidence... just the IPCC modeling which we have clearly shown fraudulent.
NEXT FAIL!

It would be funny if it weren't so tragic...it is like a bible thumper pointing to the King James Bible as empirical proof of whatever point he was trying to make.

The first section of the document is titled "A.Introduction". The second is "B. Observed Changes in the Climate System" Guess what an observed change is gentlemen? Why, it's EMPIRICAL DATA

A Find executed on either the words "observed" or "observation" max out the Find counter showing "999+ results".

By page 45, out of the 1,552 pages of the document, we find the following graphs of empirical data. This ignores what empirical data would be found in the text:

Combined land and ocean surface temperature anomaly 1850-2012
Observed change in surface temperature 1901-2012
Extreme weather and climate events
Observed changes in annual precipitation over land
Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover
Arctic summer ice extent
Change in global average upper ocean heat content
Global average sea level change
Atmospheric CO2
Surface ocean CO2 and pH
Changes in atmospheric levels of CO2, O3, CH4, CFCs, HCFCs, N2O and nitrates
Changes in global cloud cover
Temperature data for all continents individually
Ocean heat content for all oceans individually
Cumulative total anthropogenic CO2 emission from 1870

So, Billy, SID, your turn.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I've provided it to you on multiple occasions. It goes like this: www.ipcc.ch, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis. Familiar? Everyone here knows I've given it to you and a dozen other deniers before now and they all wonder why you're not addressing the empirical evidence it provides - in abundance - that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming.

Not one lick of empirical evidence... just the IPCC modeling which we have clearly shown fraudulent.

NEXT FAIL!

It would be funny if it weren't so tragic...it is like a bible thumper pointing to the King James Bible as empirical proof of whatever point he was trying to make.

Yup that's their bible
The hockey stick graph is their crucifix
Naomi Klien is their virgin Mary
And Michael Mann is their high priest

If you, SID and you Billy Boy, ACTUALLY want to claim that AR5 contains no empirical data, we might be able to find some room for you at the local Utterly Deluded Arch Conservatives Lacking Facts support group.

Too Funny;

You claim to have read AR5 and yet you cant tell what is political clap trap and what is lacking in it... Good little sheep follow the bell...

 

[Billy_Bob]

A few observations regarding "The Physical Science Basis", Working Group I of Assessment Report 5 for SSDD and Billy Bob, who both claim AR5 contains no empirical data.

Not one lick of empirical evidence... just the IPCC modeling which we have clearly shown fraudulent.
NEXT FAIL!

It would be funny if it weren't so tragic...it is like a bible thumper pointing to the King James Bible as empirical proof of whatever point he was trying to make.

The first section of the document is titled "A.Introduction". The second is "B. Observed Changes in the Climate System" Guess what an observed change is gentlemen? Why, it's EMPIRICAL DATA

A Find executed on either the words "observed" or "observation" max out the Find counter showing "999+ results".

By page 45, out of the 1,552 pages of the document, we find the following graphs of empirical data. This ignores what empirical data would be found in the text:

Combined land and ocean surface temperature anomaly 1850-2012
Observed change in surface temperature 1901-2012
Extreme weather and climate events
Observed changes in annual precipitation over land
Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover
Arctic summer ice extent
Change in global average upper ocean heat content
Global average sea level change
Atmospheric CO2
Surface ocean CO2 and pH
Changes in atmospheric levels of CO2, O3, CH4, CFCs, HCFCs, N2O and nitrates
Changes in global cloud cover
Temperature data for all continents individually
Ocean heat content for all oceans individually
Cumulative total anthropogenic CO2 emission from 1870

So, Billy, SID, your turn.

Ok Moron:
Where is the empirical evidence? All you got is MODELING OUTPUT... which IS NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND!

 

[SSDD]

A few observations regarding "The Physical Science Basis", Working Group I of Assessment Report 5 for SSDD and Billy Bob, who both claim AR5 contains no empirical data.

Not one lick of empirical evidence... just the IPCC modeling which we have clearly shown fraudulent.
NEXT FAIL!

It would be funny if it weren't so tragic...it is like a bible thumper pointing to the King James Bible as empirical proof of whatever point he was trying to make.

The first section of the document is titled "A.Introduction". The second is "B. Observed Changes in the Climate System" Guess what an observed change is gentlemen? Why, it's EMPIRICAL DATA

A Find executed on either the words "observed" or "observation" max out the Find counter showing "999+ results".

By page 45, out of the 1,552 pages of the document, we find the following graphs of empirical data. This ignores what empirical data would be found in the text:

Combined land and ocean surface temperature anomaly 1850-2012
Observed change in surface temperature 1901-2012
Extreme weather and climate events
Observed changes in annual precipitation over land
Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover
Arctic summer ice extent
Change in global average upper ocean heat content
Global average sea level change
Atmospheric CO2
Surface ocean CO2 and pH
Changes in atmospheric levels of CO2, O3, CH4, CFCs, HCFCs, N2O and nitrates
Changes in global cloud cover
Temperature data for all continents individually
Ocean heat content for all oceans individually
Cumulative total anthropogenic CO2 emission from 1870

So, Billy, SID, your turn.

Poor little dupe....the fact that the climate changes was never in question..the temperature is always going up or down or hesitating in preparation for going up or down. Is the fact that the climate changes a sufficient red herring to fool you?

Where in that steaming pile is empirical evidence....not that the climate is changing but that increasing the atmospheric CO2 will cause temperatures to increase. I wouldn't have even asked for the empirical data that increasing atmospheric CO2 would cause increased temperatures if I didn't know that no such data existed....if it did, then my position as a skeptic would be different....since no such data exists, my position as a skeptic continues and your position as a dupe remains unassailed as well. Congratulations.

 

[SSDD]

Ok Moron:
Where is the empirical evidence? All you got is MODELING OUTPUT... which IS NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND!

Not only that but the only evidence he has is that the climate is changing....no surprise there...apparently he believes that evidence of a changing climate is empirical evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes temperature to increase. Either he really doesn't have a clue and is a world class dupe or he is a lying sack deliberately trying to misdirect the original challenge by providing a red herring which doesn't even begin to answer the original challenge.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A few observations regarding "The Physical Science Basis", Working Group I of Assessment Report 5 for SSDD and Billy Bob, who both claim AR5 contains no empirical data.

Not one lick of empirical evidence... just the IPCC modeling which we have clearly shown fraudulent.
NEXT FAIL!

It would be funny if it weren't so tragic...it is like a bible thumper pointing to the King James Bible as empirical proof of whatever point he was trying to make.

The first section of the document is titled "A.Introduction". The second is "B. Observed Changes in the Climate System" Guess what an observed change is gentlemen? Why, it's EMPIRICAL DATA

A Find executed on either the words "observed" or "observation" max out the Find counter showing "999+ results".

By page 45, out of the 1,552 pages of the document, we find the following graphs of empirical data. This ignores what empirical data would be found in the text:

Combined land and ocean surface temperature anomaly 1850-2012
Observed change in surface temperature 1901-2012
Extreme weather and climate events
Observed changes in annual precipitation over land
Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover
Arctic summer ice extent
Change in global average upper ocean heat content
Global average sea level change
Atmospheric CO2
Surface ocean CO2 and pH
Changes in atmospheric levels of CO2, O3, CH4, CFCs, HCFCs, N2O and nitrates
Changes in global cloud cover
Temperature data for all continents individually
Ocean heat content for all oceans individually
Cumulative total anthropogenic CO2 emission from 1870

So, Billy, SID, your turn.

And we know those data sets from the 1850 - 1900 were accurate to the tenth of a degree

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I've provided it to you on multiple occasions. It goes like this: www.ipcc.ch, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis. Familiar? Everyone here knows I've given it to you and a dozen other deniers before now and they all wonder why you're not addressing the empirical evidence it provides - in abundance - that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming.

Not one lick of empirical evidence... just the IPCC modeling which we have clearly shown fraudulent.

NEXT FAIL!

It would be funny if it weren't so tragic...it is like a bible thumper pointing to the King James Bible as empirical proof of whatever point he was trying to make.

Yup that's their bible
The hockey stick graph is their crucifix
Naomi Klien is their virgin Mary
And Michael Mann is their high priest

If you, SID and you Billy Boy, ACTUALLY want to claim that AR5 contains no empirical data, we might be able to find some room for you at the local Utterly Deluded Arch Conservatives Lacking Facts support group.

Too Funny;

You claim to have read AR5 and yet you cant tell what is political clap trap and what is lacking in it... Good little sheep follow the bell...

Crick never read AR5 which would explain why he was totally ignorant of and dismissing of the concept of "excess heat" which was the basis of adding ocean temps to AR5

 

[Billy_Bob]

A few observations regarding "The Physical Science Basis", Working Group I of Assessment Report 5 for SSDD and Billy Bob, who both claim AR5 contains no empirical data.

Not one lick of empirical evidence... just the IPCC modeling which we have clearly shown fraudulent.
NEXT FAIL!

It would be funny if it weren't so tragic...it is like a bible thumper pointing to the King James Bible as empirical proof of whatever point he was trying to make.

The first section of the document is titled "A.Introduction". The second is "B. Observed Changes in the Climate System" Guess what an observed change is gentlemen? Why, it's EMPIRICAL DATA

A Find executed on either the words "observed" or "observation" max out the Find counter showing "999+ results".

By page 45, out of the 1,552 pages of the document, we find the following graphs of empirical data. This ignores what empirical data would be found in the text:

Combined land and ocean surface temperature anomaly 1850-2012
Observed change in surface temperature 1901-2012
Extreme weather and climate events
Observed changes in annual precipitation over land
Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover
Arctic summer ice extent
Change in global average upper ocean heat content
Global average sea level change
Atmospheric CO2
Surface ocean CO2 and pH
Changes in atmospheric levels of CO2, O3, CH4, CFCs, HCFCs, N2O and nitrates
Changes in global cloud cover
Temperature data for all continents individually
Ocean heat content for all oceans individually
Cumulative total anthropogenic CO2 emission from 1870

So, Billy, SID, your turn.

And we know those data sets from the 1850 - 1900 were accurate to the tenth of a degree

I though he claimed they were accurate to 100th of a degree...