To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[CrusaderFrank]

Crick walk us through the concept of "excess heat" again

 

[Crick]

Crick walk us through the concept of "excess heat" again

No. Get an education.

 

[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.

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...

I'd say "Nice try", but it was, in fact, pathetic. You claimed AR5 had NO empirical data. You insulted me for thinking that it did. In fact, AR5 is FILLED with empirical data. What does that make you Billy Boy?

 

[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.

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

Hmm... what are our options here?

1) Billy Boy doesn't know what "empirical" evidence actually is
2) Billy Boy doesn't know what sort of data GCMs produce
3) Billy Boy hasn't actually read my post or any portion of AR5
4) Billy Boy chooses to lie
5) Billy Boy is stupid beyond belief
6) Some combination of the previous five

What'll it be Billy Boy? Nothing I listed there came from a model. Every bit of that is empirical data. Digging yourself into a deeper hole is not going to help your cause.

 

[Crick]

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

Ocean temperatures may be found in AR1, AR2, AR3 and AR4 as well Frank. Please go get an education.

 

[SSDD]

What'll it be Billy Boy? Nothing I listed there came from a model. Every bit of that is empirical data. Digging yourself into a deeper hole is not going to help your cause.

DODGE MUCH CRICK??

You claimed that there was plenty of empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would result in increased warming....you have posted plenty of red herrings....data that shows that the climate is changing....no surprise there....we already knew that the climate changes....The issue is whether man is responsible for the changing climate....Where is all that empirical evidence you claimed existed that prove that additional CO2 in the atmosphere will result in increased warming?

Ready to admit that there isn't any? Or will you keep on lying with your claims that it exists but you just can't be bothered to provide it?

 

[Crick]

You weenies REPEATEDLY said there was NO EMPIRICAL DATA in AR5. Billy Bitch thinks what I posted was model output and I presume you're stupid enough to have agreed with him.

So, eat my shorts, dickbreath.

 

[skookerasbil]

lol....."empirical" data = .3 degree's!!!

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Notice how the AGW Faith Based cultists try to marginalize the folks who utilize ACTUAL science to question the AGW Faith?

Blasphemer! Denier! Apostate!

Burn them at the stake! Ooops. Hold off on that last one. Burning the infidels might release too much carbon (a POISON) into the atmosphere.

 

[Crick]

Notice how the AGW Faith Based cultists try to marginalize the folks who utilize ACTUAL science to question the AGW Faith?

Blasphemer! Denier! Apostate!

Burn them at the stake! Ooops. Hold off on that last one. Burning the infidels might release too much carbon (a POISON) into the atmosphere.

What actual science would that be?

 

[SSDD]

You weenies REPEATEDLY said there was NO EMPIRICAL DATA in AR5. Billy Bitch thinks what I posted was model output and I presume you're stupid enough to have agreed with him.

So, eat my shorts, dickbreath.

Eat my shorts, dickbreath? What are you....in the 5th grade. Is that some futile effort to save face since it is clear that you can't provide the empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes temperature to rise that you claimed existed? How does it feel to be exposed as the lying sack that you are?

It is clear that you can't keep up with a conversation and you lie so much, you can't keep track of what you have said. Here, let me refresh your memory.

You said:

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.

To which I responded:

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?

To which you replied (bold mine)

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.

So here we are crick ham...me pointing out that you are a lying sack...and that no empirical evidence exists that proves that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes temperatures to rise. You claimed that you had posted the empirical data but, alas all you posted was a poor attempt at diverting attention to something else. Sucks to be you.

It is nice of you to concede that you hold your belief that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause temperatures to increase based on something other than hard empirical evidence...so tell me bucky...is your position based on faith or politics...or just plain old gullible stupid....or perhaps all three?

 

[SSDD]

What actual science would that be?

Its called the scientific method buckwheat...after billions upon billions have been spent, you have no empirical data to support the hypothesis that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause temperatures to rise.....no evidence...failed hypothesis...all you have left is a political movement based on some crackhead sort of faith.

 

[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!

Hmm... what are our options here?

1) Billy Boy doesn't know what "empirical" evidence actually is
2) Billy Boy doesn't know what sort of data GCMs produce
3) Billy Boy hasn't actually read my post or any portion of AR5
4) Billy Boy chooses to lie
5) Billy Boy is stupid beyond belief
6) Some combination of the previous five

What'll it be Billy Boy? Nothing I listed there came from a model. Every bit of that is empirical data. Digging yourself into a deeper hole is not going to help your cause.

Too funny:

Crick lies out his ass, claims models are empirical evidence and doesn't have a dam clue how the water cycle lays waste to the CO2 increase in our atmosphere..

I am laughing at your pure bull shit partisan crap.. Tell me again how MODEL OUTPUTS are empirical evidence.... Every one of them fail the predictive test phase.. Faith based shit pile!

 

[Crick]

Open up the link I provided and then ANY of the graphs I mentioned and show us that their data are model output.

You stupid asshole.

 

[SSDD]

Open up the link I provided and then ANY of the graphs I mentioned and show us that their data are model output.

You stupid asshole.

Still dodging I see.....maybe we should start a thread on the topic...you claiming that empirical evidence exists that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes temperatures to rise while remaining completely unable to provide even a shred of such evidence...

Why not simply publicly admit that no such empirical evidence exists and then you can move on having publicly expressed that your position is faith based.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Notice how the AGW Faith Based cultists try to marginalize the folks who utilize ACTUAL science to question the AGW Faith?

Blasphemer! Denier! Apostate!

Burn them at the stake! Ooops. Hold off on that last one. Burning the infidels might release too much carbon (a POISON) into the atmosphere.

What actual science would that be?

the kind that relies on the scientific method, not "consensus."

Denying your fraudulent claims is not blasphemy no matter how often you cry out "denier." In actual science it is actually ok to challenge an un-established mere claim.

 

[Crick]

Open up the link I provided and then ANY of the graphs I mentioned and show us that their data are model output.

You stupid asshole.

Still dodging I see.....maybe we should start a thread on the topic...you claiming that empirical evidence exists that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes temperatures to rise while remaining completely unable to provide even a shred of such evidence...

Why not simply publicly admit that no such empirical evidence exists and then you can move on having publicly expressed that your position is faith based.

You claimed - and I quoted you both doing so - that there was NO EMPIRICAL DATA IN AR5. You made no qualification. I started at the beginning and listed graphs containing empirical data. Your buddy Billy Bitch went so far as to state that the material I listed was all model output. Now you've opted to throw in this non-existent claim in a desperate attempt to avoid looking like a complete idiot but it's had the unfortunate effect of showing everyone here on top of being precisely that stupid, you're a completely amoral, unethical LIAR.

God are the two of you STUPID.

 

[SSDD]

You claimed - and I quoted you both doing so - that there was NO EMPIRICAL DATA IN AR5. You made no qualification.

I gave you the quote you lying sack....what's the matter...can't bring yourself to even admit what was asked? Here, let me refresh your memory since apparently you are so desperate that you are even lying to yourself...

You said:

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.

Clearly you are saying that people who make claims that data exists but don't post it are full of shit.

To which I said:

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?

That is me pointing out that you do the same thing which by your own admission means that you don't have shit....I go on to state precisely the claim you made to which you have never provided the evidence....SPECIFICALLY the claim that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming.

To which you said"

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.

That's you telling, yet another bald faced lie. Again, you make the claim that you have provided empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming. Then when confronted with what you claimed and asked to provide the empirical evidence that you claimed that you had posted, you then, realizing that you have made a claim that you can't possibly back up )because you know as well as I do that no such empirical data exist even though hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted on the AGW hoax) you then change gears, hoping that no one will notice and start providing observed evidence that the climate changes which was never in question. We all agree that the climate changes....especially when the planet is exiting an ice age...

So again crick....lets see the empirical data that you claim that you have posted proving that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause temperatures to increase. I find it hilarious that you have been caught up on the most basic, foundational question possible in the AGW debate...a question so important that a failure to adequately answer it...to which, if there is no actual empirical data to back up the claim, renders the rest of the argument highly questionable.

I started at the beginning and listed graphs containing empirical data.

You stated to me that you had posted "abundant" empirical data that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would cause warming. You lied....you never posted any such data because no such data exists. Again....you are a lying sack...and now you are again trying to offer up your red herring of observed data that the climate changes which does not answer the question of whether or not adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming.

You know as well as I do that evidence that the climate changes is not evidence that the change is due to more CO2 in the atmosphere....or maybe you don't know that in which case, that would make you quite STUPID wouldn't it? We already know that you are stupid enough to make a claim, in writing that you could never back up.

So lets go back to your original statement....

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

When people tell you to go look for the data that they claim exists, but don't post it, you are smart enough to know that they don't have it and are just taking out of their asses....fast forward to now....you are still talking out of your ass and lying in your typical manner because we both know that you don't have shit. You have probably looked everywhere for it but, alas, it is no where to be found....not one scrap of actual empirical evidence that proves that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming.

Now what strikes me as funny, and puts you squarely in the category clearly labeled STUPID is the fact that even when you come face to face with the reality that there isn't a single shred of empirical evidence, anywhere, that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming, you still believe it because you have been told to believe it. You aren't skeptical in the least even though you now know that no such foundational empirical data exists....the most basic question possible has not been empirically answered and you still believe. No skepticism at all...you exemplify the opposite of skepticism...and you know what that is because I already told you....the opposite of skeptical is gullible. Even when you come face to face with the fact that there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming, you remain a believer. PATHETIC.

Now you've opted to throw in this non-existent claim in a desperate attempt to avoid looking like a complete idiot but it's had the unfortunate effect of showing everyone here on top of being precisely that stupid, you're a completely amoral, unethical LIAR.

And when confronted with his lies, what does a genuine, dyed in the wool lying sack to....hell, he tells more lies. Even when your quote in which you said clearly that you have provided empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming, you claim that you never said it or that I never asked it. How does one ever get to be such a liar crick. I mean, there are liars here on this board, but you are the king of them....you have assumed the crown and are the reigning KING OF THE LIARS. Tell me your maggoty...er....majesty, how does it feel to be the biggest liar on the board?

Here, just to make sure you see your claim, let me post it again.....You said:

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.

God are the two of you STUPID.

If I am actually stupid, then how have I manipulated you to to so tidily paint yourself into a corner in which you must tell blatant lies and hurl invective like a gibbering idiot in your efforts to extricate yourself? If I am as stupid as you claim, but still am able to play you like a guitar, how abysmally stupid does that make you? Tell us crick...exactly how stupid does that make you?

Now where is that empirical data that show that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming? You claimed that you have posted it....where is it? This isn't going away. Try for once in your life to tell the truth...just admit it....there is no such empirical data...you can say it and I can't possibly think less of you for it than I do already....so just admit that there is no such empirical data and that you are a lying sack who just hoped that people would believe your lies.

 

[SSDD]

Still dodging crick? I think we need to start a separate thread on this topic and keep bumping it to the top so everyone here can see what a lying sack you are and as a bonus we get to see the other warmer wackos try to defend your obvious lie....they can all jump in and demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that there is, in fact, not a shred of empirical evidence out there that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming.

What do you think?

 

[jc456]

Still dodging crick? I think we need to start a separate thread on this topic and keep bumping it to the top so everyone here can see what a lying sack you are and as a bonus we get to see the other warmer wackos try to defend your obvious lie....they can all jump in and demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that there is, in fact, not a shred of empirical evidence out there that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming.

What do you think?

dude, I've been waiting for two years. And we all know there isn't any empirical evidence. It has never been posted, so one can only assume there isn't any. The theatrics generated by the left that it's been posted before, is a looped response of looped responses. It is their forte.