We will never convince the deniers.

[SSDD]

Do you know what an interglacial cycle is, Einstein?

Absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

Are you saying that glacial cycles have nothing to do with climate?

You're off topic.

Natural causes of warming are not off topic in a thread about climate deniers.

In fact, you are literally proving that YOU are a climate denier by denying known naturally caused climate change events.

That's some twisted reasoning there. The topic is you, the denier. Not the climate. That is no longer up for debate.

In order to support your claim that we skeptics are "deniers" you first must provide some observed, measured evidence to support the claims that, according to you, we are denying. Got any? Didn't think so....ergo the skepticism...

 

[SSDD]

Almost every molecule of atmospheric CO2 above that present at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution can be shown to have originated from the combustion of fossil fuel. Thus all warming that has resulted from that increase is man made. Simple enough?

Absolute bullshit...but I would like to see what fooled you into thinking that absolutely ridiculous claim is supportable...

 

[SSDD]

Are you saying that glacial cycles have nothing to do with climate?

You're off topic.

Natural causes of warming are not off topic in a thread about climate deniers.

In fact, you are literally proving that YOU are a climate denier by denying known naturally caused climate change events.

That's some twisted reasoning there. The topic is you, the denier. Not the climate. That is no longer up for debate.

Science is always up for debate. Science is never settled. YOU sound like a science denier.

And yes, the debate is about climate and you have just proven yourself a denier of natural causes of climate change. How on earth did earth’s climate ever change before man got here.

Nope.

Discuss the topic, climate deniers and their gullibility, or go to one of the 15 or so thread started during the cold snap last week.

Still waiting for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....or a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...or a single published paper in which the hypothetical warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

Got a single piece of observed, measured evidence to satisfy any of those requests? If you can't provide any...and we both know that you can't, then the charge of gullibility belongs to you...believing pseudoscience without any actual evidence? What sort of goober does that?

 

[SSDD]

Science is always up for debate. Science is never settled. YOU sound like a science denier.

And yes, the debate is about climate and you have just proven yourself a denier of natural causes of climate change. How on earth did earth’s climate ever change before man got here.

Nope.

Discuss the topic, climate deniers and their gullibility, or go to one of the 15 or so thread started during the cold snap last week.

The only climate denier I see here is you. You deny natural causes for climate change.

Lol, please quote me denying the canned natural causes of climate change as well.

You can't, because I haven't.

You are the denier. You are a tool of the oil and coal industry, a patsy for every polluter who doesn't want to stop because it will affect his bottom line, and the murderer of your own children and grandchildren.

You and your kind are worse than useless, you are an actual drag on society, working to prevent actions necessary to save our planet.

Let’s test that. How much of the warming over the last 200 years is attributable to natural causes?

I've told you several times, that's not what this discussion is about. We are discussing the silly people who continue to deny AGW is real.

Every time you dodge...you expose how vast your ignorance of the topic is...we all know that you have no informed opinion of your own...all you have is the opinion someone with a political agenda gave you...and unfortunately, they gave you nothing to back it up with...which leaves you doing the shuck and jive when asked to support your claims...you should get another source for your opinion...the one you have is unsupportable...unless you believe dodging and logical fallacy are actual support.

 

[SSDD]

Ian, you accept greenhouse warming. So why are you putting up arguments that sound as if you do not?

Does your model hindmost the little ice age and the medieval warm period or not? And going further back, does it hind cast the roman warm period?...the minoan warm period...how about the holocene optimum..does it hind cast that? If it can't accurately portray the past, how exactly can it be trusted to predict the future?

 

[SSDD]

We will never convince the deniers. Giant world wide conspiracy theories are fun and exciting to think about. Slowly changing climates, where the action happens over years or even decades, just can't compete with that for entertainment value.
Then there is the feeling of belonging these socially handicapped tRumpkins get from high-fiving each other every time they think they've scored some sort of point. For instance the 2 dozen or so threads that were started about the polar vortex disruptions last week.

And finally there's the way these things are presented to them, as if they are some kinda privileged information that only a chosen few get to know. It makes them feel (falsely) superior to everyone else, even if only for a few minutes, and that can be a powerful thing if you suffer from low self esteem like the vast majority of these nut-bars do.

Your language is that of a RELIGIOUS ZEALOT. You're entitled to your FAITH. Science, however, doesn't back it up.

That's funny, tell us another one.

What is funny is watching you fail to support your claim...the tactic you are using...and apparently believe is being successful, reminds me very much of the arguments my 8 year old grandson uses to support his unfortunate actions...do you believe that you are fooling anyone into believing that you have an actual informed opinion of your own?

 

[SSDD]

The only climate denier I see here is you. You deny natural causes for climate change.

Lol, please quote me denying the canned natural causes of climate change as well.

You can't, because I haven't.

You are the denier. You are a tool of the oil and coal industry, a patsy for every polluter who doesn't want to stop because it will affect his bottom line, and the murderer of your own children and grandchildren.

You and your kind are worse than useless, you are an actual drag on society, working to prevent actions necessary to save our planet.

Let’s test that. How much of the warming over the last 200 years is attributable to natural causes?

I've told you several times, that's not what this discussion is about. We are discussing the silly people who continue to deny AGW is real.

And you are one of them because you are denying natural causes as a driver to climate change.

Here is the most accurate approximation of what is causing global warming. You will note that it contains several "natural" causes.

A failed model is the most accurate explanation you can manage...got any actual observed, measured evidence to support any of the claims represented in that graph? Any at all? Didn't think so....but being a pretty graph, with colors and all, I guess it is good enough to fool you...isn't it skidmark?

 

[SSDD]

I assume you realize that is the radiative forcing factors diagram from the IPCC's AR5. It contains all known factors affecting global temperatures. The net sum of all those factors is a strong warming and the largest factor is greenhouse warming from CO2. I was only making the point that the IPCC and mainstream science, who have concluded that CO2 is the dominant factor, have not been ignoring other forcing factors.

It is the output of a failed model...nothing more...there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support any of it.

 

[SSDD]

No. I blew it down the stretch and came in second in the golf tourney I was in.

I blame global warming.

Typical. Can't even follow simple instructions.

If there had been less CO2 in the atmosphere the tree I didn’t clear wouldn’t have been as tall and I would have won the tournament.

Did you ever say what you did for a living that would qualify you to be able to discuss scientific issues?

Minimum wage, right?

You kids wouldn't believe me if I told you.

Not a kid, bro. And you dodge like a minimum wager. So on what level do you think it makes sense that a practicing engineer of 35 years should take advice on scientific issues from a minininum wager who denies the natural causes of climate change?

Kid, nobody with any real education doubts AGW.

Without a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. or a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere....or a single published paper in which the hypothetical warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses, exactly how could anyone with a real education believe in AGW?

Without any observed, measured evidence, only dupes could be tricked into believing...

 

[SSDD]

Typical. Can't even follow simple instructions.

If there had been less CO2 in the atmosphere the tree I didn’t clear wouldn’t have been as tall and I would have won the tournament.

Did you ever say what you did for a living that would qualify you to be able to discuss scientific issues?

Minimum wage, right?

You kids wouldn't believe me if I told you.

Not a kid, bro. And you dodge like a minimum wager. So on what level do you think it makes sense that a practicing engineer of 35 years should take advice on scientific issues from a minininum wager who denies the natural causes of climate change?

Who's the source of the quote in your signature?

That's not a quote, it's a hypocritical rant.

Exactly which part do you believe to be false?...do provide some support for your reasoning.

 

[Crick]

I assume you realize that is the radiative forcing factors diagram from the IPCC's AR5. It contains all known factors affecting global temperatures. The net sum of all those factors is a strong warming and the largest factor is greenhouse warming from CO2. I was only making the point that the IPCC and mainstream science, who have concluded that CO2 is the dominant factor, have not been ignoring other forcing factors.

It is the output of a failed model...nothing more...there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support any of it.

You lie. It is NOT the output of a model. It is based on empirical measurements and calculations.

 

[Conservative65]

How many trillions do we need to waste...err...invest in windmills, to make sure the climate never ever changes?

Lefties are for the spending until it comes to where they live.

Kennedy tries to halt windmills

After years of back and forth, the project died.

 

[Crepitus]

We will never convince the deniers. Giant world wide conspiracy theories are fun and exciting to think about. Slowly changing climates, where the action happens over years or even decades, just can't compete with that for entertainment value.
Then there is the feeling of belonging these socially handicapped tRumpkins get from high-fiving each other every time they think they've scored some sort of point. For instance the 2 dozen or so threads that were started about the polar vortex disruptions last week.

And finally there's the way these things are presented to them, as if they are some kinda privileged information that only a chosen few get to know. It makes them feel (falsely) superior to everyone else, even if only for a few minutes, and that can be a powerful thing if you suffer from low self esteem like the vast majority of these nut-bars do.

Do you know what an interglacial cycle is, Einstein?

Absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

Are you saying that glacial cycles have nothing to do with climate?

You're off topic.

And you can't support your position...

My position in this thread is that there are many reasons the deniers will never be convinced no matter how solid the evidence.

That's the topic, discuss it or join one of the many denier threads started during the cold snap.

 

[TNHarley]

Do you know what an interglacial cycle is, Einstein?

Absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

Are you saying that glacial cycles have nothing to do with climate?

You're off topic.

And you can't support your position...

My position in this thread is that there are many reasons the deniers will never be convinced no matter how solid the evidence.

That's the topic, discuss it or join one of the many denier threads started during the cold snap.

We need to agree on what "solid" means. Then you will need to present said "solid evidence."
Go

 

[Mindful]

Do you know what an interglacial cycle is, Einstein?

Absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

Are you saying that glacial cycles have nothing to do with climate?

You're off topic.

And you can't support your position...

My position in this thread is that there are many reasons the deniers will never be convinced no matter how solid the evidence.

That's the topic, discuss it or join one of the many denier threads started during the cold snap.

The deniers?

What's to deny?

 

[danielpalos]

that's right chics; what's to deny.

 

[SSDD]

I assume you realize that is the radiative forcing factors diagram from the IPCC's AR5. It contains all known factors affecting global temperatures. The net sum of all those factors is a strong warming and the largest factor is greenhouse warming from CO2. I was only making the point that the IPCC and mainstream science, who have concluded that CO2 is the dominant factor, have not been ignoring other forcing factors.

It is the output of a failed model...nothing more...there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support any of it.

You lie. It is NOT the output of a model. It is based on empirical measurements and calculations.

Sorry..but it isn't...Since there is no observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of a gas and warming in the atmosphere..and the fact that there is no published paper in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses, the only place that steaming pile could have come from is a model...

By the way...your bullshit model claims 2.25 radiative forcing with a margin of error of 2.5...what bullshit..but it is good enough to fool you...right?

 

[SSDD]

Do you know what an interglacial cycle is, Einstein?

Absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

Are you saying that glacial cycles have nothing to do with climate?

You're off topic.

And you can't support your position...

My position in this thread is that there are many reasons the deniers will never be convinced no matter how solid the evidence.

That's the topic, discuss it or join one of the many denier threads started during the cold snap.

I see no position in this thread...other than some impotent mewling name calling...is that your position?

And you keep claiming solid evidence....but don't seem to be able to produce the first bit of actual observed, measured evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...how do you expect to convince anyone capable of critical thinking with no evidence? You think your faith is sufficient to convince people who can actually think for themselves?

 

[Crepitus]

Absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

Are you saying that glacial cycles have nothing to do with climate?

You're off topic.

And you can't support your position...

My position in this thread is that there are many reasons the deniers will never be convinced no matter how solid the evidence.

That's the topic, discuss it or join one of the many denier threads started during the cold snap.

I see no position in this thread...other than some impotent mewling name calling...is that your position?

And you keep claiming solid evidence....but don't seem to be able to produce the first bit of actual observed, measured evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...how do you expect to convince anyone capable of critical thinking with no evidence? You think your faith is sufficient to convince people who can actually think for themselves?

That's because you are either ignoring or unable to understand what the OP is about.

 

[Wuwei]

My position in this thread is that there are many reasons the deniers will never be convinced no matter how solid the evidence.

That's the topic, discuss it or join one of the many denier threads started during the cold snap.

SSDD is a perfect paragon of the stodgy bias in your OP. He is obsessed with his phrase, "no observed, measured evidence " and uses it hundreds of times if not thousands. He even uses that phrase to say that the most important discoveries in thermodynamics believed by scientists and in text books are false. He uses that phrase to demonstrate he does not believe in quantum mechanics! He uses that phrase to deny physics as understood now and for over a hundred years in the past. Many of his friends, or minions believe the same thing. In light of the failure to believe in fundamental mathematics of physics, it is no wonder that nobody will never convince the deniers.

.