We will never convince the deniers.

[SSDD]

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.

The OP is about you being unable to convince skeptics to jump on the AGW bandwagon...You wonder why. We skeptics wonder how stupid you must be to have ever jumped on considering that there is no observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and no observed measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...NOR IS THERE A SINGLE PUBLISHED PAPER IN WHICH THE CLAIMED WARMING DUE TO MANKIND'S ACTIVITIES HAS BEEN EMPIRICALLY MEASURED, QUANTIFIED AND ASCRIBED TO SO CALLED GREENHOUSE GASSES...

That being the case, exactly what ever gave you the idea that you could convince anyone with any critical thinking skills whatsoever to join you in your faith...because lacking observed, measured evidence, all you have is faith.

 

[danielpalos]

some women are welcome to, "fool me a thousand times".

 

[mamooth]

And it's Spencer's baseline fudging fraud again.

Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception | HotWhopper

As one of my points is that all you have is various fraudulent conspiracy theories, posting one of those fraudulent conspiracy theories was probably not your best choice of action.

Nice attempt at obscuring the facts. Here's the real situation with model accuracy. 95% of them are dead wrong:

 

[SSDD]

Wow hairball.....if hotwhooper's analysis is correct, then only 97.8% of the models are wrong rather than 98%...congratulations for "maybe" setting the record straight...Where should we send your cookie?

 

[danielpalos]

dear women,

only allowers should convince me not deniers.

 

[Crick]

Wow hairball.....if hotwhooper's analysis is correct, then only 97.8% of the models are wrong rather than 98%...congratulations for "maybe" setting the record straight...Where should we send your cookie?

You need to work on your reading skills.

 

[SSDD]

Wow hairball.....if hotwhooper's analysis is correct, then only 97.8% of the models are wrong rather than 98%...congratulations for "maybe" setting the record straight...Where should we send your cookie?

You need to work on your reading skills.

I read just fine...you, on the other hand have no idea what charts mean....

 

[Crick]

That chart is the actual performance of CMIP5 and CMIP3 GCMs against GISTEMP. Your 97.8% figure was nothing but anally-derived bullshit.

 

[SSDD]

That chart is the actual performance of CMIP5 and CMIP3 GCMs against GISTEMP. Your 97.8% figure was nothing but anally-derived bullshit.

I am sure that in your easily fooled mind, that is true....out here in the real world, however, it is just another climate science modeling failure.

 

[Crick]

You've got nothing but your lies to sell. That, of course, is what happens when you are as wrong as wrong can be. Your decision to reject the greenhouse effect with an absolute nonsense interpretation of the SLT has taken you down a road that - no matter which way you turn - leads to a dead end.

 

[danielpalos]

...deny, deny, deny, is what always gives you away.

 

[SSDD]

You've got nothing but your lies to sell. That, of course, is what happens when you are as wrong as wrong can be. Your decision to reject the greenhouse effect with an absolute nonsense interpretation of the SLT has taken you down a road that - no matter which way you turn - leads to a dead end.

To date....no paper has been published in which the hypothetical warming caused by human activity has been empirically measured, quantified and attributed to so called greenhouse gasses...you got nothing skid mark except pseudoscience which is sufficient to fool you...and the bar on what fools you is set pretty damned low.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And your stupid computer models could never ever be predictive -oh wait, they never ever have been- and you warmer moonbats would still walk the streets with sandwich boards.

Yeah yeah. As though you've even looked to compare observed temperatures with predicted ranges.

Updated version of IPCC AR5 Figure 11.25a, showing observations and the CMIP5 model projections relative to 1986-2005. The black lines represent observational datasets (HadCRUT4.5, Cowtan & Way, NASA GISTEMP, NOAA GlobalTemp, BEST).
Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

I love this fabrication.. Where there is no predictive phase noted. The only thing shown is the retrained model to match the fabricated climate data..

This is what the real data looks like with your failed modeling...

This is what happens when the real observed data is used in correlation with your failed modeling... You folks are pathetic liars!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And your stupid computer models could never ever be predictive -oh wait, they never ever have been- and you warmer moonbats would still walk the streets with sandwich boards.

Yeah yeah. As though you've even looked to compare observed temperatures with predicted ranges.

Updated version of IPCC AR5 Figure 11.25a, showing observations and the CMIP5 model projections relative to 1986-2005. The black lines represent observational datasets (HadCRUT4.5, Cowtan & Way, NASA GISTEMP, NOAA GlobalTemp, BEST).
Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

I love this fabrication.. Where there is no predictive phase noted. The only thing shown is the retrained model to match the fabricated climate data..

This is what the real data looks like with your failed modeling...
View attachment 245665 This is what happens when the real observed data is used in correlation with your failed modeling... You folks are pathetic liars!

Billy, still looking for your "photons have mass and are magnetic" backup? LOL!

 

[Billy_Bob]

And your stupid computer models could never ever be predictive -oh wait, they never ever have been- and you warmer moonbats would still walk the streets with sandwich boards.

Yeah yeah. As though you've even looked to compare observed temperatures with predicted ranges.

Updated version of IPCC AR5 Figure 11.25a, showing observations and the CMIP5 model projections relative to 1986-2005. The black lines represent observational datasets (HadCRUT4.5, Cowtan & Way, NASA GISTEMP, NOAA GlobalTemp, BEST).
Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

I love this fabrication.. Where there is no predictive phase noted. The only thing shown is the retrained model to match the fabricated climate data..

This is what the real data looks like with your failed modeling...
View attachment 245665 This is what happens when the real observed data is used in correlation with your failed modeling... You folks are pathetic liars!

Billy, still looking for your "photons have mass and are magnetic" backup? LOL!

Waiting for you to disprove the attraction of molecules to one another... Its should be a simple thing for you... Come on and disprove it! You have already been shown that it exists... Ball is in your court...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And your stupid computer models could never ever be predictive -oh wait, they never ever have been- and you warmer moonbats would still walk the streets with sandwich boards.

Yeah yeah. As though you've even looked to compare observed temperatures with predicted ranges.

Updated version of IPCC AR5 Figure 11.25a, showing observations and the CMIP5 model projections relative to 1986-2005. The black lines represent observational datasets (HadCRUT4.5, Cowtan & Way, NASA GISTEMP, NOAA GlobalTemp, BEST).
Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

I love this fabrication.. Where there is no predictive phase noted. The only thing shown is the retrained model to match the fabricated climate data..

This is what the real data looks like with your failed modeling...
View attachment 245665 This is what happens when the real observed data is used in correlation with your failed modeling... You folks are pathetic liars!

Billy, still looking for your "photons have mass and are magnetic" backup? LOL!

Waiting for you to disprove the attraction of molecules to one another... Its should be a simple thing for you... Come on and disprove it! You have already been shown that it exists... Ball is in your court...

Waiting for you to disprove the attraction of molecules to one another..

Does that have anything to do with your moronic claims?

Its should be a simple thing for you... Come on and disprove it!

Nice strawman!

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Yup you will never convince us the climate never has changed before.


.

 

[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.

Yup you will never convince us the climate never has changed before.


.

Why would anyone want to convince you of that?

 

[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.

Yup you will never convince us the climate never has changed before.


.

Why would anyone want to convince you of that?

Considering the fact that you don't want to speak on the topic...it would seem that you want to convince people of that...how do you suppose the change we have seen is different from natural variability?

 

[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.

Yup you will never convince us the climate never has changed before.


.

Why would anyone want to convince you of that?

Considering the fact that you don't want to speak on the topic...it would seem that you want to convince people of that...how do you suppose the change we have seen is different from natural variability?

No, you don't want to speak on the topic, which is not climate change but the denier's reaction to it. There are any number of threads where you can take your silly pseudo-science denials and demands for ever more proof. That isn't the topic here. You are.