What the science says

[Procrustes Stretched]

Alan T. Jeffers, a company spokesman, said last week that Exxon Mobil welcomed a dialogue with shareholders.


“We want them to understand that we see the issue of climate change,we see the risks of climate change and take them seriously, and we are working hard on lower emissions technology,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/s...e-as-climate-shifts-along-with-attitudes.html

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A few weeks before seminal climate change talks in Kyoto back in 1997, Mobil Oil took out a bluntly worded advertisement in the New York Times and Washington Post.

“Let’s face it: The science of climate change is too uncertain to mandate a plan of action that could plunge economies into turmoil,” the ad said. “Scientists cannot predict with certainty if temperatures will increase, by how much and where changes will occur.”

One year earlier, though, engineers at Mobil Oil were concerned enough about climate change to design and build a collection of exploration and production facilities along the Nova Scotia coast that made structural allowances for rising temperatures and sea levels.

“An estimated rise in water level, due to global warming, of 0.5 meters may be assumed” for the 25-year life of the Sable gas field project, Mobil engineers wrote in their design specifications. The project, owned jointly by Mobil, Shell and Imperial Oil (a Canadian subsidiary of Exxon), went online in 1999; it is expected to close in 2017.

http://graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations/

 

[SSDD]

Then us explicitly what a dupe I've been. Show us causation without correlation.

The fact that you believe is prima facia evidence that you have been duped.

And try to keep in mind - as Westwall apparently can not - that the case crediting CO2 with warming is a great deal more than simple correlation.

Really?...then why, when asked explicitly for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions, could you not produce it? And rather than claiming that you already posted it, to which I will ask you to simply post it here, to which you will not be able to comply, why not skip the bullshit and simply admit that there isn't any...not the first bit.

And, to get back to basics, if the lot of you believe that CO2 is NOT responsible, what is?['/quote]

Already been through it...the gravito thermal atmospheric effect, which accurately predicts the temperature on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even predict the temperature here without a fudge factor...

And to get back to insanity, if the lot of you believe the world has NOT been getting warmer what is the source of the mountains of data from all over the world for many years now showing that it is?

Highly massaged data...nothing more nothing less...the satellites don't show warming and the satellites track nicely with the actual measurement by radiosondes....

And if anyone suggests a conspiracy, I will take that to mean you have nothing and have completely given up your side of the argument.

It isn't a conspiracy because the fraud is right out in the open...the mainstream data sets show that the US has been warming right along with the rest of the world at the same rate while the CRN network...state of the art, triple redundant, and so pristinely placed that it does not require adjustment says that the continental US has been cooling at the same time the mainstream networks show warming in the continental US....they are obviously massaging the data to show warming...and they are doing it for money.

]

 

[skookerasbil]

“Let’s face it: The science of climate change is too uncertain to mandate a plan of action that could plunge economies into turmoil,” the ad said. “Scientists cannot predict with certainty if temperatures will increase, by how much and where changes will occur.”

No truer words were ever spoken s0ns........and it would appear that the policy wonks concur!!

So...........who's not winning?



Indeed.....what we have in here s0ns is this massive group navel contemplation session on the science........going on for years in here btw!! For all the "97% consensus" ......shrieking in angst, what exactly has changed in the real world?

 

[jc456]

Then us explicitly what a dupe I've been. Show us causation without correlation.

And try to keep in mind - as Westwall apparently can not - that the case crediting CO2 with warming is a great deal more than simple correlation.

And, to get back to basics, if the lot of you believe that CO2 is NOT responsible, what is?

And to get back to insanity, if the lot of you believe the world has NOT been getting warmer what is the source of the mountains of data from all over the world for many years now showing that it is?

And if anyone suggests a conspiracy, I will take that to mean you have nothing and have completely given up your side of the argument.

I find it amusing to hear you attempt to denigrate what thousands of scientists consider to be good science. You must be one smart motherfucker. Or really, really stupid.

And, to get back to basics, if the lot of you believe that CO2 is NOT responsible, what is?

for what? What is it you are referring to?


I find it amusing to hear you attempt to denigrate what thousands of scientists consider to be good science. You must be one smart motherfucker. Or really, really stupid

There's that thousand's number again, let's see the list crick. you fail to post every time you post this nonsense. But thanks for playing today.

 

[Crick]

Then [show] us explicitly what a dupe I've been. Show us causation without correlation.

The fact that you believe is prima facia evidence that you have been duped.

So, you have no examples of causation without correlation but you're embarrassed to admit it. That's what I thought. So, having correlation IS evidence of causation, simply not proof. But, of course, this is the natural sciences. I wasn't wasting my time looking for proof.

And try to keep in mind - as Westwall apparently can not - that the case crediting CO2 with warming is a great deal more than simple correlation.

Really?...then why, when asked explicitly for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions, could you not produce it? And rather than claiming that you already posted it, to which I will ask you to simply post it here, to which you will not be able to comply, why not skip the bullshit and simply admit that there isn't any...not the first bit.

IPCC's AR5, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis: Over a thousand pages of "observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions".

And, to get back to basics, if the lot of you believe that CO2 is NOT responsible, what is?

Already been through it...the gravito thermal atmospheric effect, which accurately predicts the temperature on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even predict the temperature here without a fudge factor...

The "gravito thermal" effect. That would be impressively science-like... if I were a third-grader watching Captain Fantastic.

From the Gravito Thermal Effect discussion at JudithCurry.com

David Springer

"Absolutely amazing that Coombs and Laue only got two citations since 1985, over 30 years for a paper that “proves” a controversy about gravity acting at the quantum scale that’s never been proven since proposed since 19th century golden age of physics. We still don’t to THIS day have a theory of quantum gravity. Amazing that such definitive abstract “proof” can be asserted about an imaginary physical system that doesn’t actually occur in nature."

and

Pierre Normand

"The models don’t eliminate entropy. They maximize it. All defenders of the gravito-thermal effect have taken it to apply to an ideal gas in thermodynamic equilibrium. It’s not my assumptions that the system is under equilibrium or that the effect applies to an ideal gas. It’s their’s. They don’t argue that it’s a real effect that stems from deviations from ideality. There is one person in the world (that I am aware of) who claims that the gravito-thermal effect only is exhibited in a real atmosphere that doesn’t satisfy those assumptions, and that’s you. But your theory isn’t well worked out yet. Indeed, everyone of your posts so far seems to have express a completely different ad hoc ‘non-ideal’ theory."

The Gravito Thermal effect is crap.

And to get back to insanity, if the lot of you believe the world has NOT been getting warmer what is the source of the mountains of data from all over the world for many years now showing that it is?

Highly massaged data...nothing more nothing less...the satellites don't show warming and the satellites track nicely with the actual measurement by radiosondes....

So, a perfect global conspiracy.

And if anyone suggests a conspiracy, I will take that to mean you have nothing and have completely given up your side of the argument.

It isn't a conspiracy because the fraud is right out in the open...the mainstream data sets show that the US has been warming right along with the rest of the world at the same rate while the CRN network...state of the art, triple redundant, and so pristinely placed that it does not require adjustment says that the continental US has been cooling at the same time the mainstream networks show warming in the continental US....they are obviously massaging the data to show warming...and they are doing it for money.

You tell us they are all knowingly telling the same lie. That's a conspiracy. You're an idiot to even consider the possibility. But then, we already knew that, didn't we. You have no argument to make and have given up.

 

[jc456]

Then [show] us explicitly what a dupe I've been. Show us causation without correlation.

The fact that you believe is prima facia evidence that you have been duped.

So, you have no examples of causation without correlation but you're embarrassed to admit it. That's what I thought. So, having correlation IS evidence of causation, simply not proof. But, of course, this is the natural sciences. I wasn't wasting my time looking for proof.

And try to keep in mind - as Westwall apparently can not - that the case crediting CO2 with warming is a great deal more than simple correlation.

Really?...then why, when asked explicitly for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions, could you not produce it? And rather than claiming that you already posted it, to which I will ask you to simply post it here, to which you will not be able to comply, why not skip the bullshit and simply admit that there isn't any...not the first bit.

IPCC's AR5, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis: Over a thousand pages of "observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions".

And, to get back to basics, if the lot of you believe that CO2 is NOT responsible, what is?

Already been through it...the gravito thermal atmospheric effect, which accurately predicts the temperature on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even predict the temperature here without a fudge factor...

The "gravito thermal" effect. That would be impressively science-like... if I were a third-grader watching Captain Fantastic.

From the Gravito Thermal Effect discussion at JudithCurry.com

David Springer

"Absolutely amazing that Coombs and Laue only got two citations since 1985, over 30 years for a paper that “proves” a controversy about gravity acting at the quantum scale that’s never been proven since proposed since 19th century golden age of physics. We still don’t to THIS day have a theory of quantum gravity. Amazing that such definitive abstract “proof” can be asserted about an imaginary physical system that doesn’t actually occur in nature."

and

Pierre Normand

"The models don’t eliminate entropy. They maximize it. All defenders of the gravito-thermal effect have taken it to apply to an ideal gas in thermodynamic equilibrium. It’s not my assumptions that the system is under equilibrium or that the effect applies to an ideal gas. It’s their’s. They don’t argue that it’s a real effect that stems from deviations from ideality. There is one person in the world (that I am aware of) who claims that the gravito-thermal effect only is exhibited in a real atmosphere that doesn’t satisfy those assumptions, and that’s you. But your theory isn’t well worked out yet. Indeed, everyone of your posts so far seems to have express a completely different ad hoc ‘non-ideal’ theory."

The Gravito Thermal effect is crap.

And to get back to insanity, if the lot of you believe the world has NOT been getting warmer what is the source of the mountains of data from all over the world for many years now showing that it is?

Highly massaged data...nothing more nothing less...the satellites don't show warming and the satellites track nicely with the actual measurement by radiosondes....

So, a perfect global conspiracy.

And if anyone suggests a conspiracy, I will take that to mean you have nothing and have completely given up your side of the argument.

It isn't a conspiracy because the fraud is right out in the open...the mainstream data sets show that the US has been warming right along with the rest of the world at the same rate while the CRN network...state of the art, triple redundant, and so pristinely placed that it does not require adjustment says that the continental US has been cooling at the same time the mainstream networks show warming in the continental US....they are obviously massaging the data to show warming...and they are doing it for money.

You tell us they are all knowingly telling the same lie. That's a conspiracy. You're an idiot to even consider the possibility. But then, we already knew that, didn't we. You have no argument to make and have given up.

Why don't you post up correlation =causation. Your reverse analogy is funny stuff dude!

 

[Wyatt earp]

Alan T. Jeffers, a company spokesman, said last week that Exxon Mobil welcomed a dialogue with shareholders.


“We want them to understand that we see the issue of climate change,we see the risks of climate change and take them seriously, and we are working hard on lower emissions technology,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/s...e-as-climate-shifts-along-with-attitudes.html

That's the goal of company's to make money when they realize the liberal propaganda machine is running full boar.


Just like the US military, precaution against every known threat real or not.

 

[Crick]

Full B-O-R-E.

Well, that's your interpretation.

Responding to every possible threat, whether real or not, is NOT what an entity interested in constantly maximizing profit would choose to do.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

That's the goal of company's to make money when they realize the liberal propaganda machine is running full boar.


Just like the US military, precaution against every known threat real or not.

another employee of Laundromats of America spinning away

 

[SSDD]

IPCC's AR5, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis: Over a thousand pages of "observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions".

Yeah...you keep saying that but as predicted, when asked to bring just a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data from those "thousands of pages"...you can't pluck even one out...and why?....because it isn't there...all models all the time and in real science, computer model output is not observed, measured, quantified data.

The "gravito thermal" effect. That would be impressively science-like... if I were a third-grader watching Captain Fantastic.

So you think it is just coincidence that it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system?...including earth...while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc fudge factor?

And to get back to insanity, if the lot of you believe the world has NOT been getting warmer what is the source of the mountains of data from all over the world for many years now showing that it is?

So, a perfect global conspiracy.[/quote]

Since the fraud is being perpetrated right out in the open, I would't call it a conspiracy...I would call it malfeasance.

You tell us they are all knowingly telling the same lie. That's a conspiracy. You're an idiot to even consider the possibility. But then, we already knew that, didn't we. You have no argument to make and have given up.

You don't think the prospect of literally trillions of dollars being pumped into the field would motivate consensus?....I can provide plenty of examples when far less money has motivated consensus..

It is you who has no argument crick...logical fallacy after logical fallacy...and still not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence.

 

[Crick]

IPCC's AR5, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis: Over a thousand pages of "observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions".

Yeah...you keep saying that but as predicted, when asked to bring just a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data from those "thousands of pages"...you can't pluck even one out...and why?....because it isn't there...all models all the time and in real science, computer model output is not observed, measured, quantified data.

The "gravito thermal" effect. That would be impressively science-like... if I were a third-grader watching Captain Fantastic.

So you think it is just coincidence that it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system?...including earth...while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc fudge factor?

And to get back to insanity, if the lot of you believe the world has NOT been getting warmer what is the source of the mountains of data from all over the world for many years now showing that it is?

So, a perfect global conspiracy.

Since the fraud is being perpetrated right out in the open, I would't call it a conspiracy...I would call it malfeasance.

You tell us they are all knowingly telling the same lie. That's a conspiracy. You're an idiot to even consider the possibility. But then, we already knew that, didn't we. You have no argument to make and have given up.

You don't think the prospect of literally trillions of dollars being pumped into the field would motivate consensus?....I can provide plenty of examples when far less money has motivated consensus..

It is you who has no argument crick...logical fallacy after logical fallacy...and still not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence.

Your repeated contention that WGI contains no evidence and only the output of models tells me one of two things: 1) You've never read a page of it or 2) You're perfectly willing to lie. Take your pick.

The Grand Global Conspiracy of Climate Scientists is the contention of the insane or the abysmally ignorant or someone sufficiently desperate (from a lack of anything else to throw against the wall) to be willing to appear insane or abysmally ignorant.

That the lead paper on the "gravito thermal" effect has received two citations in the many years since its publication tells me the rest of the world thinks, as do I, that it's a piece of shite manufactured to provide an ad hoc, non-GHG cause for global warming.

No one is paying trillions of dollars to climate scientist to conduct research. They never have and they never will. They will end up spending trillions to respond to the changes AGW is bringing about and, after that, perhaps someone will wish a little of that money HAD been thrown into research and mitigation.

 

[skookerasbil]

Full B-O-R-E.

Well, that's your interpretation.

Responding to every possible threat, whether real or not, is NOT what an entity interested in constantly maximizing profit would choose to do.

My God.........these alarmists think there are no special interests tied to renewable energy!!

 

[skookerasbil]

IPCC's AR5, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis: Over a thousand pages of "observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions".

Yeah...you keep saying that but as predicted, when asked to bring just a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data from those "thousands of pages"...you can't pluck even one out...and why?....because it isn't there...all models all the time and in real science, computer model output is not observed, measured, quantified data.

The "gravito thermal" effect. That would be impressively science-like... if I were a third-grader watching Captain Fantastic.

So you think it is just coincidence that it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system?...including earth...while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc fudge factor?

And to get back to insanity, if the lot of you believe the world has NOT been getting warmer what is the source of the mountains of data from all over the world for many years now showing that it is?

So, a perfect global conspiracy.

Since the fraud is being perpetrated right out in the open, I would't call it a conspiracy...I would call it malfeasance.

You tell us they are all knowingly telling the same lie. That's a conspiracy. You're an idiot to even consider the possibility. But then, we already knew that, didn't we. You have no argument to make and have given up.

You don't think the prospect of literally trillions of dollars being pumped into the field would motivate consensus?....I can provide plenty of examples when far less money has motivated consensus..

It is you who has no argument crick...logical fallacy after logical fallacy...and still not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence.

Your repeated contention that WGI contains no evidence and only the output of models tells me one of two things: 1) You've never read a page of it or 2) You're perfectly willing to lie. Take your pick.

The Grand Global Conspiracy of Climate Scientists is the contention of the insane or the abysmally ignorant or someone sufficiently desperate (from a lack of anything else to throw against the wall) to be willing to appear insane or abysmally ignorant.

That the lead paper on the "gravito thermal" effect has received two citations in the many years since its publication tells me the rest of the world thinks, as do I, that it's a piece of shite manufactured to provide an ad hoc, non-GHG cause for global warming.

No one is paying trillions of dollars to climate scientist to conduct research. They never have and they never will. They will end up spending trillions to respond to the changes AGW is bringing about and, after that, perhaps someone will wish a little of that money HAD been thrown into research and mitigation.

s0n......got some bad news. You could sit on this board for the next 1,000 years posting up how appalled you are about the state of things and there is 100% certainty NOTHING is going to change. Fossil fuels are going to be with us loooooooooong after you are in your box. You see..........costs don't matter to progressives. But they do matter to the rest of the world!!


Only progressives wake up and have their coffee thinking the world will be just fine giving up their iPhones, living without air conditioning and riding their bikes to work.


Sorry but I cant help you............

 

[jc456]

IPCC's AR5, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis: Over a thousand pages of "observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions".

Yeah...you keep saying that but as predicted, when asked to bring just a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data from those "thousands of pages"...you can't pluck even one out...and why?....because it isn't there...all models all the time and in real science, computer model output is not observed, measured, quantified data.

The "gravito thermal" effect. That would be impressively science-like... if I were a third-grader watching Captain Fantastic.

So you think it is just coincidence that it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system?...including earth...while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc fudge factor?

And to get back to insanity, if the lot of you believe the world has NOT been getting warmer what is the source of the mountains of data from all over the world for many years now showing that it is?

So, a perfect global conspiracy.

Since the fraud is being perpetrated right out in the open, I would't call it a conspiracy...I would call it malfeasance.

You tell us they are all knowingly telling the same lie. That's a conspiracy. You're an idiot to even consider the possibility. But then, we already knew that, didn't we. You have no argument to make and have given up.

You don't think the prospect of literally trillions of dollars being pumped into the field would motivate consensus?....I can provide plenty of examples when far less money has motivated consensus..

It is you who has no argument crick...logical fallacy after logical fallacy...and still not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence.

Your repeated contention that WGI contains no evidence and only the output of models tells me one of two things: 1) You've never read a page of it or 2) You're perfectly willing to lie. Take your pick.

The Grand Global Conspiracy of Climate Scientists is the contention of the insane or the abysmally ignorant or someone sufficiently desperate (from a lack of anything else to throw against the wall) to be willing to appear insane or abysmally ignorant.

That the lead paper on the "gravito thermal" effect has received two citations in the many years since its publication tells me the rest of the world thinks, as do I, that it's a piece of shite manufactured to provide an ad hoc, non-GHG cause for global warming.

No one is paying trillions of dollars to climate scientist to conduct research. They never have and they never will. They will end up spending trillions to respond to the changes AGW is bringing about and, after that, perhaps someone will wish a little of that money HAD been thrown into research and mitigation.

and still you fail to pull the pieces out of the AR5 report you think backs your claim. Funny, it isn't how a debate happens. Take that to court. here judge read these hundreds of pages and find my argument. Yeah, that's how it works in your world friend. I see you still have nothing. malfeasance is correct. Couldn't have said that any better myself. And you come back with a lecture rather than evidence. It is who you are we get it. wash, rinse, repeat with you over and over.

So crick, let's see that language from AR5 that supports your claim. Or do you forfeit?

 

[Crick]

My God.........these alarmists think there are no special interests tied to renewable energy!!

My god! These deniers think there are no special interests tied to the massive fossil fuel industry?

 

[SSDD]

Your repeated contention that WGI contains no evidence and only the output of models tells me one of two things: 1) You've never read a page of it or 2) You're perfectly willing to lie. Take your pick.

You have to be one of the most dishonest posters on this board crick and in the company of folks like rocks and mammoth, that is saying something....Surely you are not so stupid as to have missed the entire point...or perhaps you are...dishonesty and stupidity go hand in hand... so let me clarify for you one more time...as if the entire thread I posted wasn't enough...

There is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...

if you believe there is, feel free to post a single paragraph of it.

 

[SSDD]

My God.........these alarmists think there are no special interests tied to renewable energy!!

My god! These deniers think there are no special interests tied to the massive fossil fuel industry?

We know that there are...which is why we concentrate on observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the claims made in the AGW hypothesis...there is none to be found so that would lead one to believe that the climate science side of the argument is full of shit.

 

[jc456]

My God.........these alarmists think there are no special interests tied to renewable energy!!

My god! These deniers think there are no special interests tied to the massive fossil fuel industry?

so you deflected again. We're still waiting for the section and a snippet from the section of the AR5 report that backs your claim buddy. And you don't have to violate any forum rules. Nice deflection, never saw that one coming btw.

 

[jc456]

My God.........these alarmists think there are no special interests tied to renewable energy!!

My god! These deniers think there are no special interests tied to the massive fossil fuel industry?

We know that there are...which is why we concentrate on observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the claims made in the AGW hypothesis...there is none to be found so that would lead one to believe that the climate science side of the argument is full of shit.

or is tied to special interest themselves. D'OH!!!!