AGW near certainty say scientists

[Old Rocks]

I'd like us to get out of this stall soon. See at least the kind of warming we did in the 1990's

That would end the debate.

I really don't want to see that, but, of course, that is what we will see. If one looks at the ups and downs of the previous years to 1998, it is astounding that we have not had a down. This 'stall' that you ignoramouses are trumpeting is quite amazing for the fact that in the face of several strong La Nina's, a lower TSI, and the amount of aerosols that India and China are putting into the air, we are not seeing a decline in temperatures such as we saw in the '60' and '70's.

 

[Old Rocks]

You're really not very good at this, are you?

I didn't claim the article is false. I said it's opinion.

You do know, don't you, there's a difference between opinion and fact?

Ooops, sorry, forgot who I was talking to. Of course you don't know.

You got me there.

Then show us the opinions.

The whole piece.

How about you show us the facts?

Good luck with that.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA7tfz3k_9A]Pumphandle 2012: Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide - YouTube[/ame]

Sea Surface Temperature | Climate Change | US EPA

 

[Old Rocks]

You're really not very good at this, are you?

I didn't claim the article is false. I said it's opinion.

You do know, don't you, there's a difference between opinion and fact?

Ooops, sorry, forgot who I was talking to. Of course you don't know.

You got me there.

Then show us the opinions.

The whole piece.

How about you show us the facts?

Good luck with that.

And when have you ever shown us anything but flap-yap with nothing to back it up? And are you ever going to quit waving around the cap guns?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'd like us to get out of this stall soon. See at least the kind of warming we did in the 1990's

That would end the debate.

I really don't want to see that, but, of course, that is what we will see. If one looks at the ups and downs of the previous years to 1998, it is astounding that we have not had a down. This 'stall' that you ignoramouses are trumpeting is quite amazing for the fact that in the face of several strong La Nina's, a lower TSI, and the amount of aerosols that India and China are putting into the air, we are not seeing a decline in temperatures such as we saw in the '60' and '70's.

All those variables, yet you're still 100% certain a wisp of CO2 is driving the climate....amazing

Not in all East Anglia have we seen faith such as yours

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'd like us to get out of this stall soon. See at least the kind of warming we did in the 1990's

That would end the debate.

I really don't want to see that, but, of course, that is what we will see. If one looks at the ups and downs of the previous years to 1998, it is astounding that we have not had a down. This 'stall' that you ignoramouses are trumpeting is quite amazing for the fact that in the face of several strong La Nina's, a lower TSI, and the amount of aerosols that India and China are putting into the air, we are not seeing a decline in temperatures such as we saw in the '60' and '70's.

In addition to "Aerosols, the Chinese and Indians are putting soot into the air changing the aldebo of the polar ice, but your models ignore that

 

[Dot Com]

You got me there.

Then show us the opinions.

The whole piece.

How about you show us the facts?

Good luck with that.

And when have you ever shown us anything but flap-yap with nothing to back it up? And are you ever going to quit waving around the cap guns?

true. I can't remember the last time daveman provided a link to back up his predictable, rw-induced, blather He's like a chatty Kathy doll where you pull the string and

 

[daveman]

You got me there.

Then show us the opinions.

The whole piece.

How about you show us the facts?

Good luck with that.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA7tfz3k_9A]Pumphandle 2012: Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide - YouTube[/ame]

Sea Surface Temperature | Climate Change | US EPA

Yawn. Same old crap.

 

[daveman]

And when have you ever shown us anything but flap-yap with nothing to back it up?

All the time. Stop lying -- but you can't, can you?

And are you ever going to quit waving around the cap guns?

 

[daveman]

The whole piece.

How about you show us the facts?

Good luck with that.

And when have you ever shown us anything but flap-yap with nothing to back it up? And are you ever going to quit waving around the cap guns?

true. I can't remember the last time daveman provided a link to back up his predictable, rw-induced, blather He's like a chatty Kathy doll where you pull the string and

Your ignorance is not my problem. I'd tell you to go look at the threads I've started in the Enviro forum, but you won't, because you don't let truth get in the way of what you believe.

 

[Dot Com]

deniers are REALLY starting to piss me off!!!

 

[daveman]

deniers are REALLY starting to piss me off!!!

Of course. It's because you're driven solely by emotion. You can't tolerate conflicting views, so you must lash out emotionally.

You're not different from any other AGW cultist. Sheer hyper-emotionalism.

 

[ScienceRocks]

We will see within the next few decades

 

[westwall]

deniers are REALLY starting to piss me off!!!

It says a lot about you clowns and your religion that every one of the sceptics challenging you here have no problem with evolution, plate tectonics, cosmology, biological processes, physics, or any other legitimate scientific endeavor.

Our only problem is with your pseudo-scientific religious cult. There is no hard science in anything you do. There is no hypothesis to test. There is no empirical data to support you.
There is, quite simply nothing to measure.

Any good scientist will tell you that science is all about measurement. Even psychology has a branch that deals with measurement (Industrial Organizational Psychology) but climatology will NEVER submit anything that is measurable or testable. That's why you will lose. Good scientists can only allow BS to stand for so long and then they attack it.

The attacks have begun. Get ready for a real tough time of it. Popular Science got tired of its globalwarmingclimatechangeglobalclimatedestructionbiodiversity scare mongering threads being hammered by sceptics so they closed them down. Pretty sad when a magazine can't handle opposing views so simply covers its ears. Funny too!


If Popular Science cares about science, why not try to fix comments instead of killing them? ? paidContent

 

[westwall]

We will see within the next few decades

We're ALLREADY seeing it bucko....

 

[mamooth]

It says a lot about you clowns and your religion that every one of the sceptics challenging you here have no problem with evolution, plate tectonics, cosmology, biological processes, physics, or any other legitimate scientific endeavor.

Yet most of you _do_ embrace kook conspiracies such as DDT being harmless, or ozone depletion theory being a scam. Simple listing a few conspiracies you _don't_ embrace is not evidence that, as a whole, you're not really a pack of pants-pissing hysterical cranks running purely on emotion. Your authoritarian-worship is at the heart of it. If your political party orders belief in a certain conspiracy, you believe it, period, never daring to disagree with your party.

None of you cranks, despite repeated prompting from me, will tell me what could disprove your denialism conspiracy theory. The best any of you has ever done is to wail that you're special little snowflakes who aren't bound by the normal standards of science. You see, you don't have to prove anything, because you're only interested in muddying the waters, instead of doing any actual science.

Not how it works. Unfalsifiable theories are clearly pseudoscience, and that's all denialists have. In contrast, AGW science is clearly stated, falsifiable, and supported by decades of data and decades of correct predictions. It's real science, while denialism is only the tears of a political cult.

Popular Science got tired of its globalwarmingclimatechangeglobalclimatedestructionbiodiversity scare mongering threads being hammered by sceptics so they closed them down. Pretty sad when a magazine can't handle opposing views so simply covers its ears. Funny too!

So you're proud that your side is a pack of dishonest screaming cultists who specialize in destroying intelligent discussion wherever they show up. Here's a thought. Stop being whinyass lying fuktards, and you'll stop getting ostracized by decent people. Nobody is obligated to put up with you shitting on the carpet wherever you walk in.

 

[flacaltenn]

Actually --- Just send us a handful of COMPETENT warmers to debate.. And we'll see who the "whiny-ass fucktards" are besides the sorry bunch of warmers we're stuck with here..

Go Get Al Gore on the phone.. He'd be "whiny-assed" in about 6 posts..
Or we could use the USMB "one on one" forum anytime you feel up to the task...

 

[mamooth]

Cult-of-McIntyre acolytes are funny, in how so many of them actually believe they're _not_ brainwashed cultists. After all, the cult has told them over and over how the cult is the guardian of the RealTruth, and that any info which comes from outside the cult is fraudulent.

Infallible leaders, demonization of outsiders, claims of being privy to special info, claims of a conspiracy against you ... flac, any other cult behavior you'd like to put on display?

 

[Dot Com]

who is to say that digging up ancient forests & fossilized dinosaurs and burning them in unprecedented amounts (see China & India) added to the US's effluence isn't soiling our nest/harming the bisphere in more ways than one?

 

[flacaltenn]

Cult-of-McIntyre acolytes are funny, in how so many of them actually believe they're _not_ brainwashed cultists. After all, the cult has told them over and over how the cult is the guardian of the RealTruth, and that any info which comes from outside the cult is fraudulent.

Infallible leaders, demonization of outsiders, claims of being privy to special info, claims of a conspiracy against you ... flac, any other cult behavior you'd like to put on display?

You need help.. Seek it. You are describing your own psychotic condition..
Here --- lemme help..

** WHO is my infallible leader?

**WHAT special info have I claimed to be privy to?

**IF there is a conspiracy against me -- I am unaware of the threat. Could you please identify it for me?

**Who doesn't demonize outsiders if they are a threat to their freedom or abusing science, logic and reason?

OTH ---- Just being a fan of skepticalscience.com ---- pretty much puts YOU in your own definition... Off my couch, see ya next Thurs..

 

[Dot Com]

IOW- what he said had truth to it