AN Open Challenge for my AGW Friends....

[Matted Joybeard]

I am an atmospheric physicist. So once again you are ignorant of the facts. You will never get away from your consensus belief. That is why I call it a cult, you believe without facts to support you.

You're a nutbag that ran off with SunsetTommy and spent the better part of the past several months posting at each on some sad forum you two launched that hasn't gotten any traction.

 

[ding]

You're a nutbag that ran off with SunsetTommy and spent the better part of the past several months posting at each on some sad forum you two launched that hasn't gotten any traction.

Why do you believe in AGW?

 

[BULLDOG]

No. Bush and Clinton did though.

"In the last days of the Clinton Administration, the Forest Service adopted the "Roadless Area Conservation Rule," which identified 58.5 million acres from which access and logging roads were to be removed. In the West, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are driving ranchers off the land by reducing grazing allotments to numbers that make profitable operations impossible. Inholders, people who have recreational cabins on federal land, are discovering that their permits are not being renewed. The Fish and Wildlife Service is forcing people off their land through designations of "wetlands," and "critical habitat" which render the land unusable for profit-making activities. Much to the chagrin of the proponents of sustainable development, some of these policies have been slowed, but not reversed, by the Bush administration. Nevertheless, agencies of government, supported by an army of non-government organizations, continue to transform the landscape into the vision described in the Wildlands Project, and in the Global Biodiversity Assessment."

^This led to the "Bundy" thing.

"This 300-page document contains 40 chapters loaded with recommendations to govern virtually every facet of human existence. Agenda 21 is not a treaty. It is a "soft law" policy document which was signed by President George H.W. Bush, and which does not require Senate ratification. One of the recommendations contained in the document is that each nation establish a national council to implement the rest of the recommendations. On June 29, 1993, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order Number 12852 which created the President's Council on Sustainable Development. "

Sustainable Development Article

eco•logic Special Report Sustainable Development: Transforming America by Henry Lamb Environmental Conservation Organization Hollow Rock, Tennessee December 1, 2005 A s the "sustainable...

www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com

Referencing Bundy? Go no further. If there was ever any doubt about you being a crazy conspiracy theory nut, you just cleared that up.

 

[The Duke]

Referencing Bundy? Go no further. If there was ever any doubt about you being a crazy conspiracy theory nut, you just cleared that up.

It's OK cupcake, I know it's a little too much abstract thinking to expect of you.

Let's get a real conspiracy theorist in here. MisterBeale

 

[Billy_Bob]

And still no answer to the question that I posed in the OP. Not one model has been brought forward for an in-depth analysis.

 

[The Duke]

And still no answer to the question that I posed in the OP. Not one model has been brought forward for an in-depth analysis.

Because the AGW cultist only regurgitate what their "The Experts" shamans say. They don't try to analyze anything for themselves

or question variables.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's OK cupcake, I know it's a little too much abstract thinking to expect of you.

Let's get a real conspiracy theorist in here. MisterBeale

Those denying climate change generally also rant about microchips in vaccine, gay frogs, a stolen election, and bigfoot-------just sayin'

 

[ding]

Those denying climate change generally also rant about microchips in vaccine, gay frogs, a stolen election, and bigfoot-------just sayin'

Or the geologic record not supporting AGW, or the relatively weak GHG effect of CO2 or the interrelatedness of the sun, ocean and wind in bringing heat to the arctic, or the role the arctic plays in global climate, etc. Yes, there's all kind of crazies denying AGW.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Or the geologic record not supporting AGW, or the relatively weak GHG effect of CO2 or the interrelatedness of the sun, ocean and wind in bringing heat to the arctic, or the role the arctic plays in global climate, etc. Yes, there's all kind of crazies denying AGW.

Its rather funny how they do not believe in natural processes... The Statistical Models May used show just how insignificant CO2's roll is.

 

[BULLDOG]

Or the geologic record not supporting AGW, or the relatively weak GHG effect of CO2 or the interrelatedness of the sun, ocean and wind in bringing heat to the arctic, or the role the arctic plays in global climate, etc. Yes, there's all kind of crazies denying AGW.

Your experts are an esoteric bunch, aren't they?

 

[jc456]

I can only assume that you accuse me of that because that is something you would do.

I'm not manipulating anything. My beliefs about the earth's climate history are mainstream beliefs. Nothing controversial about what I have been arguing at all. You live on an icehouse planet. It's geologically rare and unique. For the past 3 million years the planet has been frigid 90% of the time. You think today's climate is normal but it's not. The planet is undeniably, uniquely configured for colder temperatures. Ever since an ice cap formed in the arctic, climate fluctuations increased in magnitude and frequency. The way they show the data makes the current warming trend seem unusual but that's because they are averaging data which smooths out the fluctuations. Ice core data shows the true picture. Warming and cooling trends - like today - litter the geologic record of the past 3 million years. They have mistaken a normal climate fluctuation for AGW. The actual radiative forcing of CO2 is weak. Their models incorrectly amplify that effect by 5 times.

This guy says just that!!!!

And, 99% of energy comes from………the sun! Holy fk

 

[ding]

Your experts are an esoteric bunch, aren't they?

That's yours. MIne are outlaws.

 

[Crick]

The Challenge still stands. Why do your models FAIL, WITHOUT EXCEPTION? Please provide one that does not.

All anyone has done is appeal to authority and no science is presented. This is an epic failure of the CAGW faithful.

Identify a model you believe has failed and EXPLAIN.

 

[jc456]

Identify a model you believe has failed and EXPLAIN.

All failed

 

[Crick]

I am an atmospheric physicist.

You are a liar.

 

[Flash]

Recently I have had a lot of quiet time in hospitals and my colleague's sent me data from different climate models to review after they performed Empirical Verification tests. None of the models we evaluated passed the test. They all over estimated warming by a factor of 10 and some were as high as 20.

Each of the models failed to include UHI (Urban Heat Island) and other natural variation forcings, both positive and negative.

In several threads, I have asked multiple times how the current modeling had ruled out natural forcings and land use changes. No one seems to be able to answer this question. Many of the models, currently in use, we were denied access to. I found this very concerning as open and transparent science is required for replication and verification, the very basis of the scientific method.

My challenge is this: Bring me the names of models and how they included natural forcings and land use changes in them. Feel free to post links to these models/modelers and their sources. Then explain how they ruled out these natural factors and land use changes which affect the global average of temperature.

Do not appeal to authority. I want facts and data only.

This climate modeling has always been a sham. The proxy data imputed into the models have always been questionable. The old shit in shit out computer modeling problems we have seen many time before.

However, these Universities and research facilities and even government agencies have made a lot of money from these sham computer models so expect them to continue.

I also looked into this a few years ago when I was preparing to teach a college class in Environmental Science with a section on Climate Change. I wanted to get it right for the students so I pulled the thread on the research and always came up short on its scientific validity.

 

[jc456]

This climate modeling has always been a sham. The proxy data imputed into the models have always been questionable. The old shit in shit out computer modeling problems we have seen many time before.

However, these Universities and research facilities and even government agencies have made a lot of money from these sham computer models so expect them to continue.

I also looked into this a few years ago when I was preparing to teach a college class in Environmental Science with a section on Climate Change. I wanted to get it right for the students so I pulled the thread on the research and always came up short on its scientific validity.

Proxy data is all made up

 

[Flash]

Proxy data is all made up

Like the idiot so called scientists measuring temperature at one location and using a fudge factor to extrapolate what it might be at another place.

 

[jc456]

Like the idiot so called scientists measuring temperature at one location and using a fudge factor to extrapolate what it might be at another place.

It’s why they won’t show the datasets

 

[jc456]

You are a liar.

So are you?