And POOF, it was gone....

[polarbear]

Nobody in this thread claimed that humans can`t start fires or that "mother" nature burned the oil we refined.
Crick brings the raven paradox to a whole new level. This is how he "reasons" that man is the guilty black raven who put the "A" in front of the GW, thus excluding all natural causes:
Ravens are black. If it isn`t black it`s not a raven and if it`s black then according to Crick it must be the raven.
Crick`s version:
Forest fires caused by lightening have taken place throughout the history of the planet.
Does that mean humans can't start forest fires?
So, are you claiming that mother nature burned gigatonnes of fossil fuels at various points in the past?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Nobody in this thread claimed that humans can`t start fires or that "mother" nature burned the oil we refined.
Crick brings the raven paradox to a whole new level. This is how he "reasons" that man is the guilty black raven who put the "A" in front of the GW, thus excluding all natural causes:
Ravens are black. If it isn`t black it`s not a raven and if it`s black then according to Crick it must be the raven.
Crick`s version:
Forest fires caused by lightening have taken place throughout the history of the planet.
Does that mean humans can't start forest fires?
So, are you claiming that mother nature burned gigatonnes of fossil fuels at various points in the past?

LOL..

Isn't that behavior also known as "running in circles with sharp objects" The Circular logical failure is stunning..

 

[mamooth]

Nobody in this thread claimed that humans can`t start fires

But that's exactly what the logic of Westwall and all deniers says.

You say that since climate changed naturally in the past, humans can't change climate.

It's the exactly same chain of logic as saying "Forest fires happened naturally in the past, therefore humans can't cause forest fires."

Claiming that the present must behave like the past, even if conditions in the present are wildly different, that's retard logic. Thus, all deniers depend on it.

And Crick's point, which sailed over all of your heads, is that conditions in the present are wildly different from the past, due to the burning of gigatons of fossil fuels.

It's not surprising that every denier here is so obviously inept at basic logic. If someone wasn't a total failure at logic, they wouldn't have gotten sucked into the denier cult. Normal people recognize the BS of the denier cult, so normal people don't get sucked in.

 

[Crick]

So, are you claiming that mother nature burned gigatonnes of fossil fuels at various points in the past?

Why yes, yes indeed. Every time there is a forest fire you get that. Now don't you.

Why, no, you do not.

 

[skookerasbil]

Nobody in this thread claimed that humans can`t start fires

But that's exactly what the logic of Westwall and all deniers says.

You say that since climate changed naturally in the past, humans can't change climate.

It's the exactly same chain of logic as saying "Forest fires happened naturally in the past, therefore humans can't cause forest fires."

Claiming that the present must behave like the past, even if conditions in the present are wildly different, that's retard logic. Thus, all deniers depend on it.

And Crick's point, which sailed over all of your heads, is that conditions in the present are wildly different from the past, due to the burning of gigatons of fossil fuels.

It's not surprising that every denier here is so obviously inept at basic logic. If someone wasn't a total failure at logic, they wouldn't have gotten sucked into the denier cult. Normal people recognize the BS of the denier cult, so normal people don't get sucked in.

lol....but the inept basic logic people...........are winning! In fact, now with Trump, its even that much more dominating. In 2017, the whole CO2 "cause" for climate change is laughable. Its seen by the public as well.........laughable. Accordingly, anybody who labels people who don't concur with AGW a "cult", is living in an alternate reality.

cult

a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object:

1. "the cult of St. Olaf"

by definition........a significant minority.

These mental cases think a handful of scientists from a rigged system are going to dictate energy policy to global governments. There is zero evidence of that happening.........zero.........its fringe stuff. Only mental cases cant connect the dots..............thus, the "religion" stuff.

And nothing is going to change..........especially now with the country sprawling in a vast sea of red. Its so red out there its dizzying........which means btw that AGW stays put in the abyss of the fringe.

Today in REALCLEARPOLITICS >>

http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/27/new-york-times-our-readers-are-too-dumb-to-understand-numbers/

lol....nobody cares about 0.12 degrees celcius. But the cultists continiue to scream "FIRE" over such things. The public response the past 10 years? "Booooooring"

What we are seeing is basic human behavior at work......not well understood by many progressives frankly, and especially AGW devotee's. Just look at the anti-Trump rallies the past week. Every time they send out another k00k fringe bunch of people, Trumps numbers go up another 5 points. When you think fringe, you end up fringe!

But you bozo's keep on taking bows and claiming you're winning!! Makes this place a hoot to come into!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Nobody in this thread claimed that humans can`t start fires

But that's exactly what the logic of Westwall and all deniers says.

You say that since climate changed naturally in the past, humans can't change climate.

It's the exactly same chain of logic as saying "Forest fires happened naturally in the past, therefore humans can't cause forest fires."

Claiming that the present must behave like the past, even if conditions in the present are wildly different, that's retard logic. Thus, all deniers depend on it.

And Crick's point, which sailed over all of your heads, is that conditions in the present are wildly different from the past, due to the burning of gigatons of fossil fuels.

It's not surprising that every denier here is so obviously inept at basic logic. If someone wasn't a total failure at logic, they wouldn't have gotten sucked into the denier cult. Normal people recognize the BS of the denier cult, so normal people don't get sucked in.

lol....but the inept basic logic people...........are winning! In fact, now with Trump, its even that much more dominating. In 2017, the whole CO2 "cause" for climate change is laughable. Its seen by the public as well.........laughable. Accordingly, anybody who labels people who don't concur with AGW a "cult", is living in an alternate reality.

cult

a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object:

1. "the cult of St. Olaf"

by definition........a significant minority.

These mental cases think a handful of scientists from a rigged system are going to dictate energy policy to global governments. There is zero evidence of that happening.........zero.........its fringe stuff. Only mental cases cant connect the dots..............thus, the "religion" stuff.

And nothing is going to change..........especially now with the country sprawling in a vast sea of red. Its so red out there its dizzying........which means btw that AGW stays put in the abyss of the fringe.

Today in REALCLEARPOLITICS >>

http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/27/new-york-times-our-readers-are-too-dumb-to-understand-numbers/

lol....nobody cares about 0.12 degrees celcius. But the cultists continiue to scream "FIRE" over such things. The public response the past 10 years? "Booooooring"

What we are seeing is basic human behavior at work......not well understood by many progressives frankly, and especially AGW devotee's. Just look at the anti-Trump rallies the past week. Every time they send out another k00k fringe bunch of people, Trumps numbers go up another 5 points. When you think fringe, you end up fringe!

But you bozo's keep on taking bows and claiming you're winning!! Makes this place a hoot to come into!!

The New York Times calling their readership STUPID! Now that is a way to get people to buy their birdcage cover... And they cant see their own stupidity.. Priceless.. No wonder they are failing as a company.

 

[Crick]

Nobody in this thread claimed that humans can`t start fires

But that's exactly what the logic of Westwall and all deniers says.

You say that since climate changed naturally in the past, humans can't change climate.

It's the exactly same chain of logic as saying "Forest fires happened naturally in the past, therefore humans can't cause forest fires."

Claiming that the present must behave like the past, even if conditions in the present are wildly different, that's retard logic. Thus, all deniers depend on it.

And Crick's point, which sailed over all of your heads, is that conditions in the present are wildly different from the past, due to the burning of gigatons of fossil fuels.

It's not surprising that every denier here is so obviously inept at basic logic. If someone wasn't a total failure at logic, they wouldn't have gotten sucked into the denier cult. Normal people recognize the BS of the denier cult, so normal people don't get sucked in.

lol....but the inept basic logic people...........are winning! In fact, now with Trump, its even that much more dominating. In 2017, the whole CO2 "cause" for climate change is laughable. Its seen by the public as well.........laughable. Accordingly, anybody who labels people who don't concur with AGW a "cult", is living in an alternate reality.

cult

a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object:

1. "the cult of St. Olaf"

by definition........a significant minority.

These mental cases think a handful of scientists from a rigged system are going to dictate energy policy to global governments. There is zero evidence of that happening.........zero.........its fringe stuff. Only mental cases cant connect the dots..............thus, the "religion" stuff.

And nothing is going to change..........especially now with the country sprawling in a vast sea of red. Its so red out there its dizzying........which means btw that AGW stays put in the abyss of the fringe.

Today in REALCLEARPOLITICS >>

http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/27/new-york-times-our-readers-are-too-dumb-to-understand-numbers/

lol....nobody cares about 0.12 degrees celcius. But the cultists continiue to scream "FIRE" over such things. The public response the past 10 years? "Booooooring"

What we are seeing is basic human behavior at work......not well understood by many progressives frankly, and especially AGW devotee's. Just look at the anti-Trump rallies the past week. Every time they send out another k00k fringe bunch of people, Trumps numbers go up another 5 points. When you think fringe, you end up fringe!

But you bozo's keep on taking bows and claiming you're winning!! Makes this place a hoot to come into!!

The New York Times calling their readership STUPID! Now that is a way to get people to buy their birdcage cover... And they cant see their own stupidity.. Priceless.. No wonder they are failing as a company.

If they were speaking to you (and I think they were) they hit the nail precisely on the head.

 

[skookerasbil]

Nobody in this thread claimed that humans can`t start fires

But that's exactly what the logic of Westwall and all deniers says.

You say that since climate changed naturally in the past, humans can't change climate.

It's the exactly same chain of logic as saying "Forest fires happened naturally in the past, therefore humans can't cause forest fires."

Claiming that the present must behave like the past, even if conditions in the present are wildly different, that's retard logic. Thus, all deniers depend on it.

And Crick's point, which sailed over all of your heads, is that conditions in the present are wildly different from the past, due to the burning of gigatons of fossil fuels.

It's not surprising that every denier here is so obviously inept at basic logic. If someone wasn't a total failure at logic, they wouldn't have gotten sucked into the denier cult. Normal people recognize the BS of the denier cult, so normal people don't get sucked in.

lol.......somebody try to tell me there aren't mental issues here? Look at the last sentence.......reference to "normal people"...."If someone wasn't a total failure at logic, they wouldn't have gotten sucked into the denier cult. Normal people recognize the BS of the denier cult, so normal people don't get sucked in.". A VAST MINORITY of the population think CO2 causes global warming ( undisputable fact). Accordingly, this genius is stating that the vast minority is "normal". You know what that kind of thinking is folks............

Lets all hope this guy is not in charge of anything..........

 

[SSDD]

[Q

Provide EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to support your theory. Computer models AREN'T DATA! It's that simple.

By the time you provide the empirical data, it's over. That's why they model.

It's like there's this 500ft tidal wave heading for LA and nobody has seen one before. You lot are saying "We don't have any empirical evidence that it will cause destruction! Let's just wait and see"

Are you gonna be the one sitting on the the Long Beach shore seeing if the empirical evidence presents itself?

Galileo didn't have empirical evidence to prove the Earth revolved around the sun (well, none that the Church believed). Who won that battle in the long run?

They've had 35 damned years dude. How many more do you need.

An infinity of years is not long enough to provide observed, measured, quantified, empirical data to support that pitiful excuse for a hypothesis....AGW is, and always has been bullshit.

 

[mudwhistle]

That must be chilling for some.

PEOPLE WILL DIE!!!!!!!

 

[SSDD]

Computer models AREN'T DATA! It's that simple.

Directly measured evidence shows the human-caused warming. The stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation, and the decrease in outgoing longwave are all measured directly, no models involved. There is no natural explanations for those things. They are smoking guns for human-caused global warming.

As you can see hairball...the stratospheric cooling stopped in about 1995...and a slight warming trend began about the time the first signs of a cooling period appeared....this chart calls you a liar.

And there is no back radiation....not the first measurement of it at ambient temperature...but if you believe any such measurements exist, taken by instruments not cooled to temperatures lower than the atmosphere, by all means lets see them.

And this chart from NOAA calls your claim of decreasing outgoing long wave a lie as well..

Seems that all you have are lies....maybe that is why you never post any actual data to support your claims.

 

[SSDD]

[Q

Provide EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to support your theory. Computer models AREN'T DATA! It's that simple.

By the time you provide the empirical data, it's over. That's why they model.

So you admit that there is no actual empirical data in support of the hypothesis...now we are getting some where...


OK...you make a claim that something is going to happen based on these models you have which are not based on any sort of actual empirical evidence....and you say that we need to spend thousands of billions of dollars to keep this thing from happening or it will be a disaster...so we continue spending money like we have been but the thing never materializes because the claims were based on a flawed hypothesis....who do you think should be on the hook for the money...and what does the punishment for making such flawed claims and demanding action anyway look like?

 

[mamooth]

As you can see hairball...the stratospheric cooling stopped in about 1995...and a slight warming trend began about the time the first signs of a cooling period appeared....this chart calls you a liar.

Let's try something more recent. Oh look, still cooling slightly.

The interesting thing is how the big volcanic eruptions are followed by permanent downward plunges. The science of that is not well understood.

And there is no back radiation....not the first measurement of it at ambient temperature...but if you believe any such measurements exist, taken by instruments not cooled to temperatures lower than the atmosphere, by all means lets see them.

And you're back to denying that uncooled IR cameras can be bought anywhere now. Pathetic. But hilarious, how cheap consumer electronics show what a sad cult liar you are. I love how capitalism stomped your Stalinist ass.

And this chart from NOAA calls your claim of decreasing outgoing long wave a lie as well..

Woot! The mystery chart! What is it showing? Where did it come from? Nobody knows. Given the sinusoidal shape, I'd guess it's got some uncorrected orbital factor thing going on. That is, it's uncorrected raw data that needs processing to be made sensible.

 

[SSDD]

Let's try something more recent. Oh look, still cooling slightly.

Perhaps..if you hold your mouth a certain way and snug down your tin foil hat....but if very slight cooling is the best you can manage in the face of steadily increasing CO2...then your hypothesis still looses...

The interesting thing is how the big volcanic eruptions are followed by permanent downward plunges. The science of that is not well understood.

The vast majority of what drives the climate is still either not well understood or understood at all...the only thing that is clear is that the steaming pile that has been handed to us is not science at all.

And you're back to denying that uncooled IR cameras can be bought anywhere now. Pathetic. But hilarious, how cheap consumer electronics show what a sad cult liar you are. I love how capitalism stomped your Stalinist ass.

I can't help but notice that you provide no measurements of back radiation made with instruments not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....you simply go on demonstrating how easily you are fooled by instrumentation...the amount of back radiation, according to climate science is double the amount of radiation coming in from the sun...you really believe that it is impossible to measure at ambient temperature?...lets see the measurements...or at least what passes for measurements in the mind of a crazy cat lady.

Woot! The mystery chart! What is it showing? Where did it come from? Nobody knows. Given the sinusoidal shape, I'd guess it's got some uncorrected orbital factor thing going on. That is, it's uncorrected raw data that needs processing to be made sensible.

Mystery chart from NOAA?...Funny cat lady.

 

[Olde Europe]

Claiming that the present must behave like the past, even if conditions in the present are wildly different, that's retard logic. Thus, all deniers depend on it.

And Crick's point, which sailed over all of your heads, is that conditions in the present are wildly different from the past, due to the burning of gigatons of fossil fuels.

The denialist ding-dongs are way smarter than that. In support of the well-captured cretinism above they also offer:

- increased CO2 concentrations isn't data

- reduced radiation from earth to space, affecting wavelengths consistent with the CO2 absorption spectrum, isn't data

- ocean acidification isn't data

- measured temperatures all over the earth isn't data

- melting, receding glaciers isn't data

- declining ice volumes isn't data

- the kind carbon in the air consistent with fossil fuels isn't data

- the determination that there's no significant forcing that could possibly effect the changing average temperatures - except for increasing, human-caused GHG - isn't data.

In effect, they're saying if they can't hang a thermometer out, make few temperature readings showing an upward gradient, if, in fact, they cannot measure causality itself, global warming and its human contribution to it can't be regarded as a fact, or as close to a fact humans can get.

Once they're through with the list, they start anew. SSDD.

Just imagine, these goofs would call 97% of climate scientists working in the field, and those who depend on them rather than the Koch-funded denialingdongs, "idiots" and pretty much every other name in the book, none of them flattering. Whoever thought satire is dead was dead wrong.

 

[SSDD]

The denialist ding-dongs are way smarter than that. In support of the well-captured cretinism above they also offer:

You sound more the denier than I am. You deny that what you call evidence of man's alteration of the global climate is nothing more than some flimsy correlation...and nothing like actual hard evidence that we are having any effect at all on the global climate...you deny the entire history of the earth in favor of a very short window in which there is not the first shred of actual evidence that we are doing anything to the global climate...no human fingerprint can be detected...we are well within the bounds of natural variability?

- increased CO2 concentrations isn't data

It is certainly data...but proving what?...Suggesting what?...400ppm is very low if you look at the broader picture...in fact, the ice age in which the earth presently finds itself began with CO2 concentrations of about 1000ppm....and for most of earth's history, CO2 levels have been considerably above 1000ppm with none of the wild runaway warming effects claimed by modern climate science.

- reduced radiation from earth to space, affecting wavelengths consistent with the CO2 absorption spectrum, isn't data

False...and if you want to bring in the IRIS and IMG data, which is the gold standard, you will find no difference at all over a30 year spread in the specific CO2 bands..

- ocean acidification isn't data

What do you suppose the "acidification" levels were like when CO2 was over 1000ppm?...do you suppose the oceans were great dead spaces? Do you have any real evidence that we are causing acidification?

- measured temperatures all over the earth isn't data

Warming is proof of warming...cooling is proof of cooling...a pause is proof of a pause...none of them are in any indicative of what caused them...they are only evidence of change which is the steady state of the climate here on earth.

- melting, receding glaciers isn't data

Glaciers have been melting and advancing for 0ver 14K years now....we are exiting an ice age...what else would you expect...you would prefer a 2 mile thick sheet of ice over the great lakes?

- declining ice volumes isn't data

Of course it is data...so is advancing ice volumes...but neither is in any indicative of what the cause is...and both the ice gain and ice loss that we are seeing is well within the bounds of natural variability...

- the kind carbon in the air consistent with fossil fuels isn't data

But the kind of carbon doesn't matter....the fact is that nothing is happening that is not well within the bounds of natural variability....

- the determination that there's no significant forcing that could possibly effect the changing average temperatures - except for increasing, human-caused GHG - isn't data.

Do you have one shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting that claim?...of course you don't...you have nothing but models that have proven themselves to be far from adequate....show me one piece of actual empirical data that supports the AGW claim over natural variability.

In effect, they're saying if they can't hang a thermometer out, make few temperature readings showing an upward gradient, if, in fact, they cannot measure causality itself, global warming and its human contribution to it can't be regarded as a fact, or as close to a fact humans can get.

Measuring change is not measuring causality...you see change and assume cause...that isn't science...that is opinion.

Once they're through with the list, they start anew. SSDD.

The list is yours...not ours...none of the items in your list above offer any real evidence that we are altering the global climate....they are all attached to assumptions based on models that are based on assumptions....no real evidence in support of the claims at all.

]

 

[Crick]

The denialist ding-dongs are way smarter than that. In support of the well-captured cretinism above they also offer:

You sound more the denier than I am. You deny that what you call evidence of man's alteration of the global climate is nothing more than some flimsy correlation...and nothing like actual hard evidence that we are having any effect at all on the global climate...you deny the entire history of the earth in favor of a very short window in which there is not the first shred of actual evidence that we are doing anything to the global climate...no human fingerprint can be detected...we are well within the bounds of natural variability?

Your semantics here are as worthless as worthless can be. That the world has been warming is simply undeniable. It is undeniable that basic physics tells us that increasing CO2 will have that effect (though several fools here try). Despite years of study, no other process has been found that could cause the observed warming. The warming which calculations tell us the CO2 increase we've produced would cause matches what has been observed. To conclude anything other than AGW is taking place is to deny facts in plain evidence. You're the denier.

- increased CO2 concentrations isn't data

It is certainly data...but proving what?...Suggesting what?...400ppm is very low if you look at the broader picture...in fact, the ice age in which the earth presently finds itself began with CO2 concentrations of about 1000ppm....and for most of earth's history, CO2 levels have been considerably above 1000ppm with none of the wild runaway warming effects claimed by modern climate science.

A CO2 level of 400 ppm doesn't "suggest" but informs us outright that the Earth's equilibrium temperature is higher now than when CO2 was at 280 ppm. I know you love to bring up prehistoric climate parameters, but that CO2 is higher now than it has been at any time since before homo sapiens appeared on this planet is a far more pertinent fact.

- reduced radiation from earth to space, affecting wavelengths consistent with the CO2 absorption spectrum, isn't data

False...and if you want to bring in the IRIS and IMG data, which is the gold standard, you will find no difference at all over a30 year spread in the specific CO2 bands..

OLR is increasing? What a surprise. Perhaps that's because the Earth's temperature is GOING UP YOU FUCKING IDIOT. The greenhouse effect doesn't permanently trap IR in the atmosphere, it only slows it's release to space. And, since we're talking about EM radiation, it's being slowed from a fraction of a second to, perhaps, a minute. Did you actually expect to see that on a graph of decades?

- ocean acidification isn't data

What do you suppose the "acidification" levels were like when CO2 was over 1000ppm?...do you suppose the oceans were great dead spaces? Do you have any real evidence that we are causing acidification?

Acidification (pH) levels were moderate when CO2 was high in the past because the CO2 increase took place over tens of thousands to millions of years and the erosion of calcareous aragonite and limestone had time to buffer the added the CO2. On the very few occasions when it DID take place as rapidly as it is taking place now, we experienced things like the Permian-Triassic Mass Extinction event, when over 96% of marine species and over 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species went extinct.

- measured temperatures all over the earth isn't data

Warming is proof of warming...cooling is proof of cooling...a pause is proof of a pause...none of them are in any indicative of what caused them...they are only evidence of change which is the steady state of the climate here on earth.

The world is warming. That warming (like any change) has a cause. All available science concludes that the primary cause of that warming is the greenhouse effect acting on CO2 added to the atmosphere by human use of fossil fuels and deforestation.

- melting, receding glaciers isn't data

Glaciers have been melting and advancing for 0ver 14K years now....we are exiting an ice age...what else would you expect...you would prefer a 2 mile thick sheet of ice over the great lakes?

The rate of ice melt worldwide, has accelerate multifold from anything experienced during the onset of the current interglacial. And for most of the Holocene global temperatures have been slowly declining, not warming. And, as we've said many times before, what we'd prefer is for change to take place at an unaccelerated pace.

- declining ice volumes isn't data

Of course it is data...so is advancing ice volumes...but neither is in any indicative of what the cause is...and both the ice gain and ice loss that we are seeing is well within the bounds of natural variability...

It is not and you have no evidence that it is.

- the kind carbon in the air consistent with fossil fuels isn't data

But the kind of carbon doesn't matter....the fact is that nothing is happening that is not well within the bounds of natural variability....

Natural variability doesn't burn gigatonnes of fossil fuel. Neither CO2 levels nor temperatures have remained within natural variability. To this you will reply that both have seen greater extremes and to that I will point out that when they did, they had specific causes: those extremes did not represent the bounds of "natural variability", a term you have never defined and are unlikely to do so now.

- the determination that there's no significant forcing that could possibly effect the changing average temperatures - except for increasing, human-caused GHG - isn't data.

Do you have one shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting that claim?...of course you don't...you have nothing but models that have proven themselves to be far from adequate....show me one piece of actual empirical data that supports the AGW claim over natural variability.

Yes, you lying piece of shit. He has "The Physical Science Basis" from AR5 as well as the thousands of published scientific studies on which it and its predecessors are based. You, on the other hand, DO - NOT - HAVE - JACK - SHIT.

In effect, they're saying if they can't hang a thermometer out, make few temperature readings showing an upward gradient, if, in fact, they cannot measure causality itself, global warming and its human contribution to it can't be regarded as a fact, or as close to a fact humans can get.

Measuring change is not measuring causality...you see change and assume cause...that isn't science...that is opinion.

Science has never relied on the correlation. But no causality exists that doesn't exhibit correlation, does it.

Once they're through with the list, they start anew. SSDD.

The list is yours...not ours...none of the items in your list above offer any real evidence that we are altering the global climate....they are all attached to assumptions based on models that are based on assumptions....no real evidence in support of the claims at all.

You are an ignorant liar. That has been demonstrated, here and elsewhere, absolutely beyond all dispute.

 

[Olde Europe]

That has been demonstrated absolutely beyond all dispute.

Yep, and you ought to be highly, unreservedly recommended for the patience and the stamina to wade through that swamp. I couldn't muster either.

 

[SSDD]

Your semantics here are as worthless as worthless can be. That the world has been warming is simply undeniable. It is undeniable that basic physics tells us that increasing CO2 will have that effect (though several fools here try). Despite years of study, no other process has been found that could cause the observed warming. The warming which calculations tell us the CO2 increase we've produced would cause matches what has been observed. To conclude anything other than AGW is taking place is to deny facts in plain evidence. You're the denier.

All bullshit all the time with you crick...lets see a single shred of observed measured quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

A CO2 level of 400 ppm doesn't "suggest" but informs us outright that the Earth's equilibrium temperature is higher now than when CO2 was at 280 ppm. I know you love to bring up prehistoric climate parameters, but that CO2 is higher now than it has been at any time since before homo sapiens appeared on this planet is a far more pertinent fact.

And yet, lower than when CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm when the present ice age first began...And since the earth has been in an ice age since we came on the scene..with the associated colder oceans holding CO2, it stands to reason that CO2 has been low...go back to a period before the ice and you see CO2 in excess of 1000ppm...

OLR is increasing? What a surprise. Perhaps that's because the Earth's temperature is GOING UP YOU FUCKING IDIOT. The greenhouse effect doesn't permanently trap IR in the atmosphere, it only slows it's release to space. And, since we're talking about EM radiation, it's being slowed from a fraction of a second to, perhaps, a minute. Did you actually expect to see that on a graph of decades?

But that isn't what the AGW hypothesis predicts...it predicts reduced OLR...yet one more predictive failure for the AGW hypothesis...tell me, how many failures does a hypothesis get in your world before it is deemed a failure?..

- ocean acidification isn't data[/quot

Acidification (pH) levels were moderate when CO2 was high in the past because the CO2 increase took place over tens of thousands to millions of years and the erosion of calcareous aragonite and limestone had time to buffer the added the CO2. On the very few occasions when it DID take place as rapidly as it is taking place now, we experienced things like the Permian-Triassic Mass Extinction event, when over 96% of marine species and over 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species went extinct.

More bullshit...there isn't the first proxy study that could support such a claim...not nearly enough resolution...but then bullshit is all you have...isn't it?

The world is warming. That warming (like any change) has a cause. All available science concludes that the primary cause of that warming is the greenhouse effect acting on CO2 added to the atmosphere by human use of fossil fuels and deforestation.

More bullshit...as you have already demonstrated...you can't come up with the first piece of observed, measured, quantified empirical data to support the claim...all you have is failed computer models...

The rate of ice melt worldwide, has accelerate multifold from anything experienced during the onset of the current interglacial. And for most of the Holocene global temperatures have been slowly declining, not warming. And, as we've said many times before, what we'd prefer is for change to take place at an unaccelerated pace.

And yet more bullshit...no proxy study supports the claim...not nearly enough resolution...you are nothing more than a useful idiot parrot spouting what you have been told to spout without regard to whether you can support the statements.

It is not and you have no evidence that it is.

Of course it's true...you just wish it weren't.

Natural variability doesn't burn gigatonnes of fossil fuel. Neither CO2 levels nor temperatures have remained within natural variability. To this you will reply that both have seen greater extremes and to that I will point out that when they did, they had specific causes: those extremes did not represent the bounds of "natural variability", a term you have never defined and are unlikely to do so now.

Doesn't really matter since CO2 doesn't cause temperature change.

Yes, you lying piece of shit. He has "The Physical Science Basis" from AR5 as well as the thousands of published scientific studies on which it and its predecessors are based. You, on the other hand, DO - NOT - HAVE - JACK - SHIT.

And yet...you don't seem to be able to produce a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data from the whole steaming pile to support the AGW hypothesis...I am afraid that it is you who doesn't have jack shit...and are a f'ing idiot for being so thoroughly duped...

Science has never relied on the correlation. But no causality exists that doesn't exhibit correlation, does it.

that is all climate science has...not the first shred of actual evidence of causation.

You are an ignorant liar. That has been demonstrated, here and elsewhere, absolutely beyond all dispute.

Sorry crick..that statement is a bald faced lie...but it has been well established that you are a bald faced liar without the first shred of anything that resembles actual character...you are a useful idiot..nothing more.

 

[SSDD]

That has been demonstrated absolutely beyond all dispute.

Yep, and you ought to be highly, unreservedly recommended for the patience and the stamina to wade through that swamp. I couldn't muster either.

Why commend someone who failed at every point...all he has is opinion as evidenced by the fact that he produced nothing whatsoever to support his baseless claims...such is the nature of you warmer wackos...you are told to believe by people who share your political leanings so you believe....