Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[westwall]

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming



The human fingerprint in global warming



Charts are at the link.

Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion

This cites the work of scientists in peer reviewed journals:



The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change



This is the view of the scientific community. You are not arguing with me. You are disputing the work of PhD climatologists.

[M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations

Most? Likely?

Yes. Most all scientific predictions come down to one of likelihood. Are you uncomfortable with statistics and probability?

Not at all. However, if you are going to make such a substantial claim you had best be able to back it up with some empirical data. Which you can't. All you can do is trot out yet another worthless computer model.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I am when the "scientists" resort to lies to push economy killing taxes.

No, you are when skeptics tell you to. I doubt you'd even know how to get to google scholar let alone use it to think for yourself.

How much of our GDP should we spend to reduce our CO2 output?

A free allocation carbon credit system wouldn't take any money from the GDP. If a fossil fuel plant electric pays a hydropower plant for carbon credits the fossil fuel plant loses X dollars and the hydro plant gains X dollars. X - X = 0 last time I checked.\

Are you stupid or just uninformed?

Why should we be afraid of warmer weather?

Ahh, OK, that answers my question.

 

[SAT]

How reliable are climate models?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

[M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations

Most? Likely?

Yes. Most all scientific predictions come down to one of likelihood. Are you uncomfortable with statistics and probability?

Not at all. However, if you are going to make such a substantial claim you had best be able to back it up with some empirical data. Which you can't. All you can do is trot out yet another worthless computer model.

....with evidence that the model has been validated. its in the papers that I link to. You have to actually read them. You could find many more if you used google scholar instead of the blogosphere. But I guess google is just all part of the massive conspiracy.




You'd think with a B.S. in geology and a Ph.D. in Climatology - you'd know this. But apparently you are just full of shit. You literally think that by you saying something is true - its true. How narcissistic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am when the "scientists" resort to lies to push economy killing taxes.

No, you are when skeptics tell you to. I doubt you'd even know how to get to google scholar let alone use it to think for yourself.

How much of our GDP should we spend to reduce our CO2 output?

A free allocation carbon credit system wouldn't take any money from the GDP. If a fossil fuel plant electric pays a hydropower plant for carbon credits the fossil fuel plant loses X dollars and the hydro plant gains X dollars. X - X = 0 last time I checked.\

Are you stupid or just uninformed?

Why should we be afraid of warmer weather?

Ahh, OK, that answers my question.

Okay, so a coal plant pays a hydro plant $1 billion. Where does the CO2 reduction occur?
If you want to build a few dozen new nuke plants, I'll support that.

I live in Chicago, I'm not afraid of warmer weather.

 

[Si modo]

No, honey. I've presented evidence, a dozen people have presented evidence. You just trot out another dodge. I think you're both a liar and delusional.

The questions arise again-how is it that you're this much better at science than overwhelming majority of climate scientists?

You know the science exists, so why do you play this game of pretending that it doesn't?

Fill us in.

Then, provide that science you say exists that supports your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

I'm not doing your work.

Just saying something doesn't make it true.

Are you retarded? It's a serious question.

 

[SAT]

Then, provide that science you say exists that supports your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

I'm not doing your work.

Just saying something doesn't make it true.

Are you retarded? It's a serious question.

And this is exactly why it's so unlikely you have a degree in anything that requires logic.

You're pretending that the entire body of evidence does not exist.

That's either a desperate game, or the plan of someone who can't think her way out of a paper bag.

You know that the claims exist.

You cannot rationally dispute them.

So you play this game.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No, honey. I've presented evidence, a dozen people have presented evidence. You just trot out another dodge. I think you're both a liar and delusional.

The questions arise again-how is it that you're this much better at science than overwhelming majority of climate scientists?

You know the science exists, so why do you play this game of pretending that it doesn't?

Fill us in.

Then, provide that science you say exists that supports your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.



I'm not doing your work.

Just saying something doesn't make it true.

Are you retarded? It's a serious question.

Si Modo - do you deny the existence of a greenhouse effect at all?

Because from the above graph, its indisputable that the greenhouse effect is larger in 1996 than it was in 1970.


Its also established that there is the expected corresponding increase in long wave radiation hitting the Earth's surface is occurring.


P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)




Can you point to one or more specific causes other than Co2 that explain the warming just as well? Seems like given the spectrum above, it should be relatively easy to compute the expected warming due to it - and then check to see if that matches current levels. Are you saying all of climatology failed to do this basic calculation? Because any IPCC report I've ever seen always computes the expected forcing due to CO2 and many other effects. Do you think they just make that number up?

 

[Si modo]

Then, provide that science you say exists that supports your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

I'm not doing your work.

Just saying something doesn't make it true.

Are you retarded? It's a serious question.

And this is exactly why it's so unlikely you have a degree in anything that requires logic.

You're pretending that because I haven't posted a link that meets with your likely, the entire body of evidence does not exist.

That's either a desperate game, or the plan of someone who can't think her way out of a paper bag.

You know that the claims exist.

You cannot rationally dispute them.

So you play this game.

This is a science discussion. You've provided zero science to support your claim. Telling me I know something exists is not proof of anything.

It's called burden. You don't even understand THAT.

As far as disputing anything, you've provided NOTHING to dispute.

You want me to dispute nothing?


You clearly are retarded. Or crazy.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

[

Okay, so a coal plant pays a hydro plant $1 billion. Where does the CO2 reduction occur?

Jeez, really? Do you ever bother to think before you speak?

It occurs because there is only a finite number of carbon credits issued. It smilar to the SO2/NxO cap and trade system - which BTW, worked.

If you want to build a few dozen new nuke plants, I'll support that.

I live in Chicago, I'm not afraid of warmer weather.

I'm glad you admit to having an extremely myopic view of the world

 

[SAT]

This is a science discussion. You've provided zero science to support your claim. Telling me I know something exists is not proof of anything.

It's called burden. You don't even understand THAT.

As far as disputing anything, you've provided NOTHING to dispute.

You want me to dispute nothing?


You clearly are retarded. Or crazy.

No, this is a game you play. You are aware of the claims, you cannot dispute those claims rationally, so you play this game.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Your claim is that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

You posted a blog demonstrating the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to man.

You've done nothing to support your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.










Idiot.

Hey what is your Ph.D in? Poster above says "a natural science" - just wondering which one.

Chemistry.

Which petrochemical company do you work for?

 

[Si modo]

Hey what is your Ph.D in? Poster above says "a natural science" - just wondering which one.

Chemistry.

Which petrochemical company do you work for?

None.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Chemistry.

Which petrochemical company do you work for?

None.

What do you work in, industry or academia, and are they hiring physics post-docs?

 

[Si modo]

Which petrochemical company do you work for?

None.

What do you work in, industry or academia, and are they hiring physics post-docs?

I used to be in academia, now I am with a not-for-profit contracting for the DoD.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[

Okay, so a coal plant pays a hydro plant $1 billion. Where does the CO2 reduction occur?

Jeez, really? Do you ever bother to think before you speak?

It occurs because there is only a finite number of carbon credits issued. It smilar to the SO2/NxO cap and trade system - which BTW, worked.

If you want to build a few dozen new nuke plants, I'll support that.

I live in Chicago, I'm not afraid of warmer weather.

I'm glad you admit to having an extremely myopic view of the world

How much damage should we do to our economy based on the limited number of carbon credits you want to issue.

Myopic? No, I just realize that warmer doesn't mean worse for everyone.

 

[SAT]

Which petrochemical company do you work for?

So you think we're dealing, not with someone who can't help but be irrational, but with someone who's paid to be irrational.

 

[SAT]

In academia = TA or RA?

 

[Si modo]

This is a science discussion. You've provided zero science to support your claim. Telling me I know something exists is not proof of anything.

It's called burden. You don't even understand THAT.

As far as disputing anything, you've provided NOTHING to dispute.

You want me to dispute nothing?


You clearly are retarded. Or crazy.

No, this is a game you play. You are aware of the claims, you cannot dispute those claims rationally, so you play this game.

Oh, I know what your claim is and I know the claims of others are the same. When they are supported with science, those claims will have meat.

But, your claim isn't supported by the science, thus it is nothing but a belief. Beliefs are great in religion, but they have little place in science.

 

[SAT]

This is a science discussion. You've provided zero science to support your claim. Telling me I know something exists is not proof of anything.

It's called burden. You don't even understand THAT.

As far as disputing anything, you've provided NOTHING to dispute.

You want me to dispute nothing?


You clearly are retarded. Or crazy.

No, this is a game you play. You are aware of the claims, you cannot dispute those claims rationally, so you play this game.

Oh, I know what your claim is and I know the claims of others are the same. When they are supported with science, those claims will have meat.

But, your claim isn't supported by the science, thus it is nothing but a belief. Beliefs are great in religion, but they have little place in science.

It's not my claim. It's science's claim. You realize that those claims are out there, you cannot rationally dispute them, so you play this game.