Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[westwall]

Unfortunately, for much of the predictive work in climate science, the work either does not assign causation to warming (because they can't) or, if the predictive work does assign causation to mand made CO2, that work has subsequently been falsified.

As I said, and keep on saying, the state of the science does not support ANY conclusion about the causation of warming nor the significance and/or magnitude of that causation.

I tend not to have much emotions one way or the other over what is. It just is.

Unfortunately for you, you have some very confused notions about "what is".

Your statement that the scientific research that determined that the current abrupt warming trend is anthropogenic in origin "has subsequently been falsified" is total horseshyt, as is your statement about the "state of the science" not supporting "ANY conclusion about the causation of warming". TOTAL FRIGGING HORSESHYT!!!!

Here's the actual facts about the "state of the science" and the actual conclusions of the world scientific community. All of these conclusions have only grown stronger and even more supported by the ever increasing body of scientific evidence in the years since these findings were first published.

Scientific opinion on climate change - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys. Self-selected lists of individuals' opinions, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."​

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion...

American Association for the Advancement of Science
As the world's largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006:

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.[32]


American Chemical Society
The American Chemical Society stated:

Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.

The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005).


American Physical Society
In November 2007, the American Physical Society (APS) adopted an official statement on climate change:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.


American Geophysical Union
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement,[41] adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007, affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.


Geological Society of America
In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on April 20, 2010 with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction.

Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.


American Meteorological Society
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.

Big deal. "OPINIONS" ain't facts buckwheat.

 

[Si modo]

Unfortunately, for much of the predictive work in climate science, the work either does not assign causation to warming (because they can't) or, if the predictive work does assign causation to mand made CO2, that work has subsequently been falsified.

As I said, and keep on saying, the state of the science does not support ANY conclusion about the causation of warming nor the significance and/or magnitude of that causation.

I tend not to have much emotions one way or the other over what is. It just is.

Unfortunately for you, you have some very confused notions about "what is".

Your statement that the scientific research that determined that the current abrupt warming trend is anthropogenic in origin "has subsequently been falsified" is total horseshyt, as is your statement about the "state of the science" not supporting "ANY conclusion about the causation of warming". TOTAL FRIGGING HORSESHYT!!!!

Here's the actual facts about the "state of the science" and the actual conclusions of the world scientific community. All of these conclusions have only grown stronger and even more supported by the ever increasing body of scientific evidence in the years since these findings were first published.

....

Those aren't 'facts'; those are opinions. Bolding and coloring opinions does not magically transform them into facts.

As I said, the science is not there to determine causation of warming.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Unfortunately, for much of the predictive work in climate science, the work either does not assign causation to warming (because they can't) or, if the predictive work does assign causation to mand made CO2, that work has subsequently been falsified.

As I said, and keep on saying, the state of the science does not support ANY conclusion about the causation of warming nor the significance and/or magnitude of that causation.

I tend not to have much emotions one way or the other over what is. It just is.

Unfortunately for you, you have some very confused notions about "what is".

Your statement that the scientific research that determined that the current abrupt warming trend is anthropogenic in origin "has subsequently been falsified" is total horseshyt, as is your statement about the "state of the science" not supporting "ANY conclusion about the causation of warming". TOTAL FRIGGING HORSESHYT!!!!

Here's the actual facts about the "state of the science" and the actual conclusions of the world scientific community. All of these conclusions have only grown stronger and even more supported by the ever increasing body of scientific evidence in the years since these findings were first published.

Scientific opinion on climate change - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys. Self-selected lists of individuals' opinions, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."​

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion...

American Association for the Advancement of Science
As the world's largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006:

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.[32]


American Chemical Society
The American Chemical Society stated:

Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.

The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005).


American Physical Society
In November 2007, the American Physical Society (APS) adopted an official statement on climate change:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.


American Geophysical Union
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement,[41] adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007, affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.


Geological Society of America
In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on April 20, 2010 with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction.

Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.


American Meteorological Society
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.

"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

Haha. Thanks. That was funny.

 

[RollingThunder]

Unfortunately, for much of the predictive work in climate science, the work either does not assign causation to warming (because they can't) or, if the predictive work does assign causation to mand made CO2, that work has subsequently been falsified.

As I said, and keep on saying, the state of the science does not support ANY conclusion about the causation of warming nor the significance and/or magnitude of that causation.

I tend not to have much emotions one way or the other over what is. It just is.

Unfortunately for you, you have some very confused notions about "what is".

Your statement that the scientific research that determined that the current abrupt warming trend is anthropogenic in origin "has subsequently been falsified" is total horseshyt, as is your statement about the "state of the science" not supporting "ANY conclusion about the causation of warming". TOTAL FRIGGING HORSESHYT!!!!

Here's the actual facts about the "state of the science" and the actual conclusions of the world scientific community. All of these conclusions have only grown stronger and even more supported by the ever increasing body of scientific evidence in the years since these findings were first published.

....

Those aren't 'facts'; those are opinions. Bolding and coloring opinions does not magically transform them into facts.

As I said, the science is not there to determine causation of warming.

These are your ignorant uninformed "opinions", not facts.
"As I said, and keep on saying, the state of the science does not support ANY conclusion about the causation of warming nor the significance and/or magnitude of that causation."
"As I said, the science is not there to determine causation of warming."
You can repeat your assertions over and over all you want but it won't "magically transform them into facts" or change the very simple fact that you don't (and can't) support your "opinions" with any evidence or data or citations from the scientific literature. All of your posturing and pronouncements amount to just more hot air with no substance.

The scientists and scientific organizations and societies and universities that I cited earlier aren't just flapping their lips like you, dimwit. They base their statements on the literally mountains of evidence and data the have been gathered and that are summed up in the IPCC reports. The world scientific community is about as scientifically certain about this as it is possible to get. Call their conclusions "opinions" if you want, but I, or any other intelligent person, will take their informed 'opinions' on this matter over your ignorant unsupported drivel any day.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Unfortunately for you, you have some very confused notions about "what is".

Your statement that the scientific research that determined that the current abrupt warming trend is anthropogenic in origin "has subsequently been falsified" is total horseshyt, as is your statement about the "state of the science" not supporting "ANY conclusion about the causation of warming". TOTAL FRIGGING HORSESHYT!!!!

Here's the actual facts about the "state of the science" and the actual conclusions of the world scientific community. All of these conclusions have only grown stronger and even more supported by the ever increasing body of scientific evidence in the years since these findings were first published.

....

Those aren't 'facts'; those are opinions. Bolding and coloring opinions does not magically transform them into facts.

As I said, the science is not there to determine causation of warming.

These are your ignorant uninformed "opinions", not facts.
"As I said, and keep on saying, the state of the science does not support ANY conclusion about the causation of warming nor the significance and/or magnitude of that causation."
"As I said, the science is not there to determine causation of warming."
You can repeat your assertions over and over all you want but it won't "magically transform them into facts" or change the very simple fact that you don't (and can't) support your "opinions" with any evidence or data or citations from the scientific literature. All of your posturing and pronouncements amount to just more hot air with no substance.

The scientists and scientific organizations and societies and universities that I cited earlier aren't just flapping their lips like you, dimwit. They base their statements on the literally mountains of evidence and data the have been gathered and that are summed up in the IPCC reports. The world scientific community is about as scientifically certain about this as it is possible to get. Call their conclusions "opinions" if you want, but I, or any other intelligent person, will take their informed 'opinions' on this matter over your ignorant unsupported drivel any day.

The scientists who falsified data?
Left data out?
The ones who tricked the data to hide the decline?

 

[Si modo]

Unfortunately for you, you have some very confused notions about "what is".

Your statement that the scientific research that determined that the current abrupt warming trend is anthropogenic in origin "has subsequently been falsified" is total horseshyt, as is your statement about the "state of the science" not supporting "ANY conclusion about the causation of warming". TOTAL FRIGGING HORSESHYT!!!!

Here's the actual facts about the "state of the science" and the actual conclusions of the world scientific community. All of these conclusions have only grown stronger and even more supported by the ever increasing body of scientific evidence in the years since these findings were first published.

....

Those aren't 'facts'; those are opinions. Bolding and coloring opinions does not magically transform them into facts.

As I said, the science is not there to determine causation of warming.

These are your ignorant uninformed "opinions", not facts.
"As I said, and keep on saying, the state of the science does not support ANY conclusion about the causation of warming nor the significance and/or magnitude of that causation."

....

It is a fact.

If you don't believe it to be a fact, produce the science demonstrating such causation.

Recall, opinions are not science.

(Who would ever have imagined that an alleged adult would have to be reminded of that fact?)

.... "As I said, the science is not there to determine causation of warming."
You can repeat your assertions over and over all you want but it won't "magically transform them into facts" or change the very simple fact that you don't (and can't) support your "opinions" with any evidence or data or citations from the scientific literature. All of your posturing and pronouncements amount to just more hot air with no substance.

....

How silly of you to ask that a negative be proved.

So, produce the science that demonstrates the causation.

.... The scientists and scientific organizations and societies and universities that I cited earlier aren't just flapping their lips like you, dimwit. They base their statements on the literally mountains of evidence and data the have been gathered and that are summed up in the IPCC reports. The world scientific community is about as scientifically certain about this as it is possible to get. Call their conclusions "opinions" if you want, but I, or any other intelligent person, will take their informed 'opinions' on this matter over your ignorant unsupported drivel any day.

Believe it or not, scientists are human and have opinions. Unlike you, apparently, they know the difference between an opinion and fact.

 

[RollingThunder]

Those aren't 'facts'; those are opinions. Bolding and coloring opinions does not magically transform them into facts.

As I said, the science is not there to determine causation of warming.

These are your ignorant uninformed "opinions", not facts.
"As I said, and keep on saying, the state of the science does not support ANY conclusion about the causation of warming nor the significance and/or magnitude of that causation."
"As I said, the science is not there to determine causation of warming."
You can repeat your assertions over and over all you want but it won't "magically transform them into facts" or change the very simple fact that you don't (and can't) support your "opinions" with any evidence or data or citations from the scientific literature. All of your posturing and pronouncements amount to just more hot air with no substance.

The scientists and scientific organizations and societies and universities that I cited earlier aren't just flapping their lips like you, dimwit. They base their statements on the literally mountains of evidence and data the have been gathered and that are summed up in the IPCC reports. The world scientific community is about as scientifically certain about this as it is possible to get. Call their conclusions "opinions" if you want, but I, or any other intelligent person, will take their informed 'opinions' on this matter over your ignorant unsupported drivel any day.

The scientists who falsified data?
Left data out?
The ones who tricked the data to hide the decline?

All debunked denier cult myths with no substance. Like you, toadster.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

These are your ignorant uninformed "opinions", not facts.
"As I said, and keep on saying, the state of the science does not support ANY conclusion about the causation of warming nor the significance and/or magnitude of that causation."
"As I said, the science is not there to determine causation of warming."
You can repeat your assertions over and over all you want but it won't "magically transform them into facts" or change the very simple fact that you don't (and can't) support your "opinions" with any evidence or data or citations from the scientific literature. All of your posturing and pronouncements amount to just more hot air with no substance.

The scientists and scientific organizations and societies and universities that I cited earlier aren't just flapping their lips like you, dimwit. They base their statements on the literally mountains of evidence and data the have been gathered and that are summed up in the IPCC reports. The world scientific community is about as scientifically certain about this as it is possible to get. Call their conclusions "opinions" if you want, but I, or any other intelligent person, will take their informed 'opinions' on this matter over your ignorant unsupported drivel any day.

The scientists who falsified data?
Left data out?
The ones who tricked the data to hide the decline?

All debunked denier cult myths with no substance. Like you, toadster.

Trick the data was debunked?
Hide the decline was debunked?
The phony hockey stick was debunked?
Why are the other planets warming?
SUVs on Mars?

 

[Si modo]

These are your ignorant uninformed "opinions", not facts.
"As I said, and keep on saying, the state of the science does not support ANY conclusion about the causation of warming nor the significance and/or magnitude of that causation."
"As I said, the science is not there to determine causation of warming."
You can repeat your assertions over and over all you want but it won't "magically transform them into facts" or change the very simple fact that you don't (and can't) support your "opinions" with any evidence or data or citations from the scientific literature. All of your posturing and pronouncements amount to just more hot air with no substance.

The scientists and scientific organizations and societies and universities that I cited earlier aren't just flapping their lips like you, dimwit. They base their statements on the literally mountains of evidence and data the have been gathered and that are summed up in the IPCC reports. The world scientific community is about as scientifically certain about this as it is possible to get. Call their conclusions "opinions" if you want, but I, or any other intelligent person, will take their informed 'opinions' on this matter over your ignorant unsupported drivel any day.

The scientists who falsified data?
Left data out?
The ones who tricked the data to hide the decline?

All debunked denier cult myths with no substance. Like you, toadster.

What is a "denier" denying?

 

[whitehall]

Let's lay our cards on the table lefties. I don't want to crow nor do I want to eat crow. All I want is gas at about $1.00 at the pumps. Is that too much to ask? The problem is that our own president wants to punish Americans and we will never see cheap energy as long as Obama is in office.

 

[westwall]

These are your ignorant uninformed "opinions", not facts.
"As I said, and keep on saying, the state of the science does not support ANY conclusion about the causation of warming nor the significance and/or magnitude of that causation."
"As I said, the science is not there to determine causation of warming."
You can repeat your assertions over and over all you want but it won't "magically transform them into facts" or change the very simple fact that you don't (and can't) support your "opinions" with any evidence or data or citations from the scientific literature. All of your posturing and pronouncements amount to just more hot air with no substance.

The scientists and scientific organizations and societies and universities that I cited earlier aren't just flapping their lips like you, dimwit. They base their statements on the literally mountains of evidence and data the have been gathered and that are summed up in the IPCC reports. The world scientific community is about as scientifically certain about this as it is possible to get. Call their conclusions "opinions" if you want, but I, or any other intelligent person, will take their informed 'opinions' on this matter over your ignorant unsupported drivel any day.

The scientists who falsified data?
Left data out?
The ones who tricked the data to hide the decline?

All debunked denier cult myths with no substance. Like you, toadster.

Yes, we're the same "deniers" that told you that MTBE was a dangerous additive to gasoline. YOUR OPINION was that it was OK. Turns out OUR FACTS were nore accurate than your OPINIONS! Your OPINION caused billions in environmental damage and poisoned thousands of water wells throughout CA.

As one of my professors once said, "opinions are like assholes...everybody has one."

 

[gslack]

These are your ignorant uninformed "opinions", not facts.
"As I said, and keep on saying, the state of the science does not support ANY conclusion about the causation of warming nor the significance and/or magnitude of that causation."
"As I said, the science is not there to determine causation of warming."
You can repeat your assertions over and over all you want but it won't "magically transform them into facts" or change the very simple fact that you don't (and can't) support your "opinions" with any evidence or data or citations from the scientific literature. All of your posturing and pronouncements amount to just more hot air with no substance.

The scientists and scientific organizations and societies and universities that I cited earlier aren't just flapping their lips like you, dimwit. They base their statements on the literally mountains of evidence and data the have been gathered and that are summed up in the IPCC reports. The world scientific community is about as scientifically certain about this as it is possible to get. Call their conclusions "opinions" if you want, but I, or any other intelligent person, will take their informed 'opinions' on this matter over your ignorant unsupported drivel any day.

The scientists who falsified data?
Left data out?
The ones who tricked the data to hide the decline?

All debunked denier cult myths with no substance. Like you, toadster.

Oh look! Trollingblunder is back from his crying fit now...

Thats it troll don't quit... You got PR to post! All for the cause!

 

[RollingThunder]

Those aren't 'facts'; those are opinions. Bolding and coloring opinions does not magically transform them into facts.

As I said, the science is not there to determine causation of warming.

These are your ignorant uninformed "opinions", not facts.
"As I said, and keep on saying, the state of the science does not support ANY conclusion about the causation of warming nor the significance and/or magnitude of that causation."
You can repeat your assertions over and over all you want but it won't "magically transform them into facts" or change the very simple fact that you don't (and can't) support your "opinions" with any evidence or data or citations from the scientific literature. All of your posturing and pronouncements amount to just more hot air with no substance.

....

It is a fact.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......that is just too hilarious and ironically hypocritical....let's take the first line there of your post and combine it with the last line of your post:
"Unlike you, apparently, they know the difference between an opinion and fact."
If we add in a couple more of your lines, it reaches ROTFLMAO levels of hilarity.
"Recall, opinions are not science. (Who would ever have imagined that an alleged adult would have to be reminded of that fact?)"

So no, Slo dodo, "it" is not a "fact", "it" is just your uninformed opinion and it is a very mistaken one based only on your own apparently deliberate ignorance.

.... The scientists and scientific organizations and societies and universities that I cited earlier aren't just flapping their lips like you, dimwit. They base their statements on the literally mountains of evidence and data the have been gathered and that are summed up in the IPCC reports. The world scientific community is about as scientifically certain about this as it is possible to get. Call their conclusions "opinions" if you want, but I, or any other intelligent person, will take their informed 'opinions' on this matter over your ignorant unsupported drivel any day.

If you don't believe it to be a fact, produce the science demonstrating such causation.

OK, Dodo, here you go.

Let's start with the fact that scientists have been able to determine past atmospheric CO2 levels by analyzing air bubbles trapped in ice cores going back hundreds of thousands of years. There is a lot of evidence that CO2 levels stayed around 275ppm to 285ppm for at least the last ten thousand years, the period in which mankind was able to take advantage of a period of relatively stable climate to develop agriculture and cities and civilization and a world population of 7 billion. It stayed the same until about two centuries ago when mankind started to seriously develop and make widespread the use of coal and oil and natural gas and deforestation became widespread. Now mankind has raised CO2 levels by about 40%, from 285ppm to the current level of 389ppm. Here is a good account, with references and links to the scientific papers, to just how that increase in CO2 levels ties into the high degree of scientific certainty about the human "causation" of the current global warming/climate changes. Follow the link to the site for more detail.


Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
(excerpts)

According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."

 

[Si modo]

Good grief. Rollingthunder posts a blog as science.

S/he doesn't even know what science IS. S/he is just emoting.

 

[RollingThunder]

Good grief. Rollingthunder posts a blog as science.

S/he doesn't even know what science IS. S/he is just emoting.

Or, in other, more honest words, you can't deal with the actual science that debunks and demolishes your myths.

The fact is that there is less radiation leaving the Earth at the top of the atmosphere as measured by satellites and the loss is in the spectral absorption frequencies of CO2 and methane. There is more measurable infrared energy coming back to Earth, again at frequencies associated with greenhouse gases. There is a clear causal link between human carbon emissions and global warming that is scientifically verified.

Did your little denier cult brain just explode?

 

[westwall]

These are your ignorant uninformed "opinions", not facts.
"As I said, and keep on saying, the state of the science does not support ANY conclusion about the causation of warming nor the significance and/or magnitude of that causation."
You can repeat your assertions over and over all you want but it won't "magically transform them into facts" or change the very simple fact that you don't (and can't) support your "opinions" with any evidence or data or citations from the scientific literature. All of your posturing and pronouncements amount to just more hot air with no substance.

....

It is a fact.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......that is just too hilarious and ironically hypocritical....let's take the first line there of your post and combine it with the last line of your post:
"Unlike you, apparently, they know the difference between an opinion and fact."
If we add in a couple more of your lines, it reaches ROTFLMAO levels of hilarity.
"Recall, opinions are not science. (Who would ever have imagined that an alleged adult would have to be reminded of that fact?)"

So no, Slo dodo, "it" is not a "fact", "it" is just your uninformed opinion and it is a very mistaken one based only on your own apparently deliberate ignorance.

.... The scientists and scientific organizations and societies and universities that I cited earlier aren't just flapping their lips like you, dimwit. They base their statements on the literally mountains of evidence and data the have been gathered and that are summed up in the IPCC reports. The world scientific community is about as scientifically certain about this as it is possible to get. Call their conclusions "opinions" if you want, but I, or any other intelligent person, will take their informed 'opinions' on this matter over your ignorant unsupported drivel any day.

If you don't believe it to be a fact, produce the science demonstrating such causation.

OK, Dodo, here you go.

Let's start with the fact that scientists have been able to determine past atmospheric CO2 levels by analyzing air bubbles trapped in ice cores going back hundreds of thousands of years. There is a lot of evidence that CO2 levels stayed around 275ppm to 285ppm for at least the last ten thousand years, the period in which mankind was able to take advantage of a period of relatively stable climate to develop agriculture and cities and civilization and a world population of 7 billion. It stayed the same until about two centuries ago when mankind started to seriously develop and make widespread the use of coal and oil and natural gas and deforestation became widespread. Now mankind has raised CO2 levels by about 40%, from 285ppm to the current level of 389ppm. Here is a good account, with references and links to the scientific papers, to just how that increase in CO2 levels ties into the high degree of scientific certainty about the human "causation" of the current global warming/climate changes. Follow the link to the site for more detail.


Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
(excerpts)

According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."

Right. Your blog (amazing how it's OK for you to post from your blogs not for us to post from ours) says CO2 is increasing due to human causes, then does nothing to support that statement. It then continues on with the usual blather.

IT PRESENTS NO EMPIRICAL DATA TO SUPPRT WHAT THEY SAY. And you're too stupid to figure that out.

 

[Si modo]

Good grief. Rollingthunder posts a blog as science.

S/he doesn't even know what science IS. S/he is just emoting.

Or, in other, more honest words, you can't deal with the actual science that debunks and demolishes your myths.

The fact is that there is less radiation leaving the Earth at the top of the atmosphere as measured by satellites and the loss is in the spectral absorption frequencies of CO2 and methane. There is more measurable infrared energy coming back to Earth, again at frequencies associated with greenhouse gases. There is a clear causal link between human carbon emissions and global warming that is scientifically verified.

Did your little denier cult brain just explode?

Blogs aren't science.

And, it's amazing that I have to say that.

 

[westwall]

Good grief. Rollingthunder posts a blog as science.

S/he doesn't even know what science IS. S/he is just emoting.

Or, in other, more honest words, you can't deal with the actual science that debunks and demolishes your myths.

The fact is that there is less radiation leaving the Earth at the top of the atmosphere as measured by satellites and the loss is in the spectral absorption frequencies of CO2 and methane. There is more measurable infrared energy coming back to Earth, again at frequencies associated with greenhouse gases. There is a clear causal link between human carbon emissions and global warming that is scientifically verified.

Did your little denier cult brain just explode?

Blogs aren't science.

And, it's amazing that I have to say that.

Sadly, its the norm now Si. These yahoo's read a couple of blogs and suddenly they are the experts. Of course they can't do simple math to back up their contentions (hell Mann, with a PhD, can't do simple math! Demonstrably so!)but they're the experts!

 

[Si modo]

Or, in other, more honest words, you can't deal with the actual science that debunks and demolishes your myths.

The fact is that there is less radiation leaving the Earth at the top of the atmosphere as measured by satellites and the loss is in the spectral absorption frequencies of CO2 and methane. There is more measurable infrared energy coming back to Earth, again at frequencies associated with greenhouse gases. There is a clear causal link between human carbon emissions and global warming that is scientifically verified.

Did your little denier cult brain just explode?

Blogs aren't science.

And, it's amazing that I have to say that.

Sadly, its the norm now Si. These yahoo's read a couple of blogs and suddenly they are the experts. Of course they can't do simple math to back up their contentions (hell Mann, with a PhD, can't do simple math! Demonstrably so!)but they're the experts!

That's exactly why I use the term dilettante so often. At this point, I think even that term is generous.

 

[code1211]

These are your ignorant uninformed "opinions", not facts.
"As I said, and keep on saying, the state of the science does not support ANY conclusion about the causation of warming nor the significance and/or magnitude of that causation."
You can repeat your assertions over and over all you want but it won't "magically transform them into facts" or change the very simple fact that you don't (and can't) support your "opinions" with any evidence or data or citations from the scientific literature. All of your posturing and pronouncements amount to just more hot air with no substance.

....

It is a fact.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......that is just too hilarious and ironically hypocritical....let's take the first line there of your post and combine it with the last line of your post:
"Unlike you, apparently, they know the difference between an opinion and fact."
If we add in a couple more of your lines, it reaches ROTFLMAO levels of hilarity.
"Recall, opinions are not science. (Who would ever have imagined that an alleged adult would have to be reminded of that fact?)"

So no, Slo dodo, "it" is not a "fact", "it" is just your uninformed opinion and it is a very mistaken one based only on your own apparently deliberate ignorance.

.... The scientists and scientific organizations and societies and universities that I cited earlier aren't just flapping their lips like you, dimwit. They base their statements on the literally mountains of evidence and data the have been gathered and that are summed up in the IPCC reports. The world scientific community is about as scientifically certain about this as it is possible to get. Call their conclusions "opinions" if you want, but I, or any other intelligent person, will take their informed 'opinions' on this matter over your ignorant unsupported drivel any day.

If you don't believe it to be a fact, produce the science demonstrating such causation.

OK, Dodo, here you go.

Let's start with the fact that scientists have been able to determine past atmospheric CO2 levels by analyzing air bubbles trapped in ice cores going back hundreds of thousands of years. There is a lot of evidence that CO2 levels stayed around 275ppm to 285ppm for at least the last ten thousand years, the period in which mankind was able to take advantage of a period of relatively stable climate to develop agriculture and cities and civilization and a world population of 7 billion. It stayed the same until about two centuries ago when mankind started to seriously develop and make widespread the use of coal and oil and natural gas and deforestation became widespread. Now mankind has raised CO2 levels by about 40%, from 285ppm to the current level of 389ppm. Here is a good account, with references and links to the scientific papers, to just how that increase in CO2 levels ties into the high degree of scientific certainty about the human "causation" of the current global warming/climate changes. Follow the link to the site for more detail.


Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
(excerpts)

According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."

Blah, blah, blah. Pleae check the link below. It shows that the cooling of the Little Ice Age ended sometime between 1580 and 1650. The warming started at the point when the cooling ended. The Industrial Revolution started in the mid 1700's.

Your case is empty before you present it since the warming pre dates the cause you cite. The Industrial revolution could not have caused warming to occur 100 years before it started.

You are arguing that the future causes the past.

File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art

Industrial Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia