Climate Scientist: We Don't Need Data, You Can See Global Warming on TV

[Crick]

You realize Todd is pushing LeDupester's nonsense at you? Read his post #511. Todd doesn't need you to explain this to him.

Hauke, you are correct. Numerous plant and animal species are moving outside their normal ranges in response to rising temperatures. That has disturbed large number of biological cycles and predator-prey relationships. Do not be concerned about Westwall giving you grief. Nor SSDD, jc456, Crusader Frank, LaDexter or a dozen other deniers here. They are all fools still fretting about Al Gore and communist conspiracies.

Really? Then providing links to actual empirical observations shouldn't be a problem for you to provide. Please do so.

IPCC's AR5, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis.

 

[jc456]

You realize Todd is pushing LeDupester's nonsense at you? Read his post #511. Todd doesn't need you to explain this to him.

Hauke, you are correct. Numerous plant and animal species are moving outside their normal ranges in response to rising temperatures. That has disturbed large number of biological cycles and predator-prey relationships. Do not be concerned about Westwall giving you grief. Nor SSDD, jc456, Crusader Frank, LaDexter or a dozen other deniers here. They are all fools still fretting about Al Gore and communist conspiracies.

Really? Then providing links to actual empirical observations shouldn't be a problem for you to provide. Please do so.

IPCC's AR5, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis.

Post the part you think backs your claim friend, otherwise you again posted shit

 

[westwall]

You realize Todd is pushing LeDupester's nonsense at you? Read his post #511. Todd doesn't need you to explain this to him.

Hauke, you are correct. Numerous plant and animal species are moving outside their normal ranges in response to rising temperatures. That has disturbed large number of biological cycles and predator-prey relationships. Do not be concerned about Westwall giving you grief. Nor SSDD, jc456, Crusader Frank, LaDexter or a dozen other deniers here. They are all fools still fretting about Al Gore and communist conspiracies.

Really? Then providing links to actual empirical observations shouldn't be a problem for you to provide. Please do so.

IPCC's AR5, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis.

That is an opinion piece. I asked you to post empirical studies that support your claim. Please do so. Do you simply not understand what "empirical" means?

 

[SSDD]

That is an opinion piece. I asked you to post empirical studies that support your claim. Please do so. Do you simply not understand what "empirical" means?

If he understood what empirical means then perhaps he wouldn't be one of the duped...he might grasp that computer model output isn't empirical data and that is all climate science has.

 

[Crick]

Let me get this straight and I'd like to get this on the record. Do the two of you actually believe there are no empirical data in the IPCC's AR5's WG-I's "The Physical Science Basis"?

 

[jc456]

Let me get this straight and I'd like to get this on the record. Do the two of you actually believe there are no empirical data in the IPCC's AR5's WG-I's "The Physical Science Basis"?

well crick let me say this. you believe there is. So why not just copy and paste the material that you believe is empirical data and move on?

 

[Crick]

The board posting limits would not allow me to post one one-hundredth of it. I am following the board's guidelines that suggest posting links to large quantities of text, graphics or data. Do you need me to repeat the link or have you, as you've repeatedly claimed, already read the entire thing? Would you like to get in on this? Do YOU believe there is no empirical data in "The Physical Science Basis"?

Gives me an idea though...

 

[westwall]

Let me get this straight and I'd like to get this on the record. Do the two of you actually believe there are no empirical data in the IPCC's AR5's WG-I's "The Physical Science Basis"?

There is nothing empirical in AR5 which supports what you are saying. If there were, you would have trotted it out in a New York second.

 

[westwall]

The board posting limits would not allow me to post one one-hundredth of it. I am following the board's guidelines that suggest posting links to large quantities of text, graphics or data. Do you need me to repeat the link or have, as you've claimed, already read the entire thing? Would you like to get in on this? Do YOU believe there is no empirical data in "The Physical Science Basis"?

All you have to do is post a paragraph of what you think is empirical evidence, and then provide a link to that direct piece. That is fully within the rules as you very well know. Your constant posting of a link to AR5 is a pathetic attempt to baffle people with BS.

 

[hauke]

theres scientific data that theres only 40 million human beings on earth, everyone else is an ape not capable of thought

these monkeys should be exterminated as they procreate like rats and eat like locusts

if you belive that ...

 

[westwall]

theres scientific data that theres only 40 million human beings on earth, everyone else is an ape not capable of thought

these monkeys should be exterminated as they procreate like rats and eat like locusts

Are you drunk or just stupid?

 

[jc456]

The board posting limits would not allow me to post one one-hundredth of it. I am following the board's guidelines that suggest posting links to large quantities of text, graphics or data. Do you need me to repeat the link or have you, as you've repeatedly claimed, already read the entire thing? Would you like to get in on this? Do YOU believe there is no empirical data in "The Physical Science Basis"?

Gives me an idea though...

There is no empirical data in AR5. Feel free to post up what you feel is as I've stated previously. you don't need to post the entire document, that's just a foolish ploy by you to act like you have some sort of restriction. Fact is, all you have to do is give a section and a cut from that section and dude, I'd be happy to go give it another read. I am all about being cooperative. Seems that's far from your play book though. LOL

 

[SSDD]

Let me get this straight and I'd like to get this on the record. Do the two of you actually believe there are no empirical data in the IPCC's AR5's WG-I's "The Physical Science Basis"?

Are you really this dishonest crick...or just this stupid?....of course there is some empirical data to be found in AR5 or practically any paper you care to mention on the climate....what I have been asking for, and what you can never provide...because it doesn't exist...is observed, measured, quantified data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis.....I have made that perfectly clear all along and even posted a thread, which got this whole discussion started..

In fact, here is a quote from the OP of that thread.

My question is where is this evidence? I have been asking for decades to see some actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the real, observable, measurable quantifiable world that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis. We are after all talking about the climate...it is observable...it is measurable, it is quantifiable...things that effect it are observable, measurable, and quantifiable, therefore, observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the claim that man is altering the global climate should exist.

So where is it crick?...where is the observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...

 

[SSDD]

The board posting limits would not allow me to post one one-hundredth of it. I am following the board's guidelines that suggest posting links to large quantities of text, graphics or data. Do you need me to repeat the link or have you, as you've repeatedly claimed, already read the entire thing? Would you like to get in on this? Do YOU believe there is no empirical data in "The Physical Science Basis"?

Gives me an idea though...

I am not asking for reams of data crick...all I am asking for is one piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...something that shows the present climate is behaving outside the boundaries of natural variability and is hard evidence that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions....and we both know that you can't provide it because it does not exist.

 

[LaDexter]

something that shows the present climate is behaving outside the boundaries of natural variability

Plate tectonics continue to push the Marshall Islands closer to the Pacific Ring of Fire, one inch at a time, which is outside the boundaries of its past movement (ie it keeps moving in one direction)

ASKING "warmers" for RAW DATA is like asking Hillary for her CASTLE GRANDE billing records...

 

[Crick]

The board posting limits would not allow me to post one one-hundredth of it. I am following the board's guidelines that suggest posting links to large quantities of text, graphics or data. Do you need me to repeat the link or have you, as you've repeatedly claimed, already read the entire thing? Would you like to get in on this? Do YOU believe there is no empirical data in "The Physical Science Basis"?
[Gives me an idea though...

[See poll on whether or not "The Physical Science Basis" contains empirical data.]

I am not asking for reams of data crick...all I am asking for is one piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...something that shows the present climate is behaving outside the boundaries of natural variability and is hard evidence that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions....and we both know that you can't provide it because it does not exist.

See www.ipcc.ch. It is comprehensive and very professionally composed. It is quite simple to find information on just about any climate topic in which you might be interested and you will probably find more information there than you ever wanted to wade through. While you're reviewing some of that, you might think about the personal cost you suffer when you choose to lie.

 

[SSDD]

See www.ipcc.ch. It is comprehensive and very professionally composed. It is quite simple to find information on just about any climate topic in which you might be interested and you will probably find more information there than you ever wanted to wade through. While you're reviewing some of that, you might think about the personal cost you suffer when you choose to lie.

By your own words crick...people who claim that evidence exists and then send you off somewhere hoping that they find something are just talking out of their asses....if it is comprehensive and professionally composed...and it is quite simple to find information in, then you shouldn't have any problem at all plucking out some observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....and yet, you don't seem to be able to do it....thousands of pages of comprehensive, VERY professional information in which it is simple to find information on any climate topic and you don't seem to be able to find any on the topic of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...

Talk about talking out of your ass....I am laughing in your face crick...do you have any idea how stupid you look.

 

[Crick]

"Laugh while you can, monkey boy"

Buckaroo Banzai and His Adventures in the 8th Dimension

When are you going to vote SID?

 

[SSDD]

"Laugh while you can, monkey boy"

Buckaroo Banzai and His Adventures in the 8th Dimension

When are you going to vote SID?

I have already said that there is empirical evidence there....stating the temperature of the room one is in is empirical data...but that isn't the issue is it crick...your poll is dishonest in that it doesn't actually address the point of the discussion that prompted it...start a poll and ask if there is empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...and see how many yes votes you get...your character is terribly flawed crick...as evidenced by the sort of squirmy equivocation your poll represents.

 

[Crick]

The poll's question is mine to choose. If you want to discuss something else, start another thread or start another poll. If you don't want to vote in this one, bugger off.