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

[SSDD]

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.

Of course it is crick...our choices reveal our character......and what did you choose?.....squirmy equivocation rather than addressing the actual point which prompted you to post the poll in the first place....rather than ask if AR5 contained observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...you simply ask is there is empirical data there...that was never the issue and you know it....your poll is dishonest with respect to the discussion that prompted it..

 

[Crick]

The poll's question is mine to choose. If you don't want to answer it, go fuck off.

What is it that prevents YOU from asking such questions if you think they're so important?

And what does this turn of debate have to do with the topic of this thread?

 

[SSDD]

The poll's question is mine to choose. If you don't want to answer it, go fuck off.

Of course it is crick...I never said that it wasn't.....the choice was all yours and what did you do with it?...why you chose the route of slimy equivocation....as one would expect from a person of your character.

What is it that prevents YOU from asking such questions if you think they're so important?[/quote]

I am asking...and you are claiming that the data that answers my questions is there...but you just don't seem to be able to produce it...

And what does this turn of debate have to do with the topic of this thread?

Just pointing out your fundamental dishonesty to anyone who might not have been paying attention...

 

[Crick]

So, it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. And you admit that I am free to set a poll about any climate-related question I choose to. And then you add several ad hominem attacks lacking any valid justification.

I think we see who is dishonest here SID.

 

[SSDD]

So, it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. And you admit that I am free to set a poll about any climate-related question I choose to. And then you add several ad hominem attacks lacking any valid justification.

I think we see who is dishonest here SID.

Of course crick...you are free as a bird...to be as slimy and equivocating as you care to be...as evidenced by your flawed character, you have taken full advantage of that freedom.

 

[Crick]

You are still wasting everyone's time here SID

 

[SSDD]

You are still wasting everyone's time here SID

Sorry guy..you are the waste...I am asking for actual data which supports the claims you are making....that is a more than valid use of time...you on the other hand are making claims that you can't provide data to support...that is nothing more than a waste of time.

 

[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...

[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.

and no observed empirical data. Where is it crick? post up that missing paragraph. See people of the board, nothing, crickets from the crick. Is that considered reproduction?

 

[jc456]

You are still wasting everyone's time here SID

who is everyone?

It seems you have the mirror again.

 

[jc456]

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.

well if it's yours, post the paragraph that substantiates your poll.

 

[SSDD]

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.

well if it's yours, post the paragraph that substantiates your poll.

I guess he thinks no one notices the fact that he keeps claiming that observed, measured, quantified evidence exists in AR5 that supports the claim that man is altering the global climate and doesn't seem to be able to bring any here.

 

[Crick]

I guess you think no one notices that despite the mountains of evidence they can all see in AR5 (and 4 and 3 and 2 and 1), you keep claiming it contains none.

 

[esthermoon]

Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.

Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.

“Fundamentally, I’m a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output and observational climate data trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change,” Mr. Mann told the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee at a hearing.

“What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle,” he said.

Mr. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, spoke before the committee June 17 in Phoenix.

His comment drew hoots from climate skeptics, including the website Greenie Watch, which posted his comment under the headline, “‘Scientist’ Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics: You can just SEE global warming.”

“Unsurprising. The statistics are pretty doleful for Warmism,” the site said in a Monday post.

Keep reading…

I can't believe it....

 

[Crick]

You can't believe what?

 

[esthermoon]

I can't believe a scientist could say what Michael Mann said!

 

[Crick]

I hope you don't believe what the deniers would have you believe: that Mann was making a serious suggestion. He was using hyperbole to make a point: that it no longer requires cutting edge science to SEE the effects of global warming. Apply Occam's Razor to the question.

 

[westwall]

I guess you think no one notices that despite the mountains of evidence they can all see in AR5 (and 4 and 3 and 2 and 1), you keep claiming it contains none.

You keep claiming there's a mountain of evidence but there isn't any evidence. There is loads of opinion in those reports but not one bit of empirical evidence. Are you mentally challenged or are you too ignorant to know the difference?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I guess you think no one notices that despite the mountains of evidence they can all see in AR5 (and 4 and 3 and 2 and 1), you keep claiming it contains none.

How many times must we remind you that model outputs are not empirical evidence of ANYTHING!

The IPCC is drawing conclusions from fantasy land as are you.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I hope you don't believe what the deniers would have you believe: that Mann was making a serious suggestion. He was using hyperbole to make a point: that it no longer requires cutting edge science to SEE the effects of global warming. Apply Occam's Razor to the question.

Mann Believes it...

 

[jc456]

I guess you think no one notices that despite the mountains of evidence they can all see in AR5 (and 4 and 3 and 2 and 1), you keep claiming it contains none.

It doesn't