First direct observation of carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect at Earth's surface

[orogenicman]

Mann's algorithm does not produce hockey sticks and Mann had no involvement in their production. Try again. Or not.

Without Manns Hockey stick algorithm

They call it "the Pause"

LOLz

The GISS data I posted goes back to 1880. This graph, by Bill Weller of the Daily Mail (major scientific facility, the Daily Mail) goes back to 1997. It also looks very much like a crayon drawing as your mates so often accuse Skeptical Science of producing.

And, BTW, have you seen the ocean plot?

Hmmm... which way is that going Frank?

Unadjusted data sets show it cooling by o.3 deg C over the last 20 years. Why is that? Why do you use only adjusted and approved data sets from the alarmist camp? Real scientist look at both and ask why the discrepancies... Empirical evidence is not supporting you Crick, it's outing you as a deceiver.

Erm, real scientists aren't publishing their results on Wattsupwiththat.com.

No Response to the evidence,,, but a nice adhom on real science being done openly and publicly... What, your so called science cant stand open debate and light?

Wattsupwiththat is not real science. It is rightwing politics supported by the petrochemical industry pretending to be something it most certainly is not.

 

[jc456]

Without Manns Hockey stick algorithm

They call it "the Pause"

LOLz

The GISS data I posted goes back to 1880. This graph, by Bill Weller of the Daily Mail (major scientific facility, the Daily Mail) goes back to 1997. It also looks very much like a crayon drawing as your mates so often accuse Skeptical Science of producing.

And, BTW, have you seen the ocean plot?

Hmmm... which way is that going Frank?

Unadjusted data sets show it cooling by o.3 deg C over the last 20 years. Why is that? Why do you use only adjusted and approved data sets from the alarmist camp? Real scientist look at both and ask why the discrepancies... Empirical evidence is not supporting you Crick, it's outing you as a deceiver.

Erm, real scientists aren't publishing their results on Wattsupwiththat.com.

No Response to the evidence,,, but a nice adhom on real science being done openly and publicly... What, your so called science cant stand open debate and light?

Wattsupwiththat is not real science. It is rightwing politics supported by the petrochemical industry pretending to be something it most certainly is not.

Still doesn't make any sense who's site it is people go there to read documents and there's nothing wrong with that right? Isn't information vital to the discussion?

 

[orogenicman]

The GISS data I posted goes back to 1880. This graph, by Bill Weller of the Daily Mail (major scientific facility, the Daily Mail) goes back to 1997. It also looks very much like a crayon drawing as your mates so often accuse Skeptical Science of producing.

And, BTW, have you seen the ocean plot?

Hmmm... which way is that going Frank?

Unadjusted data sets show it cooling by o.3 deg C over the last 20 years. Why is that? Why do you use only adjusted and approved data sets from the alarmist camp? Real scientist look at both and ask why the discrepancies... Empirical evidence is not supporting you Crick, it's outing you as a deceiver.

Erm, real scientists aren't publishing their results on Wattsupwiththat.com.

No Response to the evidence,,, but a nice adhom on real science being done openly and publicly... What, your so called science cant stand open debate and light?

Wattsupwiththat is not real science. It is rightwing politics supported by the petrochemical industry pretending to be something it most certainly is not.

Still doesn't make any sense who's site it is people go there to read documents and there's nothing wrong with that right? Isn't information vital to the discussion?

If your question is do you have a right to frequent political blogs to get your fix on the latest bullshit passing itself off as science, the answer is yes.

 

[jc456]

Unadjusted data sets show it cooling by o.3 deg C over the last 20 years. Why is that? Why do you use only adjusted and approved data sets from the alarmist camp? Real scientist look at both and ask why the discrepancies... Empirical evidence is not supporting you Crick, it's outing you as a deceiver.

Erm, real scientists aren't publishing their results on Wattsupwiththat.com.

No Response to the evidence,,, but a nice adhom on real science being done openly and publicly... What, your so called science cant stand open debate and light?

Wattsupwiththat is not real science. It is rightwing politics supported by the petrochemical industry pretending to be something it most certainly is not.

Still doesn't make any sense who's site it is people go there to read documents and there's nothing wrong with that right? Isn't information vital to the discussion?

If your question is do you have a right to frequent political blogs to get your fix on the latest bullshit passing itself off as science, the answer is yes.

So why wouldn't the scientist want me to read their work there?

 

[orogenicman]

Erm, real scientists aren't publishing their results on Wattsupwiththat.com.

No Response to the evidence,,, but a nice adhom on real science being done openly and publicly... What, your so called science cant stand open debate and light?

Wattsupwiththat is not real science. It is rightwing politics supported by the petrochemical industry pretending to be something it most certainly is not.

Still doesn't make any sense who's site it is people go there to read documents and there's nothing wrong with that right? Isn't information vital to the discussion?

If your question is do you have a right to frequent political blogs to get your fix on the latest bullshit passing itself off as science, the answer is yes.

So why wouldn't the scientist want me to read their work there?

For the same reason real scientists don't publish at creationscience.com.

 

[jc456]

No Response to the evidence,,, but a nice adhom on real science being done openly and publicly... What, your so called science cant stand open debate and light?

Wattsupwiththat is not real science. It is rightwing politics supported by the petrochemical industry pretending to be something it most certainly is not.

Still doesn't make any sense who's site it is people go there to read documents and there's nothing wrong with that right? Isn't information vital to the discussion?

If your question is do you have a right to frequent political blogs to get your fix on the latest bullshit passing itself off as science, the answer is yes.

So why wouldn't the scientist want me to read their work there?

For the same reason real scientists don't publish at creationscience.com.

And what is that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Through 2010

^ After application of Mann's Hockey Stick Algorithm

Mann's algorithm does not produce hockey sticks and Mann had no involvement in their production. Try again. Or not.

Without Manns Hockey stick algorithm

They call it "the Pause"

LOLz

The GISS data I posted goes back to 1880. This graph, by Bill Weller of the Daily Mail (major scientific facility, the Daily Mail) goes back to 1997. It also looks very much like a crayon drawing as your mates so often accuse Skeptical Science of producing.

And, BTW, have you seen the ocean plot?

Hmmm... which way is that going Frank?

Yes the ocean ate your global warming.

That's a winning argument

 

[orogenicman]

Wattsupwiththat is not real science. It is rightwing politics supported by the petrochemical industry pretending to be something it most certainly is not.

Still doesn't make any sense who's site it is people go there to read documents and there's nothing wrong with that right? Isn't information vital to the discussion?

If your question is do you have a right to frequent political blogs to get your fix on the latest bullshit passing itself off as science, the answer is yes.

So why wouldn't the scientist want me to read their work there?

For the same reason real scientists don't publish at creationscience.com.

And what is that?

it is not an appropriate forum for conducting real science. It would be like a brain surgeon publishing a life saving technique in mechanics weekly.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Through 2010

^ After application of Mann's Hockey Stick Algorithm

Its amazing that rise only appears AFTER homogenization and infilling of the data to higher temps. Yes, The bastardization of the temp record to keep the lie alive..

And your proof of this would be?

Empirical observation... ones that disprove your meme outright.

Tell me how an atmosphere of 96% CO2 allows glaciation? According to AGW theroy it is impossible, yet there it is...

According to the AGWCult rantings, Mars should have a runaway greenhouse atmosphere and a temperature close to that of Venus

 

[jc456]

Still doesn't make any sense who's site it is people go there to read documents and there's nothing wrong with that right? Isn't information vital to the discussion?

If your question is do you have a right to frequent political blogs to get your fix on the latest bullshit passing itself off as science, the answer is yes.

So why wouldn't the scientist want me to read their work there?

For the same reason real scientists don't publish at creationscience.com.

And what is that?

it is not an appropriate forum for conducting real science. It would be like a brain surgeon publishing a life saving technique in mechanics weekly.

whatever, it's kind of stupid if you ask me, you want to convince people something but you don't want to put your documentation where they go read that' just doesn't follow logic. But then again you guys never have any logic.

 

[orogenicman]

If your question is do you have a right to frequent political blogs to get your fix on the latest bullshit passing itself off as science, the answer is yes.

So why wouldn't the scientist want me to read their work there?

For the same reason real scientists don't publish at creationscience.com.

And what is that?

it is not an appropriate forum for conducting real science. It would be like a brain surgeon publishing a life saving technique in mechanics weekly.

whatever, it's kind of stupid if you ask me, you want to convince people something but you don't want to put your documentation where they go read that' just doesn't follow logic. But then again you guys never have any logic.

Science publications aren't meant to inform the public. They are meant to inform other scientists. You didn't know this? Huh. If you want to get informed, take a friggin class.

 

[jc456]

So why wouldn't the scientist want me to read their work there?

For the same reason real scientists don't publish at creationscience.com.

And what is that?

it is not an appropriate forum for conducting real science. It would be like a brain surgeon publishing a life saving technique in mechanics weekly.

whatever, it's kind of stupid if you ask me, you want to convince people something but you don't want to put your documentation where they go read that' just doesn't follow logic. But then again you guys never have any logic.

Science publications aren't meant to inform the public. They are meant to inform other scientists. You didn't know this? Huh. If you want to get informed, take a friggin class.

So fuck the public is what you're saying?

 

[Billy_Bob]

No Response to the evidence,,, but a nice adhom on real science being done openly and publicly... What, your so called science cant stand open debate and light?

Wattsupwiththat is not real science. It is rightwing politics supported by the petrochemical industry pretending to be something it most certainly is not.

Still doesn't make any sense who's site it is people go there to read documents and there's nothing wrong with that right? Isn't information vital to the discussion?

If your question is do you have a right to frequent political blogs to get your fix on the latest bullshit passing itself off as science, the answer is yes.

So why wouldn't the scientist want me to read their work there?

For the same reason real scientists don't publish at creationscience.com.

Your straw man is in ashes....

 

[Billy_Bob]

So why wouldn't the scientist want me to read their work there?

For the same reason real scientists don't publish at creationscience.com.

And what is that?

it is not an appropriate forum for conducting real science. It would be like a brain surgeon publishing a life saving technique in mechanics weekly.

whatever, it's kind of stupid if you ask me, you want to convince people something but you don't want to put your documentation where they go read that' just doesn't follow logic. But then again you guys never have any logic.

Science publications aren't meant to inform the public. They are meant to inform other scientists. You didn't know this? Huh. If you want to get informed, take a friggin class.

Elitism and all its bull shit.. An informed public is the basis of our Republic. So your intent is to deprive them of that and then enslave them.. Have you ever considered that most people are not as stupid as you are and they do not want to be enslaved by the likes of you?

 

[mamooth]

Thread summary:

1. The best study yet directly demonstrating the increasing greenhouse effect from added CO2 was presented.

2. Some deniers were unable to offer any meaningful response, and instead began screaming increasingly incoherent conspiracy theories. A couple of them starting reinforcing each other's crazy and egging each other on to ever-greater heights of stupid, so they got more unbalanced as the thread continued.

Given that some deniers will probably start making threats soon, it's probably best to leave the thread be now. It's done what was necessary, which was to present the good evidence, and to reveal some deniers as morally bankrupt cultists.

 

[jc456]

Thread summary:

1. The best study yet directly demonstrating the increasing greenhouse effect from added CO2 was presented.

2. Some deniers were unable to offer any meaningful response, and instead began screaming increasingly incoherent conspiracy theories. A couple of them starting reinforcing each other's crazy and egging each other on to ever-greater heights of stupid, so they got more unbalanced as the thread continued.

Given that some deniers will probably start making threats soon, it's probably best to leave the thread be now. It's done what was necessary, which was to present the good evidence, and to reveal some deniers as morally bankrupt cultists.

Thread summary, the warmers quit discussion. They couldn't provide any evidence to prove CO2 does anything to temperatures, therefore the greenhouse effect is in question. Now the name calling will commence.

 

[IanC]

CO2 has a provable effect on radiative atmospheric equilibriums. What has not been proved is the actual amount of surface warming that will occur after other heat transfer mechanisms are accounted for. Even Treberth's cartoon has 5/8ths of the energy going into non-radiative pathways.

Mars and Venus surface temps are overwhelmingly controlled by atmospheric density not CO2 composition. It is interesting that Mars also seemed to be in a global warming phase over the last century, suggesting solar influence.

 

[mamooth]

So the sun is cooling, but it's still the sun causing warming.

Some planets are cooling ... but it's still the sun causing warming.

In the eyes of its devotees, the solar theory has become unfalsifiable. That's one reason you know it's pseudoscience. In direct contrast, the real AGW science is falsifiable in multiple ways.

 

[Old Rocks]

What is happening is that the denialists are seeing the end of the road, and it is not to their liking. The events of the next few years are going to show just what assholes these people truly are, and the what the cost, in lives and property their lies have cost.

 

[jc456]

So the sun is cooling, but it's still the sun causing warming.

Some planets are cooling ... but it's still the sun causing warming.

In the eyes of its devotees, the solar theory has become unfalsifiable. That's one reason you know it's pseudoscience. In direct contrast, the real AGW science is falsifiable in multiple ways.

Did you really just write that? What do you think that big bright ball in the sky does than if it isn't to warm us?