Houston's chemical pollution and Trump's firing half the EPA will revive that debate after Harvey.

[fncceo]

Instead, he probably got a higher position in the corporate hierarchy.

 

[Billo_Really]

You really are ignorant of history and facts..

The IPCC makes the claim that all of the warming post 1950 is man caused due to the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere. So lets see just what the natural process was prior to 1950 and compare it to that time span.

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

This is empirical evidence!

Now show me yours.. (you don't have it) Are you now insinuating that man is solely responsible for all warming since 1850? That is a significant departure from the IPCC meme..

What is with these bullshit strawman arguments you fuckers keep pushing? And why is it so important to you to get people to believe this horseshit? Are you employed by oil and gas? Why do you keep trying to spin my point into something I didn't say? Why do you say I didn't post any evidence when it was clear that I did?

You fuckers are responsible for the shattered lives in Houston and Florida.

 

[Billo_Really]

I didn't say that.

You seemed to be saying exactly that. You apparently claimed that since the temperature and sea level were changing that it somehow must be us that is causing it and in order to make that claim based on nothing more than the fact that the numbers were changing, you would have to be assuming that they had never changed before and therefore, we must be the reason.

Until you combine it with other evidence.

What other evidence? More evidence of change with the assumption that it must be us tacked on? Newsflash..that isn't evidence that we have anything to do with climate change.

And that climate has changed dramatically in the last 70 years.

What "dramatic" change are you claiming over the past 70 years and what sort of evidence do you have that equally or more "dramatic" changes haven't happened in the past in the same time frame or less. Ice core data show that past temperature increases and decreases of far more than anything we have seen have happened in shorter periods of time than our own instrument record.

That makes no sense.

You hold up those storms as if they were something unusual...science isn't saying that...the news is saying that...science places them somewhere in the top 20 storms, most of which happened back when CO2 levels were supposedly safe.

Global warming doesn't stop at US borders. There have been hurricanes during that period of time.

The frequency of hurricanes has decreased worldwide.


Observed and projected decrease in Northern Hemisphere extratropical cyclone activity in summer and its impacts on maximum temperature

“Extratropical cyclones cause much of the high impact weather over the mid-latitudes. With increasing greenhouse gases, enhanced high-latitude warming will lead to weaker cyclone activity. Here we show that between 1979 and 2014, the number of strong cyclones in Northern Hemisphere in summer has decreased at a rate of 4% per decade, with even larger decrease found near northeastern North America. Climate models project a decrease in summer cyclone activity, but the observed decreasing rate is near the fastest projected. Decrease in summer cyclone activity will lead to decrease in cloud cover, giving rise to higher maximum temperature, potentially enhancing the increase in maximum temperature by 0.5 K or more over some regions. We also show that climate models may have biases in simulating the positive relationship between cyclone activity and cloud cover, potentially under-estimating the impacts of cyclone decrease on accentuating the future increase in maximum temperature.”

More tropical cyclones in a cooler climate?

More tropical cyclones in a cooler climate?


“Recent review papers reported that many high-resolution global climate models consistently projected a reduction of global tropical cyclone (TC) frequency in a future warmer climate, although the mechanism of the reduction is not yet fully understood. Here we present a result of 4K-cooler climate experiment. The global TC frequency significantly increases in the 4K-cooler climate compared to the present climate. This is consistent with a significant decrease in TC frequency in the 4K-warmer climate.”

Are you calling Irma and Harvey minor storms?

Yep...compared to the storms of the past that left vast areas leveled and thousands dead. irma and harvey barely make it to the top 20.

It's a little hard having an intelligent conversation on a complex issue with someone who uses cartoons as proof.

What? You want satellite photos from the 1700s, 1800's, and early 1900's. It is a graphic that depicts the retreat of the glaciers in glacier bay. No different than the graphics you provided in an attempt to demonstrate whatever you thought that they would prove. In fact, the entire AGW hypothesis is based on trenberth's 'cartoon" of energy movement through the earth system... If you have a problem with the information the graphic depicts, then state which part you don't believe. The graphic came from the US Geological Service...oddly enough, they no longer have the graphic on their web site since it doesn't support the narrative you believe in.


So the wait continues for you to provide a single shred of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

I have to go to work. I'll be back to deal with your little cartoon and your bullshit strawman argument.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You really are ignorant of history and facts..

The IPCC makes the claim that all of the warming post 1950 is man caused due to the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere. So lets see just what the natural process was prior to 1950 and compare it to that time span.

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

This is empirical evidence!

Now show me yours.. (you don't have it) Are you now insinuating that man is solely responsible for all warming since 1850? That is a significant departure from the IPCC meme..

What is with these bullshit strawman arguments you fuckers keep pushing? And why is it so important to you to get people to believe this horseshit? Are you employed by oil and gas? Why do you keep trying to spin my point into something I didn't say? Why do you say I didn't post any evidence when it was clear that I did?

You fuckers are responsible for the shattered lives in Houston and Florida.

LOL

In the face of empirical facts, proving your religion wrong, all you got is name calling....Priceless... Your not about science, your about left wing fanatical dogma and killing capitalism with lies.. Your an ignorant ass poser...

Now you ignorant fool, you claim that republicans are responsible for the last two hurricanes. Show your empirical evidence and proof. (be sure to check Occupy dumbocrats for your talking points)

 

[Billy_Bob]

I didn't say that.

You seemed to be saying exactly that. You apparently claimed that since the temperature and sea level were changing that it somehow must be us that is causing it and in order to make that claim based on nothing more than the fact that the numbers were changing, you would have to be assuming that they had never changed before and therefore, we must be the reason.

Until you combine it with other evidence.

What other evidence? More evidence of change with the assumption that it must be us tacked on? Newsflash..that isn't evidence that we have anything to do with climate change.

And that climate has changed dramatically in the last 70 years.

What "dramatic" change are you claiming over the past 70 years and what sort of evidence do you have that equally or more "dramatic" changes haven't happened in the past in the same time frame or less. Ice core data show that past temperature increases and decreases of far more than anything we have seen have happened in shorter periods of time than our own instrument record.

That makes no sense.

You hold up those storms as if they were something unusual...science isn't saying that...the news is saying that...science places them somewhere in the top 20 storms, most of which happened back when CO2 levels were supposedly safe.

Global warming doesn't stop at US borders. There have been hurricanes during that period of time.

The frequency of hurricanes has decreased worldwide.


Observed and projected decrease in Northern Hemisphere extratropical cyclone activity in summer and its impacts on maximum temperature

“Extratropical cyclones cause much of the high impact weather over the mid-latitudes. With increasing greenhouse gases, enhanced high-latitude warming will lead to weaker cyclone activity. Here we show that between 1979 and 2014, the number of strong cyclones in Northern Hemisphere in summer has decreased at a rate of 4% per decade, with even larger decrease found near northeastern North America. Climate models project a decrease in summer cyclone activity, but the observed decreasing rate is near the fastest projected. Decrease in summer cyclone activity will lead to decrease in cloud cover, giving rise to higher maximum temperature, potentially enhancing the increase in maximum temperature by 0.5 K or more over some regions. We also show that climate models may have biases in simulating the positive relationship between cyclone activity and cloud cover, potentially under-estimating the impacts of cyclone decrease on accentuating the future increase in maximum temperature.”

More tropical cyclones in a cooler climate?

More tropical cyclones in a cooler climate?


“Recent review papers reported that many high-resolution global climate models consistently projected a reduction of global tropical cyclone (TC) frequency in a future warmer climate, although the mechanism of the reduction is not yet fully understood. Here we present a result of 4K-cooler climate experiment. The global TC frequency significantly increases in the 4K-cooler climate compared to the present climate. This is consistent with a significant decrease in TC frequency in the 4K-warmer climate.”

Are you calling Irma and Harvey minor storms?

Yep...compared to the storms of the past that left vast areas leveled and thousands dead. irma and harvey barely make it to the top 20.

It's a little hard having an intelligent conversation on a complex issue with someone who uses cartoons as proof.

What? You want satellite photos from the 1700s, 1800's, and early 1900's. It is a graphic that depicts the retreat of the glaciers in glacier bay. No different than the graphics you provided in an attempt to demonstrate whatever you thought that they would prove. In fact, the entire AGW hypothesis is based on trenberth's 'cartoon" of energy movement through the earth system... If you have a problem with the information the graphic depicts, then state which part you don't believe. The graphic came from the US Geological Service...oddly enough, they no longer have the graphic on their web site since it doesn't support the narrative you believe in.


So the wait continues for you to provide a single shred of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

I have to go to work. I'll be back to deal with your little cartoon and your bullshit strawman argument.

LOL

Says the idiot who has no empirical evidence... SO the new talking point is ; empirical evidence is now a "strawman". The shear ignorance of this is stunning, coming from you left wing zealots who claim you have science on your side..

 

[pismoe]

EPA was in full power when that oil well in the gulf blew a few years back , think it was during 'gwb' . I forget details but some oil rig GREASY 'mechanics' [roughnecks i think] stopped the flow of oil into the gulf . Some floating oil was scooped up and the rest sank to the bottom of the gulf . Feck the 'epa' Dean .

Lying cocksuck. BP used a backflow preventer that they knew was faulty. The person that made that decision should have been imprisoned for life. Instead, he probably got a higher position in the corporate hierarchy.

------------------------------------------------------ Mornin and thanks fer the info OldRocks but who cares . As i said the oil rig blew , the oil flowed into the ocean , some oil was recovered and the rest of the oil sank into the Gulf where it dissipates or still remains and here i am , still breathing and eating Jumbo Gulf Shrimp every once in awhile OldRocks .

 

[SSDD]

I have to go to work. I'll be back to deal with your little cartoon and your bullshit strawman argument.

No doubt you will be back...what you won't have, however, and never will is a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

 

[Billo_Really]

LOL

In the face of empirical facts,

"Empirical facts" is not science. It is not necessarily a fact. It's just something you perceive with your senses.

proving your religion wrong,

How can a religion be wrong?

all you got is name calling....

No, I have more than that.

Priceless... Your not about science,

We'll see about that.

your about left wing fanatical dogma...

Conservatives are the last ones to be accusing others of "fanatical dogma".

and killing capitalism with lies..

Sustainable energy industry hires more people than coal or gas. That's far from "killing capitolism".

Your an ignorant ass poser...

Now look who's name calling.

Now you ignorant fool, you claim that republicans are responsible for the last two hurricanes.

I didn't say that. Maybe should understand the point I was making before launching in to some bullshit rebuttal.

Show your empirical evidence and proof. (be sure to check Occupy dumbocrats for your talking points)

No, I'm not going to show "empirical evidence", I'm going to show scientific evidence.

Que pasa, mutha?

Trump fires half the EPA and you're accusing me of not being about science? That is rich!

Alright dumbo, listen up...97% of the science community supports global warming is man made.

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position." ​

This is not a debatable issue.

 

[Billo_Really]

No doubt you will be back...what you won't have, however, and never will is a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

Here's 18 different science associations that say you are full of shit.


Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

• 
  
  American Association for the Advancement of Science
  "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
• 
  
  American Chemical Society
  "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
• 
  
  American Geophysical Union
  "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
• 
  
  American Medical Association
  "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
• 
  
  American Meteorological Society
  "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
• 
  
  American Physical Society
  "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." (2007)8
• 
  
  The Geological Society of America
  "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." (2006; revised 2010)9

SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

• 
  
  U.S. National Academy of Sciences
  "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11

U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

• 
  
  U.S. Global Change Research Program
  "The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES

• 
  
  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
  “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13
  
  “Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14

 

[Billo_Really]

LOL

Says the idiot who has no empirical evidence... SO the new talking point is ; empirical evidence is now a "strawman". The shear ignorance of this is stunning, coming from you left wing zealots who claim you have science on your side..

I posted my evidence and "empirical" is not science.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"Empirical facts" is not science. It is not necessarily a fact. It's just something you perceive with your senses.

Empirical evidence is Measurable, Quantifiable, and repeatable. IT IS THE BASIS OF REAL SCIENCE..

Everything you posted after this is wholly BULLSHIT. Your appeals to authorities who purport the lies wont help you either.. They don't have any empirical evidence to back them up either... But hey, that hasn't stopped you ignorant fools... So I expect you shills will continue to lie unabated..

 

[Billy_Bob]

LOL

Says the idiot who has no empirical evidence... SO the new talking point is ; empirical evidence is now a "strawman". The shear ignorance of this is stunning, coming from you left wing zealots who claim you have science on your side..

I posted my evidence and "empirical" is not science.

Please pull your head from your ass... Your nothing more than a useful idiot. Gobbles will be so proud..

 

[Billo_Really]

Empirical evidence is Measurable, Quantifiable, and repeatable. IT IS THE BASIS OF REAL SCIENCE..

Hate to burst your bubble there, buckwheat, empirical evidence is what you perceive.

Definition of Empirical facts:
Empirical evidence, also known as sensory experience, is the knowledge received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría).​

And perceiving things with a pre-disposition of the outcome, may or may not be accurate. In your case, your conclusions are horseshit.

Everything you posted after this is wholly BULLSHIT. Your appeals to authorities who purport the lies wont help you either.. They don't have any empirical evidence to back them up either... But hey, that hasn't stopped you ignorant fools... So I expect you shills will continue to lie unabated..

97% of the science community disagree with you.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. ​

Don't talk to me about science when you got your little coal and gas bitch whore in the White House firing EPA officials and deliberately putting "less" science on the situation.

 

[Billo_Really]

Please pull your head from your ass... Your nothing more than a useful idiot. Gobbles will be so proud..

You can't even spell "Goebbels" right, you fuckin' hillbilly!

 

[SSDD]

"Empirical facts" is not science. It is not necessarily a fact. It's just something you perceive with your senses.

You really don't have a clue with regard to science do you? Empirical is defined as
"derived from or guided by experience or experiment."....If it isn't empirical it is something other than science.

No, I'm not going to show "empirical evidence", I'm going to show scientific evidence.

Since you clearly don't know what scientific evidence is, I guess you are out of luck.

Alright dumbo, listen up...97% of the science community supports global warming is man made.

Aside from the fact that the 97% number is bullshit, even if 97% did agree, that wouldn't make it true. That is just a logical fallacy which is what most of your arguments are based on. Until recently more than 97% of the scientific community would have agreed that stomach ulcers were caused by stress. If you look at the history of science, especially in relatively new branches of science like climate science, the majority opinion has almost always been wrong.

​

This is not a debatable issue.

Funny, the primary research upon which that 97% number was based (debunked by the way) was done by a cartoonist.

 

[SSDD]

Here's 18 different science associations that say you are full of shit.

So a logical fallacy is your argument? Appeal to authority? The political heads of those organizations are on board with the AGW hypothesis...the rank and file scientists aren't....survey after survey shows that they aren't.

You really aren't prepared for a discussion on the science...all you have is dogma, propaganda, a bit of data based on a very short view which is easily put down when one takes a longer view...like your hysterics over the Muir and McBride glaciers...showing me the ice lost between 1941 and 2004....a period of 60 years..when more ice was lost in the 15 year period between 1892 and 1907.

Your positions based on pop news, current events, and politics whereas my position is rooted solidly in scientific fact...empirical evidence.

 

[SSDD]

I posted my evidence and "empirical" is not science.

It is little wonder that you have been duped...if it isn't empirical it is not science. If it isn't empirical, it is based on feelings, or wild assed guesses, or tea leaves, or maybe astrology. If it isn't observed, measured, quantified evidence, which is what empirical evidence is, then it is not science. You really aren't prepared for this discussion. Perhaps you should visit some kiddy politic page where people aren't going to batter your position to death with actual science.

 

[Billo_Really]

You really don't have a clue with regard to science do you? Empirical is defined as
"derived from or guided by experience or experiment."....If it isn't empirical it is something other than science.

Since you clearly don't know what scientific evidence is, I guess you are out of luck.

Aside from the fact that the 97% number is bullshit, even if 97% did agree, that wouldn't make it true. That is just a logical fallacy which is what most of your arguments are based on. Until recently more than 97% of the scientific community would have agreed that stomach ulcers were caused by stress. If you look at the history of science, especially in relatively new branches of science like climate science, the majority opinion has almost always been wrong.

Funny, the primary research upon which that 97% number was based (debunked by the way) was done by a cartoonist.

Debunked by who? The remaining 3% who chose to be fossil fuel bitches for money?

You claim I don't know science and in the same breath, you trash all the major science organizations in the world.

Here's the groups you say don't know shit...

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

• 
  
  American Association for the Advancement of Science
  "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
• 
  
  American Chemical Society
  "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
• 
  
  American Geophysical Union
  "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
• 
  
  American Medical Association
  "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
• 
  
  American Meteorological Society
  "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
• 
  
  American Physical Society
  "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." (2007)8
• 
  
  The Geological Society of America
  "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." (2006; revised 2010)9

SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

• 
  
  U.S. National Academy of Sciences
  "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11

U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

• 
  
  U.S. Global Change Research Program
  "The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES

• 
  
  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
  “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13
  
  “Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14

So you're saying you're smarter than NASA?

 

[SSDD]

"Empirical facts" is not science. It is not necessarily a fact. It's just something you perceive with your senses.

Empirical evidence is Measurable, Quantifiable, and repeatable. IT IS THE BASIS OF REAL SCIENCE..

Everything you posted after this is wholly BULLSHIT. Your appeals to authorities who purport the lies wont help you either.. They don't have any empirical evidence to back them up either... But hey, that hasn't stopped you ignorant fools... So I expect you shills will continue to lie unabated..

Imagine that...the goober thinks that empirical isn't science....he is a natural useful idiot isn't he....that has to be one of the stupidest things ever said on this board..

 

[Billo_Really]

It is little wonder that you have been duped...if it isn't empirical it is not science. If it isn't empirical, it is based on feelings, or wild assed guesses, or tea leaves, or maybe astrology. If it isn't observed, measured, quantified evidence, which is what empirical evidence is, then it is not science. You really aren't prepared for this discussion. Perhaps you should visit some kiddy politic page where people aren't going to batter your position to death with actual science.

I posted the definition of empirical a few posts back. It is what you perceive with your senses. And yes, it is what you observe. However, perceptions can be skewed.

Place a pencil into a glass of water and what you observe, is a bent pencil. No matter how many times you repeat this experiment, the pencil looks bent. ​

That meets the definition of empirical evidence and it is evidence that has been skewed by your perception.