No Evidence

[SSDD]

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burins of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.


I have been asking for just a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the claims of climate alarmists for decades now and have never received the first piece.

I see alarmists claiming that such evidence exists all the time...sometimes they even post what passes for evidence in their minds like THIS. There is certainly observed, and measured data there, but none of it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, and none of it even begins to establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...those things are certainly assumed in the example linked to, but there certainly is no evidence to support the assumption. And there is no paper there in which the hypothesized warming due to our production of CO2 has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called greenhouse gasses. Again, it is assumed, but assumptions based on lose correlation over a very short period of geological time are less than worthless in any scientific examination of an entity as large, variable, and chaotic as the global climate.

So there you go...I have stuck my chin out...I have made 3 very deliberate, and concise statements regarding the state of climate science and the evidence that mankind is having an effect on the global climate.

It is the complete absence of evidence challenging the 3 statements above that explain why I am a skeptic.

Prove me wrong. Don't tell me about the evidence that exists......don't tell me about the evidence you might believe you have produced...Step up to the plate and produce the evidence that I have quite clearly declared does not exist...

And when you can't, ask yourself why it is that you believe what you do regarding man made climate change.

 

[BlackFlag]

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burins of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.


I have been asking for just a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the claims of climate alarmists for decades now and have never received the first piece.

I see alarmists claiming that such evidence exists all the time...sometimes they even post what passes for evidence in their minds like THIS. There is certainly observed, and measured data there, but none of it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, and none of it even begins to establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...those things are certainly assumed in the example linked to, but there certainly is no evidence to support the assumption. And there is no paper there in which the hypothesized warming due to our production of CO2 has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called greenhouse gasses. Again, it is assumed, but assumptions based on lose correlation over a very short period of geological time are less than worthless in any scientific examination of an entity as large, variable, and chaotic as the global climate.

So there you go...I have stuck my chin out...I have made 3 very deliberate, and concise statements regarding the state of climate science and the evidence that mankind is having an effect on the global climate.

It is the complete absence of evidence challenging the 3 statements above that explain why I am a skeptic.

Prove me wrong. Don't tell me about the evidence that exists......don't tell me about the evidence you might believe you have produced...Step up to the plate and produce the evidence that I have quite clearly declared does not exist...

And when you can't, ask yourself why it is that you believe what you do regarding man made climate change.

This OP demonstrates the willful ignorance that cannot possibly be overcome to offset the acceleration of climate change. Somebody will have to come up with an idea or new technology to address the climate if it becomes necessary.

 

[SSDD]

This OP demonstrates the willful ignorance that cannot possibly be overcome to offset the acceleration of climate change. Somebody will have to come up with an idea or new technology to address the climate if it becomes necessary.

Congratulations...you are the first one to step up and produce absolutely nothing with which to support your belief. I doubt that you will be the last....Nice that you also demonstrate the alarmist tendency of name calling in lieu of any actual evidence.

 

[BlackFlag]

This OP demonstrates the willful ignorance that cannot possibly be overcome to offset the acceleration of climate change. Somebody will have to come up with an idea or new technology to address the climate if it becomes necessary.

Congratulations...you are the first one to step up and produce absolutely nothing with which to support your belief. I doubt that you will be the last....Nice that you also demonstrate the alarmist tendency of name calling in lieu of any actual evidence.

What name did I call you? Oops

 

[Olde Europe]

Five years, and counting: SSDD

 

[SSDD]

This OP demonstrates the willful ignorance that cannot possibly be overcome to offset the acceleration of climate change. Somebody will have to come up with an idea or new technology to address the climate if it becomes necessary.

Congratulations...you are the first one to step up and produce absolutely nothing with which to support your belief. I doubt that you will be the last....Nice that you also demonstrate the alarmist tendency of name calling in lieu of any actual evidence.

What name did I call you? Oops

You said that I was willfully ignorant...that is saying that I am ignorant. Now, considering that you can't provide any actual observed, measured evidence to support your belief in man made climate change, and yet still maintain the belief, who, exactly is being willfully ignorant?

I am just asking for observed, measured evidence that supports the claims being made by climate science..that is, after all, what science is all about....gathering actual evidence to support a hypothesis.

It is not my fault that no such evidence exists, and perhaps you should lash out at climate science for not having provided you any evidence with which to slap me down rather than lashing out at me for asking why no such evidence exists.

 

[Slade3200]

This OP demonstrates the willful ignorance that cannot possibly be overcome to offset the acceleration of climate change. Somebody will have to come up with an idea or new technology to address the climate if it becomes necessary.

Congratulations...you are the first one to step up and produce absolutely nothing with which to support your belief. I doubt that you will be the last....Nice that you also demonstrate the alarmist tendency of name calling in lieu of any actual evidence.

Wouldn’t you consider a rapid acceleration of climate change as measured evidence of something significant? At least worthy of concern and analysis?

 

[SSDD]

This OP demonstrates the willful ignorance that cannot possibly be overcome to offset the acceleration of climate change. Somebody will have to come up with an idea or new technology to address the climate if it becomes necessary.

Congratulations...you are the first one to step up and produce absolutely nothing with which to support your belief. I doubt that you will be the last....Nice that you also demonstrate the alarmist tendency of name calling in lieu of any actual evidence.

Wouldn’t you consider a rapid acceleration of climate change as measured evidence of something significant? At least worthy of concern and analysis?

If rapid climate change were unusual in the scheme of climate through the history of the earth, yes, it would be a warning sign. It would be a reason to set about gathering observed, measured evidence as to precisely why the climate is suddenly changing at a rapid pace.

Rapid change isn't unusual though. Here are two gold standard (climate science classifications, not mine) temperature reconstructions covering the past 10,000 years. One is from an ice core taken above the arctic circle, the second is from Vostok in Antarctica.

Note that as you look across the graphs, the temperature spikes are reflected in both the arctic and antarctic. Science has been telling us for decades that the arctic regions are the "canary" in the coal mine.

Canary in the Coal Mine: The Arctic as a National Imperative



The Arctic – Our Climate Canary in the Coal Mine – Issues Further Warnings - Oil Change International

Why the Arctic is climate change's canary in the coal mine - William Chapman

Climate science has been telling us that what happens in the Arctic is an early indicator of what is going to happen in the rest of the globe...as you can see in the graphs above, the temperature dips and spikes are reflect in both the arctic ice cores and the antarctic ice cores....a pretty good indication that the climate changes reflected in the arctic were global in nature...what you can also see is that the amount and rate of change those graphs indicate are both more, and faster than anything we have experienced. In one instance 8000 years ago, the change was nearly 4 degrees in less than 300 years....far more and far faster than any climate change we have experienced.

The graphs above show that the change we are experiencing is well within the boundaries of natural variability, and in addition, they show that the global climate at present is considerably cooler than it has been for the vast majority of the past 10,000 years.

Natural variability is a very very wide range...in order to step outside of the range of natural variability, we would need to see global mean temperatures in the neighborhood of 22 degrees C as opposed to the present 14 degrees C or so.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why is Sid such a pussy?

 

[Billy_Bob]

This OP demonstrates the willful ignorance that cannot possibly be overcome to offset the acceleration of climate change. Somebody will have to come up with an idea or new technology to address the climate if it becomes necessary.

Congratulations...you are the first one to step up and produce absolutely nothing with which to support your belief. I doubt that you will be the last....Nice that you also demonstrate the alarmist tendency of name calling in lieu of any actual evidence.

Wouldn’t you consider a rapid acceleration of climate change as measured evidence of something significant? At least worthy of concern and analysis?

Please provide evidence (Empirical) of this supposed acceleration.

 

[Billy_Bob]

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burins of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.


I have been asking for just a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the claims of climate alarmists for decades now and have never received the first piece.

I see alarmists claiming that such evidence exists all the time...sometimes they even post what passes for evidence in their minds like THIS. There is certainly observed, and measured data there, but none of it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, and none of it even begins to establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...those things are certainly assumed in the example linked to, but there certainly is no evidence to support the assumption. And there is no paper there in which the hypothesized warming due to our production of CO2 has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called greenhouse gasses. Again, it is assumed, but assumptions based on lose correlation over a very short period of geological time are less than worthless in any scientific examination of an entity as large, variable, and chaotic as the global climate.

So there you go...I have stuck my chin out...I have made 3 very deliberate, and concise statements regarding the state of climate science and the evidence that mankind is having an effect on the global climate.

It is the complete absence of evidence challenging the 3 statements above that explain why I am a skeptic.

Prove me wrong. Don't tell me about the evidence that exists......don't tell me about the evidence you might believe you have produced...Step up to the plate and produce the evidence that I have quite clearly declared does not exist...

And when you can't, ask yourself why it is that you believe what you do regarding man made climate change.

This OP demonstrates the willful ignorance that cannot possibly be overcome to offset the acceleration of climate change. Somebody will have to come up with an idea or new technology to address the climate if it becomes necessary.

Please provide evidence of this supposed acceleration. hundreds of proxies have been done showing far faster rises and falls in temperature have occurred in much shorter time spans than that of today's minor rise.. Even the most recent rises (pre-industrialzaiton) are equal to our current rate of rise.. So where is this supposed acceleration?

 

[skookerasbil]

This OP demonstrates the willful ignorance that cannot possibly be overcome to offset the acceleration of climate change. Somebody will have to come up with an idea or new technology to address the climate if it becomes necessary.

Congratulations...you are the first one to step up and produce absolutely nothing with which to support your belief. I doubt that you will be the last....Nice that you also demonstrate the alarmist tendency of name calling in lieu of any actual evidence.

Wouldn’t you consider a rapid acceleration of climate change as measured evidence of something significant? At least worthy of concern and analysis?

Define "rapid" s0n....that's the whole point. Its makey-uppey science....exactly SSDD's point. It is NOT measurable.

Too, "concern" and "significant" are makey-uppey semantics one always sees associated with climate change. Just like "increased"....."warmer"...."expanding" etc......loose association gobblygook. No operational definitions.....hmmmm!. Science wanting to live comfortably in the world of abstracts. Hmmmm. Highly convenient...works well when your entire play is based upon computer models that are consistently spectacularly wrong!

Nobody knows dick about why our climate is in constant flux...and more to the point, even if they did, well, they get a big gold star. Because only an incredibly naive dumbass cant connect the dots that there isnt dick that can be done to reverse it. Most of the public recognizes that....they might have "concerns" like the many concerns they have in life. They realize that throwing trillions to address a "concern" is ghey when there are a billion far more pressing concerns in life.

Get some real responsibilities in life....that way, you dont worry about st00pid stuff!

 

[skookerasbil]

Great thread btw SSDD. The responses from climate crusaders will make for some good chuckles.

 

[Wuwei]

There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

Evidence? You have shown time and again that you don't understand evidence because you don't believe nor understand the simplest aspects of thermodynamics, you don't believe modern physics, you don't even understand the terminology used in physics that you continually misuse. You openly disparage much of the fundamental science in university text books on physics. You have even called the mathematical models of physics "fairy dust". Yet you continually talk "science" to justify your invented science.

You have to have the capacity to understand evidence before you ask for evidence.

 

[Old Rocks]

This OP demonstrates the willful ignorance that cannot possibly be overcome to offset the acceleration of climate change. Somebody will have to come up with an idea or new technology to address the climate if it becomes necessary.

Congratulations...you are the first one to step up and produce absolutely nothing with which to support your belief. I doubt that you will be the last....Nice that you also demonstrate the alarmist tendency of name calling in lieu of any actual evidence.

What name did I call you? Oops

You said that I was willfully ignorant...that is saying that I am ignorant. Now, considering that you can't provide any actual observed, measured evidence to support your belief in man made climate change, and yet still maintain the belief, who, exactly is being willfully ignorant?

I am just asking for observed, measured evidence that supports the claims being made by climate science..that is, after all, what science is all about....gathering actual evidence to support a hypothesis.

It is not my fault that no such evidence exists, and perhaps you should lash out at climate science for not having provided you any evidence with which to slap me down rather than lashing out at me for asking why no such evidence exists.

LOL You are willfully ignorant. That is not name calling, that is statement of fact. As has been pointed out many times, absorption spectra of the GHG's is all you need to prove the effects of GHG's in the atmosphere. That you cannot accept simple physics, and have to make up some wild ass tale about smart photons is all that has to be said about your knowledge of physics.

 

[Crick]

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burins of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.


I have been asking for just a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the claims of climate alarmists for decades now and have never received the first piece.

I see alarmists claiming that such evidence exists all the time...sometimes they even post what passes for evidence in their minds like THIS. There is certainly observed, and measured data there, but none of it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, and none of it even begins to establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...those things are certainly assumed in the example linked to, but there certainly is no evidence to support the assumption. And there is no paper there in which the hypothesized warming due to our production of CO2 has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called greenhouse gasses. Again, it is assumed, but assumptions based on lose correlation over a very short period of geological time are less than worthless in any scientific examination of an entity as large, variable, and chaotic as the global climate.

So there you go...I have stuck my chin out...I have made 3 very deliberate, and concise statements regarding the state of climate science and the evidence that mankind is having an effect on the global climate.

It is the complete absence of evidence challenging the 3 statements above that explain why I am a skeptic.

Prove me wrong. Don't tell me about the evidence that exists......don't tell me about the evidence you might believe you have produced...Step up to the plate and produce the evidence that I have quite clearly declared does not exist...

And when you can't, ask yourself why it is that you believe what you do regarding man made climate change.

That the material in WG-I of AR5 convinces me that AGW is valid is essentially irrelevant. Conversely, that you are convinced it is false is also irrelevant. The FACT that it convinces a very high percentage of the world's climate scientists that AGW is valid is not. Your opinion, Same Shit, in the face of those of hundreds of thousands of degreed scientists is as worthless as worthless can be.

 

[SSDD]

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burins of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.


I have been asking for just a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the claims of climate alarmists for decades now and have never received the first piece.

I see alarmists claiming that such evidence exists all the time...sometimes they even post what passes for evidence in their minds like THIS. There is certainly observed, and measured data there, but none of it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, and none of it even begins to establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...those things are certainly assumed in the example linked to, but there certainly is no evidence to support the assumption. And there is no paper there in which the hypothesized warming due to our production of CO2 has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called greenhouse gasses. Again, it is assumed, but assumptions based on lose correlation over a very short period of geological time are less than worthless in any scientific examination of an entity as large, variable, and chaotic as the global climate.

So there you go...I have stuck my chin out...I have made 3 very deliberate, and concise statements regarding the state of climate science and the evidence that mankind is having an effect on the global climate.

It is the complete absence of evidence challenging the 3 statements above that explain why I am a skeptic.

Prove me wrong. Don't tell me about the evidence that exists......don't tell me about the evidence you might believe you have produced...Step up to the plate and produce the evidence that I have quite clearly declared does not exist...

And when you can't, ask yourself why it is that you believe what you do regarding man made climate change.

That the material in WG-I of AR5 convinces me that AGW is valid is essentially irrelevant. Conversely, that you are convinced it is false is also irrelevant. The FACT that it convinces a very high percentage of the world's climate scientists that AGW is valid is not. Your opinion, Same Shit, in the face of those of hundreds of thousands of degreed scientists is as worthless as worthless can be.

So let the equivocating begin...You have been claiming for years that there was observed, measured evidence that supported the AGW hypothesis over natural variability over at the IPCC...and you have claimed that there was observed, measured evidence which established a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere over at the IPCC...and just recently you claimed that the hypothesized warming due to mankind's burins of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has been empirically measured, quantifiedand then attributed to so called green house gasses in peer reviewed, published form.

Now you simply claim that what is there is sufficient to convince you.

Not a trace of the actual evidence that I have been asking for...never was even though you claimed over and over that it was there You lied over and over and over and over over the course of years skidmark...That is what I have been saying all along...no evidence there, but what was there was good enough to fool you.

Laughing at you skidmark...laughing out loud...

 

[SSDD]

LOL You are willfully ignorant. That is not name calling, that is statement of fact. As has been pointed out many times, absorption spectra of the GHG's is all you need to prove the effects of GHG's in the atmosphere. That you cannot accept simple physics, and have to make up some wild ass tale about smart photons is all that has to be said about your knowledge of physics.

Sorry rocks...your ignorance is laughable...you keep pointing to that spectrum as if it were the holy grail...So it shows that some gasses absorb and emit radiation. Who ever disputed that. Can you show me a single bit of observed, measured evidence that absorption and emission equals warming? Can you show me any observed, measured evidence that absorption and emission by so called greenhouse gasses is more than a very small bit player in a troposphere which is overwhelmingly dominated by convection, and conduction?

Do you have anything more than the assumption that that spectrum is anything more than evidence that some gasses absorb and emit radiation?

 

[frigidweirdo]

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burins of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.


I have been asking for just a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the claims of climate alarmists for decades now and have never received the first piece.

I see alarmists claiming that such evidence exists all the time...sometimes they even post what passes for evidence in their minds like THIS. There is certainly observed, and measured data there, but none of it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, and none of it even begins to establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...those things are certainly assumed in the example linked to, but there certainly is no evidence to support the assumption. And there is no paper there in which the hypothesized warming due to our production of CO2 has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called greenhouse gasses. Again, it is assumed, but assumptions based on lose correlation over a very short period of geological time are less than worthless in any scientific examination of an entity as large, variable, and chaotic as the global climate.

So there you go...I have stuck my chin out...I have made 3 very deliberate, and concise statements regarding the state of climate science and the evidence that mankind is having an effect on the global climate.

It is the complete absence of evidence challenging the 3 statements above that explain why I am a skeptic.

Prove me wrong. Don't tell me about the evidence that exists......don't tell me about the evidence you might believe you have produced...Step up to the plate and produce the evidence that I have quite clearly declared does not exist...

And when you can't, ask yourself why it is that you believe what you do regarding man made climate change.

No evidence because any valid evidence will be labeled "fake news", therefore you won't accept it.

It's a nice circular argument that allows you to ignore anything you find inconvenient.

 

[SSDD]

Evidence? You have shown time and again that you don't understand evidence because you don't believe nor understand the simplest aspects of thermodynamics, you don't believe modern physics, you don't even understand the terminology used in physics that you continually misuse. You openly disparage much of the fundamental science in university text books on physics. You have even called the mathematical models of physics "fairy dust". Yet you continually talk "science" to justify your invented science.

So once again, you admit that there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and you admit that that there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...and you admit that the hypothetical warming caused by mankind's CO2 producing activities has never been measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses in a peer reviewed published paper.

That is what I have been saying all along...and that is what this thread is all about...the absolute lack of any sort of observed, measured evidence to support all of your claims.

I realize there are models out the wazoo...I also realize that the atmosphere, and the climate are observable, measurable quantities and if the models were worth the code it took to write them, there would be observed, measured evidence to support them.