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.

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.

So you can't post anything that rises to the level of observed, measured evidence either. It is always interesting to see the excuses you people put forward for not being able to produce observed, measured evidence regarding a topic as observable and measurable as the atmosphere.

Then you write your response in the form of lashing out at me as if it is my fault that climate science hasn't provided you with any observed, measured evidence with which to slap people like me down...

You should be railing at climate science asking why they haven't produced even a single piece of observed measured evidence to support the claims with all the billions upon billions they have wasted...

 

[Crick]

To whom should we look for a judgement on whether the results of the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies made of AGW "rise to the level" of empirical evidence? High school dropout, physics delusionist SSDD or thousands and thousands of published, PhD climate scientists?

Gosh, that's a tough question...

 

[SSDD]

To whom should we look for a judgement on whether the results of the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies made of AGW "rise to the level" of empirical evidence? High school dropout, physics delusionist SSDD or thousands and thousands of published, PhD climate scientists?

Gosh, that's a tough question...

Where is the observed, measured evidence that supports the claims crick? Where is a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability? Where is a single piece of observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...where is a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the hypothetical warming due to our production of so called greenhouse gasses has been measured, quantified, and ascribed to said so called greenhouse gasses?

Evidence is what I am asking for...and have been asking for for decades and neither you, nor all of climate science can provide it...why exactly should I believe the claims if there is nothing more than weak correlation taken over a very short geological period of time?

And you should be mortified skidmark...to be telling yourself that a high school dropout and physics delusionist could be making you look so bad...repeatedly pointing out what you can't produce.. If I am so uneducated how is it that I can zero in so precisely on what you can and can't deliver with regard to the claims you make? If I am that stupid, how much more stupid must you be? Do you drool on the keyboard? Are you a mouth breather? Adult diapers?

 

[SSDD]

Logical fallacies don't cut it...either you can produce the evidence which I stated clearly in the OP did not exist or you can't. If you can't then my point is made and any thinking person should be wondering why they believe in the claims made by climate science if there is no actual observed, measured evidence to support it. Assumptions aren't science..and belief is not science...science is about evidence and either you can produce it or you can't.

 

[Crick]

To whom should we look for a judgement on whether the results of the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies made of AGW "rise to the level" of empirical evidence? High school dropout, physics delusionist SSDD or thousands and thousands of published, PhD climate scientists?

Gosh, that's a tough question...

Or not.

 

[SSDD]

To whom should we look for a judgement on whether the results of the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies made of AGW "rise to the level" of empirical evidence? High school dropout, physics delusionist SSDD or thousands and thousands of published, PhD climate scientists?

Gosh, that's a tough question...

Or not.

Still nothing...why does that not surprise me?

I do enjoy watching you lash out in your frustration...mewling for all its worth to save a little face and maybe detract from the fact that in spite of the billions upon billions of dollars spent, you can't produce a single piece of evidence that satisfies the very simple requests I made above....

 

[Crick]

As I and others have stated dozens and dozens of times, anyone wishing to see and review mountains of the evidence that SSDD claims does not exist should visit www.ipcc.ch and read Working Group I's portion of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Review: "The Physical Science Basis".

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SummaryVolume_FINAL.pdf

 

[Crepitus]

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.

Evidence:

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)

There's tons more, like glacial melt data, borehole analysis, sea level rise, and so on but honestly I don't know why I'm.even bother to post this one, you're only going to ignore or dismiss it because it violates your quasi-religious conviction that it can't be real.

 

[SSDD]

As I and others have stated dozens and dozens of times, anyone wishing to see and review mountains of the evidence that SSDD claims does not exist should visit www.ipcc.ch and read Working Group I's portion of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Review: "The Physical Science Basis".

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SummaryVolume_FINAL.pdf

Yeah...you posted a big chunk of it HERE...and when I asked you to point out any where within it a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, YOU COULDN'T DO IT....and when I asked for you to point out a single piece of observed measured evidence which established a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, YOU COULDN'T DO IT....and when I asked you to point out a single peer reviewed published paper in which the hypothetical warming resulting from human activities was measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses, YOU COULDN'T DO IT.

You are being pwned skidmark...the more you talk, the more opportunity I have to point out that you couldn't produce even a shred of the evidence you claimed existed..,I can do it all day...till I have to leave to play a gig this afternoon anyway...

 

[SSDD]

Evidence:

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)

There's tons more, like glacial melt data, borehole analysis, sea level rise, and so on but honestly I don't know why I'm.even bother to post this one, you're only going to ignore or dismiss it because it violates your quasi-religious conviction that it can't be real.

So are you claiming that glaciers never melted before...or that sea level never rose before, and so on? No one is denying that glaciers have melted some or that sea level is rising a bit...but the amount of glacier melting and sea level rise we have seen are well within the boundaries of natural variability...and borehole analysis of ice cores tell us that at the present, it is considerably cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

Here is a gold standard temperature reconstruction made from one of the bore holes you mentioned. Do explain how you believe this borehole analysis demonstrates evidence that the present climate is doing anything at all that is unusual...except perhaps for the fact that it is a good bit cooler now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

 

[Crick]

And, as almost everyone here knows, Greenland ice core temperature data do NOT jibe well with all other sources. They are most certainly NOT "gold standard" sources. You obviously know that. So, from Same Shit, more lies.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Fantasy modeling of systems that they have yet to model correctly in any form is funny as hell to call "evidence" Science is FACT based on observed, mensurable, and reproducible events.

Talk to any practicing thermodynamics engineer who is creating systems for use in the real world and they will laugh in your face about CAGW...

Talk to me when you get a model that doesn't have to be retrained every year or two because it can not model the systems observed behaviors.

 

[SSDD]

And, as almost everyone here knows, Greenland ice core temperature data do NOT jibe well with all other sources. They are most certainly NOT "gold standard" sources. You obviously know that. So, from Same Shit, more lies.

You are a liar and apparently don't know jack..

The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years | Die kalte Sonne

clip: Although the GISP2 ice core data is site specific (Greenland), it has been well correlated with global glacial fluctuations and a wide range of other climate proxies and has become the ‘gold standard’ among global climate reconstructions. However, keep in mind that temperature variations are latitude specific so actual temperatures from the GISP2 cores show a higher range of values than global data. The GISP2 cores date back 100,000 years, but we will focus here on data from the past 10,000 years (the Holocene) and compare it with recent warming and cooling periods.


The Late Holocene Atmospheric Methane Budget Reconstructed from ...https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/downloads/n296x278h

And I could go on and on with references to ice cores, and specifically the GISP2 and Vostok ice cores being the gold standard for temperature reconstructions...

Further, how many times has climate science told us that the arctic and antarctic regions are the canaries in the coal mine and what happens there follows across the globe? Were they lying?

Face it crick..You are the one who makes stuff up...I am asking for evidence and you aren't providing...frustrating..isn't it?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Logical fallacies don't cut it...either you can produce the evidence which I stated clearly in the OP did not exist or you can't. If you can't then my point is made and any thinking person should be wondering why they believe in the claims made by climate science if there is no actual observed, measured evidence to support it. Assumptions aren't science..and belief is not science...science is about evidence and either you can produce it or you can't.

Its rather amazing the temperature rise and cooling which have far exceed today's run are irrelevant to these people. It's going to be real hard to prove causation when we have had such swings in the past..

And then to have this kind of disconnect in their correlations... Makes me laugh at their stupid asses.. And then to have no midtropospheric warming, which kills their hypothesis dead..

 

[SSDD]

Logical fallacies don't cut it...either you can produce the evidence which I stated clearly in the OP did not exist or you can't. If you can't then my point is made and any thinking person should be wondering why they believe in the claims made by climate science if there is no actual observed, measured evidence to support it. Assumptions aren't science..and belief is not science...science is about evidence and either you can produce it or you can't.

View attachment 226440

Its rather amazing the temperature rise and cooling that far exceed today's runs. It's going to be real hard to prove causation when we have had such swings in the past..

View attachment 226441

And then to have this kind of disconnect in their correlations... Makes me laugh at their stupid asses.. And then to have no midtropospheric warming, which kills their hypothesis dead..

Threads like this expose how completely ridiculous climate science is...post after post lashing out at me for asking for evidence....claiming that plenty exists but not being able to produce it, and on and on...but not the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support the hypothesis.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Logical fallacies don't cut it...either you can produce the evidence which I stated clearly in the OP did not exist or you can't. If you can't then my point is made and any thinking person should be wondering why they believe in the claims made by climate science if there is no actual observed, measured evidence to support it. Assumptions aren't science..and belief is not science...science is about evidence and either you can produce it or you can't.

View attachment 226440

Its rather amazing the temperature rise and cooling that far exceed today's runs. It's going to be real hard to prove causation when we have had such swings in the past..

View attachment 226441

And then to have this kind of disconnect in their correlations... Makes me laugh at their stupid asses.. And then to have no midtropospheric warming, which kills their hypothesis dead..

Threads like this expose how completely ridiculous climate science is...post after post lashing out at me for asking for evidence....claiming that plenty exists but not being able to produce it, and on and on...but not the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support the hypothesis.

Its the mountains of natural variation evidence which they are having a problem with. They simply can not make a fact based link in the face of that evidence. At this point no one has proven to me man has the ability to stop natural variation and thus make all the changes we see today mans fault.

The sheer lunacy of the alarmists defies rational, fact based thought.

 

[SSDD]

Logical fallacies don't cut it...either you can produce the evidence which I stated clearly in the OP did not exist or you can't. If you can't then my point is made and any thinking person should be wondering why they believe in the claims made by climate science if there is no actual observed, measured evidence to support it. Assumptions aren't science..and belief is not science...science is about evidence and either you can produce it or you can't.

View attachment 226440

Its rather amazing the temperature rise and cooling that far exceed today's runs. It's going to be real hard to prove causation when we have had such swings in the past..

View attachment 226441

And then to have this kind of disconnect in their correlations... Makes me laugh at their stupid asses.. And then to have no midtropospheric warming, which kills their hypothesis dead..

Threads like this expose how completely ridiculous climate science is...post after post lashing out at me for asking for evidence....claiming that plenty exists but not being able to produce it, and on and on...but not the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support the hypothesis.

Its the mountains of natural variation evidence which they are having a problem with. They simply can not make a fact based link in the face of that evidence. At this point no one has proven to me man has the ability to stop natural variation and thus make all the changes we see today mans fault.

The sheer lunacy of the alarmists defies rational, fact based thought.

And the assumptions...they provide wild assed assumptions that are not based on anything other than models as actual evidence to support their beliefs...is that what science has come to? Is that what they are teaching in universities today and calling science?

 

[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?

Please provide evidence (Empirical) of this supposed acceleration.

Do NASA studies work for you? I hear those people are pretty smart
New study finds sea level rise accelerating – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

[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?

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!

All I’m saying is this stuff shouldn’t be swept under the rug. This is our planet and ecosystem that we live in. We should be treating it with respect and not trashing it. We should be aware of how our activities effect our ecosystem whether it be small or large.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Logical fallacies don't cut it...either you can produce the evidence which I stated clearly in the OP did not exist or you can't. If you can't then my point is made and any thinking person should be wondering why they believe in the claims made by climate science if there is no actual observed, measured evidence to support it. Assumptions aren't science..and belief is not science...science is about evidence and either you can produce it or you can't.

View attachment 226440

Its rather amazing the temperature rise and cooling that far exceed today's runs. It's going to be real hard to prove causation when we have had such swings in the past..

View attachment 226441

And then to have this kind of disconnect in their correlations... Makes me laugh at their stupid asses.. And then to have no midtropospheric warming, which kills their hypothesis dead..

Threads like this expose how completely ridiculous climate science is...post after post lashing out at me for asking for evidence....claiming that plenty exists but not being able to produce it, and on and on...but not the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support the hypothesis.

Its the mountains of natural variation evidence which they are having a problem with. They simply can not make a fact based link in the face of that evidence. At this point no one has proven to me man has the ability to stop natural variation and thus make all the changes we see today mans fault.

The sheer lunacy of the alarmists defies rational, fact based thought.

And the assumptions...they provide wild assed assumptions that are not based on anything other than models as actual evidence to support their beliefs...is that what science has come to? Is that what they are teaching in universities today and calling science?

I asked a few of my fellow doctoral candidate friends to come up with observed facts on which the IPCC is basing their assumptions, a few months back. Not one of them has come forward with any empirical evidence but some have come forward with modeling garbage that was easily laid waste due to the MOE of the data used and/or the failure of the model to predict anything.

There simply is no linking evidence. And yes, this is what science has become. The almighty model, even if it has no predictive capabilities, is touted as empirical evidence. These men have no clue what real observational science is. Its a very sad day in science