Notice When It Started.........

[CrusaderFrank]

Nice Cut and Paste...

Why, thanks. Perhaps you could learn how to do it. Of course, you'll have to find reputable source material that supports your claims. Can't help you with that but best of luck to you.

Just a cursory look, but the majority of those papers have been shredded over the last five years

I think here would be a good point to refer to the material in my sig. You are a lying sack of shit. A "cursory look" at 132 reference documents? How stupid can you be? You think the majority have been refuted? I'll go easy on you. Show us refutations to a fourth of them or admit you are LYING.

and you still have not shown any empirical knowledge of the subject.

More lies. AR5 is filled with empirical data.

Please, in your own words, show me the evidence you think proves your contentions. I have posted over and over again the empirical evidence showing that CO2 does not affect climate like they purport that it does and you refuse to address it. What are you afraid of Crick?

I'm afraid your lying stench might rub off on me.

You don't get to lie about your qualifications, lie about your sources and lie about what you have and have not done and then garner support for much of anything you do. You made your bed.

AR5 is filled with "Excess heat" a concept you personally derided

 

[Billy_Bob]

The fact that better than 97% of the world's climate scientists, familiar with the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies on the subject, accept the IPCC's central position: that human activities (CO2 emissions and deforestation) are the primary cause of the warming observed to have taken place over the last 150 years and to an even greater extent over the last 50.

Those are the facts.

Fact is that science does not work on Consensus

For the umpteenth time Frank, what do the terms "accepted theory", "widely accepted theory" and "settled science" mean to you? Does your god tell you what theories to accept and which to deny? Is there some council or Grand Pooh-Bah that makes the final call? How DO you know when some scientific theory about which you have no personal knowledge (and that would seem to be all of them) is the most likely explanation? Answer me that Frank.

HOW DO YOU KNOW, FRANK, WHEN SOME SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS THE MOST LIKELY EXPLANATION FOR THE PHENOMENON IT EXPLAINS?

Relativity has passed every test for the past 100 years, yet it is still a Theory; No one calls Relativity "Settled Science". Gravity was "Settled Science" until Einstein said, "No, not really"

AGW has morphed from Global Warming to Climate change, doesn't have one single repeatable experiment showing how a 100PPM increase in CO2 can raise temperature, alters data that fails to agree with the theory and is based on a flawed computer model. That's not even science, let alone settled science

When Trump stops having the government pay people to believe, the AGWCult will lose 97% of it's loyal followers

Reputable scientists follow the data where it leads. In the case of CAGW they change the data to meet their expectations. Their models failed. Instead of changing their hypothesis to align with the empirically observed data, they change the data. This is not ethical science. It is agenda driven, political pseudoscience. There is no other way to put it.

Crick is basically saying, "You must agree with our flawed, unscientific methodology because virtually all of the people who get paid to produce the flawed, unscientific outcomes say it's true"

Again, not science, not in the same Universe as science

His behavior speaks much louder than his words.

 

[Crick]

HOW DO YOU KNOW, FRANK, WHEN SOME SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS THE MOST LIKELY EXPLANATION FOR THE PHENOMENON IT EXPLAINS?

Relativity has passed every test for the past 100 years, yet it is still a Theory; No one calls Relativity "Settled Science". Gravity was "Settled Science" until Einstein said, "No, not really"

AGW has morphed from Global Warming to Climate change, doesn't have one single repeatable experiment showing how a 100PPM increase in CO2 can raise temperature, alters data that fails to agree with the theory and is based on a flawed computer model. That's not even science, let alone settled science

When Trump stops having the government pay people to believe, the AGWCult will lose 97% of it's loyal followers

You haven't answered the question Frank and neither have your assistants.

HOW DO YOU KNOW, FRANK, WHEN SOME SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS THE MOST LIKELY EXPLANATION FOR THE PHENOMENON IT EXPLAINS?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

HOW DO YOU KNOW, FRANK, WHEN SOME SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS THE MOST LIKELY EXPLANATION FOR THE PHENOMENON IT EXPLAINS?

Relativity has passed every test for the past 100 years, yet it is still a Theory; No one calls Relativity "Settled Science". Gravity was "Settled Science" until Einstein said, "No, not really"

AGW has morphed from Global Warming to Climate change, doesn't have one single repeatable experiment showing how a 100PPM increase in CO2 can raise temperature, alters data that fails to agree with the theory and is based on a flawed computer model. That's not even science, let alone settled science

When Trump stops having the government pay people to believe, the AGWCult will lose 97% of it's loyal followers

You haven't answered the question Frank and neither have your assistants.

HOW DO YOU KNOW, FRANK, WHEN SOME SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS THE MOST LIKELY EXPLANATION FOR THE PHENOMENON IT EXPLAINS?

Most likely as in you've eliminated all the other variables? Should be easy to show us the lab work controlling for only 100PPM of CO2 no?

 

[Billy_Bob]

.........that's right sports fans....at the same time the automobile started:

"Overall, there were an estimated 254.4 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States according to a 2007 DOT study"



View attachment 55920

Why do you use the heavily adjusted global mean data? I noticed you refuse to source your data.

His data comes from divine revelation.

Which Church?

The Church of the Way-ward and Far Out or is it the Al Gore We All Gonna Burn Church?

From their pamplet:

"Come, visit The Immaculate Church of Global Warming, where you will find kindred spirits seeking a new way to interact with our planetary existence. Experience the love of Mother Earth and hear Her pleas for help, as revealed by visionaries in the climate community.

Enjoy a cup of green tea in the lobby after the sermon and feel free to ridicule the Satanic denier cult as you meet new friends."

I was wondering why they are alwasy so faint around Gore..

There is a story on ClimateDepot,about a fainting woman at the COP21 climate conference, who “faints” into Gore’s arms. This just happens to be a TV news Anchorwoman from Bloomberg, who I’m sure is well past any stage fright associated with her job.

Source

 

[Crick]

HOW DO YOU KNOW, FRANK, WHEN SOME SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS THE MOST LIKELY EXPLANATION FOR THE PHENOMENON IT EXPLAINS?

Relativity has passed every test for the past 100 years, yet it is still a Theory; No one calls Relativity "Settled Science". Gravity was "Settled Science" until Einstein said, "No, not really"

You display your science ignorance Frank. Here:

The theory of relativity was representative of more than a single new physical theory. There are some explanations for this. First, special relativity was published in 1905, and the final form of general relativity was published in 1916.[5]

Second, special relativity applies to elementary particles and their interactions, whereas general relativity applies to the cosmological and astrophysical realm, including astronomy.[5]

Third, special relativity was accepted in the physics community by 1920. This theory rapidly became a significant and necessary tool for theorists and experimentalists in the new fields of atomic physics, nuclear physics, and quantum mechanics. Conversely, general relativity did not appear to be as useful. There appeared to be little applicability for experimentalists as most applications were for astronomical scales. It seemed limited to only making minor corrections to predictions of Newtonian gravitation theory.[5]

Finally, the mathematics of general relativity appeared to be very difficult. Consequently, it was thought that a small number of people in the world, at that time, could fully understand the theory in detail, but this has been discredited by Richard Feynman. Then, at around 1960 a critical resurgence in interest occurred which has resulted in making general relativity central to physics and astronomy. New mathematical techniques applicable to the study of general relativity substantially streamlined calculations. From this, physically discernible concepts were isolated from the mathematical complexity. Also, the discovery of exotic astronomical phenomena, in which general relativity was relevant, helped to catalyze this resurgence. The astronomical phenomena included quasars (1963), the 3-kelvin microwave background radiation (1965), pulsars (1967), and the discovery of the first black hole candidates (1981).[5]

Does that look like Relativity is not fully accepted by anyone?

AGW has morphed from Global Warming to Climate change

No it hasn't.

doesn't have one single repeatable experiment showing how a 100PPM increase in CO2 can raise temperature

Thousands of experiments have shown that CO2 absorbs IR and is thus a greenhouse gas.

alters data that fails to agree with the theory

That is a falsehood. As you've been told before, the net result of all the data adjustments to date has been to reduce warming and you and yours have never produced one single piece of evidence that anyone has intentionally falsified these data. Recall the "Where is the Confession?" thread. Thousands of people have been involved in the adjustments made to datasets yet not ONE has eve come forward and verified your accusations. NOT ONE. Additionally, not one of the thousands of scientists whose life's work relies on the accuracy of those data has registered one single complaint supporting your accusations. NOT ONE.

and is based on a flawed computer model.

"A model"? Are you really that stupid Frank?

That's not even science, let alone settled science

Why do you even bother. I know the backside of the fucking moon better than you know the absolute basics of natural science Frank. Your ignorance is extreme and despite having been so informed for several years now, you appear to have done absolutely nothing to improve your standing in this regard.

When Trump stops having the government pay people to believe, the AGWCult will lose 97% of it's loyal followers

That could have been a funny joke if I didn't know you were serious. That makes it as pathetic as pathetic can be.

Reputable scientists follow the data where it leads.

That is correct. And mountains of it has led them to AGW.

In the case of CAGW they change the data to meet their expectations.

No, it has not.

Their models failed.

No, they did not. But every single attempt to run a model without AGW did.

Instead of changing their hypothesis to align with the empirically observed data, they change the data. This is not ethical science. It is agenda driven, political pseudoscience. There is no other way to put it.

Yes there is. It is a lie.

Crick is basically saying, "You must agree with our flawed, unscientific methodology because virtually all of the people who get paid to produce the flawed, unscientific outcomes say it's true"

I am saying that our best bet is to accept the very broad-based conclusion of a vast majority of mainstream science..

Again, not science, not in the same Universe as science

Again, you simply display your ignorance and your bias.

Nice Cut and Paste...

Why, thanks. Perhaps you could learn how to do it. Of course, you'll have to find reputable source material that supports your claims. Can't help you with that but best of luck to you.

Just a cursory look, but the majority of those papers have been shredded over the last five years

I think here would be a good point to refer to the material in my sig. You are a lying sack of shit. A "cursory look" at 132 reference documents? How stupid can you be? You think the majority have been refuted? I'll go easy on you. Show us refutations to a fourth of them or admit you are LYING.

You posted the assumptions framed from the IPCC modeling. MODELING, in other words a GUESS which we have all seen to be wrong by empirical evidence vs model review.

The only reference you've provided showing poor model performance has been Roy Spencer's widely discredited fabrication. I have posted numerous documents showing very good model performance. These models are not "GUESS"es and only someone ignorant in this science would make such a claim.

You have done nothing but reaffirm for me that you dont know anything except what your masters tell you .

If you have concluded that I accept the findings of mainstream science, you've finally gotten something right.

You dismiss that the models do not reflect reality.

Because the models perform far better than you claim and if one is interested in making projections about what will happen in the future, there is no other way to go. Would you care to address the severe shortage of accurate models making no use of AGW?

Then you accept heavily adjusted data as factual.

I don't attack it based on paranoid delusions and a complete lack of real arguments as do you and yours

I am not the one lying or fooled, you seem to have that part covered very well all by yourself.

Not per anything you've produced.

Scientists are skeptical by nature becasue they are trained to question everything. Your happy to be told what to believe.. That speaks volumes about you.

I have never claimed to be a scientist. You have and it was a lie. I apply skepticism where I am able and where I see a need for it. For the detailed matters of climate science, I am perfectly willing to accept the opinions of the actual experts and have not the slightest embarrassment in doing so. I will rely on THEIR skepticism. I will not rely on yours because you have none.

Your sig line also speaks volumes about how you view real scientists. And your credentials are what again? Cabin Boy?

I work with real scientists on a professional basis. That experience - and my own knowledge of physics acquired while obtaining a bachelor's degree in ocean engineering - tells me that your knowledge of physics is far below my own. That tells me that you are not a scientist. It is possible that you've obtained some mail order certificate in meteorology - more likely that you are still working on it, or that you've attempted it but found it too difficult. Your claim to have an otherwise unidentified "degree in atmospheric physics", I totally reject. You are lying and you are stupid enough to think you can get away with it. That's why it's in my sig. Asshole.

 

[Iceweasel]

There is a story on ClimateDepot,about a fainting woman at the COP21 climate conference, who “faints” into Gore’s arms. This just happens to be a TV news Anchorwoman from Bloomberg, who I’m sure is well past any stage fright associated with her job.

She had a goregasm.

 

[Campbell]

There is a story on ClimateDepot,about a fainting woman at the COP21 climate conference, who “faints” into Gore’s arms. This just happens to be a TV news Anchorwoman from Bloomberg, who I’m sure is well past any stage fright associated with her job.

She had a goregasm.

Beats the hell out of the whole goddam Republican party's "Trumpery"

 

[Iceweasel]

There is a story on ClimateDepot,about a fainting woman at the COP21 climate conference, who “faints” into Gore’s arms. This just happens to be a TV news Anchorwoman from Bloomberg, who I’m sure is well past any stage fright associated with her job.

She had a goregasm.

Beats the hell out of the whole goddam Republican party's "Trumpery"

He has about a 30% support. I know you libs don't do math but that isn't a majority in this reality.

 

[Billy_Bob]

HOW DO YOU KNOW, FRANK, WHEN SOME SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS THE MOST LIKELY EXPLANATION FOR THE PHENOMENON IT EXPLAINS?

Relativity has passed every test for the past 100 years, yet it is still a Theory; No one calls Relativity "Settled Science". Gravity was "Settled Science" until Einstein said, "No, not really"

You display your science ignorance Frank. Here:

The theory of relativity was representative of more than a single new physical theory. There are some explanations for this. First, special relativity was published in 1905, and the final form of general relativity was published in 1916.[5]

Second, special relativity applies to elementary particles and their interactions, whereas general relativity applies to the cosmological and astrophysical realm, including astronomy.[5]

Third, special relativity was accepted in the physics community by 1920. This theory rapidly became a significant and necessary tool for theorists and experimentalists in the new fields of atomic physics, nuclear physics, and quantum mechanics. Conversely, general relativity did not appear to be as useful. There appeared to be little applicability for experimentalists as most applications were for astronomical scales. It seemed limited to only making minor corrections to predictions of Newtonian gravitation theory.[5]

Finally, the mathematics of general relativity appeared to be very difficult. Consequently, it was thought that a small number of people in the world, at that time, could fully understand the theory in detail, but this has been discredited by Richard Feynman. Then, at around 1960 a critical resurgence in interest occurred which has resulted in making general relativity central to physics and astronomy. New mathematical techniques applicable to the study of general relativity substantially streamlined calculations. From this, physically discernible concepts were isolated from the mathematical complexity. Also, the discovery of exotic astronomical phenomena, in which general relativity was relevant, helped to catalyze this resurgence. The astronomical phenomena included quasars (1963), the 3-kelvin microwave background radiation (1965), pulsars (1967), and the discovery of the first black hole candidates (1981).[5]

Does that look like Relativity is not fully accepted by anyone?

AGW has morphed from Global Warming to Climate change

No it hasn't.

doesn't have one single repeatable experiment showing how a 100PPM increase in CO2 can raise temperature

Thousands of experiments have shown that CO2 absorbs IR and is thus a greenhouse gas.

alters data that fails to agree with the theory

That is a falsehood. As you've been told before, the net result of all the data adjustments to date has been to reduce warming and you and yours have never produced one single piece of evidence that anyone has intentionally falsified these data. Recall the "Where is the Confession?" thread. Thousands of people have been involved in the adjustments made to datasets yet not ONE has eve come forward and verified your accusations. NOT ONE. Additionally, not one of the thousands of scientists whose life's work relies on the accuracy of those data has registered one single complaint supporting your accusations. NOT ONE.

and is based on a flawed computer model.

"A model"? Are you really that stupid Frank?

That's not even science, let alone settled science

Why do you even bother. I know the backside of the fucking moon better than you know the absolute basics of natural science Frank. Your ignorance is extreme and despite having been so informed for several years now, you appear to have done absolutely nothing to improve your standing in this regard.

When Trump stops having the government pay people to believe, the AGWCult will lose 97% of it's loyal followers

That could have been a funny joke if I didn't know you were serious. That makes it as pathetic as pathetic can be.

Reputable scientists follow the data where it leads.

That is correct. And mountains of it has led them to AGW.

In the case of CAGW they change the data to meet their expectations.

No, it has not.

Their models failed.

No, they did not. But every single attempt to run a model without AGW did.

Instead of changing their hypothesis to align with the empirically observed data, they change the data. This is not ethical science. It is agenda driven, political pseudoscience. There is no other way to put it.

Yes there is. It is a lie.

Crick is basically saying, "You must agree with our flawed, unscientific methodology because virtually all of the people who get paid to produce the flawed, unscientific outcomes say it's true"

I am saying that our best bet is to accept the very broad-based conclusion of a vast majority of mainstream science..

Again, not science, not in the same Universe as science

Again, you simply display your ignorance and your bias.

Nice Cut and Paste...

Why, thanks. Perhaps you could learn how to do it. Of course, you'll have to find reputable source material that supports your claims. Can't help you with that but best of luck to you.

Just a cursory look, but the majority of those papers have been shredded over the last five years

I think here would be a good point to refer to the material in my sig. You are a lying sack of shit. A "cursory look" at 132 reference documents? How stupid can you be? You think the majority have been refuted? I'll go easy on you. Show us refutations to a fourth of them or admit you are LYING.

You posted the assumptions framed from the IPCC modeling. MODELING, in other words a GUESS which we have all seen to be wrong by empirical evidence vs model review.

The only reference you've provided showing poor model performance has been Roy Spencer's widely discredited fabrication. I have posted numerous documents showing very good model performance. These models are not "GUESS"es and only someone ignorant in this science would make such a claim.

You have done nothing but reaffirm for me that you dont know anything except what your masters tell you .

If you have concluded that I accept the findings of mainstream science, you've finally gotten something right.

You dismiss that the models do not reflect reality.

Because the models perform far better than you claim and if one is interested in making projections about what will happen in the future, there is no other way to go. Would you care to address the severe shortage of accurate models making no use of AGW?

Then you accept heavily adjusted data as factual.

I don't attack it based on paranoid delusions and a complete lack of real arguments as do you and yours

I am not the one lying or fooled, you seem to have that part covered very well all by yourself.

Not per anything you've produced.

Scientists are skeptical by nature becasue they are trained to question everything. Your happy to be told what to believe.. That speaks volumes about you.

I have never claimed to be a scientist. You have and it was a lie. I apply skepticism where I am able and where I see a need for it. For the detailed matters of climate science, I am perfectly willing to accept the opinions of the actual experts and have not the slightest embarrassment in doing so. I will rely on THEIR skepticism. I will not rely on yours because you have none.

Your sig line also speaks volumes about how you view real scientists. And your credentials are what again? Cabin Boy?

I work with real scientists on a professional basis. That experience - and my own knowledge of physics acquired while obtaining a bachelor's degree in ocean engineering - tells me that your knowledge of physics is far below my own. That tells me that you are not a scientist. It is possible that you've obtained some mail order certificate in meteorology - more likely that you are still working on it, or that you've attempted it but found it too difficult. Your claim to have an otherwise unidentified "degree in atmospheric physics", I totally reject. You are lying and you are stupid enough to think you can get away with it. That's why it's in my sig. Asshole.

The short version is, You haven't a clue how the climate works, You work around people who are bought and paid for by the AGW movement and you believe it hook line and sinker. When someone comes along who discredits your belief with empirical evidence you call names and belittle.

Have I missed anything? Oh yes, you never once addressed the empirical evidence I presented. Which tells me you haven't the slightest clue..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Nice Cut and Paste...

Why, thanks. Perhaps you could learn how to do it. Of course, you'll have to find reputable source material that supports your claims. Can't help you with that but best of luck to you.

Just a cursory look, but the majority of those papers have been shredded over the last five years

I think here would be a good point to refer to the material in my sig. You are a lying sack of shit. A "cursory look" at 132 reference documents? How stupid can you be? You think the majority have been refuted? I'll go easy on you. Show us refutations to a fourth of them or admit you are LYING.

and you still have not shown any empirical knowledge of the subject.

More lies. AR5 is filled with empirical data.

Please, in your own words, show me the evidence you think proves your contentions. I have posted over and over again the empirical evidence showing that CO2 does not affect climate like they purport that it does and you refuse to address it. What are you afraid of Crick?

I'm afraid your lying stench might rub off on me.

You don't get to lie about your qualifications, lie about your sources and lie about what you have and have not done and then garner support for much of anything you do. You made your bed.

LOL..You mean like Obama's policy letters? Or the Sierra Club letters? Or the AMA? You linked to whole lot of crap from Dana Nuttercellie and other political hacks..

 

[Old Rocks]

Or any of the Scientific Societies in the various nations around the world. Or any of the Academies of Science, or the major Universities. Ol' Silly Billy that cannot pass a GED knows better than all of these scientists.

 

[Old Rocks]

The climb in temperatures started with the Industrial Revolution. And continues to accelerate even as we post.

 

[flacaltenn]

According to the OP chart, the temperature rose from -.4 all the way to .6 in 120 years. Is that really the best you've got? LOL

It's happening and evidence is all around you. Look at the damage done by fires in the west. Look at the milder winters in the central U S. Look at the floods and sinkholes. Look at the flooding. Here where I live we used to get record breaking snowfalls every two or three years. Now my Japanese maples and Bradford pear trees keep leaves till mid December. Pay attention.....you might learn something.

Sinkholes eh? Because of cars? Well maybe partly. But we don't need to GUESS at where the CO2 is coming from --- because we have NUMBERS to tell you what part of the problem automobiles might be..

You are aware that cars exhausting primarily CO2 is a GOOD thing. Right? Because the more fuel efficient and combustion efficient you are -- the more you'll exhaust just CO2 and H2O vapor..

Maybe those catalytic converters ought to come off and the Bradford pears will drop their leaves earlier (in some parts of the US)..

Touch me again in March about the "milder winters".. Because last year was pretty damn brutal..

 

[Crick]

The world is getting hotter your "brutal" winter notwithstanding.