To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[sealybobo]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

Everyone in the world except American Republicans know man made climate change/global warming is real.

It'll be interesting to see if the Republican nominee denies it while debating hillary.

Link ?

Edit: 54% of Australians don't

54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming, 80% don’t donate to environment or vote for it « JoNova

The world is meeting in Paris talking about going green.

We didn't send any Republicans and fox and rush aren't talking about it. It's why you need to ask for a link.

Do you need a link if I say evolution or the big bang are real?

Scientific consensus.

Why don't you Google it

Oh look Chinese don't


Climate change concern among Chinese citizens plummets, research finds

Bullshit they have the biggest problem with it.

 

[sealybobo]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

Everyone in the world except American Republicans know man made climate change/global warming is real.

It'll be interesting to see if the Republican nominee denies it while debating hillary.

Link ?

Edit: 54% of Australians don't

54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming, 80% don’t donate to environment or vote for it « JoNova

The world is meeting in Paris talking about going green.

We didn't send any Republicans and fox and rush aren't talking about it. It's why you need to ask for a link.

Do you need a link if I say evolution or the big bang are real?

Scientific consensus.

Why don't you Google it

Ok since you are to lazy to get facts and just spout opinions from your butt.


Climate change opinion by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


70% of the folks in Afghanistan don't believe in the AGW cult

66% of the folks in Cambodia don't believe in the AGW cult

69% of the folks in Chad don't believe in the AGW cult

51% of the folks in Denmark don't believe in the AGW cult

46% of the folks in Egypt don't believe in the AGW cult

41% of the folks in Germany don't believe in the AGW cult

62% of the folks in Iceland don't believe in the AGW cult

62% of the folks in Iraq don't believe in the AGW cult

53% of the folks in Norway don't believe in the AGW cult

61% of the folks in Saudi Arabia don't believe in the AGW cult

71% of the folks in South Africa don't believe in the AGW cult

82% of the folks in Tanzania don't believe in the AGW cult

52% of the folks in the United Kingdom don't believe in the AGW cult

51% of the folks in Vietnam don't believe in the AGW cult

The governments and scientists all know

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

Everyone in the world except American Republicans know man made climate change/global warming is real.

It'll be interesting to see if the Republican nominee denies it while debating hillary.

Link ?

Edit: 54% of Australians don't

54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming, 80% don’t donate to environment or vote for it « JoNova

The world is meeting in Paris talking about going green.

We didn't send any Republicans and fox and rush aren't talking about it. It's why you need to ask for a link.

Do you need a link if I say evolution or the big bang are real?

Scientific consensus.

Why don't you Google it

Consensus is not a scientific word, like "Denier!" it's a Cult word

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Again, what does the phrase "widely accepted theory" mean Mr Westwall? How does one discern what the dominant theory on any question is Mr Westwall? Why do you think mainstream science believes you and the rest of the deniers here are fringe whackjobs Mr Westwall?

CON-FUCKING-SENSUS

From Wikipedia's article on "Scientific Theory"

The scientific method involves the proposal and testing of hypotheses, by deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, then performing those experiments to see whether the predictions are valid. This provides evidence either for or against the hypothesis. When enough experimental results have been gathered in a particular area of inquiry, scientists may propose an explanatory framework that accounts for as many of these as possible. This explanation is also tested, and if it fulfills the necessary criteria (see above), then the explanation becomes a theory. This can take many years, as it can be difficult or complicated to gather sufficient evidence.

Once all of the criteria have been met, it will be widely accepted by scientists (see scientific consensus) as the best available explanation of at least some phenomena. It will have made predictions of phenomena that previous theories could not explain or could not predict accurately, and it will have resisted attempts at falsification. The strength of the evidence is evaluated by the scientific community, and the most important experiments will have been replicated by multiple independent groups.

Consensus is a Cult word.

Speaking of experiment, you've never once show a single experiment linking trace amount of CO2 with increases in temperature. Why is that?

Why are there NO experiments that control for trace amounts of CO2?

 

[SSDD]

The corrections and adjustments made to NOAA's temperature data and that of Hadley, GISS, NCDC and every other holder, are making the data more accurate. Of course they're right. And, as you've been told repeatedly, the net result of the adjustments being made is REDUCING the amount of warming observed.

If that is true, then why do the "adjustments" made to the data set for the continental US disagree with the data set for the CRN which is a pristinely placed triple redundant network which requires not adjustment? If the adjustments were making the data set more accurate, would the adjustments made for the area covered by the CRN not make them agree with the CRN? And if the adjustments made to the data set in the area covered by the CRN are producing a warming not detected by the CRN which needs no adjustment, is there any rational, scientifically sound reason to believe that the warm bias introduced into the data set for the area covered by the CRN does not extend to the rest of the world as well?

 

[SSDD]

Frank, what authority does the IPCC have to redistribute anyone's wealth?

You believe the IPCC is somehow a separate entity from the UN?

 

[westwall]

Again, what does the phrase "widely accepted theory" mean Mr Westwall? How does one discern what the dominant theory on any question is Mr Westwall? Why do you think mainstream science believes you and the rest of the deniers here are fringe whackjobs Mr Westwall?

CON-FUCKING-SENSUS

From Wikipedia's article on "Scientific Theory"

The scientific method involves the proposal and testing of hypotheses, by deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, then performing those experiments to see whether the predictions are valid. This provides evidence either for or against the hypothesis. When enough experimental results have been gathered in a particular area of inquiry, scientists may propose an explanatory framework that accounts for as many of these as possible. This explanation is also tested, and if it fulfills the necessary criteria (see above), then the explanation becomes a theory. This can take many years, as it can be difficult or complicated to gather sufficient evidence.

Once all of the criteria have been met, it will be widely accepted by scientists (see scientific consensus) as the best available explanation of at least some phenomena. It will have made predictions of phenomena that previous theories could not explain or could not predict accurately, and it will have resisted attempts at falsification. The strength of the evidence is evaluated by the scientific community, and the most important experiments will have been replicated by multiple independent groups.

I don't care you halfwit. Flat earthers were the accepted "consensus" once upon a time as well. The number of scientists who have been proven wrong with the their consensus viewpoints would fill an encyclopedia. Whenever those scientists derive monetary benefit from their agreement with the "consensus" they lose all credibility. The fact that you ignore that merely shows the world that YOU are a political propagandist.

 

[mamooth]

Check this outJapanese climate satellite data supports climate realist Professor Murry Salby in rejecting global warming theory;

No. Denier crank Salby just pretended that was the case. Deniers do that, you know, lie their asses off. There was no actual evidence to support your crazy claim anywhere in that article.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, what authority does the IPCC have to redistribute anyone's wealth?

You believe the IPCC is somehow a separate entity from the UN?

Crick missed that whole Global Climate Warming Change thingy in Paris where the world agree to take money from the USA, you know, like redistribute wealth

 

[mamooth]

I don't care you halfwit.

Okay, you're officially on record as rejecting the modern scientific method. Good of you to stop pretending.

Flat earthers were the accepted "consensus" once upon a time as well.

That was before the era of the scientific method (the era deniers still live in), hence it's not a valid critique of the scientific method.

The number of scientists who have been proven wrong with the their consensus viewpoints would fill an encyclopedia. Whenever those scientists derive monetary benefit from their agreement with the "consensus" they lose all credibility. The fact that you ignore that merely shows the world that YOU are a political propagandist.

And after that rant, the actual data still contradicts your claims. You can scream and rage all you want, and all the data will still contradict you. Therefore, the world will keep ignoring you. If you want the world to stop ignoring you, your side will have to do some actual science for the first time ever. Make extra sure your science successly explains all of this data:

1. The directly observed fast increase in temperatures
2. The directly observed stratospheric cooling
3. The directly observed increase in backradiation
4. The directly observed decrease in outgoing longwave radiation
5. The directly observed decrease in solar output
6. Orbital forcings that are trying to cool the earth.

(Notice how none of that involves a model.)

Global warming theory is the only theory that successfully accounts for all of the observed data. That's why it's the accepted theory. Your side, you wave your hands around, scream "Natural cycles!", and declare victory, having invoked your religious magic. And then you wonder why nobody else believes it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I don't care you halfwit.

Okay, you're officially on record as rejecting the modern scientific method. Good of you to stop pretending.

Flat earthers were the accepted "consensus" once upon a time as well.

That was before the era of the scientific method (the era deniers still live in), hence it's not a valid critique of the scientific method.

The number of scientists who have been proven wrong with the their consensus viewpoints would fill an encyclopedia. Whenever those scientists derive monetary benefit from their agreement with the "consensus" they lose all credibility. The fact that you ignore that merely shows the world that YOU are a political propagandist.

And after that rant, the actual data still contradicts your claims. You can scream and rage all you want, and all the data will still contradict you. Therefore, the world will keep ignoring you. If you want the world to stop ignoring you, your side will have to do some actual science for the first time ever. Make extra sure your science successly explains all of this data:

1. The directly observed fast increase in temperatures
2. The directly observed stratospheric cooling
3. The directly observed increase in backradiation
4. The directly observed decrease in outgoing longwave radiation
5. The directly observed decrease in solar output
6. Orbital forcings that are trying to cool the earth.

(Notice how none of that involves a model.)

Global warming theory is the only theory that successfully accounts for all of the observed data. That's why it's the accepted theory. Your side, you wave your hands around, scream "Natural cycles!", and declare victory, having invoked your religious magic. And then you wonder why nobody else believes it.

^ Still hasn't posted a single repeatable experiment linking a rounding error increase in an atmospheric trace element to an increase in temperature. Not a single experiment, not in years

 

[westwall]

I don't care you halfwit.

Okay, you're officially on record as rejecting the modern scientific method. Good of you to stop pretending.

Flat earthers were the accepted "consensus" once upon a time as well.

That was before the era of the scientific method (the era deniers still live in), hence it's not a valid critique of the scientific method.

The number of scientists who have been proven wrong with the their consensus viewpoints would fill an encyclopedia. Whenever those scientists derive monetary benefit from their agreement with the "consensus" they lose all credibility. The fact that you ignore that merely shows the world that YOU are a political propagandist.

And after that rant, the actual data still contradicts your claims. You can scream and rage all you want, and all the data will still contradict you. Therefore, the world will keep ignoring you. If you want the world to stop ignoring you, your side will have to do some actual science for the first time ever. Make extra sure your science successly explains all of this data:

1. The directly observed fast increase in temperatures
2. The directly observed stratospheric cooling
3. The directly observed increase in backradiation
4. The directly observed decrease in outgoing longwave radiation
5. The directly observed decrease in solar output
6. Orbital forcings that are trying to cool the earth.

(Notice how none of that involves a model.)

Global warming theory is the only theory that successfully accounts for all of the observed data. That's why it's the accepted theory. Your side, you wave your hands around, scream "Natural cycles!", and declare victory, having invoked your religious magic. And then you wonder why nobody else believes it.

Prior to 1960 the "consensus" was that the Earth was contracting and that's how mountains were built. Then plate tectonics came along and blew that shit right out of the water. The scientific method has been around for centuries so you are just as ignorant of the history of science as you are its methodology and ethics.

 

[skookerasbil]

Go check the latest Pew Poll on global warming from January '15.........we have a huge majority of Americans that are paranoid!!

 

[Wyatt earp]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

Everyone in the world except American Republicans know man made climate change/global warming is real.

It'll be interesting to see if the Republican nominee denies it while debating hillary.

Link ?

Edit: 54% of Australians don't

54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming, 80% don’t donate to environment or vote for it « JoNova

The world is meeting in Paris talking about going green.

We didn't send any Republicans and fox and rush aren't talking about it. It's why you need to ask for a link.

Do you need a link if I say evolution or the big bang are real?

Scientific consensus.

Why don't you Google it

Oh look Chinese don't


Climate change concern among Chinese citizens plummets, research finds

Bullshit they have the biggest problem with it.

Interesting, so you think China has the biggest problem with climate change... So silly boo boo how did Paris help China's climate change?

 

[mamooth]

Prior to 1960 the "consensus" was that the Earth was contracting and that's how mountains were built. Then plate tectonics came along and blew that shit right out of the water. The scientific method has been around for centuries so you are just as ignorant of the history of science as you are its methodology and ethics.

So better evidence arrived, and the consensus changed.

The lesson we learn is that if you can show the better evidence, the consensus will change fairly quickly. That's how it was with global warming theory, or plate tectonics, or the bacterial cause of ulcers.

So, just show the better data.

 

[westwall]

Prior to 1960 the "consensus" was that the Earth was contracting and that's how mountains were built. Then plate tectonics came along and blew that shit right out of the water. The scientific method has been around for centuries so you are just as ignorant of the history of science as you are its methodology and ethics.

So better evidence arrived, and the consensus changed.

The lesson we learn is that if you can show the better evidence, the consensus will change fairly quickly. That's how it was with global warming theory, or plate tectonics, or the bacterial cause of ulcers.

So, just show the better data.

We show data. You show computer derived fiction. See the difference? Nope. Didn't think you would.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

Everyone in the world except American Republicans know man made climate change/global warming is real.

It'll be interesting to see if the Republican nominee denies it while debating hillary.

Link ?

Edit: 54% of Australians don't

54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming, 80% don’t donate to environment or vote for it « JoNova

The world is meeting in Paris talking about going green.

We didn't send any Republicans and fox and rush aren't talking about it. It's why you need to ask for a link.

Do you need a link if I say evolution or the big bang are real?

Scientific consensus.

Why don't you Google it

Ok since you are to lazy to get facts and just spout opinions from your butt.


Climate change opinion by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


70% of the folks in Afghanistan don't believe in the AGW cult

66% of the folks in Cambodia don't believe in the AGW cult

69% of the folks in Chad don't believe in the AGW cult

51% of the folks in Denmark don't believe in the AGW cult

46% of the folks in Egypt don't believe in the AGW cult

41% of the folks in Germany don't believe in the AGW cult

62% of the folks in Iceland don't believe in the AGW cult

62% of the folks in Iraq don't believe in the AGW cult

53% of the folks in Norway don't believe in the AGW cult

61% of the folks in Saudi Arabia don't believe in the AGW cult

71% of the folks in South Africa don't believe in the AGW cult

82% of the folks in Tanzania don't believe in the AGW cult

52% of the folks in the United Kingdom don't believe in the AGW cult

51% of the folks in Vietnam don't believe in the AGW cult

The governments and scientists all know

So you went from only republicans deny man made climate change to you believing the government of North Korea on scientific matters?

What faith you have comrade .

 

[jc456]

Wasn't Mammooth the one telling us that NOAA was right to retroactively adjust the data?

The corrections and adjustments made to NOAA's temperature data and that of Hadley, GISS, NCDC and every other holder, are making the data more accurate. Of course they're right. And, as you've been told repeatedly, the net result of the adjustments being made is REDUCING the amount of warming observed.

What this has shown as clear as a bell is that you folks are a bunch of idiots and that you don't have an argument to make. Never did.

huh? Unnecessary adjustments to data that had been posted in the past is criminal. Sorry.

 

[jc456]

The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.

Everyone in the world except American Republicans know man made climate change/global warming is real.

It'll be interesting to see if the Republican nominee denies it while debating hillary.

can you prove it? Where is your evidence?

 

[mamooth]

We show data.

Yes, you show data, but none of the data is related to your claims. You give us red herrings instead of data.

You show computer derived fiction. See the difference? Nope. Didn't think you would.

I keep pointing out that the directly observed data proves global warming theory, no models required. If you're that ignorant of the basic science, you're not qualified to be in the discussion.

The stratosphere is cooling.

Backradiation is increasing.

OLR in the GHG bands is decreasing.

Those are all smoking guns for warming caused by greenhouse gases.

Now, what data can you present to back up your theory, whatever that may be?