To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[Old Rocks]

Define what you mean when you say the adjustments make the warming smaller.

Absolute temp, or trend?

Define which adjustments. Land or oceans? Since, say 2000, or before?

The Pooh flinging monkey wants to take credit for adjustments made to ocean temps a long time ago. Pre Hockeystick, pre Hansen. And he wants to ignore the ever greater land adjustments since 2000.

The adjustments sort of balance out, but the downward ones are before 1950 and the upwards ones are after. Numerically close to equal but the trend has soared.

Everyone has seen the comparisons between global temp graphs from the 70s and 80s, and the ones from the 00s and 10s. The overlapping section shows cooling of the pre 1950 numbers and warming after. Which changes the shape of the graphs and increases the upward trend.

And to paraphrase Orwell, some adjustments are more equal than others. The urban heat island effect has no effect on most temp datasets, except for BEST which actually finds it has a cooling effect!!!. Amazing what the clever sillies can come up with when they want to show a counter intuitive result.

Amazing how some people will continually lie. Seems to me some people stated they would accept those results, and then reneged when it did not line up with their politics. LOL

 

[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.

You're not addressing my post at all Frank

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

Why aren't you addressing my post Frank?

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

There have been thousands of experiments but no matter what you are shown, you will simply deny the facts.

Why are you not addressing my posts Frank? A widely accepted theory is one for which the consensus of expert opinion finds the theory acceptable per the scientific method. The consensus of the experts tells us which is the dominant theory; which is the theory most likely to be correct.

I bet you're just going to pretend you never read these explanations and in two posts you'll be repeating all your ignorant bullshit once more. I'll bet money. God are you stupid.

Crick where's the experiment?

 

[Crick]

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.

You're not addressing my post at all Frank

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

Why aren't you addressing my post Frank?

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

There have been thousands of experiments but no matter what you are shown, you will simply deny the facts.

Why are you not addressing my posts Frank? A widely accepted theory is one for which the consensus of expert opinion finds the theory acceptable per the scientific method. The consensus of the experts tells us which is the dominant theory; which is the theory most likely to be correct.

I bet you're just going to pretend you never read these explanations and in two posts you'll be repeating all your ignorant bullshit once more. I'll bet money. God are you stupid.

Crick where's the experiment?

In history books for one.

Why are you failing to answer the simple question I've put to you over and over again?

Explain to us the difference you seem to perceive between "consensus" and "widely accepted".

 

[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.

You're not addressing my post at all Frank

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

Why aren't you addressing my post Frank?

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

There have been thousands of experiments but no matter what you are shown, you will simply deny the facts.

Why are you not addressing my posts Frank? A widely accepted theory is one for which the consensus of expert opinion finds the theory acceptable per the scientific method. The consensus of the experts tells us which is the dominant theory; which is the theory most likely to be correct.

I bet you're just going to pretend you never read these explanations and in two posts you'll be repeating all your ignorant bullshit once more. I'll bet money. God are you stupid.

Crick where's the experiment?

In history books for one.

Why are you failing to answer the simple question I've put to you over and over again?

Explain to us the difference you seem to perceive between "consensus" and "widely accepted".

Post the Experiment, you know, the one that controls for trace amounts of CO2 to show their effect on temperature

I'll be waiting just like we all have for the years we've been asking

 

[Crick]

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.

You're not addressing my post at all Frank

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

Why aren't you addressing my post Frank?

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

There have been thousands of experiments but no matter what you are shown, you will simply deny the facts.

Why are you not addressing my posts Frank? A widely accepted theory is one for which the consensus of expert opinion finds the theory acceptable per the scientific method. The consensus of the experts tells us which is the dominant theory; which is the theory most likely to be correct.

I bet you're just going to pretend you never read these explanations and in two posts you'll be repeating all your ignorant bullshit once more. I'll bet money. God are you stupid.

Crick where's the experiment?

In history books for one.

Why are you failing to answer the simple question I've put to you over and over again?

Explain to us the difference you seem to perceive between "consensus" and "widely accepted".

Post the Experiment, you know, the one that controls for trace amounts of CO2 to show their effect on temperature

I'll be waiting just like we all have for the years we've been asking

AR5. There, done. Just like it was done all the years you've been repeating this already answered meme of yours.

Now what do you believe to be the difference between "consensus" and "widely accepted"?

 

[Crick]

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.

This is from 8 pages back Frank. YOU made this claim about consensus. Now YOU get to explain how you think "consensus" differs from "widely accepted".

 

[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.

This is from 8 pages back Frank. YOU made this claim about consensus. Now YOU get to explain how you think "consensus" differs from "widely accepted".

Consensus is a word used by Cults: Scientology, Heaven's Gate, Jim Jones, AGW, they all speak the same language

Still no lab experiment, Crick

 

[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.

You're not addressing my post at all Frank

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

Why aren't you addressing my post Frank?

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

There have been thousands of experiments but no matter what you are shown, you will simply deny the facts.

Why are you not addressing my posts Frank? A widely accepted theory is one for which the consensus of expert opinion finds the theory acceptable per the scientific method. The consensus of the experts tells us which is the dominant theory; which is the theory most likely to be correct.

I bet you're just going to pretend you never read these explanations and in two posts you'll be repeating all your ignorant bullshit once more. I'll bet money. God are you stupid.

Crick where's the experiment?

In history books for one.

Why are you failing to answer the simple question I've put to you over and over again?

Explain to us the difference you seem to perceive between "consensus" and "widely accepted".

Post the Experiment, you know, the one that controls for trace amounts of CO2 to show their effect on temperature

I'll be waiting just like we all have for the years we've been asking

AR5. There, done. Just like it was done all the years you've been repeating this already answered meme of yours.

Now what do you believe to be the difference between "consensus" and "widely accepted"?

Based upon your "excess heat" comment, we're all well aware you never even looked at AR5. That you would point to it as an experiment must mean you're not only a pathological liar but a masochist as well

 

[Wyatt earp]

It's a HufPo piece reprinted on Mother Jones. Short on evidence, high on rhetoric. Preaching to the choir I suppose.

Go to France and tell them GW is a hoax. They'll laugh at you.

Lets see if the GOP nominee will get up on stage and deny global warming. Bet they won't. And if they do, they'll lose the general election.

it isn't an issue. how many times must a libturd hear that? Why would any candidate say anything on climate, leaders from 196 couldn't even come to an agreement on it. So it died on the vine in Paris!!!! get it died on the vine???????

Oh its an issue. Its one of the issues you guys don't win the White House.

New Wisconsin utility regulator says volcanos worse than cars for greenhouse gas

Look how many times you guys are wrong about climate change.

How many times we were wrong, lmao were not the ones that have been making the predictions over the past 40 years ya frickin moron.

Like hell, you stupid ass. You asses were claiming right up to 2000 that there was no warming. Then you changed you claim that it was all natural cycles. And when it was shown that you could not show the cycles, you changed it to 'the warming is good for you'. Except many thousands of people in this nation have lost their homes to fires or floods created by the predicted weather extremes this year. Why don't you just give up on your lies.

You fucking liar, let's see links...


All your nut case AGW cult failed predictions are well documented

 

[Crick]

You (deniers) are still claiming no warming. No warming since the el Nino of 98 and anything else is just data manipulation by climate scientists.

 

[westwall]

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

Because consensus is the language of politics, not science, and those who are pushing the fraud directly benefit from it. What you are advocating is the same as a drug maker churning out "studies" that support their product, all the while knowing it is crap, like all those male supplements we get barraged with, but they churn them out because they make money on them.

Color me unsurprised you're not educated enough to understand that.

What the hell would know of science, you old fraud. You have lied continually here, and all who post know it.

The whole world is now in agreement that we have to address this problem, and assholes like you are no more than a footnote. Old, and in the way, for you, that is accurate.

Unlike you I have never lied in a post here. You do it incessantly, from your supposed age, to your supposed job, to almost everything you post in the Environmental section. I actually understand the difference between factual data and opinion. Something you and ALL the rest of the faithers clearly don't. Enjoy your pyrrhic victory for that is what it is. In a couple of more years the fraud is going to collapse under the weight of real evidence that is only now starting to bubble to the surface.

 

[IanC]

Define what you mean when you say the adjustments make the warming smaller.

Absolute temp, or trend?

Define which adjustments. Land or oceans? Since, say 2000, or before?

The Pooh flinging monkey wants to take credit for adjustments made to ocean temps a long time ago. Pre Hockeystick, pre Hansen. And he wants to ignore the ever greater land adjustments since 2000.

The adjustments sort of balance out, but the downward ones are before 1950 and the upwards ones are after. Numerically close to equal but the trend has soared.

Everyone has seen the comparisons between global temp graphs from the 70s and 80s, and the ones from the 00s and 10s. The overlapping section shows cooling of the pre 1950 numbers and warming after. Which changes the shape of the graphs and increases the upward trend.

And to paraphrase Orwell, some adjustments are more equal than others. The urban heat island effect has no effect on most temp datasets, except for BEST which actually finds it has a cooling effect!!!. Amazing what the clever sillies can come up with when they want to show a counter intuitive result.

Amazing how some people will continually lie. Seems to me some people stated they would accept those results, and then reneged when it did not line up with their politics. LOL

Point out the lies.

When Muller announced he was going to form a new temperature database his description sounded excellent. Open access to the public, ability to recalculate with different combinations of correction factors, etc. It didn't turn out that way did it? A lot of people were excited by the project and disappointed by the results. Judith Curry even went so far as to be taken off the list of authors.

Muller publicly stated that roughly 1/3 of long running stations had a cooling trend. Would you care to point out half a dozen stations in BEST that still show cooling?

I am sheepish that I let Muller trick me. But I am certainly not going to continue to support someone who pulled a classic 'bait and switch'.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You (deniers) are still claiming no warming. No warming since the el Nino of 98 and anything else is just data manipulation by climate scientists.

Its the "Natural climate change cult" to you and don't you forget it!!!

 

[westwall]

You (deniers) are still claiming no warming. No warming since the el Nino of 98 and anything else is just data manipulation by climate scientists.

What's funny is the el Nino was THE cause of the warming in 1998. El Nino is a NATURAL occurrence. So the warming in 1998 wasn't man made. The pause is real. Even the IPCC has had to admit to it. No one has ever claimed that warming doesn't occur (yet another lie you asshats spew) we fully acknowledge that it began warming in 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age. What we don't agree with is that man is the sole cause of the warming, which is what you claim.

Were you not a political operative you would agree to that fact.

 

[Crick]

The 1998 el Nino made that a particularly warm year. No one has ever claimed that AGW wasn't overlain onto natural trends. But the current natural trend is one of DECREASING temperatures. Many of your compatriots have claimed that all or most observed warming is due to falsified temperature data. How many deniers have rejected Karl et al 2015 as pure manipulation? All of them, including you.

 

[westwall]

The 1998 el Nino made that a particularly warm year. No one has ever claimed that AGW wasn't overlain onto natural trends. But the current natural trend is one of DECREASING temperatures. Many of your compatriots have claimed that all or most observed warming is due to falsified temperature data. How many deniers have rejected Karl et al 2015 as pure manipulation? All of them, including you.

Actually, yes you have. The claim is that AGW is THE ONLY cause of warming. That no matter what given a rise in CO2 the corresponding global temp increase would be, in the words of your hero's, "inexorable". They were wrong. They have been wrong for the last 18 years.

 

[Crick]

So you reject Karl et al 2015. BTW, I think you need to look up the definition of "inexorable". I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here, Crick. Since you clearly never heard of an experiment either

A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, to examine the validity of a hypothesis, or to determine the efficacy of something previously untried. The process of conducting such a test; experimentation. An innovative act or procedure.
Experiment | Define Experiment at Dictionary.com

 

[westwall]

So you reject Karl et al 2015.

Yes. I REJECT computer derived fiction.

 

[mamooth]

Ahhhhh, the magic of the internet.

You pointed to a few people who made predictions of an ice-free arctic by now. And then you fraudulently claimed that meant it's the scientific consensus, even though some of those same articles pointed out it's not the consensus.

Now, what is the consensus? Honest people will check IPCC AR5.

http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session36/p36_doc3_approved_spm.pdf
---
Based on an assessment of the subset of models that most closely reproduce the climatological mean state and 1979-2012 trend of the Arctic sea ice extent, a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in September before mid-century is
likely
---

That is, the consensus is < 1 million km^2 by 2050.

Naturally, you're going to keep ignoring the actual consensus in favor of your imaginary consenus. Good luck with that. Your fellow cultists here will keep giving you accolades for faithfully repeating ThePartyLine, but the rest of the world knows you're lying, and thus will keep on ignoring you.