What, exactly, do warmists think that deniers are denying?

[Abraham3]

Whether or not I (or you) think they constitute evidence is pretty irrelevant in the big scheme of things. That an overwhelming majority of climate scientists think it all qualifies as evidence is not.

 

[bripat9643]

o The Earth is getting warmer at a rate unprecedented in millions of years
o That warming is being caused by the Greenhouse Effect operating on increasing levels of GHGs in Earth's atmosphere.
o The primary source of those GHGs are human activities: the combustion of fossil fuel for power and transportation and deforestation for development, mining and agriculture.
o This warming represents a threat to our well being from a number of directions: rising sea level, alterations in rain patterns, alteration in seasonal timing, increased weather intensity and so forth.
o To minimize the harm this process will cause, humans need to minimize their GHG emissions. This is best accomplished by replacing coal and petroleum combustion with renewable sources such as solar (PV and thermal), wind, tide, OTEC, geothermal, hydroelectric as well as nuclear.

So, you agree with all of that, don't you. Any reasonable person would.

More bullshit lies and misinformation from the kool-aid drinking gullible idiot, Dishonest Abe.


LIAR!

Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph

So, you agree with all of that, don't you. Any reasonable person would.

I do not, have not, and will NEVER agree with any of the bullshit lies and misinformation that a kool-aid drinking gullible idiot like yourself or even the shit-for-brains Goldierocks continually spews about global warming. Any reasonable person would NOT.

EVERYTHING ABOUT AGW IS A LIE!

It's a shame you can't demonstrate any good evidence supporting your position on any of these points. Cause I can.

Really? So when are you going to do it?

 

[bripat9643]

Whether or not I (or you) think they constitute evidence is pretty irrelevant in the big scheme of things. That an overwhelming majority of climate scientists think it all qualifies as evidence is not.

That's also irrelevant, and also false.

 

[IanC]

It's a shame you can't demonstrate any good evidence supporting your position on any of these points. Cause I can.

No you can't. You can recite a version of a hypothesis based upon assumptions, guesses, fudge factors, and computer models, which makes predictions regarding changes in the atmosphere which don't happen and the total hypothetical effect has never been measured.

Now in your own tiny little brainwashed mind, that may rise to the level of evidence, but out here in the real world, it isn't even close. Show us an actual quantified measurement of the greenhouse effect. Show us repeatable experimental evidence that adding X amount of CO2, or any of the so called greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere will cause Y amount of warming. Explain why the greenhouse hypothesis is not able to accurately predict the temperature of any of the other planets in the solar system with atmospheres. Tell us why the hot spot in the troposphere predicted by the greenhouse hypothesis hasn't materialized. Tell us why the data from tens of thousands of radiosondes don't show the increased cooling in the stratosphere that the greenhouse hypothesis predicts.

I could go on asking for explanations for the multitude of failures of the greenhouse hypothesis and by default the AGW hypothesis but you will be completely unable to answer the few above, so asking more questions of a mute wall is pointless. The fact is that one failure of a hypothesis is enough to reject it and the greenhouse hypothesis and its offspring the AGW hypothesis have experienced failure after failure and they are kept alive through the sheer force of politics...science would have discarded them decades ago if not for the money politics is willing to throw at them to keep them alive.

Zombie science

 

[SSDD]

It's a shame you can't demonstrate any good evidence supporting your position on any of these points. Cause I can.

No you can't. You can recite a version of a hypothesis based upon assumptions, guesses, fudge factors, and computer models, which makes predictions regarding changes in the atmosphere which don't happen and the total hypothetical effect has never been measured.



Now in your own tiny little brainwashed mind, that may rise to the level of evidence, but out here in the real world, it isn't even close. Show us an actual quantified measurement of the greenhouse effect. Show us repeatable experimental evidence that adding X amount of CO2, or any of the so called greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere will cause Y amount of warming. Explain why the greenhouse hypothesis is not able to accurately predict the temperature of any of the other planets in the solar system with atmospheres. Tell us why the hot spot in the troposphere predicted by the greenhouse hypothesis hasn't materialized. Tell us why the data from tens of thousands of radiosondes don't show the increased cooling in the stratosphere that the greenhouse hypothesis predicts.



I could go on asking for explanations for the multitude of failures of the greenhouse hypothesis and by default the AGW hypothesis but you will be completely unable to answer the few above, so asking more questions of a mute wall is pointless. The fact is that one failure of a hypothesis is enough to reject it and the greenhouse hypothesis and its offspring the AGW hypothesis have experienced failure after failure and they are kept alive through the sheer force of politics...science would have discarded them decades ago if not for the money politics is willing to throw at them to keep them alive.

Zombie science

Did you get a chance to look at the papers from the open peer review site I referred to on the energy budget thread. A fair amount of actual research and some real science there. Some new thoughts on some old conundrums also.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

If one rejects that absolutely ridiculous conspiracy theory that Kennedy's limo driver shot the President in Dealy Plaza that November day back in 1963, one may be said to be "denying" it.

If one rejects the silly and unsubstantiated contention that human industry is singularly responsible for "climate change" in the past 100 to 200 years, one may be said to be "denying" it.

But, on the other hand, calling-out the proponents of the AGW claim is not necessarily a bad thing.

Consider:

Time to push back against the global warming Nazis « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[Abraham3]

Roy Spencer shows himself to be even more of a jackass than I would have thought.

I have never seen any connection between an AGW denier and a Holocaust denier. I have never heard the term "denier", by itself, ever used to denote a Holocaust denier. At the very least, an article or an essay will start out using the "Holocaust" modifier but might thereafter shorten that to just denier. We "Warming Kooks" have been calling you fellows deniers for several years now and this is the FIRST time I've heard anyone complain we were intimating you were also Holocaust deniers. If I was writing for some media that had NO global warming context, I would very likely qualify precisely what variety of denier I was accusing you folks of being. But, since the context here is clear as clear, there's simply no point.

And, as is often the case with denier arguments, they have no bearing on the science of the matter. It wouldn't matter if every Warming Kook was a certified mass murderer - it has nothing to do with whether or not GHG emissions from human activities are primarily responsible for the warming that the Earth has undergone the last 150 years, would it.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Roy Spencer shows himself to be even more of a jackass than I would have thought.

I have never seen any connection between an AGW denier and a Holocaust denier. I have never heard the term "denier", by itself, ever used to denote a Holocaust denier. At the very least, an article or an essay will start out using the "Holocaust" modifier but might thereafter shorten that to just denier. We "Warming Kooks" have been calling you fellows deniers for several years now and this is the FIRST time I've heard anyone complain we were intimating you were also Holocaust deniers. If I was writing for some media that had NO global warming context, I would very likely qualify precisely what variety of denier I was accusing you folks of being. But, since the context here is clear as clear, there's simply no point.

And, as is often the case with denier arguments, they have no bearing on the science of the matter. It wouldn't matter if every Warming Kook was a certified mass murderer - it has nothing to do with whether or not GHG emissions from human activities are primarily responsible for the warming that the Earth has undergone the last 150 years, would it.

Horseshit. The very terminology employed (i.e., "denier") is the same from those who would justifiably mock those who deny a holocaust and you AGW Faith-based pseudoscience types who mock folks (i.e. the "deniers") who grasp actual science.

You can't refute any part of the criticism leveled against you by an actual climatologist like Spencer.

Why should anybody take you AGW Faithers seriously?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Once upon a pre-historic time, the land mass that would someday become the North American Continent was not covered in a mile thick sheet of Ice.

Then, remarkably, in pre-historic times, it was.

No human technology caused it.

Then, over a very long period of time, also prior to human industry, that ice sheet receded.

No human technology caused it.

"Climate HAPPENS!"

And no AGW Faither has ever demonstrated that humans cause it, have the capacity to cause it or can alter it in any way or are capable of stopping it or reversing it.

 

[SSDD]

Roy Spencer shows himself to be even more of a jackass than I would have thought.

I have never seen any connection between an AGW denier and a Holocaust denier. I have never heard the term "denier", by itself, ever used to denote a Holocaust denier. .

Maybe you should take off the official AGW cult blinders once in a while and look around. You may be surprised to see how many people around you are pointing at you and laughing out loud.

 

[SSDD]

Once upon a pre-historic time, the land mass that would someday become the North American Continent was not covered in a mile thick sheet of Ice.

Then, remarkably, in pre-historic times, it was.

No human technology caused it.

Then, over a very long period of time, also prior to human industry, that ice sheet receded.

No human technology caused it.

"Climate HAPPENS!"

And no AGW Faither has ever demonstrated that humans cause it, have the capacity to cause it or can alter it in any way or are capable of stopping it or reversing it.

Never changes, does it? They are genuinely, and perpetually stuck on stupid.

 

[Wyld Kard]

o The Earth is getting warmer at a rate unprecedented in millions of years
o That warming is being caused by the Greenhouse Effect operating on increasing levels of GHGs in Earth's atmosphere.
o The primary source of those GHGs are human activities: the combustion of fossil fuel for power and transportation and deforestation for development, mining and agriculture.
o This warming represents a threat to our well being from a number of directions: rising sea level, alterations in rain patterns, alteration in seasonal timing, increased weather intensity and so forth.
o To minimize the harm this process will cause, humans need to minimize their GHG emissions. This is best accomplished by replacing coal and petroleum combustion with renewable sources such as solar (PV and thermal), wind, tide, OTEC, geothermal, hydroelectric as well as nuclear.

So, you agree with all of that, don't you. Any reasonable person would.

More bullshit lies and misinformation from the kool-aid drinking gullible idiot, Dishonest Abe.


LIAR!

Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph

So, you agree with all of that, don't you. Any reasonable person would.

I do not, have not, and will NEVER agree with any of the bullshit lies and misinformation that a kool-aid drinking gullible idiot like yourself or even the shit-for-brains Goldierocks continually spews about global warming. Any reasonable person would NOT.

EVERYTHING ABOUT AGW IS A LIE!

It's a shame you can't demonstrate any good evidence supporting your position on any of these points. Cause I can.

No you can't!

Since you consider the lies and misinformation about global warming that you continually post as being "good supporting evidence", you are seriously full of shit!

 

[Abraham3]

You're not making any more sense than you ever made.

I've presented tons and tons and tons of evidence that AGW is valid. Since I first saw your posts here in Environment, you have presented ZERO evidence that anything you've contended is true.

So, you lose, I win. Simple as that.

 

[Wyld Kard]

You're not making any more sense than you ever made.

I've presented tons and tons and tons of evidence that AGW is valid. Since I first saw your posts here in Environment, you have presented ZERO evidence that anything you've contended is true.

So, you lose, I win. Simple as that.

I've presented tons and tons and tons of evidence that AGW is valid.

Once again, you have proven yourself to be a liar!

So, you lose, you will always lose because you are a gullible idiot who believes and accepts the lies and misinformation of global warming as fact.

Simple as that.

 

[Abraham3]

You know perfectly well that I am not lying. You know that I am telling the truth and everyone else here knows it as well. You've never presented one shred of evidence. You simply scream and holler like a four year old in a tantrum that we don't accept your idiocy on face value (the Joker's face, I presume). For christ's sake, grow up.

 

[elektra]

I'm not lying. I am telling the truth and everyone here knows it. You've never presented on shred of evidence. You simply scream and holler like a four year old in a tantrum that we don't accept your idiocy on face value (the Joker's face, I presume). For christ's sake, grow up.

comparing one's opponent to a four year old exposes oneself as a person of inferior intelligence, what is it you hate about four year old's that you think they can be used to disparage one you hate?

 

[Wyld Kard]

You know perfectly well that I am not lying. You know that I am telling the truth and everyone else here knows it as well. You've never presented one shred of evidence. You simply scream and holler like a four year old in a tantrum that we don't accept your idiocy on face value (the Joker's face, I presume). For christ's sake, grow up.

You know perfectly well that I am not lying.

You are delusional if you believe that crap.

You know that I am telling the truth and everyone else here knows it as well.

You are delusional if you believe that crap. The only way that I will believe that crap that you believe is for me to drink the Kool-Aid and to accept the lies of global warming as fact, which isn't going to happen.

You've never presented one shred of evidence.

That's a lie.

We both know that whatever anybody posts which contradicts the lies and misinformation that you faithfully believe in, accept, and support about global warming, you will automatically reject it.

For christ's sake: STOP DRINKING THE KOOL-AID

 

[Abraham3]

Let's see... any evidence in that post? Nope,

Any hollering, screaming and insults in that post, like a 4-year old in a tantrum? Yup.

 

[elektra]

Let's see... any evidence in that post? Nope,

Any hollering, screaming and insults in that post, like a 4-year old in a tantrum? Yup.

Which post, quote what your talking about, idiot.

 

[SSDD]

You know perfectly well that I am not lying. You know that I am telling the truth and everyone else here knows it as well. You've never presented one shred of evidence. You simply scream and holler like a four year old in a tantrum that we don't accept your idiocy on face value (the Joker's face, I presume). For christ's sake, grow up.

Actually, we all know that you are a big fat liar...or one of the stupidest dolts to have ever walked the surface of earth.

As to evidence, all you have to do is look around to see that the AGW hypothesis has failed...and on only look at what you have presented as "evidence" to know that you have presented none. The responsibility of proving a case doesn't rest on skeptics...all we have to do is show one failure of the hypothesis and that is enough to trash it if climate science were actually about science. Clearly it isn't.