Who are the Real Deniers???

[SSDD]

Who are the real deniers? This, and quite a few important questions regarding who is denying what were posed by physicist, Gordon J. Fulks, PhD

The entire article can be read HERE

The questions:

•Who denies the importance of variable solar irradiance and the possible importance of solar modulation of galactic cosmic rays?

•Who denies that our Sun is a variable star?

•Who denies that our oceans contain the vast majority of mobile heat on this planet and therefore dominate our climate, year to year and decade to decade?

•Who denies the importance of natural ocean cycles like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), discovered by researchers studying salmon?

•Who denies clear cyclical variations in our climate, easily traceable to ocean cycles?

•Who denies that our recent warming commenced about 1830, long before significant burning of fossil fuels?

•Who denies that ice core data clearly show that recent warming is consistent with previous warm periods, like the Medieval, Roman, and Minoan?

•Who denies that CO2 lags temperature in the ice core data by as much as 800 years and hence is a product of climate change not a cause?

•Who denies 150 years of chemical measurements of atmospheric CO2 that suggest that ice core reconstructions of past CO2 concentrations are low by 60 ppm?

•Who denies that the global temperature went down for three decades after World War II, despite significant increases in human emissions of CO2 due to industrialization?

•Who denies that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas and by far the dominant climate gas, not CO2?

•Who denies that increasing CO2 is a substantial benefit to plants and therefore helps us feed the seven billion people on this planet?

•Who denies that our oceans are alkaline not acidic and can never turn acidic because of buffering?

•Who denies that the EPA's three "Lines of Evidence" supporting their Endangerment Finding on CO2 are all fatally flawed?

•Who denies the leveling off of the Global Temperature for the past 15 years?

•Who denies that the 'Hotspot' (required by Global Warming theory) does not exist in the tropical troposphere?

•Who denies that all 73 computerized climate models are epic failures?

•Who denies that theories which fail validation tests are dead?

•Who denies the supremacy of evidence over theory?

•Who denies the supremacy of logic and evidence over authority and consensus?

•Who denies that Extreme Weather has always been with us and cannot be traced to CO2?

• Who denies that the Climategate e-mails showed fundamental cheating by those scientists promoting Global Warming?

•Who denies that many prominent scientists oppose climate hysteria?

In short, who denies both the science and the scientific method?


There are skeptcs who aren't convinced by the as yet unproven hypothesis in support of anthropogenic climate change...and there are deniers who deny the demands of the scientific method in favor of cultish belief and faith.

 

[waltky]

Those who deny that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of the living God.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, I suppose I could answer those questions one by one for you, but it has all been done before. With links to the scientists that are actually doing the research. And it really doesn't matter, for we will continue to see an increase in the heat retained by the atmosphere, and the attendent consequences of that.

And people like you will continue to deny that anything is happening, in all the evidence to the contrary.

 

[SSDD]

Well, I suppose I could answer those questions one by one for you, but it has all been done before. With links to the scientists that are actually doing the research. And it really doesn't matter, for we will continue to see an increase in the heat retained by the atmosphere, and the attendent consequences of that.

And people like you will continue to deny that anything is happening, in all the evidence to the contrary.

What makes you such a liar? I don't deny climate change. I just don't see any convincing evidence that we are causing it.

 

[IanC]

Who are the real deniers? This, and quite a few important questions regarding who is denying what were posed by physicist, Gordon J. Fulks, PhD

The entire article can be read HERE

The questions:

•Who denies the importance of variable solar irradiance and the possible importance of solar modulation of galactic cosmic rays?

•Who denies that our Sun is a variable star?

•Who denies that our oceans contain the vast majority of mobile heat on this planet and therefore dominate our climate, year to year and decade to decade?

•Who denies the importance of natural ocean cycles like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), discovered by researchers studying salmon?

•Who denies clear cyclical variations in our climate, easily traceable to ocean cycles?

•Who denies that our recent warming commenced about 1830, long before significant burning of fossil fuels?

•Who denies that ice core data clearly show that recent warming is consistent with previous warm periods, like the Medieval, Roman, and Minoan?

•Who denies that CO2 lags temperature in the ice core data by as much as 800 years and hence is a product of climate change not a cause?

•Who denies 150 years of chemical measurements of atmospheric CO2 that suggest that ice core reconstructions of past CO2 concentrations are low by 60 ppm?

•Who denies that the global temperature went down for three decades after World War II, despite significant increases in human emissions of CO2 due to industrialization?

•Who denies that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas and by far the dominant climate gas, not CO2?

•Who denies that increasing CO2 is a substantial benefit to plants and therefore helps us feed the seven billion people on this planet?

•Who denies that our oceans are alkaline not acidic and can never turn acidic because of buffering?

•Who denies that the EPA's three "Lines of Evidence" supporting their Endangerment Finding on CO2 are all fatally flawed?

•Who denies the leveling off of the Global Temperature for the past 15 years?

•Who denies that the 'Hotspot' (required by Global Warming theory) does not exist in the tropical troposphere?

•Who denies that all 73 computerized climate models are epic failures?

•Who denies that theories which fail validation tests are dead?

•Who denies the supremacy of evidence over theory?

•Who denies the supremacy of logic and evidence over authority and consensus?

•Who denies that Extreme Weather has always been with us and cannot be traced to CO2?

• Who denies that the Climategate e-mails showed fundamental cheating by those scientists promoting Global Warming?

•Who denies that many prominent scientists oppose climate hysteria?

In short, who denies both the science and the scientific method?


There are skeptcs who aren't convinced by the as yet unproven hypothesis in support of anthropogenic climate change...and there are deniers who deny the demands of the scientific method in favor of cultish belief and faith.

Good find SSDD

Logical questions that destroy the findings of climate science which are only supported by evidence mining to fit preformed conclusions.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, I suppose I could answer those questions one by one for you, but it has all been done before. With links to the scientists that are actually doing the research. And it really doesn't matter, for we will continue to see an increase in the heat retained by the atmosphere, and the attendent consequences of that.

And people like you will continue to deny that anything is happening, in all the evidence to the contrary.

^ Denier

Where's that one lab experiment showing us how your bizarre theory works?

 

[Abraham3]

Who are the real deniers? This, and quite a few important questions regarding who is denying what were posed by physicist, Gordon J. Fulks, PhD

The entire article can be read HERE

The questions:

•Who denies the importance of variable solar irradiance and the possible importance of solar modulation of galactic cosmic rays?

•Who denies that our Sun is a variable star?

•Who denies that our oceans contain the vast majority of mobile heat on this planet and therefore dominate our climate, year to year and decade to decade?

•Who denies the importance of natural ocean cycles like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), discovered by researchers studying salmon?

•Who denies clear cyclical variations in our climate, easily traceable to ocean cycles?

•Who denies that our recent warming commenced about 1830, long before significant burning of fossil fuels?

•Who denies that ice core data clearly show that recent warming is consistent with previous warm periods, like the Medieval, Roman, and Minoan?

•Who denies that CO2 lags temperature in the ice core data by as much as 800 years and hence is a product of climate change not a cause?

•Who denies 150 years of chemical measurements of atmospheric CO2 that suggest that ice core reconstructions of past CO2 concentrations are low by 60 ppm?

•Who denies that the global temperature went down for three decades after World War II, despite significant increases in human emissions of CO2 due to industrialization?

•Who denies that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas and by far the dominant climate gas, not CO2?

•Who denies that increasing CO2 is a substantial benefit to plants and therefore helps us feed the seven billion people on this planet?

•Who denies that our oceans are alkaline not acidic and can never turn acidic because of buffering?

•Who denies that the EPA's three "Lines of Evidence" supporting their Endangerment Finding on CO2 are all fatally flawed?

•Who denies the leveling off of the Global Temperature for the past 15 years?

•Who denies that the 'Hotspot' (required by Global Warming theory) does not exist in the tropical troposphere?

•Who denies that all 73 computerized climate models are epic failures?

•Who denies that theories which fail validation tests are dead?

•Who denies the supremacy of evidence over theory?

•Who denies the supremacy of logic and evidence over authority and consensus?

•Who denies that Extreme Weather has always been with us and cannot be traced to CO2?

• Who denies that the Climategate e-mails showed fundamental cheating by those scientists promoting Global Warming?

•Who denies that many prominent scientists oppose climate hysteria?

In short, who denies both the science and the scientific method?


There are skeptcs who aren't convinced by the as yet unproven hypothesis in support of anthropogenic climate change...and there are deniers who deny the demands of the scientific method in favor of cultish belief and faith.

Good find SSDD

Logical questions that destroy the findings of climate science which are only supported by evidence mining to fit preformed conclusions.

Good find? You've got to be kidding. Or desperate.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Dude it was cold in Texas one day this one time a while back. Take that climate change assholes

 

[mamooth]

Who denies that most of those questions are really dumb red herrings, and that you'd have to be kind of dumb yourself to think they were significant?

That is, excepting the few questions that were just outright lies, lies that the denialists fully approve of, given their "The ends for my cult always justify the means, no matter how sleazy those means are!" mentality.

And if you have to retreat to avalanche o' crap tactics, you've more or less admitted surrender. People with the facts on their side don't have to fling everything at the wall in the hopes something sticks.

 

[IanC]

Who denies that most of those questions are really dumb red herrings, and that you'd have to be kind of dumb yourself to think they were significant?

That is, excepting the few questions that were just outright lies, lies that the denialists fully approve of, given their "The ends for my cult always justify the means, no matter how sleazy those means are!" mentality.

And if you have to retreat to avalanche o' crap tactics, you've more or less admitted surrender. People with the facts on their side don't have to fling everything at the wall in the hopes something sticks.

I look at those statements and get a cascade of thoughts that lead to various holes in AGW theory. Out of curiosity which ones do you consider lies?

 

[SSDD]

No answer mamooth? Typical.

 

[Abraham3]

•Who denies the importance of variable solar irradiance and the possible importance of solar modulation of galactic cosmic rays?

Solar irradiance is certainly a factor. Unfortunately, research I have posted in another thread indicates that the increase over the last 150 years was inadequate to be anything but a minor factor in the current warming.

Solar modulation of galactic cosmic rays? Is that like... the aliens did it?

•Who denies that our Sun is a variable star?

No one

•Who denies that our oceans contain the vast majority of mobile heat on this planet and therefore dominate our climate, year to year and decade to decade?

No one.

•Who denies the importance of natural ocean cycles like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), discovered by researchers studying salmon?

Or ENSO that seems to have started driving heat below 700 meters just about the same time the atmosphere stopped getting warmer.

No one

•Who denies clear cyclical variations in our climate, easily traceable to ocean cycles?

ENSO? PDO?

No one

•Who denies that our recent warming commenced about 1830, long before significant burning of fossil fuels?

I do. So do these data:

•Who denies that ice core data clearly show that recent warming is consistent with previous warm periods, like the Medieval, Roman, and Minoan?

I do.

•Who denies that CO2 lags temperature in the ice core data by as much as 800 years and hence is a product of climate change not a cause?

I do. So does Shakun.

•Who denies 150 years of chemical measurements of atmospheric CO2 that suggest that ice core reconstructions of past CO2 concentrations are low by 60 ppm?

Who cares?

•Who denies that the global temperature went down for three decades after World War II, despite significant increases in human emissions of CO2 due to industrialization?

I don't. I love the 41-79 gap. When people tell me that 15 years of no warming mean its all over, I show them 38 years of COOLING that didn't do the trick.

•Who denies that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas and by far the dominant climate gas, not CO2?

No one.

•Who denies that increasing CO2 is a substantial benefit to plants and therefore helps us feed the seven billion people on this planet?

I do.

•Who denies that our oceans are alkaline not acidic and can never turn acidic because of buffering?

I do. Bullshit question and you know it.

•Who denies that the EPA's three "Lines of Evidence" supporting their Endangerment Finding on CO2 are all fatally flawed?

I do.

•Who denies the leveling off of the Global Temperature for the past 15 years?

I do. See Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen.

•Who denies that the 'Hotspot' (required by Global Warming theory) does not exist in the tropical troposphere?

The hotspot - due to changes in the lapse rate - IS observed in the short term in the tropical troposphere but not in the long term. However, since the short term variation is an order of magnitude larger than the long term trend, measurement uncertainty could easily consume the signal.

•Who denies that all 73 computerized climate models are epic failures?

I do.

•Who denies that theories which fail validation tests are dead?

Semantic BS.

•Who denies the supremacy of evidence over theory?

I do. They aren't in a competition.

•Who denies the supremacy of logic and evidence over authority and consensus?

Valid logic. Indisputable evidence. But this is another BS question.

•Who denies that Extreme Weather has always been with us and cannot be traced to CO2?

No one. But that does not refute that more CO2 will lead to more extreme weather.

• Who denies that the Climategate e-mails showed fundamental cheating by those scientists promoting Global Warming?

I do.

•Who denies that many prominent scientists oppose climate hysteria?

Depends on what you mean by "many" and who you call "prominent". The ratio is 97:3

 

[skookerasbil]

Who denies that most of those questions are really dumb red herrings, and that you'd have to be kind of dumb yourself to think they were significant?

That is, excepting the few questions that were just outright lies, lies that the denialists fully approve of, given their "The ends for my cult always justify the means, no matter how sleazy those means are!" mentality.

And if you have to retreat to avalanche o' crap tactics, you've more or less admitted surrender. People with the facts on their side don't have to fling everything at the wall in the hopes something sticks.

but..........







Sweetie......heres a flash. What's going on in the real world? Who has more fun on this forum? Climate legislation in America for the last 6 or 7 years?

It would appear that the avalanche of crap tactics sure are working sister!!!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL....Abraham is the newest member of the hopelessly duped on this forum ( see above......wild weather extremes !!!!


yuk.......yuk......




2013 is a record low year for U.S. tornadoes

Posted on August 19, 2013 by Anthony Watts


While many climate alarmists still try to tell us that global warming will increase tornadoes, we are in the middle of a tornado drought, and well below normal. Normally we’d see 1221 tornadoes in the USA, so far for 2013, only 716 have been reported.


2013 is a record low year for U.S. tornadoes | Watts Up With That?

 

[mamooth]

Sweetie......heres a flash. What's going on in the real world?

You're getting your ass kicked, around the globe, in a most humiliating fashion. Seriously, try stepping outside your cult bubble. Everyone is laughing at you and your cult.

Let's look at the most recent humiliation you're getting, the Mann libel case.

The NRO cranks, after bragging about how they so welcomed the lawsuit to get the right to discovery it would bring, then spun about and tried and failed to get the case dismissed. That failed.

They're now begging the judge to just skip the whole discovery part of the trial, as well as that "jury of your peers thing". Here's the plaintiff response.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/...tiontoMotionforInterlocutoryCertification.pdf
---
In view of the defendants’ initial public bravado regarding Dr. Mann, their latest attempt to avoid a trial on this matter rings hollow--and basic principles of equity and fairness should estop them from now seeking an appeal. Defendants baited Dr. Mann to file this lawsuit. After he asked for a retraction and apology, the defendants told their readers that they would welcome a lawsuit because it would give them the opportunity to take discovery from Dr. Mann and his colleagues. They boasted they would hire dedicated staff to sift through that discovery and make it publicly available.1 They raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from their readers to pursue this discovery.2 They proclaimed they would “kick” Dr. Mann’s "legal heinie" in court.3

But now, after an impartial court has ruled that their attacks on Dr. Mann crossed the line, defendants are running for cover. Faced now with the prospect of financial liability for their gleeful tirades, defendants do not want discovery, as it would involve discovery into their own conduct. And they certainly do not want to face a jury of their peers. They are hoping to escape by cloaking their conduct in an arrogant interpretation of the First Amendment without the essential rigor of discovery into their knowing and reckless falsehoods. Plainly aware that such discovery will boomerang to their own backsides, the defendants are looking for an escape. But it is too late for that, and defendants’ hit and run tactics should not be countenanced. They asked for this lawsuit. They got it.
---

Pow. Smackdown. Pass the popcorn, this will just keep getting better.

 

[mamooth]

No answer mamooth? Typical.

No one is ever obligated to respond to a Gish Gallup. After all, you've ignored all the debunkings before, and you'd simply ignore them again. And we'd have wasted hours for nothing. Fuck that and all of your dishonest BS. You've proven yourself to be an intellectual weasel, so no one is obligated to give you so much as the time of day.

That's how the world works. You get back the respect you've earned, and you've been one sad excuse for a human being. If you want decent people to consider you as worth talking to, you need to acknowledge what a dishonest tool you've been, apologize for it, and promise to do better in the future.

 

[skookerasbil]

The models are wrong


Today one mainstream newspaper finally caught up with the global warming skeptic community and recognized that a recent release of data from the United Kingdom’s Met Office shows that since 1996 the temperature of the climate has stalled. For the past sixteen years there has been no global warming, at all.

Three takeaways from this story.

•This period of no-warming has now been as long as the previous period of warming. In other words, the stall in warming is getting long enough now to be statistically significant.
•The Met Office revealed its biases by how it unveiled this fact. Previously, when their data suggested the climate was warming, they heralded that fact loudly with bold predictions of catastrophes to come. But when their data suggested their predictions were wrong and the climate wasn’t warming, they released the data with as little fanfare as possible.
•Finally, and most important, this data demonstrates clearly that all the computer models used by climate scientists to predict the future climate are patently wrong. They don’t understand what is happening, even if some of them refuse to admit it.


The models are wrong | Behind The Black

 

[SSDD]

•Who denies the importance of variable solar irradiance and the possible importance of solar modulation of galactic cosmic rays?

Solar irradiance is certainly a factor. Unfortunately, research I have posted in another thread indicates that the increase over the last 150 years was inadequate to be anything but a minor factor in the current warming.

So you say but the perponderance of the evidence says otherwise and oddly enough when the sun (which was at its highest output in the latter part of the 20th century in 9,000 years) went into a quite phase, temperatures leveled off and have remained so for 17 years now.

Solar modulation of galactic cosmic rays? Is that like... the aliens did it?

Guess you never heard of CERN. Guess they don't talk about that project much in the church of AGW.

•Who denies that our Sun is a variable star?

No one

And yet, climate science has claimed that the sun's variations can't account for temperature changes.

•Who denies that our oceans contain the vast majority of mobile heat on this planet and therefore dominate our climate, year to year and decade to decade?

No one.

Again you are wrong. Climate science claims that even though the oceans have thousands of times more heat capacity than the atmosphere, it is the atmosphere that heats the oceans which would in turn mean that the atmosphere also drives the climate.

•Who denies the importance of natural ocean cycles like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), discovered by researchers studying salmon?

Or ENSO that seems to have started driving heat below 700 meters just about the same time the atmosphere stopped getting warmer.

No one

Again, you must not be listening when you are in the church of AGW. And how do you suppose all that heat got down to 700 meters without being detected by ARGO?

•Who denies clear cyclical variations in our climate, easily traceable to ocean cycles?

ENSO? PDO?

No one

No one except climate science. They have been demanding for years that CO2 and CO2 alone is the control knob for the climate and everyting else is a very minor bit player. Now that it is clear that CO2 is the bit player, you guys are trying to claim that all along you have recognized that CO2 isn't the driving force of climate at all.

•Who denies that our recent warming commenced about 1830, long before significant burning of fossil fuels?

I do. So do these data:

Ahhhh. Altered temperature records. Predictable.

•Who denies that ice core data clearly show that recent warming is consistent with previous warm periods, like the Medieval, Roman, and Minoan?

I do.

Of course you do but the facts and observations say otherwise.

•Who denies that CO2 lags temperature in the ice core data by as much as 800 years and hence is a product of climate change not a cause?

I do. So does Shakun.

Who has been discredited. Unsurprising that you would think he proved anything. I bet you believe in mann's hockey stick also.

•Who denies 150 years of chemical measurements of atmospheric CO2 that suggest that ice core reconstructions of past CO2 concentrations are low by 60 ppm?

Who cares?

Obviously not you.

•Who denies that the global temperature went down for three decades after World War II, despite significant increases in human emissions of CO2 due to industrialization?

•Who denies that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas and by far the dominant climate gas, not CO2?

No one.

And yet, for decades climate science has demanded that CO2 is the control knob for the climate even though it's effect, if any can't be separated out from noise and natural variability.

•Who denies that increasing CO2 is a substantial benefit to plants and therefore helps us feed the seven billion people on this planet?

I do.

Of course you do. Observation, however proves you wrong.

•Who denies that our oceans are alkaline not acidic and can never turn acidic because of buffering?

I do. Bullshit question and you know it.

Again, you are wrong. How acidic do you think the oceans were when atmospheric CO2 was measured in thousands of ppm?

•Who denies that the EPA's three "Lines of Evidence" supporting their Endangerment Finding on CO2 are all fatally flawed?

I do.

Of course you do but they are fatally flawed none the less. Honest data show no unusual warming in the latter half of the 20th century and none at all for the past 15 years, despite a slow increase in carbon dioxide. The “hot spot” that must exist in the tropical troposphere for the theory to work is missing. And the climate models, for which the taxpayer has paid so dearly, are epic failures.

•Who denies the leveling off of the Global Temperature for the past 15 years?

I do. See Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen.

Observation proves you wrong. Even trenberth thinks its a travesty that climate science can't explain the failure to warm.

•Who denies that the 'Hotspot' (required by Global Warming theory) does not exist in the tropical troposphere?

The hotspot - due to changes in the lapse rate - IS observed in the short term in the tropical troposphere but not in the long term. However, since the short term variation is an order of magnitude larger than the long term trend, measurement uncertainty could easily consume the signal.

Right. When the hot spot that the GHE hypothesis demands failed to materialize, trenberth is trying to claim that the hot spot is just a little thing that moves around unpredictably. Rather than admit that his hypothesis failed, he claims the hot spot jumps around and warm water sinks to the frigid depths. The fact that anyone believes these charlatans is amazing till one talks to the likes of you.

•Who denies that all 73 computerized climate models are epic failures?

I do.

Of course you do, but they are none the less.

•Who denies that theories which fail validation tests are dead?

Semantic BS.

I suppose to those whose hypotheses have failed as miserably as yours. Refer to the scientific method.

•Who denies the supremacy of evidence over theory?

I do. They aren't in a competition.

Of course they are. The evidence makes a mockery of the hypothesis and yet, you still believe the hypothesis.

•Who denies the supremacy of logic and evidence over authority and consensus?

Valid logic. Indisputable evidence. But this is another BS question.

I suppose it would be to a religious zealot.

•Who denies that Extreme Weather has always been with us and cannot be traced to CO2?

No one. But that does not refute that more CO2 will lead to more extreme weather.

Of course they do. We have been warned for decades that global warming would lead to more extreme weather. Never happened and the worst weather tornadoes and hurricaines are happening even less in direct opposition to the failing models.

• Who denies that the Climategate e-mails showed fundamental cheating by those scientists promoting Global Warming?

I do.

Of course you do.

•Who denies that many prominent scientists oppose climate hysteria?

Depends on what you mean by "many" and who you call "prominent". The ratio is 97:3

More lies on your part but then that's par for the course when talking to warmers. Thanks for proving to anyone concerned that you are indeed a denier.