2015, the beginning of ice free arctic?

[westwall]

Frank -

Exactly. Nowhere on this board have you ever, or will you ever, enter into a debate about climate change.

Topics like farting and what to do with a gram of smack I dare say you're more likely to discuss at length.

That's because you clowns don't "debate". You don't know how to. Your scientific ignorance is astounding. Frankly I'm surprised you can wipe yourself.

OK West.....I just spit my late night coffee right onto my monitor screen.....LMAO.....I love this forum!!!

Glad to be of service!

 

[Saigon]

Frank posts on scientific matter all the time.

Link?

This I can't wait to see....!

Nowhere on this board will you see post and discuss scientific material.

 

[westwall]

Frank posts on scientific matter all the time.

Link?

This I can't wait to see....!

Nowhere on this board will you see post and discuss scientific material.

Do your own research you lazy bum.

 

[Saigon]

Wailing Wall -

Right - you also know Frank doesn't post and discuss science. Thanks for that.

Very few Fundamentalists are prepared to get into a free and open discussion about any real scientific evidence, because they know they will end up backing positions that are simly untenable. It's as simple as that.

Why do you think SSDD refused to read and comment on the British Antractic Survery data?

Because if he had done, he'd have had to admit that he was wrong - simple as that.

 

[westwall]

Wailing Wall -

Right - you also know Frank doesn't post and discuss science. Thanks for that.

Very few Fundamentalists are prepared to get into a free and open discussion about any real scientific evidence, because they know they will end up backing positions that are simly untenable. It's as simple as that.

Why do you think SSDD refused to read and comment on the British Antractic Survery data?

Because if he had done, he'd have had to admit that he was wrong - simple as that.

You claim to be a journalist so research is what you do. If you were indeed a journalist. Other than that, you have never discussed science. You have been a simple cut and paste drone. In other words you are a simple internet troll and as such you deserve none of my time other than what you can provide for me as entertainment...and you are doing piss poor at that.

Resorting to grade school recess statements might make you feel good about yourself but it merely exposes you for the simpleton that you indeed are.

 

[Saigon]

Wailing Wall -

Actually if had you looked at the thread on Antractic ice, you'd have seen much of it was in my own words - and also described as such.

It's just unfortunate that of the handful of scpetics left here, Ian C is the only one who is both literate and willing to read and discuss the topic sensibly.

 

[SSDD]

Lordy, lordy. ******* dumb there, SSDD. Do you have the faintest idea what absorption spectrum means?

The absorption spectrum doesn't prove that man is driving the climate rocks. The emission spectrum effectively kills that bit of misinformation.

When I ask for proof, what I mean is actual proof...not the slight of hand that fools people like you.

 

[SSDD]

AGWCult always plays the "yer Rly Dumb, no rly!!" Card.

Do you think this might have anythingto do with the fact that posters such as yourself and Skooks can't read, and both SSDD and Westwall have apparently taken a solemn vow not to?

Why do you lie so siagon? All one need do is go back through the posts and see that I have read your driven and critiqued it...it is you who has been unable to defend your own posts.

 

[SSDD]

Frank -

Exactly. Nowhere on this board have you ever, or will you ever, enter into a debate about climate change.

Topics like farting and what to do with a gram of smack I dare say you're more likely to discuss at length.

For the umpteenth time Mr. Straw Man Siagon, the debate isn't whether the climate is changing. The debate is whether man is responsible. Posting observations that the climate is changing isn't what is necessary here. I don't think you will find anyone who is arguing that the climate should be static except for you guys. What is needd from your side is evidence that man is responsible for the current changing climate.

You seem to be congenitally dishonest.

 

[IanC]

there is an old quote out there about how 'reasonable men can weigh the evidence and come to different conclusions'.

saigon cannot seem to fathom that he is just as inflexible, fixed in his worldview, and dismissive of contrary evidence as SSDD.

Feynman remains my hero. his comments on the Challenger disaster have a parellel to climate science. he told the space scientists that their faulty lowering of the flight risk assessment after each successful trip was wishful thinking. CO2 theory of Global warming received a huge boost when everything in the 90's went according to plan, even though the plan excluded many, many factors both known and unknown. climate scientists talked themselves into fixed position that they are having a hard time backing away from now that the evidence is wrecking thier theory. just like the space scientists ignored the problems with the O-rings and went with we know it's safe, now the climate scientists are ignoring (and worse, fudging the data) temperature data and saying we know it's CO2.

if the CO2 theory of global warming were just being introduced today it wouldnt get laughed at but there would be no rush to spend trillions of dollars on possible repercusions decades down the road. science is about always questioning the data and conclusions. climate science seems to be about 'we made up our minds and formed a consensus' and we are going to stick with it no matter what.

 

[SSDD]

Wailing Wall -

Right - you also know Frank doesn't post and discuss science. Thanks for that.

Very few Fundamentalists are prepared to get into a free and open discussion about any real scientific evidence, because they know they will end up backing positions that are simly untenable. It's as simple as that.

Why do you think SSDD refused to read and comment on the British Antractic Survery data?

Because if he had done, he'd have had to admit that he was wrong - simple as that.

Ok...to prove that it is you who are the fundamentalist, lets debate the science. I say that a trace gas in the atmosphere can not recycle more energy to the surface of the earth than the surface of the earth receives from the sun. A situation like that would be a violation of both the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The present energy budget in use claims this is happening due to an incorrect use of the SB black body equations.

Show me the actual science that says I am wrong. Show me the observed, experimental evidence that proves that the energy budget upon which present climate models are based is correct.

So lets talk science of shut the hell up.

 

[SSDD]

saigon cannot seem to fathom that he is just as inflexible, fixed in his worldview, and dismissive of contrary evidence as SSDD.

In my own defense, I do read the contrary evidence....I just don't find it particularly convincing....especially in light of recent hypotheses, models, and actual confirming experiments that demonstrate pretty convincingly that climate science based on trenberth's model simply is not, and never will be correct.

 

[IanC]

saigon cannot seem to fathom that he is just as inflexible, fixed in his worldview, and dismissive of contrary evidence as SSDD.

In my own defense, I do read the contrary evidence....I just don't find it particularly convincing....especially in light of recent hypotheses, models, and actual confirming experiments that demonstrate pretty convincingly that climate science based on trenberth's model simply is not, and never will be correct.

you know, i didnt really mean to do more than just show that you two are only at opposite ends of the spectrum. perhaps one of you is 'right'. but we cannot determine that by the available information.

what is perfectly obvious though is that neither one of you is willing to see the other's side or concede even the slightest doubt in your beliefs.

 

[SSDD]

you know, i didnt really mean to do more than just show that you two are only at opposite ends of the spectrum. perhaps one of you is 'right'. but we cannot determine that by the available information.

what is perfectly obvious though is that neither one of you is willing to see the other's side or concede even the slightest doubt in your beliefs.

Till I see some actual evidence that points in the direction of my position being wrong, exactly why should I express doubt? The warmist position is nothing but evidence upon evidence upon evidence that their position IS wrong. Their models are wrong, their predictions are wrong, their sciecne is wrong because it is based on a flawed interpretation of physical laws beginning with the very foundation of their claims...that being the trenberth energy budget and model.

Even as a luke warmist you don't believe that model is correct do you?

 

[IanC]

you know, i didnt really mean to do more than just show that you two are only at opposite ends of the spectrum. perhaps one of you is 'right'. but we cannot determine that by the available information.

what is perfectly obvious though is that neither one of you is willing to see the other's side or concede even the slightest doubt in your beliefs.

Till I see some actual evidence that points in the direction of my position being wrong, exactly why should I express doubt? The warmist position is nothing but evidence upon evidence upon evidence that their position IS wrong. Their models are wrong, their predictions are wrong, their sciecne is wrong because it is based on a flawed interpretation of physical laws beginning with the very foundation of their claims...that being the trenberth energy budget and model.

Even as a luke warmist you don't believe that model is correct do you?

I have never said that I believe in any of the climate models. that does not mean that there is no purpose in developing them. they just shouldnt be used to make dire predictions about the future because they are all wrong, to a greater or lesser degree.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank -

Exactly. Nowhere on this board have you ever, or will you ever, enter into a debate about climate change.

Topics like farting and what to do with a gram of smack I dare say you're more likely to discuss at length.

Try debating this guy on his beliefs, you cant nobody can. It's the same way with you AGWCultists, there's no reasoning with you.

You have your beliefs and hold them as dearly as Applegate held his.

 

[polarbear]

saigon cannot seem to fathom that he is just as inflexible, fixed in his worldview, and dismissive of contrary evidence as SSDD.

In my own defense, I do read the contrary evidence....I just don't find it particularly convincing....especially in light of recent hypotheses, models, and actual confirming experiments that demonstrate pretty convincingly that climate science based on trenberth's model simply is not, and never will be correct.

you know, i didnt really mean to do more than just show that you two are only at opposite ends of the spectrum. perhaps one of you is 'right'. but we cannot determine that by the available information.

what is perfectly obvious though is that neither one of you is willing to see the other's side or concede even the slightest doubt in your beliefs.

There is a whole lot that can and has been determined and none of it has anything to to with beliefs.
Examples are that only 43% of the IPCC data correlates and the other 53 % show that there is no correlation at all...
That the IPCC continues to bend the truth,...first the ARP3 hockey stick and now with IPCC`s ARP 4 where the IPCC chose to ignore a study conducted by a large body of scientists which showed that there is an 89% correlation with the so far OBSERVED global temperatures and the OBSERVED solar irradiance.
That the IPCC appoints global warming activists as "experts" who then get to "peer review" their own statements.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/WSJ_June12.pdf

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.
A major deception on 'global warming'
Seitz, Frederick;




Abstract:
Frederick Seitz asserts that the report on global warming released in Jun 1996 by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is not the same version that was approved by the contributing body of scientists listed on the title page. Seitz explains how the events that led to the IPCC report are "a disturbing corruption of the peer-review process" and says the deleted passages removed "hints of the skepticism" with which many scientists regard claims about global warming


A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version.The scientists were assumingth at the IPCC would obey the IPCC Rules --
The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:
-- "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."
-- "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to
anthropogenic[m an-made] causes."
-- "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

About Global Warming, United Nations Doubles Down On Ignorance - Forbes

About Global Warming, United Nations Doubles Down On Ignorance


Although IPCC claims it only appoints scientists at the very top of their profession to oversee its reports, it appointed several people without Ph.D.’s, or even Masters Degrees, as Lead Authors for its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report. IPCC also appointed scientists affiliated with environmental activist groups such as Greenpeace, Environmental Defense, and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to steer the direction of the Report. Indeed, Laframboise documented formal connections between at least 78 IPCC scientists and the World Wildlife Fund environmental activist group.
WWF-affiliated scientists helped craft at least two-thirds of the Fourth Assessment chapters, Laframboise reported. WWF-affiliated scientists actually led one-third of the chapters. One chapter was crafted by at least eight WWF-affiliated scientists.
130 “leading climate scientists” have now joined WWF to work with the activist group, supplementing the 78 IPCC participants in the 2007 Report.

IPCC WG3 and the Greenpeace Karaoke « Climate Audit

Articles: IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk

On June 27, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a statement saying it had "complete[d] the process of implementation of a set of recommendations issued in August 2010 by the InterAcademy Council (IAC), the group created by the world's science academies to provide advice to international bodies."


The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give "due consideration ... to properly documented alternative views" (p. 20), fail to "provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors" (p. 21), and are not "consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses" (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.
The IAC found that "the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors" and "the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents" (p. 18).

This much we do know for certain and all the above can and has been verified and with very little trouble You can verify that Yourself. Or perhaps You prefer not to..???

but we cannot determine that by the available information.
what is perfectly obvious though is that neither one of you is willing to see the other's side or concede even the slightest doubt in your beliefs.

Others have said here already...:
"You can`t debate with an occult"...and they may be right

 

[mamooth]

saigon cannot seem to fathom that he is just as inflexible, fixed in his worldview, and dismissive of contrary evidence as SSDD.

Phony equivalence bullshit. It's like declaring a round-earther is just "inflexible, fixed in his worldview, and dismissive of contrary evidence" as a flat-earther. Might be true, but it's because the round-earther is FREAKIN' CORRECT.

SSDD and all the denialists suck hard at the science. They don't have a clue about the physics, statistics, logic, history, chemistry, geology, anything. The get it all wrong. Yes, we are inflexible in pointing out how awful they are, and that's a good thing.

 

[RollingThunder]

Ah yes....the "non existent evidence" that has managed to convince the entire world scientific community. LOL. It's really a shame that you're sooooo retarded.

Billions in grant money is what convinced the political heads of scientific organizations....the bodies of those organizations are not onboard the sinking ship AGW and the big rats are positioning themselves for an exit while they still have some credibility left.

Your retarded myths are hilarious. Your little cult of reality denial is dying and you are grasping at straws. Really retarded straws at that.

 

[Saigon]

Ian -

SSDD has REFUSED to read the scientific studies on the Antarctic - despite having actually promised to do so.

Perhaps start by acknolweding that before pretending that this establishes my inflexibility!

what is perfectly obvious though is that neither one of you is willing to see the other's side or concede even the slightest doubt in your beliefs.

I have never understood why any poster would have any reluctance to be proven wrong, admit that they were wrong, or express doubt about whatever topic is under discussion. Sure, it's never easy to admit that we are wrong, but it is not only a sign of basic honesty, but I also find other posters respect it more than the usual lying and running away!

Where doubt exists, let's by all means discuss that, but for my money the only aspects of climate change science that I would say are not proven beyond any reasonable doubt are ocean pH levels, and the role played by solar acitivity.