AGW Scam Main Points

[jc456]

The Earth has been getting warmer at a rate not seen in hundreds of thousands of years.

The only possible cause for that warming is greenhouse warming.

The source of the greenhouse gases that are causing that warming is the combustion of fossil fuels.

Atmospheric CO2 has been increasing at a rate not seen in hundreds of thousands if not millions of years.

CO2 is increasing the oceans acidity which is beginning to impact a number of marine species.

The world's snow and ice are melting, lowering the Earth's albedo and causing the warming to increase.

The warming is thawing the Earth's tundra which will release gigatonnes of methane, another powerful greenhouse gas.

Both from meltwater and simple thermal expansion, the world's oceans will rise significantly, flooding coastlines.

Now what lab work do you want to see?

hahahahhahahahahahhahhahahahahaahaha holy crap batman this dude doesn't know anything. I see, you have no idea what is an experiment do you? You are oblivious to what one is. So, you have proof of nothing that you wrote. So good luck in your next career, because you failed in this one. LoSiNg

 

[Crick]

You have yet to produce a SINGLE datum countering any of my contentions. Saying its crap doesn't mean a thing.

 

[jc456]

You have yet to produce a SINGLE datum countering any of my contentions. Saying its crap doesn't mean a thing.

What are you waiting for from me? I say you don't have evidence that shows the temperature of 120 PPM of CO2 when it supposedly radiates. I say it doesn't. Because I could care a less whether there is an added 120 of PPM or not. It is you who is so flippin concerned. So prove your concern. Ah, I know you can't... still .....................LoSiNg

 

[Crick]

I'm not responsible for your education. I'm just here to make certain no one else gets the absurd idea that you have the faintest **** of an idea what you're talking about.

 

[westwall]

You have yet to produce a SINGLE datum countering any of my contentions. Saying its crap doesn't mean a thing.

You have yet to produce a SINGLE datum SUPPORTING any of your contentions. See how that works!

 

[Crick]

AR5

You ******* idiot

Just goes to show you how easy it is to argue from the right side.

 

[elektra]

Crick is always projecting., crick knows nothing. Period.

CO2 is dry ice, maybe crick should buy some and warm his home.

 

[SSDD]

AR5

You ******* idiot

Just goes to show you how easy it is to argue from the right side.

AR5...the paper that claims more confidence based on less actual evidence...climate science is a joke and those who have fallen for the hoax are just pathetic at this point.

 

[Crick]

The amount of verified, peer reviewed evidence in AR5 is several (and I do mean several) orders of magnitude more than all the evidence you and your cohorts have EVER produced.

And, again, your opinion in particular, on ANY matter of science, has been clearly demonstrated to be less than worthless.

 

[SSDD]

The amount of verified, peer reviewed evidence in AR5 is several (and I do mean several) orders of magnitude more than all the evidence you and your cohorts have EVER produced.

There is no verified climate science....there is only models which fail to mesh with observation...and a steady effort to keep up with changing the observation so that it matches the models....in other words...fraud.

The fact that you can't produce a paper in which a greenhouse effect is observed, measured, and quantified is proof that none of it has been verified....it is all smoke and mirrors and political maneuvering...

 

[jc456]

The amount of verified, peer reviewed evidence in AR5 is several (and I do mean several) orders of magnitude more than all the evidence you and your cohorts have EVER produced.

And, again, your opinion in particular, on ANY matter of science, has been clearly demonstrated to be less than worthless.

Again, Evidence? What evidence, let's see a quote of that peer reviewed evidence from AR5. You already failed in in Section C page 11 or whatever document you were looking at, which for me was actually page 13.

 

[Crick]

If you had ever actually looked at AR5, you would not be making the idiotic suggestion that it contains no peer-reviewed evidence.

 

[SSDD]

If you had ever actually looked at AR5, you would not be making the idiotic suggestion that it contains no peer-reviewed evidence.

I have looked at AR5...more confidence based on more failure of the models....typical leftist pseudoscientific gobldygoop.

 

[Crick]

Let us know when you have an evidenced and significant complalnt to make about the contents of AR5. If you want to continue to claim that it contains nothing but the output of models, we will then know you haven't read it and that you haven't got shit.

 

[SSDD]

Let us know when you have an evidenced and significant complalnt to make about the contents of AR5. If you want to continue to claim that it contains nothing but the output of models, we will then know you haven't read it and that you haven't got shit.

Here is enough to make any thinking person question the IPCC and ar5:

• AR4 (2007): “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90% confidence)due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases.” (SPM AR4)

• AR5 (2013) SPM: “It is extremely likely(>95% confidence)that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century .” (SPM AR5)

All that increased confidence even though: 1) there has been a lack of warming since 1998 and the discrepancies between model projections and observations are growing....2) growing evidence of less climate sensitivity to increases in CO2....3) evidence that sea level rise between 1920 and 1950 is of the same magnitude as between 1993 and 2012....4) increasing antarctic sea ice....5) low confidence in attributing extreme weather events to AGW.....6) failure of arctic sea ice to continue to decrease...

Consider the fact that the IPCC can't even begin to convincingly explain why the warming stopped and any thinking person has more than enough reason to take anything from the IPCC with a very large grain of salt.

 

[jc456]

Let us know when you have an evidenced and significant complalnt to make about the contents of AR5. If you want to continue to claim that it contains nothing but the output of models, we will then know you haven't read it and that you haven't got shit.

Here is enough to make any thinking person question the IPCC and ar5:

• AR4 (2007): “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90% confidence)due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases.” (SPM AR4)

• AR5 (2013) SPM: “It is extremely likely(>95% confidence)that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century .” (SPM AR5)

All that increased confidence even though: 1) there has been a lack of warming since 1998 and the discrepancies between model projections and observations are growing....2) growing evidence of less climate sensitivity to increases in CO2....3) evidence that sea level rise between 1920 and 1950 is of the same magnitude as between 1993 and 2012....4) increasing antarctic sea ice....5) low confidence in attributing extreme weather events to AGW.....6) failure of arctic sea ice to continue to decrease...

Consider the fact that the IPCC can't even begin to convincingly explain why the warming stopped and any thinking person has more than enough reason to take anything from the IPCC with a very large grain of salt.

I can go with this. What say you ole Crickster?

 

[Dot Com]

1. There is no such thing as an "Average Temperature" for a planet. All of the planets and Moons in our Solar System have a range of temperatures, the "Average" is a mathematical fiction. Don't believe me, pick a planet and look it up for yourself

This statement is so stupid I'm not sure where to begin. An average is a statistical process for calculating a single value representative of a set (a 'range') of values. It is the most basic of all statistical functions.

2. There is no Experiment that demonstrates how a 120PPM increase in CO2 will raise temperature and lower ocean pH. Remember we are comparing an INSTANTANEOUS increase in a CLOSED system and there is still not one single experiment that shows how this works. Can you believe that even with a 120PPM instantaneous increase in a closed system, they still cannot produce one single experiment?

This is simply a lie.

3. Human behavior simply cannot alter the climate of the planet; it's beyond arrogance, it's stupid.

This is an assertion that's not only unsubstantiated, but flies in the face of mountains and mountains of evidence.

4. The AGWCult has been caught with their thumb on the scale innumerable times. Their data is cooked, adjusted and outright faked.

No, they have not. Another lie.

5. When all else fails add in "Warming from the deep pacific ocean" to jack up the imaginary "Earth Average Temperature" Not only is there no average temperature, but the Scam continues only when they add in this ridiculous warming in the ocean 700m down. Yeah, we kept meticulous records of the deep Pacific ocean temperature these last 130 years. So this is a 1 no Average and 4 Data Massaging

We have millions of XBT drops, we have millions of records from the ARGO fleet. They all show that the deep ocean has been warming at an accelerated pace ever since the average surface temperature - an average to which Frank has had no reluctance to refer - slowed. There has been no data massaging on this side of the argument. I can't speak for Frank and his denier friends. Not five minutes ago I saw where denier Westwall - their supposed geologist, put up a graph of CO2 levels from the Vostok cores - without providing the source of course - that displayed utterly false values as was demonstrated quite clearly by three different, reliable, NAMED sources provided by geologist OldRocks. And that was certainly not the first.

6. Instead of acting like responsible scientist and welcome and demand their assumption be challenged, they yell DENIER!!! Michelson Morley could have set physics back 100 years by calling Einstein and other "ETHER DENIERS!!"

All of the more than 12,000 research papers whose results support AGW as a valid theory, published in peer reviewed journals, were the product of scientists acting responsibly who welcomed the the challenges to their assumptions and their work provided by PEER REVIEW. BTW, you've got your physics history turned around. Michelson and Morley were the ones who showed there was no ether.

that had to leave a mark!!! Nice try @CrusaderFrank but you people should leave the science to the scientists who are, last I checked- 96% Liberals

 

[SSDD]

that had to leave a mark!!! Nice try @CrusaderFrank but you people should leave the science to the scientists who are, last I checked- 96% Liberals

Actually it only make him look stupid...and you jumped in to look stupid with him...how sweet...Fact is that every chart he has produced claiming accelerated ocean heating has showed just the opposite...don't jump on board with crick on any topic that involves a chart...charts are apparently his worst thing...he can't read them to save his ass. Fact is that his own charts show ocean heating decelerating...not accelerating.

 

[Crick]

every chart he has produced claiming accelerated ocean heating has showed just the opposite".

And you accuse me of not being able to read charts.

Stupid jumping in with stupid would be SSDD jumping in with Crusader Frank.

 

[SSDD]

thanks crick...they all show that ocean heat content is not accelerating...in fact, it is decelerating...

See the time from 1970 to 1980...that looks like acceleration if you don't also consider the huge error bars...see how much more gradual the climb is from 2000 to the end of the chart....that more gentle slope means deceleration crick...not acceleration. By the way, those error bars getting larger as you move back in time mean that they are less and less sure about how much heat the ocean was actually accumulating...and since climate science is known to have a serious case of warm bias...it doesn't take a genius to guess that that accelerating period from 1970 to 1980 is probably bogus as well.