AGW skeptic reassesses

[konradv]

There's nothing wrong with being skeptical, but when the facts are this plain real scientists can read the signs.

Changing opinions on climate change, from a CNN Meteorologist - CNN.com

2010 was a turning point for me. That year was the hottest year on record, even though there was a La Niña present, a process that should have cooled the planet. Down went the other potential causes:

There were no volcanoes producing huge amounts of CO2.
The sun was not getting hotter.
Satellite-derived temperature readings ruled out the heat-island effect.
Even "The Pause" (the so-called period post-1998 that showed very little warming of the planet for about 15 years) had been shattered.

They are all now called "zombie theories," long since debunked myths about climate change that skeptics will continually bring up to counter the facts of man-made climate change.

 

[gipper]

Only a dummy would NOT be skeptical of AGW.

 

[Crick]

Why?

 

[flacaltenn]

There's nothing wrong with being skeptical, but when the facts are this plain real scientists can read the signs.

Changing opinions on climate change, from a CNN Meteorologist - CNN.com

2010 was a turning point for me. That year was the hottest year on record, even though there was a La Niña present, a process that should have cooled the planet. Down went the other potential causes:

There were no volcanoes producing huge amounts of CO2.
The sun was not getting hotter.
Satellite-derived temperature readings ruled out the heat-island effect.
Even "The Pause" (the so-called period post-1998 that showed very little warming of the planet for about 15 years) had been shattered.

They are all now called "zombie theories," long since debunked myths about climate change that skeptics will continually bring up to counter the facts of man-made climate change.

Anybody that bases their "belief" in the AGW theories (there are many moving parts actually) on the temperature of ONE YEAR ---- is simply a moron.. Not worth the bandwidth to even make it a news item. .

 

[SSDD]

Why?

Because there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis.

 

[konradv]

There's nothing wrong with being skeptical, but when the facts are this plain real scientists can read the signs.

Changing opinions on climate change, from a CNN Meteorologist - CNN.com

2010 was a turning point for me. That year was the hottest year on record, even though there was a La Niña present, a process that should have cooled the planet. Down went the other potential causes:

There were no volcanoes producing huge amounts of CO2.
The sun was not getting hotter.
Satellite-derived temperature readings ruled out the heat-island effect.
Even "The Pause" (the so-called period post-1998 that showed very little warming of the planet for about 15 years) had been shattered.

They are all now called "zombie theories," long since debunked myths about climate change that skeptics will continually bring up to counter the facts of man-made climate change.

Anybody that bases their "belief" in the AGW theories (there are many moving parts actually) on the temperature of ONE YEAR ---- is simply a moron.. Not worth the bandwidth to even make it a news item. .

Where do you get one year? "Turning point" refers to the year when his attitude began to change, NOT as the sole basis for that change. You're grasping at straws here.

 

[SSDD]

There's nothing wrong with being skeptical, but when the facts are this plain real scientists can read the signs.

Changing opinions on climate change, from a CNN Meteorologist - CNN.com

2010 was a turning point for me. That year was the hottest year on record, even though there was a La Niña present, a process that should have cooled the planet. Down went the other potential causes:

There were no volcanoes producing huge amounts of CO2.
The sun was not getting hotter.
Satellite-derived temperature readings ruled out the heat-island effect.
Even "The Pause" (the so-called period post-1998 that showed very little warming of the planet for about 15 years) had been shattered.

They are all now called "zombie theories," long since debunked myths about climate change that skeptics will continually bring up to counter the facts of man-made climate change.

Anybody that bases their "belief" in the AGW theories (there are many moving parts actually) on the temperature of ONE YEAR ---- is simply a moron.. Not worth the bandwidth to even make it a news item. .

Where do you get one year? "Turning point" refers to the year when his attitude began to change, NOT as the sole basis for that change. You're grasping at straws here.

Can you show us any of the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supposedly resulted in his change of mind?...of course not because none exists...what sort of moron believes in a hypothesis to which there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical supporting evidence in the first place and how stupid must you be to convert from skeptic to deliver based on nothing but propaganda?

 

[konradv]

Can you show us any of the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supposedly resulted in his change of mind?...of course not because none exists...what sort of moron believes in a hypothesis to which there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical supporting evidence in the first place and how stupid must you be to convert from skeptic to deliver based on nothing but propaganda?

The data that changed his mind is summarized in the article. Of course you're too lazy to do any research, instead relying on your prejudices.

 

[jc456]

There's nothing wrong with being skeptical, but when the facts are this plain real scientists can read the signs.

Changing opinions on climate change, from a CNN Meteorologist - CNN.com

2010 was a turning point for me. That year was the hottest year on record, even though there was a La Niña present, a process that should have cooled the planet. Down went the other potential causes:

There were no volcanoes producing huge amounts of CO2.
The sun was not getting hotter.
Satellite-derived temperature readings ruled out the heat-island effect.
Even "The Pause" (the so-called period post-1998 that showed very little warming of the planet for about 15 years) had been shattered.

They are all now called "zombie theories," long since debunked myths about climate change that skeptics will continually bring up to counter the facts of man-made climate change.

wink, wink, nudge, nudge...

 

[flacaltenn]

There's nothing wrong with being skeptical, but when the facts are this plain real scientists can read the signs.

Changing opinions on climate change, from a CNN Meteorologist - CNN.com

2010 was a turning point for me. That year was the hottest year on record, even though there was a La Niña present, a process that should have cooled the planet. Down went the other potential causes:

There were no volcanoes producing huge amounts of CO2.
The sun was not getting hotter.
Satellite-derived temperature readings ruled out the heat-island effect.
Even "The Pause" (the so-called period post-1998 that showed very little warming of the planet for about 15 years) had been shattered.

They are all now called "zombie theories," long since debunked myths about climate change that skeptics will continually bring up to counter the facts of man-made climate change.

Anybody that bases their "belief" in the AGW theories (there are many moving parts actually) on the temperature of ONE YEAR ---- is simply a moron.. Not worth the bandwidth to even make it a news item. .

Where do you get one year? "Turning point" refers to the year when his attitude began to change, NOT as the sole basis for that change. You're grasping at straws here.

He cites THAT YEAR.. Then looks around for "other" effects that might explain a ONE YEAR shift "in climate".

A heat distribution system as complex and large as the Earth does not turn "on a dime". It has storage and delays going out HUNDREDS of years. And this juvenile concept that SUDDENLY, based on a short time of observed data, can even be EXPLAINED by RECENT events --- is pure bovine scatology.

Not to mention that the major points of skepticism about AGW theory have nothing to do with the simple ass questions of "Is the Earth Warming"? Or "what percent of that warming is attributable to man". The SKEPTICISM is about the critical core of AGW theory. Which includes the POSTULATED accelerations and positive feedbacks which will cause the planet to go into UNRECOVERABLE runaway warming. There is NO empirical evidence of any of that happening in the modern age. In fact --- ALL of the Climate science has constantly been REVISED DOWNWARD in terms of those Climate Sensitivities and accelerations. Because the models USING those early ALARMIST estimates have failed.

The guy is a mental midget...

 

[IanC]

There's nothing wrong with being skeptical, but when the facts are this plain real scientists can read the signs.

Changing opinions on climate change, from a CNN Meteorologist - CNN.com

2010 was a turning point for me. That year was the hottest year on record, even though there was a La Niña present, a process that should have cooled the planet. Down went the other potential causes:

There were no volcanoes producing huge amounts of CO2.
The sun was not getting hotter.
Satellite-derived temperature readings ruled out the heat-island effect.
Even "The Pause" (the so-called period post-1998 that showed very little warming of the planet for about 15 years) had been shattered.

They are all now called "zombie theories," long since debunked myths about climate change that skeptics will continually bring up to counter the facts of man-made climate change.

How on earth does this guy consider 2010 to be a La Nina year? Will 2016 be considered a La Nina year if it continues to head downward?

 

[SSDD]

Can you show us any of the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supposedly resulted in his change of mind?...of course not because none exists...what sort of moron believes in a hypothesis to which there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical supporting evidence in the first place and how stupid must you be to convert from skeptic to deliver based on nothing but propaganda?

The data that changed his mind is summarized in the article. Of course you're too lazy to do any research, instead relying on your prejudices.

There wasn't a shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis there....so again..what sort of stupidity causes one to change one's mind with no evidence?

 

[konradv]

Can you show us any of the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supposedly resulted in his change of mind?...of course not because none exists...what sort of moron believes in a hypothesis to which there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical supporting evidence in the first place and how stupid must you be to convert from skeptic to deliver based on nothing but propaganda?

The data that changed his mind is summarized in the article. Of course you're too lazy to do any research, instead relying on your prejudices.

There wasn't a shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis there....so again..what sort of stupidity causes one to change one's mind with no evidence?

You'll never know, if you keep posting instead of reading.

 

[SSDD]

Can you show us any of the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supposedly resulted in his change of mind?...of course not because none exists...what sort of moron believes in a hypothesis to which there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical supporting evidence in the first place and how stupid must you be to convert from skeptic to deliver based on nothing but propaganda?

The data that changed his mind is summarized in the article. Of course you're too lazy to do any research, instead relying on your prejudices.

There wasn't a shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis there....so again..what sort of stupidity causes one to change one's mind with no evidence?

You'll never know, if you keep posting instead of reading.

I did read it which is why I am able to say authoritatively that there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence there supporting the AGW hypothesis....feel free to bring what you think qualifies and post it here...I find it interesting to see what people are willing to accept as evidence if they want to believe a thing enough.

 

[konradv]

Can you show us any of the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supposedly resulted in his change of mind?...of course not because none exists...what sort of moron believes in a hypothesis to which there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical supporting evidence in the first place and how stupid must you be to convert from skeptic to deliver based on nothing but propaganda?

The data that changed his mind is summarized in the article. Of course you're too lazy to do any research, instead relying on your prejudices.

There wasn't a shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis there....so again..what sort of stupidity causes one to change one's mind with no evidence?

You'll never know, if you keep posting instead of reading.

I did read it which is why I am able to say authoritatively that there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence there supporting the AGW hypothesis....feel free to bring what you think qualifies and post it here...I find it interesting to see what people are willing to accept as evidence if they want to believe a thing enough.

Your thesis is false on the face of it. To say there's no evidence at all isn't true. It's just that you don't accept it. The fact that you deal in absolutes illustrates the depth of your foolishness.

 

[mamooth]

The SKEPTICISM is about the critical core of AGW theory. Which includes the POSTULATED accelerations and positive feedbacks which will cause the planet to go into UNRECOVERABLE runaway warming.

If you're not making that up, I'm sure you'll be able to point to where AR5 says that. After all, you say it's the "critical core" of AGW theory, so it must stated with certainty in there all over the place.

Now me, I could show you where AR5 says the temperature change necessary to reach a tipping point is highly uncertain, and they don't even try to estimate such a thing. The only explanation must be that, being you're not a "mental midget", is that you must know about some secret AR5 info that nobody else has seen. I mean, you wouldn't just make up a wild story like some hysterical alarmist, would you?

 

[flacaltenn]

The SKEPTICISM is about the critical core of AGW theory. Which includes the POSTULATED accelerations and positive feedbacks which will cause the planet to go into UNRECOVERABLE runaway warming.

If you're not making that up, I'm sure you'll be able to point to where AR5 says that. After all, you say it's the "critical core" of AGW theory, so it must stated with certainty in there all over the place.

Now me, I could show you where AR5 says the temperature change necessary to reach a tipping point is highly uncertain, and they don't even try to estimate such a thing. The only explanation must be that, being you're not a "mental midget", is that you must know about some secret AR5 info that nobody else has seen. I mean, you wouldn't just make up a wild story like some hysterical alarmist, would you?

AR5 is by no means the definitive comprehensive bible of AGW folklore. Or science. And there are CHAPTERS on accelerations and feedbacks. Besides --- they may not be quoting a TRIGGER point NOW --- but that's what started this fear mongering and alarmism. I'd look back at the first couple ARs to find it.

Too many people quoting the 2deg Bullshit for it to picked out of thin air. But of course -- that's me being trying to rational about the vaporous propaganda spewed in your cause.

 

[mamooth]

AR5 is by no means the definitive comprehensive bible of AGW folklore. Or science. And there are CHAPTERS on accelerations and feedbacks. Besides --- they may not be quoting a TRIGGER point NOW --- but that's what started this fear mongering and alarmism. I'd look back at the first couple ARs to find it.

So the critical core of the science isn't in the core document of the science?

And that's what you call rational thinking?

I think everyone else calls it "You're the primary alarmist and spinner of fiction here." Your practice of fabricating crazy stories about the science only makes you look bad, not us.

 

[flacaltenn]

AR5 is by no means the definitive comprehensive bible of AGW folklore. Or science. And there are CHAPTERS on accelerations and feedbacks. Besides --- they may not be quoting a TRIGGER point NOW --- but that's what started this fear mongering and alarmism. I'd look back at the first couple ARs to find it.

So the critical core of the science isn't in the core document of the science?

And that's what you call rational thinking?

I think everyone else calls it "You're the primary alarmist and spinner of fiction here." Your practice of fabricating crazy stories about the science only makes you look bad, not us.

You're so full of shit --- 5 more bilge pumps wont stop you filling to your eyeballs.

You confuse the IPCC with Science. The IPCC and it's panels are 2/3 policy wonk/global redistributionists and 1/3 hired scientists carefully selected to give them cover for their mission. The science is "hired help". So that the panels can publish crap like this BELOW and push their alarmist scenarios.

IPCC tackles 1.5 degree Celsius climate target | Environment | DW.COM | 18.08.2016

IPCC tackles 1.5 degree Celsius climate target
Climate experts are meeting in Geneva to consider how to keep to the warming limits agreed last year in Paris. But with the planet breaking temperature records, scientists warn we may soon overshoot the target.

Climate experts from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are meeting from Monday through Thursday this week (August 15 to 19, 2016) to do the groundwork for a new report on the likely impacts 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) of climate warming - and the options available to keep to that target.

What's so important about 1.5 degrees?
Most experts agree that the 1.5-degree limit is the highest possible to avoid reaching a tipping point for planetary climate systems.
Increasing CO2 levels and corresponding temperature rise may trigger self-reinforcing feedback mechanisms that could cause warming to spiral out of control.
Two examples of dangerous feedback loops: Massive methane releases from thawing permafrost in the far north, increasing areas of forest burning off due to dryness, or ever-larger areas of sunlight-absorbing Arctic waters no longer covered by ice sheets during longer and warmer Northern summers.


Now sulk back under your bridge and as USUAL -- pretend you never heard the IPCC scream armageddon about GW "tipping points".. You're useless. You never learn anything. You never contribute. But you ARE one of the biggest DENIERS in the forum..

Without these parts of the theory --- you got nothing to make the front page with. No 234 days to save planet headlines. And an OBSERVED warming that would barely hit 2deg in 2100.. You'd be dead in the water.

In fact --- you ARE --- you just deny it..

 

[SSDD]

Your thesis is false on the face of it. To say there's no evidence at all isn't true. It's just that you don't accept it. The fact that you deal in absolutes illustrates the depth of your foolishness.

And I can't help but note that you didn't bring what you believe to be observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence from the link....why might that be?...embarassed to actually let us see what passes for such evidence in your mind? If such evidence existed, you, and your warmer buds would be posting it everywhere all the time...there would be no place on earth to go to get away from it...and yet...nothing. I am afraid that it is you who is behaving foolishly...claiming a thing exists and is readily available to the public which you simply can not produce.