Another Arctic positive feedback

[Big Fitz]

Charley, the word for you is stupid.

Where is YOUR science claim Rocky?
Can you refute anything in my post?
Or are you just another hypocrite who ignores inconvenient facts?

The subject is global warming asshole. I am not participating in your little red herring adventure.

In otherwords... Nope.

 

[Si modo]

Some things never change. Rocks is playing at science again.

 

[Old Rocks]

One vital element of science is the ability to draw conclusions from evidence and make predictions from that evidence.

Now you people continue to claim that the warming is not even happening, when the totality of evidence shows that the atmosphere and oceans are all warming. So you have not even gotten past the evidence part of it.

For those few that have gotten that far, they seem unable to accept the straight up physics of GHGs. As if Fourier and Tyndal would have lied in the 1800's for the benefit of 'alarmist' scientists in the 21st century.

Hansen, in his testimony before Congress in 1988 made a number of predictions for the year 2000. They were pretty much spot on. However, his predictions, and those of others, past that point, have been seriously in error. In precisely the wrong direction. The predictions were far too conservative.

By what we are seeing right now, as addressed by the Copenhagen Diagnosis, the predictions made by the IPCC in 2007 are much too conservative. The Artic Ice melt is already off the chart in the wrong direction, and the sea rise is at the very upper edge of their probability cone.

We just experianced the warmest decade in the last 180 years. But the next decade will be warmer yet. And the decade after that, even warmer.

So, you state I play at science. Show your science that states that the people that have written the articles in Nature, Science, and other sources that I have posted are wrong. Show that the people that comprise the Scientific Societies, the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities don't know what they are talking about.

That is the challenge for you. To refute the real scientific evidence presented, not just engage in silly yap-yap.

 

[Si modo]

....

That is the challenge for you. To refute the real scientific evidence presented, not just engage in silly yap-yap.

Then present some.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

One vital element of science is the ability to draw conclusions from evidence and make predictions from that evidence.

Now you people continue to claim that the warming is not even happening, when the totality of evidence shows that the atmosphere and oceans are all warming. So you have not even gotten past the evidence part of it.

For those few that have gotten that far, they seem unable to accept the straight up physics of GHGs. As if Fourier and Tyndal would have lied in the 1800's for the benefit of 'alarmist' scientists in the 21st century.

Hansen, in his testimony before Congress in 1988 made a number of predictions for the year 2000. They were pretty much spot on. However, his predictions, and those of others, past that point, have been seriously in error. In precisely the wrong direction. The predictions were far too conservative.

By what we are seeing right now, as addressed by the Copenhagen Diagnosis, the predictions made by the IPCC in 2007 are much too conservative. The Artic Ice melt is already off the chart in the wrong direction, and the sea rise is at the very upper edge of their probability cone.

We just experianced the warmest decade in the last 180 years. But the next decade will be warmer yet. And the decade after that, even warmer.

So, you state I play at science. Show your science that states that the people that have written the articles in Nature, Science, and other sources that I have posted are wrong. Show that the people that comprise the Scientific Societies, the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities don't know what they are talking about.

That is the challenge for you. To refute the real scientific evidence presented, not just engage in silly yap-yap.

Again, and no doubt not for the last time, the Earth is a dynamic planet and I can prove Global Cooling by monitoring places where its cooler the same way you only look at places were it is warmer to prove your absurd "deminimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 is causing Global Warming" theory

You are oblivious to the fact that the greatest source of "science" to back your THEORY was just outed as the biggest fraud in the history of science

 

[Charles Stucker]

One vital element of science is the ability to draw conclusions from evidence and make predictions from that evidence.

Yet you cannot even read conclusions and understand them. As you have demonstrated on this thread.
You are an idiot whose understanding of science is nil. I have repeatedly posted chances for you to show any iota of scientific ability, but you instead call it a red herring.
We know Al Gore is a political hack, that he could and would cherry pick scientists who gave him the answers he desired for his political aspirations. You do not seem to understand that aspect and lack the cognitive ability to discern where the incentive lies for the warmers to lie. You even go as far as to suggest that a 19th century scientist would have no incentive to lie while apparently not realizing that much of the work from the 19th century is either wrong or not applicable. Your mantra "CO2 absorbs heat, it was proven in the 1800's thus we are doomed" shows just how juvenile your approach to science truly is. Come back when YOU can actually understand the papers you read.