Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[westwall]

(Psssst. This is a scientific topic.)

Pssst, you're faking your way through this. Go read the link, go read your Popper link, get back to me.

OMG.

You really are a bonafide idiot.

Nope, idiots have a semblence of a brain, this silly person is barely above an earthworm in intellectual capacity. Just another troll who needs to go back under his bridge.

 

[Si modo]

Pssst, you're faking your way through this. Go read the link, go read your Popper link, get back to me.

OMG.

You really are a bonafide idiot.

Nope, idiots have a semblence of a brain, this silly person is barely above an earthworm in intellectual capacity. Just another troll who needs to go back under his bridge.

Absolutely. That is crystal clear at this point.

So *spits on palms of hands and rubs them together a few times* , time to give the troll the treatment I give them in other subforums.

This one makes Rocks look good.

 

[daveman]

Yeah, we know, everybody is saying that about you. Bold of you though to admit it so forthrightly. Most of the other denier cultists won't admit that they are total retards but you have the courage to be honest. Congratulations on being an honest idiot.

Everyone?

I haven't said that. You're a liar.

But davedumb, you're one of the other denier cult retards I was referring to and you're not intelligent enough to say anything meaningful so you don't count. (Except maybe on your fingers and toes.)

You mean I don't agree with your leftist horseshit cult.

You don't want meaningful discussion -- you want an echo chamber.

DU's off to the left. <<<<<<<<<<

 

[daveman]

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?



This is how we know that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity.

....

Now, if only someone had said that it wasn't.

Oh, plenty of people have said that it wasn't. You know that.

So if we're agreed on that, then we also know what increased levels of CO2 do in the atmosphere.

So we're done.

Global warming is the result of human activity.

Correction: We know what CO2 does in a box in a laboratory with a handful of variable.

We don't know what it does in the atmosphere with millions of variables.

Unless you'd like to join Roxy and Rolling Blunder in claiming that a box of CO2 behaves exactly like the atmosphere of an entire planet. That's always amusing.

 

[daveman]

I hope you've been reading the full article that goes with the abstract I posted. You did assure me you had access.

Then, could you share your thoughts on this?

Quantifying the human contribution to global warming

Quantifying the human contribution to global warming
Posted on 3 September 2010 by dana1981

The amount of warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 may be one of the most misunderstood subjects in climate science. Many people think the anthropogenic warming can't be quantified, many others think it must be an insignificant amount. However, climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.

It's another golden opportunity for you.

A blog. Gasp.

 

[JimBowie1958]

How can climate instability cause mutually opposing conditions in the same geographic area. The accusations above are all peer reviewed papers put forth by the AGW cult.

Here is a short list for you with links to the papers....they are each one side of the same argument. Published by AGW supporters. This shows the unfalsifiable nature of AGW "theory".

Now, in your own words, tell us how we can explain these very problematic papers. And this is a very small number of what's out there. And you are correct, I'm not having a battle with you. You're having a battle with reality, and it's all of your own manufacture.


Amazon rainforests green-up with sunlight in dry season

Amazon forests did not green-up during the 2005 drought

Climate change and geomorphological hazards in the eastern European Alps

ingentaconnect Impact of a climate change on avalanche hazard

Effect of global warming on the length-of-day

Ocean bottom pressure changes lead to a decreasing length-of-day in a warming climate

If those articles read as you say, then it suggests that there's still debate within the scientific community about the effects-but not about the reality of AGW.

Wrong as usual. A theory is only a theory so long as it's testable and falsifiable. If neither of those is possible the theory is no more and you have entered into the world of psychics and pseudo science.

I think the fact is that temperatures have been increasing since the edn of the Little Ice Age, but the debate is that the temperature rise may have paused or stopped for a while in its cyclic manner, and/or on the assertion that this is caused by mankind.

I posted the raw temperatures, unadjusted by Warmista bullshit, and the do not show continued temperature increase over all this past decade.

So if the CO2 is still rising, why arent temperatures going up as fast?

But the worst part of all this is the economic catastrophe that the Warmistas want to roll out in response, and the government power that will grow exponentially.

The cure is much worse than the problem it is supposed to address.

The Warmistas are attempting to put a regulatory turnaquet around the global economies neck in order to stop an environmental nose bleed.

 

[JimBowie1958]

My claim is that there is no science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

That's your idiotic claim, all right. A claim that you can't back up in any way. A claim that virtually the entire world scientific community disagrees with, which makes you a certifiable part of the lunatic fringe right up there with the Flat Earth Society screwballs.

Actually there is lots of such evidence and some of it has been shown to you over and over but you refuse to look at it or acknowledge it. And that is the way you maintain your delusions - you simply don't look at the evidence and instead, keep on denying that it exists as an article of faith in your denier cult dogmas. You are a troll.

Computer models are not evidence silly person. All of AGW is based on computer models.

Well, they are evidence that the GIGO principle is still in full swing, lol.

 

[wirebender]

No, I want you to explain it in your own words then apply it to the global warming hypothesis.

It should be more than clear by now westwall that they have no words of their own. None of them. They are, to the individual, little more than cut and paste drones who take the scripture dissiminated to them from "on high" and spread it out as far as possible and continue to spread it till it has been thoroughly debunked at which time, they get the new scripture and begin the process again.

When did you ever have a conversation with one of them that could be called "intellectual"? I mean one where there was an exchange of ideas that didn't involve a constant stream of cut and paste on thier part?

I had one once with a poster named Rwatt. It went on for multiple pages and actually involved doing some math. In the end, he did the math himself and when the bottom line was precisely what I predicted, he ran away. I believe he dropped that persona and got himself a new screen name so that he could continue spreading the scripture without having to bear the stain of having actually done the math and proving my point.

Aside from that, cut and paste, cheerleading from the sidelines, or snide, not particularly clever one or two liners in a hit and run fashion is about all that I see from them.

 

[wirebender]

State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

What's Known
What's Likely
What's Uncertain

Yes, there is a lot of uncertainty about where this all leads.

There is an equal amount of uncertainty as to what is actually known. Lets take a look at your bit of scripture. Lets start with what they claim is known.

Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.

Is that true? What is the residence time of a given CO2 molecule in the atmosphere? I have a couple of dozen peer reviewed studies stating it is less than 10 years but the IPCC and those closely associated state with certainty that it is from hundreds of years to thousands of years. And what is the natural variability of the earth's own CO2 making machienry? Do you know? Have you ever considered finding out? Would it surprise you to learn that humans don't produce enough CO2 to overcome the natural variability in the earth's own CO2 making aparatus from year to year? In light of those facts, it becomes questionable as to whether or not we are altering the atmosphere as it relates to so called greenhouse gasses. Couple that to the fact that paleohistory tells us that the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been in the thousands of PPM and the statement that we know that we are altering the atmopsphere as it relates to so called GHG's becomes highly questionable.

The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.

Again, explain the long periods of earth history where CO2 and other so called GHG's were in the thousands of parts per million and the bulk of earth history where the atmospheric concentrations were considerably higher than today and that certainty becomes questionable. Again, what is the natural variability in the earth's own CO2 making aparatus and do we produce enough so called GHG's to overcome that natural variability?

An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans

That "unequivocal" warming trend is part of a warming trend that has been going on now for about 14,000 years. We are in an interglacial that has been punctuated by multiple periods including the Roman warming period and the Medieval warming period in which the temperatures rose higher and faster than anything we have seen in the past several hundred years without the benefit of man. For the past 14,000 years temperatures have fluctuated from warm to cold very often at rates more rapid than the present. In that light, the claim of knowledge about "unequivocal" warming being tied to the activities of man becomes highly suspect and takes on the aspect of a claim manufactured in an attempt to support a pretty shabby hypothesis.

The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.

Really? Here is a list of peer reviewed studies and their findings with respect to the residence time of so called GHG's in the atmosphere.

There are 37 studies; 7 of them state that CO2 resides in the atmosphere for more than 10 years. Of those 7, two find that CO2 resides in the atmosphere for more than 20 years.

In light of the number of studies that find CO2 residence time to be less than 10 years and the completely outrageous claim made by the IPCC and AGW alarmists, that is another claim of knowledge that becomes highly suspect.

Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.

Really? Describe a mechanism by which that might happen without breaking the second law of thermodynamics or the law of conservation of energy. I have been asking that question for a long time and to date, have never got a rational answer and I doubt that you are likely to give me one either. Explain how it might be that the warming has stopped for the past decade with ever increasing atmospheric concentrations of GHG's if increasing those gasses warm the planet?

Your state of knowledge isn't. Not a shred of it is proven by observable, testable, repeatable science and is in fact, little more than the output of computer models being presented as if it were actual data. Your scripture describes a false religion and you, my friend, are just another acolyte.

 

[gslack]

I am pretty sure SAT is a recycled banned user... Dr.Gregg.. Or his pal who followed him all the time. Can't prove this because the original was banned, and its been a while now.. But from his postings and shtick I think its him.. if it is he will ban himself again soon he can't control himself for long..

 

[RollingThunder]

My claim is that there is no science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

That's your idiotic claim, all right. A claim that you can't back up in any way. A claim that virtually the entire world scientific community disagrees with, which makes you a certifiable part of the lunatic fringe right up there with the Flat Earth Society screwballs.

Actually there is lots of such evidence and some of it has been shown to you over and over but you refuse to look at it or acknowledge it. And that is the way you maintain your delusions - you simply don't look at the evidence and instead, keep on denying that it exists as an article of faith in your denier cult dogmas. You are a troll.

Computer models are not evidence silly person. All of AGW is based on computer models.

That's one of the most idiotic of your altogether idiotic denier cult myths, bozo.

AGW/CC is firmly based on mountains of observed physical evidence, not computer models. Computer models are great scientific tools for helping to understand what is happening in detail but they are not 'the evidence' as you so stupidly imagine.

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:
NASA
(government publication - free to reproduce)

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Source: NOAA)

Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.(4)


Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. 5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. 6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.(7)


Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.(8)


Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.


Declining Arctic sea ice
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.(9)


Glacial retreat
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.(10)


Extreme events
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.(11)


Ocean acidification
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.12,13 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.(14,15)

 

[wirebender]

Poor thunder. Forever confused. Not understanding that proving that a thing may or may not be happening is not the same as proving why.

You cut and paste blurb after blurb stating that this or that has happened but never, not even once have you posted hard, observed, repeatable evidence that proves an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the things you believe to be happening.

 

[gslack]

That's your idiotic claim, all right. A claim that you can't back up in any way. A claim that virtually the entire world scientific community disagrees with, which makes you a certifiable part of the lunatic fringe right up there with the Flat Earth Society screwballs.

Actually there is lots of such evidence and some of it has been shown to you over and over but you refuse to look at it or acknowledge it. And that is the way you maintain your delusions - you simply don't look at the evidence and instead, keep on denying that it exists as an article of faith in your denier cult dogmas. You are a troll.

Computer models are not evidence silly person. All of AGW is based on computer models.

That's one of the most idiotic of your altogether idiotic denier cult myths, bozo.

AGW/CC is firmly based on mountains of observed physical evidence, not computer models. Computer models are great scientific tools for helping to understand what is happening in detail but they are not 'the evidence' as you so stupidly imagine.

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:
NASA
(government publication - free to reproduce)

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Source: NOAA)

Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.(4)


Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. 5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. 6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.(7)


Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.(8)


Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.


Declining Arctic sea ice
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.(9)


Glacial retreat
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.(10)


Extreme events
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.(11)


Ocean acidification
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.12,13 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.(14,15)

You're spamming the thread edtheblunder... Your pal I take it?

not surprising...

its okay I can re-post it no problem... Oh BTW

WARNING TROLLING BLUNDER SPAMS THREADS!

 

[westwall]

Poor thunder. Forever confused. Not understanding that proving that a thing may or may not be happening is not the same as proving why.

You cut and paste blurb after blurb stating that this or that has happened but never, not even once have you posted hard, observed, repeatable evidence that proves an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the things you believe to be happening.

no, Wire, you must remember in their tiny little minds correlation IS causation. They never got beyond the middle ages and their entire science is based on the same type of dogma the Church used 1000 years ago. Too bad for them the rest of the people have advanced beyond that primitive method of thinking.

 

[rdean]

Right wingers will only eat crow if they admit they were wrong about something. Look at the last 20 years. They've been wrong about everything. Everything they've touched has turned to shit. Yet they admit to doing no wrong. Ask then to name a success and they can't.

Even they know Iraq is a terrible disaster. Women in burkas, Iraq friends with Iran. China getting their oil. Thousands of Americans dead. Tens of thousands maimed.

Look how they handled Katrina. Putting people into carcinogenic trailers and blaming the survivors for being poor.

Moving millions of jobs to China.

And instead of taking responsibility for all their many failures, they feel Democrats should have stopped them so it's really the Democrats fault.

And what are they doing now? Abortion? Reaffirming "in God we Trust"? Tax cuts for billionaires? Applauding executions? Let him die? Voter suppression?

They are not going to change.

 

[westwall]

Right wingers will only eat crow if they admit they were wrong about something. Look at the last 20 years. They've been wrong about everything. Everything they've touched has turned to shit. Yet they admit to doing no wrong. Ask then to name a success and they can't.

Even they know Iraq is a terrible disaster. Women in burkas, Iraq friends with Iran. China getting their oil. Thousands of Americans dead. Tens of thousands maimed.

Look how they handled Katrina. Putting people into carcinogenic trailers and blaming the survivors for being poor.

Moving millions of jobs to China.

And instead of taking responsibility for all their many failures, they feel Democrats should have stopped them so it's really the Democrats fault.

And what are they doing now? Abortion? Reaffirming "in God we Trust"? Tax cuts for billionaires? Applauding executions? Let him die? Voter suppression?

They are not going to change.

And yet deanie, not a single prediction made by the alarmists has ever come to pass. THEY'VE MADE THOUSANDS OF THEM, and not one has happened! You are too funny!

 

[gslack]

Right wingers will only eat crow if they admit they were wrong about something. Look at the last 20 years. They've been wrong about everything. Everything they've touched has turned to shit. Yet they admit to doing no wrong. Ask then to name a success and they can't.

Even they know Iraq is a terrible disaster. Women in burkas, Iraq friends with Iran. China getting their oil. Thousands of Americans dead. Tens of thousands maimed.

Look how they handled Katrina. Putting people into carcinogenic trailers and blaming the survivors for being poor.

Moving millions of jobs to China.

And instead of taking responsibility for all their many failures, they feel Democrats should have stopped them so it's really the Democrats fault.

And what are they doing now? Abortion? Reaffirming "in God we Trust"? Tax cuts for billionaires? Applauding executions? Let him die? Voter suppression?

They are not going to change.

I bolded all the parts that I am going to address...

"Right wingers will only eat crow if they admit they were wrong about something. Look at the last 20 years. They've been wrong about everything."

Yeah and can you at least point a finger at all the Democrats who were involved too? how about Obama mimicking Bush policies save health care? Anything? no???


"Even they know Iraq is a terrible disaster. Women in burkas, Iraq friends with Iran. China getting their oil."

A terrible disaster that quite a few Democrats voted yes to go into.. Mnay of them in Obama's cabinet now.. but I guess thats okay they were duped huh.. yeah and for that naivety they were rewarded.... Nice..

Btw what you have against burkas? its a religious practice THEIR RELIGIOUS PRACTICE! You want to dictate how the worship their deity now?

Iraq and Iran friends now? They make "friends" like they make enemies; fast and loose..

China paid for it! besides you don't like oil remember? And really you have to get a grasp for this modern global governance the UN is bringing.. After all you agree with it.. If you agree with socialism as its being pushed today, that is exactly what you are going to support...

"Look how they handled Katrina. Putting people into carcinogenic trailers and blaming the survivors for being poor."

So you contend Republicans put people in "carcinogenic" trailers, and blamed people for being poor? Got any proof of any of that? nah all you got is some stories told about glue inside trailers not being dry enough and someones claim that caused cancer in some... So exactly which Republican in office then made, placed, and put those survivors in those trailers? And exactly what evidence do you have the glue gave them cancer? For the record a possible cause is not a statement of fact... BTW, FEMA, Local law enforcement, and various other groups handled Katrina. most likely full of Dems and Reps in those groups...

"Moving millions of jobs to China."

And that didn't start years ago with NAFTA and CAFTA? And that was a democrat as i recall...

"And instead of taking responsibility for all their many failures, they feel Democrats should have stopped them so it's really the Democrats fault."

And exactly what have you done this entire post? Talk about scapegoating, dude you just blamed everything on one political party and completely ignored any democrats involvement... WOW!

"And what are they doing now? Abortion? Reaffirming "in God we Trust"? Tax cuts for billionaires? Applauding executions? Let him die? Voter suppression?"

What the hell are you talking about? Abortion? Seriously What the hell does that vague statement mean?

The rest of it, ALL OF IT, was you being a blubbering idiot... Man up crybaby make a clear point or don't but quite being such a whiny little reactionary..

 

[JimBowie1958]

Right wingers will only eat crow if they admit they were wrong about something. Look at the last 20 years. They've been wrong about everything. Everything they've touched has turned to shit. Yet they admit to doing no wrong. Ask then to name a success and they can't.

Even they know Iraq is a terrible disaster. Women in burkas, Iraq friends with Iran. China getting their oil. Thousands of Americans dead. Tens of thousands maimed.

Look how they handled Katrina. Putting people into carcinogenic trailers and blaming the survivors for being poor.

Moving millions of jobs to China.

And instead of taking responsibility for all their many failures, they feel Democrats should have stopped them so it's really the Democrats fault.

And what are they doing now? Abortion? Reaffirming "in God we Trust"? Tax cuts for billionaires? Applauding executions? Let him die? Voter suppression?

They are not going to change.

Dude, not everyone against blaming humanity for climate change is a right winger, and not every rightwinger is in disagreement with AGW theories.

I know that for the lefties, there is no room for dissent, and so you project that sort of monolithic, locked-step thinking onto righties, but it's usually not nearly so desciptive of them as it is of lefties.

This is a case in point; what main stream liberal leader or pundit has come out and stated that they are skeptical on AGW?

 

[Si modo]

Right wingers will only eat crow if they admit they were wrong about something. Look at the last 20 years. They've been wrong about everything. Everything they've touched has turned to shit. Yet they admit to doing no wrong. Ask then to name a success and they can't.

Even they know Iraq is a terrible disaster. Women in burkas, Iraq friends with Iran. China getting their oil. Thousands of Americans dead. Tens of thousands maimed.

Look how they handled Katrina. Putting people into carcinogenic trailers and blaming the survivors for being poor.

Moving millions of jobs to China.

And instead of taking responsibility for all their many failures, they feel Democrats should have stopped them so it's really the Democrats fault.

And what are they doing now? Abortion? Reaffirming "in God we Trust"? Tax cuts for billionaires? Applauding executions? Let him die? Voter suppression?

They are not going to change.

Deanie-do is just another hater of science - politicizing it.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. So says the chief politisizer of science. LOL