Creator of Infamous Hockey Stick Graph Refuses to Turn Over Data to Court

[IanC]

We have lost the topic of this thread.

M Mann testified to the NSA that he never calculated the Pearson variance (ie, the R and r^2) for his hockey stick. This is the most basic of all the tests for significance. Even if he didn't use it in his paper you can be sure he calculated it. The reason for lying about it? The r^2 was basically zero for several centuries, and low for the rest. He lied to save himself from the embarrassment of acknowledging crappy results. That is one example out of many that show his lack of integrity.

 

[jon_berzerk]

magic beans

can every buddy remember when past prezbo Obama

promised the world "Magic solar energy Beans"

to solve our fossil fuel crisis

--LOL

So, you think solar has not made any progress?

Even China is producing a lot of electricity by solar.

Try pulling your head of of El Cheeto's ass once in a while.

you leftard fuckheads are all alike

where the fuck did i say solar energy has not made advances

currently my shop and both garages run completely on solar energy

with the grid as back up within a year or so

the house will be on my power plant as well

so i cant say this strong enough

go fuck yourself shit for brains

You appeared to be attacking Obama for pushing solar energy. True or not true?

solar energy is not the end all ya stupid dope

i have a back up system

i attacked obama energy policies because they sucked

Look fuckboy, I never said solar was the only answer.

i dont really give damn what you said

solar energy is not even close to the answer

the fact remains that obamas energy policies sucked

 

[SSDD]

Keep acting like the 5 year old brat with their hands over their years screaming.

And still nothing more than a weak logical fallacy in response. This is a scientific topic...actual science requires observed, measured, quantified data to support hypotheses...there is none that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

And as to acting like a 5 year old....I am afraid that is you dave. Adults admit when they can't support their side of an argument...5 year olds keep on howling what they believe without regard to any actual support for what they believe. You keep claiming there is evidence and that you have seen it....all the while being completely unable to bring even one small scrap of it here.

As for calling me a liar, fuck you.

Just calling it like I see it...you claim to have done the research...if you had, one of two things would be happening here rather than your pathetically weak and impotent argument composed mostly of logical fallacies. had you done the research and paid attention to the literature you would:

A) realize that there is not the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability..in which case you would a) be a grown up and acknowledge that you also have not seen any or b) slink away because you know that continuing to take part in a discussion about evidence that you can't produce would just make you look more and more stupid with every post.

B) in an alternate universe operating on different physics, you might be able to provide observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting AGW over natural variability...although in that universe, this discussion wouldn't be happening with me, because I would have already seen the evidence and wouldn't be a skeptic...or at least as skeptical.

The date is out there.

No realdave...it isn't...and continuing to behave like a 5 year old brat with your hands over your ears screaming that it is, isn't going to make your case. If it is there, and you have seen it, then bring a single piece of it here...since it isn't, you might try acting like an adult and admitting that you can't find it regardless of what you wish. That tactic is known as facing reality. Try it some time.

 

[RealDave]

Keep acting like the 5 year old brat with their hands over their years screaming.

And still nothing more than a weak logical fallacy in response. This is a scientific topic...actual science requires observed, measured, quantified data to support hypotheses...there is none that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

And as to acting like a 5 year old....I am afraid that is you dave. Adults admit when they can't support their side of an argument...5 year olds keep on howling what they believe without regard to any actual support for what they believe. You keep claiming there is evidence and that you have seen it....all the while being completely unable to bring even one small scrap of it here.

As for calling me a liar, fuck you.

Just calling it like I see it...you claim to have done the research...if you had, one of two things would be happening here rather than your pathetically weak and impotent argument composed mostly of logical fallacies. had you done the research and paid attention to the literature you would:

A) realize that there is not the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability..in which case you would a) be a grown up and acknowledge that you also have not seen any or b) slink away because you know that continuing to take part in a discussion about evidence that you can't produce would just make you look more and more stupid with every post.

B) in an alternate universe operating on different physics, you might be able to provide observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting AGW over natural variability...although in that universe, this discussion wouldn't be happening with me, because I would have already seen the evidence and wouldn't be a skeptic...or at least as skeptical.

The date is out there.

No realdave...it isn't...and continuing to behave like a 5 year old brat with your hands over your ears screaming that it is, isn't going to make your case. If it is there, and you have seen it, then bring a single piece of it here...since it isn't, you might try acting like an adult and admitting that you can't find it regardless of what you wish. That tactic is known as facing reality. Try it some time.

Your probl;em is you can see past your ignorance. There is plenty of data.

You can't grasp that the greenhouse effect is proven science.

You can;'t grasp that more CO2 => More greenhouse effect => warming temperature.

Yet you keep running through the streets screaming " OMG OMG OMG no data no data OMG OMG OMG"

Furthermore, you can't grasp the there are many factors that go into determining our climate.

What is causing our warming? I suspect you;ll tell me contrails or cell phones.

 

[RealDave]

So, you think solar has not made any progress?

Even China is producing a lot of electricity by solar.

Try pulling your head of of El Cheeto's ass once in a while.

you leftard fuckheads are all alike

where the fuck did i say solar energy has not made advances

currently my shop and both garages run completely on solar energy

with the grid as back up within a year or so

the house will be on my power plant as well

so i cant say this strong enough

go fuck yourself shit for brains

Then quit quoting me asswipe.

You appeared to be attacking Obama for pushing solar energy. True or not true?

solar energy is not the end all ya stupid dope

i have a back up system

i attacked obama energy policies because they sucked

Look fuckboy, I never said solar was the only answer.

i dont really give damn what you said

solar energy is not even close to the answer

the fact remains that obamas energy policies sucked

 

[mamooth]

We have lost the topic of this thread.

I agree. The topic is that there's zero evidence to support the claim of the OP, yet every denier declares it's true anyways, either out of pure faith, or because they're afraid to go against the other cultists by telling the truth.

M Mann testified to the NSA

NSA? That makes no sense. Try "the House Energy and Commerce Committee". The point? Your version of reality has issues.

that he never calculated the Pearson variance (ie, the R and r^2) for his hockey stick. This is the most basic of all the tests for significance. Even if he didn't use it in his paper you can be sure he calculated it. The reason for lying about it? The r^2 was basically zero for several centuries, and low for the rest. He lied to save himself from the embarrassment of acknowledging crappy results. That is one example out of many that show his lack of integrity.

I know that smell. It's the fetid smell of a McIntyre conspiracy theory, twisted even further into insanity by Ian.

 

[jon_berzerk]

you leftard fuckheads are all alike

where the fuck did i say solar energy has not made advances

currently my shop and both garages run completely on solar energy

with the grid as back up within a year or so

the house will be on my power plant as well

so i cant say this strong enough

go fuck yourself shit for brains

Then quit quoting me asswipe.

You appeared to be attacking Obama for pushing solar energy. True or not true?

solar energy is not the end all ya stupid dope

i have a back up system

i attacked obama energy policies because they sucked

Look fuckboy, I never said solar was the only answer.

i dont really give damn what you said

solar energy is not even close to the answer

the fact remains that obamas energy policies sucked

--LOL

 

[SSDD]

Your probl;em is you can see past your ignorance. There is plenty of data.

Sorry realdave...the only one with a problem here is you...and the problem is that you can't see your own ignorance. And if there is "plenty" of data that supports AGW over natural variability, then what is preventing you from bringing just a single piece of it here and giving me a good bitch slap with it? Just one piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports AGW over natural variaibility...just one.

You can't grasp that the greenhouse effect is proven science.

And you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data to support hat statement...not even one. Tell me realdave, how did this get to be proven science with no actual data to support the claim?

You can;'t grasp that more CO2 => More greenhouse effect => warming temperature.

Without observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of it, what you are claiming is just opinion...I could certainly grasp that chain of events if there were some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence to support it...there isn't...so what I am left trying to grasp is how people could be so stupid as to accept such a claim with no actual evidence that supports it.

Yet you keep running through the streets screaming " OMG OMG OMG no data no data OMG OMG OMG"

No realdave...I am not running around saying omg anything...I am asking for evidence to which you keep running around like an idiot screaming omg...omg...more CO2=>more greenhouse effect=>warming temperature...not ever noticing that you can't produce a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the claim...not one. So which of us is actually the handwringing hysteric ninny? Not me, I am just asking for a single piece of real evidence to support the wild claims you are making. Is that unreasonable...is a single piece of real evidence an unreasonable request?

Furthermore, you can't grasp the there are many factors that go into determining our climate.

Wrong again realdave...see a pattern developing here?...I have been saying all along that there are so many factors that effect the climate that we don't have the first idea why climate changes...the evidence...that is the observed, measured, quantified evidence, however, points to it being any number of things besides CO2...there is ample evidence that the sun could cause climate swings, ocean currents, orbital cycles, volcanic activity, collisions with extraterrestrial objects...there is ample observed, measured, quantified evidence to support any of those things as reasons for climate shifts...there isn't, however, a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the claim that our so called greenhouse gas emissions are causing anything.

What is causing our warming? I suspect you;ll tell me contrails or cell phones.

Again with the very weak and totally impotent logical fallacy. As I pointed out above, there are innumerable reasons the climate may shift...far more reasons than I listed above...what there isn't...is the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that AGW is responsible for whatever warming we have experienced and not natural variability.

 

[jc456]

From.a engineering stand point and technical stand point

From an engineering and technical standpoint, you get everything totally wrong. You're basing your unhinged irrational cult hatred solely on your ignorance of science, statistics, logic and common sense. That only makes you look bad.

nice nothing burger.

 

[jc456]

I've read plenty. I've read the deniers & how they were debunked.

The idea you put your children at risk because you were duped is a sad sad thing.

Years from now, when the effects of global warming heightened, your kids will look back & wonder why their Dad was so very stupid.

Years from now? Don't you know that Manhattan has been under water for nine years already?
The scientists who dispute AGW and any level of severity of AGW have not been debunked. Many are even on the alleged 97% list.
Anyone with an open mind and who wasn't swayed by fitting in with a political group or ideology would respect those differences to the point of yielding to ambivalence at the very least.
You have an agenda.

1970 Years from now?
revised
1980 Years from now?
revised
1990 Years from now?
revised
2000 Years from now?
revised
2010 Years from now?
revised
2017 Years from now?

--LOL

Here uis just how ignorant your post is.

You look at statements msde in 1970 & then run in circles screaming OMG OMG OMG OMG never happened OMG OMG OMG.

Since 1970, steps have been taken to reduce pollution. Pollution from coal fired generation plants,. Vehicle emissdions.

You are sofa king stupid that you think nothing as been done.

HW Bush signed legislation that reduced emissions & stopped acid rain. Where the fuck were you?

The goals later set forth to reduce greenhouse gas emissions call for the reduction to put emissions back to 2005 levels. We are halk way there.

I love it when you assholes post your stupid posts & then follow it with "lol". I am "lol" at how uninformed you are & yet you think you are so smart. That is some funny chit.

Where will we be in 2050 or 2100? A ten year p=old chid today has a 50/50 change of living to 100 or more. Your ignorance is condemning your children & grandchildren to the threat of a more difficult life.

dude, too special. all without evidence of any problem wow.

 

[jc456]

If you're not just a little bit skeptical you aren't paying attention!

Federal scientist cooked climate change books ahead of Obama presentation, whistle blower charges

World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online

World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online

Fed Whistleblower: NOAA Scientists Manipulated Temperature Data To Hype ‘Global Warming’

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

LIES all LIES! And YOU know it!
From the "whistleblower himself:

No Data Manipulation at NOAA - FactCheck.org
But in interviews with the Associated Press and E&E, an online energy and environmental news outlet, Bates said he had not accused his colleagues of data manipulation.
Bates told the AP on Feb. 6 that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious” involved with his colleagues’ study. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form,” he said.

Dufus quotes Factcheck. Next he'll link to CNN.

A fact to assholes like you is like poison.

fact is you have no facts. thanks for playing though.

 

[jc456]

Years from now? Don't you know that Manhattan has been under water for nine years already?
The scientists who dispute AGW and any level of severity of AGW have not been debunked. Many are even on the alleged 97% list.
Anyone with an open mind and who wasn't swayed by fitting in with a political group or ideology would respect those differences to the point of yielding to ambivalence at the very least.
You have an agenda.

The vast majority believe in MMGW. There is discussion on how severe the effects will be.

MMGW is based on science. Republicans used to believe in science, Now science is"fake News" & you assholes listen to fossil fuel funded skeptics.

The time to do something is now. Effects are happening now. If we wait until the effects get to the point that even you dickheads recognize we have to do smething, it would take decades to lower the greenhouse gass amounts in the atmosphere. But hey, you'll be dead & fuck your kids, right?

Science is not hiding your data from peer review.

Science is not taking some one else's data & twisting it so you can make money from the fossil fuel industry & Republican leadership in order to dupe dumbasses like you.

Don't you people ever get tired of trotting out the same tired old memes?

Sent from my iPhone 25S GT Turbo

Don't you people ever get tired of posting the same old debunked denier crap?

no, we are persistent to keep this about the facts. Let us know when you have one.

 

[jc456]

So then you'll be all for a red team blue team exercise , however the likes of Michael Mann are not so happy.

We already have such an exercise. it's called peer review. Your side is demanding that handpicked Stalinist ideologues be given the power to blacklist science, which is un-American.

Leading Climate Scientist Says Debating Scientific Theories Would Be ‘Un-American’ | Principia Scientific International

Even most other deniers laugh at PSI, because PSI is composed entirely of idiot greenhouse theory deniers like SSDD. Because they espouse such stupid pseudoscience, they have to make up the craziest lies to defend it. That's why anyone using PSI as a source instantly craters their own credibility.

yeah peer review with a nudge, nudge, wink, wink with it. Yeppers, how is that climategate anyway?

 

[jc456]

I've read the reports & studies & I have read the denier crap. I decided to go with science. You can stick with the limbaughs, infowars, Glenn Beck, and Fox News.

Really? You decided to go with science? Science is all about observation, measurement, and quantification of data and using that to support a claim. Can you show me a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW claim over natural variability? Just a single piece?

Any number of research papers by a number of climatologists. Where the fuck have you been? What have you read?

Fuck that.

Common sense.

You are soda king stupid that you think man can spew crap into the atmosphere for decades with zero effects.

My God, just how fucking stupid can you get.

More CO2 => More greenhouse effect => warmer temperatures.

All proven .

one has nothing if one uses insults for an argument. just saying. Post some facts.

 

[jc456]

I posted a link to an experiment that high school kids can do that proves it

The greenhouse effect is PROVEN science.

Lets see that link. I would like to see what sort of side show hucksterism fooled you so completely.

Go back & find it yourself.

The only people that are fooled are ignorant Trumpsters like you.

I believe scientists.

You believe the fossil fuel industry.

a typical response from someone with nothing to debate with.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So then you'll be all for a red team blue team exercise , however the likes of Michael Mann are not so happy.

We already have such an exercise. it's called peer review. Your side is demanding that handpicked Stalinist ideologues be given the power to blacklist science, which is un-American.

Leading Climate Scientist Says Debating Scientific Theories Would Be ‘Un-American’ | Principia Scientific International

Even most other deniers laugh at PSI, because PSI is composed entirely of idiot greenhouse theory deniers like SSDD. Because they espouse such stupid pseudoscience, they have to make up the craziest lies to defend it. That's why anyone using PSI as a source instantly craters their own credibility.

Since Mann won't produce the data, what did they "peer review"?

 

[RealDave]

No. I've read & seen enough.

1) The greenhouse effect is proven science
2) Have you seen any grafts should our rise in average global temperatures.
3) Have you seen the charts of the From for CO2?
4) Have you seen the stat that says global emissions of greenhouse gases the past three decades is more than the past two centuries?
5) What natural phenomenon are you claim did this?

I don't sit around with my thumb up my ass, ignore the scientific literature, and wonder about things. I research & read & find out.

You can never read and see enough.

Your post is somewhat garbled but I think I get the gist.

Do you know the calculated increased surface temperature for doubling CO2?

Do you know why that figure is turned into something like 3C or more in climate models?

Do you know that climate sensitivity estimates for doubling CO2 have dropped considerably in the last decade?

Why don't the climate models reflect this drop?


The figures for catastrophic AGW used in making predictions of doom do not match the reality of the data, even with the ongoing 'adjustments' to any dataset that is showing embarrassing results.

I guess you think that CO2 is the sole factor in the climate.

Otherwise you would not be sofa king stupid top think that each change in CO2 has to cause an exact, calculated change to the ave temperature.

The greenhouse effect is just one factor. It could be that any warming by the greenhouse effect is counter balanced by a factor that would normally have a cooling effect.

I see you now change it to catastrophic AGW. Really? You think that a warming of 2C means nothing bad happens?

Models change as factors change. You can't go back & use a 1970 model & claim "OMG OMG look how off it was".

AGW is real. The effects will not be good. The effects could be catastrophic.

The greenhouse effect is just one factor. It could be that any warming by the greenhouse effect is counter balanced by a factor that would normally have a cooling effect.

Wow, you don't sound like a dumbass here.
Did someone smart hack you account?

I see you now change it to catastrophic AGW.

If it's not catastrophic, why do warmers want us to waste...err...invest 10s of trillions to fix it?

Who said tens of trillions? On what????

Non catastrophic does not mean it is all good. Are you really that stupid?

I cut my emissions by more than 50% & save money in the process.

How much do you think it will cost to remedy the effects of higher ocean levels in our coastal cities & military bases?

Who said tens of trillions?

The IPCC said $1.9 trillion a year for 40 years.

On what????

Windmills, payoffs to poor countries, private plane trips to fancy meetings for bigwigs.

Are you really that stupid?

No. I'm not stupid enough to waste $76 trillion for a non-catastrophe.

I cut my emissions by more than 50% & save money in the process.

Excellent! Stop trying to waste my money on stupid things that won't work.

How much do you think it will cost to remedy the effects of higher ocean levels

The same that it would cost if it had nothing to do with fossil fuels.

 

[RealDave]

No. I've read & seen enough.

1) The greenhouse effect is proven science
2) Have you seen any grafts should our rise in average global temperatures.
3) Have you seen the charts of the From for CO2?
4) Have you seen the stat that says global emissions of greenhouse gases the past three decades is more than the past two centuries?
5) What natural phenomenon are you claim did this?

I don't sit around with my thumb up my ass, ignore the scientific literature, and wonder about things. I research & read & find out.

You can never read and see enough.

Your post is somewhat garbled but I think I get the gist.

Do you know the calculated increased surface temperature for doubling CO2?

Do you know why that figure is turned into something like 3C or more in climate models?

Do you know that climate sensitivity estimates for doubling CO2 have dropped considerably in the last decade?

Why don't the climate models reflect this drop?


The figures for catastrophic AGW used in making predictions of doom do not match the reality of the data, even with the ongoing 'adjustments' to any dataset that is showing embarrassing results.

I guess you think that CO2 is the sole factor in the climate.

Otherwise you would not be sofa king stupid top think that each change in CO2 has to cause an exact, calculated change to the ave temperature.

The greenhouse effect is just one factor. It could be that any warming by the greenhouse effect is counter balanced by a factor that would normally have a cooling effect.

I see you now change it to catastrophic AGW. Really? You think that a warming of 2C means nothing bad happens?

Models change as factors change. You can't go back & use a 1970 model & claim "OMG OMG look how off it was".

AGW is real. The effects will not be good. The effects could be catastrophic.

The greenhouse effect is just one factor. It could be that any warming by the greenhouse effect is counter balanced by a factor that would normally have a cooling effect.

Wow, you don't sound like a dumbass here.
Did someone smart hack you account?

I see you now change it to catastrophic AGW.

If it's not catastrophic, why do warmers want us to waste...err...invest 10s of trillions to fix it?

Who said tens of trillions? On what????

Non catastrophic does not mean it is all good. Are you really that stupid?

I cut my emissions by more than 50% & save money in the process.

How much do you think it will cost to remedy the effects of higher ocean levels in our coastal cities & military bases?

Who said tens of trillions?

The IPCC said $1.9 trillion a year for 40 years.

On what????

Windmills, payoffs to poor countries, private plane trips to fancy meetings for bigwigs.

Are you really that stupid?

No. I'm not stupid enough to waste $76 trillion for a non-catastrophe.

I cut my emissions by more than 50% & save money in the process.

Excellent! Stop trying to waste my money on stupid things that won't work.

How much do you think it will cost to remedy the effects of higher ocean levels

The same that it would cost if it had nothing to do with fossil fuels.

IPCC:
Four global warming impacts alone—hurricane damage,
real estate losses, energy costs, and water costs—will come with a price tag of 1.8
percent of U.S. GDP, or almost $1.9 trillion annually (in today’s dollars) by 2100

You fucking idiot. The 1.9 trillion is the cost of doing nothing.

My God you are the absolute dumbest asshole on the planet.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You can never read and see enough.

Your post is somewhat garbled but I think I get the gist.

Do you know the calculated increased surface temperature for doubling CO2?

Do you know why that figure is turned into something like 3C or more in climate models?

Do you know that climate sensitivity estimates for doubling CO2 have dropped considerably in the last decade?

Why don't the climate models reflect this drop?


The figures for catastrophic AGW used in making predictions of doom do not match the reality of the data, even with the ongoing 'adjustments' to any dataset that is showing embarrassing results.

I guess you think that CO2 is the sole factor in the climate.

Otherwise you would not be sofa king stupid top think that each change in CO2 has to cause an exact, calculated change to the ave temperature.

The greenhouse effect is just one factor. It could be that any warming by the greenhouse effect is counter balanced by a factor that would normally have a cooling effect.

I see you now change it to catastrophic AGW. Really? You think that a warming of 2C means nothing bad happens?

Models change as factors change. You can't go back & use a 1970 model & claim "OMG OMG look how off it was".

AGW is real. The effects will not be good. The effects could be catastrophic.

The greenhouse effect is just one factor. It could be that any warming by the greenhouse effect is counter balanced by a factor that would normally have a cooling effect.

Wow, you don't sound like a dumbass here.
Did someone smart hack you account?

I see you now change it to catastrophic AGW.

If it's not catastrophic, why do warmers want us to waste...err...invest 10s of trillions to fix it?

Who said tens of trillions? On what????

Non catastrophic does not mean it is all good. Are you really that stupid?

I cut my emissions by more than 50% & save money in the process.

How much do you think it will cost to remedy the effects of higher ocean levels in our coastal cities & military bases?

Who said tens of trillions?

The IPCC said $1.9 trillion a year for 40 years.

On what????

Windmills, payoffs to poor countries, private plane trips to fancy meetings for bigwigs.

Are you really that stupid?

No. I'm not stupid enough to waste $76 trillion for a non-catastrophe.

I cut my emissions by more than 50% & save money in the process.

Excellent! Stop trying to waste my money on stupid things that won't work.

How much do you think it will cost to remedy the effects of higher ocean levels

The same that it would cost if it had nothing to do with fossil fuels.

IPCC:
Four global warming impacts alone—hurricane damage,
real estate losses, energy costs, and water costs—will come with a price tag of 1.8
percent of U.S. GDP, or almost $1.9 trillion annually (in today’s dollars) by 2100

You fucking idiot. The 1.9 trillion is the cost of doing nothing.

My God you are the absolute dumbest asshole on the planet.

Four global warming impacts alone—hurricane damage

What hurricanes? We've added lots of CO2 since Katrina, where did all the massive hurricanes go?

real estate losses

What losses?

energy costs

Lower in the winter.

and water costs

I thought global warming was going to give us more rain?

The 1.9 trillion is the cost of doing nothing.

No it isn't, idiot.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You can never read and see enough.

Your post is somewhat garbled but I think I get the gist.

Do you know the calculated increased surface temperature for doubling CO2?

Do you know why that figure is turned into something like 3C or more in climate models?

Do you know that climate sensitivity estimates for doubling CO2 have dropped considerably in the last decade?

Why don't the climate models reflect this drop?


The figures for catastrophic AGW used in making predictions of doom do not match the reality of the data, even with the ongoing 'adjustments' to any dataset that is showing embarrassing results.

I guess you think that CO2 is the sole factor in the climate.

Otherwise you would not be sofa king stupid top think that each change in CO2 has to cause an exact, calculated change to the ave temperature.

The greenhouse effect is just one factor. It could be that any warming by the greenhouse effect is counter balanced by a factor that would normally have a cooling effect.

I see you now change it to catastrophic AGW. Really? You think that a warming of 2C means nothing bad happens?

Models change as factors change. You can't go back & use a 1970 model & claim "OMG OMG look how off it was".

AGW is real. The effects will not be good. The effects could be catastrophic.

The greenhouse effect is just one factor. It could be that any warming by the greenhouse effect is counter balanced by a factor that would normally have a cooling effect.

Wow, you don't sound like a dumbass here.
Did someone smart hack you account?

I see you now change it to catastrophic AGW.

If it's not catastrophic, why do warmers want us to waste...err...invest 10s of trillions to fix it?

Who said tens of trillions? On what????

Non catastrophic does not mean it is all good. Are you really that stupid?

I cut my emissions by more than 50% & save money in the process.

How much do you think it will cost to remedy the effects of higher ocean levels in our coastal cities & military bases?

Who said tens of trillions?

The IPCC said $1.9 trillion a year for 40 years.

On what????

Windmills, payoffs to poor countries, private plane trips to fancy meetings for bigwigs.

Are you really that stupid?

No. I'm not stupid enough to waste $76 trillion for a non-catastrophe.

I cut my emissions by more than 50% & save money in the process.

Excellent! Stop trying to waste my money on stupid things that won't work.

How much do you think it will cost to remedy the effects of higher ocean levels

The same that it would cost if it had nothing to do with fossil fuels.

IPCC:
Four global warming impacts alone—hurricane damage,
real estate losses, energy costs, and water costs—will come with a price tag of 1.8
percent of U.S. GDP, or almost $1.9 trillion annually (in today’s dollars) by 2100

You fucking idiot. The 1.9 trillion is the cost of doing nothing.

My God you are the absolute dumbest asshole on the planet.

Mann was the lead author of the Third IPCC, can we safely conclude that it too was based on no evidence besides one tree ring?