Evidence that global warming IS happening

[ScienceRocks]

The rules of logic.

The scientific method.

Just to start with....

And on what do you base that?

The rules of logic has been thrown out by you, Abe.

Email James Hansen and the other warmers and say that!

 

[Meister]

And on what do you base that?

The rules of logic has been thrown out by you, Abe.

Email James Hansen and the other warmers and say that!

Hansen with the manipulated data? I doubt he would have much to say with what I said.

 

[Abraham3]

The rules of logic.

The scientific method.

Just to start with....

And on what do you base that?

The rules of logic has been thrown out by you, Abe.

Besides being bad grammar, that is an unsubstantiated assertion. Do you have some example of me throwing out the rules of logic - whatever that's actually supposed to mean?

PS: to throw them out I would have to know them. The original accusation was that I did not KNOW the rules of logic.

PPS: would this have anything to do with my conversations with logic expert Swimexpert The Absent?

 

[damirpavla80]

Storm during summer...

 

[Abraham3]

Dark when the sun goes down...

 

[elektra]

Now you need some actual evidence that humans are responsible.....good luck with that. Decades of skeptics asking for the evidence and still none has been produced....maybe you have a model you would like to offer up.
Since we all know that no actual evidence of man's responsibility for the changing global climate will be forthcoming...maybe some sort of evidence that anything in the present climate is unprecedented....or maybe outside the boundries of natural variability....got anything like that? We both know that once again, the answer is no..

What you have is coincidental corrobrative evidence and a hysterical streak a foot wide running up your back.

excuse me, but they have no evidence that a record number of days set any record, its a theory at best, further they actually got caught using temperatures from one month that was hot for the month that was cold. They also selectively sample temperatures that prove the theory. The scientist ignore the facts and evidence that proves their is no global warming, just the natural ebb and tide of temperatures.

There is no evidence of Global Climate change. Period. It not just there is no evidence of man's responsibility, there is no evidence, there is not one fact, that supports any of the theories.

I agree with you except, there simply is no evidence that anything other than the normal seasons of earth are occurring.

 

[Abraham3]

Complete fabrication

Nothing but lies

Laughable

Meaningless nonsense

Obvious math error

Complete fantasy

The REAL cause!

 

[SSDD]

Now you need some actual evidence that humans are responsible.....good luck with that. Decades of skeptics asking for the evidence and still none has been produced....maybe you have a model you would like to offer up.
Since we all know that no actual evidence of man's responsibility for the changing global climate will be forthcoming...maybe some sort of evidence that anything in the present climate is unprecedented....or maybe outside the boundries of natural variability....got anything like that? We both know that once again, the answer is no..

What you have is coincidental corrobrative evidence and a hysterical streak a foot wide running up your back.

excuse me, but they have no evidence that a record number of days set any record, its a theory at best, further they actually got caught using temperatures from one month that was hot for the month that was cold. They also selectively sample temperatures that prove the theory. The scientist ignore the facts and evidence that proves their is no global warming, just the natural ebb and tide of temperatures.

There is no evidence of Global Climate change. Period. It not just there is no evidence of man's responsibility, there is no evidence, there is not one fact, that supports any of the theories.

I agree with you except, there simply is no evidence that anything other than the normal seasons of earth are occurring.

It isn't a theory...it is a hypothesis and a piss poor one at that. Don't give them credit for actually elevating that steaming pile of dung to the status of theory. They call it theory in an attempt to legitimize it...hypothesis and theory have specific meanings and a hypothesis must pass certain tests to be elevated to theory....AGW, and the greenhouse effect remain unprovable by any known experiment and untestable by any known technology...they both remain hypotheses.

 

[SSDD]

Complete fabrication

Nothing but lies

Laughable

Meaningless nonsense

Obvious math error

Complete fantasy

The REAL cause!

See how easy it is to find altered data to support the hoax?

 

[Abraham3]

Actually, what I took from that was some amazement that someone could look at all that and say it doesn't exist. The paranoid fantasy required to even consider what you and Moonglow are contending here requires a VERY flexible grasp on reality.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And on what do you base that?

The canon of your posts.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And on what do you base that?

The rules of logic has been thrown out by you, Abe.

Email James Hansen and the other warmers and say that!

I emailed the ShamWOW guy and ask him why his product didn't work the way he claimed.

Really weird, he never responded.

Hmmmm, it's almost like con-men don't care that they're lying......

 

[Kosh]

And on what do you base that?

The rules of logic has been thrown out by you, Abe.

Email James Hansen and the other warmers and say that!

Why would I want to email that hack? Of course I can just go to the university he works at and just call him a hack to face. It is more fun that way.

 

[Abraham3]

And on what do you base that?

The canon of your posts.

The canon of my posts. That might have been an impressive turn of speech if it hadn't been completely inapplicable.

Have you got one in particular that demonstrates my unfamiliarity with the rules of logic and the scientific method? Or - as all your writings tend to indicate - do you have nothing to spew at us but the moot by-products of your puerile animus and overflowing bitterness at so consistently being wrong? And irrelevant. And someone who would actually quote Sarah Palin in their sig.

 

[Kosh]

And on what do you base that?

The canon of your posts.

The canon of my posts. That might have been an impressive turn of speech if it hadn't been completely inapplicable.

Have you got one in particular that demonstrates my unfamiliarity with the rules of logic and the scientific method? Or - as all your writings tend to indicate - do you have nothing to spew at us but the moot by-products of your puerile animus and overflowing bitterness at so consistently being wrong? And irrelevant. And someone who would actually quote Sarah Palin in their sig.

Yes you are far left for one which means you don't live in reality and on top of it all you think AL Gore is some kind of environmentalist.

Not to mention you promote AGW as actual science, thus proving you don't understand squat.

 

[Kosh]

Does anyone have anything specific? No?

Don't you realize what you look like when you make accusations that you don't seem able to even BEGIN to back up? I mean... it's an honest impression and all. I just didn't think it was the specific impression you wanted to set out in the town square.

See the far left AGW cultists can not see their own errors or that which exists in their religious belief. Even when pointed out directly they still deny the existence of their errors.

And further empirical evidence to show they do not live in reality.

 

[Abraham3]

Does anyone have anything specific? No?

Don't you realize what you look like when you make accusations that you don't seem able to even BEGIN to back up? I mean... it's an honest impression and all. I just didn't think it was the specific impression you wanted to set out in the town square.

 

[Kosh]

Does anyone have anything specific? No?

Don't you realize what you look like when you make accusations that you don't seem able to even BEGIN to back up? I mean... it's an honest impression and all. I just didn't think it was the specific impression you wanted to set out in the town square.

See the far left AGW cultists can not see their own errors or that which exists in their religious belief. Even when pointed out directly they still deny the existence of their errors.

And further empirical evidence to show they do not live in reality.

 

[Politico]

Repeat much?

 

[Kosh]

For decades this NASA graph based on the database of Great Britain's Climate Research Unit shows a dramatic increase in temperature was accepted by scientists as proving that there was a dramatic increase in earth's temperature starting in the late 1970s. CO2 levels also increased during this period starting in the late 1940s, leading to the conclusion that man was responsible for the temperature increase. However, this data is corrupted with the heat island effect. Also, note that the increase in atmospheric CO2 started in the late 1940s, just when earth was going through a cooling period. The heat island effect is supposed to have been mostly removed from the United States data set, which accounts for one-fourth of the worlds measuring stations. However, in the fall of 2009 and into the winter of 2010, it was revealed that rather than removing the heat island effect, NASA and NOAA may have actually amplified it. Also, the main temperature data base at the Climate Research Unit in Great Britain has deliberately corrupted the database used in producing the graph.

A serious error was found in the NASA temperature data for the United States in 2007. When corrected, it was determined that the warmest year in the past 100 years was not in 1998 and 2006 as previously believed, but was 1934, followed 1998. 1921 became the third hottest year, followed by 2006 and 1933. Out of the five hottest years, three occurred in the 1920s and 30s and only two were in the past 10 years. Notice that the US data do not have the same steep increase in temperature shown in the corrupted data of Britain's Climate Research Unit's data in the graph above. This dramatically changes scientists understanding of the importance of the warming that has occurred since 1975. The period between 1995 and 2009 is no warmer than the period between 1920 and 1935. This error in the NASA data has lead to discoveries of other errors in the data which are raising concern about data integrity of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies.

More at: Lesson 1 Graphs n' Charts

Notice the first graph, that is the one that the AGW cultists post (or something similar) all the time.

The second graph is the corrected graph that that AGW cultists will deny exists. They claim they listen to NASA, but obviously they do not as empirical evidence shows.

Aug. 14 (Bloomberg) -- NASA has revised climate data to show 1934 as the hottest year on record in the U.S., ousting 1998 and challenging the argument that national temperatures are reaching new highs amid global warming.

NASA Fixes Data; 1934 Ousts 1998 as Hottest U.S. Year (Update1) - Bloomberg

However you will watch them feverishly use AGW propaganda to claim this is false, even though it is from NASA a source they claim to believe without question.