Have the Climate Cultists Considered These Facts?

[Carl in Michigan]

I don't think they can be reached through facts and logic, but I'm HOPING for a REASONED rebuttal if you have one. Of course it would be better if you could just admit you've been duped

 

[Confounding]

Only an ignoramus thinks AGW can be summed up in 12 minutes. You're trying to dispute the claims of people that have a much deeper understanding of these issues than you do. There is not an AGW conspiracy. The scientists are telling us what they actually believe based on all of the evidence they have observed. It takes an astounding amount of arrogance to say they're wrong when you know approximately dick compared to them.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Only an ignoramus thinks AGW can be summed up in 12 minutes. You're trying to dispute the claims of people that have a much deeper understanding of these issues than you do. There is not an AGW conspiracy. The scientists are telling us what they actually believe based on all of the evidence they have observed. It takes an astounding amount of arrogance to say they're wrong when you know approximately dick compared to them.

Again you cannot refute FACTS. You also continue the lie that everyone agrees. I'll wait for one of you cultists to refute these points. So far you've only exposed yourself

 

[Confounding]

Again you cannot refute FACTS. You also continue the lie that everyone agrees. I'll wait for one of you cultists to refute these points. So far you've only exposed yourself

There isn't a scientific institution on the planet that disputes AGW. The vast majority of climate scientists agree that AGW is happening. The scientists are not misleading us. That's actually what they believe based on what we know so far.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Climate "scientists" have been proven WRONG every time. If someone's always wrong, why do you keep listening to them?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't think they can be reached through facts and logic, but I'm HOPING for a REASONED rebuttal if you have one. Of course it would be better if you could just admit you've been duped

Have climate scientists considered the facts they discovered themselves....?

Uh... yes?

Do you not think this shit through before you vomit it?

 

[Confounding]

Climate "scientists" have been proven WRONG every time. If someone's always wrong, why do you keep listening to them?

You have no idea what you're talking about. You wouldn't be able to have a 45 second long conversation about the climate with a scientist because you're ignorant as hell by comparison. You would get laughed at. Again, there isn't a conspiracy. The most qualified people in the world have looked at the evidence and the vast majority of them have come to a similar conclusion.

 

[Crick]

I took my first pause when I saw Hansen's 1985 model being compared with the UAH lower troposphere data. I've got a better idea. Let's compare Hansen's 1985 prediction to GISTEMP or HADCrut or NCDC and see how it looks:

UAH has had numerous calibration and orbital decline issues and Spencer and Christy have not corrected until their arms were twisted by the climate science community.

These data do NOT support a 0.5 dampening feedback.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

There isn't a scientific institution on the planet that disputes AGW. The vast majority of climate scientists agree that AGW is happening. The scientists are not misleading us. That's actually what they believe based on what we know so far

NOBODY denies the planet is warming SLIGHTLY. They don't all agree on the degree Man is responsible. We are coming off an ice age (thank God). And the models are utter failures yet you cultists behave as if they are accurate.

 

[Confounding]

They don't all agree on the degree Man is responsible.

That's true. There's not a powerful consensus on man's level of impact, just that we are having an impact of some kind. Most of them do believe our impact is at least moderate though, and possibly severe. I didn't come here with the intention of convincing anybody of anything other than that. Who do you think I am, Al Gore?

 

[mamooth]

And the models are utter failures yet you cultists behave as if they are accurate.

The models have been excellent. Anyone who says otherwise is pushing a falsehood.

Climate model projections compared to observations

Remember, you can fool your fellow cultists, being how they're all stupid and brainwashed as well. You can't fool us, because we're very intelligent, and we know what the science actually says.

 

[Crick]

There isn't a scientific institution on the planet that disputes AGW. The vast majority of climate scientists agree that AGW is happening. The scientists are not misleading us. That's actually what they believe based on what we know so far

NOBODY denies the planet is warming SLIGHTLY. They don't all agree on the degree Man is responsible. We are coming off an ice age (thank God). And the models are utter failures yet you cultists behave as if they are accurate.

You are the OP here, yet you gave me a "Thank You" on the graphic I posted showing your video was using bad data and that Hansen's 30 year old projection have held up very well. Did you misunderstand my post?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Only an ignoramus thinks AGW can be summed up in 12 minutes. You're trying to dispute the claims of people that have a much deeper understanding of these issues than you do. There is not an AGW conspiracy. The scientists are telling us what they actually believe based on all of the evidence they have observed. It takes an astounding amount of arrogance to say they're wrong when you know approximately dick compared to them.

LOL

 

[SSDD]

Only an ignoramus thinks AGW can be summed up in 12 minutes. You're trying to dispute the claims of people that have a much deeper understanding of these issues than you do. There is not an AGW conspiracy. The scientists are telling us what they actually believe based on all of the evidence they have observed. It takes an astounding amount of arrogance to say they're wrong when you know approximately dick compared to them.

You sound like one of those people who are very impressed by a degree...and think that because someone has one...or because a group of people have them, that they are infallible. I hate to burst your bubble, but a degree in climatology is not that impressive. Climatology is a soft science...it is a place for people who can't make it in the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, engineering and such.

And I am still waiting for a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...since you can't provide it, even if you are uneducated, you should at least possess enough critical thinking skills to wonder why,....and to ask yourself if they don't even have such basic evidence, exactly what is the consensus built upon.

But instead, like a true cultist, you rail against anyone who questions those whom you believe to be infallible...

 

[SSDD]

Again you cannot refute FACTS. You also continue the lie that everyone agrees. I'll wait for one of you cultists to refute these points. So far you've only exposed yourself

There isn't a scientific institution on the planet that disputes AGW. The vast majority of climate scientists agree that AGW is happening. The scientists are not misleading us. That's actually what they believe based on what we know so far.

There isn't a political head of a scientific institution who isn't on the AGW bandwagon...the only group who actually polled its members about their thoughts on AGW before issuing a statement got a great big surprise....it seemed that only the smallest minority of its membership actually agreed with the political face of the organization...so they don't ask the membership because they don't like the press that results in the political face of the organization being at such odds with the membership.

 

[deanrd]

Could you imagine 170 mile an hour tornadoes creating a 70 mile long path of devastation in Alabama this early in the year? What happens when we hit tornado season?

Can’t wait to see what Republicans come up with. Usually it’s things like god is punishing us for gay people and that kind of stuff.

That’s all they have because they don’t believe in science.

 

[Confounding]

Only an ignoramus thinks AGW can be summed up in 12 minutes. You're trying to dispute the claims of people that have a much deeper understanding of these issues than you do. There is not an AGW conspiracy. The scientists are telling us what they actually believe based on all of the evidence they have observed. It takes an astounding amount of arrogance to say they're wrong when you know approximately dick compared to them.

You sound like one of those people who are very impressed by a degree...and think that because someone has one...or because a group of people have them, that they are infallible. I hate to burst your bubble, but a degree in climatology is not that impressive. Climatology is a soft science...it is a place for people who can't make it in the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, engineering and such.

And I am still waiting for a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...since you can't provide it, even if you are uneducated, you should at least possess enough critical thinking skills to wonder why,....and to ask yourself if they don't even have such basic evidence, exactly what is the consensus built upon.

But instead, like a true cultist, you rail against anyone who questions those whom you believe to be infallible...

I'm one of those people that thinks the opinions of the most educated people should get the most consideration. They're not infallible, but they do know a hell of a lot more about it than either of us.

 

[Pilot1]

All the Leftists did was replace Communism with Man Made Climate Change in order to convince the weak minded that the cause was justified, noble, made them FEEL GOOD, and feel important.

 

[SSDD]

I took my first pause when I saw Hansen's 1985 model being compared with the UAH lower troposphere data. I've got a better idea. Let's compare Hansen's 1985 prediction to GISTEMP or HADCrut or NCDC and see how it looks:

UAH has had numerous calibration and orbital decline issues and Spencer and Christy have not corrected until their arms were twisted by the climate science community.

These data do NOT support a 0.5 dampening feedback.

Funny that you keep posting up hansen as if he had accomplished anything at all...his scenario C assumed that we actually cut back emissions....the reality is that CO2 emissions are about 20 to 25% higher than scenario A and you can see how far that prediction is off, had he figured on a 25% increase in CO2, then his scenario C 2ould have predicted an even higher temperature and he would have been even further off......then there is the fact that he failed to account for not one, but two large el nino events which effectively raised observed temperatures...it was just dumb luck that the el nino's came along and kept him from being even further off than he was...

Hansen's predictions have been an abject failure...but it appears that they are good enough to fool you...and that is a very low bar.....

 

[SSDD]

Only an ignoramus thinks AGW can be summed up in 12 minutes. You're trying to dispute the claims of people that have a much deeper understanding of these issues than you do. There is not an AGW conspiracy. The scientists are telling us what they actually believe based on all of the evidence they have observed. It takes an astounding amount of arrogance to say they're wrong when you know approximately dick compared to them.

You sound like one of those people who are very impressed by a degree...and think that because someone has one...or because a group of people have them, that they are infallible. I hate to burst your bubble, but a degree in climatology is not that impressive. Climatology is a soft science...it is a place for people who can't make it in the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, engineering and such.

And I am still waiting for a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...since you can't provide it, even if you are uneducated, you should at least possess enough critical thinking skills to wonder why,....and to ask yourself if they don't even have such basic evidence, exactly what is the consensus built upon.

But instead, like a true cultist, you rail against anyone who questions those whom you believe to be infallible...

I'm one of those people that thinks the opinions of most educated people should get the most consideration. They're not infallible, but they do know a hell of a lot more about it than either of us.

In science, especially a science involving an entity as imminently observable, and measurable as the atmosphere, and energy movement through it, an opinion means nothing...it is observed, measured evidence which carries weight...and you can't produce the first piece which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...all the opinion in the world on this topic without actual evidence is worthless...the fact that they express opinion rather than make their case with actual evidence should clue you in...but alas, it doesn't does it?