Massive data manipulation by AGW industry!

[jc456]

so you're saying the ice covered the volcanoes too?

No, I didn't say anything like that.

jc, the problem with talking to you is that you're just a profoundly stupid human being. You fail completely at basic English and basic logic. Talking to you is like talking to a chimp. You're too stupid to be wasting the time of the grownups, and you're too stupid to understand how stupid you are.

All you are doing is reinforcing that CO2 follows temperature.

No, you just made an idiot story up. It's all you ever do.

You can't be saying that CO2 melted the snow are you?

Anyone who isn't a piss-chugging retard says that, as it's what the hard data says. You can keep denying the hard data, but it only makes you look dumber.

I take winning arguments as victory that I’m too smart for you. The volcanoes were either snow covered or they had absolutely nothing to do with recovery. And know also that as the planet warmed by the sun, as snow melted, CO2 was released! There’s no other option. Since you think there was shows your stupid!

 

[Crick]

How long have you been waiting to win an argument JC?

Have you ever considered moving to the side that actually wins arguments? The one with all the data and all the scientists behind it? Eh?

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 produces warming through an enhancement of the greenhouse effect.

Common retard... Post up empirical evidence of this "enhancement" I dare you! (we've been asking for years now)

EMPIRICAL, OBSERVED, REPEATABLE EVIDENCE..
The IPCC has lowered their climate sensitivity to zero..... So even they know it doesn't exist..

 

[Crick]

Empirical evidence that added CO2 causes increased global warming

And for someone using the term "retard". can I ask if you've gotten through that tough final in third grade yet?

 

[baileyn45]

No, there's no evidence saying that. That theory makes no sense. How could warming cause the oceans to release CO2 when the oceans were frozen?

Antarctic Ice core data shows exactly that, the CO2 lags by as much as 800 years. And the "snowball Earth theory" has hardly been proved.

The CO2, which came from volcanoes over millions of years, led the warming 500 million years ago.

Most of what I've read points to early life increasing CO2 levels at that period. Funny how there can be competing theories. But again, 500 million years ago we're talking 8000 ppm. Not 400.

And you haven't answered. How does your "CO2 is not a greenhouse gas" theory explain why earth came out of the snowball earth phase? You pseudoscience has no explanation for that, hence it's wrong.

No one is saying CO2 isn't a GHG. And again, "snowball Earth" is a theory, not necessarily a widely accepted theory at that.

This all comes down to the sensitivity of climate to CO2. Over the years I've seen estimates ranging fro 10 C to .7 C for a doubling of CO2. Currently I believe the IPCC folks are leaning toward 3.2 C, or somewhere in that range. Get back to me when someone has proof of their numbers. As yet no one has anything but estimates.

You pseudoscience has no explanation for that, hence it's wrong.

Pseudoscience? What pseudoscience would that be? Demanding proof, solid evidence? You have abandoned the scientific method. If theory one is incorrect theory 2 is correct? Illness is caused by bad spirits, no illness is caused by bad blood. Well we utilized the leeches so it's not bad blood therefore it must be the bad spirits. There is nothing that infuriates me more than people claiming to KNOW things that they don't. I have no doubt that in 50 years scientists will look back on today's crop of climatologists and think "what a bunch of morons". The science of climatology is in its infancy, they KNOW squat.

Can you show us denier here who doesn't embrace right wing politics?

Define right wing politics. Anyone to the right of chairman Mao? Look around, Ben Shapiro is cast as a neonazi. The give away is the yamaka, you know the Jewish skull cap worn by nazis. Ben Carson, a successful black neurosurgeon is a white supremacist. Yeesh. You really need to come up with a new political schtick. This one ain't working.

 

[Crick]

Empirical evidence that added CO2 causes increased global warming

And for someone using the term "retard". can I ask if you've gotten through that tough final in third grade yet?

Billy Bob. You said "Common ******... Post up empirical evidence of this "enhancement" I dare you! (we've been asking for years now)".

Anyone who's been here for years could tell you that the above data or any number of graphics with the same information have been posted numerous times on this forum. So have data like:

which show that CO2 absorbs some of the IR spectrum that the Earth radiates and, I believe, was posted on this forum by YOU within the last couple of weeks.

So, how did you come to conclude that no one had ever posted evidence of CO2 causing warming? Did you assume just about every scientist on the planet had accepted greenhouse warming and AGW without evidence that CO2 was, in fact, a greenhouse gas?

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey JC.....another graph with LOTS of color!!

 

[Crick]

A graph that Billy Bob posted not long ago. Do you think he shouldn't have?

 

[mamooth]

Antarctic Ice core data shows exactly that, the CO2 lags by as much as 800 years. And the "snowball Earth theory" has hardly been proved.

The topic was the snowball earth era, not the recent past. There is no evidence of what you claim in the snowball earth era. And, as I keep telling you, CO2 is a forcing and a feedback. You even agree with me about that later, when you say CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

No one is saying CO2 isn't a GHG..

You need to read this forum more, as the loudest deniers say exactly that, over and over.

This all comes down to the sensitivity of climate to CO2. Over the years I've seen estimates ranging fro 10 C to .7 C for a doubling of CO2. Currently I believe the IPCC folks are leaning toward 3.2 C, or somewhere in that range. Get back to me when someone has proof of their numbers. As yet no one has anything but estimates.

The low estimates are obviously wrong. Half a doubling of CO2 has caused 1.0C warming. That puts TCS around 2.0C. ECS has to be significantly bigger than TCS. The 3.0C estimates look pretty good, based on the past performance of earth's climate.

Pseudoscience? What pseudoscience would that be?

As you won't tell what your science is, I was being kind by calling it pseudoscience.

Demanding proof, solid evidence? You have abandoned the scientific method.

Evidence that we've provided, and which you haven't. We use the scientific method, while you declare you're above all that. Science accepts the best theory that explains all the observed evidence. That's AGW theory. If you want that changed, you'll need to to present a better theory. If you won't, nobody will pay attention to you. Needless to say, "You can't be sure of your theory!" is not a better alternate theory.

There is nothing that infuriates me more than people claiming to KNOW things that they don't.

Such as you "knowing" the science must be wrong, without having any evidence to back up that belief.

Define right wing politics. Anyone to the right of chairman Mao? Look around, Ben Shapiro is cast as a neonazi.

So you're not denying it, but you are trying to deflect.

The give away is the yamaka, you know the Jewish skull cap worn by nazis. Ben Carson, a successful black neurosurgeon is a white supremacist. Yeesh. You really need to come up with a new political schtick. This one ain't working.

Our side focuses on issues, because we can. Significant majorities agree with us on all the issues.

Your side can't discuss issues, being your policies are so unpopular. That's why you choose to deflect with faked stories about being called racists and Nazis. You rely primarily on tossing race cards (like Carson and Shapiro), using identity politics and throwing victimhood tantrums. I won't say you should change that if you want to stop losing, because that's not correct. You'll keep losing if you don't change, but you'll lose even bigger if you do change and start being honest about your policies. I will say you should change your policies, being they're so incompetent and immoral.

 

[jc456]

How long have you been waiting to win an argument JC?

Have you ever considered moving to the side that actually wins arguments? The one with all the data and all the scientists behind it? Eh?

I win consistently daily in here. so far you haven't posted one piece of observed data. Not one!!! dude, I win everyday you fail that one task. and you must certainly enjoy failing.

 

[baileyn45]

The topic was the snowball earth era, not the recent past. There is no evidence of what you claim in the snowball earth era. And, as I keep telling you, CO2 is a forcing and a feedback. You even agree with me about that later, when you say CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

I have as much evidence as you do as to what the climate was 550 million years ago and what caused it. Namely, nothing. Do a little reading, 10, 20, 30 years ago there were different theories.10,20,30 years from no there will be different theories. And
yet "YOU KNOW". You are now the arbiter, you are the one with the truth. Bite me. You "KNOW" nothing. Quit pretending that you do.

You need to read this forum more, as the loudest deniers say exactly that, over and over.

It's a forum, deal with it.

The question has never been whether GHGs can affect the planet's climate, the question is are GHGs the number one thing we should be worried about. The planet, within the last 1000 years has undergone massive climatic changes independent of CO2 levels. The possibility that other factors are involved? DENIER, DENIER, DENIER. No discussion allowed.

The low estimates are obviously wrong. Half a doubling of CO2 has caused 1.0C warming. That puts TCS around 2.0C. ECS has to be significantly bigger than TCS. The 3.0C estimates look pretty good, based on the past performance of earth's climate.

Our side focuses on issues, because we can. Significant majorities agree with us on all the issues.

Your side can't discuss issues, being your policies are so unpopular. That's why you choose to deflect with faked stories about being called racists and Nazis. You rely primarily on tossing race cards (like Carson and Shapiro), using identity politics and throwing victimhood tantrums. I won't say you should change that if you want to stop losing, because that's not correct. You'll keep losing if you don't change, but you'll lose even bigger if you do change and start being honest about your policies. I will say you should change your policies, being they're so incompetent and immoral.

Half of doubling of CO2 has caused a 1.0c warming. Prove it. This is at a time time the planet is coming out of the LIA. Prove it. The planet should be warming coming out of a cooler period. And much, maybe the majority, of the warming happened before AGHGs. Welcome to science, prove it. You can't, and you know you can't.

Evidence that we've provided, and which you haven't. We use the scientific method, while you declare you're above all that. Science accepts the best theory that explains all the observed evidence. That's AGW theory. If you want that changed, you'll need to to present a better theory. If you won't, nobody will pay attention to you. Needless to say, "You can't be sure of your theory!" is not a better alternate theory.

"Science accepts the best theory that explains...." You must be kidding. You obviously don't care for science. Science couldn't care less about theory, prove it or shut up.

Such as you "knowing" the science must be wrong, without having
any evidence to back up that belief.

I have offered nothing that I "KNOW". That would be you. I question what "YOU KNOW". prove it. You can't and you will not try. You will attack me personally. You will never even attempt to prove what you say,.Never, ever will. ''

The childish part....

So you're not denying it, but you are trying to deflect.

Of course not, I am to the right of Ch Mao. Of course, I haven't sent my parents to a reeducation/death camp yet, so that should be self evident.

Our side focuses on issues, because we can. Significant majorities agree with us on all the issues.

Your side can't discuss issues, being your policies are so unpopular. That's why you choose to deflect with faked stories about being called racists and Nazis. You rely primarily on tossing race cards (like Carson and Shapiro), using identity politics and throwing victimhood tantrums. I won't say you should change that if you want to stop losing, because that's not correct. You'll keep losing if you don't change, but you'll lose even bigger if you do change and start being honest about your policies. I will say you should change your policies, being they're so incompetent and immoral.

Now this is funny. Which issues do you focus on? Black lives? You know the small handful that are killed by police or the massive number that die by other black hands? Care to compare? I thought not. Now come on, make this about me being a racist. Don't worry about it, you know your echo chamber will back you up. Black people killing black people, white peoples fault, black people killing hispanics, white peoples fault, black people killing asians, white peoples fault. Rising sea levels? Can you prove it? RACISM. Global temps are they rising. Can you rove it . RACISM.

Nazis, russian bots, fascism, for the black folk off the reservation, internalised white supremacy, for the strong women, internalised misogyny, for everyone else the horrors, the absolute horror that someone might use he/she as opposed to zhe, zhsu pthryue, quadnefu, why(this is not a question it's a gender),or maybe not.

Perhaps you could tell me my "side". I'm male.misogynist, right? White, racist, right? Tell me.

You obviously know all, please let us all know the "proper' way to speak and think.

 

[Crick]

Little Ice Age - Wikipedia

Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this interval, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries.... [Viewed] hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late twentieth century levels.[1]

1) "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis". UNEP/GRID-Arendal. Archived from the original on 29 May 2006. Retrieved 2 August 2007.

The LIA is considered to have ended @1850. We are not "coming out" of it. TSI says the globe should be cooling but it is warming instead.

Evidence DOES exist as to the climate 550 million years ago. Current theories are the best available - that's how actual science works.

This says GHGs are the number one thing we should be worried about:

Science couldn't care less about theory, prove it or shut up.

- this indicates you're understanding of basic science is extraordinarily flawed.

You accuse Mamooth of having a political motivation then burst into a rant about black lives matter, black-on-black violence, black-on-Hispanic-violence, black-on-asian violence, Nazis, Russian bots, black fascism, internalized white supremacy, strong women, internalized misogyny, gender dynamics.

The impression you clearly give is that no one on this forum was the first to tell you you're a racist bigot.

The world is getting warmer. Mountains of evidence have convinced virtually all climate scientists that the primary cause is human GHG emissions. That warming represents a real threat to human well being. Effects are being seen now and we are rapidly approaching (or may have already passed) the point at which it is even possible to do anything about it. Given human reluctance to ever act as dramatically as the situation actually requires likely makes all this discussion moot, but that's another debate.

 

[skookerasbil]

I'm terribly sorry to break your bubble, but you've never won a single argument here that I've ever seen. You've annoyed people sufficiently that stopped talking to you or even left the forum altogether, but that's not the same thing as winning an argument.

Hmmm.....why then are you perpetually so pissed off in here when you post stuff while I am always laughing? We see daily head explosions from you in here! Does that happen with people who are winning?

 

[SSDD]

You want to see the sort of data manipulation and outright fraud that goes on within climate science...here...have a look...and by the way....this is just for the month of february this year....this sort of data fakery has made the global temperature record effectively worthless for anything other than supporting an alarmist narrative.

Pretty scary huh? It gives the impression that the earth will soon spontaneously combust...which is exactly the impression it is supposed to make whether it is true or not...

The map below shows the actual surface temperatures NOAA had to work with during february..

There is a great deal of infilling...and if you look at these charts often, you will invariably see that the hottest places on earth are those with the least instrumental coverage...that is...the record heat is not real...it is the product of data manipulation.

Look at South America for example...this gap in the instrumental coverage has been changed into one of the warmest places on earth...and contributes to the hysterical handwaving over record temperatures...the only record is the degree to which data is being faked to support an alarmist narrative...

Now take a look at northern China and Russia...and Australia....note how very cold temperatures have been warmed up and areas where data doesn't exist have been made warmer...

Look at the extent to which the midwest in the US and Canada has been warmed making the record cold in this region disappear completely.

Anyone who argues in defense of this sort of outright data manipulation and fraud is simply not to be believed...the evidence is clear, and there is so much of it that to deny gross manipulation of temperature data is simply a bald faced lie.

 

[SSDD]

Little Ice Age - Wikipedia

Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this interval, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries.... [Viewed] hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late twentieth century levels.[1]

1) "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis". UNEP/GRID-Arendal. Archived from the original on 29 May 2006. Retrieved 2 August 2007.

The LIA is considered to have ended @1850. We are not "coming out" of it. TSI says the globe should be cooling but it is warming instead.

Evidence DOES exist as to the climate 550 million years ago. Current theories are the best available - that's how actual science works.

This says GHGs are the number one thing we should be worried about:

Science couldn't care less about theory, prove it or shut up.

- this indicates you're understanding of basic science is extraordinarily flawed.

You accuse Mamooth of having a political motivation then burst into a rant about black lives matter, black-on-black violence, black-on-Hispanic-violence, black-on-asian violence, Nazis, Russian bots, black fascism, internalized white supremacy, strong women, internalized misogyny, gender dynamics.

The impression you clearly give is that no one on this forum was the first to tell you you're a racist bigot.

The world is getting warmer. Mountains of evidence have convinced virtually all climate scientists that the primary cause is human GHG emissions. That warming represents a real threat to human well being. Effects are being seen now and we are rapidly approaching (or may have already passed) the point at which it is even possible to do anything about it. Given human reluctance to ever act as dramatically as the situation actually requires likely makes all this discussion moot, but that's another debate.

Your idiot chart is all the product of failed computer models...non of it is real, and none of it is supported by anything like observed, measured data...only people who are easily fooled believe such tripe...

 

[jc456]

Empirical evidence that added CO2 causes increased global warming

And for someone using the term "retard". can I ask if you've gotten through that tough final in third grade yet?

Billy Bob. You said "Common ******... Post up empirical evidence of this "enhancement" I dare you! (we've been asking for years now)".

Anyone who's been here for years could tell you that the above data or any number of graphics with the same information have been posted numerous times on this forum. So have data like:

which show that CO2 absorbs some of the IR spectrum that the Earth radiates and, I believe, was posted on this forum by YOU within the last couple of weeks.

So, how did you come to conclude that no one had ever posted evidence of CO2 causing warming? Did you assume just about every scientist on the planet had accepted greenhouse warming and AGW without evidence that CO2 was, in fact, a greenhouse gas?

and not one of your posts with observed empirical data.

Models baby, you probably sleep with the models. I don't care,

 

[jc456]

Antarctic Ice core data shows exactly that, the CO2 lags by as much as 800 years. And the "snowball Earth theory" has hardly been proved.

The topic was the snowball earth era, not the recent past. There is no evidence of what you claim in the snowball earth era. And, as I keep telling you, CO2 is a forcing and a feedback. You even agree with me about that later, when you say CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

No one is saying CO2 isn't a GHG..

You need to read this forum more, as the loudest deniers say exactly that, over and over.

This all comes down to the sensitivity of climate to CO2. Over the years I've seen estimates ranging fro 10 C to .7 C for a doubling of CO2. Currently I believe the IPCC folks are leaning toward 3.2 C, or somewhere in that range. Get back to me when someone has proof of their numbers. As yet no one has anything but estimates.

The low estimates are obviously wrong. Half a doubling of CO2 has caused 1.0C warming. That puts TCS around 2.0C. ECS has to be significantly bigger than TCS. The 3.0C estimates look pretty good, based on the past performance of earth's climate.

Pseudoscience? What pseudoscience would that be?

As you won't tell what your science is, I was being kind by calling it pseudoscience.

Demanding proof, solid evidence? You have abandoned the scientific method.

Evidence that we've provided, and which you haven't. We use the scientific method, while you declare you're above all that. Science accepts the best theory that explains all the observed evidence. That's AGW theory. If you want that changed, you'll need to to present a better theory. If you won't, nobody will pay attention to you. Needless to say, "You can't be sure of your theory!" is not a better alternate theory.

There is nothing that infuriates me more than people claiming to KNOW things that they don't.

Such as you "knowing" the science must be wrong, without having any evidence to back up that belief.

Define right wing politics. Anyone to the right of chairman Mao? Look around, Ben Shapiro is cast as a neonazi.

So you're not denying it, but you are trying to deflect.

The give away is the yamaka, you know the Jewish skull cap worn by nazis. Ben Carson, a successful black neurosurgeon is a white supremacist. Yeesh. You really need to come up with a new political schtick. This one ain't working.

Our side focuses on issues, because we can. Significant majorities agree with us on all the issues.

Your side can't discuss issues, being your policies are so unpopular. That's why you choose to deflect with faked stories about being called racists and Nazis. You rely primarily on tossing race cards (like Carson and Shapiro), using identity politics and throwing victimhood tantrums. I won't say you should change that if you want to stop losing, because that's not correct. You'll keep losing if you don't change, but you'll lose even bigger if you do change and start being honest about your policies. I will say you should change your policies, being they're so incompetent and immoral.

well you just post up all that observed empirical data and then we'll talk. until then, that was as good as a poopy diaper in a trash can.

 

[jc456]

I'm terribly sorry to break your bubble, but you've never won a single argument here that I've ever seen. You've annoyed people sufficiently that stopped talking to you or even left the forum altogether, but that's not the same thing as winning an argument.

well until you post that observed empirical data that shows AGW. I win. as do each of the other skeptics in here. Winning

 

[jc456]

I'm terribly sorry to break your bubble, but you've never won a single argument here that I've ever seen. You've annoyed people sufficiently that stopped talking to you or even left the forum altogether, but that's not the same thing as winning an argument.

Hmmm.....why then are you perpetually so pissed off in here when you post stuff while I am always laughing? We see daily head explosions from you in here! Does that happen with people who are winning?

You have won no arguments here. You're generally given the same consideration one would give the town drunk.

and yet, still no observed measured empirical data to prove AGW. And I wanted to thank you for colorful graphs that show me you haven't a clue of what you are doing. just saying. don't take it too hard.

 

[Meister]

Cleaned up the thread, please keep it on topic going forward