More bad poll news for the k00ks!!!

[Old Rocks]

So that is why every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger? Because it is not a proven fact?

And yet, you and yours are completely unable to provide the claimed proof. How silly does that make you feel? If it is a proven fact then lets see the proof.

By the way, your claim of all scientific societies stating that AGW is real smacks of intellectual dishonesty. The political heads of the societies state that AGW is real. Survey the scientists who make up the scientific society and you get an entirely different story.

Now Bender, were you to read what the scientists have really said, you would see that they proved the corelation between GHGs and atmospheric heat well over a century ago.
Once again, you fail to back your so backward opinions with anything from real scientists. You are just another freaked out ditto-head without the slightest knowledge of what you are talking a about. A broken sewer pipe spewing 'talking points'.

 

[Old Rocks]

"Believe it cuz I said to and there's no time for RESEARCH! If you don't already know it, there's no point in telling you how it happens! It just happens! That's all you need to know!"

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now Allie, there is plenty of articles that present the case for AGW. But you will not read them as they would collide with your alternative view of reality.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Old Rocks]

Funny thing is, these GW threads always turn into mirror images of the loony troofer threads

The gullible GW loons are just as funny as the troofer loons. And like the troofer loons, they have a bunch o' shysters making big bucks off of the gullible.....Algore is no doubt laughing all the way to the bank.

Stupid ass. Gore made most of his money on Google stock. And nothing at all to do with the ongoing research concerning climate.

As for the rest of your twaddle, you reveal yourself to be a ignorant ass.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Once those E-mails surfaced, there is no reason whatsoever to believe these GW loons claims.

Once the Himilayan Glacier lies were exposed, all credibility was completely lost.

It's a fuckin' scam, people!....Put out by the Algore's, the lobbyists, and the special interest groups who stand to make big bucks based on this fraud.

 

[Old Rocks]

And you are one fuckin' dumb ass, Jess.

Global glacier retreat

 

[RollingThunder]

Once those E-mails surfaced, there is no reason whatsoever to believe these GW loons claims.

Once the Himilayan(sic) Glacier lies were exposed, all credibility was completely lost.

It's a fuckin' scam, people!....Put out by the Algore's, the lobbyists, and the special interest groups who stand to make big bucks based on this fraud.

Like most braindead denier cultists, you continually repeat nonsense that has already been debunked many times.

Try going back and re-reading post #42 again before you make yourself look like such an idiot again.

 

[westwall]

And you are one fuckin' dumb ass, Jess.

Global glacier retreat

BATTER UP!

Advancing Glacier Coming Close to Blocking Fiord Near Yakutat, Alaska

Some Himalayan glaciers are advancing rather than melting, study finds - Telegraph

Glaciers Advancing or Retreating?, Alaska Science Forum

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Himal...espite-global-warming/H1-Article1-654581.aspx

Some Himalayan glaciers advancing: study › News in Science (ABC Science)

SwissEduc: Glaciers Online - Glaciers of the World

Going, going, going....GONE! It's outa da park!

 

[westwall]

Once those E-mails surfaced, there is no reason whatsoever to believe these GW loons claims.

Once the Himilayan(sic) Glacier lies were exposed, all credibility was completely lost.

It's a fuckin' scam, people!....Put out by the Algore's, the lobbyists, and the special interest groups who stand to make big bucks based on this fraud.

Like most braindead denier cultists, you continually repeat nonsense that has already been debunked many times.

Try going back and re-reading post #42 again before you make yourself look like such an idiot again.

But we're trying so hard to descend to your level! Which is bloody hard! It's hard for smart people to lower themselves to your level, slightly above a gnat. It really is!

 

[polarbear]

Evidently.........despite having a HUGE propaganda advantge in the major media, most people think the global warming threat is pretty much BS. And think about it.........at least half of those who do are the hysterical types out there who buy anything the media says hook, line and stinker!!!


Worldwide, only 42 percent told Gallup they believed global warming was either a “somewhat serious” or “very serious” threat. Gallup did not publish the separate percentages for each answer.

In the United States, 53 percent said they believed global warming was a “somewhat serious” or “very serious” threat to themselves and their families. That was down from 63 percent in polling that Gallup did on the question in the United States in 2007 and 2008.


But really........seems me and the majority of folks ( what does Rocks refer to them as??)......who by the way just finished freezing their asses off for 6 months after being buried in snow for 9 weeks just said when this question was posed..................

I love that picture.

..is it Okay with You if I borrow that some day?

You must have killed another sacred cow here, or made road kill out of another flock of headless chickens which were in the fast lane...
All I could see when I passed by was feathers flying...so I have only sparse details about Your vehicular homicide here...:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Old Rocks (Yesterday)
View Post Old 04-26-2011, 04:17 PM
RollingThunder
This message is hidden because RollingThunder is on your ignore list.
Old Yesterday, 01:15 PM
Old Rocks
This message is hidden because Old Rocks is on your ignore list.
View Post Yesterday, 01:19 PM
Old Yesterday, 01:31 PM
Old Rocks
This message is hidden because Old Rocks is on your ignore list.
View Post Old Yesterday, 01:34 PM
Old Rocks
This message is hidden because Old Rocks is on your ignore list.
View Post Old Yesterday, 01:44 PM
Old Rocks
This message is hidden because Old Rocks is on your ignore list.
View Post Old Yesterday, 01:46 PM
Old Rocks
This message is hidden because Old Rocks is on your ignore list.
View Post Old Yesterday, 01:49 PM
Old Rocks
This message is hidden because Old Rocks is on your ignore list.
View Post Old Yesterday, 04:36 PM
RollingThunder
This message is hidden because RollingThunder is on your ignore list.
Old Rocks
This message is hidden because Old Rocks is on your ignore list.
View Post Old Today, 03:31 PM
Old Rocks
This message is hidden because Old Rocks is on your ignore list.
View Post Old Today, 03:39 PM
Old Rocks
This message is hidden because Old Rocks is on your ignore list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


But It`s not all that hard to figure that out
They were already on their "New York is flooding soon " Noah`s Ark which they built at great expense

and were waiting for the ocean to rise 3 millimeters + or minus 0.4 millimeters per Year:

Waiting and waiting and waiting for their prophecy to become a reality ...in vain,..then one of them decided to piss into the ocean and noted the increase...it wasn`t quite as they hoped...
Then the other one pissed overboard too...
With Glow Ball Math...:

You can show that the increase in ocean water level had doubled just then...and so did the piss content in the ocean...

A vote was taken amongst the passengers of their Ark and X % who were asked in a Gallup Poll sample of XYZ agreed with these findings...

Of course no one dared asking how many %X is out of Y and Z...:

Nor would they be able to figure out anything beyond their milk maid mathematics :

What is N where N=X times (X-1) for the entire range from X=any number N to X=1 ?

And that`s exactly where they are heading as well

 

[IanC]

You can fool some of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

BUT, regardless of who you fool, REALITY doesn't give a rat's ass.

Reality doen't care what people think about it.

The reality is that anyone who believes a trace gas with no mechanism by which to absorb and retain energy can drive the earth's climate has been well and truely fooled.

That's your delusion because you're the fool. Scientists know better. Even scientists who dispute AGW know better.

Dr. Roy Spencer who runs the satellite monitoring program at the University of Alabama Huntsville, is a skeptic of AGW, one of the very few actual climate scientists who's still skeptical, and here's what he has to say about CO2 and the greenhouse effect.

In Defense of the Greenhouse Effect
April 1st, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
(excerpt)

The greenhouse effect is supported by laboratory measurements of the radiative absorption properties of different gases, which when put into a radiative transfer model that conserves energy, and combined with convective overturning of the atmosphere in response to solar heating, results in a vertical temperature profile that looks very much like the one we observe in nature.


***

thanks for citing a very informative article. everyone here should read it. my favourite portion is....

To briefly review: because water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane in the atmosphere absorb and emit infrared radiation, the atmosphere stays warmer in the lower atmosphere and cooler in the upper atmosphere than it would otherwise be without the greenhouse effect.

Even though the physical process involved in this is radiative, the greenhouse blanket around the Earth is somewhat analogous to a real blanket, which we all know tends to hold heat in where it is being generated, and reduce its flow toward the colder surroundings. A blanket – real or greenhouse — doesn’t actually create the separation between hot and cold…it just reduces the rate at which energy is lost by the hot, and gained by the cold.

In the case of the Earth, most sunlight is absorbed at the surface, which then heats and moistens the air above it. This solar heating causes the lower atmosphere to warm, and the greenhouse effect of the water vapor thus generated helps keep the lower atmosphere warm by reducing its rate of cooling. (Long before radiation can make the surface too warm, though, convective air currents kick in…e.g. thunderstorms…and transport much of the excess heat from the lower to the upper atmosphere. As a result, the lower atmosphere never gets as warm as the greenhouse effect ‘wants’ to make it.)

and that is the reason why climate sensitivities are exaggerated, because GCMs calculate the numbers for extra heat without acknowledging that that same heat affects the other heat shedding mechanisms as well.

 

[polarbear]

The reality is that anyone who believes a trace gas with no mechanism by which to absorb and retain energy can drive the earth's climate has been well and truely fooled.

That's your delusion because you're the fool. Scientists know better. Even scientists who dispute AGW know better.

Dr. Roy Spencer who runs the satellite monitoring program at the University of Alabama Huntsville, is a skeptic of AGW, one of the very few actual climate scientists who's still skeptical, and here's what he has to say about CO2 and the greenhouse effect.

In Defense of the Greenhouse Effect
April 1st, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
(excerpt)

The greenhouse effect is supported by laboratory measurements of the radiative absorption properties of different gases, which when put into a radiative transfer model that conserves energy, and combined with convective overturning of the atmosphere in response to solar heating, results in a vertical temperature profile that looks very much like the one we observe in nature.


***

thanks for citing a very informative article. everyone here should read it. my favourite portion is....

To briefly review: because water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane in the atmosphere absorb and emit infrared radiation, the atmosphere stays warmer in the lower atmosphere and cooler in the upper atmosphere than it would otherwise be without the greenhouse effect.

Even though the physical process involved in this is radiative, the greenhouse blanket around the Earth is somewhat analogous to a real blanket, which we all know tends to hold heat in where it is being generated, and reduce its flow toward the colder surroundings. A blanket – real or greenhouse — doesn’t actually create the separation between hot and cold…it just reduces the rate at which energy is lost by the hot, and gained by the cold.

In the case of the Earth, most sunlight is absorbed at the surface, which then heats and moistens the air above it. This solar heating causes the lower atmosphere to warm, and the greenhouse effect of the water vapor thus generated helps keep the lower atmosphere warm by reducing its rate of cooling. (Long before radiation can make the surface too warm, though, convective air currents kick in…e.g. thunderstorms…and transport much of the excess heat from the lower to the upper atmosphere. As a result, the lower atmosphere never gets as warm as the greenhouse effect ‘wants’ to make it.)

and that is the reason why climate sensitivities are exaggerated, because GCMs calculate the numbers for extra heat without acknowledging that that same heat affects the other heat shedding mechanisms as well.

By now after all these posts in all these threads everyone should know how radiation of any kind is absorbed and how it is actually measured, versus Glow Ball computer models.

If a gas absorbs energy the spectral range where it can everything outside that narrow frequency band goes right by it as if this gas was not even there.

And every body should be familiar by now just how narrow that CO2 IR spectral band is.

But it seems no-one is realizing that the portion of the radiation that the gas did absorb never made it through to the other end either

After all, that`s how any spectroscpic instrument does measure % absorption.
You compare a reference beam at the same wavelength that did not pass through the gas with a second beam from a "beam splitter" and measure the amount of energy that did not come out at the other end of the second path which did pass through the gas.

The difference in transmitted between the 2 beams is % absorption...
Glow Ball "physics computer models" however have the "sample beam" passing through the absorbing gas then encountering the earth`s surface as if nothing of the energy was missing at all and then either heating up a surface or reflecting it back and doing the same magic again on the way up as if nothing had been subtracted from the energy on the first pass coming down...

I do know, because
1.) I do know how Spectroscopy works, how to use it, calibrate it and apply it.
2.) I follow up on the math EVERYONE of these screwy computer models does apply...
and get regular e-mail updates,....

That`s easier than You think...all You have to do is write a few blogs posing as yet another interested idiot who believes this crap and the authors of these **** head models oblige You eagerly, just as long as you keep it up blogging their crap in a convincing manner..

Try it out, it worked for me, just don`t expect me to tell You which of these blogs is mine...
because I do love these e-mail updates

 

[RollingThunder]

The reality is that anyone who believes a trace gas with no mechanism by which to absorb and retain energy can drive the earth's climate has been well and truely fooled.

That's your delusion because you're the fool. Scientists know better. Even scientists who dispute AGW know better.

Dr. Roy Spencer who runs the satellite monitoring program at the University of Alabama Huntsville, is a skeptic of AGW, one of the very few actual climate scientists who's still skeptical, and here's what he has to say about CO2 and the greenhouse effect.

In Defense of the Greenhouse Effect
April 1st, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
(excerpt)

The greenhouse effect is supported by laboratory measurements of the radiative absorption properties of different gases, which when put into a radiative transfer model that conserves energy, and combined with convective overturning of the atmosphere in response to solar heating, results in a vertical temperature profile that looks very much like the one we observe in nature.


***

thanks for citing a very informative article. everyone here should read it. my favourite portion is....

To briefly review: because water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane in the atmosphere absorb and emit infrared radiation, the atmosphere stays warmer in the lower atmosphere and cooler in the upper atmosphere than it would otherwise be without the greenhouse effect.

Even though the physical process involved in this is radiative, the greenhouse blanket around the Earth is somewhat analogous to a real blanket, which we all know tends to hold heat in where it is being generated, and reduce its flow toward the colder surroundings. A blanket – real or greenhouse — doesn’t actually create the separation between hot and cold…it just reduces the rate at which energy is lost by the hot, and gained by the cold.

In the case of the Earth, most sunlight is absorbed at the surface, which then heats and moistens the air above it. This solar heating causes the lower atmosphere to warm, and the greenhouse effect of the water vapor thus generated helps keep the lower atmosphere warm by reducing its rate of cooling. (Long before radiation can make the surface too warm, though, convective air currents kick in…e.g. thunderstorms…and transport much of the excess heat from the lower to the upper atmosphere. As a result, the lower atmosphere never gets as warm as the greenhouse effect ‘wants’ to make it.)

and that is the reason why climate sensitivities are exaggerated, because GCMs calculate the numbers for extra heat without acknowledging that that same heat affects the other heat shedding mechanisms as well.

No, that's just your ignorance talking. You have no idea what factors are included in the climate models.

 

[westwall]

That's your delusion because you're the fool. Scientists know better. Even scientists who dispute AGW know better.

Dr. Roy Spencer who runs the satellite monitoring program at the University of Alabama Huntsville, is a skeptic of AGW, one of the very few actual climate scientists who's still skeptical, and here's what he has to say about CO2 and the greenhouse effect.

In Defense of the Greenhouse Effect
April 1st, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
(excerpt)

The greenhouse effect is supported by laboratory measurements of the radiative absorption properties of different gases, which when put into a radiative transfer model that conserves energy, and combined with convective overturning of the atmosphere in response to solar heating, results in a vertical temperature profile that looks very much like the one we observe in nature.


***

thanks for citing a very informative article. everyone here should read it. my favourite portion is....

To briefly review: because water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane in the atmosphere absorb and emit infrared radiation, the atmosphere stays warmer in the lower atmosphere and cooler in the upper atmosphere than it would otherwise be without the greenhouse effect.

Even though the physical process involved in this is radiative, the greenhouse blanket around the Earth is somewhat analogous to a real blanket, which we all know tends to hold heat in where it is being generated, and reduce its flow toward the colder surroundings. A blanket – real or greenhouse — doesn’t actually create the separation between hot and cold…it just reduces the rate at which energy is lost by the hot, and gained by the cold.

In the case of the Earth, most sunlight is absorbed at the surface, which then heats and moistens the air above it. This solar heating causes the lower atmosphere to warm, and the greenhouse effect of the water vapor thus generated helps keep the lower atmosphere warm by reducing its rate of cooling. (Long before radiation can make the surface too warm, though, convective air currents kick in…e.g. thunderstorms…and transport much of the excess heat from the lower to the upper atmosphere. As a result, the lower atmosphere never gets as warm as the greenhouse effect ‘wants’ to make it.)

and that is the reason why climate sensitivities are exaggerated, because GCMs calculate the numbers for extra heat without acknowledging that that same heat affects the other heat shedding mechanisms as well.

No, that's just your ignorance talking. You have no idea what factors are included in the climate models.

Here's a clue....NEITHER DO THE ALARMISTS!

 

[RollingThunder]

And you are one fuckin' dumb ass, Jess.

Global glacier retreat

BATTER UP!

Advancing Glacier Coming Close to Blocking Fiord Near Yakutat, Alaska

Some Himalayan glaciers are advancing rather than melting, study finds - Telegraph

Glaciers Advancing or Retreating?, Alaska Science Forum

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Himal...espite-global-warming/H1-Article1-654581.aspx

Some Himalayan glaciers advancing: study › News in Science (ABC Science)

SwissEduc: Glaciers Online - Glaciers of the World

Going, going, going....GONE! It's outa da park!

The only thing "gone" is your brains, you silly retard. You just posted this nonsense and I reamed your ass over it in post #51, remember? I guess you can't remember but what can we expect from someone as retarded as you obviously are. So here it is again, just for the morons who didn't read it the first time. The articles you cite, walleyed, don't even support your idiocy and the science is totally against you. Why did you imagine that cutting and pasting this nonsense from some denier cult blog would be any more believable after it's been debunked than it was before? Perhaps you're not just retarded, perhaps you're actually somewhat insane.

Advancing Glacier Coming Close to Blocking Fiord Near Yakutat, Alaska

Most Alaskan Glaciers Retreating, Thinning, and Stagnating, Says Major USGS Report
Released: 10/6/2008
Most glaciers in every mountain range and island group in Alaska are experiencing significant retreat, thinning or stagnation, especially glaciers at lower elevations, according to a new book published by the U.S. Geological Survey. Although more than 99 percent of Alaska's large glaciers are retreating, a handful, surprisingly, are advancing.

Some Himalayan glaciers are advancing rather than melting, study finds - Telegraph

From the article: (excerpt) - "• This report has been amended since it was first posted. The original headline and first paragraph may have left the mistaken impression that Himalayan glaciers in general are advancing rather than shrinking. We wish to confirm, as was made clear further on in the original article, that this finding related to only one of the areas studied, the Karakoram range, where it was found that rocks and mud on the surface of glaciers are helping to protect them from melting."

Glaciers Advancing or Retreating?, Alaska Science Forum

Once again - Most Alaskan Glaciers Retreating, Thinning, and Stagnating, Says Major USGS Report
Released: 10/6/2008
Most glaciers in every mountain range and island group in Alaska are experiencing significant retreat, thinning or stagnation, especially glaciers at lower elevations, according to a new book published by the U.S. Geological Survey. Although more than 99 percent of Alaska's large glaciers are retreating, a handful, surprisingly, are advancing.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Himal...espite-global-warming/H1-Article1-654581.aspx

From the article: (excerpt) - "They found wide variations in the response of glaciers in the different parts of the Himalayas to climate change.

The research paper argues that the variations are a result of differences in the debris cover enjoyed by different glaciers – a factor that has so far been neglected while studying the impact of climate change on glaciers.

The scientists found that while more than 65% of all Himalayan glaciers studied were retreating, the glaciers in the Tibetan plateau, where debris cover is largely absent, are retreating fastest."

Some Himalayan glaciers advancing: study › News in Science (ABC Science)

From the article: (excerpt) - Some Himalayan glaciers are advancing despite an overall retreat...The report says 58 per cent of glaciers examined in the westerly Karakoram range of the Himalayas were stable or advancing, perhaps because they were influenced by cool westerly winds than the monsoon from the Indian Ocean.

Elsewhere in the Himalayas "more than 65 per cent of the monsoon-influenced glaciers ... are retreating," they write in the journal Nature Geoscience of the satellite study from 2000 to 2008. Some glaciers that were stable in length were covered by a thick layer of rocky debris.

"Overall in the Himalayas, the glaciers are retreating," says lead author Dirk Scherler of the University of Potsdam in Germany.

Worldwide, most glaciers are shrinking from the Alps to the Andes in a trend blamed by the IPCC on greenhouse gases from human activities, led by the burning of fossil fuels.

Debris in the Himalayas - darker than ice and so soaking up more of the Sun's energy - tended to quicken a thaw if it was less than 2 centimetres thick. But a thicker layer on some Himalayan glaciers acted as insulation, slowing the melt.

Among complexities, some debris-covered glaciers that are stable in length might be getting thinner and so losing water overall, he says. That trend had been shown by past studies of the Khumbu glacier on Mount Everest, for instance.

© 2011 ABC

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

SwissEduc: Glaciers Online - Glaciers of the World

Swiss glaciers melting faster than ever before: study
Jun 22, 2009
(excerpt)

Switzerland's glaciers shrank by 12 percent over the past decade, melting at their fastest rate due to rising temperatures and lighter snowfalls, a study by the Swiss university ETH showed Monday.

"The last decade was the worst decade that we have had in the last 150 years. We lost a lot of water," said Daniel Farinotti, research assistant at the ETH.

"The trend is definitely that glaciers are melting faster now. Since the end of the 1980s, they have lost more and more mass more quickly," he said.

© Thomson Reuters 2011

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Wow, four year old stories. There's way more accurate stories out there that are actually current. Try using those.

So, walleyedretard, just when are you going to show us all these "more accurate stories that are actually current" and that supersede all the previous science. Go ahead, "try using those". LOLOLOLOLOL. As I said before, it is "your inevitable inability to back up your wild and very idiotic claims is one of the funniest things about you." And you still can't back anything up with evidence.

 

[wirebender]

That's your delusion because you're the fool. Scientists know better. Even scientists who dispute AGW know better.

Dr. Roy Spencer who runs the satellite monitoring program at the University of Alabama Huntsville, is a skeptic of AGW, one of the very few actual climate scientists who's still skeptical, and here's what he has to say about CO2 and the greenhouse effect.

And yet, he can't offer up any proof that he is right. He has attempted experiments to prove backradiation but they have all failed. He states that he believes it even though he can't prove it.

The greenhouse effect is supported by laboratory measurements of the radiative absorption properties of different gases, which when put into a radiative transfer model that conserves energy, and combined with convective overturning of the atmosphere in response to solar heating, results in a vertical temperature profile that looks very much like the one we observe in nature.


***

Translate = models tell us it is true so it must be true. There is no proof there. All that statement says is that your "scientists" have faith in models and we all know that the models are notoriously inaccurate.

By the way, the vertical temperature profile produced by models your "scientist" speaks of is not at all like the vertical temperature profile observed in nature as evidenced by the missing hot spot that all models predict.

 

[RollingThunder]

thanks for citing a very informative article. everyone here should read it. my favourite portion is....

and that is the reason why climate sensitivities are exaggerated, because GCMs calculate the numbers for extra heat without acknowledging that that same heat affects the other heat shedding mechanisms as well.

No, that's just your ignorance talking. You have no idea what factors are included in the climate models.

Here's a clue....NEITHER DO THE ALARMISTS!

And here's more of the walleyedretard's craziness. Scientists know exactly what factors are included in the climate models because they wrote them, you idiot.

 

[wirebender]

Now Bender, were you to read what the scientists have really said, you would see that they proved the corelation between GHGs and atmospheric heat well over a century ago.

And yet, you are completely unable to provide any actual proof to support your statement. I keep asking for proof and you remain unable to provide it. Get a clue. The proof you believe in simply does not exist.

You claim there is proof, then post it. Or admit that your position is simply one of faith.

 

[wirebender]

"Believe it cuz I said to and there's no time for RESEARCH! If you don't already know it, there's no point in telling you how it happens! It just happens! That's all you need to know!"

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now Allie, there is plenty of articles that present the case for AGW. But you will not read them as they would collide with your alternative view of reality.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Which part of that blog that you keep linking to do you believe constitutes proof? You want some actual, peer reviewed science regarding the greenhouse hypothesis? Here, have a look.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

 

[wirebender]

No, that's just your ignorance talking. You have no idea what factors are included in the climate models.

Here's a clue....NEITHER DO THE ALARMISTS!

And here's more of the walleyedretard's craziness. Scientists know exactly what factors are included in the climate models because they wrote them, you idiot.

Climate models don't include clouds or water vapor as there is not enough computer power available at this time, or sufficient knowledge of the atmospheric system to include them. Any model that fails to include the most signifigant climate forcings simply can't be trusted.

Climate models also do not include soot and black carbon, or the effects of forest or grass fires, they don't include the dying off of vegetation, hell, they don't even include the rotation of the earth. They don't include precipitation and its various effects, they don't include decadal variability, el nino, la nina, or the pacific decadal ociillation. They don't include volcanic effects or solar variability. They don't include deforestation and land use changes, white TSI noise, earth albido noise or any other forcing noise. they don't include Milankovic cycles, or even convection and a host of other atmospheric effects that are not well understood.

The easier question to answer is what do climate models include?

 

[westwall]

No, that's just your ignorance talking. You have no idea what factors are included in the climate models.

Here's a clue....NEITHER DO THE ALARMISTS!

And here's more of the walleyedretard's craziness. Scientists know exactly what factors are included in the climate models because they wrote them, you idiot.

You have just made the ultimate mistake my friend. You rely on the alarmists climate models and they can't re-create the weather that occured 5 days ago. The models are completely incapable of accurately recreating what we know occured.

In the scientiic community following the Scientific Principle the computer model is the hypothesis. It has been tested and it has failed every time it has been tried. That means the hypothsis itself is a failure. It does not accurately represent what is observed in the actual wolrd. No climate model is capable of predicting even the simplest sequence of events for a period of one week.

They all fail miserably. Until they can create a model that can do just the simplest re-creation of past weather or climate there is zero chance they can predict the future. An intelligent person can understand that.