No Evidence

[jc456]

Evidence in great handfuls may be found in the scientific literature. The data, evidence and conclusions of that literature are neatly assessed by the IPCC in "The Physical Science Basis" which may be found at www.ipcc.ch. If you have any difficulty locating it or making your way through the document, do not hesitate to ask.

So you keep saying...but you can't bring a single piece of it here...not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...you are lying when you say it exists and we all know that you are lying...we all know that you would like nothing more than to slap me down with some such evidence...we also know that you can't..you are reduced to mewling and pewling and making claims that we all know you can't back up.....

And I have been asking for decades...none of the other liars like you were able to bring any actual observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over narwal variability either...the claim that you could help if I asked, is just one more lie in a very long and miserable string of lies that you tell here...day after day after day...

yep I did a search in the link he gave looking for AGW versus Natural variability and got nothing.

 

[jc456]

Evidence in great handfuls may be found in the scientific literature. The data, evidence and conclusions of that literature are neatly assessed by the IPCC in "The Physical Science Basis" which may be found at www.ipcc.ch. If you have any difficulty locating it or making your way through the document, do not hesitate to ask.

from your link!!!!
"Search Results
no results matching your search agw vs natural variability"


oops

 

[Crick]

God JC, are you stupid.

"The Physical Science Basis"

 

[SSDD]

God JC, are you stupid.

"The Physical Science Basis"

I am afraid that you are the stupid one skidmark...telling such a bald faced lie that is so easily detected....you think everyone who has ever seen you not deliver a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability doesn't know that you are lying when you say it is there?

You think that everyone who sees you stalking me around calling names in big bold red all caps doesn't know that there is nothing you would rather do than shove that single piece of data I have been asking for in my face to put me in my place?

You think the whole board isn't becoming aware of what a loser you are?

 

[Crick]

Do you actually think anyone believes your "no evidence" mantra? The claim is idiotic. And it is pure TROLL

 

[SSDD]

Do you actually think anyone believes your "no evidence" mantra? The claim is idiotic. And it is pure TROLL

1385 posts now and still not the first piece of actual observed, measured evidence to challenge any of the claims in the OP...let me reiterate...

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses in a single published paper.

Nearly 1400 posts and still nothing that even remotely challenges any of those 3 statements...what else are "thinking" people supposed to believe? If there were any such evidence, then surely it would have been posted up...it hasn't because it doesn't....

Now do I think the lack of actual observed measured evidence will convince people who are as stupid as you? People who operate from a position of faith? People who are drooling zealots who simply parrot what the people who gave you your opinion tell you to say? Of course not...you lack the brains necessary to see that an abject lack of evidence is a serious thing...

This thread was posted for thinking people who see the truth...not brain dead bots like yourself...

 

[Crick]

Same Shit numbers his lies so we can keep track of them. How nice of him.

TROLL

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you actually think anyone believes your "no evidence" mantra? The claim is idiotic. And it is pure TROLL

1385 posts now and still not the first piece of actual observed, measured evidence to challenge any of the claims in the OP...let me reiterate...

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses in a single published paper.

Nearly 1400 posts and still nothing that even remotely challenges any of those 3 statements...what else are "thinking" people supposed to believe? If there were any such evidence, then surely it would have been posted up...it hasn't because it doesn't....

Now do I think the lack of actual observed measured evidence will convince people who are as stupid as you? People who operate from a position of faith? People who are drooling zealots who simply parrot what the people who gave you your opinion tell you to say? Of course not...you lack the brains necessary to see that an abject lack of evidence is a serious thing...

This thread was posted for thinking people who see the truth...not brain dead bots like yourself...

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

DERP!

 

[Wuwei]

How can you possibly think anyone would give any merit to what you think when you do not believe science. Sad.

 

[SSDD]

Same Shit numbers his lies so we can keep track of them. How nice of him.

TROLL

Poor little skidmark...no evidence to support your claims...nothing but mewling name calling for the person who has driven you to this low state...nothing but hatred for the one who never fails to call bullshit knowing full well that you are not going to have any actual evidence whatsoever to support your claims...

 

[SSDD]

How can you possibly think anyone would give any merit to what you think when you do not believe science. Sad.

The fact that you wackos haven't managed to even remotely challenge a single one of them with anything like observed, measured evidence...or a published paper lends me all the credibility I need...

Who do you think actually takes your mewling and pewling seriously? You can either provide observed, measured evidence to challenge 1 or 2 or you can provide a paper which challenges #3...or you can not....and we all know by now that you can not...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How can you possibly think anyone would give any merit to what you think when you do not believe science. Sad.

The fact that you wackos haven't managed to even remotely challenge a single one of them with anything like observed, measured evidence...or a published paper lends me all the credibility I need...

Who do you think actually takes your mewling and pewling seriously? You can either provide observed, measured evidence to challenge 1 or 2 or you can provide a paper which challenges #3...or you can not....and we all know by now that you can not...

You have any published papers that say, explicitly, "one-way only flow of photons"?

Why not?

Weird.

 

[Wuwei]

You can either provide observed, measured evidence to challenge 1 or 2 or you can provide a paper which challenges #3...or you can not....and we all know by now that you can not...

You forgot Emily Foote's experiment
The American Journal o f Science and Arts Vol XXII Nov 1856, Pgs 382 - 383
The American Journal of Science and Arts

Also you never gave a scientific definition of natural variability. Just the usual insults.

 

[SSDD]

You can either provide observed, measured evidence to challenge 1 or 2 or you can provide a paper which challenges #3...or you can not....and we all know by now that you can not...

You forgot Emily Foote's experiment
The American Journal o f Science and Arts Vol XXII Nov 1856, Pgs 382 - 383
The American Journal of Science and Arts

Also you never gave a scientific definition of natural variability. Just the usual insults.

Evidence that water vapor can be warmed? You think that is evidence that air...gasses can be warmed? And I think it is a hoot that you wack jobs have to go back to quaint experiments done with poor instrumentation, and understanding of the movement of energy done in the 1800's and earlier in an attempt to find something...anything that you believe you can use to fool someone....anyone....

 

[jc456]

Do you actually think anyone believes your "no evidence" mantra? The claim is idiotic. And it is pure TROLL

1385 posts now and still not the first piece of actual observed, measured evidence to challenge any of the claims in the OP...let me reiterate...

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses in a single published paper.

Nearly 1400 posts and still nothing that even remotely challenges any of those 3 statements...what else are "thinking" people supposed to believe? If there were any such evidence, then surely it would have been posted up...it hasn't because it doesn't....

Now do I think the lack of actual observed measured evidence will convince people who are as stupid as you? People who operate from a position of faith? People who are drooling zealots who simply parrot what the people who gave you your opinion tell you to say? Of course not...you lack the brains necessary to see that an abject lack of evidence is a serious thing...

This thread was posted for thinking people who see the truth...not brain dead bots like yourself...

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

DERP!

Then post it. The fact you didn’t gives credence to his statement! Now that’s Derp

 

[jc456]

How can you possibly think anyone would give any merit to what you think when you do not believe science. Sad.

We all know no one will answer, there’s no evidence. 1400 posts proves the thread

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you actually think anyone believes your "no evidence" mantra? The claim is idiotic. And it is pure TROLL

1385 posts now and still not the first piece of actual observed, measured evidence to challenge any of the claims in the OP...let me reiterate...

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses in a single published paper.

Nearly 1400 posts and still nothing that even remotely challenges any of those 3 statements...what else are "thinking" people supposed to believe? If there were any such evidence, then surely it would have been posted up...it hasn't because it doesn't....

Now do I think the lack of actual observed measured evidence will convince people who are as stupid as you? People who operate from a position of faith? People who are drooling zealots who simply parrot what the people who gave you your opinion tell you to say? Of course not...you lack the brains necessary to see that an abject lack of evidence is a serious thing...

This thread was posted for thinking people who see the truth...not brain dead bots like yourself...

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

DERP!

Then post it. The fact you didn’t gives credence to his statement! Now that’s Derp

You need me to post his previous comments that CO2 absorbs IR and transfers energy to
other gasses via collision?

Why?

Have you forgotten?

 

[jc456]

too funny, you think the atmosphere makes the surface warmer. Then can't explain how it does that. Gotcha!!

The Sun makes the surface warmer. The atmosphere affects the rate of surface energy loss.

In the past I have gone over this in excruciating detail. You couldn't understand then, I am extremely doubtful that another attempt today would make any difference .

No, you posted cartoons showing radiation warming the surface from the atmosphere not the sun. You don’t remember funny

 

[SSDD]

Do you actually think anyone believes your "no evidence" mantra? The claim is idiotic. And it is pure TROLL

1385 posts now and still not the first piece of actual observed, measured evidence to challenge any of the claims in the OP...let me reiterate...

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses in a single published paper.

Nearly 1400 posts and still nothing that even remotely challenges any of those 3 statements...what else are "thinking" people supposed to believe? If there were any such evidence, then surely it would have been posted up...it hasn't because it doesn't....

Now do I think the lack of actual observed measured evidence will convince people who are as stupid as you? People who operate from a position of faith? People who are drooling zealots who simply parrot what the people who gave you your opinion tell you to say? Of course not...you lack the brains necessary to see that an abject lack of evidence is a serious thing...

This thread was posted for thinking people who see the truth...not brain dead bots like yourself...

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

DERP!

Then post it. The fact you didn’t gives credence to his statement! Now that’s Derp

You need me to post his previous comments that CO2 absorbs IR and transfers energy to
other gasses via collision?

Why?

Have you forgotten?

energy transfer via collision is called conduction....not radiation..there is no radiative greenhouse effect because not enough radiation moves through the troposphere to cause any observable effect...then there is the fact that IR can not warm the air...

 

[jc456]

Do you actually think anyone believes your "no evidence" mantra? The claim is idiotic. And it is pure TROLL

1385 posts now and still not the first piece of actual observed, measured evidence to challenge any of the claims in the OP...let me reiterate...

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses in a single published paper.

Nearly 1400 posts and still nothing that even remotely challenges any of those 3 statements...what else are "thinking" people supposed to believe? If there were any such evidence, then surely it would have been posted up...it hasn't because it doesn't....

Now do I think the lack of actual observed measured evidence will convince people who are as stupid as you? People who operate from a position of faith? People who are drooling zealots who simply parrot what the people who gave you your opinion tell you to say? Of course not...you lack the brains necessary to see that an abject lack of evidence is a serious thing...

This thread was posted for thinking people who see the truth...not brain dead bots like yourself...

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

DERP!

Then post it. The fact you didn’t gives credence to his statement! Now that’s Derp

You need me to post his previous comments that CO2 absorbs IR and transfers energy to
other gasses via collision?

Why?

Have you forgotten?

Nothing warming by IR. It was your line IR warms the atmosphere not conduction. Sounds like you don’t believe that any longer. It seems you can follow the dot.