Only 52% of Meteorologists/Atmospheric Experts Believe in AGW

[RDD_1210]

So you trust NASA or not?

This is where you avoid answering the question and expose yourself for the hypocrite you are.

As predicted Kosh bails on answering this question and the thread.

You people have literally ZERO integrity. None.

I see that you can not admit the models are wrong, are you going to own up to being wrong?

Is NASA an authority on this topic?

 

[RDD_1210]

NASA Says Computer Models Wrong About Climate Change

NASA Says Computer Models Wrong About Climate Change - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Oh, so NASA is an opinion we should trust on Global climate change?

Actually --- that's completely correct.. Does the name James Hansen ring a bell?
He's just the Pied Piper of Global Warming. And NASA IS one of the USA lead agencies on GW. Every here of GISS?

Well -- not EVERYONE at NASA agrees to the degree that they've overstated their claims, but it's a big agency with the BULK of funding for climate change.

PERHAPS --- if you're that far behind the curve --- you ought to invest a bit..

So NASA is an authority on this topic? Why can't any of you give a simple yes or no response?

 

[RollingThunder]

NASA Says Computer Models Wrong About Climate Change

NASA Says Computer Models Wrong About Climate Change - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com

You're a retarded, brainwashed and very gullible liar, Klod.

NASA does not say that at all. Your link is not to NASA at all. It is to an unsupported article written by some denier cult propagandist.

The climate models have actually been underestimating the speed at which the climate is changing.

 

[RDD_1210]

Kosh has already been beaten thoroughly in this thread. He only comes back when he's called out for being the ***** he is.

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh, so NASA is an opinion we should trust on Global climate change?

Actually --- that's completely correct.. Does the name James Hansen ring a bell?
He's just the Pied Piper of Global Warming. And NASA IS one of the USA lead agencies on GW. Every here of GISS?

Well -- not EVERYONE at NASA agrees to the degree that they've overstated their claims, but it's a big agency with the BULK of funding for climate change.

PERHAPS --- if you're that far behind the curve --- you ought to invest a bit..

So NASA is an authority on this topic? Why can't any of you give a simple yes or no response?

You never heard of GISS or Hansen in any of your massive READING on AGW??
..... And you can't read my simple post or bother to learn.. Man -- that's some serious deficit...

Why we don't answer is because we're IN ABSOLUTE AWE of your ratio of bullshit calling and bravado to what you actually know
about the topic.. It's actually quite flabbergasting..


As far as the IPCC backtracking -- how about one of their LEAD authors.???

One of the report’s own authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, last night said this should be the last IPCC assessment – accusing its cumbersome production process of ‘misrepresenting how science works’.

Prof Allen said: ‘The idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility is a misrepresentation of how science works, and we need to look very carefully about what the IPCC does in future

The Mail on Sunday has also seen an earlier draft of the report, dated October last year. There are many striking differences between it and the current, ‘final’ version.

The 2012 draft makes no mention of the pause and, far from admitting that the Middle Ages were unusually warm, it states that today’s temperatures are the highest for at least 1,300 years, as it did in 2007. Prof Allen said the change ‘reflects greater uncertainty about what was happening around the last millennium but one’.
A further change in the new version is the first-ever scaling down of a crucial yardstick, the ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ – the extent to which the world is meant to warm each time CO2 levels double.
As things stand, the atmosphere is expected to have twice as much CO2 as in pre-industrial times by about 2050. In 2007, the IPCC said the ‘likeliest’ figure was 3C, with up to 4.5C still ‘likely’.

Now it does not give a ‘likeliest’ value and admits it is ‘likely’ it may be as little as 1.5C – so giving the world many more decades to work out how to reduce carbon emissions before temperatures rise to dangerous levels.

The British Met Office has issued ‘erroneous statements and misrepresentations’ about the pause in global warming – and its climate computer model is fundamentally flawed, says a new analysis by a leading independent researcher.
Nic Lewis, a climate scientist and accredited ‘expert reviewer’ for the IPCC, also points out that Met Office’s flagship climate model suggests the world will warm by twice as much in response to CO2 as some other leading institutes, such as Nasa’s climate centre in America.

The Met Office model’s current value for the ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ (ECS) – how much hotter the world will get each time CO2 doubles – is 4.6C. This is above the IPCC’s own ‘likely’ range and the 95 per cent certainty’ level established by recent peer-reviewed research.
Lewis’s paper is scathing about the ‘future warming’ document issued by the Met Office in July, which purported to explain why the current 16-year global warming ‘pause’ is unimportant, and does not mean the ECS is lower than previously thought.
Lewis says the document made misleading claims about other scientists’ work – for example, misrepresenting important details of a study by a team that included Lewis and 14 other IPCC experts. The team’s paper, published in the prestigious journal Nature Geoscience in May, said the best estimate of the ECS was 2C or less – well under half the Met Office estimate.
He also gives evidence that another key Met Office model is inherently skewed. The result is that it will always produce high values for CO2-induced warming, no matter how its control knobs are tweaked, because its computation of the cooling effect of smoke and dust pollution – what scientists call ‘aerosol forcing’ – is simply incompatible with the real world.
This has serious implications, because the Met Office’s HadCM3 model is used to determine the Government’s climate projections, which influence policy.


Read more: World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online

 

[RollingThunder]

No, i do not. Here, let me help you little minded turds out since search engines are too much for you:

Can We Trust the U.N.'s IPCC Climate Models? - Reason.com

World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online

Top climate scientists admit global warming forecasts were wrong - Telegraph

The UN IPCC's Climate Modeling Procedures Need Serious Remodeling - Forbes

IPCC Admits they Could be Wrong about Humans Causing Global Warming « Roy Spencer, PhD

IPCC Railroad engineer Pachauri acknowledges ?No warming for 17 years? | Watts Up With That?

97% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists are wrong | CACA

I hop eyou can find one you like. If you can read (I'm skeptical) they even include hyperlinks for further reading!

You're welcome!

I thought you said the IPCC admitted to being incorrect. How come none of your "proof" actually links to the IPCC? Odd.

That's ok though...you linked us to WhatsupWithThat.com and a WordPress blog.

The links are there, numbnuts.

Yeah, links to lying denier cult propaganda outlets.

You have to read. I even gave you the source link from the IPCC. You still can not manage to find the fuckin' massage they made about all the models being wrong.

You idiotically link to the actual IPCC site even though nothing there actually supports your moronic claims about what it says.

I'm not going to spell it out for you, as you clearly do not understand the topic.

LOLOLOL.....in other words, you can't find anything there that supports the fallacious claims you found on your denier cult blogs. You're such an incompetent liar, BackwardBozo, as well as an ignorant moron on this topic.

 

[RDD_1210]

Actually --- that's completely correct.. Does the name James Hansen ring a bell?
He's just the Pied Piper of Global Warming. And NASA IS one of the USA lead agencies on GW. Every here of GISS?

Well -- not EVERYONE at NASA agrees to the degree that they've overstated their claims, but it's a big agency with the BULK of funding for climate change.

PERHAPS --- if you're that far behind the curve --- you ought to invest a bit..

So NASA is an authority on this topic? Why can't any of you give a simple yes or no response?

You never heard of GISS or Hansen in any of your massive READING on AGW??
..... And you can't read or learn.. Man -- that's a serious deficit...

As far as the IPCC backtracking -- how about one of their LEAD authors..

One of the report’s own authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, last night said this should be the last IPCC assessment – accusing its cumbersome production process of ‘misrepresenting how science works’.

Prof Allen said: ‘The idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility is a misrepresentation of how science works, and we need to look very carefully about what the IPCC does in future

The Mail on Sunday has also seen an earlier draft of the report, dated October last year. There are many striking differences between it and the current, ‘final’ version.

The 2012 draft makes no mention of the pause and, far from admitting that the Middle Ages were unusually warm, it states that today’s temperatures are the highest for at least 1,300 years, as it did in 2007. Prof Allen said the change ‘reflects greater uncertainty about what was happening around the last millennium but one’.
A further change in the new version is the first-ever scaling down of a crucial yardstick, the ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ – the extent to which the world is meant to warm each time CO2 levels double.
As things stand, the atmosphere is expected to have twice as much CO2 as in pre-industrial times by about 2050. In 2007, the IPCC said the ‘likeliest’ figure was 3C, with up to 4.5C still ‘likely’.

Now it does not give a ‘likeliest’ value and admits it is ‘likely’ it may be as little as 1.5C – so giving the world many more decades to work out how to reduce carbon emissions before temperatures rise to dangerous levels.

The British Met Office has issued ‘erroneous statements and misrepresentations’ about the pause in global warming – and its climate computer model is fundamentally flawed, says a new analysis by a leading independent researcher.
Nic Lewis, a climate scientist and accredited ‘expert reviewer’ for the IPCC, also points out that Met Office’s flagship climate model suggests the world will warm by twice as much in response to CO2 as some other leading institutes, such as Nasa’s climate centre in America.

The Met Office model’s current value for the ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ (ECS) – how much hotter the world will get each time CO2 doubles – is 4.6C. This is above the IPCC’s own ‘likely’ range and the 95 per cent certainty’ level established by recent peer-reviewed research.
Lewis’s paper is scathing about the ‘future warming’ document issued by the Met Office in July, which purported to explain why the current 16-year global warming ‘pause’ is unimportant, and does not mean the ECS is lower than previously thought.
Lewis says the document made misleading claims about other scientists’ work – for example, misrepresenting important details of a study by a team that included Lewis and 14 other IPCC experts. The team’s paper, published in the prestigious journal Nature Geoscience in May, said the best estimate of the ECS was 2C or less – well under half the Met Office estimate.
He also gives evidence that another key Met Office model is inherently skewed. The result is that it will always produce high values for CO2-induced warming, no matter how its control knobs are tweaked, because its computation of the cooling effect of smoke and dust pollution – what scientists call ‘aerosol forcing’ – is simply incompatible with the real world.
This has serious implications, because the Met Office’s HadCM3 model is used to determine the Government’s climate projections, which influence policy.


Read more: World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online

Yet another stooge who cites "what the IPCC said" yet doesn't bother actually sharing the statement directly from the IPCC supporting their claims.

And again, do you consider NASA to be an authority on this topic? I know you want to avoid answering the question at all costs, but hey your brain dead buddies think that's a pretty good tactic as well. So you've got that going for you.

 

[RollingThunder]

Since you trust them, then I guess they are telling you the models are wrong and you should now apologize to everyone for all your comments to the contrary.

In other words you are wrong! Will you own up to since you claim you trust NASA?

I do trust them, hence why I take their word when they say that their is a consensus and that global warming is real...

Climate Change: Consensus - NASA

and it's major reason why is due to man.

Climate Change: Causes - NASA

Glad we both agree that NASA is to be trusted on this topic.

Is this where you start your back pedaling?

I love hoe ignorant and yet so sure posters are on this topic. Is there anything to notice about the NASA climate change causes link? Like, perhaps that ALL of the data being used to make conclusions is out of date? Gee, you'd think they would update to modern data, but why do that? I mean, we can keep old data up and make false claims based on it, right?

You simply do not understand the topic at hand, or the fact that data sets change and are challenged regularly. As it currently stands, 97% of all models have been wrong against observation. The IPCC has members that admit so, and I linked you to it.

But you scoff because your belief system will not let you question the validity of whether or not Climate Jesus exists and to what degree.

Endlessly repeating your false and very moronic denier cult myths won't make them magically become true, retard.

The climate models getting better all the time and they have already been shown to be pretty accurate.

Global warming predictions prove accurate
Analysis of climate change modelling for past 15 years reveal accurate forecasts of rising global temperatures
The Guardian
27 March 2013
(excerpts)
Forecasts of global temperature rises over the past 15 years have proved remarkably accurate, new analysis of scientists' modelling of climate change shows. The debate around the accuracy of climate modelling and forecasting has been especially intense recently, due to suggestions that forecasts have exaggerated the warming observed so far – and therefore also the level warming that can be expected in the future. But the new research casts serious doubts on these claims, and should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change.

The paper, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature Geoscience, explores the performance of a climate forecast based on data up to 1996 by comparing it with the actual temperatures observed since. The results show that scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade, relative to the decade to 1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree.The new research also found that, compared to the forecast, the early years of the new millennium were somewhat warmer than expected. More recently the temperature has matched the level forecasted very closely, but the relative slow-down in warming since the early years of the early 2000s has caused many commentators to assume that warming is now less severe than predicted. The paper shows this is not true. Allen said: "I think it's interesting because so many people think that recent years have been unexpectedly cool. In fact, what we found was that a few years around the turn of the millennium were slightly warmer than forecast, and that temperatures have now reverted to what we were predicting back in the 1990s."

 

[flacaltenn]

So NASA is an authority on this topic? Why can't any of you give a simple yes or no response?

You never heard of GISS or Hansen in any of your massive READING on AGW??
..... And you can't read or learn.. Man -- that's a serious deficit...

As far as the IPCC backtracking -- how about one of their LEAD authors..

One of the report’s own authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, last night said this should be the last IPCC assessment – accusing its cumbersome production process of ‘misrepresenting how science works’.

Prof Allen said: ‘The idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility is a misrepresentation of how science works, and we need to look very carefully about what the IPCC does in future

The Mail on Sunday has also seen an earlier draft of the report, dated October last year. There are many striking differences between it and the current, ‘final’ version.

The 2012 draft makes no mention of the pause and, far from admitting that the Middle Ages were unusually warm, it states that today’s temperatures are the highest for at least 1,300 years, as it did in 2007. Prof Allen said the change ‘reflects greater uncertainty about what was happening around the last millennium but one’.
A further change in the new version is the first-ever scaling down of a crucial yardstick, the ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ – the extent to which the world is meant to warm each time CO2 levels double.
As things stand, the atmosphere is expected to have twice as much CO2 as in pre-industrial times by about 2050. In 2007, the IPCC said the ‘likeliest’ figure was 3C, with up to 4.5C still ‘likely’.

Now it does not give a ‘likeliest’ value and admits it is ‘likely’ it may be as little as 1.5C – so giving the world many more decades to work out how to reduce carbon emissions before temperatures rise to dangerous levels.

The British Met Office has issued ‘erroneous statements and misrepresentations’ about the pause in global warming – and its climate computer model is fundamentally flawed, says a new analysis by a leading independent researcher.
Nic Lewis, a climate scientist and accredited ‘expert reviewer’ for the IPCC, also points out that Met Office’s flagship climate model suggests the world will warm by twice as much in response to CO2 as some other leading institutes, such as Nasa’s climate centre in America.

The Met Office model’s current value for the ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ (ECS) – how much hotter the world will get each time CO2 doubles – is 4.6C. This is above the IPCC’s own ‘likely’ range and the 95 per cent certainty’ level established by recent peer-reviewed research.
Lewis’s paper is scathing about the ‘future warming’ document issued by the Met Office in July, which purported to explain why the current 16-year global warming ‘pause’ is unimportant, and does not mean the ECS is lower than previously thought.
Lewis says the document made misleading claims about other scientists’ work – for example, misrepresenting important details of a study by a team that included Lewis and 14 other IPCC experts. The team’s paper, published in the prestigious journal Nature Geoscience in May, said the best estimate of the ECS was 2C or less – well under half the Met Office estimate.
He also gives evidence that another key Met Office model is inherently skewed. The result is that it will always produce high values for CO2-induced warming, no matter how its control knobs are tweaked, because its computation of the cooling effect of smoke and dust pollution – what scientists call ‘aerosol forcing’ – is simply incompatible with the real world.
This has serious implications, because the Met Office’s HadCM3 model is used to determine the Government’s climate projections, which influence policy.


Read more: World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online

Yet another stooge who cites "what the IPCC said" yet doesn't bother actually sharing the statement directly from the IPCC supporting their claims.

And again, do you consider NASA to be an authority on this topic? I know you want to avoid answering the question at all costs, but hey your brain dead buddies think that's a pretty good tactic as well. So you've got that going for you.

NASA IS one of the PREMIER lead agencies in the USA working on climate studies and modeling.. You're a dolt who doesn't know that. And a dolt who can't read and WON'T learn.

The article QUOTED a couple LEAD AUTHORS of IPCC reports.. THOSE are the folks that count. The rest of the body is a clusterfuck of public policy wonks.. But ---- YOU wouldn't know that either.

No comment on the graph eh? No real comment on the CONTENT of the article?
You're cred is pretty much lower than a snake's belly in a rut right now...

Read my footer again RDD --- it was chosen EXPRESSLY for trogs like you...

 

[ClosedCaption]

Denier: the IPCC says so
Everyone else: show me
Denier: would ya look at the time... Gotta run

 

[RDD_1210]

You never heard of GISS or Hansen in any of your massive READING on AGW??
..... And you can't read or learn.. Man -- that's a serious deficit...

As far as the IPCC backtracking -- how about one of their LEAD authors..

Yet another stooge who cites "what the IPCC said" yet doesn't bother actually sharing the statement directly from the IPCC supporting their claims.

And again, do you consider NASA to be an authority on this topic? I know you want to avoid answering the question at all costs, but hey your brain dead buddies think that's a pretty good tactic as well. So you've got that going for you.

NASA IS one of the PREMIER lead agencies in the USA working on climate studies and modeling.. You're a dolt who doesn't know that. And a dolt who can't read and WON'T learn.

The article QUOTED a couple LEAD AUTHORS of IPCC reports.. THOSE are the folks that count. The rest of the body is a clusterfuck of public policy wonks.. But ---- YOU wouldn't know that either.

No comment on the graph eh? No real comment on the CONTENT of the article?
You're cred is pretty much lower than a snake's belly in a rut right now...

Read my footer again RDD --- it was chosen EXPRESSLY for trogs like you...

I agree, NASA IS an authority on the topic of global warming. So let's see what they have to say about whether global warming is real and who is the cause of it.....

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.

Climate Change: Evidence

Oh look, NASA says Global warming is in fact real and caused by humans.

Let me guess, you no longer consider NASA one of the premier agencies working on climate studies and modeling.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yet another stooge who cites "what the IPCC said" yet doesn't bother actually sharing the statement directly from the IPCC supporting their claims.

And again, do you consider NASA to be an authority on this topic? I know you want to avoid answering the question at all costs, but hey your brain dead buddies think that's a pretty good tactic as well. So you've got that going for you.

NASA IS one of the PREMIER lead agencies in the USA working on climate studies and modeling.. You're a dolt who doesn't know that. And a dolt who can't read and WON'T learn.

The article QUOTED a couple LEAD AUTHORS of IPCC reports.. THOSE are the folks that count. The rest of the body is a clusterfuck of public policy wonks.. But ---- YOU wouldn't know that either.

No comment on the graph eh? No real comment on the CONTENT of the article?
You're cred is pretty much lower than a snake's belly in a rut right now...

Read my footer again RDD --- it was chosen EXPRESSLY for trogs like you...

I agree, NASA IS an authority on the topic of global warming. So let's see what they have to say about whether global warming is real and who is the cause of it.....

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.

Climate Change: Evidence

Oh look, NASA says Global warming is in fact real and caused by humans.

Let me guess, you no longer consider NASA one of the premier agencies working on climate studies and modeling.

NASA is a big place.. Lots of studies and opinions coming out of there.. And you just WILLFULLY IGNORED one of them about a page ago that placed MASSIVE doubt on the modeling predictions..

See this science thingy you're not familiar with doesn't run by statements from the front office. It's reflected in the actual body of work.. And folks make a lot of pronouncements that are not in fact unequivacable.. Take for instance this one that you pooped out above..

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.

Notice they specifically left out any reference to us being WARMER than in the previous 1300 years, because they can't MAKE that statement due to ample contradictory scientific evidence. So you might ask WHY it was warmer in the past 1300 BEFORE CO2 became the convienient vehicle for massive public policies proposals. Also -- the comment about the RATE OF WARMING is in serious doubt because the temperature proxies used in historical reconstructions have resolutions of AT BEST 25 to 50 yrs and WILL NOT RECORD an accurate rate of rise over 30 yrs. And the RATE of RISE they are alluding to is a GLOBAL AVERAGE rate of rise which is impossible to construct to 25 or 50 yr epochs after sparse sampling of the globe and attempting to combine tree rings from Siberia, Mud bug holes from Fiji, and Ice cores from Antarctica.

THEN to top it all off --- Note the use of the words "very likely human-induced".. The Global Warming that skeptics scoff at is NOT the current 0.6degC rise that you've seen in your lifetime -- it's the 4 to 8degC that these clowns PROJECT as a future crisis that is the CORE of the debate.. Atmospheric Physics texts work out the warming due solely to a doubling of CO2 before about Chapter 4. And the results are always the same. A doubling from 250 to 500 ppm (which we are not at yet) will THEORETICALLY result in about a 1.2degC rise.. This wouldn't even make the cover of a magazine.. AND -- "very likely" the actual realized effect of a CO2 doubling is quite less than that because of water vapor filtering and other real world considerations..

So what you got LEFT from that GRANITE inscribed stone you thought you picked up is actually not all that --- is it? Not hotter.. Not provably faster.. Maybe NOT all due to CO2 alone without the fantasy science that magnifies the CO2 "trigger" into planetary suicide.

See if you can actually respond with something that shows you can actually read and understand some of these issues. It would make the dialogue much more pleasant..

If not -- Use super large fonts and mix your curses and ad hominems like all the other AGW automatons that daily dump on these boards..

 

[flacaltenn]

PS RDD_

How long did you intend to ignore one of the Lead Authors of the IPCC saying he believed "this should be the LAST draft of that organization" ?? That the process is essentially non-scientific and extremely biased..

There's a long line of IPCC scientific participants who have RESENTED their work and contributions being MISREPRESENTED by those "front office statements" that you rely on so heavily for your science opinion...

 

[Abraham3]

PS RDD_

How long did you intend to ignore one of the Lead Authors of the IPCC saying he believed "this should be the LAST draft of that organization" ?? That the process is essentially non-scientific and extremely biased..

There's a long line of IPCC scientific participants who have RESENTED their work and contributions being MISREPRESENTED by those "front office statements" that you rely on so heavily for your science opinion...

Not NEARLY as much as they were misrepresented and objected to by the good Senator Inhofe and others on your side of the argument.

The IPCC is an organ of a political organization. There's no denying it. And it is NOT as good science as are the thousands of peer reviewed articles which go into its assembly. But it has served its purpose: to inform the UN community what the state of the art in climate science says about CO2 and our future.

However, if you'd REALLY like to see something that purports to be science, but ain't; which claims to be motivated by humanitarianism but is driven almost solely by greed and political extremism, you should look at the case being made by the small minority of global warming deniers.

Get yourself a BIG mirror.

 

[Kosh]

Yet another stooge who cites "what the IPCC said" yet doesn't bother actually sharing the statement directly from the IPCC supporting their claims.

And again, do you consider NASA to be an authority on this topic? I know you want to avoid answering the question at all costs, but hey your brain dead buddies think that's a pretty good tactic as well. So you've got that going for you.

NASA IS one of the PREMIER lead agencies in the USA working on climate studies and modeling.. You're a dolt who doesn't know that. And a dolt who can't read and WON'T learn.

The article QUOTED a couple LEAD AUTHORS of IPCC reports.. THOSE are the folks that count. The rest of the body is a clusterfuck of public policy wonks.. But ---- YOU wouldn't know that either.

No comment on the graph eh? No real comment on the CONTENT of the article?
You're cred is pretty much lower than a snake's belly in a rut right now...

Read my footer again RDD --- it was chosen EXPRESSLY for trogs like you...

I agree, NASA IS an authority on the topic of global warming. So let's see what they have to say about whether global warming is real and who is the cause of it.....

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.

Climate Change: Evidence

Oh look, NASA says Global warming is in fact real and caused by humans.

Let me guess, you no longer consider NASA one of the premier agencies working on climate studies and modeling.

Proof that you know nothing about science and proof that you don't care about science, just the AGW agenda.

You are a AGW Hack!

 

[Kosh]

PS RDD_

How long did you intend to ignore one of the Lead Authors of the IPCC saying he believed "this should be the LAST draft of that organization" ?? That the process is essentially non-scientific and extremely biased..

There's a long line of IPCC scientific participants who have RESENTED their work and contributions being MISREPRESENTED by those "front office statements" that you rely on so heavily for your science opinion...

Not NEARLY as much as they were misrepresented and objected to by the good Senator Inhofe and others on your side of the argument.

The IPCC is an organ of a political organization. There's no denying it. And it is NOT as good science as are the thousands of peer reviewed articles which go into its assembly. But it has served its purpose: to inform the UN community what the state of the art in climate science says about CO2 and our future.

However, if you'd REALLY like to see something that purports to be science, but ain't; which claims to be motivated by humanitarianism but is driven almost solely by greed and political extremism, you should look at the case being made by the small minority of global warming deniers.

Get yourself a BIG mirror.

Yes the AGW hacks ignore the fact that the climates models are nothing but bunk, just like their AGW religion.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I see whats happening here and its very very slight that many missed it.

I dont think ANYONE is denying AGW exists and is occurring. See no one questions if it is a thing. The only thing the right is questioning or bringing up is that the models werent correct. It's like saying E=MC2 is correct but the right doesnt agree with HOW I got the answer.

So because some say the models were wrong the right is using that as a basis to dismiss AGW completely! Why? They dont know but it must be wrong because the model was off!

Then they also say over and over "Blank has happened before!" As if AGW means that we will have things happen that never happened before like Sharknados or Tin Can Rain!

By saying something is natural you'll notice they wont say if its good or bad, they will just "suggest" that its not good OR bad to remain duplicitous. Because standing for something isnt what they do typically. They rather for their opponents to answer all the questions while never taking one position.

 

[flacaltenn]

I see whats happening here and its very very slight that many missed it.

I dont think ANYONE is denying AGW exists and is occurring. See no one questions if it is a thing. The only thing the right is questioning or bringing up is that the models werent correct. It's like saying E=MC2 is correct but the right doesnt agree with HOW I got the answer.

So because some say the models were wrong the right is using that as a basis to dismiss AGW completely! Why? They dont know but it must be wrong because the model was off!

Then they also say over and over "Blank has happened before!" As if AGW means that we will have things happen that never happened before like Sharknados or Tin Can Rain!

By saying something is natural you'll notice they wont say if its good or bad, they will just "suggest" that its not good OR bad to remain duplicitous. Because standing for something isnt what they do typically. They rather for their opponents to answer all the questions while never taking one position.

You are absolutely correct in the sense that none of these polling questions addresses the real debate.
Almost no one denies the modern temp record is (was) trending upward. MOST skeptics based in science don't even deny the GreenHouse or that CO2 is a component of that.

BUT -- it's NOT JUST about the failure of the models. The failure of the models is SCIENTIFIC evidence that we don't have the ability to make predictions on warmings that are THIS SUBTLE. It's about the difference between what man-made CO2 CAN cause and how the catastrophic global warming consensus conjures out of that predictions for FUTURE DOOM.. There is little agreement in the science as to the very number that converts a CO2 forcing (in Watts/Meter2) to a surface temperature for example. The estimates range from 1.2 to 5.0 in the literature AND YET --- these clowns PERSIST on taking the rather trivial "CO2 trigger" effect and PROJECTING that it causes a cascade of positive feedbacks whereby the Earth DESTROYS itself because of a 2degC rise in a forcing function of the climate.

It's also about the misrepresentations of the science and the cheating and the shortcuts and the politicization of the climate game..

The "NATURAL" argument you toss out has an inverted corrollary.. And that is that we live on a JUNKER of a planet that will commit climate suicide if ANY forcing stimuli is applied to it. Kinda of an "UNnatural argument" when you look at climate history..

But you are correct that skeptics have to clearly STATE their scientific objections and warmers have to stop just marginalizing them with terms like deniers in order to HAVE a clearer discussion of how STURDY all of this AGW theory is or isn't..

Plenty of REAL participants in this debate in those communities are also fed up with the unfounded assertions and leaps to conclusions that the media and politicians have played up for the purpose of changing IMPORTANT public policies. So much so -- that the PUBLIC debate doesn't even RESEMBLE the scientific debate very much at all..

PS... Some of us "right-wingers" (which we are not) -- are also appalled that this debate over a rare gas in the atmos has sucked the very life out of environmental causes and progress. And those of us who FOLLOW the science on this front also realize that the focus SOLELY on CO2 has actually STUNTED THE GROWTH of the young Climate Science community.. These clowns are still arguing about how long CO2 dwells in the atmos before it's temporarily sequestered somewhere naturally.. But they tell the breathless public policy wonks what they want to hear anyway by IGNORING the uncertainties in their work...

 

[flacaltenn]

I actually LOVE that "Fallacy Fallacy" slide.. It is true for any generic argument that
IS NOT science based. Would apply beautifully to 90% of the socio-economic clashes that occur on USMB.. Because society has acclimated to a very low bar on PROOF or evidence in debate on those types of things. But for a science theory to survive and thrive, it HAS TO PROVIDE a coherent and falsifiable premise.. If THAT is argued sloppily -- you get no points for the contribution of the theory.

The "Natural" slide is just as interesting.. In the AGWarming debate -- both sides use it. The warmers make the argument that a climate optimum is NATURAL and any deviation from the type of climate that nurtured the development of Homo Sapiens is UN-natural. They also maximize the man-made contributions to CO2 in the atmos as UN-natural, while termites as a single species run a close 2nd to mankind's contributions and the oceans and the land YEARLY pump up 20 times the contribution of man's CO2 into the atmos.

CLEARLY -- when observed NATURAL variations of Ocean surface heating cycles, solar irradiance, and even ORBITAL variations of the Earth are occuring over the millenia, we are fighting over a 1degC OBSERVED change for which ---- skeptics believe --- a large percentage of the change is due to natural cycles and trends that are demonstrably in the same ballpark as a COLLECTIVE set -- to the observed warming. And CO2 is just one of the players. If a climate model fails in the short run -- it's because they neglected to include ENOUGH of "natural effects". Even if that "natural effect" is heat hiding 400 meters below the sea surface where it is NOT affecting surface temperatures. That's not a good example of the "fallacy fallacy" -- its a failure of the scientific method.

Natural cycles MIGHT NOT be good for the Climate. After all --- Ice has been melting for millenia now and climates shifted radically and REGIONALLY over man's short time on the Earth. An ICE AGE would/could occur quite naturally --- but that's not a good thing either..

 

[Abraham3]

The warmers make the argument that a climate optimum is NATURAL and any deviation from the type of climate that nurtured the development of Homo Sapiens is UN-natural.

Bullshit. We've said no such thing.

Your side, however, has claimed on repeated occasions that any climate state that has existed since life began is safe for modern human culture, even if brought about at a rate many times the speed with which any such change has ever taken place under non-catastrophic conditions.