Published, Peer Reviewed Empirical Evidence of AGW

[Billy_Bob]

Anyone out there with a supportable viewpoint?

View attachment 229773

Empirical evidence from "The Physical Science Basis"

What kind of science is passing off trend ESTIMATES as a "physical Science basis" for empirical "evidence"?
What kind of a science is using the same trend estimates as the source to "calculate" the "Radiative efficiency" per ppb CO2. All they did is divide the trend estimate by the delta CO2 increase to get the 1.37*10^(-5) W/m^2 per ppb. Hahaha !!! As if there they had an instrument to measure that for a 1 part per BILLION increase when they can`t even measure it for 1000 times as much...a part per million.
Then they use this factor pretending its not simply based on the division of a crude estimate and "calculate" future projections that were obtained by factoring this estimate based "RE" by another 200 000 times....and have the gull to pass it off as precision science by hiding relevant information in the small print captions.
Either it`s totally disingenuous graphs that have the Y axis start at non-zero values so that a fraction of a degree can be totally blown out of proportion or it`s pseudo-math dividing an estimate by a large number to fake a high precision factor that you can later blow up several hundred thousand times to fake a precision in the final result several places behind the decimal point.

How about a page number Mr Bear?

Hahaha YOU posted it and don`t even know where...That`s what happens if you cut and paste stuff without even knowing what the stuff you posted is all about...because you don`t read it past the title line.

Standard Crick... They all post up the crap they think supports their position and they don't read any of it... Hell he even uses a band-pass graph and has no clue that it does not prove causation..

 

[mamooth]

Hahaha YOU posted it and don`t even know where...That`s what happens if you cut and paste stuff without even knowing what the stuff you posted is all about...because you don`t read it past the title line.

So in other words, you faked all your "data" outright.

What, you thought it wasn't obvious? When your response to "back up your claim" is to have a meltdown and scream insults, then it's obvious you just got called out on faking it all.

 

[polarbear]

Hahaha YOU posted it and don`t even know where...That`s what happens if you cut and paste stuff without even knowing what the stuff you posted is all about...because you don`t read it past the title line.

So in other words, you faked all your "data" outright.

What, you thought it wasn't obvious? When your response to "back up your claim" is to have a meltdown and scream insults, then it's obvious you just got called out on faking it all.

Since when is the data he posted "my data" ? What insults in what meltdown ? His or yours when I said he should know what he posted where its obviously the attachment 229773 because it shows up in the same frame where he quotes me and you say I am supposed to "back up my claim". If neither one of you would have had a meltdown you should have been able to figure that out....maybe not I`m probably overestimating your mental abilities.

He posted it just a couple of hours ago and does not remember what was in it and you could not figure out who posted what even though all the links were in that quote box...do you both have dementia ?

 

[mamooth]

Because we found in these Climategate exposed emails that these "scientists" were manipulating data to get a desired result. Very dishonest and unscientific. Not only the principal scientists but also government agencies like NASA and NOAA.

Essentially every sentence in your post was either an outright lie, or it was hilariously stupid. Our side has been squeaky clean, while yours is based entirely on fraud. On both a moral and intellectual level, you and your Stalinist masters aren't fit to sniff the jocks of the men you criticize. Our side has the planet's best and brightest, while yours is a pack of cult bedwetters.

Research funding drives results among scientists.

Don't project your way of thinking on to ethical people. You'd lie for money yourself, so you assume everyone else has to be equally corrupt. That's not how it works. We are not like you.

Those scientists get paid the same no matter what results they bring. They draw no salary at all from grants. And they could get paid 10 times as much lying for your side. Our side rejects the bribe money, which gives us massive added credibility. Your side runs entirely on bribe money, which gives you zero credibility.

When assholes like Environmental Wacko billionaire Tom Steyer

At least that's some original conspiracy retardation, so you get points for that. I'd never heard deniers whimpering about Tom Steyer before. It's a pleasant change from hearing them whimpering about Soros.

Man made CO2 has a minimal effect on the climate. CO2 can be shown in a defective computer model to be a greenhouse gas but in the atmosphere it doesn't work that way.

Real world measurements show it does, no models required, so you're SOL there. Oh, did your cult not tell you that?

That is why none of the stupid Environmental Wacko predictions on climate destruction has ever come true.

The climate predictions have been superb. Everyone familiar with the actual science knows with 100% certainty that you're lying about that. If you masters told you otherwise, they lied to your face. Are you going to call them to the carpet for lying, or are you going to drop to your knees, lick their boots and beg for more lies? Experience suggests the latter. After all, if a person has guts and integrity, they don't get sucked into the denier cult in the first place.

There was a time when the CO2 was lower than it is now and the climate was warmer. There has been times when the CO2 was higher and the climate has been cooler.

And if you find anyone saying CO2 is the only thing affecting climate, that would matter. Since nobody has ever said such at thing, it's dishonest of you to imply that they did.

However, don't take my word that this a scam. If you really think that man made CO2 is going to destroy this planet then put your money where your mouth is. Go unplug all your electrical devices and call up your electric company to disconnect your power.

Screw that, hippie. If you want to live in a cave and hump trees for Mother Gaia, go on and do so. Just don't expect us to join you. We like electricity and indoor plumbing.

I bet you actually thought that last point wasn't stupid and dishonest. It was. We don't demand that anyone else give up modern technology, so it was stupid and dishonest of you to pretend that we do demand it. I feel a bit sorry for you. You've clearly only hung out in denier echo chambers. So you come here, all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, thinking you'll surely own those dirty libs ... and hilarity ensues. We've watched it happen hundreds of times. You're just the flavor of the week.

 

[polarbear]

Because we found in these Climategate exposed emails that these "scientists" were manipulating data to get a desired result. Very dishonest and unscientific. Not only the principal scientists but also government agencies like NASA and NOAA.

Essentially every sentence in your post was either an outright lie, or it was hilariously stupid. Our side has been squeaky clean, while yours is based entirely on fraud. On both a moral and intellectual level, you and your Stalinist masters aren't fit to sniff the jocks of the men you criticize. Our side has the planet's best and brightest, while yours is a pack of cult bedwetters.

Research funding drives results among scientists.

Don't project your way of thinking on to ethical people. You'd lie for money yourself, so you assume everyone else has to be equally corrupt. That's not how it works. We are not like you.

Those scientists get paid the same no matter what results they bring. They draw no salary at all from grants. And they could get paid 10 times as much lying for your side. Our side rejects the bribe money, which gives us massive added credibility. Your side runs entirely on bribe money, which gives you zero credibility.

When assholes like Environmental Wacko billionaire Tom Steyer

At least that's some original conspiracy retardation, so you get points for that. I'd never heard deniers whimpering about Tom Steyer before. It's a pleasant change from hearing them whimpering about Soros.

Man made CO2 has a minimal effect on the climate. CO2 can be shown in a defective computer model to be a greenhouse gas but in the atmosphere it doesn't work that way.

Real world measurements show it does, no models required, so you're SOL there. Oh, did your cult not tell you that?

That is why none of the stupid Environmental Wacko predictions on climate destruction has ever come true.

The climate predictions have been superb. Everyone familiar with the actual science knows with 100% certainty that you're lying about that. If you masters told you otherwise, they lied to your face. Are you going to call them to the carpet for lying, or are you going to drop to your knees, lick their boots and beg for more lies? Experience suggests the latter. After all, if a person has guts and integrity, they don't get sucked into the denier cult in the first place.

There was a time when the CO2 was lower than it is now and the climate was warmer. There has been times when the CO2 was higher and the climate has been cooler.

And if you find anyone saying CO2 is the only thing affecting climate, that would matter. Since nobody has ever said such at thing, it's dishonest of you to imply that they did.

However, don't take my word that this a scam. If you really think that man made CO2 is going to destroy this planet then put your money where your mouth is. Go unplug all your electrical devices and call up your electric company to disconnect your power.

Screw that, hippie. If you want to live in a cave and hump trees for Mother Gaia, go on and do so. Just don't expect us to join you. We like electricity and indoor plumbing.

I bet you actually thought that last point wasn't stupid and dishonest. It was. We don't demand that anyone else give up modern technology, so it was stupid and dishonest of you to pretend that we do demand it. I feel a bit sorry for you. You've clearly only hung out in denier echo chambers. So you come here, all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, thinking you'll surely own those dirty libs ... and hilarity ensues. We've watched it happen hundreds of times. You're just the flavor of the week.

Hahaha look who is throwing fits here .... a several screen-scroll temper tantrum while pretending to be "cool" and his buddy cuts and pastes stuff without having any idea what it is when pressed on any of the details. But loves playing the educated science expert asking "did you ever here of a fellow Milankovich " while he can`t even spell that name right in a sentence that would fail grade 1

 

[mamooth]

Since when is the data he posted "my data" ? What insults in what meltdown ?

You saying he hadn't read his own posts because he asked just what the hell you were babbling about.

Why was it so difficult for you to just say "from the data in post #96 ...", given it's what was specifically asked for? It wasn't easy to figure out what you were rambling about, but being that's the only spot talking about radiative efficiency and W/m^2/ppb, I did figure it out.

And wow, you failed hard at the concept of precision. You shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

 

[mamooth]

Hahaha look who is throwing fits here .... a several screen scroll temper tantrum while pretending to be "cool" and his buddy cut and pastes stuff without having any idea what it is when pressed on any of the details.

Well then, why don't you press me on the details?

You can run now. After all, you always do. Everyone knows you don't have guts to debate me honestly.

 

[Crick]

From Wikipedia

Tom Steyer

Born
Thomas Fahr Steyer

June 27, 1957 (age 61)
New York City, New York, U.S.
Residence San Francisco, California, U.S.
Alma mater Yale University (BA)
Stanford University (MBA)
Net worth US$1.6 billion (September 2018)[1]
Political party Democratic
Spouse(s)
Kat Taylor (m. 1986)
Children 4
Family Jim Steyer (brother)
Thomas Fahr Steyer (born June 27, 1957) is an American billionaire hedge fund manager, philanthropist, environmentalist, liberal activist, and fundraiser.[2]

Steyer is the founder and former co-senior managing partner of Farallon Capital and the co-founder of Onecalifornia Bank, which became (through merger) Beneficial State Bank, an Oakland-based community development bank.[2] Farallon Capital manages $20 billion in capital for institutions and high-net-worth individuals. The firm's institutional investors include college endowments and foundations.[2] Since 1986, Steyer has been a partner and member of the Executive Committee at Hellman & Friedman, a San Francisco–based $8 billion private equity firm.

In 2010, Steyer and his wife signed The Giving Pledge to donate half of their fortune to charity during their lifetime. In 2012, he sold his stake in and retired from Farallon Capital. Switching his focus to politics and the environment, he launched NextGen America, a non-profit organization that supports progressive positions on climate change, immigration, health care, and education.[3][4]

Steyer served on the Board of Trustees at Stanford University[5] from 2012 to 2017.

I can't say he sounds like an "environmental wacko" to me.

 

[polarbear]

Hahaha look who is throwing fits here .... a several screen scroll temper tantrum while pretending to be "cool" and his buddy cut and pastes stuff without having any idea what it is when pressed on any of the details.

Well then, why don't you press me on the details?

You can run now. After all, you always do. Everyone knows you don't have guts to debate me honestly.

Why would I "run" from somebody like you and your instant wikipedia diploma? Do tell me how the author measured the RE for 1 part per billion CO2. He claims its 1.37* 10^(-5) W/m^2 for a 1 part per billion increase. Your turn to tell me what kind of instrument has the specifications to perform such a feat.

 

[Crick]

Tell me what you are actually critiquing and I will respond. Your current effort is pure strawman bullshit

 

[polarbear]

Tell me what you are actually critiquing and I will respond. Your current effort is pure strawman bullshit

I just told that ex "nuclear submarine engineer" what it is.
He/She says I should run because shehe is going to win that "debate"...as usual by deflecting from the question at hand with another question.. And now heshe ran and you are here instead and I am supposed to repeat it for the umptieth time? Go back to the material you pasted and then read my reply.
I am in no mood to let the likes of you give me errands to run which were your`s to begin with. Btw if your tag team buddy shows up again...I always wanted to ask him/her if he/she built that carport with a solar roof for the electric car he/she was bragging about last year. Of course I am not supposed to bring that up either without the link were he/she or it was posting that tall story because that qualifies as "lying" right?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

We have everything to do with it. It is not a scam to redistribute our wealth. AGW is quite real and a real threat. Attitudes like yours are going to cost us and our children for generations to come trillions and trillions of dollars. Even if all you're worried about is your money, I strongly suggest you look at the evidence and likely results of AGW

Trump's gonna get us all killed!

 

[Flash]

Because we found in these Climategate exposed emails that these "scientists" were manipulating data to get a desired result. Very dishonest and unscientific. Not only the principal scientists but also government agencies like NASA and NOAA.

Essentially every sentence in your post was either an outright lie, or it was hilariously stupid. Our side has been squeaky clean, while yours is based entirely on fraud. On both a moral and intellectual level, you and your Stalinist masters aren't fit to sniff the jocks of the men you criticize. Our side has the planet's best and brightest, while yours is a pack of cult bedwetters.

Research funding drives results among scientists.

Don't project your way of thinking on to ethical people. You'd lie for money yourself, so you assume everyone else has to be equally corrupt. That's not how it works. We are not like you.

Those scientists get paid the same no matter what results they bring. They draw no salary at all from grants. And they could get paid 10 times as much lying for your side. Our side rejects the bribe money, which gives us massive added credibility. Your side runs entirely on bribe money, which gives you zero credibility.

When assholes like Environmental Wacko billionaire Tom Steyer

At least that's some original conspiracy retardation, so you get points for that. I'd never heard deniers whimpering about Tom Steyer before. It's a pleasant change from hearing them whimpering about Soros.

Man made CO2 has a minimal effect on the climate. CO2 can be shown in a defective computer model to be a greenhouse gas but in the atmosphere it doesn't work that way.

Real world measurements show it does, no models required, so you're SOL there. Oh, did your cult not tell you that?

That is why none of the stupid Environmental Wacko predictions on climate destruction has ever come true.

The climate predictions have been superb. Everyone familiar with the actual science knows with 100% certainty that you're lying about that. If you masters told you otherwise, they lied to your face. Are you going to call them to the carpet for lying, or are you going to drop to your knees, lick their boots and beg for more lies? Experience suggests the latter. After all, if a person has guts and integrity, they don't get sucked into the denier cult in the first place.

There was a time when the CO2 was lower than it is now and the climate was warmer. There has been times when the CO2 was higher and the climate has been cooler.

And if you find anyone saying CO2 is the only thing affecting climate, that would matter. Since nobody has ever said such at thing, it's dishonest of you to imply that they did.

However, don't take my word that this a scam. If you really think that man made CO2 is going to destroy this planet then put your money where your mouth is. Go unplug all your electrical devices and call up your electric company to disconnect your power.

Screw that, hippie. If you want to live in a cave and hump trees for Mother Gaia, go on and do so. Just don't expect us to join you. We like electricity and indoor plumbing.

I bet you actually thought that last point wasn't stupid and dishonest. It was. We don't demand that anyone else give up modern technology, so it was stupid and dishonest of you to pretend that we do demand it. I feel a bit sorry for you. You've clearly only hung out in denier echo chambers. So you come here, all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, thinking you'll surely own those dirty libs ... and hilarity ensues. We've watched it happen hundreds of times. You're just the flavor of the week.

Hahaha look who is throwing fits here .... a several screen-scroll temper tantrum while pretending to be "cool" and his buddy cuts and pastes stuff without having any idea what it is when pressed on any of the details. But loves playing the educated science expert asking "did you ever here of a fellow Milankovich " while he can`t even spell that name right in a sentence that would fail grade 1

That is why you are wasting your time trying to educate these stupid silly uneducated low information Environmental Wackos that have bought this AGW scam. They quote discredited science and falsified conclusions.

 

[Flash]

[ So you come here, all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, thinking you'll surely own those dirty libs ....

I am not an expert on climate but I am an Environmental Engineer with advanced degrees that spent 30 years cleaning up real pollution. I have taught classes in Environmental Science in a major university. I am better read on the subject than most of you Libtard idiots. I have remediated more pollution than ten thousands of you stupid confused Moon Bats will ever see in your pathetic lives.

I understand scientific bullshit when I see it and Moon Bat, this AGW scam is pure bullshit.

 

[Crick]

If you had a decent education in any field, you would not be using terms like "libtard". The environments of both liberals and conservatives are facing the same threats.

 

[mamooth]

That is why you are wasting your time trying to educate these stupid silly uneducated low information Environmental Wackos that have bought this AGW scam. They quote discredited science and falsified conclusions.

If the whole world says a person is wrong, that person then has two choices.

A. They can act like a rational person, assume that the rest of humanity probably knows more than they do, and research the issue further.

B. Or, they can act like a person consumed with narcissism and paranoia, and immediately declare how they know better than everyone, and that nearly every human on the planet is obviously plotting against them.

You chose option B, the standard cultist response. And then you wonder why you're not taken seriously.

 

[mamooth]

I am not an expert on climate but I am an Environmental Engineer

There we go, classic Engineer's Arrogance Syndrome (EAS). That's when an engineer without the slightest clue on a subject declares that his knowledge in one narrow field makes him an expert in every subject.

Flash, you know nothing about climate science. I am far more qualified on the issue than you. That's not particularly difficult bar to hurdle, being how your knowledge level is essentially zero.

Oh, I'm an engineer. And I don't declare I know more than the scientists. Only the really stupid engineers do that.

 

[mamooth]

I just told that ex "nuclear submarine engineer" what it is.

As I never said anything about a submarine, you really should apologize for that direct lie. But only if you want to avoid burning in Hell.

I see you're not going to "press me on the details", despite your bragging. You're just going to sulk and retreat, same as always.

...I always wanted to ask him/her if he/she built that carport with a solar roof for the electric car he/she was bragging about last year.

I haven't. I very specifically said _eventually_ for a reason. Economics matter, and such a project isn't economically viable right now.

So, what was the purpose of that whine, other than to demonstrate I'm living rent-free in your head?

 

[Crick]

Tell me what you are actually critiquing and I will respond. Your current effort is pure strawman bullshit

I just told that ex "nuclear submarine engineer" what it is.
He/She says I should run because shehe is going to win that "debate"...as usual by deflecting from the question at hand with another question.. And now heshe ran and you are here instead and I am supposed to repeat it for the umptieth time? Go back to the material you pasted and then read my reply.
I am in no mood to let the likes of you give me errands to run which were your`s to begin with. Btw if your tag team buddy shows up again...I always wanted to ask him/her if he/she built that carport with a solar roof for the electric car he/she was bragging about last year. Of course I am not supposed to bring that up either without the link were he/she or it was posting that tall story because that qualifies as "lying" right?

Haven't the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about.

What are you talking about in the text below?

What kind of science is passing off trend ESTIMATES as a "physical Science basis" for empirical "evidence"?
What kind of a science is using the same trend estimates as the source to "calculate" the "Radiative efficiency" per ppb CO2. All they did is divide the trend estimate by the delta CO2 increase to get the 1.37*10^(-5) W/m^2 per ppb. Hahaha !!! As if there they had an instrument to measure that for a 1 part per BILLION increase when they can`t even measure it for 1000 times as much...a part per million.
Then they use this factor pretending its not simply based on the division of a crude estimate and "calculate" future projections that were obtained by factoring this estimate based "RE" by another 200 000 times....and have the gull to pass it off as precision science by hiding relevant information in the small print captions.
Either it`s totally disingenuous graphs that have the Y axis start at non-zero values so that a fraction of a degree can be totally blown out of proportion or it`s pseudo-math dividing an estimate by a large number to fake a high precision factor that you can later blow up several hundred thousand times to fake a precision in the final result several places behind the decimal point.

 

[polarbear]

I just told that ex "nuclear submarine engineer" what it is.

As I never said anything about a submarine, you really should apologize for that direct lie. But only if you want to avoid burning in Hell.

I see you're not going to "press me on the details", despite your bragging. You're just going to sulk and retreat, same as always.

...I always wanted to ask him/her if he/she built that carport with a solar roof for the electric car he/she was bragging about last year.

I haven't. I very specifically said _eventually_ for a reason. Economics matter, and such a project isn't economically viable right now.

So, what was the purpose of that whine, other than to demonstrate I'm living rent-free in your head?

OMG you got me in a Mueller perjury trap now because I said sub instead of ship. I said it because the most memorable stuff you posted 5 years ago were pictures of a sub reactor control room you copied from the Smithsonian Web Site and posted as "proof". Bullshit of that magnitude tends to be more memorable 5 years later than Navy ship or Navy sub reactor. Anyway you said there was no difference:
That's from a submarine, as I can tell from the ring bus on the Electrical Control Panel, but the EOS on a cruiser looked very similar. Replace the teletype with a desk, and that's where I sat. I knew what every gauge, light and switch was, what it was supposed to read,

So when are you going to show me which instrument can measure the absorption of 1 part per BILLION CO2?