Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

[SSDD]

You seem to be under the impression that consensus is evidence of something besides group think...Believing that it is evidence of anything else is a logical fallacy...but then you guys live by logical fallacy....

Consensus on the Climate Change issue has been reached by scientists because they zeroed out any other explanation for the warming.

Consensus on the Climate Change issue has been reached by scientists

Which question did they reach consensus on?
Because when it comes to "climate change" there are thousands.

because they zeroed out any other explanation for the warming.

They decided man was totally responsible? Partially responsible? How much?

At least post the question they voted on.

Apparently on the question that you're a parrot because no other explanation withstood review.

So you'll be posting the question?
I bet it's a good one.
Very precise.

Not wishy-washy at all, eh?

Come on......make SSDD look like an idiot.

SSDD makes himself look like an idiot. I just keep him posting the proof.

Now maybe YOU can post why it is impossible for you deniers to cite one scientific organization that supports your climate change assertions.

tell me.....do you really believe consensus is actually evidence that the AGW hypothesis is correct?

Repeating a logical fallacy over and over as if it were actually evidence of something is strange, and stupid, but you are what you are. Do tell me what sort of evidence you think group think among scientists represents...

I guess after having all your attempts at making up science torn down, logical fallacy is all that is left to you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You seem to be under the impression that consensus is evidence of something besides group think...Believing that it is evidence of anything else is a logical fallacy...but then you guys live by logical fallacy....

Consensus on the Climate Change issue has been reached by scientists because they zeroed out any other explanation for the warming.

Consensus on the Climate Change issue has been reached by scientists

Which question did they reach consensus on?
Because when it comes to "climate change" there are thousands.

because they zeroed out any other explanation for the warming.

They decided man was totally responsible? Partially responsible? How much?

At least post the question they voted on.

Apparently on the question that you're a parrot because no other explanation withstood review.

So you'll be posting the question?
I bet it's a good one.
Very precise.

Not wishy-washy at all, eh?

Come on......make SSDD look like an idiot.

SSDD makes himself look like an idiot. I just keep him posting the proof.

Now maybe YOU can post why it is impossible for you deniers to cite one scientific organization that supports your climate change assertions.

And you can do your part by posting the question.

 

[SSDD]

You seem to be under the impression that consensus is evidence of something besides group think...Believing that it is evidence of anything else is a logical fallacy...but then you guys live by logical fallacy....

Consensus on the Climate Change issue has been reached by scientists because they zeroed out any other explanation for the warming.

Consensus on the Climate Change issue has been reached by scientists

Which question did they reach consensus on?
Because when it comes to "climate change" there are thousands.

because they zeroed out any other explanation for the warming.

They decided man was totally responsible? Partially responsible? How much?

At least post the question they voted on.

Apparently on the question that you're a parrot because no other explanation withstood review.

Says the parrot who gets his opinion from alarmist blogs...what a goob...

I have cited the leading scientific organizations from every authority on the issue.

And you can find them all here... Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

And yet, among all those leading scientific organizations, and all the science they have produced, you can't find a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...nor can you cite a single published paper in which the claimed warming due to human activities has been empirically measured, quantified and blamed on greenhouse gasses. That being the case, what exactly do you suppose that consensus is based on?..because it certainly isn't the overwhelming body of observed, measured evidence.

 

[SSDD]

Maybe you aren't aware, but NASA, and by default, every other organization that is subject to truth in advertising laws has been petitioned by the CEI to cease using the 97% lie...a quick read of their case, and basis for the complaint makes it pretty clear that NASA doesn't have a legal leg to stand on with regard to the 97% lie....When that is gone, what will you use for evidence then? Name calling?

 

[MisterBeale]

Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room. By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.

First, it is a bit disingenuous to say, "the global scientific community," because I don't really think they all subscribe to the belief that humans are the primary driver,

Earth Science | Climate Change | Global Warming | Renewable Energy | Pollution Treatment | Renewable Energy | USA | Asia | Middle East| Lisbon | Portugal
PLANETOPHYSICAL STATE OF THE EARTH AND LIFE
| PSI Intl

and,

Second, has the scientific community always been completely accurate in all of it's hypothesis's?

I think the question is misstated.
Has Global Warming and Climate Change caused the Polar Shift?
As temperatures increased throughout the 20th century, Greenland's ice mass decreased. In fact, a total of about 7,500 gigatons -- the weight of more than 20 million Empire State Buildings -- of Greenland's ice melted into the ocean during this time period. This makes Greenland one of the top contributors of mass being transferred to the oceans, causing sea level to rise and, consequently, a drift in Earth's spin axis.
Scientists ID three causes of Earth's spin axis drift – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

But to answer your question, when their is evidence of the most catastrophic event that mankind has ever faced is occurring, we don't need 100% of the scientific community concurrence nor do we need to be 100% correct.

You didn't even bother to read my links.

I am talking about the MAGNETIC drift, of the MAGNETIC pole.

Your article is talking about a spin of off the gravitational axis. Everyone know about procession, my links were not addressing procession. We are talking about much deeper forces here than what man's silly amount of C02 in the air can affect. Any corporate source that is trying to convince you that our industrial activity can affect the molten core of the planet? Take it to the bank that it is propaganda. The iron core has shifted the magnetic pole before, and it is likely doing so right now.

These are two different things, and the corporate media is, and has been doing it's damnedest to conflate the two and confuse people about how planeto-physical processes work, so they can pull the wool over uneducated simpletons.


CO2 and Greenhouses gases certainly cannot affect the iron rich, magnetic molten core of the planet, OR ANY planetary body which shifts the magnetic poles of the field of the planet.



DO YOU WANT US TO BELIEVE MAN'S GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ARE CAUSING AN UPTICK IN EARTHQUAKE AND VOLCANIC ACTIVITY?

SERIOUSLY? DO YOU THINK WE ARE THAT DUMB?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Unfortunate to be in a position where you feel that you must believe people who have been caught falsifying data....

What data has been falsified? Well, outside of the denial bubble.

Glad to provide you with some...it isn't as if were hard to find....

Here is a fine example...the temperature was adjusted down from the raw data in order to give the appearance of more warming than has actually happened and it completely eliminates the hot period of the 1930's (the dust bowl years) which were warmer than the present and makes them appear much cooler than the present.

Here is another fine example of the "adjustment" happening at NASA.. Want more? There's plenty out there.

Post the source where you pulled these "graphs" from.

Lets see if you ignore these charts from PISS using THEIR source links. It is all PISS/NASA here.


NASA 1998



NASA 2019

Cooling the past, warming the present is obvious here.

Why don't you links go back to NASA? I could post 1000's of NASA cited graphs which don't show the supposed adjustment that you claim.

Like this one

or this one.

Or this one

The first link goes to the WAYBACK Machine, with THIS URL used to find that 1998 chart: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/observe/surftemp/1998.fig3.GIF

The second link IS from NASA themselves, here is the entire URL for the 2019 chart: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/U.S._Temperature/graph.png

You are so bereft in critical thinking skills that you didn't pay attention to the URL's.

I correctly stated it was THEIR own links in post 418, and you disputed the obvious evidence I gave you.



That is really dumb.

 

[SSDD]

What data has been falsified? Well, outside of the denial bubble.

Glad to provide you with some...it isn't as if were hard to find....

Here is a fine example...the temperature was adjusted down from the raw data in order to give the appearance of more warming than has actually happened and it completely eliminates the hot period of the 1930's (the dust bowl years) which were warmer than the present and makes them appear much cooler than the present.

Here is another fine example of the "adjustment" happening at NASA.. Want more? There's plenty out there.

Post the source where you pulled these "graphs" from.

Lets see if you ignore these charts from PISS using THEIR source links. It is all PISS/NASA here.


NASA 1998



NASA 2019

Cooling the past, warming the present is obvious here.

Why don't you links go back to NASA? I could post 1000's of NASA cited graphs which don't show the supposed adjustment that you claim.

Like this one

or this one.

Or this one

The first link goes to the WAYBACK Machine, with THIS URL used to find that 1998 chart: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/observe/surftemp/1998.fig3.GIF

The second link IS from NASA themselves, here is the entire URL for the 2019 chart: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/U.S._Temperature/graph.png

You are so bereft in critical thinking skills that you didn't pay attention to the URL's.

I correctly stated it was THEIR own links in post 418, and you disputed the obvious evidence I gave you.



That is really dumb.

Not much point in telling him. He seems to have given up on even pretending to use something like evidence...now he has gone into logical fallacy mode...appeal to authority as if citing consensus among a bunch of natural born skeptics were evidence of anything more than an unfortunate case of group think...

He thinks that the political heads of scientific societies speak for the membership and that the working scientists agree with the political head's statements on climate change.

Same old mode they all go into when their feeble attempts at evidence inevitably get shot down.

 

[jillian]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

No “subscribes” to science. There are only morons who choose to ignore the science.

Oops.

 

[Oddball]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

No “subscribes” to science. There are only morons who choose to ignore the science.

Oops.

Awww....Looks like the benzodiazepines aren't working.

 

[SSDD]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

No “subscribes” to science. There are only morons who choose to ignore the science.

Oops.

I guess that statement made sense in your head when you thought of it, but I am afraid that I miss your point.

 

[Oddball]

I guess that statement made sense in your head when you thought of it, but I am afraid that I miss your point.

She has no point....Being a bitter, pissed off old hag will do that to ya.

 

[SSDD]

I guess that statement made sense in your head when you thought of it, but I am afraid that I miss your point.

She has no point....Being a bitter, pissed off old hag will do that to ya.

Liberals tend to be a miserable humorless lot aren't they?

 

[Flopper]

Still not ONE scientific organization cited by any denier here....

And there won't be. AGW deniers like most conspiracy theorist rely on false clams, half truths, misinterpretation, and mistakes made by researchers years ago. Instead of doing real research climate change denier try to discredit those that do. Often their cut and paste in threads is research and articles done 10, 20 or even 30 years ago which has been superseded by other more accurate and generally better research. There are still many internet sites, publications, and authors that make good money producing anti-AGW material.

Like most conspiracy theorist, AGW deniers are not concerned that for their contentions to be correct would requires a great worldwide conspiracy of not just climate scientists but thousands of scientist in other fields such as, geology, paleontology, glaciology, marine biology, etc. And of course dozens of government research organizations such NASA, and NOAA all of which have to be a party of this great conspiracy. The conspiracy much include research funding groups such the National Academy of Science, Environmental Protection Agency, the United Nations, and dozens of other international agencies funding research.

Al Gore had one thing right about climate change, it is a very inconvenient Truth. Putting the planet on the right track to stop climate change requires huge expenditures and worldwide cooperation, something that has never occurred. IMHO, it's not going to happen. People will continue to have lingering doubts regardless of what scientist say. The world is not going make the sacrifices needed, until the truth is so obvious that it can no longer be ignored. Hopefully it will not be too late.

 

[otto105]

I guess that statement made sense in your head when you thought of it, but I am afraid that I miss your point.

She has no point....Being a bitter, pissed off old hag will do that to ya.

Liberals tend to be a miserable humorless lot aren't they?

Left leaning people have all the humor and with that great comedians and shows.

What has the right been but milk toast boring ass shitholes.

 

[Flopper]

You have not disproved any of the peer reviewed data that Desmog cited. You have used some cut and paste BS backed by nothing.

Actually, I disproved it all...do I expect that you would be bright enough to recognize that fact? No...not a chance in hell. You keep reading your blogs and stay just as ignorant as you are...it is precisely what you deserve.

You have not disproved this peer reviewed paper from 2018.

Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era


You have NOT disproved anything from NASA.


You have offered bullshit and paraded around in a little skirt.

Of course I did...as I pointed out already:

2.8 mm per year? Not very scary...even to alarmists so again, the data is heavily massaged using inappropriate, and completely fraudulent methods to achieve a 3.3mm per year rate of increase. A global isostatic adjustment was applied which is blatantly fraudulent in the context of sea level increase. Such adjustments are correct in the context of calculating ocean depth as the sea floor sinks and have absolutely no relationship to measuring sea level by satellites. Here is what the adjustments look like...

Here is an overlay of the two graphs at the same time scale.

You are so far out of your depth (and you reside in the very shallow end of the pool) that you don't even know when your questions have been answered...The acceleration happened when they applied a global isostatic adjustment. Isostatic adjustments are used to determine if the sea floor is sinking...it has nothing to do with sea level rise... And the graphs show the effect of the adjustment...there is no acceleration in sea level rise...there is only fraudulent adjustments...which tide gages....do not agree with...

The change in level between 1992 and 2016 appears to be about 80 mm or an avg of 5.7 mm / yr without any adjustment.

Based on the fake numbers....sure that's what it appears to be...the tide gages don't agree....but accurate measurement isn't what it is all about...it is about supporting an alarmist narrative...The graph indicating 5.7mm per year has had a global isostatic adjustment applied which is an invalid adjustment when looking at sea level...isostatic adjustments are applied when looking at the sea floor..and the rate at which it might or might not be sinking...the increase in the rate of sea level rise is due to a fraudulent adjustment that has nothing to do with measuring sea level..

Since we are discussing a global average chance in sea level over just a 14 year period, (1992 to 2016) I don't see how an glacial isostatistic adjustment would make that much different over that time period. Over a hundred years, yes but not 14 years.

 

[Flopper]

Consensus on the Climate Change issue has been reached by scientists because they zeroed out any other explanation for the warming.

Consensus on the Climate Change issue has been reached by scientists

Which question did they reach consensus on?
Because when it comes to "climate change" there are thousands.

because they zeroed out any other explanation for the warming.

They decided man was totally responsible? Partially responsible? How much?

At least post the question they voted on.

Apparently on the question that you're a parrot because no other explanation withstood review.

So you'll be posting the question?
I bet it's a good one.
Very precise.

Not wishy-washy at all, eh?

Come on......make SSDD look like an idiot.

SSDD makes himself look like an idiot. I just keep him posting the proof.

Now maybe YOU can post why it is impossible for you deniers to cite one scientific organization that supports your climate change assertions.

tell me.....do you really believe consensus is actually evidence that the AGW hypothesis is correct?

Repeating a logical fallacy over and over as if it were actually evidence of something is strange, and stupid, but you are what you are. Do tell me what sort of evidence you think group think among scientists represents...

I guess after having all your attempts at making up science torn down, logical fallacy is all that is left to you.

Essential every major scientific theory over the past 300 years has been subjected to the consensus test of peers. Whenever a new theory is proposed, a paper explaining the theory, along with with assumptions and data backing the theory is presented to peers. It may first appear in scientific journals or it may be introduced in a society of peers. Endorsement by a society of a theory as explanation of a phenomena general takes years. In at least one case it took several centuries. Other scientist in the field with hypnosis's will submit papers and often original research, sometime backing up the theory and sometime opposing it. Most major theories are met with skepticism by other scientist anxious to make their mark. Most theories die on the vine but often spur on other scientist to submit similar or opposing theories.

My major point is scientific theories are not popularity contest conducted by the media. They are the result of endorsement by scientists within the field that offer supporting evidence or criticisms and changes.

In regard to AGW, there is not one theory that explains all the phenomena associated with global warming but many, some are sea level studies, other are glacial ice melts, others are biological studies such dying coral, decline of polar bears, etc.

However the granddaddy is The greenhouse effect first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, discovered in 1856 by Eunice Newton Foote, later expanded upon by John Tyndall, investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and the hypothesis was reported in the popular press as early as 1912. The scientific description of global warming was further developed in the 1930s through the 1960s by Guy Stewart Callendar. An influential 1979 National Academy of Sciences study headed by Jule Charney followed Broecker in using global warming to refer to rising surface temperatures, while describing the wider effects of increased CO2
as climate change. Many studies were later presented that demonstrated the greenhouse gas effect, some in the laboratory and some in the atmosphere. By 2010, essential all major Scientific Academies and dozens of scientific societies accepted the fact that climate is changing and man is the cause or at least a major reason for the change.

What is commonly referred to as AGW theory was first proposed almost 200 years ago but it took 185 years of research and observation before it was widely accepted by the scientific community.

Consensus of the scientific community is essential in acceptance of a scientific theory.
Global warming - Wikipedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I guess that statement made sense in your head when you thought of it, but I am afraid that I miss your point.

She has no point....Being a bitter, pissed off old hag will do that to ya.

Liberals tend to be a miserable humorless lot aren't they?

Left leaning people have all the humor and with that great comedians and shows.

What has the right been but milk toast boring ass shitholes.

Still can't find that question?
It's a shame, it must have been a doozy to get 100% agreement, eh?

 

[Billy_Bob]

You really are a piece of work...First you claim that because nature has shown us larger temperature increases in shorter periods of time than anything we have seen that that is evidence that the small change we have seen over the past 150 years is larger than natural variability could produce....then you claim I have changed my position? How stupid are you?

My position stands where it has always been...since nature has shown us that it can change the temperature to a greater degree and faster

SSDD;

You are dealing with religious zealots who will not respond to facts. They believe because they are told to believe. Nothing will make them doubt the Gia religion. No amount of Empirical Evidence will change their minds and they will kill themselves and billions more to keep the lie alive.

Yeah...but some people who don't necessarily ever post anything read these posts and are swayed...I occasionally get a PM regarding a discussion with one of these types and they appreciate seeing alarmists arguments torn down with actual science rather than talking points and hysterics...so although the useful idiots like otto and cosmos will never be convinced, tearing down their arguments does serve a purpose.

Still working on that one scientific organization that supports your opinion.

Last time I checked, the list of scientist who do not agree with the AGW hype has grown to over 56,000. While not an official organization it dwarfs all of your organizations put together.. But then you folks like to throw out science that doesn't fit your narrative...

View attachment 269591

You folks like to throw away papers who do not toe the line....

The graph you cited from Legates et al is a joke.

Cook and SKS are liars and frauds.. When you create false personas with false credentials to peer review your own work in an effort to give it credibility your a deceiver and a liar. I wouldn't give Cook the time of day to put up his propaganda.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Still not ONE scientific organization cited by any denier here....

Not one scientific organization will put it to a vote of their constituents because just like APS their crowd attacked them for their purely political BS that has no basis in science. All your societies have are political statements by the very few at the top who are political whores..

 

[Billy_Bob]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

No “subscribes” to science. There are only morons who choose to ignore the science.

Oops.

I guess that statement made sense in your head when you thought of it, but I am afraid that I miss your point.

I think she forgot to take her psyc meds...