So how much money do those evil conniving climate scientists make anyway?

[Oddball]

He's an expert on numbers and statistics...

Obviously not, given how badly his work sucks. But then, you're a denier, so you worship fraud and failure.

Something that you warmers also want to ignore.

Don't project, little fraudster. Your side has been caught faking data over and over, and you smooch the keisters of those fraudsters.

But then there are also Freeman Dyson, Bjorn Lomborg, Stepen MacIntyre, and Roy Spencer, just to name a few off the top of my head....They've all been blackballed from the super-exclusive IPCC tree house club.....I'm certain you can find a way to attack them personally, rather than address their counter-arguments to the hoax.

Pointing out that someone's science sucks is not blackballing them. That's the heart of the matter. Your side's science sucks hard. Contrary to what your cult has told you, all ideas are not equally valid. Your cult's ideas are stupid, therefore they are inferior, hence normal people laugh at them.

I understand that your religion says otherwise. I don't care. Scientologists may sincerely believe in cleansing their engrams, but it's still loopy pseudoscience. You may sincerely believe in the dogma of your liars' cult, but that dogma is stupid loopy pseudoscience.

And yes, we know with certainty that your beliefs are entirely religious in nature. They don't satisfy your "five points". For example, you will not be able to list anything that might falsify your beliefs. I've asked that of deniers many times, and I've always gotten crickets in response. Deniers can't even imagine something that could falsify their beliefs, so it's clear those beliefs are the faith-based beliefs of a religion.

 

[SSDD]

The quantifiable section is interesting though...considering that there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses...

Quantifiable as in X amount of "excess" CO2 = Y° in raised temperatures...Nowhere to be found in any of the pseudo-scientific hypothesis.

I have never even seen an attempt at quantification.....they know full well what such an attempt would result in...

 

[Crick]

I find that getting the two of you together is like the product of two multiplicands both less than unity.

quan·ti·fi·ca·tion
/ˌkwän(t)əfiˈkāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the expression or measurement of the quantity of something.

Executive Summary of TPSB, Chapter 12: LONG-TERM CLIMATE CHANGE: PROJECTIONS, COMMITMENTS AND IRREVERSIBILITY

Executive Summary
This chapter assesses long-term projections of climate change for the end of the 21st century and beyond, where the forced signal depends on the scenario and is typically larger than the internal variability of the climate system. Changes are expressed with respect to a baseline period of 1986–2005, unless otherwise stated.

Scenarios, Ensembles and Uncertainties
The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) presents an unprecedented level of information on which to base projections including new Earth System Models with a more complete representation of forcings, new Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) scenarios and more output available for analysis. The four RCP scenarios used in CMIP5 lead to a total radiative forcing (RF) at 2100 that spans a wider range than that estimated for the three Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) scenarios (B1, A1B, A2) used in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), RCP2.6 being almost 2 W m–2 lower than SRES B1 by 2100. The magnitude of future aerosol forcing decreases more rapidly in RCP scenarios, reaching lower values than in SRES scenarios through the 21st century. Carbon dioxide (CO2) represents about 80 to 90% of the total anthropogenic forcing in all RCP scenarios through the 21st century. The ensemble mean total effective RFs at 2100 for CMIP5 concentration-driven projections are 2.2, 3.8, 4.8 and 7.6 W m–2 for RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 respectively, relative to about 1850, and are close to corresponding Integrated Assessment Model (IAM)-based estimates
New experiments and studies have continued to work towards a more complete and rigorous characterization of the uncertainties in long-term projections, but the magnitude of the uncertainties has not changed significantly since AR4. There is overall consistency between the projections based on CMIP3 and CMIP5, for both large-scale patterns and magnitudes of change. Differences in global temperature projections are largely attributable to a change in scenarios. Model agreement and confidence in projections depend on the variable and spatial and temporal averaging. The well-established stability of large-scale geographical patterns of change during a transient experiment remains valid in the CMIP5 models, thus justifying pattern scaling to approximate changes across time and scenarios under such experiments. Limitations remain when pattern scaling is applied to strong mitigation scenarios, to scenarios where localized forcing (e.g., aerosols) are significant and vary in time and for variables other than average temperature and precipitation.

 

[Oddball]

I find that getting the two of you together is like the product of two multiplicands both less than unity.

quan·ti·fi·ca·tion
/ˌkwän(t)əfiˈkāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the expression or measurement of the quantity of something.

Executive Summary of TPSB, Chapter 12: LONG-TERM CLIMATE CHANGE: PROJECTIONS, COMMITMENTS AND IRREVERSIBILITY

Executive Summary
This chapter assesses long-term projections of climate change for the end of the 21st century and beyond, where the forced signal depends on the scenario and is typically larger than the internal variability of the climate system. Changes are expressed with respect to a baseline period of 1986–2005, unless otherwise stated.

Scenarios, Ensembles and Uncertainties
The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) presents an unprecedented level of information on which to base projections including new Earth System Models with a more complete representation of forcings, new Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) scenarios and more output available for analysis. The four RCP scenarios used in CMIP5 lead to a total radiative forcing (RF) at 2100 that spans a wider range than that estimated for the three Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) scenarios (B1, A1B, A2) used in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), RCP2.6 being almost 2 W m–2 lower than SRES B1 by 2100. The magnitude of future aerosol forcing decreases more rapidly in RCP scenarios, reaching lower values than in SRES scenarios through the 21st century. Carbon dioxide (CO2) represents about 80 to 90% of the total anthropogenic forcing in all RCP scenarios through the 21st century. The ensemble mean total effective RFs at 2100 for CMIP5 concentration-driven projections are 2.2, 3.8, 4.8 and 7.6 W m–2 for RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 respectively, relative to about 1850, and are close to corresponding Integrated Assessment Model (IAM)-based estimates
New experiments and studies have continued to work towards a more complete and rigorous characterization of the uncertainties in long-term projections, but the magnitude of the uncertainties has not changed significantly since AR4. There is overall consistency between the projections based on CMIP3 and CMIP5, for both large-scale patterns and magnitudes of change. Differences in global temperature projections are largely attributable to a change in scenarios. Model agreement and confidence in projections depend on the variable and spatial and temporal averaging. The well-established stability of large-scale geographical patterns of change during a transient experiment remains valid in the CMIP5 models, thus justifying pattern scaling to approximate changes across time and scenarios under such experiments. Limitations remain when pattern scaling is applied to strong mitigation scenarios, to scenarios where localized forcing (e.g., aerosols) are significant and vary in time and for variables other than average temperature and precipitation.

"I have nothing" involves far fewer keystrokes.

 

[Crick]

I have gotten gigged by management here for posting as much material as you just chose to ignore.

The idea that TPSB, the work of the IPCC and that of all the world's climate scientists involves no quantification is absolute patent nonsense.

 

[cnm]

"I have nothing" involves far fewer keystrokes.

Invincible ignorance is indeed invincible.

 

[cnm]

The idea that TPSB, the work of the IPCC and that of all the world's climate scientists involves no quantification is absolute patent nonsense.

I think I enjoy most Oddball's appeal to his own authority as a language expert.

 

[Oddball]

"I have nothing" involves far fewer keystrokes.

Invincible ignorance is indeed invincible.

I know parsing and qualifying bullshit language when I see it....that POS text brick had a nice healthy smattering of it.

 

[Oddball]

The idea that TPSB, the work of the IPCC and that of all the world's climate scientists involves no quantification is absolute patent nonsense.

I think I enjoy most Oddball's appeal to his own authority as a language expert.

I only studied , among other experts, career leftist hack Noam Chomsky on the subject.

 

[Confounding]

The idea that TPSB, the work of the IPCC and that of all the world's climate scientists involves no quantification is absolute patent nonsense.

Crick, cut them some slack. It's not easy to fight reality.

 

[Confounding]

Invincible ignorance

I think these guys know they're full of shit.

 

[cnm]

I only studied , among other experts, career leftist hack Noam Chomsky on the subject.

Well, lucky you are an expert authority to which to appeal.

 

[cnm]

Invincible ignorance

I think these guys know they're full of shit.

You reckon? I suspect their position depends on them refusing to recognise that.

I mean, look at Oddball's reaction to being shown quantification, which he insisted didn't happen.

 

[Confounding]

Invincible ignorance

I think these guys know they're full of shit.

You reckon? I suspect their position depends on them refusing to recognise that.

I mean, look at Oddball's reaction to being shown quantification, which he insisted didn't happen.

While trying to wrap my head around their profound ignorance my mind went to conspiracy, but they probably really are just that ignorant.

Sigh...

 

[SSDD]

I find that getting the two of you together is like the product of two multiplicands both less than unity.

I ask for observed, measured evidence and you present models...tell me skid mark...just how stupid are you?

 

[SSDD]

The idea that TPSB, the work of the IPCC and that of all the world's climate scientists involves no quantification is absolute patent nonsense.

Crick, cut them some slack. It's not easy to fight reality.

As if you would know reality if it bit you on the ass....but I am sure that the skidmark appreciates a follower...even if said follower admits to abject ignorance on the topic...at this point, he will take whatever he can get...

 

[SSDD]

Invincible ignorance

I think these guys know they're full of shit.

Actually you don't think...you are told what to say and when to say it...by your own admission, you have no informed opinion on the topic of your own...you have the opinion someone with a political agenda gave you.

 

[Crick]

What is the political agenda of the scientists behind the IPCC?

 

[Confounding]

Invincible ignorance

I think these guys know they're full of shit.

Actually you don't think...you are told what to say and when to say it...by your own admission, you have no informed opinion on the topic of your own...you have the opinion someone with a political agenda gave you.

You should go prove AGW wrong with your groundbreaking perspective. Go, now! I'll look for you in the paper.

"Unknown redneck stuns scientific community; proves AGW was bullshit the whole time."

 

[SSDD]

You should go prove AGW wrong with your groundbreaking perspective. Go, now! I'll look for you in the paper.

Nothing to say? Did whoever gave your opinion not prepare you for any sort of actual discussion? Not to worry...it happens to all parrots...

"Unknown redneck stuns scientific community; proves AGW was bullshit the whole time."

So now I am a redneck also? For someone who claims to know all about his opponent, you sure don't seem to be able to answer any pointed questions?

And do you think rednecks are stupid? Do you think there are no climate scientists who may have come from what you term redneck backgrounds? It is very clear that you don't have much intellectual wattage going for you there...

Knee jerk reactions, inept defense of your position, name calling, and logical fallacy seem to be your tools of trade....what sort of trade do you have that you would have so many weak assed, useless tools at your disposal?

And every time one of you warmer wack jobs failed to provide even a single piece of observed, measured evidence to support the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...you strengthen my case....