Solid Physical Evidence of AGW.... Where is it?

[Billy_Bob]

Paul raises a very serious question, where is the empirical evidence that AGW is happening and where is the proof that man is causing it...

"The IPCC says it’s still possible to limit planetary warming to an additional 0.5 degrees C (0.9 F) “above pre-industrial levels” – but only if global CO2 emissions are halved by 2030 and zeroed out by 2050.

So climate alarmists intend to carbon-tax, legislate and regulate our energy, factories, livelihoods, living standards, liberties and lives to the max. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would eliminate and replace US fossil fuels by 2030. It’s an unprecedented economic and political power grab.

We went to war with King George over far less serious abuses and usurpations. And yet today we seem to have few Patrick Henrys or other stalwart, principled leaders willing to defy this insanity.

Those accusing someone of a crime must prove his guilt; the accused need not prove his innocence. But not only are alarmists bringing what amount to criminal charges against fossil fuels; wiping out the fuels that provide over 80% of our energy would bring widespread chaos, poverty, misery, disease and death.

As I said just days ago, those who claim fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are causing dangerous global warming and climate change have the burden of proving their case. Not with allegations, computer models, headlines, mob rule and demands for instant sentencing. With solid, irrefutable evidence."

Saved by pseudo-renewable energy?


It is now time for the alarmists to provide SOLID, PHYSICAL, EMPIRICALLY observed and verified evidence.... Where is it?

 

[Asclepias]

"..those who claim fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are causing dangerous global warming and climate change have the burden of proving their case. "

What if they cant prove their case to your satisfaction but they turn out to be correct? Are you willing to take that chance?

 

[Crick]

"
The IPCC says it’s still possible to limit planetary warming to an additional 0.5 degrees C (0.9 F) “above pre-industrial levels” – but only if global CO2 emissions are halved by 2030 and zeroed out by 2050.

As far as the science goes, that would be a statement of fact.

So climate alarmists intend to carbon-tax, legislate and regulate our energy, factories, livelihoods, living standards, liberties and lives to the max. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would eliminate and replace US fossil fuels by 2030. It’s an unprecedented economic and political power grab.

So, those who accept the conclusion of the IPCC hope to take whatever measures possible achieve that goal.

We went to war with King George over far less serious abuses and usurpations.

No we did not. King George sitting on his throne back in England does not equate to Americans expressing their desires in an open democracy.

And yet today we seem to have few Patrick Henrys or other stalwart, principled leaders willing to defy this insanity.

I would suggest because you have misidentified the party behaving insanely.

Those accusing someone of a crime must prove his guilt; the accused need not prove his innocence. But not only are alarmists bringing what amount to criminal charges against fossil fuels; wiping out the fuels that provide over 80% of our energy would bring widespread chaos, poverty, misery, disease and death.

I guess you've never actually had jury duty or passed a course in American Government. You've left out the key phrase: "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT". AGW has been shown valid far beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I said just days ago

, those who claim fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are causing dangerous global warming and climate change have the burden of proving their case. Not with allegations, computer models, headlines, mob rule and demands for instant sentencing. With solid, irrefutable evidence."
Saved by pseudo-renewable energy? It is now time for the alarmists to provide SOLID, PHYSICAL, EMPIRICALLY observed and verified evidence.... Where is it?

Done. And your denials convince no one. You are not the poster that first comes to mind when anyone in these parts thinks "honesty?"

 

[Billy_Bob]

"..those who claim fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are causing dangerous global warming and climate change have the burden of proving their case. "

What if they cant prove their case to your satisfaction but they turn out to be correct? Are you willing to take that chance?

I am not going to kill myself for your wet dream.

Bring on the evidence to support your demand that we commit suicide to "save the world".

 

[Billy_Bob]

"
The IPCC says it’s still possible to limit planetary warming to an additional 0.5 degrees C (0.9 F) “above pre-industrial levels” – but only if global CO2 emissions are halved by 2030 and zeroed out by 2050.

As far as the science goes, that would be a statement of fact.

So climate alarmists intend to carbon-tax, legislate and regulate our energy, factories, livelihoods, living standards, liberties and lives to the max. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would eliminate and replace US fossil fuels by 2030. It’s an unprecedented economic and political power grab.

So, those who accept the conclusion of the IPCC hope to take whatever measures possible achieve that goal.

We went to war with King George over far less serious abuses and usurpations.

No we did not. King George sitting on his throne back in England does not equate to Americans expressing their desires in an open democracy.

And yet today we seem to have few Patrick Henrys or other stalwart, principled leaders willing to defy this insanity.

I would suggest because you have misidentified the party behaving insanely.

Those accusing someone of a crime must prove his guilt; the accused need not prove his innocence. But not only are alarmists bringing what amount to criminal charges against fossil fuels; wiping out the fuels that provide over 80% of our energy would bring widespread chaos, poverty, misery, disease and death.

I guess you've never actually had jury duty or passed a course in American Government. You've left out the key phrase: "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT". AGW has been shown valid far beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I said just days ago

, those who claim fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are causing dangerous global warming and climate change have the burden of proving their case. Not with allegations, computer models, headlines, mob rule and demands for instant sentencing. With solid, irrefutable evidence."
Saved by pseudo-renewable energy? It is now time for the alarmists to provide SOLID, PHYSICAL, EMPIRICALLY observed and verified evidence.... Where is it?

Done. And your denials convince no one. You are not the poster that first comes to mind when anyone in these parts thinks "honesty?"

And you still have not produced ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to prove your wild ass assertions... Common Cricky... Post up the evidence... we've been asking for over 3 decades for it.. time to pony up!

 

[Asclepias]

"..those who claim fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are causing dangerous global warming and climate change have the burden of proving their case. "

What if they cant prove their case to your satisfaction but they turn out to be correct? Are you willing to take that chance?

I am not going to kill myself for your wet dream.

Bring on the evidence to support your demand that we commit suicide to "save the world".

I'm going to guess by that response you are willing to take the chance that all the scientists are wrong.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"..those who claim fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are causing dangerous global warming and climate change have the burden of proving their case. "

What if they cant prove their case to your satisfaction but they turn out to be correct? Are you willing to take that chance?

I am not going to kill myself for your wet dream.

Bring on the evidence to support your demand that we commit suicide to "save the world".

I'm going to guess by that response you are willing to take the chance that all the scientists are wrong.

LOL...

You want to kill us for nothing more than a failed hypothesis... Your models fail without exception and every pontification your people have made has fallen as a failed prediction..

Pony up the evidence. I for one am tired of the bull shit chicken little crap..

 

[jc456]

"
The IPCC says it’s still possible to limit planetary warming to an additional 0.5 degrees C (0.9 F) “above pre-industrial levels” – but only if global CO2 emissions are halved by 2030 and zeroed out by 2050.

As far as the science goes, that would be a statement of fact.

So climate alarmists intend to carbon-tax, legislate and regulate our energy, factories, livelihoods, living standards, liberties and lives to the max. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would eliminate and replace US fossil fuels by 2030. It’s an unprecedented economic and political power grab.

So, those who accept the conclusion of the IPCC hope to take whatever measures possible achieve that goal.

We went to war with King George over far less serious abuses and usurpations.

No we did not. King George sitting on his throne back in England does not equate to Americans expressing their desires in an open democracy.

And yet today we seem to have few Patrick Henrys or other stalwart, principled leaders willing to defy this insanity.

I would suggest because you have misidentified the party behaving insanely.

Those accusing someone of a crime must prove his guilt; the accused need not prove his innocence. But not only are alarmists bringing what amount to criminal charges against fossil fuels; wiping out the fuels that provide over 80% of our energy would bring widespread chaos, poverty, misery, disease and death.

I guess you've never actually had jury duty or passed a course in American Government. You've left out the key phrase: "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT". AGW has been shown valid far beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I said just days ago

, those who claim fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are causing dangerous global warming and climate change have the burden of proving their case. Not with allegations, computer models, headlines, mob rule and demands for instant sentencing. With solid, irrefutable evidence."
Saved by pseudo-renewable energy? It is now time for the alarmists to provide SOLID, PHYSICAL, EMPIRICALLY observed and verified evidence.... Where is it?

Done. And your denials convince no one. You are not the poster that first comes to mind when anyone in these parts thinks "honesty?"

So, those who accept the conclusion of the IPCC hope to take whatever measures possible achieve that goal.

Well then produce the empirical evidence that supports their claim. Why are you against proving your position?
The IPCC isn't based on evidence.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"
The IPCC says it’s still possible to limit planetary warming to an additional 0.5 degrees C (0.9 F) “above pre-industrial levels” – but only if global CO2 emissions are halved by 2030 and zeroed out by 2050.

As far as the science goes, that would be a statement of fact.

So climate alarmists intend to carbon-tax, legislate and regulate our energy, factories, livelihoods, living standards, liberties and lives to the max. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would eliminate and replace US fossil fuels by 2030. It’s an unprecedented economic and political power grab.

So, those who accept the conclusion of the IPCC hope to take whatever measures possible achieve that goal.

We went to war with King George over far less serious abuses and usurpations.

No we did not. King George sitting on his throne back in England does not equate to Americans expressing their desires in an open democracy.

And yet today we seem to have few Patrick Henrys or other stalwart, principled leaders willing to defy this insanity.

I would suggest because you have misidentified the party behaving insanely.

Those accusing someone of a crime must prove his guilt; the accused need not prove his innocence. But not only are alarmists bringing what amount to criminal charges against fossil fuels; wiping out the fuels that provide over 80% of our energy would bring widespread chaos, poverty, misery, disease and death.

I guess you've never actually had jury duty or passed a course in American Government. You've left out the key phrase: "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT". AGW has been shown valid far beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I said just days ago

, those who claim fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are causing dangerous global warming and climate change have the burden of proving their case. Not with allegations, computer models, headlines, mob rule and demands for instant sentencing. With solid, irrefutable evidence."
Saved by pseudo-renewable energy? It is now time for the alarmists to provide SOLID, PHYSICAL, EMPIRICALLY observed and verified evidence.... Where is it?

Done. And your denials convince no one. You are not the poster that first comes to mind when anyone in these parts thinks "honesty?"

After re-reading your post again I find it stunning that you think you and your hypothesis do not need to be proved by empirical evidence or pass the null hypothesis challenge. That we should just believe and bow down to your infinite wisdom...

You have just proven to me this is a religion for you..

By the way, the onerous is on you to prove your hypothesis validated, with observed empirical evidence, that is verifiable and repeatable in science... Not one of you're models work or have predictive power. Natural Variation and historical data show that our current warming is well within its NV boundaries.

Come on man, pony up the empirical evidence which proves your hypothesis and shows that it can all be attributed to man.

 

[Crick]

Onerous? Again?

The conclusions of the IPCC are based on the conclusions of more than 98% of the applicable published scientific climate studies of the last three decades. Those studies have convinced more than 98% of the world's publishing climate scientists that global warming is real, that it is primarily caused by human GHG emissions and that it is a threat to the well being of our species and the rest of life on this planet. That you find all that insufficient - that you should find it anything whatsoever - doesn't bother me in the least.

 

[jc456]

Onerous? Again?

The conclusions of the IPCC are based on the conclusions of more than 98% of the applicable published scientific climate studies of the last three decades. Those studies have convinced more than 98% of the world's publishing climate scientists that global warming is real, that it is primarily caused by human GHG emissions and that it is a threat to the well being of our species and the rest of life on this planet. That you find all that insufficient - that you should find it anything whatsoever - doesn't bother me in the least.

Nothing empirical

 

[Crick]

"..those who claim fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are causing dangerous global warming and climate change have the burden of proving their case. "

What if they cant prove their case to your satisfaction but they turn out to be correct? Are you willing to take that chance?

I am not going to kill myself for your wet dream.

Bring on the evidence to support your demand that we commit suicide to "save the world".

No one has demanded that you commit suicide. What we would LIKE to see you do is start making RATIONAL decisions.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Onerous? Again?

The conclusions of the IPCC are based on the conclusions of more than 98% of the applicable published scientific climate studies of the last three decades. Those studies have convinced more than 98% of the world's publishing climate scientists that global warming is real, that it is primarily caused by human GHG emissions and that it is a threat to the well being of our species and the rest of life on this planet. That you find all that insufficient - that you should find it anything whatsoever - doesn't bother me in the least.

LOL

Is this all you got?

An Appeal to your authorities who base their belief's on failed modeling? Consensus that your models fail without exception! Bravo!

That's it? Really?




I have shown over and over again that you have no empirical evidence to base you're belief on and that Natural variation dwarfs your supposed "mans influence" and to date you have produced NOTHING.

 

[Crick]

You have shown us over and over again that you lack the technical competence to get involved in any discussion outside the curriculum of a meteorology 101 class (and even there you're shaky). The ratio of your unsubstantiated to substantiated assertions approaches 20:1. Your error rate is ridiculously high and your errors are those of a school child. All of which, of course, brings your honesty SERIOUSLY into question.

I accept the conclusions of the IPCC. So do the vast majority of actual climate scientists on this planet. I am quite certain they know this topic orders of magnitude better than you or anyone else on this message board. So, pardon me if I have to say again that your disapproval on this topic means absolutely, positively, unabashedly, and completely without reservation; did-duh-lee-squat.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You have shown us over and over again that you lack the technical competence to get involved in any discussion outside the curriculum of a meteorology 101 class (and even there you're shaky). The ratio of your unsubstantiated to substantiated assertions approaches 20:1. Your error rate is ridiculously high and your errors are those of a school child. All of which, of course, brings your honesty SERIOUSLY into question.

I accept the conclusions of the IPCC. So do the vast majority of actual climate scientists on this planet. I am quite certain they know this topic orders of magnitude better than you or anyone else on this message board. So, pardon me if I have to say again that your disapproval on this topic means absolutely, positively, unabashedly, and completely without reservation; did-duh-lee-squat.

And once again you show your ignorance..

You attack me while propping up your authorities who have been caught lying, manufacturing data, manipulating data, and out right fabricating things.

I don't give a crap about what you think. The IPCC has changed their assessment over 80 times in 30 years and their climate sensitivity numbers have gone from 6.0 deg C per doubling of CO2 down to 0-1.1 deg C per doubling which is the base LOG for CO2. This means that man has little or no influence of the temperature by emitting CO2 but your to ignorant to see it..

Again, Where is you proof? Post it up big boy! You have attacked me but you have yet to display, prove its accuracy, and articulate any evidence..

PS: I love your sig line... It shows your total ignorance of QM theroy.. Tell me again when they identified what a photon is, energy or matter? Last time I checked (today) that definition has not been empirically identified. The definition matters and you don't have a fucking clue...

 

[SSDD]

"..those who claim fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are causing dangerous global warming and climate change have the burden of proving their case. "

What if they cant prove their case to your satisfaction but they turn out to be correct? Are you willing to take that chance?

Yes...since history shows that the average temperature of the earth has been far warmer than the present. Life on earth evolved and thrived at those temperatures...no reason to think that would change simply because we are here.

 

[SSDD]

"
The IPCC says it’s still possible to limit planetary warming to an additional 0.5 degrees C (0.9 F) “above pre-industrial levels” – but only if global CO2 emissions are halved by 2030 and zeroed out by 2050.

As far as the science goes, that would be a statement of fact.

So climate alarmists intend to carbon-tax, legislate and regulate our energy, factories, livelihoods, living standards, liberties and lives to the max. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would eliminate and replace US fossil fuels by 2030. It’s an unprecedented economic and political power grab.

So, those who accept the conclusion of the IPCC hope to take whatever measures possible achieve that goal.

We went to war with King George over far less serious abuses and usurpations.

No we did not. King George sitting on his throne back in England does not equate to Americans expressing their desires in an open democracy.

And yet today we seem to have few Patrick Henrys or other stalwart, principled leaders willing to defy this insanity.

I would suggest because you have misidentified the party behaving insanely.

Those accusing someone of a crime must prove his guilt; the accused need not prove his innocence. But not only are alarmists bringing what amount to criminal charges against fossil fuels; wiping out the fuels that provide over 80% of our energy would bring widespread chaos, poverty, misery, disease and death.

I guess you've never actually had jury duty or passed a course in American Government. You've left out the key phrase: "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT". AGW has been shown valid far beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I said just days ago

, those who claim fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are causing dangerous global warming and climate change have the burden of proving their case. Not with allegations, computer models, headlines, mob rule and demands for instant sentencing. With solid, irrefutable evidence."
Saved by pseudo-renewable energy? It is now time for the alarmists to provide SOLID, PHYSICAL, EMPIRICALLY observed and verified evidence.... Where is it?

Done. And your denials convince no one. You are not the poster that first comes to mind when anyone in these parts thinks "honesty?"

Any actual evidence to support what you believe? And do try to learn the difference between data and evidence before you go spewing your ignorance around....again.

We aren't really interested in what is good enough to fool you...we are interested in actual evidence.

 

[SSDD]

You have shown us over and over again that you lack the technical competence to get involved in any discussion outside the curriculum of a meteorology 101 class (and even there you're shaky). The ratio of your unsubstantiated to substantiated assertions approaches 20:1. Your error rate is ridiculously high and your errors are those of a school child. All of which, of course, brings your honesty SERIOUSLY into question.

I accept the conclusions of the IPCC. So do the vast majority of actual climate scientists on this planet. I am quite certain they know this topic orders of magnitude better than you or anyone else on this message board. So, pardon me if I have to say again that your disapproval on this topic means absolutely, positively, unabashedly, and completely without reservation; did-duh-lee-squat.

And you have shown over and over again that you can't even read a simple graph...and that you can't provide the first piece of actual evidence to support your beliefs...what's your point...even if he never took the argument past meterology (a hard science by the way as opposed to the soft science of climate science) it would still be over your head.

And like you said...there is no real evidence to challenge the 3 straight forward challenges I made...but it is good enough to fool you.

 

[jc456]

"..those who claim fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are causing dangerous global warming and climate change have the burden of proving their case. "

What if they cant prove their case to your satisfaction but they turn out to be correct? Are you willing to take that chance?

I am not going to kill myself for your wet dream.

Bring on the evidence to support your demand that we commit suicide to "save the world".

No one has demanded that you commit suicide. What we would LIKE to see you do is start making RATIONAL decisions.

rational decisions on what based on what evidence? dude you are loaded with stupid after this entire thread discussion. you must be a special cartoon character unlike me. Popeye used logic in his experiences. you use stupid.

 

[Crick]

PS: I love your sig line... It shows your total ignorance of QM theroy[sic].. Tell me again when they identified what a photon is, energy or matter? Last time I checked (today) that definition has not been empirically identified. The definition matters and you don't have a fucking clue...

Why don't you show us one solitary reference that states science is uncertain whether or not a photon might be matter? Just one. Now pardon me while I add this to my sig... which I also love.