The Warmers Case to the APS

[westwall]

I never mock anyone who actually served, admiral. YOU DIDN'T....that's the point!

Nobody should have to put up with the degree of assholism, stalking and dishonesty that I've always put up with from you. And I won't keep putting up with it. Hence, you really ought to be dropping that shit right now.

Assholism thy name is mammoth! Look in the mirror when you make that claim silly person.

You made claims that were laughably disproved, you presented a DD-214 that was clearly stolen from someone else's website, and you claimed to be a "nuclear watch officer" a designation/MOS that doesn't exist in the US Navy.

In other words, piss off....admiral.

 

[westwall]

It's 126 pages and just ******* unbelievable. They continue have High Degree of Confidence in models that show warming accurate to pinpoint accuracy, then they admit there's been no warming the past 15 years!

Are they schizophrenic?

Either their model is wrong, or their theory is wrong

My vote would be BOTH are wrong.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I never mock anyone who actually served, admiral. YOU DIDN'T....that's the point!

Nobody should have to put up with the degree of assholism, stalking and dishonesty that I've always put up with from you. And I won't keep putting up with it. Hence, you really ought to be dropping that shit right now.

Assholism thy name is mammoth! Look in the mirror when you make that claim silly person.

You made claims that were laughably disproved, you presented a DD-214 that was clearly stolen from someone else's website, and you claimed to be a "nuclear watch officer" a designation/MOS that doesn't exist in the US Navy.

In other words, piss off....admiral.

sounds like something Bodecca would do

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I read it I wonder if Abe or Mammyooth read it?

 

[flacaltenn]

Don't be shy. Present the science

Take this as a Teaching moment

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Now you will say that is worthless; that all its authors and sources are ignorant and members of a grand conspiracy. But I guarantee you, that will not be the position of the APS.

The only reason the APS is DOING this excersize is that membership questions some of the basic science and a LOT of the phoney predictions baggage contained in the IPCC reports. Bout time it had an "outside" review away from the political hacks guiding the process..

 

[Abraham3]

Who do you define as "outside" the resources utilized by the IPCC? They have been making use of essentially all climate research since their founding. The problem, from your point of view, is that the vast majority of the research concludes that the world's temperature is increasing from the increasing Greenhouse warming being caused by atmospheric GHGs produced by human activities. That's precisely what multiple reviews of the research literature have shown.

So, what you're looking for is not "outside" review; but just a review that will reject AGW regardless of the evidence.

 

[mamooth]

Assholism thy name is mammoth! Look in the mirror when you make that claim silly person.

You made claims that were laughably disproved, you presented a DD-214 that was clearly stolen from someone else's website, and you claimed to be a "nuclear watch officer" a designation/MOS that doesn't exist in the US Navy.

In other words, piss off....admiral.

Reported. Sorry it comes to this, but you leave me little choice.

Hey, I've spent the last year hoping you would change, being civil, asking nicely many times for you to stop mocking my service, eventually warning you, but you just keep getting worse. So I'm no longer putting up with it.

 

[Dot Com]

Don't be shy. Present the science

Take this as a Teaching moment

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Now you will say that is worthless; that all its authors and sources are ignorant and members of a grand conspiracy. But I guarantee you, that will not be the position of the APS.

I don't care to wade through pages of crap. How about linking to the specific scientific reports contained on the site.

a denier AND lazy? Quelle surprise!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Don't be shy. Present the science

Take this as a Teaching moment

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Now you will say that is worthless; that all its authors and sources are ignorant and members of a grand conspiracy. But I guarantee you, that will not be the position of the APS.

The only reason the APS is DOING this excersize is that membership questions some of the basic science and a LOT of the phoney predictions baggage contained in the IPCC reports. Bout time it had an "outside" review away from the political hacks guiding the process..

When the APS gets done, their policy statement will be even stronger than it is today.

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-framing.pdf

The detection, attribution, and projection of climate change, especially under anthropogenic influence, are issues of major societal import. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a series of reports over more than two decades, culminating in that of Working Group 1 of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5 WG1) released in September, 2013 [http://www.climatechange2013.org/]. Those reports have expressed increasingly confident consensus views of the importance, if not dominance, of anthropogenic influence on the global climate over the past 60 years.
The American Physical Society’s (APS) Climate Change Statement Review (CCSR) is a process (mandated by the Society’s bylaws) to reconsider its 2007 Statement on Climate Change, available at Climate Change . The Subcommittee charged with making a recommendation on that matter has found, as part of its process, the need to better understand the IPCC consensus on climate science through a workshop that will dive deeply into some of the more uncertain aspects. In doing so, it will illuminate for itself, for the APS membership, and the broader public both the certainties and the boundaries of current climate science understanding.
The Subcommittee’s scope is the physical basis of climate change2 and we take the consensus as expressed in the AR5 WG1 Report and its Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). Below, we raise a set of topics and questions (in red) to prime and focus discussion at the workshop. These questions have not been chosen to “pick nits” or “pick cherries”, but rather to highlight fundamental issues in current understanding of the physical basis of climate change.3

 

[CrusaderFrank]

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Now you will say that is worthless; that all its authors and sources are ignorant and members of a grand conspiracy. But I guarantee you, that will not be the position of the APS.

The only reason the APS is DOING this excersize is that membership questions some of the basic science and a LOT of the phoney predictions baggage contained in the IPCC reports. Bout time it had an "outside" review away from the political hacks guiding the process..

When the APS gets done, their policy statement will be even stronger than it is today.

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-framing.pdf

The detection, attribution, and projection of climate change, especially under anthropogenic influence, are issues of major societal import. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a series of reports over more than two decades, culminating in that of Working Group 1 of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5 WG1) released in September, 2013 [http://www.climatechange2013.org/]. Those reports have expressed increasingly confident consensus views of the importance, if not dominance, of anthropogenic influence on the global climate over the past 60 years.
The American Physical Society’s (APS) Climate Change Statement Review (CCSR) is a process (mandated by the Society’s bylaws) to reconsider its 2007 Statement on Climate Change, available at Climate Change . The Subcommittee charged with making a recommendation on that matter has found, as part of its process, the need to better understand the IPCC consensus on climate science through a workshop that will dive deeply into some of the more uncertain aspects. In doing so, it will illuminate for itself, for the APS membership, and the broader public both the certainties and the boundaries of current climate science understanding.
The Subcommittee’s scope is the physical basis of climate change2 and we take the consensus as expressed in the AR5 WG1 Report and its Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). Below, we raise a set of topics and questions (in red) to prime and focus discussion at the workshop. These questions have not been chosen to “pick nits” or “pick cherries”, but rather to highlight fundamental issues in current understanding of the physical basis of climate change.3

"Those reports have expressed increasingly confident consensus views of the importance, if not dominance, of anthropogenic influence on the global climate over the past 60 years." =/= science

 

[Old Rocks]

The only reason the APS is DOING this excersize is that membership questions some of the basic science and a LOT of the phoney predictions baggage contained in the IPCC reports. Bout time it had an "outside" review away from the political hacks guiding the process..

When the APS gets done, their policy statement will be even stronger than it is today.

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-framing.pdf

The detection, attribution, and projection of climate change, especially under anthropogenic influence, are issues of major societal import. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a series of reports over more than two decades, culminating in that of Working Group 1 of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5 WG1) released in September, 2013 [http://www.climatechange2013.org/]. Those reports have expressed increasingly confident consensus views of the importance, if not dominance, of anthropogenic influence on the global climate over the past 60 years.
The American Physical Society’s (APS) Climate Change Statement Review (CCSR) is a process (mandated by the Society’s bylaws) to reconsider its 2007 Statement on Climate Change, available at Climate Change . The Subcommittee charged with making a recommendation on that matter has found, as part of its process, the need to better understand the IPCC consensus on climate science through a workshop that will dive deeply into some of the more uncertain aspects. In doing so, it will illuminate for itself, for the APS membership, and the broader public both the certainties and the boundaries of current climate science understanding.
The Subcommittee’s scope is the physical basis of climate change2 and we take the consensus as expressed in the AR5 WG1 Report and its Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). Below, we raise a set of topics and questions (in red) to prime and focus discussion at the workshop. These questions have not been chosen to “pick nits” or “pick cherries”, but rather to highlight fundamental issues in current understanding of the physical basis of climate change.3

"Those reports have expressed increasingly confident consensus views of the importance, if not dominance, of anthropogenic influence on the global climate over the past 60 years." =/= science

Glad to see you finally agree with the scientists, Frankie Boy

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Mamooth's AGW Theory was that doubling CO2 yields a 3 degree temperature increase and seemed to be a testable hypothesis

 

[Old Rocks]

Mamooth's AGW Theory was that doubling CO2 yields a 3 degree temperature increase and seemed to be a testable hypothesis

Actually, that was predicted by Arrhenius in 1896. But it won't happen the instant that the CO2 level hits 560 ppm. There is still the matter of inertia in the system. Just as today, the warmth that we see is the result of the GHG levels from the 80's, there will be a lag. Barring, of course, a major emission of CH4 in the Arctic. Then all bets are off.

 

[westwall]

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Now you will say that is worthless; that all its authors and sources are ignorant and members of a grand conspiracy. But I guarantee you, that will not be the position of the APS.

I don't care to wade through pages of crap. How about linking to the specific scientific reports contained on the site.

a denier AND lazy? Quelle surprise!!!

So, you couldn't find any actual scientific papers on the website either...Quelle surprise! NOT!

 

[Abraham3]

As I've stated elsewhere, the fact that after 26 years in operation, you do not understand how the IPCC works, is really, truly telling.

If you're unwilling to look at the IPCC's reference material, there is a wealth of published climate studies. Cook et al were able to come up with over 12,000 of them without much difficulty. Why so hard for you?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When the APS gets done, their policy statement will be even stronger than it is today.

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-framing.pdf

The detection, attribution, and projection of climate change, especially under anthropogenic influence, are issues of major societal import. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a series of reports over more than two decades, culminating in that of Working Group 1 of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5 WG1) released in September, 2013 [http://www.climatechange2013.org/]. Those reports have expressed increasingly confident consensus views of the importance, if not dominance, of anthropogenic influence on the global climate over the past 60 years.
The American Physical Society’s (APS) Climate Change Statement Review (CCSR) is a process (mandated by the Society’s bylaws) to reconsider its 2007 Statement on Climate Change, available at Climate Change . The Subcommittee charged with making a recommendation on that matter has found, as part of its process, the need to better understand the IPCC consensus on climate science through a workshop that will dive deeply into some of the more uncertain aspects. In doing so, it will illuminate for itself, for the APS membership, and the broader public both the certainties and the boundaries of current climate science understanding.
The Subcommittee’s scope is the physical basis of climate change2 and we take the consensus as expressed in the AR5 WG1 Report and its Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). Below, we raise a set of topics and questions (in red) to prime and focus discussion at the workshop. These questions have not been chosen to “pick nits” or “pick cherries”, but rather to highlight fundamental issues in current understanding of the physical basis of climate change.3

"Those reports have expressed increasingly confident consensus views of the importance, if not dominance, of anthropogenic influence on the global climate over the past 60 years." =/= science

Glad to see you finally agree with the scientists, Frankie Boy

Right. Consensus =/= science

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Mamooth's AGW Theory was that doubling CO2 yields a 3 degree temperature increase and seemed to be a testable hypothesis

Actually, that was predicted by Arrhenius in 1896. But it won't happen the instant that the CO2 level hits 560 ppm. There is still the matter of inertia in the system. Just as today, the warmth that we see is the result of the GHG levels from the 80's, there will be a lag. Barring, of course, a major emission of CH4 in the Arctic. Then all bets are off.

...and you can show us in a lab how 560PPM of CO2 will raise temperature 3 degrees?

 

[westwall]

As I've stated elsewhere, the fact that after 26 years in operation, you do not understand how the IPCC works, is really, truly telling.

If you're unwilling to look at the IPCC's reference material, there is a wealth of published climate studies. Cook et al were able to come up with over 12,000 of them without much difficulty. Why so hard for you?

Great! There's a "wealth" of published studies. Post a link to one.

 

[Abraham3]

Sorry, each student is required to do their own homework.

 

[Zander]