Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
It's 126 pages and just fucking 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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 Societys (APS) Climate Change Statement Review (CCSR) is a process (mandated by the Societys 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 Subcommittees 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
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 Societys (APS) Climate Change Statement Review (CCSR) is a process (mandated by the Societys 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 Subcommittees 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
Mamooth's AGW Theory was that doubling CO2 yields a 3 degree temperature increase and seemed to be a testable hypothesis
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!!!
Quelle surprise! NOT!
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 Societys (APS) Climate Change Statement Review (CCSR) is a process (mandated by the Societys 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 Subcommittees 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
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.
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?
