Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 26441 - 26460 of total 28530 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 21, 2014 - 05:12am PT
At least Chiloe admitted he lied, however cleverly he thought he termed his response.

Was that another cartoon playing in your head?
dave729

Trad climber
Western America
Oct 21, 2014 - 05:31am PT
Why cannot these moron warmists understand that there has not been any warming is the last 17 years!

CO2 is not your ally. It is your enemy.

Maybe try sending a text to the Sun. Google the link.
Convince our star to crank up its output to support your
silly hoax.




k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 21, 2014 - 06:42am PT
The word "COULD" is not in any way shape or form considered "evidence".
    The Chief

The quoted text basically says: It could be this or maybe that. The results of the present study clearly demonstrate "we really don't know."
    Sketch


Further proof that neither of you know how to read scientific papers.


Yes, "it could be this, or it could be that. But, we're pretty sure it's this, with some small variations. We need more research to pinpoint."

Remember, the question is about the early 20th-centruy warming, not today's climate.


So it's clear that you will not accept scientific papers as evidence--yet you continually use cherry-picked scientific "evidence" to bolster your beliefs.

Amid overwhelming scientific evidence, by an international community of climate scientists, that shows the current warming is caused by humans, you go with "science" that is non-peer reviewed and published on blogs. This is because it aligns with your personal beliefs, and nothing else. Your evidence has been thoroughly debunked, while you offer nothing to counter the conclusions of the overwhelming majority, and peer-reviewed community.

In other words, you are bozos.





PS. Ed, at the very bottom of the paper that Chiloe quoted, it says:
Updated: Oct. 6th, 2014 @ 1:00 pm
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded a$#hat Sheep
Oct 21, 2014 - 06:56am PT
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA

Oct 20, 2014 - 11:21pm PT
the web page you are quoting from is from the 2000 paper which I cited first in my response above...

Further details regarding this study were published by T. Delworth and T. Knutson of NOAA/GFDL in the 24 March 2000 issue of Science (vol. 287, pp. 2246-2250).

you apparently can't read, which will make it even harder to answer your question.

once again, you are defining what is not evidence, apparently the word "could" makes any statement not evidence.

what is evidence?


Once again EDH, the paper you and Chiloe CUT & PASTE do not indicate anything of any substance that can prove, unequivocally, what caused the warming period from 1910-1945.


Just the verbiage of "COULD HAVE" and "COULD" is used to do so.

So now you once again do your spin dance on the issue because there is NO such evidence/proof that substantiates the none conclusion.

It surely could NOT have been any human emissions as they were NO where near, maybe 1/10th at best per record keeping etc during that period, what they have been since 1976 to date.


Personally, I believe that they know what actually caused it and will never divulge the conclusion as it would only undermine the hysteria theory (human emissions etc) of the current warming period that you all are utilizing to substantiate your failing case of AGW.

Natural variations that have been in place and active doing it's thing with the climate for a longazz time, were the actual cause.


Oh, and the Record Warming of the last two months, WOW! A whopping .076 of a C degree higher than the previous two RECORD setters. Oh my GOD, we are surely toast....




k-man

Gym climber
SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Oct 21, 2014 - 06:42am PT
The word "COULD" is not in any way shape or form considered "evidence".
The Chief

The quoted text basically says: It could be this or maybe that. The results of the present study clearly demonstrate "we really don't know."
Sketch


Further proof that neither of you know how to read scientific papers.


Yes, "it could be this, or it could be that. But, we're pretty sure it's this, with some small variations. We need more research to pinpoint."

Remember, the question is about the early 20th-centruy warming, not today's climate.


So it's clear that you will not accept scientific papers as evidence--yet you continually use cherry-picked scientific "evidence" to bolster your beliefs.

Amid overwhelming scientific evidence, by an international community of climate scientists, that shows the current warming is caused by humans, you go with "science" that is non-peer reviewed and published on blogs. This is because it aligns with your personal beliefs, and nothing else. Your evidence has been thoroughly debunked, while you offer nothing to counter the conclusions of the overwhelming majority, and peer-reviewed community.

In other words, you are bozos.

What peer reviewed evidence is there KaveMAN that indicated the cause of the 1910-1945 Warming Period?

Please do post it up?


Oh wait a minute, the six models that reconstructed the period and came up with...

"causes of the earlier warming are less clear since this period precedes the time of strongest increases in human-induced greenhouse gas (radiative) forcing. Results from a set of six integrations of a coupled ocean-atmosphere climate model suggest that the warming of the early 20th century could have resulted from

Factors which could contribute to the early 20th century warming include increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, changing solar and volcanic activity, and internal variability of the coupled ocean-atmosphere system. The relative importance of each of these factors is not well known."



I am glad that YOU did not depend on this type evidence to get a clear cut diagnoses on your Cancer.

If you had, you certainly would be dead today.



Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Oct 21, 2014 - 07:24am PT
you don't have anything, The Chief...

how do you "prove" that the variations are natural?

it is just an assumption of yours, based on you unexamined experience, and your model of the way the climate works that is unverified.

can you give an argument that provides a scale for the magnitude of the natural variations and the period of those variations?

can you identify the contributing factors to those variations?

can you predict the likely response of the climate to those factors?

The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded a$#hat Sheep
Oct 21, 2014 - 07:31am PT
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA

Oct 21, 2014 - 07:24am PT
how do you "prove" that the variations are natural?

The exact same way that the AGW/CC Science proves/assumes with it's 97% Consensus that the current warming is based on Human Emissions.

.... and your model of the way the climate works that is unverified.

Precisely what your CC Science has come up with to date.

"UNVERIFIED"....



Thanks EDH for coming clean on the reality of the AGW agenda and your stance on it.



EDIT... there is absolutely NOTHING to predict in the past warming I asked you about. It happened. You nor your science can VERIFY the cause of that very significant recent warming period.


Yet you and your AGW agenda/ideology expect the people to believe your current "verification" process that "assumes" with it's 97% Consensus, the current warming event is Human Caused.


Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Oct 21, 2014 - 07:54am PT
you don't have anything, The Chief...

Incorrect


He has attention
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 21, 2014 - 08:15am PT
Its all in who processes the data Ray. Take NCDC , GISS, and yourself for example. They and you are on a mission to find and broadcast manmade warming. With this overriding bias truth is twisted to fit the agenda.

NCDC's came in at a whopping .04c above the previous record with a .12c margin of error . This level of accuracy was determined despite massive holes in reporting stations including much of Africa, northern Asia, the amazon region of south america , and most of the high lattitude north and south regions of the globe.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Oct 21, 2014 - 08:20am PT
Its all in who processes the data Ray.


No sh#t Sherlock! Then you have the nerve to claim that you, Frredom fries, Automaton Dave, Chuff and Sketch are the prefered choices?



HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 21, 2014 - 08:24am PT
Of course Frosty. We are absolutely scrupulous in finding and presenting the truth and nothing but the truth, so help us god.

EDIT: in another unequivicol sign of cooling, and exposure of CC industry lies, the great lakes water levels are back near normal and the surface temperatures are way, way down going into winter. Good time to invest in shipyards building ice breakers?
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Oct 21, 2014 - 08:29am PT
he says with one hand on the bible, the other with fingers crossed behind his back
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Oct 21, 2014 - 08:32am PT
besides that...... something the judge might ask you .....


If you are demonstrably incompetent, how can you be scrupulous?
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Oct 21, 2014 - 08:38am PT
Perhaps then you are in fact a damn liar.

Meaning that you are in fact without scruples. We call that ethics Rick but you can go ahead and use the term scruples if it resonates better for you. You agree that you are incompetent so no need to go down that road of denial.

Yes, you are profoundly lacking in scruples if you persist in incompetency.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Oct 21, 2014 - 08:44am PT
you don't dispute this?
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded a$#hat Sheep
Oct 21, 2014 - 08:52am PT
RICK S!!

Don't forget that one should seriously consider the large investment opportunities in all the infrastructure creating Corporations that will assist in the Canadian Gov't approved MASS construction of the TRANS-CANADIAN KEYSTONE PIPELINE that will transport FRACKED SHALE OIL from ALBERTA to both the West and East Coast Ports of Canada.



Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Oct 21, 2014 - 08:53am PT
OK then we can proceed with some conclusions about trust. When a person is demonstrated and proven to be incompetent, aknowledges the incompetency as fact, yet persists with their willful incompetency then they are untrustworthy as well as incompetent.

That is because they have no intention of best process, only the deceptive appearance for the sole purpose of subversion of process.

If you are demonstrably a damn liar, a person that actually posesses scruples or ethics will surgically remove the damn liar from all consideration until it can be shown conclusively that that person can follow due process.

But that takes humility, so I won't hold my breath
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded a$#hat Sheep
Oct 21, 2014 - 08:56am PT
You GO Canada and your Keystone Oil Trans Canada Pipeline construction!!!



Gotta love them Canadians and their enduring support in contributing to the global FF energy extraction and consumption markets.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Oct 21, 2014 - 09:01am PT
Sure you have the right to remain silent Rick, but then it only appears that you have no problem with some Old man with all the emotional and ethical bearing of a six year old drowning out the "conversation" with unrelated distractions.

Which again shows a lack of intent with an ethical process.

Sorry, thats scruples to you
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 21, 2014 - 09:04am PT
Yeah Chief, ive always appreciated the canadians can do philosophy in finding and actually producing their resources. Even if they have to tear up half of alberta to produce those multi trillion barrel tar sands, and then pipe It halfway around the planet they are going to get it to market. This ,in spite of sqawking from legions of useless citizens like Frosty The Snowman.

EDIT: In defense I submit exhibit A , The malicious, unfounded ramblings of one Frosty The Snowman. We rest our case.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Oct 21, 2014 - 09:09am PT
He offers no defense.

All right then guilty as charged.

One unscrupulous bastard. How about you Chuff? You have one thing going for you..... you have never admitted your incompetence. That is a sightly better strategy, if you are not just unscrupulous but also a full blown sociopath.
Messages 26441 - 26460 of total 28530 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews