Can I get even one left winger to view the climate of the planet?

And spam from a blog posted is credible? Are any of those links from arxiv or Nature?

Why should I indulge everything from ten minutes ago? Plus I'm watching a movie and eating if you would believe that.

Also, you could post the PDF if you're concerned and have a point that deserves my time.

 

Consider once again you are asking us to ignore all the research done in scientific organisations over something you found on the internet which has no bearing on your argument

 

97percent of what

Another strawman

 

I am thrilled you won't be trying to sell us the trite nonsense that your side has 97 percent agreement that climate is more than my fault, it is your fault too. Try to look sharp and not ruin the climate. i am sick at what your country did to your coral reefs.

 

No, i seek you to look at the entire planet and try to master a semblance of an education on it's vast size and complex climate and weather events. Give it a shot. Education is not bad for you.

 

FACT: oceans are warming, seas are rising, air temps are increasing.

its undeniable.

very few believe that the earth's climate is changing.

only some suggest its due to natural reasons.

 

Curry is ONE scientist among how many???
'
She actually proves the constant right wing claim that ;"you never hear the negative because they are silenced"

She is one of the 3% who do not agree

 

Weather is not climate

 

Not everyone finds climatology confusing

Seems the only one that do are those looking for an excuse to deny the science

 

He said ALL climate variances

And thanks for showing that you agree that 97% of scientists agree that AGW is happening

 

What spam? You didn't even bother to go look at any of the links! How do you know they are spam?

I AM NOT YOUR RESEARCH ASSISTANT!

You got that?

Before you start indulging in argumentative fallacies you should learn to do your own due diligence!

 

It's obvious *you* have not done one lick of research either. I've discussed climate change with you before. You know nothing of thermodynamics or physics.

A lot of your AGW Bible dogma is being overturned by research today - such as global warming will increase the frequency and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes. The current research shows that warmer oceans actually cause fewer and less intense hurricanes.

Or that CO2 is causing land and atmospheric temperatures to rise. Recent research shows significant global warming holes over the central and eastern US -- where the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is the *highest*! How does it not warm where CO2 concentrations are the highest but does warm in places where CO2 concentrations are the lowest?

None of the climate models predicted this. All of this was found by small universities actually studying observational data instead of depending on the outputs of the climate models.

We now know that NASA has revised the newer, more accurate ocean temperature data UPWARDS to match the older, less accurate, higher temperatures from older measurement devices. Why did they revise the more accurate data UP instead of revising the older, less accurate data down? Is it because it would undercut all that "scientific research" on sea level rise being tied to higher ocean temperatures and resulting increased volumes?

 

I'm not going to pay for the PDF from that link you posted. Have you?


AMS Single Sign-On Log In
If you have a subscription to the AMS Journals Online content, please click here to login via the AMS single sign-on page and gain access to this content.

If you are interested in Pay Per View or want to log in as an institutional admin, please use the login area below.

 

The only ones denying science today are the AGW religionists like you!

It was the AGW critics that pointed out that claims that hurricanes would get stronger and occur more often as predicted by the AGW climate models weren't matching reality. And yet the AGW religionists *continue* to claim "just wait, it will happen"!

It was the AGW critics that pointed out that the higher temperatures predicted by the AGW climate models just weren't happening in the central and eastern US. And yet the AGW religionists like you continue to claim "just wait, it will happen!".

Wow! Talk about denying science!

 

It does *NOT* cost anything to look at the abstract!

And the ISSUE is that Curry was presenting a link to a peer-reviewed article in a recognized scientific journal!

IT WAS NOT SPAM!

You called it spam without even bothering to go find out what Curry was linking to!

Again, you were trying to discredit the message by attacking the messenger! An argumentative fallacy!

Pathetic!

 

All AGW Bible dogma!

Would you be surprised that the sea level rise is predicted based on warm temperatures of the ocean causing its volume to increase?

Would you be surprised to find out that the newest, most accurate measurement devices show the oceans to be much cooler than originally thought?

Would you be surprised to find out that NASA has manipulated the newest, most accurate temperature data UPWARD so it matches the older, less accurate data so that sea level rise based on ocean temperatures would not be undercut?

Would you be surprised to find out that no one knows if air temperatures are rising? All we know is that the mean is rising. Several things could be the reason for that! We could be having more warm days while having fewer days of maximum record temperatures. Or we could be having more days of record high temperatures. Or we could be having warmer nighttime temperatures with no impact on daytime temperatures. Any of the three would cause the mean to go up - or it could even be a combination of the three.

The climate models are only based on the mean of differential temperatures (the AGW religionists call them "anomalies" in order to make it scarier), not on absolute temperatures.

So why are you so much a believer in AGW Bible dogma when there is so much contradictory information available?

 

*YOU* didn't bother to go look at the links either, did you?

Willful ignorance seems to be the viewpoint of the day on this thread!

 

Great, what are your figures. We all would enjoy looking over these figures you claim to know of.

I posted the proof. I used the earth to make the point. Can you not notice what you say is not possible?

 

But weather events *DO* impact climate. They may not *cause* the climate but they certainly impact the climate in many ways! Droughts are a weather event but can have a dramatic impact on local climate!

 

No. I think it would be pathetic for me to pay for 18 papers. I'm guessing you and original poster haven't bothered to do so anyway. That paper you linked to came out two days ago, have all those papers been published just in this week?

I mentioned to give it a bit of time. To see how the ideas could get circulated more naturally.

 

sounds like a paranoid conspiracy theory.

do you also believe the Earth is flat and 9-11 was an inside job?

 

You do *NOT* have to pay for the papers to read the abstracts and find out they are being published in scientific journals and that some are even peer-reviewed journals!

It is *THAT* fact that means they were not SPAM! You don't have to read the actual article in order to ascertain the pedigree of the article!

What does it *matter* when the articles were published? THEY ARE NOT SPAM AS YOU CLAIMED!

You are *still* trying to defend your use of the argumentative fallacy known as Poisoning the Well! Try a different tactic next time!

 

This is the argumentative fallacy known as Argument by Ridicule.

You didn't refute my assertion in any way. You just tried to dismiss it through ridicule.

Go do your due diligence and find out what NASA did.

 

Agreed just as whether or not you add the eggs into the cake impacts the final outcome but that does not mean the eggs ARE the cake

 

A good scientist always reviews the entire article to critique it correctly