Hansen/NASA created US warming?

It's certainly proof that skeptics can't help misrepresenting what AGW says.

That probably didn't come out the way you planned, but I'll agree with it anyway.

 

I am sure you don't understand that the belief is coming from people like you and not the skeptics. They are following the observational science where the CAGW meme is following the computer models and hyper fear mongering.

 

You didn't read the article, did you? Let me quote the relevant part:

 

Changing a few words changes the meaning.

So...

Have you seen the evidence? Have you read the source material and understood it?

 

That's right, I believe that the science behind AGW is solid while the skeptics have faith that the models are wrong.

 

That was 2012, this was a new release. How can someone calculate anything when they don't have the data?

 

Ok. So when those scientists say that we are well within the natural variability of global temperature, why do you discount those experts over the ones you would PREFER to have confidence in?

What is that called, other than your belief in something you like because, honestly, you don't know even which scientists who have studied climate their whole lives to even believe? You have confidence in believing what you WANT to believe, not what scientists are saying because some scientists are saying things you DON'T want to believe.

 

Faith is when you believe something without proof. Skeptics point to the 100% failure of the climate models compared with observational science. The AGW crowd is now working solely on faith.

 

It is unlikely you even know what SCIENCE is, if you don't accept the core precepts contained within it.

For example, when the theory does not match the data, you don't get to pretend the theory has just been validated. You know, like when the theory says temperature should increase, and it doesn't?

 

http://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2014/09/26/tamsins-topsy-turvy-ted-talk/

 

How can you make claims about what data they don't have when you haven't studied their work?

Because natural variability means the climate warms for a while, then cools for a while, maintaining a constant long term temperature. When are we going to start cooling? While natural variability does explain the periodic acceleration then pause in global warming, it doesn't explain the current century-scale trend.

 

Yet the current pause took AGW scientists by surprise. Thought they knew everything?

 

Horse(*)(*)(*)(*) and half witted to boot. Where do you get this nonsense?

Please show me the constant long term temperature in this temperature trend.

Look at that graph above. Seems a bit self evident, the answer to your question. And I'm not so sure cooling is the answer, the planet has spent much more time in a warmer configuration than a cooler one, making the probability of a warmer world in the future higher than a cooler world. Our world is a veritable ice box. Everyone knows this, why don't you, these charts of temperature aren't hard to find...why have you avoided LEARNING from them?

 

Worse. They didn't account for the uncertainty within their models, nor the natural variability of the system they were trying to model itself. They screwed the pooch coming AND going.

 

Then why do you keep saying it does?

Throwing a bunch of pseudo- intellectual self-puffery up against the barnyard wall in the hopes that some of it will stick is kind of funny to watch, particularly when it's coming from a fellow who obviously hasn't got a clue about climate science.

 

We already know you are a one way cultist. One of the most elementary facts about climate is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The fact that you don't even know something that simple and basic suggests at this point that your denialism is beyond recovery.

 

Oh, we all know it is a greenhouse gas. But we don't know is how it really reacts in the wicked system called the climate.

 

Greenhouse gases trap energy from the sun; that's how they work in the system called climate.

You're welcome.

 

In the atmosphere. The oceans are not heated by the atmosphere but by the sun.

 

I've already admitted my scientific research is in other fields. That elsewhere being places where independent reviews of work were part of the quality control, as was backcasting of models as Spencer has done, the incorporation of outside statistical review of methods, you know, all those things nobody can seem to find in the realm of climate "science".

Tell us Dingo about your professional experience in the sciences, how did your organization and specialty do their quality control, and how does that compare to what the climate change folks HAVEN'T done? Are you saying your organization doesn't do these type of common checks on their scientists? Or is your experience in the sciences more like mine?

 

I haven't seen anyone dispute that. So now you have nothing to discuss other than facts because otherwise someone might kick yet more sand in your face?

CO2 is also a TRACE gas, and probably isn't within an order of magnitude of the effect of water vapor in the atmosphere. That is the "trace" part, for those with a learning disability.

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...cenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

The fact that you take a trace gas and pretend it has far more value than others assign to it...like...say....American Chemical Society?

So now we've got the ACS and ASA both being avoided by the climate change "scientists".....what....chemistry and statistics not being something climate "scientists" need to know anything about?

 

Duh, but no one still really knows how it reacts in the wicked system. In fact they have proven they don't know by making predictions based on what they hypothesized which did not happen.

You're welcome.

 

But that water vapor...oh my...it does it SSSOOOOOOOO much better. Don't they teach these basic differences in green house gases to the "my model is better than your model!!" crowd? I mean really, do they ignore chemistry and statistics and now the relative importance of greenhouse gases when they train their legions of faithful?

 

Happy Anniversary: 1 October May Mark 18 Years Without Global Warming

Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried. -Phil Jones, University of East Anglia 7 May 2009

 

Errrrrr and your basis for this little breach of physics is,,,,,,,

Convection - wonder if they have heard of convection??

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...old/whyClimate/naturalClimate/oceanAtmosphere

Oooops! That is right since this is from a Parliamentary source it is automatically suspect