Global Warming: The BIGGEST LIE Exposed

Again, theory and not something that is known. There is a lot that is unknown. For instance, there are various theories why the Antarctic has been gaining sea ice but no agreement why.

 

NO he is not and apart from Spencer - how many denialist sites are supported by climate scientists?

However Cook IS the Communications fellow for Climate Science at the UQ - I think that gives him certain authority

- - - Updated - - -

ref? Linky? Made it up??

 

What? The data that has been scrutinised by Watts and McIntyre for years now trying to find misreadings? The data that was independently reviewed by Berkely

And again I ask - how many scientists in how many countries are falsifying this data?

 

Sorry you cannot find that out on the cartoonists website but if you you actually read some of the papers you would already know this.

 

Where is your data source? You know the source that supplies temperatures around the globe? Please you ask and ask I provide and provide and you show nothing. No more, you show your data, Mine is out there.

- - - Updated - - -

He knows nothing!

 

R-e-a-d t-h-e l-e-g-e-n-d! upper left corner. first one is gistemp

 

No~ I'm trying to show you why S&B does not show the data are bad.Once you accept that I'll move on to another one of your links.

 

Of course there is a lot that is unknown; that's why scientists do research! But scientists don't take the unknown into account when they reach conclusions. If you want to speculate, that's fine. But it's not science! Currently, based on what is known (because science can only use data, observations, evidence, theories that are known) the science (using theories, observations, evidence available) says that the earth system is warming and humans are mostly responsible. The researchers may not have all their ducks in a row, but the ducks are straight enough to reach a valid conclusion.

 

Irony on so many levels

 

Actually current events suggest otherwise and the debate has turned to natural variability.

 

For those of you who doubt climate change, I have a question.

If greenhouse gases absorb heat, where does all that energy go?

Suppose greenhouse gasses absorb heat.
If greenhouse gases rise and insolation remains the same, the energy budget of the planet will increase.
Greenhouse gasses are rising and insolation remains the same ; therefore, the energy budget on the earth is increasing.

We could adjust the above argument to deal with insolation in terms of change to account for its cyclic nature, but the point will remain the same.

 

You didn't tell me why Global Warming May Trigger Winter Cooling

http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/01/g...winter-cooling

 

As a communications fellow, yes, but as an authority on climate science, not so much.

 

So, you agree that the science isn't settled?

Probably because taking the unknown into account is an impossibility.

Inconclusive speculation.

You started this post well, but the finish is left wanting.

Currently, no "conclusion" has been reached.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't tell them everything.

 

I know of no one who doubts that climate changes.

 

I addressed your post that was simply a bash at another poster. Due to the fact you wanted to condescend another poster, I do think my comments are in the same manner. Since you posted such comment, you have NO right to claim indignation.

 

You posted a graph of stratospheric cooling and now you're going to ingore your own evidence for AGW. Great example of why we call you deniers!



The answer you seek is in the article to which you linked.
"This is completely plausible," says Anne Nolin, a climate scientist at Oregon State University in Corvallis. The correlations between warm summers and cold winters that originally led the researchers to develop their idea don't prove cause and effect, but analyzing these trends with climate models in future studies could help researchers bolster what Nolin calls "an interesting set of connections."

 

Some of the science settled: the earth is warming due to an increase in CO2. Some of the science is not settled: climate sensitiviy.

Very Good! You understood my point.

Incorrect! Valid conclusion based on observations, data, evidence and the laws and theories of physics, (i.e. science).

And you, as usual, offer no valid criticisms based on logic or evidence (except spelling corrections)! You declare "Inconclusive speculation" without explaining why. You declare "no "conclusion" has been reached." without explaining why.

Incorrect! The earth is warming and the CO2 has an influence in that warming.

 

sure sounds like "humans are somewhat responsible, but the warming is not catastrophic". to me

 

Actually there is very close agreement among scientists: we're responsible for essentially all of it.



The studies are Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), and Jones et al. 2013 (J13, pink).

 

Check this link out: http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

 

Evidently you have not been paying attention to what has been going on. For one the IPCC AR5 downgraded the sensitivity to CO2. Why? Because the projected warming is not happening. There is plenty of certainty that man contributes but no certainty how much.

 

BTW, You asked for a list of scientists who agree with me...here you go: http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

it's 31,000.

 

Evidently you know zilch about climate science. Sensitivity has no effect whatsoever on the attribution of climate change.

 

You mean I have not dismissed all the other science that does not fit inside the PC warmist box.