Climate science arrogance

Been hearing that claim for a number of years now = all that has happened is the science proving AGW has been further corroborated

 

posting the same links over and over gets you no where. It is all the same data. Folks on my side have posted why, I've posted why the data isn't good. You and yours ignore and repost it like we didn't see it. You'll get the response you get when the data is the same. No point in regurgitating on every thread over and over. You all don't want to accept that the last fifteen years the pause/ haitus, you throw up a graph and badda bing there it is. The IPCC admitted it. Accept it. The Ice isn't melting. Accept it. alarmism isn't needed. Accept it.

 

AGW alarmism is based solely on computer models and now only 2% of the models are near agreement with actual temperature readings. That is hardly a resounding corroboration.

 

I'm really glad they aren't my bookie !

 

Then what changed the climate when the polar ice cap melted away from mid-United States of America and northern Europe approximately 20,000 years ago? Maybe it's underwear was dirty?

 

You don't even need to go that far back.

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

Climate change has been a constant since climate has existed. Only in the minds of alarmists has it been in continuous stasis

 

Just back before there was that much human activity to futch it up. No industry, no automobiles, no farting human beings, no democrats...etc etc etc.

 

Ice ages and inter-glacials are triggered by small changes in Earth's orbit, called "orbital forcing" (by climatologists) or Milankovitch cycles (by astronomers).

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/207/4434/943.abstract

Since Earth's orbit can be computed for thousands of years into the past and future, we know that orbital forcing is cooling the planet right now, and has been for the last 6000 years. Which means that's not what is causing the current warmth.

 

But, but....but, there is NO CURRENT WARMTH...there's no more "WARMTH" now than there was in 1997 (Kyoto Protocol year). None, nada, zero, zilch...that IS A COMPLETE FABRICATION.

READ PLEASE...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/03/the_coming_paradigm_shift_on_climate_.html

EXCERPT...

Backed by thousands of peer-reviewed studies, are in striking contrast to the IPCC’s alarmist predictions:

**Climate data tell us that the human impact on Earth’s climate is very small and that any warming due to GH gases will be so small as to be indiscernible from natural variability.
**The net impacts of modestly rising temperatures and higher carbon-dioxide levels on plants, animals, wildlife, and human welfare have been positive so far and are likely to continue to be positive.
**The costs of trying to mitigate climate change by reducing emissions vastly exceed the benefits. Annual cost per US household would run to some $3,900; would destroy millions of jobs.
**In light of the new science and economics of climate change, thousands of laws passed at the height of the global warming scare need to be re-evaluated, modified, or repealed.

In other words...It's JUNK SCIENCE...and POLITICS.

 

The Earth is well within the natural variability of the post glacial era as data from both poles reveals.

http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm

Just like the IPCC itself this is a crisis invented by politicians for politicians sadly

This vast resource illustrates just how far genuine scientific objectivity has been compromised in order to extract our coin

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09...t-behind-closed-doors-climate-depot-round-up/

 

Even that is theory.

 

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, HogWash, but you've been lied to. Here are the regression slopes in global surface temperature 1997-2013 according to various datasets:
HADCRUT4: .05°C/decade, positive.
NASA/GISS: .07°C/decade. positive.
NOAA/NCDC: .05°C/decade, positive.
University of York: .10°C/decade, positive.

All four show positive trends. In other words, it's warming.

I read it. I found a lot of opinion, and zero data.

- - - Updated - - -

Aaaand now! Direct from the Flat-Earth Society annual Egg-Fry and SandView contest, Denierville disputes the Laws of Gravity!

 

I know...

 

OK Al...Grown any tobacco lately? Or are you now in the e-cig business. Made any movies?

 

Of course you can prove the hypothesis, so here is your chance.

 

Ad Hom Last refuge of those with no rebuttal

 

Orbital changes - but it would help if you were accurate in your information

 

Oh! My! Have you managed to reconcile the obvious discrepancies between the times quoted for the northern hemisphere and those quoted for the southern hemisphere because according to your source the MWP in the south lagged the north by about 200 years

 

OK then, I'll give you a chance to respond to something jc456 was defeated by:


1. Earth emits infrared: Murphy, D. M., S. Solomon, R. W. Portmann, K. H. Rosenlof, P. M. Forster, and T. Wong (2009), An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950

2. CO2 absorbs infrared: Niro, F., C. Boulet, and J-M. Hartmann. Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO[sub] 2[/sub] IR bands between 10 and 20μm. I: model and laboratory measurements.

3. Infrared upwelling from surface to space decreases in CO2 bands as CO2 increases: Chen, Claudine, et al. Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth's infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006.

4. Downwelling infrared increases as atmospheric CO2 increases: Wang, K., & Liang, S. (2009). Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all‐sky conditions from 1973 to 2008.

So where do you think that energy goes? Are you just going to wave your magic wand and make it disappear? (Another mountain of evidence unexplained by incurious, uneducated, unmotivated science deniers.)

 

He can't. he admtted to me he can't, he claims science can't be proven. Yet it is happening. I can't quite get my hands around that.

- - - Updated - - -

So are those temps you posted following in step with the CO2 increases you posted like the models stated? The fact is those neglegible temps is proof that the temps are not following the CO2. For the umpteenth time the IPCC already admitted they don't. So nice try. Next.

 

So what act of God do you extremists have planned to stop what's happening now, seeing as how you managed to change the orbit back in 24,000 BC in order to melt the ice off the future homes of the USA and Canada?

Do you understand where I'm going with that question?

 

Ad Hom II...Exactly where Algoreist groupies belong.

 

Indeed . Just like it does today. It just illustrates how much we still have to learn doesn't it ?

 

That's because you don't understand English. If you're looking for absolute certainly, go to church. If all I have to do is provide a mountain of evidence that you cannot and will not explain, and indeed cannot be explained without AGW, I have already provided that and you have totally ignored that. Most people would accept that as proof. If you don't, that's a problem for you and your psychiatrist.

Yes they are. There is no statistically significant difference between temps and models, nor between temp trends and model trends.

You saying it's so doesn't make it so. If you have proof that the IPCC said what you claim, provide an exact quote and a page reference. I have asked you for that before, and once again you have not provided it.

So I think you're lying. But it would be easy to prove me wrong. If you have evidence.

So nice try. Next?

 

ok what percentage off all atmospheric CO2 emissions are contributed to man? you wont find the pertinent information on any of your man made climate change hoax sites.
want to know why? because it is only about 5%
all those sites tell you is some big number that means nothing to the average person because they have no context to put it in. all they see is that big number and think it is a lot just like you, but when you put it in context like a percentage it changes everything