[Hindsite]

Truth is truth regardless if it is an atheist or a creationist presenting it.

[Pants-of-dog]

Creationism and anthropogenic climate change denialism are the same in that both ignore science in order to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.

More importantly, Dr. Spenser has often used incorrect satellite data to support his incorrect and predetermined conclusions.

[Truth To Power]

Yes, Truth to Power, your irrelevant claim about wording is correct.

It wasn't irrelevant. It's the difference between the obvious but irrelevant and the subtle but crucial.

Please note that you have yet to support your claims about the climate models being wrong.

Please note that I have definitely supported them, and your personal opinion does not change evidence into non-evidence.

No, a graph made by a person who has knowingly used wrong data does not count.

Please present your evidence that the data IN THAT GRAPH were wrong.

Thought not.

So yes, in fact, it DOES count, and your claim that it doesn't is without evidence, and nothing but another of your blatant ad hominems.

And please present your evidence that Spencer knowingly used wrong data. Someone's disagreement with Spencer's use of data is not evidence that he knowingly used wrong data.

Especially of that person is a Creationist.

Another blatant ad hominem fallacy.

There is no reason to believe that you will support any other claim you make about climate models.

Other than the fact that I have supported them all to date, you mean....?

[Pants-of-dog]

It wasn't irrelevant. It's the difference between the obvious but irrelevant and the subtle but crucial.

Please note that I have definitely supported them, and your personal opinion does not change evidence into non-evidence.

Please present your evidence that the data IN THAT GRAPH were wrong.

Thought not.

So yes, in fact, it DOES count, and your claim that it doesn't is without evidence, and nothing but another of your blatant ad hominems.

And please present your evidence that Spencer knowingly used wrong data. Someone's disagreement with Spencer's use of data is not evidence that he knowingly used wrong data.

Another blatant ad hominem fallacy.

Other than the fact that I have supported them all to date, you mean....?

Again, absolutely no evidence that anthropogenic climate change falsely claims that the statistical correlation between temperature and CO2 seen in the 1970-1998 period represented a causal relationship of high climate sensitivity that would continue indefinitely.

That was your claim. You made it here:
viewtopic.php?p=14671706#p14671706

Since then, you have posted no evidence of any kind for this claim.

Here I asked you to specify who made this claim and when:
viewtopic.php?p=14671712#p14671712

You alluded to some climate models, and as ususal, you were vague.

In fact I had to ask you repeatedly to name the climate models that supposedly erred in this way.

I had to ask you here:
viewtopic.php?p=14671966#p14671966

And here:
viewtopic.php?p=14672209#p14672209

Finally, you linked to a graph, but that graph did not support your claim that these models have predicted rapid warming in the 21st C caused by increased CO2, based on their misinterpretations of the relationship between rising CO2 in the late 20th C and the contemporaneous global temperature trend.

Let's face it.

You talk big, but you never actually support your claims.

-----------------

If anyone else wishes to show that a significant claim of anthropogenic climate change has been falsified, I would love to see it. Truth To Power was unable to do so.

[Hindsite]

Creationism and anthropogenic climate change denialism are the same in that both ignore science in order to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.

More importantly, Dr. Spenser has often used incorrect satellite data to support his incorrect and predetermined conclusions.

What you present is false science. Speculations about the interpretation of data is only opinion, not facts or truth. True science require true knowledge, which you don't have. So we are only discussing opinions on this thread about the global warming scam. There is no need for either of us to try to present science, because it can't be proven on a discussion forum and we have made up our mind. Isn't that true?

[Godstud]

97% of all climate scientists agree, according to the facts and evidence, that global warming is a real thing, and is happening. If you choose to ignore facts, then it is YOU who is willfully ignorant. You are NOT adhering to scientific method, but to the media's tendency to sensationalize anything that's different. That's the ONLY reason that denial scientists, with data NOT reviewed by peers, have gained ground.

This says it all, and is amusing at the same time:
John Oliver discusses how and why media outlets so often report untrue or incomplete information as science.
[youtube]0Rnq1NpHdmw[/youtube]

[Hindsite]

97% of all climate scientists agree, according to the facts and evidence, that global warming is a real thing, and is happening. If you choose to ignore facts, then it is YOU who is willfully ignorant. You are NOT adhering to scientific method, but to the media's tendency to sensationalize anything that's different. That's the ONLY reason that denial scientists, with data NOT reviewed by peers, have gained ground.

Perhaps 97% of scientist are stupid. DDid you ever think of that?
Global warming is a hoax.

[youtube]5nSGJ7EMMiI[/youtube]

[Godstud]

Perhaps 97% of scientist are stupid. Did you ever think of that?

legitimate science is proven time and time again and repeated. It is called a consensus since most scientists AGREE that the evidence is compelling, and good enough to demonstrate that there is global climate3 change, caused by man.

You are doing EXACTLY the thing that is being condemned in the video I posted. The shit you posted is NOT science. It's pseudoscience, and NOT science. This is the problem with you, it's either your total belief in the religious novel over even rational thought, or disbelief in SCIENCE that you do not even comprehend. You look for the tackiest, most asinine videos, put out by NON-scientists, or people trying to get hits on youtube.

Note: Science is not about WINNING, dumbass.

[Pants-of-dog]

What you present is false science. Speculations about the interpretation of data is only opinion, not facts or truth. True science require true knowledge, which you don't have. So we are only discussing opinions on this thread about the global warming scam. There is no need for either of us to try to present science, because it can't be proven on a discussion forum and we have made up our mind. Isn't that true?

No, that is not true.

Speculations about interpreting data can be true or not true, and this can be determined by interpreting the data in such a way that your specualtions include falsifiable claims. If you then test these claims and are unable to falsify them, you then have evidence that your speculations and interpretations are true.

True science does not require true knowledge, if we define true knowledge as something I do not have. It only requires observation, analysis, and experimentation.

Thus, we are not just discussing opinion. And there is a need to discuss the science.

[Besoeker]

Perhaps 97% of scientist are stupid. DDid you ever think of that?
Global warming is a hoax.

Maybe they are not and you are. Did you ever think of that?

Or why the difficult north west passage has become navigable?
Surely the ice isn't melting...........it would need the climate to warm for that to happen - for the hoax not be a hoax perhaps??

[Truth To Power]

Creationism and anthropogenic climate change denialism are the same in that both ignore science in order to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.

No, that's just another false accusation from you. There are many respected scientists who don't buy into AGW theory, and they have good reasons. Unlike AGW theory, evolutionary theory has proved it can predict observations with high reliability.

More importantly, Dr. Spenser has often used incorrect satellite data to support his incorrect and predetermined conclusions.

No, that's just another load of disgraceful, anti-scientific garbage from you. What actually happened was that AGW liars took actual satellite data that contradicted AGW theory, altered the data to agree with AGW theory, and then called the altered data "corrected" data and the actual data "incorrect" data. Then they accuse anyone who uses the actual data of "knowingly using incorrect" data.

Despicable, anti-scientific filth.

Or why the difficult north west passage has become navigable?

As it probably was during past, indisputably natural warm periods like the Holocene Optimum...?

Surely the ice isn't melting...........it would need the climate to warm for that to happen - for the hoax not be a hoax perhaps??

The fact that the earth has warmed back up since the Little Ice Age is not the theory of anthropogenic global warming, and no one says such warming is a hoax. OTC, lying sacks of AGW $#!+ like Michael Mann effectively claim the Medieval Warm Period is a hoax (when they aren't trying to get rid of it altogether).

It is called a consensus since most scientists AGREE that the evidence is compelling, and good enough to demonstrate that there is global climate3 change, caused by man.

That's the problem: there is no doubt that there is global climate change caused by man. Absolutely no scientific doubt whatsoever. THAT'S what 97% of climate scientists agree with. But they do NOT agree with AGW theory, which is quite, quite different. AGW theory makes certain specific claims that have not been confirmed by empirical data, and that many climate scientists dispute:

1. That the rapid warming recorded in 1970-1998 was mostly due to increased atmospheric CO2 released by human fossil fuel use (the theory does not explain why the virtually identical rapid warming of 1910-1940 happened in the absence of comparable CO2 emissions).

2. That continued large-scale CO2 emissions associated with human use of fossil fuels will cause similarly rapid warming in the 21st century (this one has already been conclusively falsified).

3. That such an increase in temperature will be catastrophic for humanity (despite previous global warm periods conventionally being called, "optimums" because climate conditions were then more congenial to humanity).

Those are the three key claims that AGW skeptics dispute. If you are not talking about one or more of those three, you are not talking about an issue that is in dispute, so you are just grandstanding. AGW ninnies do a lot of that kind of grandstanding. The vaunted 97% consensus is nothing but that kind of grandstanding.

[Pants-of-dog]

Another long post with no evidence to support any assertions.

And swearing.

And calling people liars.

I would ask you to provide evidence for any of those three claims you made, but the likelihood that you will support any claim is low.

Please note that not a single claim made by anthropogenic climate change theory has been shown to be false, at least in this thread.

[Godstud]

There are many respected scientists who don't buy into AGW theory

FALSE. There are very, very few. Since 97% of scientists support the actual science, and not the bullshit pseudo-science, cherry-picking, p-hacking, it's obvious that this is a bold-faced LIE that you are telling yourself(Why, I have no idea).

The vaunted 97% consensus is nothing but that kind of grandstanding.

No, it's proof that you are erroeous, and that there is no vast support by respectable scientists, for your claims.

Please note that not a single claim made by anthropogenic climate change theory has been shown to be false, at least in this thread.

QFT.

[Truth To Power]

There are many respected scientists who don't buy into AGW theory

FALSE. There are very, very few.

Nope. You're just wrong. Many scientists just go along with AGW nonscience because it is crammed down their throats so stridently and insistently, including by the political minority who run their professional associations; but actual scientists who actually look at the evidence rarely buy into AGW nonscience.

Since 97% of scientists support the actual science,

Right: the actual science, not AGW nonscience. Actual science includes the known physics of radiative transfer and UNADJUSTED empirical observations. It does NOT include the GIGO output of computer models based on faulty understanding of past climate trends, or the "smoothed," "averaged," "corrected," "reconciled," "weighted," and otherwise falsified data AGW nonscience relies on.

and not the bullshit pseudo-science, cherry-picking, p-hacking,

How ironic: you are describing AGW nonscience.

it's obvious that this is a bold-faced LIE that you are telling yourself(Why, I have no idea).

It's fact.

The vaunted 97% consensus is nothing but that kind of grandstanding.

No, it's proof that you are erroeous, and that there is no vast support by respectable scientists, for your claims.

Wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... al_warming

This article lists more than 60 respected scientists who question AGW nonscience, and that's only the ones with their own Wikipedia entries. The vast majority of scientists do not have their own Wikipedia entries.

Please note that not a single claim made by anthropogenic climate change theory has been shown to be false, at least in this thread.

Wrong. Even a few honest AGW non-scientists have admitted the hiatus has falsified their theory: "We can't account for [the hiatus], and it's a travesty that we can't." -- Kevin Trenberth

Now that the strong 2015-16 El Nino is done and La Nina is coming back, we are going to see temperatures falling again, in replicated refutation of AGW theory. Some solar physicists predict that cycle 25 and especially 26 will be very weak, so we could be in for substantial global cooling over the next 25+ years. Hope they're wrong. Cooler global climate would be bad news indeed. The problem is, even if the earth enters a new Ice Age, with miles-thick glaciers covering latitudes above 50, the "adjusted" temperature readings will probably just keep going up....

[Pants-of-dog]

Now you are taking Mr. Trenberth's words out of context.

What Mr. (Dr.? Prof.?) Trenberth is saying is that we should have climate models that are capable of tracing short term variability in temperature trends in order to better prepare ourselves to plan and cope for the effects of climate change.

He is discussing this paper that he wrote:

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threa ... 9final.pdf

[blackjack21]

Good thing we're not affecting the climate...

You know that the Soviet Union cut off it's water inlets for agriculture, right? Disappearance of the Aral Sea Just another fine example of why socialism is so fucked up.

[Godstud]

Right. Man affected climate change over a vast area.

Deforestation of the Amazon is also a great example.

This article lists more than 60 respected scientists who question AGW nonscience

60 scientists...

A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global ... ediate.htm

So.... 60 vs 12,000... Do you care to do the math? No? Of course not, because it would back up everything I said.


Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus
The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK



So stop pretending that there is no scientific consensus on AGW.

[Truth To Power]

Now you are taking Mr. Trenberth's words out of context.

The context does not change the meaning.

What Mr. (Dr.? Prof.?) Trenberth is saying is that we should have climate models that are capable of tracing short term variability in temperature trends in order to better prepare ourselves to plan and cope for the effects of climate change.

No, he is saying that AGW non-scientists, specifically, can't account for the hiatus, and it's a travesty that they can't.

[Truth To Power]

Right. Man affected climate change over a vast area.

But not with CO2.

Deforestation of the Amazon is also a great example.

But not of CO2.

This article lists more than 60 respected scientists who question AGW nonscience

60 scientists...

A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

Well, guess what? I also agree that humans are causing global warming.

GET IT???

The so-called "consensus on global warming" is such a weak statement that no honest, intelligent, informed person could disagree with it.

In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global ... ediate.htm

Did the email ask the authors to take a position on any of the three key premises of AGW theory I identified above?

Of course not, because then the game would be up, and the "consensus" exposed for the lie it is.

So.... 60 vs 12,000... Do you care to do the math?

No, because the 60 AGREE WITH the 12,000 on the weak statement of the consensus -- and the 12,000 do NOT agree with the strong statement of AGW nonscience: the three key premises I identified.

No? Of course not, because it would back up everything I said.

Wrong again, as proved above.

Did you even look at that piece of garbage? How many were asked? WHO was asked?

Are you starting to get the picture yet?

Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus

The "consensus"? SPECIFY WHAT THE "CONSENSUS" CONSISTS OF!

The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

Right. It CAN BE attributed to human activities, because someone, somewhere HAS thus attributed it.

GET IT???

It doesn't mean, "Human activities caused most of the global warming." It means, "Someone could say that human activities caused most of the global warming."

GET IT??

So stop pretending that there is no scientific consensus on AGW.

There is definitely a consensus on AGW. It just isn't what you claim it is.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, context changes meaning.

This is why I provided the context. Now everyone can read for themselves what Mr. Trenberth meant.

If you disagree, please quote the text from the cited paper by Mr. Trenberth that you feel supports your claim. Thank you.

-----------

Edit:

As a final clarification of what Mr. Trenberth meant, here is his own statement concerning that exact quote:

....

Several top scientists who are quoted are from NCAR, including myself (Kevin Trenberth). Several of the emails document the detailed procedures used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR4 Fourth Assessment report for Chapter 3 (for which Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth were coordinating lead authors) and other chapters. Many of the scientists featured in the emails with Jones have web sites and freely and openly make available their papers, presentations, blogs and other information.

In my case, one cherry-picked email quote has gone viral and at last check it was featured in over 107,000 items (in Google). Here is the quote: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability.

The paper on this is available here:

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001.

.....

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/emails/