- 13 May 2016 23:38
#14679293
I see PoD cannot dispute any of the above, and simply repeats claims I have already proved false:
No. That is just another in your infinite series of false claims that I never present any evidence for what I say. I have provided the evidence: the model projections showing continued increase in temperature similar to the 1970-1998 period, based on nothing but the models' assumption that the rapid increase in temperature during that period was due to CO2. THAT'S THE ONLY JUSTIFICATION THEY HAVE EVER OFFERED FOR ASSUMING HIGH CO2 SENSITIVITY. THAT'S THE EVIDENCE, NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU FALSELY CLAIM IT ISN'T.
GOT IT??
False, as proved above. You don't get to say what is evidence and what isn't, sorry. You can question the quality of the evidence, but claiming it isn't evidence is just lying.
I stated the type of models, and gave examples.
Yes, of course it did.
You have no facts or logic to support your claims, you just always claim evidence that proves you wrong isn't evidence. You seem to be under an erroneous impression that you can magically make evidence disappear by clicking your heels and chanting, "There is no evidence."
False. The claim of continued temperature increase with continued CO2 increase has been falsified, and Kevin Trenberth even admitted it.
You don't get to make evidence not evidence, sorry.
Is that what you are reduced to? Claiming that keycaps is "swearing"?
It is normal on Internet forums that people are allowed to lie, but not to identify the fact that someone else has lied. This is a key weakness of such forums.
<yawn> The likelihood that you will not say evidence is not evidence is zero.
The AGW prediction of continued temperature increase with continued CO2 increase has been falsified in this thread. And I predict that with the end of the recent El Nino temperature anomaly, 2017's (unadjusted) satellite temperatures will be lower than 1997's.
Truth To Power wrote: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....?
I see PoD cannot dispute any of the above, and simply repeats claims I have already proved false:
Pants-of-dog wrote: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.
No. That is just another in your infinite series of false claims that I never present any evidence for what I say. I have provided the evidence: the model projections showing continued increase in temperature similar to the 1970-1998 period, based on nothing but the models' assumption that the rapid increase in temperature during that period was due to CO2. THAT'S THE ONLY JUSTIFICATION THEY HAVE EVER OFFERED FOR ASSUMING HIGH CO2 SENSITIVITY. THAT'S THE EVIDENCE, NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU FALSELY CLAIM IT ISN'T.
GOT IT??
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.
False, as proved above. You don't get to say what is evidence and what isn't, sorry. You can question the quality of the evidence, but claiming it isn't evidence is just lying.
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.
I stated the type of models, and gave examples.
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.
Yes, of course it did.
You talk big, but you never actually support your claims.
You have no facts or logic to support your claims, you just always claim evidence that proves you wrong isn't evidence. You seem to be under an erroneous impression that you can magically make evidence disappear by clicking your heels and chanting, "There is no evidence."
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.
False. The claim of continued temperature increase with continued CO2 increase has been falsified, and Kevin Trenberth even admitted it.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Another long post with no evidence to support any assertions.
You don't get to make evidence not evidence, sorry.
And swearing.
Is that what you are reduced to? Claiming that keycaps is "swearing"?
And calling people liars.
It is normal on Internet forums that people are allowed to lie, but not to identify the fact that someone else has lied. This is a key weakness of such forums.
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.
<yawn> The likelihood that you will not say evidence is not evidence is zero.
Please note that not a single claim made by anthropogenic climate change theory has been shown to be false, at least in this thread.
The AGW prediction of continued temperature increase with continued CO2 increase has been falsified in this thread. And I predict that with the end of the recent El Nino temperature anomaly, 2017's (unadjusted) satellite temperatures will be lower than 1997's.