global warming biggest scam ever

[DarrinS]

after all these years, you still have no ing clue what the difference is between an insult and an actual ad hominem.

You aren't wrong because you are a lazy . You are a lazy because of the way you are wrong.

Does that clear it up?

Wow, you went full FuzzyLumpkins on me.

Can you even articulate the skeptic position on CAGW?

[Wild Cobra]

Wow, you went full FuzzyLumpkins on me.

Can you even articulate the skeptic position on CAGW?

On me too.

Maybe he's having a mental breakdown?

[RandomGuy]

Wow, you went full FuzzyLumpkins on me.

Can you even articulate the skeptic position on CAGW?

[RandomGuy]

On me too.

Maybe he's having a mental breakdown?

I guess that is easier for you to believe or say than, you know, actually providing the evidence you have been asked to.

Because good critical thinking is, like, hard, 'n' stuff.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wow, you went full FuzzyLumpkins on me.

Can you even articulate the skeptic position on CAGW?

So you get to be the arbiter of what is true skepticism? BEST does the work of skeptics. They all over a ton of models and forcing mechanisms in their work. Another great example is the astrophysicist community about 10 years ago. There was some uncertainty about the emission spectrum of the sun which drew questions regarding system input. Your sophistry demands its bias to policy outcome though so I can see where the disconnect is for you. Those groups of studies ultimately concluded that CO2 forcing is both real and significant.

We can point to many examples of you being lazy completely independent of all that though. It is what it is. Youre getting others to make your arguments for you here too. Argument by innuendo is pseudo-science.

[DarrinS]

So you get to be the arbiter of what is true skepticism? BEST does the work of skeptics. They all over a ton of models and forcing mechanisms in their work. Another great example is the astrophysicist community about 10 years ago. There was some uncertainty about the emission spectrum of the sun which drew questions regarding system input. Your sophistry demands its bias to policy outcome though so I can see where the disconnect is for you. Those groups of studies ultimately concluded that CO2 forcing is both real and significant.

We can point to many examples of you being lazy completely independent of all that though. It is what it is. Youre getting others to make your arguments for you here too. Argument by innuendo is pseudo-science.

???

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/40/E2657.abstract

[RandomGuy]

???

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/40/E2657.abstract

[FuzzyLumpkins]

???

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/40/E2657.abstract

I was articulating AGW skeptic positions like you asked for. WTG representing the AGW skeptic movement as a lazy, uncreative, dissembling bunch with nothing substantive to say.

This time can I get a meme and some smilies?

[RandomGuy]

I was articulating AGW skeptic positions like you asked for. WTG representing the AGW skeptic movement as a lazy, uncreative, dissembling bunch with nothing substantive to say.

This time can I get a meme and some smilies?

Pretty much.

Darrin doesn't even try any more, yet the total failure on his part to find enough proof for his position, let alone understand it doesn't deter him.

[Nero5]

WTG representing the AGW

Arrrggghhhh! Attack of the TLA* warning!!!!
Care to expand?







*Three Letter Acronym

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Arrrggghhhh! Attack of the TLA* warning!!!!
Care to expand?


*Three Letter Acronym

wtg = way to go

agw = anthropocentric global warming

[boutons_deux]

agw = anthropocentric global warming

agw = anthropogenic gw

[DarrinS]

wtg = way to go

agw = anthropocentric global warming

Fail

[Nero5]

Thanks

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fail

oh noes!

[Winehole23]

no correlation between greenhouse gases and observed temperatures:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/20...ing-the-world/

[Wild Cobra]

no correlation between greenhouse gases and observed temperatures:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/20...ing-the-world/

Are you saying it is impossible that it is coincidence, that two factors of many, both rise in a near linear relationship?

[Winehole23]

nope

[Winehole23]

are the two not correlated?

[Wild Cobra]

are the two not correlated?

The two have a reasonable good correlation. That does no mean CO2 is the dominant reason. If you take TSI changes, and assume the same 100 year lag for 70% equalization that James Hansen does for CO2, you have this for solar response:



Radiative forcing on solid surfaces reemit most the heat back out relatively quickly as longwave. The oceans are different since shortwave penetrates past the surface, so even though TSI is relatively small, the ac ulated change in flux is very significant.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The two have a reasonable good correlation. That does no mean CO2 is the dominant reason. If you take TSI changes, and assume the same 100 year lag for 70% equalization that James Hansen does for CO2, you have this for solar response:



Radiative forcing on solid surfaces reemit most the heat back out relatively quickly as longwave. The oceans are different since shortwave penetrates past the surface, so even though TSI is relatively small, the ac ulated change in flux is very significant.

That link in your graph doesn't work. Does the fact that it's at least 7 years old give you any pause? I mean since then the solar, sea and land data has improved significantly.

Nevermind that you are waving your hands at one man's data set as opposed to the consensus that is the IPCC data.

[Wild Cobra]

That link in your graph doesn't work. Does the fact that it's at least 7 years old give you any pause? I mean since then the solar, sea and land data has improved significantly.

Nevermind that you are waving your hands at one man's data set as opposed to the consensus that is the IPCC data.

I works for me:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/...sen_etal_2.pdf

or:

http://eaps4.mit.edu/research/papers..._etal_2005.pdf

And yes, I handwave the 97% as most the warming, as only idiots who don't understand science believe it as the pundits spin it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I works for me:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/...sen_etal_2.pdf

or:

http://eaps4.mit.edu/research/papers..._etal_2005.pdf

And yes, I handwave the 97% as most the warming, as only idiots who don't understand science believe it as the pundits spin it.

Youre posting graphs from 2005 dude. That is all that really needs to be said.

Now I just looked through the link and I didn't see that graph. Did you put that graph together WC?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Biggest scam ever eh? this ing place

[Wild Cobra]

Youre posting graphs from 2005 dude. That is all that really needs to be said.

Now I just looked through the link and I didn't see that graph. Did you put that graph together WC?

LOL...

Are you really that ing lame?

Yes, I made the graph. I have presented t before, and explained what it was.

I get really ing annoyed at having to repeat myself over and over to you over time.

The data comes from the accepted SORCE data. My graph matches theirs:



http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/

http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/...nstruction.txt