There is nothing in the synopsis that says that. That's what I keep trying to tell him.
Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter
- Thread starter Moviefan-2
- Start date
- Status
You most certainly did:
Your definition of believers in "anthropogenic climate change" includes any climate researcher who puts the influence of man-made emissions at anything greater than zero.
That means all of your favourite "deniers" -- people who have challenged the IPCC such as Judith Curry, John Christy and Richard Lindzen -- are part of your "consensus."
Pretty much everyone is counted, with many of the researchers that you're including being at complete odds when it comes to the impact and seriousness of man-made emissions.
The "consensus" is meaningless. There is no "consensus" on anything the IPCC or the champions of AGW have been saying.
Thank you for answering. Less than 7% of scientists in the survey you proudly posted support your belief. That same survey also has 9% supporting your claim that there has been no temperature change in the past decade.
If you claim that 66% support is not enough, why do you think single digit support is?
So you agree that anthropogenic climate change is happening, and your only argument is how much?
"These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions"
If that wasn't clear enough English for you, you can read this summary in Science Daily:
"The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today's climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm
That's a wrap folks.
Nope. If you actually bothered to read instead of spewing garbage you got from conspiracy websites you would know it has been experimentally observed. I linked the study above. It's been directly measured.
You are wrong and your demented sources are wrong.
I'm afraid not. Your quote comes from a news release, not from the paper that was published in Nature.
And, contrary to what you said a few days ago, you've now confirmed that you are talking about the calculations in the computer model simulations. Thus, my original reply stands: The predictions in the 21st century have been consistently and spectacularly wrong.
6.5 + 9.9 + 8.8 = 7? :biggrin1:
Regardless, the reason that I say that 66% is "not enough" to claim that there is a "97% consensus" is because 66% is significantly less than 97%. The claims of a consensus are B.S.
And let's not forget your earlier post where you pointed to stats that show that many of these climate researchers don't even know the data.
By "anthropogenic climate change," you mean the possibility that the Earth's climate is overwhelmingly affected by natural factors and that the contribution from man-made emissions is minuscule (as some of your "consensus" members believe).
I wouldn't characterize that as agreeing that anthropogenic climate change is happening.
In fact, you've confirmed that the "consensus" is total bullshit. Well done, Franky. Well done.
No, you've confirmed the consensus by admitting that anthropogenic climate change is happening, you only argue about how much.
And as repeated here often, the stats say that the chances that the changes we've experienced are 'natural' as you claim, are just 0.01%.
There is a 99.99% chance that we are experiencing anthropogenic climate change, the IPCC says it extremely likely that we've seen 0.6º-1.3º change due to anthropogenic climate change. The only question is how much other influences are also changing the climate, from aerosols to volcanoes to decadal ocean currents.
What you've done is confirm that you accept that anthropogenic climate change is happening, and also confirmed that your Dunning-Kruger effect math skills (0.87>0.83, for example) are keeping you from understanding that you are 99.99% odds out to be totally full of shit and into full on denial of reality.
Jimmy Kimmel did a takedown on Sarah Palin, Climate Hustle and denier idiots like moviefan.
Its really excellent.
Take down line is this:
Either you believe in science or you don't.
moviefan, do you believe in science?
Its really excellent.
Take down line is this:
Either you believe in science or you don't.
moviefan, do you believe in science?
If I pay the $32 to get the actual article and show you that it is specifically the prediction used in climate models, will you finally shut up?
We both know Science Daily accurately summarized it and I would happily pay the $32 to have you concede the debate and stop your mindless crusade against science.
And as for computer models, THIS study empirically measured the excess heat being added to the climate using observation with precision equipment. It's hard science. The relationship to computer models is that it validated the AGW contribution used by those models, the models weren't used to conduct the study.
I would like to hear the AGW backers comments on the earths temp rising in lock step,...within a year,...of the supposed man made CO2 increase.
I continually see graphs displayed here that show just that,...which I have a hard time accepting.
But I'm open for any logical explanation.
FAST
I continually see graphs displayed here that show just that,...which I have a hard time accepting.
But I'm open for any logical explanation.
FAST
Last edited:
When those 3 are mutually exclusive...
That is supported by a mere 7% of scientists. I'll even give you the 0.2% that say AGW has no impact since it's technically it is less than 25%. Then there is your claim that there has been no statistical change in temperature for the past decade. Only 9% support that statement.Moviefan-2 said:
Keep on being the hero of science fighting against the massive government coverup. Maybe you will be our generations Galileo.
The logical explanation for variance is that AGW is influencing temperatures exactly as predicted but it's not the only thing influencing temperatures.
We have clear proof of AGW. What we do not have is a clear understanding of all the other things that impact climate.
When you decide to answer my question,...let me know.
This is exactly why there are people who don't believe the current crop of climate "experts",...never answer the question,...just more avoiding the hard questions.
But continually come up with,..."What we do not have is a clear understanding of all the other things that impact climate,...but we know how AGW effects it exactly"
FAST
According to you, the definition of "anthropogenic climate change" includes the possibility that temperature changes are overwhelmingly due to natural causes and man-made emissions are of no significance.
I don't think you know what "anthropogenic" means.
Putting aside the "exactly as predicted" idiocy, the big unknown is whether man-made emissions are even a significant factor.
That doesn't matter to Frankfooter. His take on "anthropogenic" warming is that it may not have anything to do with human beings (give or take 1%).
But for the rest of us, what this means is there is no reliable way to make predictions about how man-made emissions will affect the Earth's temperature. That means the AGW hypothesis is not supported by evidence.
S
**Sophie**
Really? And what is the optimum level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Surely you know the answer to this simple question.
- Status
