Scientists Get Buried In Snow At Davos While Lecturing On Global Warming

"And did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?

... What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn�t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. ...

So Hansen's giving this testimony, you've got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn't appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony. ..."

 

Exactly. You sound positive, kind of like in an "inquisition" form of positive... Like faith being confronted with science....

 

Learn the causes of CO2 - Google is your friend. (you're welcome)

 

Your ideology conflicts with science, and you are hidebound to the former.

Climatologists cannot waste time attempting to deprogram the incorrigible remnant of dogmatic ideologues while the world is committed to addressing the growing crisis.

 

Here's a good overview of it, with links to the IPCC report and the papers.

ttps://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans

The fact that you were so ignorant of the basics here should clue you in about how you've been snookered. Your political cult leaders fed you only the information that they wanted you to know.

No problem. If this graph was taken up to the present, the line would have shot up to +1C in the blink of an eye. In comparison, the LIA is a rather gentle downward curve.

Sure it has. The models hindcast very well, because scientists aren't morons. They know that if the model can't hindcast, then it certainly can't forecast. And the models also forecast very well.

Of course not, being that models aren't formulas.

However, the successful models aren't even necessary. The directly observed data shows how the warming is manmade. The stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, and the decrease of outgoing longwave radiation in the GHG bands are all measurements going the opposite way of what the natural cycles theories predict. Your natural cycles theory is contradicted by observed data, hence that theory is wrong.

In contrast, the scientists have come up with a theory that's in agreement with observed data, and which successfully makes accurate predictions. That's why it's the accepted theory. If you want that theory overthrown, you can't just complain that it's not perfect. You have to come up with something that agrees with observed reality even better, and which makes even better predictions. And that's not going to happen. Your political cult isn't even trying to do any actual science. They're just peddling "doubt", same as the tobacco industry did, using some of the same people who worked on the tobacco industry doubt-campaign.

 

you are making false accusations as usual, and speaking about a subject in which you have little to no knowledge.

 

Translation, I cannot answer your questions, stop bothering us with the facts. Got it... The hidebound reference is truly masterful as an example of the rhetorical hyperbole you're willing to spew out to distance yourself from accountability. Duly noted....

 

It seems to me that when you get caught making up a story, you should 'fess up instead of compounding the big lie.

You claimed Mann was Gore's source for his ice cap claims.

Now, when called to back up that wild story, you change the subject to a cold snap. Very dishonest of you.

 

Nice move. I have fully operational micro jumbo jets filled with AGW Hollywood activists flying circles in my house to leave a nice big carbon footprint, and fully operational micro hummers speeding across the floors. That's how I've been able to keep it warm. And if it weren't for global warming activists being such radical hypocrites, I couldn't have thought of the idea. For sure this Summer I'll have the heat on full blast though, to stay nice and cool.

 

They're pretty much a group you made up, so we don't worry about them. We're not like you. We don't point to a single hot day as proof of global warming, as that would be dishonest and stupid. We leave "weather is climate!" hysteria solely to your side.

No, you're not. You're making up yet another crazy story.

And now you're babbling politically-based conspiracy kookery, right after you posted how your side never does that.

But then, given how all the data flatly contradicts your cult's sacred dogma, conspiracy theories are one of the few tactics left to you, along with faking everything and engaging in hysterical scare-mongering.

 

Sweet, somewhere to start.

Here are the four assertions presented in the blog:

• Since 1850, almost all the long-term warming can be explained by greenhouse gas emissions and other human activities.

• If greenhouse gas emissions alone were warming the planet, we would expect to see about a third more warming than has actually occurred. They are offset by cooling from human-produced atmospheric aerosols.

• Aerosols are projected to decline significantly by 2100, bringing total warming from all factors closer to warming from greenhouse gases alone.

• Natural variability in the Earth’s climate is unlikely to play a major role in long-term warming.

Ok, where are the formula provided to make any of these assertions credible? You will recall that the assignment was to actually produce the math/formulas. Talking about them isn't acceptable. Show the work. Demonstrate that these have merit.

And just for the sake of amusement, the last one... "Natural variability is "unlikely to play a major role".... Did they perhaps forget that without natural variability that historically climate would not have changed?

I mean seriously. None of the above are worth any amount of consideration given the inability to prove them in the form of experiments. Where are they? The superficiality of your response is likely all I need to understand the depth of your actual knowledge here, or what constitutes credibility for you.

I'd now like to demonstrate this. I have 4 Trillion dollars in my bank account. I created a spreadsheet that derived this number, a data model that analyzed the number of times that others also agreed that my spreadsheet was a spreadsheet, and I'd like to write you a check for your house. My expectation, given the consensus, the overwhelming evidence and analysis of my bank account, that you should simply accept the check, but don't cash it, because the check itself has actual value, and at the same time, I'd like to tax you on that check while you hold it, on the off chance that I can use that money to fund some of my other development costs....

 

Learn the causes of the Earth's natural weather patterns over the last 4.5 billion years.

 

I don't have to ask if you're a supporter of the current denier Stalinist campaign to censor all science which is inconvenient to TheParty. I only have to ask how extreme your Stalinism is. Are you content with merely having scientists and liberals in general censored, or do you want them convicted, sent to the Gulag and put to death?

For example, are you a supporter of the Republican attempts to have Dr. Mann prosecuted and sent to The Gulag as a political prisoner?

I haven't found a single denier anywhere who says that kind of Stalinism was a bad thing, but who knows, maybe you'll be the first denier here to reject Stalinism. It could happen. I just don't expect it to happen, given your side's ongoing enthusiastic support of all Stalinist tactics.

 

Do you trust politicians that you like over scientists in general, or only in regard to climatology?

Are you upset that the world's political leaders have accepted the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change?

 

It is as if you simply looked deeply into a mirror and started writing about yourself. Truly, remarkable. I would remind you comrade that Stalin was a leftist, like you. His form of Gulag was the kind that jails folks who deny global warming, just like you. So, likely, you think this is a good idea, right? So you fulfill your own prophesy here, and you, as you wrote: "who says that kind of Stalinism was a bad thing". This seems to be where you were going all on your own.

When you say, "I havent' found a denier anywhere", I suggest that you relook into that mirror.

 

What does that have to do with the causes of CO2?

 

That's an interesting tactic, proclaiming how being so proudly lazy and deliberately ignorant makes you the winner. I led you to the links to all you ask for. Go check it out.

If you really want me to literally spend _days_ painstakingly educating a lazy parasite like you, you'll have to pay for my time. My tutoring rate will be $50/hr, and it will all need to be payed ahead in a Paypal account. Indicate if that's okay with you, and I'll get you the info, you can send the money ($500 to start), and we'll begin.

 

Laughable. I don't "trust" politicians. I also don't trust climatologists who cannot be validated by experiment reproduction. I also don't trust the conclusive nature or outputs of date models that create different results when run on different operating systems, or use different data base services, or use different hardware to run their sims on.

More, I doubt you understand the dynamic that the political agreement you're referring to is pinned to. Frankly, it's disturbing that you cannot recognize the use of your faith as a method to transfer wealth around the globe to ensure development and improvement around the globe, all the while ignoring the environmental impact or consequences of having done that.

So, I think that truly it's just you.

 

Translation. Ta Da.... you win. I couldn't produce those formula if I had to, so I won't, but I'll snivel about it while slinking away....

 

You realize that, even though less local, you are still talking about not even a month in North America? Why did you bother answering me with something that was answered in my post?

 

You didn't answer, little Stalinist. You evaded, you raged, you projected, but you didn't answer.

Do you endorse the Republican campaign to have Dr. Mann prosecuted and sent to The Gulag?

No, nobody expected you to disobey your cult's edicts and say that the Republican attempts to prosecute Dr. Mann were a bad thing. First, you love the idea of sending all your political enemies to The Gulag. And second, you're too frightened of your very violent political cult to even think about disobedience.

Oh, this. It's an ongoing list of all the current denier attempts to censor inconvenient science. Try not to pass out from joy when you read it.

http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/resources/silencing-science-tracker/silencing-climate-science/

 

is a hurricane short term or long term? Remember the hurricanes were blamed on GW by lefties so...just wondering how you are classifying hurricanes. Short term or long....or will there now be a grey area explanation of hurricanes.

 

You sound like the type that gets really flustered when someone doesn't fall for man made global warming.

Liberals most definitely decry record heat as proof for global warming. They even say all these record cold days we're experiencing is from global warming.

My side doesn't say "weather is climate." My side is instilled with the common sense to understand that weather patterns have been changing for billions of years and if humans were truly the cause of it then the ice caps really would be melted. But we're not the cause and the Earth is just changing naturally as it always has.

But you DO believe in man made global warming, could you tell me what steps you take daily to combat global warming?

 

I am unaware that such a campaign exists today. If it did, I would question why it is necessary, or what legal challenge Mann was being subjected to. And then, of course, you'd have to show the rest of us these "gulags" of which you speak. Again, unaware of them... What I do see is an outlandish use of hyperbole used by you. And zero substance behind it. Classic.

 

It's sounds as if your ideological dogma prevents you from accepting the consensus view of climatological scientists.