A long series on climate change

[Cullion]

This simple graph shows the upward slope of temperatures overall as the correlate with CO2 levels. The variance you see in temperatures from year to year has to do with all the other factors that make our global average temperature.

It's a very short time series that doesn't plot the numerous other factors which were changing at the same time. There are plenty of points in the record where co2 and global avg temp move in opposite directions. What you're doing is totally unscientific.

Now lets see if rabbit can answer my question. He's trying to duck it because he knows it's either going to make him look like a fool to claim that increasing temperatures are no longer a prediction of the AGW (note the correct acronym, rabbit) hypothesis, or he's going to have to explain 16 years of failed predictions.

[goodlun]

The exact effect on the real climate cannot be replicated because if that were so we'd have models that were, amongst other things, able to predict the current absence of warming. It's wildly unscientific to have a theory's key prediction fail and then insist that ones future predictions will be sound.

Wrong the exact effect is the climate will be warmer than if it would be with out the extra CO2. Not necessarily warmer than it was last year not necessarily warmer than yesterday. Because its a very complex thing to model. A lack of a complete and perfect model doesn't cause everything in the model to be bunk.
We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas this is provable.
The exact amount of heat retained may no be able to be modeled effectively for a global model there are a large number of variables. Some of these variables we do not have great models for yet, some we do.
This doesn't change the fact that when you add CO2 to an atmosphere that it retains more of the heat that is put in.
Once again you have to do is look at the long term data and the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas(IE it traps heat).

When we enter into the same ellipse around the sun that we had in 2006 that the temperatures for that year will be greater than they where for 2006, because of the extra CO2. This is why the graph looks the way it does. Natural variance trending upward overtime.

[Cullion]

Wrong the exact effect is the climate will be warmer than if it would be with out the extra CO2. Not necessarily warmer than it was last year not necessarily warmer than yesterday. Because its a very complex thing to model. A lack of a complete and perfect model doesn't cause everything in the model to be bunk.
We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas this is provable.
The exact amount of heat retained may no be able to be modeled effectively for a global model there are a large number of variables. Some of these variables we do not have great models for yet, some we do.
This doesn't change the fact that when you add CO2 to an atmosphere that it retains more of the heat that is put in.
Once again you have to do is look at the long term data and the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas(IE it traps heat).

When we enter into the same ellipse around the sun that we had in 2006 that the temperatures for that year will be greater than they where for 2006, because of the extra CO2. This is why the graph looks the way it does. Natural variance trending upward overtime.

But temperature doesn't always trend upwards over time with co2, it only appears that way to you because you've taken such a tiny slice of recent history.

[It is Fake]

What debate?

He is claiming the very concept behind greenhouse gasses is false despite the fact that we have a clear understanding of how they work.

He could go and get a bottle of CO2 fill an air tight but clear vessel. Put it out in the sun for the day. Come back the next day and take a temperature reading of the ambient air and the air inside the vessel and notice that the air in the vessel is a bit warmer.

No, that's you dumbing HIS argument, as usual, to fit your "must be right at all costs" attitude on these types of threads.
Anyway, You and I are debating the fallacy of that shitty meme you posted. The problem is you are an outlier that will uses anything to get your point across. That is what idiots do on both sides. Now you go on and make up some dumb ****, like you enjoy doing and I will keep making fun of your asshattery.

[W. Rabbit]

Now lets see if rabbit can answer my question. He's trying to duck it because he knows it's either going to make him look like a fool to claim that increasing temperatures are no longer a prediction of the AGW (note the correct acronym, rabbit) hypothesis, or he's going to have to explain 16 years of failed predictions.

You need to learn that when you're caught lying Cullion, you lose credibility. Doubling down on the lies is a doomed stratagem.

There's no need to attack your straw men or answer your "question" (ie bait), you've already lied in the thread about the inquiries posted.

They stand for themselves...I need to post nothing further. Anyone who actually reads about the inquiries below (are they all in the conspiracy Cullion?) and then reads your comments will immediately realize how full of **** you are.

Yep, you've gone from denier to outright fabricator.

Between your hyperbole like Muller's "public rape" by Curry (a fantasy on your part) and dismissing the eight inquiries into Climategate (without posting refuting sources of your own), how could a rational person take you seriously? No, continuing to post graphs and charts doesn't make your grasp of science any better than mine.

I think you're just trolling at this point. No one with a decent science education or ability to read science journals could ever come up with the tripe you have in this thread.

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/...ly-clears.html

Independent Climate Change Review
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/s...08climate.html

International Science Assessment Panel
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencein...ontrovers.html

Pennsylvania State University (first panel)
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencein...scienti-1.html

Pennsylvania State University (second panel)
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencein...d-as-penn.html

United States Environmental Protection Agency
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-10899538

Department of Commerce (US)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/st...gate-noaa.html

National Science Foundation
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...g-inquiry.html

[W. Rabbit]

I almost forgot...Scientific American....did they drink the Kool Aid too? Do BBC overlords (probably DALEKS in disguise!) control their puppet strings?

Negating "Climategate": Copenhagen Talks and Climate Science Survive Stolen E-Mail Controversy

In fact, nothing in the stolen material undermines the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that humans are to blame.

Turns out it's impossible to find a respected, credible source on the so-called "Climategate" that actually agrees with Cullion. No WONDER he can't post his own sources and resorts to his personal opinions on the eight independent reviews (convincing no one in the process).

And no wonder he's so upset. He's acting like the new Dustymars, complete with neg varrot rage.

Don't feed the troll anymore guys. It'd bad enough that I did.

[Cullion]

So you can't answer the question.

You're not going to get away with avoiding that by posting more from pop-science magazines, Rabbit.

You just accused me of lying without actually saying what it is I said which is false. Care to enlighten us?

I can wait all day. Please address the first question beforehand though.

"Do you now disagree with the hypothesis that increasing co2 will lead to increased global average temperatures".

It's simple enough.

[W. Rabbit]

So you can't answer the question.

I don't have to.

You're not going to get away with avoiding that

Yes, I am.

You seem to have forgotten the burden is on you, not me, since you're the one who's made all the outrageous claims in this thread.

I've just accepted what NOAA, the NSF, the EPA, Scientific American, and Nature all said and I'll leave it at that.

You can continue to try to convince thin air for all I care. :)

[Cullion]

I don't have to.

Then you've conceded the argument.
You made a very specific point earlier in the thread that you believed the hypothesis had been defended by evidence of icnreased arctic summer ice melt (without a corresponding increase in global average temperature or increased melt in the antarctic, which is an extraordinary way to try and hold up a theory which references warming in it's very name. This is why you need to address that question).

If you cannot even tell me whether or not you think the central point of debate over AGW is whether increased co2 leads to increased average temperatures, you have no place in the argument (pssst, the clue is in the words used to form the acronym, but I'm not sure if you actually know what they are, because you've kept getting them in the wrong order).

[W. Rabbit]

Then you've conceded the argument.

YEP YOU WON TEH A W G DIBATE CULL! GRATS!!!!#

Seriously, shut the **** up, non-scientist. Have you stopped to wonder why NO ONE else on the forum ever posts anything to back you up? It's because you're a fart in the wind.

You made a very specific point earlier in the thread

Yes my MOST specific point was you're full of ****. I'm sticking to that point.

If you cannot even tell me

It frustrates you I don't give a **** about answering your questions, right? As if any answer I could give would satisfy your conspiracy theories and paranoia. You can get anti-anxiety meds for that.

acronym, but I'm not sure if you actually know what they are, because you've kept getting them in the wrong order).

It's an initialism, dumbass.

Oh a few times? My bad. I was too busying posting credible sources to worry about my typos.

Like I said, you're just butthurt you can't find ANY credible scientific journals, periodicals, or associations that back up ANYTHING of your own arguments in this thread, and you're sad JohnnyCache isn't here to tell you the same.

This is you, but with better teeth: