Climate Crock Sacks Hack Attack Part 1

To help support Climate Denial Crock of the Week
Go to
http://climatecrocks.com/

Climate deniers have been making a lot of noise about a set of stolen emails from one of the world's leading climate centers, The Universtiy of East Anglia.
The spin they're putting out is that the emails reveal what they always suspected, an evil global conspiracy.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/...
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climate...

• Category

  Science & Technology

[randomxnp]

Greenman

I'd like to ask you the same question I have asked almost every member of your religion for the last three years. It is the only question that actually matters (as you would know if you had ever trained in any real science). Not one of them has been able to answer. I have also tried to find a answer for myself, unsuccessfully.

What is the empirical evidence that human activity is likely to cause dangerous climate change?

[greenman3610]

I assume you never asked anyone knowledgable, as I have, or spent thousands of hours researching, as I have.

Your question is like asking for the empirical evidence that cigarettes cause health problems. It is spread out over thousands of papers, and 150 years of scientific inquiry.

I've made a hundred videos, watch em. go to the linked files and read them. read the IPCC, at least chapter 6.

start here.

watch?v=OmpiuuBy-4s

watch?v=yLYqzIhhT6o

then you can come back, and ask nicely.

[mecadam]

How about the much more warmer period of Vikking' era?

It is not on the hockey stick' graph. Do you mean that it didn't happen.?

[greenman3610]

sorry, not warmer.

see

watch?v=c90nab5i-TQ

and

watch?v=G80mIbF5yEg

[bflatkitty]

Empirical laws relate to a few math equations found to be universal in physics and chemistry. There are none that are absolute and Newtons laws can be corrected with quantum equations for speeds above 25,000mph. Quantum equations are not however empirical laws. Without these corrections you would not have any satellite communications. If you want to believe only science that is empirical is acceptable then get off the net because it doesn't exist without these.

[baserocklove]

I am so sick of hearing about climate gate. When that broke (the second time which was the first i heard about it) it literally took me all of 10 minutes to read the emails in question in their entirety and see there was nothing nefarious at all about them.

You literally have to be the absolute most stupid brand of person to have fallen for it.

[5ecular4umanist]

So skeptical, even when the evidence is irrefutable. You need to learn to differentiate conspiracy woo from real science.

[randomxnp]

What evidence?

All the empirical evidence I can find points to gross over-estimates in the feedback in temperature of the climate. That is the only important factor, as without strong positive feedback AGW is not dangerous - not CAGW.

Even if there were a consensus, which with 30,000 scientists signing dissent despite the harm to careers, despite consensus being "all saying what no one would say", science is not consensus. Science is empirical evidence. There is none for CAGW that I can find.

[5ecular4umanist]

I took a look at your YT comments feed and you seem to be a skeptic, e.g. of homeopathy. That's good.

The trouble is, in the case of climate change, your skepticism seems unfettered by the scientific evidence.

It's all well and good taking a skeptical view of things but that viewpoint needs to take into account the consensus of scientific findings and generally ignore the sensationalised news media such as Fox News and the Daily Mail.

[WildwoodClaire1]

This may be a crazy idea, but perhaps you could spend a little time on Google Scholar finding published research on the topic. You could also use the references and bibliographies in books and published articles to track down further information. But, perhaps you simply don't have time or are disinclined to invest any effort in determining if your preconceived notions that human-induced climate change is "religion," so just open another beer and watch Hannity.

[gsp0113]

Randomxnp, you are a pathetic troll.

[greenman3610]

if you had the slightest bit of science background, you would know how lame your baseless, uncited, unsupportable, appeal to emotion claims are.

I you know something that the National Academy does not know, publish it.

Otherwise, give some evidence that you are not just another ignorant, arm waving troll.