Monday, August 05, 2013

Revised AGU Statement on Climate Change

The AGU has issued its revised statement on climate change, approved by the fifteen member committee chaired by Gerald North with one (predictable) dissent. 

Human induced climate change requires urgent action.

Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.
Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.


Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase.  Human caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate
system for millennia. 

Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.

Climate chan ge is not expected to be uniform over space or time. Deforestation, urbanization, and particulate pollution can have complex geographical, seasonal, and longer term effects on temperature, precipitation, and cloud properties. In addition, human induced climate change may alter atmospheric circulation, dislocating historical patterns of natural variability and storminess.

In the current climate, weather experienced at a given location or region varies from year to year; in a changing climate, both the nature of that variability and the basic patterns of weather experienced can change, sometimes in counterintuitive ways -- some areas may experience cooling, for instance. This raises no challenge to the reality of human induced climate change.

Impacts harmful to society, including increased extremes of heat, precipitation, and coastal high water are currently being experienced, and are projected to increase. Other projected outcomes involve threats to public health, water availability, agricultural productivity (particularly in low latitude developing countries), and coastal infrastructure, though some benefits may be seen at some times and places. Biodiversity loss is expected to accelerate due to both climate change and acidification of the oceans, which is a direct result of increasing carbon dioxide levels.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated.

Actions that could diminish the threats posed by climate change to society and ecosystems include substantial emissions cuts to reduce the magnitude of climate change, as well as preparing for changes that are now unavoidable. The community of scientists has responsibilities to improve overall understanding of climate change and its impacts. Improvements will come from pursuing the research needed to understand climate change, working with stakeholders to identify relevant information, and conveying understanding clearly and accurately, both to decision makers and to the general public.

Adopted by the American Geophysical Union
December 2003; Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007, February 2012, August 2013.

The 15-person panel that reviewed and updated the position statement included the following:
  • Amy Clement, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami (approve)
  • John Farrington, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (approve)
  • Susan Joy Hassol, Climate Communication (approve)
  • Robert Hirsch, U.S. Geological Survey (approve)
  • Peter Huybers, Harvard University (approve)
  • Peter Lemke, Alfred Wegener Institute (approve)
  • Gerald North, Texas A&M University (approve, panel chair)
  • Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University (approve)
  • Roger Pielke Sr., University of Colorado Boulder (dissent)
  • Ben Santer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (approve)
  • Gavin Schmidt, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NASA (approve)
  • Leonard A. Smith, London School of Economics (approve)
  • Eric Sundquist, U.S. Geological Survey (approve)
  • Pieter Tans, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (approve)
It is notable here that the committee was quite willing to vote the statement out based on a strong consensus but not unanimity. As Eli noted in December last after attending the Fall AGU meeting, climate scientists are not only 97% for the proposition that the climate is changing driven by human influences but that it is also dangerous.  Action to stop carbon emissions is needed immediately.

The mood of the attendees had shifted.  It was much sourer about the few in the atmospheric science community still running interference for inactivism.  People were being called out in private, but also in public and not just in sessions dealing with education and communication and blogging.

It is now clear to the climate science community that keeping your head down has not been an effective option for climate scientists for quite a while (see Kathryn Hayhoe).  The denialists and their funders are  coming for you in the Niemoeller sense, sooner or later.  This means that many in the community have woken up.  Those who do not, or believe they cannot, are feeling guilty about not supporting the science they are part of.  Those folks need to be encouraged and supported and come out.

245 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 245 of 245
Anonymous said...

"Please just show me where I stated that my ECS understanding is .7-1.7C.

I did, above.

To reiterate, you discussed equilibrium climate sensitivity at time-stamp 16/8/13 7:31 AM.


I asked you in the very next post, at time-stamp 16/8/13 9:30 AM to give your range for equilibrium climate sensitivity.

You replied at the next post after that, at time-stamp 16/8/13 9:54 AM, with your range ".7-1.7C for warming when CO2 is doubled". You made no mention of speaking only about the forcing for 2x CO2, and the context of the discussion was the equilibrium climate sensitivity for 2x CO2. If you don't actually know what you and the rest of us are talking about that's no-on else's fault but your own.

The discussion has continued in the same vein for many subsequent posts, until like a rat in a corner you eventually came up with "1.2 - 1.999999999 [sic]".

And after all this you still haven't given any justification for your range(s), nor have you given any justification for dismissing the "most likely" range of the IPCC or of any other summary of the scientific literature on equilibrium climate sensitivity.

You sputter and skip and steam like a drop of water on a hot griddle, but you don't produce any counter to the science. There's only person at fault for the general impression here of your vacuousness, and that is you.


Bernard J.

Anonymous said...

Well I see you prefer to lie rather than understand. You cannot even be reasoned with simple logic.

This shows exactly what I was responding to, liar. As I copied the exact phrase in your post I was responding.

(Bernard J Liar)" I was referring to the papers I read, and I predicated my range with "~".

I predicted my understanding with a "~" which you ignored nor asked me define , but since you have at least established your use of "~" can be +- .5C that means my range is .7-1.7C for warming when CO2 is doubled. That is using your now defined standard."

And what understanding am I referring? Oh yes the ~1.2 WITHOUT forcings. So my number became a range, because you called out "~" for at least having a value of +- .5

This is circus like your blatant dishonesty. Do your grandchildren know what kind of liar you are? When you miss an event important to them, do you lie about it? I would guess yes.

For the, what 5th time? .7-1.7C is NOT nor have I ever stated it to be my range for ECS, it was simply an extension of my ~1.2C (as clearly shown above) when Bernard tried getting cute with his use of "~".

Let's here some more dishonesty from Bernard J Liar.


1

Anonymous said...

Answer me this...

When did the conversation on this thread go from equilibrium climate sensitivity in response to a 2x CO2 increase, to the matter of 2x CO2 forcing?

Who changed the subject, and why?


Bernard J.

Anonymous said...

False premise question from Bernard J Liar.

The first mention of ECS was by Hardy Cross.

I listed my understandings of 2XCO2WITHOUT forcings and what papers say the ECS WITH forcings in response to your long list of accusations that I am a climate change denier, which is the first part of your script. Once those false accusations were proven false you then twisted what I clearly stated into another set of lies and BS.

Why are you so dishonest?

Why do you not answer where I stated my ECS range is .7-1.7C? Because you cannot so it is now time for you to shift and twist again and start another dishonest front.

1

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

"1",
'Kay, Punkin, why don't you tell us your 90% confidence interval for CO2 sensitivity and provide evidence for WHY you believe it thus?

Anonymous said...

Why? Why would I put any effort forth for such blatant truth twisters and liars? I have stated this already 1.2 - 1.9C. Sure the papers with their assumptions on clouds, aerosols etc get to 2-5 (some even higher) I am not convinced enough is understood about these feedbacks. So I am on the low end. Model divergence from observations is also adding to the uncertainty.

I am waiting on AR5 to re-evaluate and update my position. Yours and Bernard's method are counter productive to get anyone to try to adjust or even be open to adjusting their position. You two just cannot wait to get to the "denier" part of your response.

Bernard J Liar jumps in 3-2-1...

1

ligne said...

1: "I am not convinced enough is understood about these feedbacks. So I am on the low end."

you don't know how large the effect will be, so you assume it'll be benign? what sound logic.

Anonymous said...

From time-stamp 23/8/13 9:35 AM:

"Why do you not answer where I stated my ECS range is .7-1.7C?"

As I've explained to you repeatedly, and most recently at time-stamp 21/8/13 11:31 PM, you raised that range in the context of a discussion of equilibrium climate sensitivity - a discussion where your own immediately-previous comment was about the equilibrium climate sensitivity range of the IPCC.

There are only two possible explanations which can be considered plausible:

1) you're so intellectually underdeveloped that you can't focus on the subject of a discussion from one post to the next, or

2) you know that you're prevaricating because you've been shown to be completely without evidence to support your case, and you're willing to twist the truth to hide your embarrassment.

You choose.


Bernard J.

Anonymous said...

" range in the context of a discussion of equilibrium climate sensitivity."

No I didn't I quoted the exact portion of your post I was replying to, liar.

(Bernard J Liar)" I was referring to the papers I read, and I predicated my range with "~".

I predicted my understanding with a "~" which you ignored nor asked me define , but since you have at least established your use of "~" can be +- .5C that means my range is .7-1.7C for warming when CO2 is doubled. That is using your now defined standard."

That is the context, liar. I quoted your response of "~" and replied with the above.

Face it you are a lying POS.


You are a lair running around telling people what they did not say and then arguing against.

1

Anonymous said...

"No I didn't I quoted the exact portion of your post I was replying to, liar."

Oh puh-lease.

When did I say that you "quoted the exact portion"? Your responses are growing ever more pedantic and dishonest, which is ironic goven that you accuse me of the same.

You're just a dissembling little grub. Well, keep at it you trolling piece of shite.

I'm done with you - I think that you keep coming back with these inanities because you're desperate to have the last word. Well you're welcome to it, because you're not producing anything now except contradictions to imagined and pedantic non-issues.

I am sure that your next bit of dross will contain neither a scientific justification for your various ranges for equilibrium climate sensitivity nor a scientific justification for rejecting the mainstream scientific consensus on equilibrium climate sensitivity. Please prove me correct.


Bernard J.

Anonymous said...

My Bad.

I misread your last post because of your substandard grammar/punctuation (seriously, is English your first language?). Still, I have happy to admit to my mistakes.

I see that you're actually saying that you quoted "the exact portion of [my] post [you] w[ere] replying to". Well, this doesn't get you out of jail, because the "portion of my post" that you quoted was a discussion of equilibrium climate sensitivity, and indeed before you eventually brought it up I never referred to 2x CO2 forcing myself - and for the umpteenth time I never used "~" to indicate a value of 0.5°C, let alone to introduce the notion of the range for 2x CO2 forcing.

So your fixation with "~" is still irrelevant and does not absolve you from avoiding the fact that you were either too stupid to know that the discussion is one about ECS, or that you are a grubby little liar yourself and that you will not address the provision of a scientific justification for your various ranges for equilibrium climate sensitivity or a scientific justification for rejecting the mainstream scientific consensus on equilibrium climate sensitivity.


Bernard J.

Anonymous said...

...am happy...

Trying to organise transport to a funeral at the same time as typing in response to idiots...


Bernard J.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Bernard J Liar. I never claimed or stated my ECS range was .7 - 1.7.

Simple logic really. I clearly stated ~1.2C is the warming of 2xCO2 WITHOUT feedbacks. I clearly stated that feedback for CO2 are slightly positive. That means the low end of my range would have to be 1.2C.

Twist and make up any belief you want, those are the facts.

Maybe we'll get lucky and the next funeral you go to is your own.

1

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Pisshead confesses to being a troll:
"Why would I put any effort forth for such blatant truth twisters and liars?"

Project much, turd fondler?

He doesn't even understand where the estimates of sensitivity come from. What a pathetic, little excuse for a human.

Anonymous said...

"I clearly stated ~1.2C is the warming of 2xCO2 WITHOUT feedbacks."

I clearly stated on numerous occasions that I did not dispute this.

"I clearly stated that feedback for CO2 are slightly positive. That means the low end of my range would have to be 1.2C.

Ah yes, but I clearly stated that you dropped your ".7 - 1.7" range into a conversation about the range for equilibrium climate sensitivity, including your own post on the subject, and not a discussion about CO2 forcing alone, which was not being discussed in the context of a range.

Perhaps the problem is that you confabulated the two different climate parameters and now you're desperately trying to dig yourself out of the hole. And it's curious to see that after scores of posts on the matter you still haven't addressed the issue of a scientific justification for your various ranges for equilibrium climate sensitivity or a scientific justification for rejecting the mainstream scientific consensus on equilibrium climate sensitivity.

Thanks for proving me correct on that.


"Maybe we'll get lucky and the next funeral you go to is your own."

Really? That's your level of debating?

For your information my aunt was a saint of a woman, loved by her 8 children and more grandkids that I can count. My family is devastated, and you have no call to besmerch her passing.

You're a germ. A disgusting, morally-depauperate little twerp. If that's how you respond in a discussion then you're not worth the bother of spitting upon.

Crawl back into your hole. I was already fed up with your prevarications, but I'm done with your grubby personal insults.

Bernard J.

EliRabett said...

Tutt tutt lads

Anonymous said...

So Bernard are you saying you hope to go to someone else's funeral before your own? Do these other people know this? Is it another Aunt or maybe a brother you do not like? Now I am curious who are you hoping passes before you?


Oh so you clearly stated what my ECS range was, yeah no duh? The problem is I never did, you just continue to lie. You are a liar who has spent waaay too much time on blogs when family matters were pressing. You really have a lot of issues in that head of yours.


1

Anonymous said...

a_ray starts his track on lying.

At least I am human, you are a cartoon up another cartoon's space.

1

Anonymous said...

Apologies for the outburst Eli. I was on a short fuse and the comments were not conducive to restraint, although I should have exercised it nevertheless. I'm happy for you to clean up that paragraph.

I still have the same dim view though of the evidence-free pronouncements from that commenter. That hasn't changed. ;-)


Bernard J.

Anonymous said...

And I still have a dim view of you, Bernard J Liar, with all your dishonesty.

1

Anonymous said...

Ha, I'm still living rent-free in your head, I see!

Will we ever see the day when there is a post by you that contains at least one of the following:

1) a scientific justification for your various ranges for equilibrium climate sensitivity

2) a scientific justification for rejecting the mainstream scientific consensus on equilibrium climate sensitivity

3) an absence of accusations of dishonesty as a substitute for your consistent lack of a response to either (1) or (2) above?


Bernard J.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Because "1" is too cowardly to take a stand, he can never be write. That is worse than wrong.

Anonymous said...

Bernard, I am not the one that went off the reservation and had to apologize to Eli. I am not the one posting comments on a blog to an anonymous person while their family is rocked by a death of a revered family member.

I do not have various ranges, only one. I do not reject anything, unlike you who rejects AR4( this is the part where I use Bernard J Liar's own tactics against him).

Wrong again a_ray. I do take a stand but since it is counter to all you hold dear I am the "enemy".

1

Anonymous said...

"I am not the one that went off the reservation..."

Wrong.

You "went off the reservation" with your tasteless comments about my aunt's death and my own. Me calling you on that, however colourfully, doesn't come near to your gutter-level of sniping.

Strike 1.

"...and had to apologize to Eli."


I didn't have to apologise to Eli. I chose to out of respect for him.

Strike 2.

"I am not the one posting comments on a blog to an anonymous person while their family is rocked by a death of a revered family member."

Who says I can't post on a blog following the death of a family member? And why shouldn't I? Because I was distracted and said "have" instead of "and"? You're a fine one to be all morally outraged over such trivial straw men after what you said about my funeral.

Strike 3.

"I do not have various ranges, only one."

I've explained to you repeatedly why I don't accept this claim of yours, but that's as maybe. What stands is that you have not supported with a scientific justification any range for equilibrium climate sensitivity (or 2x CO2 forcing, when it comes down to it...) that you claim.

Strike 4.

"I do not reject anything..."

You reject the mainstream range for equilibrium climate sensitivity, whether as approximated by me (and statistically misrepresented by you) or as given by the IPCC. And you still have not provided a scientific justification for rejecting the mainstream scientific consensus on equilibrium climate sensitivity.

Strike 5.

"...unlike you who rejects AR4..."

I do not "reject" AR4. That's a straight-out lie, and rich coming from one who can almost never post without complaining about other people's alleged lies.

Strike 6.


"...this is the part where I use Bernard J Liar's own tactics against him."

My "tactics" are to press you on supporting with science a claim that you made weeks ago, and pointing out at every step your subsequent failures to so support. Your "tactics" are to dodge, weave, avoid, lie, erect straw men, make baseless claims, and generally run from the truth and into the comforting embrace of your own ideology.

Strike 7.

And for what it's worth, I note that in your very first post following my own you completely failed to achieve even one of the three challenges I listed. You are at least consistently true to your dismal type.

Strike 8.

I think that makes you none-fer, and out several times over...


Bernard J.

Anonymous said...

..."have" instead of "am"...

I seem to have a block on that two letter word that is as large as the block that others have on supporting their nonsensical claims in counter to the best science.


Bernard J.

Anonymous said...

I said absolutely nothing about your Aunt or her death. Another lie from Bernard J Liar.

Your tactics are to be dishonest and lie about what people have said. Just like the latest one about me having said anything about your Aunt.

Under your tactics you have rejected AR4. If you wish now to retract your dishonest representations of what others say well then...

Next new lie. I am not "outraged" about your posting habits. Just pointing out the choices you make. "Outraged" lol.

Keep them coming Bernard J Liar.

Btw which family member or friend's funeral do you wish to attend before your own?

1

Anonymous said...

"I said absolutely nothing about your Aunt or her death. Another lie from Bernard J Liar.

"[A]bsolutely nothing" huh?

From time-stamp 24/8/13 7:40 PM:

"Maybe we'll get lucky and the next funeral you go to is your own.

[Bold emphasis mine]
"

You raise the issue of the perceived good fortune associated with my death, and in doing so you attached it to my aunt's death. That brings my aunt's death into your disparagement of me. I don't know about other people but in my book that's disrespect of my aunt's passing.

And I have never said that you said anything about my aunt aside from her death, so there's yet another straw man from you that has no validity whatsoever.

"Your tactics are to be dishonest and lie about what people have said. Just like the latest one about me having said anything about your Aunt."

And there you go - my challenge to you again not met. With a little more of that hypocritical dishonesty thrown in for a good measure of self-parody

"Under your tactics you have rejected AR4."

Show us where I said that I rejected AR4. Heck, show us where I could reasonably be construed as having rejected AR4.

"If you wish now to retract your dishonest representations of what others say well then..."

What "dishonest representations"? Straw man.

And I do not "wish to retract", because I didn't reject in the first place.

Yet another straw man.

"Btw which family member or friend's funeral do you wish to attend before your own?"

(Forgive me Brer Eli, for I am about to sin...)

What an extraordinarily vacuous and straw man question. You are a grub of the lowest order, except that I wouldn't want to insult grubs by any implied association with you. If you were any less tawdry than you are I'd actually say that you were despicable, but you're so low on the scale of moral calibre that I wouldn't even waste the effort it would require to despise you.

Grow a spine and cultivate some decency. Better still, focus on the science that you keep avoiding and cease with the ad hominem straw men that you favour.

Perhaps you have a difficult time with actually reading science. If that is so, then maybe you could instead comment on Andy Dessler's short summary of climate sensitivity and explain where you diverge from his take on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdoln7hGZYk


Bernard J.

Anonymous said...

Before you brought your Aunt into the conversation I simply said;

"Maybe we'll get lucky and the next funeral you go to is your own."

Since we were NOT lucky with the funeral you had mentioned. Well you got pretty upset that your next funeral attendance would be your own so I asked which funeral would you prefer to attend before yours?

"What dishonest representations?"


It is dishonest to take my above statement and say it disparages your Aunt's death.

"Unless of course you meant to imply that in your opinion the usefulness of reading all of AR4 and its references is "nothing".

You can accept if someone's evaluation of AR4's usefulness is nothing, close enough to rejection.

Oh another lie from Bernard J Liar from 5 days ago.

"I'm done with you - I think that you keep coming back with these inanities because you're desperate to have the last word. Well you're welcome to it, because you're not producing anything now except contradictions to imagined and pedantic non-issues."

Keep the lies coming, I'm laughing at you and this entertainment of stringing you out is most amusing.

1

Anonymous said...

"I'm laughing at you and this entertainment of stringing you out is most amusing."

The only thing that is being strung out here is your refusal to provide a a scientific justification for your various ranges for equilibrium climate sensitivity, and a scientific justification for rejecting the mainstream scientific consensus on equilibrium climate sensitivity.

As long as you persist is doing so you're nothing but sound and fury.


Bernard J.

Anonymous said...

"...various ranges for equilibrium climate sensitivity..."

"I'm done with you..."

Liar.

1

Anonymous said...

""I'm done with you..."

Liar.
"

Changing one's mind is not lying, despite your logically fallacious thinking otherwise.

Refusing to justify yourself by presenting anything at all that resembles a scientific case to support your claims is, however, a strong indication that you have no scientific case at all.

You can call me a liar 'til the cows come home but you're not doing anything to disprove consensus science. On the other hand your persistent and predictable refusal to back up your arbitrary claims about equilibrium climate sensitivity lends strong credence that you're full of the proverbial excrement.

I'm not embarrassed in the slightlest by pressing you on the absence of your evidence. You are embarrassing yourself though with the ever lengthening course of this thread that documents your abject deficiency in defensible science: you're the one who's hurting, not me.

So, once more from the top...

Will we ever see the day when there is a post by you that contains at least one of the following:

1) a scientific justification for your various ranges for equilibrium climate sensitivity

2) a scientific justification for rejecting the mainstream scientific consensus on equilibrium climate sensitivity

3) an absence of accusations of dishonesty as a substitute for your consistent lack of a response to either (1) or (2) above?

Or will your next post be just another in a very long line of your red herring pointings at squirrels, and filled only with fluff and faff and with no credible science at all?


Bernard J.

Anonymous said...

Your history on this thread is to dishonestly twist responses and outright lie about what I have clearly stated. I have no desire to feed your bizarre appetite.

As with your 1&2 above both are based on false premises.

Which family member or friend's funeral do you wish to attend before your own? I am still curious.

Liar fits you well and you continue to add to your fame.

1

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Wow, 232 posts of boring troll #1 being boring.

I'm guessing he's a lawyer...that or a dishwasher.

Anonymous said...

"I have no desire to feed your bizarre appetite."

What's bizarre in asking you to reference the science on which you base your scientific justification for your various ranges for equilibrium climate sensitivity?

What's bizarre in asking you to reference the science on which you base your rejection of the mainstream scientific consensus on equilibrium climate sensitivity?

"As with your 1&2 above both are based on false premises."

What exactly are these false premises?

"Which family member or friend's funeral do you wish to attend before your own? I am still curious."

How does this puerile, bad-taste distraction have anything to do with the science underpinning equilibrium climate sensitivity?

Really, if you think that this question has any relevance at all to a scientific discussion of climate change you're a very sick person indeed.


Bernard J.

Anonymous said...

1) I do not have various ranges for ECS.

2) I do not reject any science.

The question speaks to your character, bad character. You have an inflated concern of yourself even at the expense of family and friends combined with your complete lack of integrity makes you the sick person. What kind of twisted individual brings their Aunt's death onto a blog full of anonymous people other than for some selfish reason to improve a position or seek sympathetic support?

Twisted.

Yeah a_ray and how boring is your life following this tedious trail of Bernard J Liar?

1

Gator said...

Bernard J.,
I said it once before, I'll say it again. "1" is a master baiter. You have taken the hook. Ask yourself who has better things to do -- you, or "1"? I'd wager you have many more interesting, useful, fulfilling things to do that keep this up with "1". On the other hand, I'd bet this is a major part of what "1" looks forward to when he wakes up in the morning. This is a guy who has stated one of his major goals in life is to prevent Brian S. from achieving higher elected office.

Anonymous said...

Gator.

Yeah, you're spot on.

The thing that keeps me at it is that for all his baiting, he's also creating his own thread of failure to back up is original claim.

I'm just stupid for persisting with him. He's that much more stupid for trashing his stance with every further post that avoids providing any actual evidence to support his stance.

And it's telling that none of the other deniers has been able to offer any assistance...


Bernard J.

Anonymous said...

And Bernard has his thread of lies, distortions, misrepresentations and brought his Aunt's death into it for a sympathy play.

Ah back to the "denier" label, the refuge of a weak prejudiced person goes well with your dishonesty and using your Aunt's death for you selfish benefit.

And exactly what stance have I trashed, liar?

Understand and agree 2xCO2 brings ~1.2C warmer without considering feedbacks.

Feedbacks are slightly positive.

Read AR4 and waiting on AR5. To reevaluate my understanding.

We should act on curbing CO2 emissions and transfer to cleaner energy resources.

And all because my range is <2C for ECS I am denier. lol. You are a very troubled person Bernard J Liar.

And Gator please point to where I stated that a major goal in life was to prevent Brian's election? It is an idea, one that I will pursue on some level, but it is in no way "major goal" of my life. Were you just mistaken or is Bernard contagious?

1

Anonymous said...

"And all because my range is <2C for ECS I am denier."

You have produced nothing scientific to support your ranges, which are incongruent with the IPCC (which tends toward the generous), and you have produced nothing scientific to refute the range determined by the best science.

In my book that required denial.


Bernard J.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

What I love is the way "1" will always chicken out just before he settles on a range for sensitivity--like a newb who is afraid to put down the pawn in his first game of Chess, knowing that if he does, he'll be checkmated in 3 moves. I just love watching poseurs fail.

Anonymous said...

Bernard J Liar takes over a week h1atus to return to "necro" the thread and is joined by his "Robin", junior liar a_ray.

The two "scientists" above are natural born liars. Both of their latest posts are not supported by the facts.

Look how much time they invest in this "denier" even after stating they were done with me and no one posting for over a week!

Cannot get much more pathetic than these two.

A_ray you should ask Bernard if he would prefer to go to your funeral before his own. He wants to attend another family members or friends before his own, he stated as much. Maybe he has you in mind.

1

Anonymous said...

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Anonymous said...

I think that the irony was lost on the loneliest numpty...

Anonymous said...

So it seems that the evidence is piling up in favour of my position on equilibrium climate sensitivity and very much against that of the person who can't count beyond 1:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html

"Taking the available observations at face value implies a most likely climate sensitivity of about 4 °C, with a lower limit of about 3 °C. Indeed, all 15 of the GCMs with ECS below 3.0 °C have an LTMI [lower-tropospheric mixing index] below the bottom of the observational range"

If the ECS result corroborated, this is not good news. If human emissions continue under a BAU scenario for 85 more years to 2100 (~800 ppm at 2100 under BAU) it would be eventually all over Red Rover for humans and a huge swathe of the biosphere.

I doubt that such a point would actually be reached (there are too many points of failure to navigate in our socioeconomic system before that time), but even going half-way to there from where we are now would put the kibosh on future Western civilisation and at least 75-90% of the current human population.

Alarming? Yes. Alarmist? No - unless one refuses to consider the numbers and the lessons of science.


Bernard J.

Anonymous said...

Real Climate posts on the Sherwood et al 2014 paper.

Why am I not surprised that the Rabbet Run's number one troll is avoiding any comment of his own?


Bernard J.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 245 of 245   Newer› Newest»