Why Bother says:

And THIS is why most scientists are ‘liberal’ or Democrats…you people are F**KING RETARDED!

This is WHAT the models predicted. Your problem isn’t TEMPERATURE in Chicago, it’s MOISTURE (rain/snow). You don’t seem to have a 5 year olds understanding of the concept. Global warming is about TEMPERATURE across the GLOBE (not your city) for the year (average, not what it is just today).

This storm is within NORMAL bounds for temperature. MY GOD! It’s below freezing in Chicago in Jan/Feb…surly global warming isn’t real! Just like saying it’s 90 in Chicago in July, so there’s no such thing as ice ages. RETARDED! It’s normal to be below freezing in Chicago in Jan/Feb. This storm was ONLY abnormal in MOISTURE (snow), which like the current super flooding in Australia is exactly what the climate scientists told you would happen. F**K you people are stupid!

Temperature != Rain

Guyver says:

38, Bobbo,

Really embarassing to see a man of your intellectual accomplishments lead with ignorance of basic science.

.

Basic science as in the scientific method? As in empirical evidence? As in correlation is not causation? Stop using your dogmatic faith and try actually using some science.

Well, in its “best light, thats definitional. No, there will NEVER be proof of AGW because there is no control group necessary to formal “proof” ((yes, outside of mathematics)). Just like there is no proof that cigarettes cause cancer ((yada, yada)) or that vitamin c deficiency causes scurvy.

Ummm, Captain Cook already established you can “cure” scurvy with vitamin-c. Hence why British sailors were called “limeys”. Duh.
As for there will NEVER be proof of AGW because there is no control group, don’t be so naïve. If you can quantify mankind’s CO2 contribution is the root cause then you can make accurate predictions of not so distant future trends. You’re trying to use the lack of a control group as a crutch.

Problem is believers in AGW climate “science” are much like believers in Nostradamus. You guys never seem to predict future outcomes based on your sources, but you get all high and mighty AFTER something happens and try to rationalize things away with things like “it’s the energy of the system”. LOL. That’s not science. That’s double talk.

You want to make this skeptic believe you? Predict something that will happen in the next five years based on human CO2 output you’ve quantified. Otherwise, your simulations are just garbage because the assumptions have been flawed to begin with. I’m not interested in the 100-year predictions where you and I will both be six feet under.

Parts of the Midwest are going to hit a low of zero degrees or below tonight when the historic average this time of year has been around 40 degrees. Please explain how much man-made CO2 output had to increase over the past couple of years for this to occur.

See No2-you can’t. Just strong correlations which is the best science can offer when control groups are not possible/allowed. The opposite though is still a puzzler: How would dumping billions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere have no effect at all?

You consider yourself a man of science, yet you resort to implying correlation is causation. Ha! And no it’s not the best science has to offer. You guys have quantified human CO2 output. You have your simulations. You have enough to make “accurate” predictions. So PROVE it and stop making excuses.

And you should know full well your “billions of tons of CO2” argument is an intentional exaggeration over the significance to the system. It’s not a puzzler if you’re intellectually honest.

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System: http://tinyurl.com/gtp6z

Of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, water vapor is 95% while CO2 makes up 3.618% (man-made & natural). The billions of tons of CO2 caused by human activity you’re referring to makes up 0.117% of all greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

OhMyGuyver==when did Capt Cook run a double blind study? Wasn’t he financially motivated to find a cure? Wasn’t he biased to find a cure? Was he qualified to diagnose scurvy or its “cure.”

why do you accept pragmatism for scurvy but demand “proof” for what you don’t understand in detail at all?

Your position and argument is silly. Protected only by its length. Pick a node you feel most comfortable on. I’m sure you are wrong.

bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

OhMyGuyver==I’ll meet you half way. So, in your ignorance you bray that water vapor is everything and co2 is irrelevant? The science on the matter be damned because 95% is a big number while 3% is small? Haw HAW!!! Very stupid position. Now, I’m not being insulting–that just is a VERY STUPID POSITION. It a good example of arguing from ignorance.

Why don’t you update with wiki on the subject and tell these secientists they are wrong????

Ha, ha. There are some good arguments against AGW. Yours ain’t among them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

pedro says:

Wikipedia and hard science. No wonder warmers eat so much Gore garbage.

Mr Anderson says:

Well duh, water vapor is limited by dew point until the temperature exceeds boiling then you’re poached.

The skeptics position is based on non-science, nuf said.

bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

OhMyGuyver==everything you write is nonsense==as if you are just taking dicktation from Pedo, or maybe his donkey, the two are so difficult to tell apart. I would parse, but its not that interesting. I’ll just take one:

“And when are humans projected to double CO2 output?” /// The relevant issues are not that concerned with human output of co2 and its doubling. The issue you got close to in your stumbling is “retention of co2 in the atmosphere.” Close/interactive but not the same thing. How much do you or I really “know” about the carbon cycle and what the natural sinks and regurgitations are? thats right==if lucky we “heard of” the Reader’s Digest Headlines.

Why can’t you admit you don’t know wtf you are talking about? So Pedro of you.

I don’t know a lot of things. Makes it easy to see the same thing in others. You want a 5 year prediction on a model that Reader’s Digest tells me by inherent design cannot predict (loosely) closer than a 30 year type window. Sadly, YOU Guyver are stuck in the “weather mode” of climate appreciation. You sound as ignorant as an Young Earther demanding TO SEE RIGHT NOW evolution take place in front of them.

You see Guyver–your very insistance reveals your abysmal ignorance. Really. I mean—really.

Imagine if I knew anything? Why then I’d be a threat. Ha, ha. I just wish I liked candy.

Guyver says:

94, Bobbo,

You want a 5 year prediction on a model that Reader’s Digest tells me by inherent design cannot predict (loosely) closer than a 30 year type window.

First you have issues with scurvy and now this.

We do have historical records of man-made CO2. So take the last 25 years and make a 30 year prediction with it. This would include the next 5. Did you decide to wake up and be stupid today?

Sadly, YOU Guyver are stuck in the “weather mode” of climate appreciation. You sound as ignorant as an Young Earther demanding TO SEE RIGHT NOW evolution take place in front of them.

You see Guyver–your very insistance reveals your abysmal ignorance. Really. I mean—really.

Awwww. Is it that time of the month for you? Or did I offend you because you have no basis for your religious faith in climate “science”?

It’s sad. Really. I mean – really. Your faith is questioned and you PMS all over me and Pedro. You must be having a pretty heavy flow right now.

All you had to say is climate “science” has nothing to do with science. It’s a religion for self-absorbed “intellectuals”.

bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

OMG–I’m insulted you are treating me with the same disdain I am treating you. Its not justified, because I am right, and you are wrong. There just ain’t no way to prove it if you don’t agree with me to begin with. RATS!!! I hate how that happens all the time.

You do maintain good spirit, and I admire that. but so do Pedo and Alfie==no amount of facts disturb them either.

Holy Crap! Being polite is just another version of being comatose! Who’d a thunk that?

And another blog brings greater calm to bobbo. I love you guys. My stuffed dog too.

What? says:

I like A.P.’s statement, for once.