Arctic Greening - a negative feedback cycle?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Yes, he is. Fred Singer NEVER said anthropogenic climate science was not real. You stated a lie.

No, he isn't, and he is a climate change skeptic.

Singer argues there is no evidence that global warming is attributable to human-caused increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, and that humanity would benefit if temperatures do rise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

Originally posted by humy
he isn't a respected climate scientists but a discredited scientist who is proven wrong. In fact, he isn't even technically a 'climate scientist' but rather what is called an 'atmospheric physicist' (look it up yourself) , which isn't exactly the same thing and doesn't necessarily or directly require an understanding of climate in particular. This means all the ...[text shortened]... that haven't been discredited as they would know a lot more about climate than me let alone you.

He has NOT been discredited. That is a lie too.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
No, he isn't, and he is a climate change skeptic.

Singer argues there is no evidence that global warming is attributable to human-caused increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, and that humanity would benefit if temperatures do rise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

Wikipedia is unreliable. That is where the false claim that Singer said Phobos was an alien base. You have to do better than that.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Wikipedia is unreliable. That is where the false claim that Singer said Phobos was an alien base. You have to do better than that.

so you are saying that even Wikipedia also lies about Singer?
would this be part of a global mass conspiracy?
This is absurd.
We see that no amount of evidence will convince you of anything you don't want to believe, no matter where it comes from.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Fred Singer NEVER said anthropogenic climate science was not real. You stated a lie.

KazetNagorra didn't say there that Fred Singer said anthropogenic climate science was not real. KazetNagorra just said the vast majority of well-respected climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is real. That isn't a 'lie'.

Originally posted by humy
so you are saying that even Wikipedia also lies about Singer?
would this be part of a global mass conspiracy?
This is absurd.
We see that no amount of evidence will convince you of anything you don't want to believe, no matter where it comes from.

Anybody can post false info on wikipedia and they do. You know it too. You are extremely dishonest and you know you are.

Originally posted by humy
KazetNagorra didn't say there that Fred Singer said anthropogenic climate science was not real. KazetNagorra just said the vast majority of well-respected climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is real. That isn't a 'lie'.

Including Fred Singer. He has no point and neither do you. Fred Singer does not disagree anthropogenic warming is real, just that it is not much. You people lie so much it is pathetic. Try to get your facts straight before making false claims.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Including Fred Singer. .

nope; he isn't a well-respected climate scientist. In fact, he isn't technically a qualified climate scientist but an atmospheric physicist which isn't the same thing. He isn't as well qualified to comment about climate than any climate scientist.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Anybody can post false info on wikipedia and they do. .

so are you saying he IS a qualified climate scientist?
OK then, show us a reference to exactly where and when he got qualified for being a climate scientist...
Remember, according to wikipedia, he is a atmospheric physicist, not a climate scientist. Are you saying this is a lie? -answer, no. So your point is mute.
And if you don't know the difference between atmospheric physicist and climate scientist, just google it.

Originally posted by humy
so are you saying he IS a qualified climate scientist?
OK then, show us a reference to exactly where and when he got qualified for being a climate scientist...
Remember, according to wikipedia, he is a atmospheric physicist, not a climate scientist. Are you saying this is a lie? -answer, no. So your point is mute.
And if you don't know the difference between atmospheric physicist and climate scientist, just google it.

Here is a wikipedia link, since you find them acceptable you should not complain too much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

Richard Siegmund Lindzen is listed on it and he is also an Atmospheric physicist. If he is not a real climate scientist why is he on the list?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Here is a wikipedia link, since you find them acceptable you should not complain too much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

Richard Siegmund Lindzen is listed on it and he is also an Atmospheric physicist. If he is not a real climate scientist why is he on the list?

"Richard Siegmund Lindzen" is not the same name as "Fred Singer".
You and I clearly previously stated and OBVIOUSLY meant "Fred Singer", NOT "Richard Siegmund Lindzen". I don't know who you are trying to fool here.
I used the edit search function and the name "Fred Singer" then "F. Singer" then "Fred S" then just "Fred" and that name wasn't anywhere listed in that link. So, still contrary to what you said, Fred Singer is NOT a qualified climate scientist and you have failed to show any link to contradict that. You lie.Try again.

Originally posted by humy
"Richard Siegmund Lindzen" is not the same name as "Fred Singer".
You and I clearly previously stated and OBVIOUSLY meant "Fred Singer", NOT "Richard Siegmund Lindzen". I don't know who you are trying to fool here.
I used the edit search function and the name "Fred Singer" then "F. Singer" then "Fred S" then just "Fred" and that name wasn't anywhere listed i ...[text shortened]... ed climate scientist and you have failed to show any link to contradict that. You lie.Try again.

You are incredibly stupid for an educated man. Lindzen is an Atmospheric physicist like Singer. I was making a comparison for obvious reasons. Not my fault the obvious eludes you as usual.
Of course Singer is not on the list, he is retired. We have gone over this before, remember? He is not a climate scientist because he is retired which has nothing to do with his qualifications.
Since you were incredibly lazy and did not click on Lindzen's link I will do your work for you. Here it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

Originally posted by Metal Brain
[b] I was making a comparison for obvious reasons. /b]

So its just a pointless comparison and you lied about Singer being a climate scientists.

Originally posted by humy
So its just a pointless comparison and you lied about Singer being a climate scientists.

Nope. I did not lie, you did. We already agreed before that Singer is retired so that is irrelevant, but so is Lindzen as the wikipedia page says he retired in 2013, yet he is still on the climate scientist page. Possibly an error as wikipedia is not known for being reliable just as I told you before.
I proved you and kazetnaggora wrong. Lindzen is a climate scientist even though he is an atmospheric physicist like Singer. The articles and youtube videos of Singer I posted were made before Singer was retired.

I proved you wrong....again!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Nope. I did not lie, you did. We already agreed before that Singer is retired so that is irrelevant, !

You said he is a climate scientist, which is a lie. He is an atmospheric physicist, which is not the same thing as a climate scientist and he is less qualified to have an opinion on climate than the climate scientists.
What has him being "retired" got to do with it? He not only is not a climate scientist, he NEVER WAS a climate scientist.
Are you now saying he is a "retired" climate scientist? If so, you lie again.