A Growing Volume Of Evidence Undercuts ‘Consensus’ Climate Science

I gave everybody open access to this thread, and in return just received bullshit. I can't say that surprised me but at least I tried.
 
Corazón said:
I gave everybody open access to this thread, and in return just received bullshit. I can't say that surprised me but at least I tried.
Click to expand...

Not so fast there.
December 10, 2012 By David Legates Professor

Ph.D., University of Delaware B.S. in Mathematics and Geography. [1], M.S. degree in Geography-Climatology [1], Ph.D. in Climatology, University of Delaware.
Hydroclimatology, precipitation and climate change, computational methods
http://cornwallalliance.org/2012/12/carbon-dioxide-and-air-temperature-who-leads-and-who-follows/

References
Caillon, N., J.P. Severinghaus, J. Jouzel, J.-M. Barnola, J. Kang, and V.Y. Lipenkov (2003). Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science, 299:1728-1731.

David, L., and C. Gordon (2007). The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming. Orchard Books, London, United Kingdom, 128 pp.

Fischer, H., M. Wahlen, J. Smith, D. Mastroianni, and B. Deck (1999). Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science, 283:1712-1714.

Humlum, O., K. Stordahl, and J.-E. Solheim (2013). The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. Global and Planetary Change, 100:51-69.

Jouzel, J., V. Masson-Delmotte, O. Cattani, G. Dreyfus, S. Falourd, G. Hoffmann, et al. (2007). Orbital and millennial Antarctic climate variability over the past 800,000 years. Science, 317:793-796.

Lüthi, D., M. Le Floch, B. Bereiter, T. Blunier, J.-M. Barnola, U. Siegenthaler, D. Raynaud, J. Jouzel, H. Fischer, K. Kawamura, and T.F. Stocker (2008). High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000-800,000 years before present. Nature, 453:379-382.

Monnin, E., A. Indermühle, A. Dällenbach, J. Flückiger, B. Stauffer, T.F. Stocker, D. Raynaud, and J.-M. Barnola (2001). Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last glacial termination. Science, 291:112-114.

Soon, W. W.-H. (2005). Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years. Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L16712, doi:10.1029/2005GL023429.

Soon, W. (2007). Implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide and methane forcing in climate change: Past, present, and future. Physical Geography, 28(2):97-125.
Click to expand...
I remember reading a couple of these articles but Legates puts it all together here.
It's well known that increased [CO2] causes increased temperature in a closed system, but what alarmists never mention is that increased temps in earth's ecosystem cause increase[CO2] which is also well known (you think about it, it's common sense).
This raises the age old question of which came first, the chicken or the egg? Or in regard to GW, does [CO2] follow T or does T follow [CO2]?
As to GW, the collection of articles with their empirical data answers that question.

(Disregard attachment, it's all in the link)
 

Attachments

  • Screen_shot_2012-12-10_at_12.35_.01_PM_.jpg
    Screen_shot_2012-12-10_at_12.35_.01_PM_.jpg
    21.8 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:
Corazón said:
Why are there so many scientific morons on JPP? Apart from Damocles, Tinfoil and Mott, there are very few with any scientific credentials.
Click to expand...
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know CC is the biggest hoax ever pulled on the world.....
 
63913567.jpg


https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/state-of-climate-record-heat-and-weather-extremes
 
The whole basis of science is that anything published should be checked out by the researchers' peers. A lot of amateur people seem to believe they can just know by simple faith that one thing is right, especially when it profits their masters. I don't know why they imagine their opinion is so important. God sends them messages perhaps?
 
iolo said:
The whole basis of science is that anything published should be checked out by the researchers' peers. A lot of amateur people seem to believe they can just know by simple faith that one thing is right, especially when it profits their masters. I don't know why they imagine their opinion is so important. God sends them messages perhaps?
Click to expand...
I know you are intelligent, if a little misguided, so how can you ignore the fact that 400 peer reviewed papers have been published in 2017 alone? Why are you spouting such specious shite?

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
I am no climatologist. I go by the decisions of those who are, as I do about most things scientific.
 
iolo said:
I am no climatologist. I go by the decisions of those who are, as I do about most things scientific.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the good old appeal to authority. How many times have I heard that one? What you are really saying is it suits your Marxist beliefs to use CAGW as a backdoor to implementing full blown Socialism. If you were honest then you'd admit that, it is just another form of entryism like Momentum and the Militant Tendency before them.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
Corazón said:
Ah yes, the good old appeal to authority. How many times have I heard that one? What you are really saying is it suits your Marxist beliefs to use CAGW as a backdoor to implementing full blown Socialism. If you were honest then you'd admit that, it is just another form of entryism like Momentum and the Militant Tendency before them.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It is obviously quite different from appealing to authority in the sense of power. If I want to know about plumbing I ask a plumber, not someone ranting down the boozer.
 
iolo said:
It is obviously quite different from appealing to authority in the sense of power. If I want to know about plumbing I ask a plumber, not someone ranting down the boozer.
Click to expand...
Yes well I daresay you're pretty good at ranting down the boozer. The vast majority of those papers have been written by climate scientists but do carry on ranting, cocker!

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
aloysious said:
Not so fast there.

I remember reading a couple of these articles but Legates puts it all together here.
It's well known that increased [CO2] causes increased temperature in a closed system, but what alarmists never mention is that increased temps in earth's ecosystem cause increase[CO2] which is also well known (you think about it, it's common sense).
This raises the age old question of which came first, the chicken or the egg? Or in regard to GW, does [CO2] follow T or does T follow [CO2]?
As to GW, the collection of articles with their empirical data answers that question.

(Disregard attachment, it's all in the link)
Click to expand...
Legates know his shit!

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top