A Growing Volume Of Evidence Undercuts ‘Consensus’ Climate Science

Corazón said:
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
Click to expand...

You still have no science, stupid.
 
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...

I don't have any scientific credentials. I'm just someone interested in the debate that took the time to try to really understand.
 
aloysious said:
That's not a study, it's a newpaper article about a study and the study referenced links sea level with increased GDP - in the future no less.:palm: Nothing empirical.
Click to expand...
It is also written by a hack journalist with a BA in English and absolutely no scientific background. You just couldn't make that up!!

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
archives said:
Really?

"refered from a less partisan study," the newspaper isn't the study, there are actually three, and none of them are from heavily partisan websites. You would have known that if you read or at least skimmed the article, must be you were in a hurry to shoot the messenger as a deflection
Click to expand...
I actually found four "studies". Two were exact copies of the newspaper article, pictures and all, and one was an exact copy of the study saying sea levels will rise with increased GDP.
 
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...

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
 
aloysious said:
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
Click to expand...

Don't confuse Taffy too much, poor chap will have to double up on the Brain's Bitter tonight. As for McAwful, the less said about him the better.

110f3239bb41b37f209c53d23ef13b15.jpg


Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
You can always find some weirdo 'scientist' who believes the world is flat, or whatever. The question is why anyone but utter cranks should think they can argue with the people who know about the matter, who seem at the moment to be pretty totally agreed, despite all the bribes offered by big business, and the bullying of people that is natural to profiteers who might lose a halfpenny or so by accepting reality.
 
iolo said:
You can always find some weirdo 'scientist' who believes the world is flat, or whatever. The question is why anyone but utter cranks should think they can argue with the people who know about the matter, who seem at the moment to be pretty totally agreed, despite all the bribes offered by big business, and the bullying of people that is natural to profiteers who might lose a halfpenny or so by accepting reality.
Click to expand...

It's funny how you resort to conspiracy ideation to avoid accepting that the modelers overestimated climate sensitivity. The cat's out of the bag. Climate skeptics did not create faulty climate models, the climate scientists did. They let their confirmation bias keep them from seeing the obviousness that natural variability played a role in the temp spike in 1998. Instead, they assumed CO2 was responsible and they built that assumption into the models. Now they are coming around to the skeptic position that the AMO, PDO, and other heat circulation cycles are responsible for much of climate change. The anthropogenic signal is dwarfed by the range of natural variability.

But you keep fucking that chicken... Don't let new science ever make you examine your beliefs

Not even going to link Millar ... It's already been linked enough times here.
The IPCC source for carbon budget calculations increased the carbon budget by 25% because they realized models overstate the effect of anthropogenic forcing.
It's not my fault if you don't understand the implications of the study.
 
why does the right hate science


math


history

News


colleges


and anything they think smacks of intellectual persuit?



because lies are all that they have left to defend their completely failed ideas
 
Sorry dumbshrub, I have you on ignore. Whatever your comment is, I am certain it contains nothing worth responding to, but I would have to read it if you could get another poster to quote you. Good luck
 
because you hide from facts likle the fucking idiot you are.


only right wing corporate owned idiots question GL and its reality.


only chicken shits hide friom other posters here.

I have never banned anyone from a thread


I have NEVER put anyone on ignore


I dont have to


that is the glory of respecting Facts.


facts destroy idiots like you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top