A Growing Volume Of Evidence Undercuts ‘Consensus’ Climate Science

I dont even use the stupid groan thingy


I pos rep people but have never on the entire internets ever used the neg rep anywhere Ive posted


I dont need it


I have facts and they destroy you idiots lies without ignoring them or groaning at them
 
evince said:
I dont even use the stupid groan thingy


I pos rep people but have never on the entire internets ever used the neg rep anywhere Ive posted


I dont need it


I have facts and they destroy you idiots lies without ignoring them or groaning at them
Click to expand...
You've said that same old bullshit endlessly, we don't care.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
evince said:
I dont even use the stupid groan thingy


I pos rep people but have never on the entire internets ever used the neg rep anywhere Ive posted


I dont need it


I have facts and they destroy you idiots lies without ignoring them or groaning at them
Click to expand...

One of the articles of faith of the new despotism is that climate change is caused by human activity.It has to be an article of faith because there is no objective testable proof that this is so, the normal requirement in science.

We are told instead that there is a‘consensus' or a‘vast majority’ in favour of this belief. But scientific questions are not decided by majorities. They are decided by hard experiments, producing empirical data, repeatedly verified.

Precisely because it is a faith rather than a fact, a special intolerant fury is turned on any who publicly doubt it as can be seen here. Desh has no scientific background, having never been to college, yet presumes to call upon climate alarmists to do her bidding for her.

She has absolutely no understanding of the scientific method, the concept of falsifiability or the fact that science is not beholden to pressure groups, politicians, left wing proselytisers or Algorians.




Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
tinfoil said:
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.
Click to expand...

What qualifications in climatology do you have, and why should I bother with your opinion?
 
Corazón said:
Oh dear boyo, you really do need to grow a clue!!

http://www.dailywire.com/news/21275/climate-scientists-climate-models-have-james-barrett

http://www.dailywire.com/news/18433/uh-oh-new-report-just-dropped-bomb-key-climate-james-barrett

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

Does this have some sort of point? If you have something to say, say it - though, unless you are a climatologist, I doubt there'd be much point. It seems to me that only climatologists are worth hearing on these matters, and even then I doubt we'd understand them, as is the case with physicists. Do you spend time arguing with them?
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Wire


The Daily Wire is an American conservative news and opinion website founded in 2015 by political commentator Ben Shapiro.[2] He currently serves as editor-in-chief;[3][4] Michael Knowles is managing editor.[5]
In addition to its written content, the site produces The Ben Shapiro Show which proclaims itself "The Largest Conservative Podcast in the Nation",[6] The Michael Knowles Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.[7] The Ben Shapiro Show webcast predates The Daily Wire.[8][9]




dear idiot

just because you read it on the internets doesnt make it reliable



fuck you very much
 
evince said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Wire


The Daily Wire is an American conservative news and opinion website founded in 2015 by political commentator Ben Shapiro.[2] He currently serves as editor-in-chief;[3][4] Michael Knowles is managing editor.[5]
In addition to its written content, the site produces The Ben Shapiro Show which proclaims itself "The Largest Conservative Podcast in the Nation",[6] The Michael Knowles Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.[7] The Ben Shapiro Show webcast predates The Daily Wire.[8][9]




dear idiot

just because you read it on the internets doesnt make it reliable



fuck you very much
Click to expand...
Stupid skank, why don't you look up Nature Geoscience?

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
Corazón said:
Don't ever ask me for a link in future, stupid skank!
Click to expand...
I just did my own study . Three people bothered to provide a link to scientific papers in three posts, you and me.
The alarmists provided nothing but their own opinion based on nothing, or insinuate their opinion must be true because they're 'smart' and they're smart because they say so, insults, or a newspaper article with 4 studies, two of which were an exact copy of the newpaper article and one, the exact copy of the study which concluded GW increases with increased GDP. Whose GDP it doesn't say. :doh:
I've found that to be generally consistent in these types of threads.
 
aloysious said:
I just did my own study . Three people bothered to provide a link to scientific papers in three posts, you and me.
The alarmists provided nothing but their own opinion based on nothing, or insinuate their opinion must be true because they're 'smart' and they're smart because they say so, insults, or a newspaper article with 4 studies, two of which were an exact copy of the newpaper article and one, the exact copy of the study which concluded GW increases with increased GDP. Whose GDP it doesn't say. :doh:
I've found that to be generally consistent in these types of threads.
Click to expand...

Yes very true. Iolo, Desh and McAwful are all cut from the same cloth. They are true believers and will brook no criticism of their religion. The default setting of any true scientist should be constant scepticism, especially when confronted with theories backed up with very little empirical evidence.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
iolo said:
What qualifications in climatology do you have, and why should I bother with your opinion?
Click to expand...

I understand the theory quite well and can walk you through it and provide links from NOAA, NASA, and IPCC.
My opinion is not important. That's why I link the science.
Things that prove CO2 is not the main driver of climate and models are assuming too much forcing (and feedback)
The hiatus (IPCC AR5 section 9.2.2)
Millar et al 2017
https://www.nature.com/news/limiting-global-warming-to-1-5-c-may-still-be-possible-1.22627

Millar himself was quoted saying the models run hot, so they recalculated carbon budgets based on revised climate sensitivity. Google "Millar models run hot" and you should be able to find the article. It was around the time of the release of the study.

Check it out for yourself. My opinion is well informed but ultimately meaningless.
 
What more can a skeptic do than cite science? I don't really care about the alarmists anymore. The AMO is going into a 30 year cold cycle and no amount adjustments will save the "unprecedented rate"
 
tinfoil said:
What more can a skeptic do than cite science? I don't really care about the alarmists anymore. The AMO is going into a 30 year cold cycle and no amount adjustments will save the "unprecedented rate"
Click to expand...
Is t that due to the melting of Greenland? If I remember reading at one time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top