Toronto Escorts

Amidst Global Warming Hysteria, NASA Expects Global Cooling

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,147
113
Frankenfooter You constantly incorrectly misquote others
Are you so damn stupid that you can not make a compelling argument without lying?

You are the one that stated that the IPCC findings on climate change 'are not science'.
That is pure 100% bullshit

This is what I said

No scientist worth his salt would declare the debate over and pretend there are no opposing views worth listening to
And no scientist worth his salt would dare to claim someone with an opposing view is a denier
That is not science.
Science is about discovering the truth, not trying to win via attempting to shame others by calling them deniers
Think about that
I also said the the IPCC is political.

Two completely different statements which you decided you would rearrange. You lying scumbag
Stop doing that


Now answer the question which was put to you. It is the first of a few questions you will refuse to answer
1.Do you deny natural events could be responsible for any climate change to any degree?
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,147
113
Mark Steyn?

You really have no clue, do you?
Steyn and Tim Ball were both being sued for defamation.
Ball's case was dismissed on the grounds that Ball's writing is so ludicrous that nobody could take it seriously.
Except for people like you.
Ah character assassination when faced with a dissenting view.
The last refugee of a scoundrel

character assassination against scientists no less, despite the fact you try to use science as proof positive of your absolute position
you are the poster boy proving science is being abused for political agendas

You said the same thing about Judith curry
Grow up

The people you attack have forgotten more than you will ever know

Here is list of approx 100 scientists who have an opposing view from yous
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...th_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

Are you going to attack each one of their characters individually or will you just attack them as a group out of convenience ?
You are ignorant and arrogant & that is really bad combination

Now answer the question which was put to you. It is the first of a few questions you will refuse to answer
1.Do you deny natural events could be responsible for any climate change to any degree?
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,731
17,567
113
Ah character assassination when faced with a dissenting view.
The last refugee of a scoundrel
character assassination against scientists no less, despite the fact you try to use science as proof positive of your absolute position
you are the poster boy proving science is being abused for political agendas
You said the same thing about Judith curry
Grow up
The people you attack have forgotten more than you will ever know
Here is list of approx 100 scientists who have an opposing view from yous
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...th_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming
Are you going to attack each one of their characters individually or will you just attack them as a group out of convenience ?
You are ignorant and arrogant & that is really bad combination
I asked you about Steyn, who you used as a reference.
He's an idiot, a hack journalist with no background in science.
And that's who you back?

And I'll take your lame list of 100 scientists (love the section of dead scientists on your wiki page, not to mention the zero climatologists) and I'll trump you with the 120,000 scientists from around the globe backing the IPCC findings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Science

I've just listed 1000X more experts.

So far the tally is:
Johnnylarue with - Mark Steyn
IPCC/AAAS - 120,000 scientists

Grow up and realize you are a science denier who has no clue.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,331
5,556
113
Definitely legit!!

Also your 97% consensus is fraudent.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html




Monday, December 22, 2014

All "97% Consensus" Studies Refuted by Peer-Review

After showing how 97 articles thoroughly refuted the most prominent "consensus" study, Cook et al. (2013), consensus proponents inevitably moved the goal posts and fell back on other "97% consensus" studies: Doran & Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010) and Oreskes (2004) (which is really a 100% consensus study). However, these have all been thoroughly refuted in the scholarly literature and the following are the refutations of them.

Update: Since this article was first published additional studies have been used to perpetuate the long-debunked "97% consensus" talking point, such as Verheggen et al. (2014). While others like Stenhouse et al. (2014) actually demonstrated a marginal 52% consensus.



Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human.

The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.

Here is table 1 from the paper which shows the entire population of respondents (click to enlarge):



So, the inconvenient truth here is that about half of the world’s largest organization of meteorological and climate professionals don’t think humans are “mostly” the cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming the rest will probably get smeared as “deniers”

That’s a long way from Cook’s “97% consensus” lie.




References:

[1] Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1




PS. FYI: Peer-review: Cook et al. (2013) was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters (ERL) which conveniently has multiple outspoken alarmist scientists on its editorial board (e.g. Peter Gleick and Stefan Rahmstorf) where the paper likely received substandard "pal-review" instead of the more rigorous peer-review.

Update: The paper has since been refuted five times in the scholarly literature by Legates et al. (2013), Tol (2014a), Tol (2014b), Dean (2015) and Tol (2016).

* All the other "97% consensus" studies: e.g. Doran & Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010) and Oreskes (2004) have been refuted by peer-review.
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources:

Read about the various Scientific Associations that do believe in Climate Change:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I will take NASA's evidence over Stenhouse's hypothesis!!
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/econ...xpects-global-cooling-SJDpCv3V4EqKSOY11A378Q/

Here's some actual detailed information that doesn't cite CIA owned Google or The Washington Post. And if you still believe you are the cause of so called Global Warming do us and you a favour and kill yourself.
Or believe these bozos who say we're cooling ands super insulate your house, so you need to use less energy to heat it. And use less CO2 producing fuels that pollute the atmosphere and make life harder.

Yawn! Same difference. Avaoid stupid arguments with stupid people. Just act smart yourself, waste as little as you can and stop imagining it costs nothing to throw your crap away, up the chimney, down the sewer or deep in the landfi9ll.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,147
113
The IPCC is a scientific body that summarizes the body of climatology into reports.
Its science, not politics.
And hey guess what ?more bullshit from Frankfooter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations,[1][2] dedicated to providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change, its natural, political and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options.[3]

Since 2010 the IPCC has come under yet unparalleled public and political scrutiny.[115] The global IPCC consensus approach has been challenged internally[116][117] and externally with the 2009 Climatic Research Unit email controversy ("Climategate") an important (but not sole) threshold.[118] It has been deemed an information monopoly with results for both the quality and the impact of the IPCC work as such.[116][119]

That's just more denial.
it appears you are denying the actual politics related to the IPCC


You are a denier.
I don't think so
you are untrustworthy, lie to intentionally mislead others and you are not very bright
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources:

Read about the various Scientific Associations that do believe in Climate Change:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I will take NASA's evidence over Stenhouse's hypothesis!!
Checkmate you lost!

Page 8: http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/fil...ence-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf
Only 66% of the climate scientists support AGW.


NASA Is sooooo perfect that they blew up two space shuttle ( challenger & Discovery)!
Tell that to the dead space shuttle astronauts and the school teacher that die in space shuttle Challenger explosions.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
Retired NOAA Scientist Doubles Down on Climate Data Controversy
John Bates stands by accusations that 2015 study was rushed and biased, but says he only guessed that motivations were political.


Copyright American Institute of Physics (reprinting information)
EARTH
Thursday, February 9, 2017 - 16:15

Nala Rogers, Staff Writer

(Inside Science) -- Last weekend, John Bates, a climate scientist who recently retired from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, accused his former colleagues of "flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines."

In a blog post that seemed to confirm climate skeptics' darkest suspicions of climate scientists, he claimed that the lead author of an important 2015 climate study had rushed publication and mismanaged data, all in an effort to exaggerate recent warming trends and influence the fall 2015 Paris climate talks.

The accusations spurred outrage from politicians already suspicious of the study, as well as from a British tabloid called The Daily Mail, which announced that world leaders had been "duped" into spending billions to curb fossil fuel emissions.

https://www.insidescience.org/news/retired-noaa-scientist-doubles-down-climate-data-controversy
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,731
17,567
113
And hey guess what ?more bullshit from Frankfooter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations,[1][2] dedicated to providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change, its natural, political and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options.[3]
OMG! They used the word 'political'!

Larue, do you not understand that they summarize the state of the science into reports that are released in different formats, including a shorter summary for political leaders.
That's not political, that's science released for politicians.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations,[1][2] dedicated to providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change,
That they include risks and options doesn't make it politics.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,731
17,567
113
You are the one is full of shit!
According to the author: on page 8 clearly says only 66.6% of climate scientists agree with AGW
Page 8: http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/fil...ence-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf
Only 66% of the climate scientists support AGW.
Checkmate you lose ..loser!!
You're playing checkers here, porny.
The author replied to the specific false claims you are making about his study.
Are you now calling him a liar?
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/tag/pbl/
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
You're playing checkers here, porny.
The author replied to the specific false claims you are making about his study.
Are you now calling him a liar?
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/tag/pbl/
Checkmate you lose!
Clearly you Don't know how to read bar graph !

Page 8 indicated clearly only 66.6% of climate scientists agree with AGW.

You are the one is full of shit!
According to the author: on page 8 clearly says only 66.6% of climate scientists agree with AGW
Page 8: http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/fil...ence-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf
Only 66% of the climate scientists support AGW.
Checkmate you lose ..loser!!
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,731
17,567
113
Checkmate you lose!
Clearly you Don't know how to read bar graph !
But porny, neither chart on p8 say that.
You just read that on some denier site, didn't you?
If you actually read the paper you'd understand that you've been played as a sucker for repeating bullshit.
tsk, tsk.

And as I noted:
The author replied to the specific false claims you are making about his study, clearly stating that you are wrong.
Are you now calling him a liar?
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/tag/pbl/
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,147
113
OMG! They used the word 'political'!


Larue, do you not understand that they summarize the state of the science into reports that are released in different formats, including a shorter summary for political leaders.
That's not political, that's science released for politicians.
Its science, not politics.
That they include risks and options doesn't make it politics.
They make policy recommendations
https://www.carbonbrief.org/ipcc-au...litics-in-the-latest-summary-for-policymakers
IPCC authors discuss how science meets politics in the latest summary for policymakers

A summary for policymakers

When the IPCC releases a new report – which happens about every five or six years – it also puts together a summary of the most politically relevant conclusions. This is called the Summary for Policymakers, or SPM.

During a long and painstaking process in the week before the report’s launch, every word of the SPM has to approved by all 195 governments under the United Nations banner.

Under fire

In April, the world’s governments approved the SPM for the part of the latest IPCC report dealing with greenhouse gas trends and mitigation options.

The ink had barely dried on the summary before it came under fire from one of its own authors. And not for what the final version contained, but for what it didn’t contain.

WGIII_AR5_Cover _web

The IPCC’s Working Group III report on mitigating climate change, part of the 5th Assessment Report (AR5)

Professor Robert Stavins, director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program and a co-ordinating lead author on the report, wrote a blog just a few days after the SPM was published, entitled “Is the IPCC Government Approval Process Broken?”

In the blog, Stavins described his concerns about the level of political involvement. He said:
“I was surprised by the degree to which governments felt free to recommend and sometimes insist on detailed changes to the SPM text on purely political, as opposed to scientific bases â?¦ in some cases this turned out to be problematic for the scientific integrity of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers â?¦ any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable.”

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on on Climate Change- InterGovernmental & there is no politics ??????

https://www.ipcc.ch/working-group/wg2/?idp=450
Working Group II Impacts, Adaptation and VulnerabilityWorking Group II assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, negative and positive consequences of climate change and options for adapting to it.

It considers their vulnerabilities and the capacities and limits of these natural and human systems to adapt to climate change and thereby reduce climate-associated risks together with options for creating a sustainable future for all through an equitable and integrated approach to mitigation and adaptation efforts at all scales.
They are making immigration policy recommendations
How bloody stupid are you?

Frankfooter / Groggy. You are untrustworthy, lie to intentionally mislead others and you are not very bright
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,731
17,567
113
They make policy recommendations
https://www.carbonbrief.org/ipcc-au...litics-in-the-latest-summary-for-policymakers
IPCC authors discuss how science meets politics in the latest summary for policymakers

A summary for policymakers
Yes, a science summary for politicians, like I said.

They are making immigration policy recommendations
Now you're just making shit up, larue.
You're still just yet another science denier, larue.
Just another clown who thinks they know better than every scientist on the planet who's actually studied the climate.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,147
113
Yes, a science summary for politicians, like I said.
Oh come on
You really do not expect anyone to believe there is no politics going on in the IPCC?
https://principia-scientific.org/is-the-ipcc-a-scientific-organization-or-a-political-one/
Is The IPCC A Scientific Organization Or A Political One?
https://principia-scientific.org/climate-alarmism-of-course-ipcc-designed-to-create-promote-it/
Richard Tol resigned from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) because their latest report was too alarmist. His action proves that the latest IPCC Report (AR5) raised the level of alarmism without justification. He complained about the problem back in 2010 in a guest post for Roger Pielke’s Jr, but did nothing. Apparently they crossed some threshold of alarmism that scared adherents.
https://principia-scientific.org/un-global-warming-fraud-exposed-by-detailed-new-study/
Professor Vincent Gray, in his latest New Zealand Climate Truth Newsletter, showcases an important new study by Canadian professor, Ross McKitrick that details why the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) should be abolished.

You're still just yet another science denier, larue.
You are an obnoxious fool
I neither deny nor accept as absolute the science as it has not been proven and it has become very political
its a theory moron , with scientists who support that theory and scientists who refute that theory.
Sadly politics is driving the agenda

Your claim it is proven is a god damn tainted survey poll
Why are you not quoting 97% anymore ?????
You are too much

Just another clown who thinks they know better than every scientist on the planet who's actually studied the climate.
Every scientist on the planet you say ??
I gave you a list of approx 100 scientist who disagree with your absolute position
Your response was character assassination. Now that is most definitely not scientific, but rather low brow mud slinging from a fool



During a long and painstaking process in the week before the report’s launch, every word of the SPM has to be approved by all 195 governments under the United Nations banner.
that is nothing but pure politics

As confirmed by one of the authors
“I was surprised by the degree to which governments felt free to recommend and sometimes insist on detailed changes to the SPM text on purely political, as opposed to scientific bases
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,731
17,567
113
Thanks for confirming that you can't tell science from denier bullshit.
That site is a denier blogger's site, it contains zero science.
John O'Sullivan, who runs it, is just another right wing crank like you who claims to have a law degree but is bullshitting.
Just bullshit, like your posts.

You are a science denier.
You deny the findings of the IPCC.
You deny the support of those findings by the AAAS and NASA and instead pull out some bullshit blogger crap.

Denier.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,147
113
Thanks for confirming that you can't tell science from denier bullshit.
That site is a denier blogger's site, it contains zero science.
John O'Sullivan, who runs it, is just another right wing crank like you who claims to have a law degree but is bullshitting.
Just bullshit, like your posts.

You are a science denier.
You deny the findings of the IPCC.
You deny the support of those findings by the AAAS and NASA and instead pull out some bullshit blogger crap.

Denier.
Ah Character assassination when you are shown the truth


Richard Tol was an inside guy
Richard Tol resigned from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) because their latest report was too alarmist. His action proves that the latest IPCC Report (AR5) raised the level of alarmism without justification. He complained about the problem back in 2010 in a guest post for Roger Pielke’s Jr, but did nothing. Apparently they crossed some threshold of alarmism that scared adherents.
Are you to attack his character as well?

you trashed Judith Curry too !
I better start keeping a list.

I keep on finding more & more very intelligent people who have a different view from you

Now smarten up and think
When you get people resigning because there is too much politics within an organization, then there is politics
Claiming there is zero politics is a lie and it is quite irresponsible of you.

Then this guy is pretty much convinced there is politics

https://www.objectivescience.net/20...-organization-but-a-political-lobbying-group/

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is Not a Scientific Organization But a Political Lobbying Group
JAN 5, 2014 | CLIMATE

John McLean, author of three peer-reviewed papers on climate and an expert reviewer for the latest IPCC report elaborates on how a Lack of accountability clouding the climate change debate.

He explains how the “world’s so-called authority on climate change engages in exaggerated science and has become a political tool.”

If you read the whole article you will see he really does a number on them
I expect you to trash him as well, probably claiming he knows nothing about science , despite your very obvious short comings in scientific knowledge

Why do you deny there is politics?
Continuing to do so only further waters down credibility and gets others to question blindly accepting "the debate is over"
You are the worst possible spokes person for your cause

Now if you were smart you would try a different approach, but.........

Instead you will continue to claim you are absolutely and without question right and any scientist or layperson who does not 100% completely agree with you needs some character assassination and must be labelled a denier.

You need to grow up
 
Toronto Escorts