Except that I've already proven to you that only a small minority of scientists supported that obscure concept.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Here's One Global Warming Study Nobody Wants You To See
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
It's sad when you deniers have nothing left to fall back on scientists disagreeing over exactly how much warming we are causing. I miss the good old days when you guys said there was no such thing as global warming.Here another peer review study show how the climate model temperature is over estimate!!...
Pornaddict, holy fuck are you easy to fool.Here a real time cover...Plus no rebuttal on this real Time Cover!
Monday, Jan. 31, 1977
WEATHER: The Big Freeze
Why had the rain turned white? Startled millionaires wintering in their baronial mansions in West Palm Beach, Fla., peered closer last week at the miracle that was falling from the skies and discovered—could it be?—yes, the substance was snow, the first ever reported there. Since mid-November, pedestrians in Dallas, unaccustomed to such hazards, have been slipping on sleet-slicked sidewalks. Meanwhile, a series of blizzards has smothered Buffalo this winter with an astonishing 126.6 in. of snow.
From the Dakotas and Minnesota, across the icy Great Lakes of the Middle West and down...
http://time.com/vault/year/1977/
https://content.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601770131,00.html
I mean, really, do you even do basic fact checks before you post this garbage?
Are you really that stupid?
Here, why don't you read the article that was about the weather, it was about a cold winter, not climate change.
http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,918620-1,00.html
Says the man with zero credibilityCurry has a history of shoddy work and papers.
This one is no exception.
Slapping a scarlet D on anyone who veers from environmentalist dogma is not science. It's a strong-arm tactic meant to squelch debate and impose scientific conformity.But first, this paper still finds that climate change is happening, the only thing that the deniers like about it is it suggests that warming will be a little less then IPCC numbers.
They do this through a simplistic model that doesn't account for non-linearity and tries to minimize TCR.
There are multiple and detailed criticisms of this paper, really the only interesting thing is that an out and out denier like Curry is now coming out with a paper that confirms climate change is upon us and she and Lewis only try to argue that its really, really bad, not really, really, really bad.
.What is funny is that you claim to understand this paper and think it actually refutes the science when in fact it confirms the planet is warming and just tries to fudge the numbers a bit to make it look not quite as bad as it is
You do not know what you are talking about.
I never said it refutes anything, I said the paper has merit and should be given due consideration and that I am alarmed by those to claim absolute certainty about a theory which is clearly not iron clad
You were the one who said
Pure and simple propagandaCurry again.
Its not worth paying attention.
You did not bother to question her methods, data collection or assumptions
Rather you just started throwing dirt
You are a POS
Not at allSo if you're backing this paper, you're admitting climate change is happening and that its going to drastically change the planets climate.
I probably would not have bothered with it until you said
Pure and simple propaganda & character assignation.Curry again.
Its not worth paying attention.
I guarantee you I understand it better than you as you do not have a degree in science, I doYou should have tried to read it, though I'm pretty sure you couldn't understand it if you did.
My position on this issue is neutral
Yet you seem compelled to label me as a denier
you are too stupid to understand how the majority view the opinions of uncompromising zealots.
Toss in a layer of misrepresentation and your history of being wrong and most will give careful consideration to the opposite of your view
"If the fool Frankfooter/ Groggy is absolute on this, then it cannot be correct"
Slapping a scarlet D on anyone who veers from environmentalist dogma is not science. It's a strong-arm tactic meant to squelch debate and impose scientific conformity.It's sad when you deniers have nothing left to fall back on scientists disagreeing over exactly how much warming we are causing. I miss the good old days when you guys said there was no such thing as global warming.
Did you read the rest of your post?Slapping a scarlet D on anyone who veers from environmentalist dogma is not science. It's a strong-arm tactic meant to squelch debate and impose scientific conformity.
That's exactly what you did.
You can't answer questions about science, instead went straight into insults and 'scarlet d's'.
.
[You do not know what you are talking about.
I never said it refutes anything, I said the paper has merit and should be given due consideration and that I am alarmed by those to claim absolute certainty about a theory which is clearly not iron clad
You were the one who said
Pure and simple propaganda
You did not bother to question her methods, data collection or assumptions
Rather you just started throwing dirt
You are a POS
Not at all
I probably would not have bothered with it until you said
Pure and simple propaganda & character assignation.
I guarantee you I understand it better than you as you do not have a degree in science, I do
My position on this issue is neutral
Yet you seem compelled to label me as a denier
you are too stupid to understand how the majority view the opinions of uncompromising zealots.
Toss in a layer of misrepresentation and your history of being wrong and most will give careful consideration to the opposite of your view
Note that there is no indication that you understand what the paper is about, the relevance of its findings, criticism about its use of modeling and contrasting papers and their validity.
Yet you accuse me of being the fool here.
All this over one single, 4 year old paper.
Points you have raised?Ok, smallcock, enjoy your little game.
Your tiny, little game.
I'll just sit here and note that you can't answer to any of the points I raised, so instead have to start some conspiracy theory instead.
You are still clinging to the ridiculous thought that anyone takes you seriously.
When will you wake up ?
you have destroyed your credibility
Do not sell yourself short, you have been proven a fool on so many issues I have lost countDid you read the rest of your post?
That's exactly what you did.
You can't answer questions about science, instead went straight into insults and 'scarlet d's'.
.
Note that there is no indication that you understand what the paper is about, the relevance of its findings, criticism about its use of modeling and contrasting papers and their validity.
Yet you accuse me of being the fool here.
All this over one single, 4 year old paper.
There is a price to pay when you misrepresent yourself
The first is you do not get to question someone else's credibility
Except that's not what is happening. What is happening here is the denial of science.Slapping a scarlet D on anyone who veers from environmentalist dogma is not science. It's a strong-arm tactic meant to squelch debate and impose scientific conformity.
There is a reason why the vast majority of scientists (now and in the 70's) think that human activity and production of CO2 are causing the planet to warm and regional climates to destabilize and it's not because of some kind of conspiracy.
Yes, unlike you I put points in posts, not just insults.Points you have raised?
1) Why do you back the simplistic model that Curry uses, which doesn't account for non-linearity and minimizes TCR?
2) Why do you think this study is more valid then previous studies and the findings of the IPCC?
3) Why do you think that a study that finds climate change is changing the climate disproves climate change?
Bullshit. It's a denial of the perversion of science.Except that's not what is happening. What is happening here is the denial of science.
There is a reason why the vast majority of scientists (now and in the 70's) think that human activity and production of CO2 are causing the planet to warm and regional climates to destabilize and it's not because of some kind of conspiracy.
Even Exxon and Shell's scientists found climate change was real.Bullshit. It's a denial of the perversion of science.
Do you think their scientists were 'perverting' science to make their bosses happy?
Yep, it's a shame scientists are using things such as evidence and reason to pervert the scientific method.Bullshit. It's a denial of the perversion of science.
I have not denied anythingExcept that's not what is happening. What is happening here is the denial of science.
There is a reason why the vast majority of scientists (now and in the 70's) think that human activity and production of CO2 are causing the planet to warm and regional climates to destabilize and it's not because of some kind of conspiracy.
Again I have been clear that my position is neutral
I have been called a denier by both you and the fool frankfooter
Slapping a scarlet D on anyone who veers from environmentalist dogma is not science. It's a strong-arm tactic meant to squelch debate and impose scientific conformity.
Frankfooter's approach is absolutely shameful
When will you learn to pay attention?Yes, unlike you I put points in posts, not just insults.
1) Why do you back the simplistic model that Curry uses, which doesn't account for non-linearity and minimizes TCR?
2) Why do you think this study is more valid then previous studies and the findings of the IPCC?
3) Why do you think that a study that finds climate change is changing the climate disproves climate change?
I do not back one position or another
what I do not like is your constant spewing of propaganda about science which you clearly do not fully understand and your character assassination of someone who has clearly forgotten more than you will ever know
you are a pathetic fool who does not see how much damage you do to your causes
Nobody believes a loud mouth fool
Given all of the information that we have been privy to (including the leaked emails), the fact that you can sit here and make that claim, at least with respect to climate science, is truly astonishing. Not to mention ignorant. The main evidence these pseudo scientists are using is output data from simulated climate models that are proven flawed and incomplete. A case study in GIGO. Furthermore, they have 'adjusted' historical temperature and satellite record data in an attempt to support their thesis and to corroborate the flawed output. This is sheer scientific chicanery.Yep, it's a shame scientists are using things such as evidence and reason to pervert the scientific method.
You have taken a position.When will you learn to pay attention?
I do not back one position or another
You dispute the findings of the scientific community.
That's not neutral.
And yet even when Exxon's scientists studied climate change they came up with the same findings.Given all of the information that we have been privy to (including the leaked emails), the fact that you can sit here and make that claim, at least with respect to climate science, is truly astonishing. Not to mention ignorant. The main evidence these pseudo scientists are using is output data from simulated climate models that are proven flawed and incomplete. A case study in GIGO. Furthermore, they have 'adjusted' historical temperature and satellite record data in an attempt to support their thesis and to corroborate the flawed output. This is sheer scientific chicanery.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago
A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation
How could it be scientific chicanery when even when oil company funded scientists studied climate change they came to the same conclusions as publicly funded scientists?
Exxon and Shell had to bury these studies, and now that they've been discovered they stand to lose billions in lawsuits.
So why, if its scientific chicanery, would Exxon scientists risk their careers if the results weren't the real scientific results?
Keep shoveling shit Frankie, that's what you do best. So in your mind a study co-authored by an anti fossil fuel activist is concrete proof that Exxon scientists knew global warming was real and man made? Obviously you did not read the critique of the study by Kimberley A. Neuendorf PhD in Environmental Research Letters whereby she blows apart the researchers methodology and implicit bias. It should be noted that Neuendorf is the pre-eminent expert in quantitative content analysis.And yet even when Exxon's scientists studied climate change they came up with the same findings.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
How could it be scientific chicanery when even when oil company funded scientists studied climate change they came to the same conclusions as publicly funded scientists?
Exxon and Shell had to bury these studies, and now that they've been discovered they stand to lose billions in lawsuits.
So why, if its scientific chicanery, would Exxon scientists risk their careers if the results weren't the real scientific results?
InsideClimateNews broke the story.Keep shoveling shit Frankie, that's what you do best. So in your mind a study co-authored by an anti fossil fuel activist is concrete proof that Exxon scientists knew global warming was real and man made? Obviously you did not read the critique of the study by Kimberley A. Neuendorf PhD in Environmental Research Letters whereby she blows apart the researchers methodology and implicit bias. It should be noted that Neuendorf is the pre-eminent expert in quantitative content analysis.
They have Exxon docs that prove the claim.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...senior-executives-engage-and-warming-forecast
Its very well researched.
https://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken
Their work was nominated for a pulitzer.
http://www.pulitzer.org/finalists/insideclimate-news
The lawsuits are ongoing and Exxon is not doing well.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...t-to-stop-climate-change-probes-idUSKBN1H536R
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...n-children-california-cities-attorney-general
Denying that Exxon knew about climate change is pretty weak in the face of all the evidence and lawsuits.
