The Science is Settled: Big Oil Openly admits Climate change was real.
- Thread starter poker
- Start date
"we cant measure the suraface accurately, so it must be hotter than we thought ????"
that has to be the dumbest conclusion ever
does your doctor pull the thermometer out of your ass , say "damn this thermometer is not working, therefore you must be sicker than we thought... we had better amputate ?
Lindzen is correct
In addition to the surface temp record being incomplete , filled with errors, biased by the urban island heat effect and being fiddled with.
There is a huge servivorship bias issue for a time seris data set
look how many more stations were added to the hotter equitorial regions between 1900 & 1979 - upward temp bias
then look how many disapeared from the data set in the colder north regions Canada & Russia after 1979 - collape of the soviet union- again an upward servivorship bias
The number of stations world wide declined between 1979 & 1997
The surface tempature record is a pile of Junk
but Poker says "Exxon Mobil knew' , so lefts start to amputate the energyy source & kill millions while impoversing billions
You are incapable of procssing information logically
Last edited:
Didn’t say “must” there scarecrow… so unlike you to misrepresent a fact.
Even if that is what I had said, it is a lot better than what you say. I don’t like liberals therefore climate change is a hoax. It’s your only position. And it’s indefensible. I have called you out, and called you out, and called you out. All you have are cheap shots, and misrepresented facts. Sorry that’s not science buddy
you said could be hotter, however you misrepresented yourself by excluding it could also be colder. given the damn measuring sytem is inaccurate its 50:50
you implied "must be hotter" so no misrepsentation on my part
Well that is even dumber
hardley
First of all I am not your buddy.
Secodly I provide facts. You do not even understand what is or what is not scientific evidence, so no surprise you are having difficulties understanding the science
Third:
This sound preety much like a firey speach from a huckster Televanglist pastor
This is often followed by
"Throw that heathen money up in the air, what stays up is yours, what comes down is mine... Ha la yoo ya"
Climate change is your new religion apparently
What do you think they submitted then? What was talked about? The rules to tiddly winks?
Or was it this:
This is a serious proposition to try to educate the Judge.” Alsup did not want politics in the tutorial — just the science. He requested the following two areas be addressed in the tutorial:
(1) “The first part will trace the history of scientific study of climate change, beginning with scientific inquiry into the formation and melting of the ice ages, periods of historical cooling and warming, smog, ozone, nuclear winter, volcanoes, and global warming. Each side will have 60 minutes. A horizontal timeline of major advances (and setbacks) would be welcomed.”
(2) “The second part will set forth the best science now available on global warming, glacier melt, sea rise, and coastal flooding. Each side will again have another 60 minutes.”
irelavant
a court does not determine the validity of a scientific theory
That is only accomplished by verifyable & repeatable experimental observations
Two scientists one in China, the other in the USA, conduct the same experiment using the exact same proceedure and get the same result - It is an experimental validation of the theroy
You can not do that with two courts one in China, the other in the USA
Measurements & experimental observations which are proven to be repeatable the world over are free of human bias
The physical laws of nature remain the same over time
Court rulings, laws, court personel and proceedure change all the time
Case in point : Roe vs Wade
Do you get it now ???????
Last edited:
A word of advise
Do not make a definative and absolute statement
And then immediatly follow it up with a statement that says you might be lying
Seriously how old are you?
That is hgh school talk
Last edited:
This is a perfect summarized account of why Climate Change is Real, and has not been disputed by any real Scientific Research or Models!!
The Basics of Climate Change
royalsociety.org
The Basics of Climate Change
Climate change: evidence and causes | Royal Society
Supplementary information for the project 'Climate Change: Evidence and causes'.
royalsociety.org
you supply the comic materialWhat you provide is comic relief.
How old are you?
run along now,
go dig up a conspiracy or see if a court has ruled on E=MC^2
The only basis for dispute so far has been that notwithstanding the dire predictions the world has not come to an end yet. Absurd. The debate was over long ago. The deniers may as well be arguing that the earth is flat.This is a perfect summarized account of why Climate Change is Real, and has not been disputed by any real Scientific Research or Models!!
The Basics of Climate Change
Climate change: evidence and causes | Royal Society
Supplementary information for the project 'Climate Change: Evidence and causes'.
You are correct. Courts do not determine the science. I have never once claimed they did. You accuse me of it… but I never have.
“The science” was presented to the courts. If you cannot really understand that… but of coarse you can. You just don’t like losing, so you will stomp your feet, have a fit, and try tap dancing around the fact the scientist that work for Oil Companies all agree the science is correct.
***
Myles R. Allen, an Oxford University professor of geosystem science with over 120 peer-reviewed articles involving different aspects of atmospheric science, outlined the early history and research regarding climate science. Allen has worked for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for over 20 years as a lead author on the 3rd, 4th, and 5th assessments. The IPCC is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations that is dedicated to providing the world with objective, scientific information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of the risk of human-induced climate change; its natural, political, and economic impacts and risks; and possible response options. The assessments are status reports that provide an update on the knowledge of the scientific, technical, and socioeconomic aspects of climate change. Thousands of scientists from countries all over the world do the work of the IPCC.
Allen told Judge Alsup that the role of greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane as they affect the Earth’s temperature has been known since the mid-1800s. As greenhouse-gas levels increase in the atmosphere, the atmosphere retains more infrared radiation, heating it up. As a consequence, the Earth heats up as well. “We’re seeing carbon dioxide levels rising to levels that have not been seen for over 20 million years,” Allen said. “They are now … around 410 parts per million.” In 1853, according to NASA data, the levels were 285 parts per million. In 165 years, CO2 levels have increased by 44 percent. Allen presented graphs dating from 1861 showing the monthly temperature of the Earth increasing with periodic swings in both directions.
It would take a moron to listen to the Oil Companies, go to a court in front of a Federal Judge and say….
“Chevron accepts the consensus in the scientific communities on climate change,” said Boutrous (Chevron's Lawyer). “There’s no debate about climate science.”
It’s over. Right there. How thick do you have to be to not understand the sheer magnitude of that admission. How does a person fucking stand there and stomp their feet screaming “the court don’t determine that! The courts can’t do that! That’s not science!” like a fucking toddler?
As if it were not painfully obvious that the Oil companies have paid scientists off… how do you bring one of the $2600 a day ones to the thread as evidence? What kind of a fucking idiot would take him serious. Surely not the science dept at MIT who put in writing how unethical he was.
www.independent.co.uk
But my absolute favourite tactic…. Was claiming all the scientific models were wrong (past threads, but briefly eluded too recently)… because Beers Law and saturation was not accounted for. And the explanation was bang on… detailed, accurate… but
incomplete.
Seems the conditions the Law works under were never addressed. And a quick google search shows that every climate scientist clearly understands this, and it was not in fact ignored in the models.
Beer-Lambert Law Limitations
Using this law it becomes easy to study the absorptivity coefficient of the sample when the concentration is low i.e. <10mM but as the concentration becomes high i.e. >10mM there is a deviation as the electrostatic interactions become more.
When does the Beer-Lambert law fail?
The law fails at high concentrations (>0.01M) due to electrostatic interactions between molecules in proximity.
“Chevron accepts the consensus in the scientific communities on climate change,” said Boutrous (Chevron's Lawyer). “There’s no debate about climate science.”
It’s over. Right there. How thick do you have to be to not understand the sheer magnitude of that admission. How does a person fucking stand there and stomp their feet screaming “the court don’t determine that! The courts can’t do that! That’s not science!” like a fucking toddler?
As if it were not painfully obvious that the Oil companies have paid scientists off… how do you bring one of the $2600 a day ones to the thread as evidence? What kind of a fucking idiot would take him serious. Surely not the science dept at MIT who put in writing how unethical he was.
22 MIT climate scientists tell Donald Trump: Don't listen to our retired colleague, climate change is real
Retired professor Richard Lindzen wrote to the US President saying atmospheric carbon dioxide was 'plant food, not poison'
www.independent.co.uk
But my absolute favourite tactic…. Was claiming all the scientific models were wrong (past threads, but briefly eluded too recently)… because Beers Law and saturation was not accounted for. And the explanation was bang on… detailed, accurate… but
incomplete.
Seems the conditions the Law works under were never addressed. And a quick google search shows that every climate scientist clearly understands this, and it was not in fact ignored in the models.
Beer-Lambert Law Limitations
Using this law it becomes easy to study the absorptivity coefficient of the sample when the concentration is low i.e. <10mM but as the concentration becomes high i.e. >10mM there is a deviation as the electrostatic interactions become more.
When does the Beer-Lambert law fail?
The law fails at high concentrations (>0.01M) due to electrostatic interactions between molecules in proximity.
Last edited:
All along I thought that the Beer-Lambert Law Limitations came into effect at > 100 Millimolar level. But it is very interesting and substantiated that it is a ten times lower factor for it to kick in!!
It's a lie if you ignore the whole statement.
Climate scientists need to travel for work so they make a point to offset their carbon emissions. People like those pushing the headline of that article are simply trying to undermine the reality of science and promote an anti-science agenda.
(the actual news source is just looking for clickbait)
Amazing. There are so few people around who refuse to admit that human activity is having some impact on climate.
Too bad that there haven't been thousands of scientists continuing to study the topic in the 120 years since then
Yet courts continually base decisions of accepted science. if there was any doubt in the science, the court wouldn't have accepted the testimony.
You consistantly promote the court testimony as the smoking gun that proves AGW
You are obscessed with it
Do not be idiotic.
It would not be possible to present all cimate research in a court
And no doubt it was a one sided afair
It was a show trail
There would be no represeantion of the skeptical view as Exxoon Mobil took the path of least resistance
A court of law does not have the expertise to distinguish beteen scientific evidence and propaganda, You cant so why would expect the court to ?
A court of law does not have the mandate to rule on scientific theory
A court of law adjudicates matter of law, man made law, not the physical laws of the universe
You are incredibly foolish
Was the abysmal track record of climate models presented in court? No
Was this presented in court?
Was this presented in court? No
AGW have never been proven by experiment & thus remains an unverified scientific theory
What a lawyer says or does not say in a court of law is irelevant and does not verify the theroy
