# Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on globa



## daveman (Jan 24, 2020)

Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures

*Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures*

(Natural News) The climate change hoax has collapsed. A devastating series of research papers has just been published, revealing that human activity can account for no more than a *.01°C* rise in global temperatures, meaning that all the human activity targeted by radical climate change alarmists — combustion engines, airplane flights, diesel tractors — has virtually no measurable impact on the temperature of the planet.

Finnish scientists spearheaded the research, releasing a paper entitled, “No Experimental Evidence for the Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change.”

The paper explains that IPCC analysis of global temperatures suffers from a glaring error — namely, failure to account for “influences of low cloud cover” and how it impacts global temperatures. Natural variations in low cloud cover, which are strongly influenced by cosmic radiation’s ability to penetrate Earth’s atmosphere due to variations in the strength of our planet’s magnetosphere, account for nearly all changes in global temperature, the researchers explain.

As this chart reveals, more cloud cover is inversely related to temperature. In other words, *clouds shield the surface of the Earth from the sun, providing shade cover cooling*, while a lack of clouds results in more warming:







*Cloud cover accounts for the real changes in global temperatures*
This is further supported by researchers at Kobe University in Japan who published a nearly simultaneous paper that reveals how changes in our planet’s magnetic field govern the intensity of solar radiation that reaches the lower atmosphere, causing cloud formation that alters global temperatures.

That study, published in Nature, is called, “Intensified East Asian winter monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition.” It states:

_Records of suborbital-scale climate variation during the last glacial and Holocene periods can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of rapid climate changes… At least one event was associated with a decrease in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field. Thus, climate records from the MIS 19 interglacial can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of a variety of climate changes, including testing the effect of changes in geomagnetic dipole field strength on climate through galactic cosmic ray (GCR)-induced cloud formation…_

In effect, cosmic rays which are normally deflected via the magnetosphere are, in times of weak or changing magnetic fields emanating from Earth itself, able to penetrate further into Earth’s atmosphere, causing the formation of low-level clouds which cover the land in a kind of “umbrella effect” that shades the land from the sun, allowing cooling to take place. But a lack of clouds makes the surface hotter, as would be expected. This natural phenomenon is now documented to be *the primary driver of global temperatures and climate*, not human activity.​
So it looks like the Climate Change Cult doesn't know about clouds.  Can't wait to hear how this attack on dogma is wrong simply because it's an attack on dogma.


----------



## fncceo (Jan 24, 2020)

"I've looked at clouds from both sides now..."


----------



## westwall (Jan 24, 2020)

daveman said:


> Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures
> 
> *Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures*
> 
> ...








Thanks for that.  I am studying it now.


----------



## waltky (Jan 24, 2020)

I've noticed in the summertime...

... it's cooler when it's cloudy.


----------



## fncceo (Jan 24, 2020)

waltky said:


> I've noticed in the summertime...
> 
> ... it's cooler when it's cloudy.



Wait, what?!  I need to see the data!


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 1, 2020)

daveman said:


> Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures
> 
> *Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures*
> 
> ...


Insane. We are destroying this planet. For thousands of other species who are endangered. This is happening in South America, the rain forests.

we are the idiots on krypton.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 1, 2020)

daveman said:


> Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures
> 
> *Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures*
> 
> ...



The hell you say?


More *white* clouds, reflecting light and radiation back into space?!?....Who could have seen that coming?


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 1, 2020)

I call Bull Shit


----------



## Dale Smith (Feb 1, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> I call Bull Shit



Your posts are the consequential example of bovine feces.


----------



## Dale Smith (Feb 1, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures
> ...




 
"climate change" right there.....


----------



## bluzman61 (Feb 1, 2020)

daveman said:


> Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures
> 
> *Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures*
> 
> ...


The Climate Change enthusiasts need to remember only one thing - Climate Change = WEATHER.  Thank you.


----------



## daveman (Feb 2, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> I call Bull Shit


Of course you do.  Your blind adherence to your cult's dogma allows nothing else.


----------



## cnm (Feb 2, 2020)

_*Natural News - Media Bias/Fact Check*_

_A factual search reveals that *Natural* *News* has failed too many fact checks to list here. Overall, we rate *Natural* *News* a Questionable source based on promotion of quackery level pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, as well as extreme right wing bias. This is one of the most discredited sources on the internet._​


----------



## cnm (Feb 2, 2020)

_*Google delists Mike Adams' Natural News website. Was it ...*

Today, *Natural* *News* has been hit by Google, which has blacklisted the entire *Natural* *News* domain and removed over 140,000 pages from its index. The take down of *Natural* *News* happened this morning, and it follows a pattern of censorship we're seeing being leveled against other pro-Trump websites._​


----------



## daveman (Feb 2, 2020)

cnm said:


> _*Natural News - Media Bias/Fact Check*_
> 
> _A factual search reveals that *Natural* *News* has failed too many fact checks to list here. Overall, we rate *Natural* *News* a Questionable source based on promotion of quackery level pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, as well as extreme right wing bias. This is one of the most discredited sources on the internet._​


Oddly, that doesn't seem to affect the papers linked in the article.


----------



## evenflow1969 (Feb 2, 2020)

daveman said:


> Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures
> 
> *Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures*
> 
> ...


hilarious, the quack site of quack siite as your source!LOL!


----------



## daveman (Feb 2, 2020)

evenflow1969 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures
> ...


You just make sure you don't read the articles linked in the article.  You'll be excommunicated for heresy.


----------



## evenflow1969 (Feb 2, 2020)

daveman said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


uh hu!LOL


----------



## cnm (Feb 2, 2020)

daveman said:


> Oddly, that doesn't seem to affect the papers linked in the article.


Funny you should say that.

_*This Paper Has Climate Change Deniers Very Excited. There's Just One Tiny Problem*

This Paper Has Climate Change Deniers Very Excited. There's Just One Tiny Problem

"Some news outlets are publishing articles stating that this claim is based on a new 'study'," Climate Feedback stated in a detailed debunking. "If they had contacted independent scientists for insight, instead of accepting this short document as revolutionary science, they would have found that it does not have any scientific credibility."

They were quick to point out what the study is actually based on is unclear, as the paper "provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global temperature," and the document declares the authors do not consider computer models as evidence.

The scientists and experts the organization asked to review this paper – vital in the peer-review process – list among the many issues the fact that "[the] document only cites six references, four of which are the authors’ own, and of these, two are not actually published." Crucial data sources are not provided, figures used to support their claims are at odds with peer-reviewed studies, and the authors make claims "well beyond the scope of their data, without justification" they concluded._​


----------



## cnm (Feb 2, 2020)

daveman said:


> That study, published in Nature, is called, “Intensified East Asian winter monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition.” It states:
> 
> _Records of suborbital-scale climate variation during the last glacial and Holocene periods can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of rapid climate changes… At least one event was associated with a decrease in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field. Thus, climate records from the MIS 19 interglacial can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of a variety of climate changes, including testing the effect of changes in geomagnetic dipole field strength on climate through galactic cosmic ray (GCR)-induced cloud formation…_
> 
> In effect, cosmic rays which are normally deflected via the magnetosphere are, in times of weak or changing magnetic fields emanating from Earth itself, able to penetrate further into Earth’s atmosphere, causing the formation of low-level clouds which cover the land in a kind of “umbrella effect” that shades the land from the sun, allowing cooling to take place. But a lack of clouds makes the surface hotter, as would be expected. This natural phenomenon is now documented to be *the primary driver of global temperatures and climate*, not human activity.


So magnetic polarity reversal would lead to cooling from the increased cloud cover, not increased temperatures as we are seeing, right?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 3, 2020)

cnm said:


> _*Natural News - Media Bias/Fact Check*_
> 
> _A factual search reveals that *Natural* *News* has failed too many fact checks to list here. Overall, we rate *Natural* *News* a Questionable source based on promotion of quackery level pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, as well as extreme right wing bias. This is one of the most discredited sources on the internet._​



It has been my experience that fact check itself is a dubious source insofar as science goes.  They are pretty good at politics, and directing speeches, but they don't dig nearly deep enough into the sceince to be of any real use....they tend to go with withatever the consensus says even when there is peer reviewed published literature that says something else entirely.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 3, 2020)

daveman said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > _*Natural News - Media Bias/Fact Check*_
> ...



Good point.....they love to run down sources as if skeptical science, wiki, and the like that they use were "good" sources...and they simply ignore the peer reviewed, published science and empirical evidence upon which the articles are based.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 3, 2020)

cnm said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Oddly, that doesn't seem to affect the papers linked in the article.
> ...



Computer models lacking repeatable, empirical verification are not evidence..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 3, 2020)

cnm said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Oddly, that doesn't seem to affect the papers linked in the article.
> ...


LOL...

Your "debunking" was done by a far left extremists web sight that uses failed modeling as their basis when the paper uses empirically observed evidence....  Its rather amusing that you claim your models are more accurate than the systems actual observed reactions, which are calling your religion a hoax...  Priceless left wing propaganda.

What do you call a hypothesis who's models do not reflect reality in observations?  FAILED


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 3, 2020)

evenflow1969 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...


You rival other liberals here in ignorance.... The feeling is mutual...

It amazes me how a failed model is more accurate than observed evidence... Stunning ignorance by the left...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 3, 2020)

evenflow1969 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > evenflow1969 said:
> ...


LOL...

The source is not the issue.. It is the facts you ignore that are.  When a fantasy is more accurate than observed empirical evidence that calls it into question, you have a sever credibility problem.  I deal in FACTS I can prove.. They do not... Its as simple as that.


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 3, 2020)

Meanwhile newspapers in The UK (except in Communist Wales) are warning about the impending mini ice age:

Weather warning: Earth could be hit by MINI ICE-AGE as Sun ‘hibernates’

Cyclical.

Look it up, liberals.


----------



## evenflow1969 (Feb 3, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


The source offers no facts. Mean while I am a civil engineer and I am one of the people tasked to deal with the extra water and soil erosion occuring due to climate change. It is already effecting my wallet ass hole as I currently need to spend 250k on new floating docks and my fish cutting building, I will likely just knock down. Those of us that make a living on the water and near the water know what the fuck is going on. My fuel expenditures are rising every year because I have to travel 20 miles to find clear water for fishing because of constant flood and with drawl. I have real choices to make with my marina on lake erie and my marina down in the keys. My buildings and docks are flooding. I had to cancel 30 percent of my trips last year because the docks were flooded and it was to dangerous to unload and load people onto my boats. Real costs coming out of my pocket and I do not like it. So ya show up here in a couple of months while my docks are being built and tell me I do not need to spend the money. I will give a free one way trip on one of my fishing vessles.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 3, 2020)

evenflow1969 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > evenflow1969 said:
> ...


I am an Atmospheric Physicist..... I have a Masters in it and am currently a doctoral candidate.

Your correlation does not meet even basic criteria for proving your hypothesis. The earths cycles created massive canyons by wash out. Your mountain ranges created valleys and ravines by wash out.  All of this has happened over and over again in earths paleo history.  Did man cause these basic climatic cycles? No.  Now tell me how you ascertained that man is causing the current changes and they are not natural variation cycles.


----------



## evenflow1969 (Feb 3, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Not my fucking job nor my discipline, what I can attest to is that the water is rising due to loss of ice. I have to design aroundit every day and it is hitting my wallet every day. I can tell you this you can take your doctorate and shove it up your ass if you count this sites data for any thing close to scientific method. What I do know is that saying man kind has zero effect is an out and out lie. Pissing in the ocean has an effect. A very small one but an effect none the less. If you are in fact a scientist as proclaimed you know that every action has an oposite and equal reaction. There is no such thing as zero effect, every thing we do has an effect on our surroudnings to a degree. So no I have no respect for your opinions. Your opinions are for sale. Real mopney is being spent evey day on the effects of climate change that you say does not exist, you can go fuck your self.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 3, 2020)

evenflow1969 said:


> Not my fucking job nor my discipline, what I can attest to is that the water is rising due to loss of ice.


And you have no clue as to cause...

That is funny as hell... You assert a causation without the facts to prove it. I show you very easily that the earths cycles dwarf everything man MIGHT have an impact on but you choose to correlate it and say it is proof.  I deal in testable and repeatable science not hyperbolic un-provable hypothesis.  The only people for sale are those sucking off the government tet..


----------



## Kilroy2 (Feb 3, 2020)

Don't get to excited by a reach paper written by two guys that doesn't even appear to have had a peer review

But it is making the rounds on the right wing news cites as proof positive

Just goes to show anything can be placed on the internet

Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku E-mail address: jyrkau@utu.fi

This is not a journal paper. It is on ArXiv, which is not peer-reviewed.  

and that is how the wheels go round and around

Just guys writing a paper with their perceptions and do not even have a peer review because they know what will happen

believe it or not

its the same argument and really changes nothing


----------



## Dick Foster (Feb 3, 2020)

evenflow1969 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > evenflow1969 said:
> ...



BULLSHIT! I learned to scuba dive and was certified on a small corral attol about 3 degrees south of the equator. This was back in the early 1970s. I was there twice in two years running. The highest point on that attol was maybe 4 or 5 feet. 
Being very near the equator, sea level change is most notable there so would have the most impact. However if you go to Google maps and look at it today, it remains high and dry. 
The island is called something else today as it was handed over to Kiribati however it still answers to Canton Island or Kanton on Google maps.
It is in the Phoenix island archipelago. The other minor atolls are still there and are still high and dry too like Enderbury and Birney which are even smaller with lower elevations. 
This is fact, not fiction and no bullshit mathematical modeling is involved, only your very own eyeballs need come into play. Have a look for yourself then stop yammering nonsense.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 3, 2020)

Kilroy2 said:


> But it is making the rounds on the right wing news cites as proof positive


And you ignore the facts they presented and linked too.

You people are so busy laying blame and using credibility smears that you ignore the facts they present and the sources where they can be obtained.  You are so invested in smearing those who do not agree with you that you accept bastardized and politicized crap without question.

Again, provide your empirically observed and quantified evidence which supports your assumptions..  I'll wait..


----------



## Kilroy2 (Feb 3, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> > But it is making the rounds on the right wing news cites as proof positive
> ...




does this paper state anything that has not already been stated

I just said that it is just a paper and unless it is reviewed then you are making the same claim

ignoring the facts

but go ahead and tell us who wrote this paper and what are his credentials


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 3, 2020)

I've heard this tale before ... that the IPCC assumes average cloud cover remains constant with rising temperatures ... they kind of have to or they'd have nothing to report ... if average cloudiness increases then we have a rather profound negative feedback mechanism ... the numbers involved seem to speak to an overwhelming negative feedback ... 

Alas ... this is an insanely difficult thing to measure accurately ... don't confuse these new generation GOES images with anything we have for the past 100 years ... we cannot say at this time whether clouds are increasing or decreasing ... 

There's very good reason to believe there will be more average cloudiness ... higher temperatures at the surface cause more water to evaporate, which in turn means more water condenses into clouds aloft, increasing albedo, decreasing solar energy, decreasing surface temperatures ... all without violating any of the laws of thermodynamics ... 

I have no idea whether the IPCC says cloudiness remains constant or not ... I'll need book, chapter and verse before I believe such an outrage ...


----------



## 22lcidw (Feb 3, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> I call Bull Shit


An affect on the climate I might add.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 3, 2020)

Kilroy2 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Kilroy2 said:
> ...


I dont really care who wrote it. Like I said before, I deal in empirical evidence and fact. That is how I judge a papers validity. Is it science based and can it be reproduced?  Those are the questions I ask as I read all kinds of papers and opinion pieces. "peer review" has been bastardized and is no longer acceptable as standard that gives credibility to anything.  You can thank Phil Jones, the EAU, and the CRU for that gate keeping which discredited journals and that process.  The Blog-O-Sphere now allows open discussions among real scientist in real time. I have about 60 people with whom I communicate regularly from all sides of the climate debate.


----------



## 22lcidw (Feb 3, 2020)

evenflow1969 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > evenflow1969 said:
> ...


The nature of the earth is change. Humans love the coastal or areas near water. Barrier islands and the areas closest to the ocean have their topography change. We are specks  to that.  The same with living in flood plains. If it makes you feel better to blame climate change on humans because you have been personally affected, is wrong.  I am not gloating. Especially if you worked hard for what you have.  i am tired of being scammed. Every agenda started by Progs have never stopped expanding. As one example...it is going to pay to be handicapped soon if it is not all ready. Perhaps that is why half the people on disability are questionable in deserving those benefits. And there are many. From parking lots to cruise ships to hotels, to stores to construction costs to many other  ways of living. And the costs are passed on to the consumer/taxpayer. Who get a big fuck you for not doling out even more.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 3, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> I've heard this tale before ... that the IPCC assumes average cloud cover remains constant with rising temperatures ... they kind of have to or they'd have nothing to report ... if average cloudiness increases then we have a rather profound negative feedback mechanism ... the numbers involved seem to speak to an overwhelming negative feedback ...
> 
> Alas ... this is an insanely difficult thing to measure accurately ... don't confuse these new generation GOES images with anything we have for the past 100 years ... we cannot say at this time whether clouds are increasing or decreasing ...
> 
> ...


The IPCC does not address the cloud issue just as they do not actually address water vapor.

The CERN database is just 22 years old and does not yet contain enough data to make any assertions other than global cloud cover has indeed increased by 0.9% over the last 22 years. Most of that increase has happened in the last 5 years and correlates with the increase of galactic radiation penetrating our lower atmosphere, not the 0.3 Deg C rise which occurred in 2012-2016 due to El Niño events.

Other than a rough correlation nothing can be assumed at this point. The albedo change however, has a very specific and measurable response, which is the premise of the papers energy balance change. A repeatable and verifiable scientifically observed effect.


----------



## evenflow1969 (Feb 3, 2020)

22lcidw said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Ya well mean while conservative bull shit about shit on side walks is going to be true in the very near future. We have to fund the infrastructure changes needed to keep up with the change. What do you think is going to happen to your sewers when they flood.Regardless of the cause the change is hear and is fucking up our infrastructure. Fund fixing it or live with the shit and other issues just around the corner. Most of you say it is not happening but it is, the cause is kinda irregardless when the costs are real. We can debate the cause but the reality is it is costing us money right now and if we do not start keeping up with it it will cost more in the future.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 3, 2020)

evenflow1969 said:


> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> > evenflow1969 said:
> ...


"*Regardless of the cause the change is hear and is fucking up our infrastructure.*"

The failure of engineers to understand our cyclical climate leads to the failure and ability to plan appropriately. Nature leaves massive clues and man has chosen to ignore them, to their own peril. Laying blame where it does not belong, due to abject ignorance, is nothing short of dereliction of duties and a failure of basic engineering tents.


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 3, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> "*Regardless of the cause the change is hear and is fucking up our infrastructure.*"
> 
> The failure of engineers to understand our cyclical climate leads to the failure and ability to plan appropriately. Nature leaves massive clues and man has chosen to ignore them, to their own peril. Laying blame where it does not belong, due to abject ignorance, is nothing short of dereliction of duties and a failure of basic engineering tents.



I'm not sure which infrastructure won't need a major overhaul/rebuilding within 100 years ... these things need constant repair and maintenance ... buildings today will be hovels and need razing long before any of this begins ... 

Today's weather is from today's climate at today's temperatures ... that has nothing to do with these things in the distant future ... several generations from now ...


----------



## Kilroy2 (Feb 4, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I was referring to the topic of this thread

*Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global*

did this paper tell you anything *new* or is this what most scientist already know

The clouds what a mystery, they just float around doing whatever they want to do

positive or negative feedback

obviously one supports the climate hoax whereas the other doesn't

does this story cause the collapse that human  activity has virtually zero impact


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 4, 2020)

More bad news for the climate crusaders who havent been able to generate dick for climate change action for 20 years now!

@www.whosnotwinning.com


----------



## daveman (Feb 4, 2020)

cnm said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Oddly, that doesn't seem to affect the papers linked in the article.
> ...


You're kidding, right?  You complain about my source, then post something from "I Fuckin' Love Science", written by their _social media manager_?

Your article is nothing but a big fat "NUH UH!!"

Dismissed.


----------



## daveman (Feb 4, 2020)

cnm said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > That study, published in Nature, is called, “Intensified East Asian winter monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition.” It states:
> ...


Depends on the strength of the magnetic field during the reversal.

And we're not seeing increased temperatures.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 4, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > "*Regardless of the cause the change is hear and is fucking up our infrastructure.*"
> ...



Understanding your region and its weather patterns allows you to build and maintain things for 100's of years.  The Romans and Mayans understood this and have structures still functioning to this day.  Some of the Mayans aqueducts still deliver water today... that's impressive!


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 5, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures
> ...





cnm said:


> _*Natural News - Media Bias/Fact Check*_
> 
> _A factual search reveals that *Natural* *News* has failed too many fact checks to list here. Overall, we rate *Natural* *News* a Questionable source based on promotion of quackery level pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, as well as extreme right wing bias. This is one of the most discredited sources on the internet._​



Save your breath horsefeathers.  The OP INCLUDED the links to the research.. The monsoon study linked in the OP is a valid study.. This paper with the chart has not been confirmed or picked up by others yet -- but it probably will be...  It's the bias and control of publishing any science CONTRARY to the "popular wisdom" is getting in the way.. 

Rather than researching the source, have you ever considered taking a crack at reading the studies???

same question for you @evenflow


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 5, 2020)

cnm said:


> They were quick to point out what the study is actually based on is unclear, as the paper "provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global temperature," and the document declares the authors do not consider computer models as evidence.



So you whine about sources and then source rebuttal from a biased blog.. That's a head case level of hypocrisy right there.  In the paragraph above "": WHO IS THEY"??? I need names and titles.. And the assertion that "nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global temperature" is laughable.. Physics of cloud cover is well known and your weather forecasts could not BE ACCURATE if it were not...


And then THIS GEM -- """ the document declares the authors do not consider computer models as evidence.,"""

Here is where you show your real ignorance and reliance on blogs rather than THINKING INDEPENDENTLY and without even ATTEMPTING to find the AUTHORS explanation for this statement..

I can TELL YOU (without even reading the paper) why this probably got cherry picked out of their conclusions.

Because the MODELS don't DO monthly cloud correction completely or well.. On SATELLITE, this might be easier, but with the "trumped up" LAND AND SEA BASED temperature data, cloud cover is NOT ACCURATELY reported.. Not from standard NOAA "temperature stations" or sea buoys...

If you're just looking for dismissive propaganda and don't want to invest the time UNDERSTANDING GW science (and it is no harder than reading Scientific American) that's your problem...


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 5, 2020)

daveman said:


> Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures
> 
> *Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures*
> 
> ...




It's great to know.. EXCEPT that paper is not yet published or accepted.. And the other you cited IS published and reviewed, but your naturalSource folks BLEW the analysis of it.. 

It's important to get more eyes on the cloud issues.. The models are sorely lacking in how the Earth's mag field and cosmic radiation interact with surface temps due to clouds...


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 5, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> I've heard this tale before ... that the IPCC assumes average cloud cover remains constant with rising temperatures ... they kind of have to or they'd have nothing to report ... if average cloudiness increases then we have a rather profound negative feedback mechanism ... the numbers involved seem to speak to an overwhelming negative feedback ...
> 
> Alas ... this is an insanely difficult thing to measure accurately ... don't confuse these new generation GOES images with anything we have for the past 100 years ... we cannot say at this time whether clouds are increasing or decreasing ...
> 
> ...



THere's 2 different "forcings" with cloud cover.. During the DAY, they do ABSORB a lot of the spectrum of the sun.. And water vapor when present just overwhelms the CO2 absorption.. That leads to slight surface cooling complicated by the FACT that their coverage is mostly transient and variable. 

*BUT during the day, the same GW "backradiation" is hitting the surface from the "stored" heat energy in the clouds thru optical IR radiation to the surface that compensates for small fractions of lost direct sunlight. Same 24 hr effect for water vapor as for CO2... *

AT NIGHT -- clouds are a DOMINANT surface temp event.. The surface is losing heat ALL NIGHT LONG to the sky, clouds or not... At night, ANY amount of water vapor puts a LARGE damper on the heat loss rate.. So surfaces are storing more heat all night long.. 

The models are not very good at this, because the models ASSUME a rather static and simple cloud parameters.  And the LAND and sea BASED sensor systems that record "weather" don't generally record dynamics of cloud cover..  And the WHOLE DISCIPLINE of CC/GW has been pushing satellite data aside in favor of the 109,000 thermometer approach.. 

And the models don't consider mag field strength or ionization gen of clouds like they SHOULD so this area NEEDS "more light shed on it" ...   LOL....


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 5, 2020)

Kilroy2 said:


> Don't get to excited by a reach paper written by two guys that doesn't even appear to have had a peer review
> 
> But it is making the rounds on the right wing news cites as proof positive
> 
> ...



Sad fact is -- no matter how outrageously flawed or simplified it might be -- any PRO-warming study like that WOULD be published.. ESPECIALLY, if it had the right buzz words in it....


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 5, 2020)

evenflow1969 said:


> Not my fucking job nor my discipline, what I can attest to is that the water is rising due to loss of ice.



Actually about 60% of the last century rise in sea level is simply thermal expansion of the oceans.. (easy for you to confirm that), Not added water.  That's how incredibly small this is.. And just the increase in asphalt and concrete heating of surface run-off over a century would account for a great deal of the local sea level expansion..


----------



## daveman (Feb 5, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures
> ...


Finally.  A rational response.  One that isn't NUH UH!!  

There are far more variables to climate than just how much American coal and SUV CO2 is in the atmosphere.  Well, for real science.  For climate "science"...those other variables don't matter.


----------



## Dick Foster (Feb 5, 2020)

To the gutless and nameless mod who deleted my post in this thread supposedly for the following reason "Reason: way too much personal flaming or jousting without topical discussion" . I call BULLSHIT! 
I pointed out that the real evidence of global warming was crap simply because of low lying coral atolls that I've personally visited in the early 70s remain high and dry today and I named them for others to look up on Google maps themselves.
If you don't have the guts or the balls to fight fair or present up your own evidence, then fuck you and fuck off.


----------



## Andylusion (Feb 5, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures
> ...



(translation)
SCIENCE SCHMIANCE!  We don't need all that research and data crap!  We're destroying the planet, and we need socialism to fix everything!


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Feb 5, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> Insane. We are destroying this planet. For thousands of other species who are endangered. This is happening in South America, the rain forests.[/qute]
> 
> he just showed you that is not the case you broken record you
> 
> ...


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 5, 2020)

Dick Foster said:


> To the gutless and nameless mod who deleted my post in this thread supposedly for the following reason "Reason: way too much personal flaming or jousting without topical discussion" . I call BULLSHIT!
> I pointed out that the real evidence of global warming was crap simply because of low lying coral atolls that I've personally visited in the early 70s remain high and dry today and I named them for others to look up on Google maps themselves.
> If you don't have the guts or the balls to fight fair or present up your own evidence, then fuck you and fuck off.



*Since you brought this up even though the rules state that "discussing specific mod actions outside of PM" is not legal ---  I'm gonna illustrate here WHY we ask members to CONTACT moderation if they have beefs with SPECIFIC actions... We just don't like to confront member complaints with an audience present... We in NO WAY are out to embarrass anyone publicly... But you continued this by opening a whole 'nother thread about it.. 

I hate doing this in the open but let me address your gripe... I deleted about 8 posts in this thread because they were 100% personal abuse and bickering "with no topical content"... THat's the key to understanding how USMB work..  We don't care if you bicker or flame as long as the TOPIC is PRIMARY to every post... 

So about at Post 48 you posted this content.. It's the TOTAL content of that post.. *

*



			Go fuck your self piece of shit! you are a lying sack of shit!
		
Click to expand...

  and a 2nd one.. 




			Well at least we all know one idiot, YOU. LOL
		
Click to expand...


That's not legal content because the TOPIC wasn't in there anywhere.. *

*And now you KNOW WHY we should continue this in PM like the rules suggest... 

Also -- don't REPLY to this post..  It's as uncomfortable for me as it is for you.. That's also in the rules. PM me or any other mod(s) you wish to continue your complaint... 

If you understood the simple ass rules that allows almost ALL content, we wouldn't be meeting like this... 
*


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 6, 2020)

Same shit we saw from Lindzen, and consequently falsified.


----------



## Likkmee (Feb 6, 2020)

This message brought to you by British Petroleum. Thanks for listening.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 6, 2020)

UAH Global Temperature Update for January 2020: +0.56 deg. C «  Roy Spencer, PhD


----------



## Likkmee (Feb 6, 2020)

OMG ! Its .5726489 C hotter at my house than it was last wednesday ! The coffee is burning up !


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 6, 2020)

Likkmee said:


> OMG ! Its .5726489 C hotter at my house than it was last wednesday ! The coffee is burning up !



Horsefeathers ... that's only 0.572648*7* ºC hotter ... if hyperbole is all you have, then you ain't got nothin' ...


----------



## Likkmee (Feb 6, 2020)

Hey. It matches the chart so it's all I got. If it warms up a little more my avocados will ripen a bit quicker


----------



## justoffal (Feb 6, 2020)

Oddball said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures
> ...



Clearly since they are white clouds and not black clouds the whole thing must be racist.

Jo


----------



## justoffal (Feb 6, 2020)

waltky said:


> I've noticed in the summertime...
> 
> ... it's cooler when it's cloudy.



RACIST!

JO


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 6, 2020)

Old Rocks said:


> Same shit we saw from Lindzen, and consequently falsified.



It's not shit.. But that one paper cited is also "not climate".  That graph is a 20 year period.. Which makes it "weather"... Because the GW signature in a 20 year period is only about 0.26DegC and that would be hard to find.. Even El ninos have a 3 year overwhelming effect over the GW "signal" we are looking for..  Unless of course, you use the NOAA based temperature chart for the public where the El Ninos just mysteriously DISAPPEAR !!!!!   

SO -- I'd be CURIOUS if anyone could extend that analysis to a 60 or 100 year period..  But I DOUBT IT.. Because outside of the satellite era, there's not enough "cloud thickness" or temporal data to do it right.

Wonder why the study ends in 2009 or so??  There's a LOT of questions. And the paper is premature..

THE OTHER paper quoted is ALSO weather -- IS published in Nature and reviewed, and LEAPS to a freaking similar conclusion.. I'd need to read it whole to find out what induced them to state that clouds DOMINATE climate. Also a bunch of monsoon data there that just doesn't really interest me...


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 6, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


I bet the scientific community and the scientific consensus disagrees with you.


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 6, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



What exactly was in that post that "the scientific community disagrees with me"??? 

We can fix most of your "important" misconceptions, but more importantly, why is this personal?  Can you not discuss the issue??


----------



## bluzman61 (Feb 6, 2020)

Likkmee said:


> Hey. It matches the chart so it's all I got. If it warms up a little more my avocados will ripen a bit quicker


MY avocados have been ripe for many, many years.  And they get REALLY ripe if I don't wash them for a couple days!


----------



## mamooth (Feb 7, 2020)

There's another detailed debunking here:

Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming

Needless to say, no denier will read it. And can you blame them? They want to avoid pain, and looking at sources that disagree with their religion causes them physical pain due to the cognitive dissonance.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 7, 2020)

HenryBHough said:


> Meanwhile newspapers in The UK (except in Communist Wales) are warning about the impending mini ice age:
> 
> Weather warning: Earth could be hit by MINI ICE-AGE as Sun ‘hibernates’
> 
> ...



Your religion has been predicting that new ice age non-stop for over 40 years now.

Yet that ice age never arrives, and it never will arrive.

Your religion gets every prediction wrong, every time, yet you still stay devoted. I suppose if you look at it one way, the purity of your religious faith is kind of touching.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 7, 2020)

SSDD said:


> Computer models lacking repeatable, empirical verification are not evidence..



And yet all of the deniers here are so very excited about the awesome new model presented in that "paper". Can you explain the inconsistency?

Oh, I see. Models are good if they agree with your beliefs, and models are bad if they disagree. I'm glad we cleared that up.

We know how this ends, in the same way every other denier "paper" kerfluffle has ended. The world keeps on warming strongly, despite the denier protestations that it can't be possible.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 7, 2020)

daveman said:


> There are far more variables to climate than just how much American coal and SUV CO2 is in the atmosphere.



And you new "study" examines _one_ of them, and completely ignores every other factor.

So, by your own standard, your new study is garbage. I'm glad we settled that.


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 7, 2020)

mamooth said:


> There's another detailed debunking here:
> 
> Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming
> 
> Needless to say, no denier will read it. And can you blame them? They want to avoid pain, and looking at sources that disagree with their religion causes them physical pain due to the cognitive dissonance.



I must not be a denier then, because I reached similar but less rabid and exaggerated conclusions about the unpublished paper just a few posts ago..  Just sayin'.... 

Maybe my "debunking" was even more fundamental and useful...


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 7, 2020)

mamooth said:


> And yet all of the deniers here are so very excited about the awesome new model presented in that "paper". Can you explain the inconsistency?



Probably not.. But apparently YOU cant detect the difference between modeling and just massaging empirical data...


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 8, 2020)

Relative humidity isn't changing ... the air just above the oceans is at 100% or quickly gaining water vapor to be 100% ... temperature has *no* effect on this ... simple physics ... so that's one important climate parameter that's not changing with global warming ... 

What does change is absolute humidity ... the mass of water vapor in at 100% RH increases with increasing temperatures ... and as they say, what goes up must come down, thus we'll have a warmer and wetter future and rainfall rates will be increasing ...

The bad news is with such a trivial increase in temperature (2ºC over 100 years), we'll only see a trivial increase in fresh water supplies ... no where even close to the fresh water we'll need then, but it will be some extra water ... that's a benefit of global warming ... more rain ...


----------



## daveman (Feb 8, 2020)

mamooth said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > There are far more variables to climate than just how much American coal and SUV CO2 is in the atmosphere.
> ...


That's nice.  Go play.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 8, 2020)

fncceo said:


> "I've looked at clouds from both sides now..."


Mods, please move to conspiracy theory section or the rubber room.


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 8, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > "I've looked at clouds from both sides now..."
> ...



I think the members all did a FINE job of handling this.. Not for moderation staff to be "truth checkers".. That's YOUR job... 

ANd by that I mean independent thinking, not just looking for crappy critiques on your browser...


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Feb 9, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> I think the members all did a FINE job of handling this.. Not for moderation staff to be "truth checkers".. That's YOUR job...
> 
> ANd by that I mean independent thinking, not just looking for crappy critiques on your browser...


I think "fort fun indiana" may have a point even if it was unintentional, move all climate change threads [pro and con] to the "conspiracy or rubber room" forums where they belong.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 9, 2020)

mamooth said:


> There's another detailed debunking here:
> 
> Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming
> 
> Needless to say, no denier will read it. And can you blame them? They want to avoid pain, and looking at sources that disagree with their religion causes them physical pain due to the cognitive dissonance.


H2O is a far more potent GHG than CO2. In fact, the AGW Bible, "Earth in the Balance" claims that CO2 drives water vapor that is responsible for the warming


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 9, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...


Nah, you're providing over. On any other scientific topic about which such a ridiculous, deviant thread was started, it would have been moved immediately. But, I guess I get it. It's a political message board.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 9, 2020)

Frankeneinstein said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I think the members all did a FINE job of handling this.. Not for moderation staff to be "truth checkers".. That's YOUR job...
> ...


Then no, you missed the point.


----------



## daveman (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


"Deviant"?

Spoken like a true cultist.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 9, 2020)

daveman said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Yes, deviant. Deviant from the evidence and the consensus. No different than evolution denial, in that respect. These specious appeals to emotion are all you have. You certainly don't have the evidence on your side.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2020)

The consensus has no evidence...they only have consensus...that it why when we skeptics ask for evidence, you guys start talking about consensus as if that were evidence.


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, deviant. Deviant from the evidence and the consensus. No different than evolution denial, in that respect. These specious appeals to emotion are all you have. You certainly don't have the evidence on your side.



I'd like to see your evidence of climate change ... pick any point on the Earth's surface, tell us what the climate was 100 years ago, what the climate is today and what you expect the climate to be in 100 years ...

If all three answers are the same ... then climate isn't changing ...


----------



## daveman (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


You do know science doesn't work by consensus, right?  I know that goes against your dogma, but it's true.  

Oh, and speaking of appeals to emotion:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: We’re All Going To Die From Climate Change

“The Official Lid List Of Stupid Things Blamed on Climate Change:”


Arab spring
Incredible shrinking sheep,
Destruction of Afghan poppies 
Invasion of jellyfish in the Mediterranean
A surge in fatal shark attacks
Boy Scout tornado deaths,
Severe acne,
Global conflict,
Beer tasting bad
Better Beer
The suicide of farmers in Australia,
End of the American Dream
Bigger tuna fish,
Fish shrinkage
Longer days,
Shorter days,
The collapse of gingerbread houses in Sweden,
Cow infertility,
UFO sightings in the UK,
Shortage of Hookers in the UK
A rise in insurance premiums,
Heroin addiction
Bear attacks in Japan 
Frigid Cold Winters in Great Britain
Cancer
Death from heart disease, diabetes, stroke, respiratory disease, and even accidents,
Homicide, suicide
Coffee from Uganda
Doggie Depression
Waterborne disease outbreaks
Bad relations with Russia 
A decline of Circumcision in Africa
Heavier, wetter snowstorms treacherous for travel and ambulation, 
Lyme disease, swarms of allergy-inducing, stinging insects, along with mosquitoes and devastating pine bark beetle infestations and the spread of forest and crop pests  
Tigers eating people 
Fewer geese
40,000 dead crabs
Shorter, higher pitched frog mating calls in the Middle East.
Screwed-up love-making,
The Japanese earthquake-tsunami,
A horrible rash of tornadoes in the southeast United States,
Extended  severe allergy seasons, Lyme disease, malaria or dengue fever, trauma, depression, high blood pressure, and heart disease,
Eye Disorders.
An Increased threat of wars, violence and military action against the UK. 
Migration of possibly rabid Vampire bats from Mexico, 
Extreme weather, disappearing islands and less productive workdays
Giant Snakes
Armed robbery, prostitution, and drug abuse in Ghana will make you go nuts,
The rise of terrorist group Boko Haram 
Caused the Seychelles snail to go extinct it’s alive and well), 
Rock Snot
Increase anxiety, fear, and depression
Expensive Olives
Cannibals 
No more red-haired people, women will become pear-shaped, incontinent, impotent bald guys with extra hair growing from his toes. 
Global Cooling
The sinking of The Titanic 
Illegal Immigration  
Prostitution
ISIS 
Walrus “Convention” 
Shrinking Goats
Diabetes
Brexit
It will make us crazy
You probably should just stop now.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 9, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> I'd like to see your evidence of climate change ...


Then you are a fool. If you wanted to learn about a cutting edge cancer treatment, would you find a nonscientists on an anonymous message board to learn about it? No. The politicization of this topic has warped your brain, causing bizarre behavior.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 9, 2020)

daveman said:


> You do know science doesn't work by consensus, right?


I didn't imply that it does. I said this unpublished paper that failed peer review is deviant from the consensus and the evidence, which produced the consensus. Try to follow.


----------



## daveman (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > You do know science doesn't work by consensus, right?
> ...


Oh, your problem is I've followed this hoax for a long time now.  Climate "science" isn't science, it's a tool for political and economic change.  Always has been.  

And you fell for it.  Sucker!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 9, 2020)

daveman said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


The emotional cackling of uneducated slobs is not compelling.

The 7 month old paper that was spoon-fed to you? It never even went to peer review, as it was so thoroughly and immediately eviscerated.

You should take a moment to try to act like a rational adult and wonder why this is all you have, compared to the mountains of evidence which stand against your silly denial.


----------



## sparky (Feb 9, 2020)

daveman said:


> Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures
> 
> *Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures*
> 
> ...




looney tune sites only lacking>>>


~S~


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Consensus is a Cult word that has no place in science.  We're still testing Gravity and Relativity.  It's beyond lunatic fringe that you Cultists INSIST you're 'science' is 'settled'

Sure, we're still testing relativity, but only because it lacks the AGW "Consensus"


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 9, 2020)

sparky said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures
> ...


True. Natural News is a known dumping ground for all kinds of woo and horseshit.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 9, 2020)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Consensus is a Cult word that has no place in science.


100% wrong and idiotic, obviously. When overwhelming consensus exists, it is indicative of the overwhelming preponderance of evidence. While the strength of a scientific theory is not, itself, decided by consensus, it is a good "symptom" that helps point you in the right direction and should give you pause when claims that deviate from the consensus arise.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Consensus is a Cult word that has no place in science.
> ...



Consensus is a Moonbat Cult word.  All of the Flat Earth Societies had their "Consensus" 

No sane person, and no real scientist ever claimed that the "Science is settled"

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." ... Ottmar Edenhofer, a recent co-chair of the U.N.s IPCC

Save it for you Moonbat True Believers!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 9, 2020)

CrusaderFrank said:


> No sane person, and no real scientist ever claimed that the "Science is settled"


Nor am I. Please pay attention, you are embarrassing yourself.

Anyone and everyone is invited to conduct research and present the results. That includes you. But the research we have shows exactly zero published research that contradicts the current consensus. That's why it is the consensus. The evidence doesn't result from the consensus, ya moron. Stop implying such an idiotic thing.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > No sane person, and no real scientist ever claimed that the "Science is settled"
> ...



Again, "Consensus" is a Cult word.

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." ... Ottmar Edenhofer, a recent co-chair of the U.N.s IPCC


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 9, 2020)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Okay, parrot.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to see your evidence of climate change ...
> ...


Dodge and weave, duck and cover, run and hide...same old response...run, change the topic, engage in some impotent name calling...

let’s see the evidence that convinced you...or are to embarrassed to show just how easily you were fooled?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > You do know science doesn't work by consensus, right?
> ...


So let’s see a published paper, based on empirical evidence that convinces you...or as I suspect, have you never actually looked at a published paper.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



what isn’t compelling is the hysterical hyperventilating handwringing you dupes who can’t even post up the evidence that convinced you engage in.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Consensus is a Cult word that has no place in science.
> ...


Let’s see some the empirical evidence this consensus is based on.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > You do know science doesn't work by consensus, right?
> ...


Can you provide any peer reviewed published material based on empirical evidence published by the consensus which challenges the content of the paper?  No.  Then upon what do you base your claim that the consensus says otherwise?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 9, 2020)

SSDD said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


*"Can you provide any peer reviewed published material based on empirical evidence published by the consensus which challenges the content of the paper?  No." 
*
And that sir is the whole premise in a nut shell.  Not one of these people can show that man has caused anything, while showing that natural variation is ruled out. Most people are ignorant of the facts and the range of natural variation over millennia. The dumbing down of our children is leaving them vulnerable to being attacked and placed as slaves..

I've said it many times, mans impact can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system. The science has not been done and modeling fails 100% of the time to predict anything. A model that is incapable of having long term correlations with observed empirical data means that it is failed and that the model is useless for any purpose.

Modeling failure is the only 'consensus' I can see.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 9, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> And that sir is the whole premise in a nut shell.


To a moron. Nobody has to disprove the claims of others.

But, if you denier morons were paying attention, all the published research contradicts this paper, which was immediately and completely eviscerated within a day by the scientific community. That's why it didn't even go to peer review.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > And that sir is the whole premise in a nut shell.
> ...


Way to go MORON!

You made claims that man was responsible for all the changes we are seeing...

PUT UP OR SHUT UP! The onus is on you to produce the science showing natural variation is not the cause.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 9, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> You made claims that man was responsible for all the changes we are seeing...


False. You made that up, because you are a mental midget that needs to create low hanging fruit for himself 

In reality, I defer to the consensus reached by the experts at IPCC.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > You made claims that man was responsible for all the changes we are seeing...
> ...




You are hilarious!!!

From your answer, you are not a scientist with any knowledge of science.

All you can do is SQUAK.......Consensus....... SQUAK........ Your a damn parrot..

The IPCC admitted it was fake and that the whole thing was a premise to get control over the US.. Its a wealth redistribution scam...  Globalist scum... and a useful idiot is what you are...  Even the IPCC said they could not rule out natural variation.... How did you do it?  Inquiring minds want to know...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > And that sir is the whole premise in a nut shell.
> ...



in case you haven’t noticed, genius, us skeptics are reading the peer reviewed, published literature and we skeptics are the only ones providing peer reviewed literature to support our position.

if you wack jobs were reading the actual science, you probably would be skeptics as well.

let’s see some peer reviewed research based on empirical evidence that challenges the paper. 

I predict that no such posting will be forthcoming...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



he admits to knowing nothing...he chose his side based entirely on his political persuasion.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 9, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> From your answer, you are not a scientist with any knowledge of science.


No, that is an embarrassingly display of poor logic on your part. My answer could stand regardless of whether or not I am, personally, a scientist.

This is just too easy. You deniers are incapable morons.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > From your answer, you are not a scientist with any knowledge of science.
> ...


Your a legend in your own mind.... But that's all...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > From your answer, you are not a scientist with any knowledge of science.
> ...


Only if you can provide some actual science to support your position.  Otherwise your answer is nothing more than the hyperventilating handwaving of a useful idiot expressing what he IMAGINES to be the truth.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 9, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Yes, to your "Alamo" of your little tantrums you go ... it's where you deniers belong...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


All you have is adhominem attacks and squawking like a damn parrot. 

Come on boy!  Grow up and debate with facts... Time to get off the bottle... Does mommy still change your diaper too?

Still waiting for you to produce some facts and real science..


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 9, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> All you have is adhominem attacks and squawking like a damn parrot.


Hmm, no, that's embarrassingly stupid. I also have the consensus and all the evidence that produced the consensus on my side. You have zero published research, a propaganda industry, and your embarrassingly emotional tantrums on your side.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Hysterical, hyperventilating, handwaving of a dupe...nothing more.

prove me wrong by posting some actual science based on empirical evidence that supports your position.

if any such evidence existed it would be inescapable but alas not a sign of it anywhere.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > All you have is adhominem attacks and squawking like a damn parrot.
> ...


There is no evidence...you imagine there is evidence but it doesn’t exist.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > All you have is adhominem attacks and squawking like a damn parrot.
> ...


Name the climate claim and we will bury you with peer reviewed published literature supporting our position.


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> In reality, I defer to the consensus reached by the experts at IPCC.



Book, chapter and verse please ... you've never read the latest IPCC report ... sir ... stop lying ... and even if you did try, you wouldn't understand a word of it ...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > In reality, I defer to the consensus reached by the experts at IPCC.
> ...


He admits to never having read any of the science and that he wouldn’t understand it if he did
His position is pure politics and whether it is right is irrelevant  to him.


----------



## daveman (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Consensus is a Cult word that has no place in science.
> ...


DEATH TO THOUGHTCRIMINALS


----------



## daveman (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > You made claims that man was responsible for all the changes we are seeing...
> ...


You mean you you say what your High Priests tell you to say.


----------



## daveman (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


You're not the first cultist to say non-believers should be killed.


----------



## 22lcidw (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > All you have is adhominem attacks and squawking like a damn parrot.
> ...


We are still here. All the lies after lies after lies designed to tax us to poverty has finally hit a ceiling.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Then no, you missed the point.


no, I got both your point and the unintentional one you made.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 9, 2020)

That "paper" by KAUPPINEN and MALMI made it to #6 on RealClearScience's list of "The Biggest Junk Science of 2019"

6. Paper Claims to Singlehandedly Debunk Human-Caused Climate Change. When two authors claim to "prove" that the conclusion of rigorously gathered climate science is wrong in one fell swoop, there's good reason to be skeptical. When they do so in a paper that isn't peer-reviewed, there's more reason to be skeptical. When you actually read their paper, you realize that your skepticism was entirely warranted.

In a six-page paper published to arXiv earlier this year with scant references, J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi argued that low-altitude cloud cover accounts for all of anthropogenic climate change. The elevation of clouds does significantly affect global temperatures, but it is a complex relationship that scientists are still striving to completely understand.

Kauppinen and Malmi's paper was heavily criticized for not referencing any data, ignoring contradictory data, attacking climate models while creating and touting a flawed one, and incorrectly claiming that carbon dioxide travels from the oceans to the atmosphere, when the opposite is true.​
It got beat, no kidding, by...

*5. Media Touts Terrible Study to Claim That Phone Use Is Causing People to Grow Horns. *

I mean, how much worse can it get?


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Feb 9, 2020)

Olde Europe said:


> That "paper" by KAUPPINEN and MALMI made it to #6 on RealClearScience's list of "The Biggest Junk Science of 2019"
> 
> 6. Paper Claims to Singlehandedly Debunk Human-Caused Climate Change. When two authors claim to "prove" that the conclusion of rigorously gathered climate science is wrong in one fell swoop, there's good reason to be skeptical. When they do so in a paper that isn't peer-reviewed, there's more reason to be skeptical. When you actually read their paper, you realize that your skepticism was entirely warranted.
> 
> ...


Nothing in that post debunks KAUPPINEN and MALMIS claims [even if they really are wrong] in fact your post/"article"  backs them up before it falls all over itself trying to pretend the only fact posted can't be "fully" verified.


> The elevation of clouds does significantly affect global temperatures, but it is a complex relationship that scientists are still striving to completely understand.


TRANSLATION: The climate change scammers are having trouble trying to dismiss this fact and have not yet found anything convincing enough to pretend otherwise.

not sure what you meant by: "It got beat, no kidding, by"... but even if those denying climate change are wrong the fact that it fell just behind/ahead of this:
*



			5. Media Touts Terrible Study to Claim That Phone Use Is Causing People to Grow Horns.
		
Click to expand...

*That's a red flag that should tell you that you only posted a hit piece and not a rebuttal.
If you find the above more believable than "climate change isn't real" then you must understand how easy it is to fool you [and the author of your post for that matter] and to get you to believe in something like climate change would be mere childs play.


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



*Go find me examples of science threads that got moved to Conspiracy theory that weren't sourced from InfoWars or "EndTimes" websites..  And then PM me to prove your point here...*


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 9, 2020)

Frankeneinstein said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > That "paper" by KAUPPINEN and MALMI made it to #6 on RealClearScience's list of "The Biggest Junk Science of 2019"
> ...



All that 3rd party analysis pro and con misses the point that analyzing ONLY the cloud data from the satellite era (K & M paper used only TWENTY YEARS) -- is NOT CLIMATE... That's the nail in that coffin.. But it's INTERESTING because it confirms that clouds are a very LARGE POTENTIAL negative feedback on GW if atmospheric humidity increases are a PRODUCT of GW.... 

Proving "cloud thickness/prevalence" data for the past 200 years contributes to GW slight increase in surface temp is probably not even possible.. And there's no good "historical proxies" to used for cloud cover... 

Paper is still science.. It's misunderstood and MISUSED by a LOT of people...


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 9, 2020)

Olde Europe said:


> Kauppinen and Malmi's paper was heavily criticized for not referencing any data, ignoring contradictory data, attacking climate models while creating and touting a flawed one,



Amateur hour all 'round here with the "modeling" herring.. I don't believe there was ANY MODELING going on in the K & M paper..  Just enough data prep on ACTUAL DATA to cover 20 years... 

I'd stop reading any hit piece opinion that didn't understand the proper use of the term modeling.. Authors did not ATTEMPT to build a model to forecast the future or the past. They assembled 20 years of cloud cover data to show the OBVIOUS "weather related" connection between clouds and cooling .. Which COULD be a factor in a very large NEGATIVE feedback on GW -- but probably can not be proven... 

And they DID reference specific data sets. Just not ENOUGH of it to leap to conclusions about GW.. In fact MANY papers have done the same thing.. One on "monsoon data" was even linked in this Opening Post and somehow (I haven't read it) they ALSO lept to conclusions bigger than their study.. But THEY got their shit published in the Journal of Nature...


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 9, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



And you missed the NUANCE and HUMOR in his statement...


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Feb 9, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> All that 3rd party analysis pro and con misses the point that analyzing ONLY the cloud data from the satellite era (K & M paper used only TWENTY YEARS) -- is NOT CLIMATE... That's the nail in that coffin.. But it's INTERESTING because it confirms that clouds are a very LARGE POTENTIAL negative feedback on GW if atmospheric humidity increases are a PRODUCT of GW....
> 
> Proving "cloud thickness/prevalence" data for the past 200 years contributes to GW slight increase in surface temp is probably not even possible.. And there's no good "historical proxies" to used for cloud cover...
> 
> Paper is still science.. It's misunderstood and MISUSED by a LOT of people...


Well, lets not drift away from the point [and sub point] of my post which was that O.E.'s post did nothing to debunk the K&M piece [that is true even if the piece is incorrect] and the only thing the piece did was agree with K&M on the only fact concerning CC which is my point. [and if the cloud cover claim is bogus then the "hit piece" is even less credible since it agrees at least in part]. 

the sub point being that which proves the gullibility of anyone believing that denying CC is on a par with growing horns from using cell phones, who would believe that? the only ones would be those who believe in climate change.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 10, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Kauppinen and Malmi's paper was heavily criticized for not referencing any data, ignoring contradictory data, attacking climate models while creating and touting a flawed one,
> ...



You know, Flac, "clouds control the earth's climate" may be simplistic, and is most assuredly wrong, but it's a climate model.

Moreover, attributing to clouds a cooling effect when you yourself pointed out that it isn't that simple, particularly at night, should give you an understanding that the two laughable goofs authorizing that "study" didn't even begin to understand the complexity of the goings-on.

As to "hit piece"... it's RealClearScience, a sidekick of RealClearPolitics, an ultra-conservative enterprise, but one with some standards.  You should have clicked on the link to find several links to other articles debunking Kauppinen and Malmi's paper.  That's what links are for, aren't they?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2020)

Olde Europe said:


> That "paper" by KAUPPINEN and MALMI made it to #6 on RealClearScience's list of "The Biggest Junk Science of 2019"
> 
> 6. Paper Claims to Singlehandedly Debunk Human-Caused Climate Change. When two authors claim to "prove" that the conclusion of rigorously gathered climate science is wrong in one fell swoop, there's good reason to be skeptical. When they do so in a paper that isn't peer-reviewed, there's more reason to be skeptical. When you actually read their paper, you realize that your skepticism was entirely warranted.
> 
> ...



How about showing us some of this peer reviewed, consensus science, supported by empirical evidence which contradicts the paper.  

By the way...failing climate models are only evidence that climate science is poor at modeling....modeling is fine so long as the results are consistent with observations and measurements...a long standing problem for climate science modelers.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 10, 2020)

Does IPCC track cloud coverage?  If a .00001% change in CO2 can end all life on Earth, are there any similar studies for H2O? If not, why not?


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 10, 2020)

Olde Europe said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...



The hell it's a model... It's a leap to conclusions not in evidence in their work... A "model" would be built to PREDICT performance and show some quality control about "hindcasting" the past.. 

Leaps to CONCLUSIONS are a HALLMARK of GW/CC papers... Like the leap to the conclusion that Mann et al "likely" proved there was close to ZERO variability in climates of the past and THIS 80 year current minor blip in temperature rise is therefore UNPRECEDENTED in magnitude and rate for the near past future of the Earth.. 

THAT'S a leap SO LARGE -- he's likely still in traction in some nursing home somewhere...  

LEAPS are what it takes to SELL your work.. It's the stuff that gets to the press that just isn't PROVEN in your paper.... 

I don't like 3rd party assessments of technical papers.. If I catch them inventing stuff not in evidence, I go READ the actual work and form my OWN opinion...


----------



## mamooth (Feb 10, 2020)

CrusaderFrank said:


> H2O is a far more potent GHG than CO2. In fact, the AGW Bible, "Earth in the Balance" claims that CO2 drives water vapor that is responsible for the warming



No, it doesn't. Where do you get this nonsense? Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. This is basic stuff, and you fail hiliarously at it. Most middle school students are much better at the science than you are.

And why do you consider Gore's book to be a Bible? That's just more loopy cult behavior from you. We rational people look at actual science. Don't assume we think and act like you, because we don't.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 10, 2020)

daveman said:


> You're not the first cultist to say non-believers should be killed.



So you're proud of your open death wish towards non-cultists now?

After all, you are the only person here who keeps raving about killing non-believers for thoughtcrimes. You sound like a cult psychopath. You might want to tone that down. Sure, we know you feel that way, but it's best if you don't say it out loud.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 10, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> Leaps to CONCLUSIONS are a HALLMARK of GW/CC papers... Like the leap to the conclusion that Mann et al "likely" proved there was close to ZERO variability in climates of the past and THIS 80 year current minor blip in temperature rise is therefore UNPRECEDENTED in magnitude and rate for the near past future of the Earth..



It's hard to tell what that was about. It kind of looks like the old "We can't be absolutely 100.0000% positive that some unknown natural magic didn't cause sudden wild temperature fluctuations in the past which the proxies couldn't spot, therefore we must assume such natural magic exists" illogical argument..

The "natural magic" theory could get some credibility if it explained the current stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation and decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands, which all have no natural explanation. AGW theory does explain all of the observed data, and it is the simplest theory to do so. Mr. Occam has something to say there about how the simplest theory which explains all of the data is most likely to be correct.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 10, 2020)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Leaps to CONCLUSIONS are a HALLMARK of GW/CC papers... Like the leap to the conclusion that Mann et al "likely" proved there was close to ZERO variability in climates of the past and THIS 80 year current minor blip in temperature rise is therefore UNPRECEDENTED in magnitude and rate for the near past future of the Earth..
> ...



What is the high and low temperature in the city of Seattle on August 12 2043?

Surely your incredible climate and emission models are that good!


----------



## mamooth (Feb 10, 2020)

Sunsettommy said:


> What is the high and low temperature in the city of Seattle on August 12 2043?



I don't know.

Since I have no idea why you asked such a bizarre question, please explain why you asked such a bizarre question. That is, state your point directly and clearly. Assuming that you had a point, and you weren't just trolling.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 10, 2020)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > H2O is a far more potent GHG than CO2. In fact, the AGW Bible, "Earth in the Balance" claims that CO2 drives water vapor that is responsible for the warming
> ...


Bwahahahaha hilarious!! The "we don't need to stinking scientific method" Cult tries to lecture on science!

Your "Settled science" is a fraud, biggest fraud ever


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 10, 2020)

mamooth said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > What is the high and low temperature in the city of Seattle on August 12 2043?
> ...



I was being sarcastic...



You are in the climate kook club supporting bizarre far into the future climate modeling scenarios, where you accept data free conclusions of climate predictions/projections to year 2100. They are the following, untestable, unverifiable and pseudoscience junk. 

You are a confirmed hater of The Scientific Method paradigm.

Cheers....


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Feb 10, 2020)

cnm said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Oddly, that doesn't seem to affect the papers linked in the article.
> ...


ROTFLFMAO!

the climate Deniers just trolled themselves...again!


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Feb 10, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


I like your last sentence..it's the hallmark of an ordered and mature mind. Not a lot of that around..at any time.

I took a long look at the paper in question...checked out the professional reputations of the authors....and gave it some thought.

It appears to be one of those 'intuitional' hooks. it sounds good. But where is the supporting research? Why is the premise not presented in a holistic model..that at least tries to give the 'data' and the idea context?The peer reviews are scathing--and not in a good way.  I too, am skeptical..and i know nerds..being a card-carrying member--Citing your own papers is a bit tacky..but citing yourself in an unpublished study to bolster your argument..is suspect.

To me..the defining point was when I traced its spread on the net..as some had already done. Odd how Russia, of all places..seems to be the virtual epicenter..going from there to extreme right wing conservative sites and hence into social media.

I think that it's bad science at best...and deliberate disinformation at worst.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 10, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> Leaps to CONCLUSIONS are a HALLMARK of GW/CC papers... Like the leap to the conclusion that Mann et al "likely" proved there was close to ZERO variability in climates of the past and THIS 80 year current minor blip in temperature rise is therefore UNPRECEDENTED in magnitude and rate for the near past future of the Earth..



You will not let go of that nonsense, right?  We are not in an 80 year blip.  We are in a blip of thousands, if not tens of thousands of years, for that is how long it is going to take to absorb the carbon we've pumped, and are going to pump, into the atmosphere, for the increased temperatures to go back to pre-industrial levels, to reduce the sea levels to prior levels, and whatever other attendant consequences there are for weather patterns, fauna or flora, or are going to be.

And that means, yes, what we are inflicting on earth is unprecedented, and if anything like it happened before during the last tens of thousands of years, it would have shown up in even a record of 500-years intervals.  But it doesn't.  Is there any chance you are going to understand that?  Really...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 10, 2020)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Why is the premise not presented in a holistic model..


Because the climate is chaotic and can not be modeled accurately, ever! We're smart enough to understand that...

What I find hilarious is the earths cyclical patterns are well known and yet you AGW nutters want to believe a model that can not replicate reality...  Yet the activity seen is well within natural variation bounds.... GO figure...


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Feb 10, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > Why is the premise not presented in a holistic model..
> ...


Hmmm...a model need not be definitively predictive. It's just a tool. I know the climate is chaotic..after all, whole fields of mathematics have been invented just to study it. still, enough time and you can get a baseline--draw a few conclusions.

You seem so caught up in the political kerfuffle..that you don't think to believe your senses. There is observable evidence that things are getting warmer. Heat=energy--thus more powerful storms and extremes in temp. The why of it..except to you guys that like to brangle, is irrelevant..things are changing..so it's time to adapt to the change. Human exacerbated or no.

I doubt that I'm any kind of 'nutter'....unless pragmatism is a mental defect.

You, on the other hand....


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 10, 2020)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> I know the climate is chaotic..after all, whole fields of mathematics have been invented just to study it. still, enough time and you can get a baseline--draw a few conclusions.



Climate is complex (lots of interrelated variables), but not chaotic.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Feb 10, 2020)

Olde Europe said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > I know the climate is chaotic..after all, whole fields of mathematics have been invented just to study it. still, enough time and you can get a baseline--draw a few conclusions.
> ...


My bad..i used the term mathematically. Climate is not weather..and statistical predictions can be made..but there is an innate unpredictability in the phenomena the climate produces..weather.  Lorenz was right about weather..he overstepped on climate...but not by much.

Edward Norton Lorenz - Wikipedia
Chaos theory and global warming: can climate be predicted?

_Lorenz (1963), in the landmark paper that founded chaos theory, said that because the climate is a mathematically-chaotic object (a point which the UN's climate panel admits), accurate long-term prediction of the future evolution of the climate is not possible "by any method". At present, climate forecasts even as little as six weeks ahead can be diametrically the opposite of what actually occurs, even if the forecasts are limited to a small region of the planet.' (Christopher Monckton)_

_One of the defining traits of a chaotic system is 'sensitive dependence to initial conditions'. This means that even very small changes in the state of the system can quickly and radically change the way that the system develops over time. Edward Lorenz's landmark 1963 paper demonstrated this behavior in a simulation of fluid turbulence, and ended hopes for long-term weather forecasting._

_However, climate is not weather, and modeling is not forecasting. 

Although it is generally not possible to predict a specific future state of a chaotic system (there is no telling what temperature it will be in Oregon on December 21 2012), it is still possible to make statistical claims about the behavior of the system as a whole (it is very likely that Oregon's December 2012 temperatures will be colder than its July 2012 temperatures). There are chaotic components to the climate system, such as El Nino and fluid turbulence, but they all have much less long-term influence than the greenhouse effect.  It's a little like an airplane flying through stormy weather: It may be buffeted around from moment to moment, but it can still move from one airport to another.

Nor do climate models generally produce weather forecasts. Models often run a simulation multiple times with different starting conditions, and the ensemble of results are examined for common properties (one example: Easterling 2009). This is, incidentally, a technique used by mathematicians to study the Lorenz functions.

The chaotic nature of turbulence is no real obstacle to climate modeling, and it does not negate the existence or attribution of climate change._


----------



## daveman (Feb 10, 2020)

mamooth said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > You're not the first cultist to say non-believers should be killed.
> ...


I'm getting real tired of your fucking lies, you fucking liar.  I have never wished death upon warmers.  NEVER.

Either present proof I have, or apologize and then shut the fuck up.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 10, 2020)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...



Yep.  To recap: Weather is chaotic, climate is not.  Not mathematically, and not otherwise.  It's important, not least because it's one attack vector by climate change denialingdongs, to the tune of, "Climate is so chaotic, we can't predict anything.  The scientists' predictions are a hoax, and shall not be believed."


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 11, 2020)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> The chaotic nature of turbulence is no real obstacle to climate modeling, and it does not negate the existence or attribution of climate change.


Too funny;

Never mind our models run hot, can not predict better than 36 hours into the future, and can not predict storms outputs accurately......  just believe......


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 11, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > The chaotic nature of turbulence is no real obstacle to climate modeling, and it does not negate the existence or attribution of climate change.
> ...



Thank you Billy_Bob for answering this ... I hurt my knees I fell laughing so hard ... ouch ...

Global warming is currently reducing turbulence due to lowering of average power in the atmosphere ... storms are becoming less likely ... that's not a change in climate ... severe storms will still occur just at slightly less frequency ...


----------



## mamooth (Feb 11, 2020)

daveman said:


> I'm getting real tired of your fucking lies, you fucking liar.  I have never wished death upon warmers.  NEVER.



And we've never wished death on you. So why do you think it's okay for you to lie about that, and not okay for me to mock you for lying?



> Either present proof I have, or apologize and then shut the fuck up.



How do you justify it to yourself, your constant lying about us supposedly wishing death on people? Do you tell yourself that it's for the greater good, and that God endorses your lying? I've got news for you. God would never tell you to lie.The voice that you're obeying belongs to the other guy.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 11, 2020)

Sunsettommy said:


> I was being sarcastic...



No, you weren't. You were just making crazy stuff up. To qualify as sarcasm, something has to be close to reality. Fantasies are not sarcasm.



> You are in the climate kook club supporting bizarre far into the future climate modeling scenarios,



See? Nobody ever said a climate model could predict daily weather. You just made that up. Your story is isn't attached to reality. Did you make up such a dumb story because you were clueless, or was it deliberate dishonesty?



> They are the following, untestable, unverifiable and pseudoscience junk



No, that's denialism, and it's trivially easy to prove.

Name some realistic hard data that could falsify your denier beliefs. Do it right here.

<crickets>

I've asked this question many times. No denier ever answers. They can't, because there is literally no data that could falsify their beliefs. That places their beliefs firmly in the category of pseudoscience or religion.



> You are a confirmed hater of The Scientific Method paradigm.



In stark contrast to you goofy cult religious beliefs, AGW theory is falsifiable in many ways, putting it in the category of hard science. I suspect that's why you hate it so much. You type hates the age of reason, and seeks to drag us back to the dark ages.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 11, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Book, chapter and verse please ... you've never read the latest IPCC report ... sir


Of course, you don't have to read the entire IPCC report to read the summary, which you might know, if you stepped outside the wingnut bubble for some fresh air once in a while.

Scientists are bending over backwards to put their findings in terms laymen can understand. But you're too busy soothing your self with blogs from paid liars to know it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 11, 2020)

daveman said:


> DEATH TO THOUGHTCRIMINALS


^^

Peak crybaby

Posted a discredited, non-published scientific article, got embarrassed, now it's everyone else's fault....waaaaaahhhhh.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 11, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> And you missed the NUANCE and HUMOR in his statement...


Hmm, no, that goober means it honestly.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 11, 2020)

daveman said:


> You mean you you say what your High Priests tell you to say.


^^

What morons call "the global scientific community".


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 11, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


A thoroughly discredited, non-published research paper is not better a source. So you already made my point for me, thanks.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 11, 2020)

daveman said:


> You're not the first cultist to say non-believers should be killed.


Which, of course, I nevber said, you embarrassing crybaby.

Man, I would think you would be used to embarrassing yourself by no... but, nope, it's a Grade A tantrum, every time....


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 11, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > Book, chapter and verse please ... you've never read the latest IPCC report ... sir
> ...



Okay ... Book of Summaries ... now chapter and verse? ...

I've read the summaries, and you haven't ... they're written for the average laymen, so you wouldn't understand them even if you tried to read them ...


----------



## daveman (Feb 11, 2020)

mamooth said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > I'm getting real tired of your fucking lies, you fucking liar.  I have never wished death upon warmers.  NEVER.
> ...


My goodness, you can't help but lie, can you?

*Climate “Deniers” Must Be Jailed or Killed*

*Professor: Global Warming “Deniers” Should be Executed*

*NYT suggests 'deniers' should be stabbed through the heart – like vampires*

Oh, look.  Warmers suggesting deniers should be killed.  Exactly as I claimed, and exactly as you claimed never happens.

Shut the fuck up, you liar.


----------



## daveman (Feb 11, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > DEATH TO THOUGHTCRIMINALS
> ...


I'm sure that fantasy makes you feel better.  You believe in a lot of fantasies.

Sad, really.


----------



## daveman (Feb 11, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > You mean you you say what your High Priests tell you to say.
> ...


You probably believe that 97% horseshit, too, don't you?  Exactly as you were told.


----------



## daveman (Feb 11, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > You're not the first cultist to say non-believers should be killed.
> ...


"Yes, to your "Alamo" of your little tantrums you go ... it's where you deniers belong..."

What happened to the people in the Alamo?

Hint:  They were all killed.  For believing the wrong thing.  

Leftists can't convince rational people to agree with them, so they want to kill them instead.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2020)

mamooth said:


> [
> 
> The "natural magic" theory could get some credibility if it explained the current stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation and decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands, which all have no natural explanation. AGW theory does explain all of the observed data, and it is the simplest theory to do so. Mr. Occam has something to say there about how the simplest theory which explains all of the data is most likely to be correct.



Sorry hairball...there is no back radiation, and outgoing LW is increasing...you lose every time on that lie because observations say you are wrong.

You need to stop depending on 90's science and start looking at the new research...literally thousands of published papers rejecting the terribly flawed consensus of the 90's since then...and based on empirical evidence....not flawed, failing models.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2020)

Olde Europe said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Leaps to CONCLUSIONS are a HALLMARK of GW/CC papers... Like the leap to the conclusion that Mann et al "likely" proved there was close to ZERO variability in climates of the past and THIS 80 year current minor blip in temperature rise is therefore UNPRECEDENTED in magnitude and rate for the near past future of the Earth..
> ...



I can produce multiple peer reviewed published papers saying that our contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 is quite small...can you produce any peer reviewed, published papers based on empirical evidence which say the opposite?  I kinda doubt it, but by all means, if you can, lets see them.  Most of you warmers have a very skewed vision of the amount of CO2 we produce vs the amount produced by nature.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2020)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...



All your examples are nothing more than business as usual on planet earth...records have been being set in one place or another on a daily basis since we started keeping records.  Name anything in todays climate that even begins to approach the boundaries of natural variability..anything at all...or better yet, provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.  Good luck producing that bit of non existent evidence.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2020)

mamooth said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > I'm getting real tired of your fucking lies, you fucking liar.  I have never wished death upon warmers.  NEVER.
> ...



Check my sig line...crick certainly thinks it would be more expedient to simply kill off skeptics and there are numerous news stories around of you cultist wanting to imprison and kill skeptics...you can't win the debate so your answer is to start killing....typical socialist solution to all those who don't see the emperor's beautiful new clothes...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > Book, chapter and verse please ... you've never read the latest IPCC report ... sir
> ...




Would that be the scientific summary or the summary for policy makers...they say very different things.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 13, 2020)

We still don't fully understand how gravity works, but the AGW Cult is telling us that their 'science' is settled


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Feb 13, 2020)

SSDD said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


I was not aware i provided any 'examples'. You might note that i did not take the AGW stance..nor did I take the natural variability stance either. My point, again, is that for whatever reason..things are changing and that we need to adapt to those changes.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 13, 2020)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...



I live in one of the HOTTEST places in the Pacific Northwest, yet never felt the need to adapt at all, after all being .50C warmer doesn't mean shit to me, or the biology/Botany of the region. The Trees grows just the same, the animals are still there in good numbers, and the fish are just as common in the Columbia River and Yakima River as it has been.

There has been ZERO indication that Climate Change is bad or a danger to the region.


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 13, 2020)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...



Actually a very smart position to take. Because ironically, there are threats to our environment that are cataclysmic that ARE NOT GW... Like asteroids.. Or even more ironically, the example that I use for warmers is that it's only been about 10 years since we found out the portion of Antarctica ice (West coast) were the melting is observed are sitting on giant ACTIVE volcanic fissures... 

Would be a real bitch if we plunge all of the world economies into stagnation trying to mitigate CO2 and SUDDENLY -- we start to see SURFACE ERUPTIONS down there and the "flood threat" is not 50 or 100 years out, but only a matter of years...

My position is -- I accept CO2 as a GHouse gas and man has had a fractional effect on the recent observed warning.. But all of the CATASTROPHIC adjunct theories of "trigger temps" and "all positive feedbacks" and sudden accelerations BEYOND the capability of co2 emissions to warm the planet are not likely...


----------



## mamooth (Feb 13, 2020)

SSDD said:


> Check my sig line...



Everyone is familiar with it. A denier told all rational people to kill themselves, Crick replied sarcistically, and you've been brazenly lying about it for years.

You deniers might think that since you're lying for the GreaterGood, you're earning brownie points with God by lying, but God would never tell you to lie. You're all acting as loyal minions of the Lord of Lies. You should think about that. By letting your butthurt drive you towards bad behavior now, you'll end up being massively butthurt for eternity.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 13, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> Because ironically, there are threats to our environment that are cataclysmic that ARE NOT GW...



Fallacy of the .... somethin'. You're making the false claim that focusing on one threat means all other threats are ignored.



> Like asteroids..



That's right. Nobody even looks at asteroids any more because all the money is spent on AGW. Oh wait, that's a kook conspiracy theory will no basis in reality.

NEO Search Program



> Or even more ironically,



There's irony here, but ironically, it's not in the way you think.



> the example that I use for warmers is that it's only been about 10 years since we found out the portion of Antarctica ice (West coast) were the melting is observed are sitting on giant ACTIVE volcanic fissures...



Completely unrelated to ice melt. First there's your falsie implication that such volcanism is recent (it's not), and then there's your innumeracy, being that the vulcanism would need to be at least 1,000 times bigger to account for the ice melt.

Now, if you have evidence that, within the past 20 years, 1000 hidden volcanoes have suddenly roared into life under the ice sheets, we're listening. Do you have any such evidence?


----------



## mamooth (Feb 13, 2020)

CrusaderFrank said:


> We still don't fully understand how gravity works,



So, by your logic, since we don't know how gravity works, we should assume we know nothing, and stop doing anything that relies on knowledge of gravity. No more rockets, no bridges, no buildings. That would indicate that your standard is profoundly stupid.



> but the AGW Cult is telling us that their 'science' is settled



Non-retards understand that science becomes settled _enough_ to the point where taking action is justified. We reached that point with gravity, or knowing that smoking causes cancer, and we've reached it with climate science.


----------



## Flash (Feb 13, 2020)

This AGW scam gets exposed anytime anybody looks at it.

However, the stupid Moon Bats refuse to pull their heads out of their asses.  They want to believe in this AGW horseshit because it is their religion.  They don't know any more about Climate Science than they know about Economics, History, Ethics, Biology and the Constitution.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 13, 2020)

SSDD said:


> there is no back radiation,



Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, ....

Never mind that you can point an IR spectrometer at the sky and measure the backradation. SSDD here says it's not possible, because it contradicts his religious beliefs.



> and outgoing LW is increasing...



That's peculiar, as it would result in a cooling earth, yet all observations show a rapidly warming earth.

I'm sure your conspiracy websites tell you such crazy things. I'm sure they even reference papers which will actually say the opposite of what the conspiracy websites claim, and that you fall for that fraud hard. After all, you've never done independent research in the past. Each time your conspiracy masters tell you something, you believe without question, and then curse anyone who tries to look for themselves.

However, the actual science says the opposite. Here's a good overview.

The Spectral Signature of Recent Climate Change


----------



## mamooth (Feb 13, 2020)

Flash said:


> This AGW scam gets exposed anytime anybody looks at it.



That's right Flash. The whole planet is plotting against you. It's fortunate for us that you're one of the elite few who understands the RealTruth.

I bet it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling to think of yourself as a genius freedom fighter, right? That's how cults such as yours snooker the weak-minded. They appeal to the inflated egos of the cutlists, telling them how brave and brilliant and special they are for being part of the cult.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 13, 2020)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > We still don't fully understand how gravity works,
> ...


No, you stupid fuck. I never fucking said ANY of that. 

I'm calling you and your Cult out as a complete fucking fraud for 1. Pretending to do science and 2. Insisting your 'science' is settled.


----------



## daveman (Feb 13, 2020)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Check my sig line...
> ...


Post #169, you lying sack of shit.  You can pretend it's not there, but you simply haven't accepted that your beliefs do not alter reality.

Not only are you a liar, but you're a coward, too.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Feb 13, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> I call Bull Shit


just give them your money will ya


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 13, 2020)

mamooth said:


> Never mind that you can point an IR spectrometer at the sky and measure the backradation.




You really are cluelesss....  Please provide proof of the energies point of origin.  First thing you need to do is identify what bandwidth your piece of equipment is using. Until you know what band is registering you dont have a fucking clue as to where it is originating.


----------



## MAGAman (Feb 13, 2020)

waltky said:


> I've noticed in the summertime...
> 
> ... it's cooler when it's cloudy.


Heavy science...


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 13, 2020)

mamooth said:


> That's right. Nobody even looks at asteroids any more because all the money is spent on AGW. Oh wait, that's a kook conspiracy theory will no basis in reality.



Can't reply to all of  your specious arguing here.. For example -- Do you KNOW THE DIFF between mitigating risks and "SEARCHING FOR THEM"?? 

Pretty sure you're clueless on that simple distinction..  To "mitigate asteroid collision" threats, you don't USE telescopes -- You use something like the US Space Force...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2020)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Check my sig line...
> ...



Is there anything in this world you don't lie about hairball?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2020)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > there is no back radiation,
> ...



Sorry hairball...being fooled by instrumentation does not make back radiation real.  Your IR spectrometer is measuring exactly nothing more or less than the temperature changes within its own internal thermopile.  Show me a measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy being measured moving from the cooler sky to the warmer earth made with an instrument at ambient temperature and you will have yourself a measurement of back radiation...till then, all you have is evidence that instrumentation fools you quite easily.


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 14, 2020)

Use photographic film sensitive to 15µm ...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2020)

You have already noted how easily you are fooled...you don't have to keep reminding me.


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 14, 2020)

Look ... you're the moron who rejects field theory ... 200 years of the finest minds humanity has ever produced find no fault ... so what's your bitch? ...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Use photographic film sensitive to 15µm ...



Funny thing about infrared photo paper...it can get fogged from the back as well as the front.  As I said, you have no idea where the IR that is fogging the paper is coming from unless you know that back radiation doesn't happen and the fogging you get is from IR leaving the surface of the earth.  If you don't have a measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from cool to warm made with an instrument at ambient temperature, you don't have any evidence at all of back radiation and you will never get such a measurement because energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm.


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 15, 2020)

SSDD said:


> Funny thing about infrared photo paper...it can get fogged from the back as well as the front.  As I said, you have no idea where the IR that is fogging the paper is coming from unless you know that back radiation doesn't happen and the fogging you get is from IR leaving the surface of the earth.  If you don't have a measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from cool to warm made with an instrument at ambient temperature, you don't have any evidence at all of back radiation and you will never get such a measurement because energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm.



Sir Issac Newton thought force was continuous ... James Maxwell thought force was continuous ... Albert Einstein thought force was continuous ... hell, even Barack Obama thinks force is continuous ... you on the other hand think force is piece meal, comes and goes willy-nilly, that it is _discontinuous_ ... please provide just one peer-reviewed scientific paper that states force can be treated as a discontinuous function ... just one is all I ask ...

I've said this once before ... it doesn't fit your logic so you simply ignore it ... we pack our IR film in dry ice, giving the film and it's holder a temperature of *MINUS* 100ºC ...

This was all discussed at length in the thread "Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics." ... please post your responses there ...


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 15, 2020)

Even if it was the exclusive cause, we cant do dick about it.....

China Is Still Building an Insane Number of New Coal Plants

Fucking duh


----------



## gipper (Feb 16, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


None of this really matters, if you believe the sun novas and the poles reverse. If that happens, we might be done as a species. Maybe this is why the billionaires are looking to exit the planet. 
Solar Micro-Nova in 2046?


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Feb 16, 2020)

gipper said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...


Well..that link is from a year ago..and probably belongs in the conspiracy section...In any event..i seriously doubt that anyone can make a prediction so precise as to the day and the time of such an event. The article spends as much time debunking the idea as it does  being intrigued by it.


----------



## gipper (Feb 16, 2020)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


No. Many legitimate scientists and geologists know polar flips have occurred.  Solar nova is also something many agree with, though it is somewhat more controversial. 

If you are unfamiliar with these subjects, I can tell you they’re not new. You will find numerous articles and videos on the subject. The article I posted is just one, so no need to think it stands alone.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 19, 2020)

SSDD said:


> Sorry hairball...being fooled by instrumentation does not make back radiation real.



And so you're back to the intelligent molecules and photons theory, meaning the laughter starts up again.

Have you made any new converts to the church of the intelligent photons? No? You mean all those years you've spent preaching here have been wasted? That must suck. No wonder you're so bitter. Don't worry, I'm here to help. I'll cheer you up by pointing out how your life _does_ serve a useful purpose.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Feb 19, 2020)

daveman said:


> Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures
> 
> *Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures*
> 
> ...


Natural News - Media Bias/Fact Check


----------



## mamooth (Feb 19, 2020)

gipper said:


> No. Many legitimate scientists and geologists know polar flips have occurred.



And they've never had any effect on climate. The earth just happily sails through each magnetic pole reversal without any catastrophes.

And "Solar Nova"? That's conspiracy babbling from the Electric Universe nutters. Those guys make flat-earthers look sensible. They're almost as loopy as SSDD.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 19, 2020)

SSDD said:


> Is there anything in this world you don't lie about hairball?



If you're not lying about the Crick quote, I'm sure you can point us to the original. But you won't. You know you're lying. Everyone knows you're lying.

Is the gratification that you feel now when you lie really worth an eternity of torment? Remember, when you're roasting in Hell, the liberals will be pwning you for eternity. That's a long time. It would be better if you avoid that fate by gracefully accepting the pwnage now.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 19, 2020)

daveman said:


> Post #169, you lying sack of shit.



Post 169 was about 3 people you found on the entirely of planet earth. That's pathetic on your part, and it of proves my point. Over the entire planet earth, you could only find 3 such people, meaning holy crap, there must be barely any.  Any now you pretend that those 3 people represent all of the billions of rational people on the planet. In terms of being cowardly and dishonest, you've reached new lows. But then, it's what TheParty commands, right?

I personally have gotten far more than 3 deniers wishing for my death, right here on this forum. All the rational people get that when having discussions with deniers. You're a very violent crowd. And you're here running cover for that violence, because you approve of it. As your posts make clear, you kind of get off on thoughts of violence.

Your actions aren't anything new in history. The Nazis spread fake stories about the violent Jews to justify their own violence against Jews. You're operating out of the fascist playbook. The only question is whether you realize that. Are you an active fascist, or just a fascist dupe?


----------



## mamooth (Feb 19, 2020)

CrusaderFrank said:


> No, you stupid fuck. I never fucking said ANY of that



"If we don't have perfect knowledge, we know nothing, so we can't take any action!" is still your logic, even if you're too gutless to admit it.



> I'm calling you and your Cult out as a complete fucking fraud for 1. Pretending to do science and 2. Insisting your 'science' is settled



So again, by your logic, since gravity isn't settled science, we can't take any action in regards to gravity. That's hilariously stupid. In the same way, your stance on climate science is hilariously stupid.

My point is that non-retards understand how perfect knowledge is never possible, and there comes a point when science is settled enough to take action, and that you're a paste-eating retard for failing to understand something so simple.


----------



## mudwhistle (Feb 19, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures
> ...


Why is it your climate change initiatives always exclude the worst polluters because they either have brown or yellow skin??
The countries that suffer are always predominantly white populations??


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 19, 2020)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > No, you stupid fuck. I never fucking said ANY of that
> ...



*... science is settled ...*

It is? ... I'd love to see your math ... a number of us have made good faith efforts to find this and it appears to not exist ... we're waiting ...


----------



## mamooth (Feb 19, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> Can't reply to all of  your specious arguing here..



I'd settle for you replying to my point.

First, quantify the asteroid threat. That is, demonstrate it actually is a threat. Be sure to run a cost analysis. I know, that's a liberal thing, taking money into account, but at least try.

Second, tell us what needs to be done about it.

Third, demonstrate, with something besides "I feel this is true", that it's not being done because some money is spent on AGW research.

If you can do all that, your conspiracy theory will have some merit.



> For example -- Do you KNOW THE DIFF between mitigating risks and "SEARCHING FOR THEM"?



Do you understand that a threat has to be found before it can be "mitigated"? I ask the question because you seem upset about how we're just "searching", instead of "mitigating" a threat that hasn't been found.



> Pretty sure you're clueless on that simple distinction..  To "mitigate asteroid collision" threats, you don't USE telescopes -- You use something like the US Space Force...



Please, tell us about your plan for the Space Force in regards to destroying asteroids. What should we be doing right now? Be specific. Do make sure you take the Outer Space Treaty in account.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 19, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> You really are cluelesss....  Please provide proof of the energies point of origin.



The nearby atmosphere.  You know, what the instrument is pointed out.

Where does the atmosphere get the energy? From all the energy coming into from all around. Up, down, sideways, energy goes in and out in all directions.

Pyrgeometer - Wikipedia

Pyrgeometers are much cheaper and more rugged than IR spectrometers, so that's what's usually used in the field. An IR spectrometer can give you a detailed spectrum, while a pyrgeometer only measures total IR energy between 4.5 uM and 100 uM.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 19, 2020)

mudwhistle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



In a way I'm glad they are manufacturing over there so we aren't breathing it over here.


----------



## basquebromance (Feb 19, 2020)

My friends: Trump should face the reality of climate change, or face the music on election day


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 19, 2020)

basquebromance said:


> My friends: Trump should face the reality of climate change, or face the music on election day



I told Bloomberg to stop talking about climate change.  Talk about other things like only 2.3% economic growth in 2019.  Trump failed us.  All this talk about the economy being great.  It's no better than Obama's economy.  What are the monthly jobs numbers?  They are no better than Obama's numbers.  And Obama didn't have to give away a tax break we couldn't afford.


----------



## mudwhistle (Feb 19, 2020)

sealybobo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Air pollution isn't the problem anymore. 

It's cattle farts, straws, and bottled water.


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 19, 2020)

mudwhistle said:


> It's cattle farts, straws, and bottled water.



Actually, it's cattle belches that emit methane ... comes out their mouths and not their butts ...


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 19, 2020)

mudwhistle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Are you always wrong?

After years of improvement, US *air* quality has gotten *worse* since 2016. The paper finds particulate *pollution* in the United States increased by 5.5 percent between 2016 and 2018, after declining by over 24 percent between 2009 and 2016.

US air quality: Air more polluted since 2016, report finds


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 19, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > It's cattle farts, straws, and bottled water.
> ...



And if you don't like my other source

Although air quality has improved significantly since the 1990s, a new study claims that pollution still causes lung cancer, heart attacks and strokes that kill more than 30,000 Americans a year.

Researchers examined the concentration of fine pollution particles across the country from 1999 to 2015. The particles, which according to the EPA are 30 times smaller than the width of a human hair, come from coal-fired power plants, cars and other sources.

Reducing air pollution could save thousands of lives, researchers say


----------



## daveman (Feb 20, 2020)

mamooth said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Post #169, you lying sack of shit.
> ...


Wait a second...you've had deniers wishing for your death on this forum?

Doubt it, but perhaps you can explain why they represent all "deniers" and the three nutcases I linked are all isolated and don't represent any climate cultists at all.

LOL!  Trick question.  You can't explain it.  

You're dismissed, liar.


----------



## Manonthestreet (Feb 20, 2020)




----------



## mamooth (Feb 21, 2020)

daveman said:


> Wait a second...you've had deniers wishing for your death on this forum?



Dear lord yes. They're constantly calling for me and all rational people to kill ourselves. And just today here, I saw another thread where a denier announced his desire for Al Gore's plane to get shot down.



> Doubt it, but perhaps you can explain why they represent all "deniers" and the three nutcases I linked are all isolated and don't represent any climate cultists at all.



Thank you for proving my point.

You do understand that you proved my point, right?

Possibly not. Let me spell it out for you.

When I was saying how all deniers are violent, I was using sarcasm, mocking your generalization fallacy by reflecting it.

Now you've just admitted that your generalization fallacy is a fallacy, so my point is proven.

I assume that means you'll stop using it, right?

Probably not.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 21, 2020)

The fascinating thing is how most deniers think this _isn't_  a hilariously stupid argument. They actually looked at it and said to themselves "Derpderpderp that's brilliant, I have to share it!".

The mind boggles.

It does illustrate how most deniers just aren't very bright.



Manonthestreet said:


>


----------



## daveman (Feb 21, 2020)

mamooth said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Wait a second...you've had deniers wishing for your death on this forum?
> ...


"Sarcasm".  That's the loser's way of trying to explain their hypocrisy.

Run along now, liar.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 21, 2020)

A joke of an OP.... A thoroughly discreted, debunked research paper that won't even make it to peer review...

How is this joke of a thread still alive?


----------



## karpenter (Feb 21, 2020)




----------



## daveman (Feb 21, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> A joke of an OP.... A thoroughly discreted, debunked research paper that won't even make it to peer review...
> 
> How is this joke of a thread still alive?


Making fun of you misspelling words like "discredited", maybe?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 21, 2020)

daveman said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > A joke of an OP.... A thoroughly discreted, debunked research paper that won't even make it to peer review...
> ...


Well, it could be a typo.  But I can understand how a fool like you still drooling over his hilariously stupid OP might miss that.


----------



## daveman (Feb 21, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Yes.  I should have posted a story from your high priests at the IPCC so I could get your instant and unthinking validation.  

Oh, well.  Some other time, perhaps.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 21, 2020)

daveman said:


> Yes. I should have posted a story from your high priests at the IPCC so I could get your instant and unthinking validation.


That doesn't make sense. Plenty of denier idiots validated you. Which is exactly why you posted this on this site instead of on a university research forum, or a scientific society forum.

You get all rabid and whiny and say very stupid things.


----------



## daveman (Feb 21, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. I should have posted a story from your high priests at the IPCC so I could get your instant and unthinking validation.
> ...


Are you ever going to actually do anything to merit your arrogance?

NOTE:  "Being a leftist" is not an accomplishment.  Sorry if that guts your resume.  

You can report to your high priests that you served them well.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 23, 2020)

daveman said:


> "Sarcasm".  That's the loser's way of trying to explain their hypocrisy.



Pointing out your stinking hypocrisy doesn't make me a hypocrite.

Let's get back to what you're running from. After all, it will cause you run again, and that's always hilarious.

You just admitted that using the generalization fallacy was wrong. So will you pledge not to use it again?

Or will you fail to make that pledge, so you can continue to use the tactic that you've just stated is wrong?

I understand what a bind this puts you in. That was the point of maneuvering you into it. And damn, that was easy. Try to put up more of a struggle next time. Dishonest sleaze like generalization fallacies is all you've ever been capable of. You either have to give up your primary debate tactic, or you have to proudly announce that, according to your own standards, you're going to keep using dishonest tactics.

Sucks to be you. No wonder you're running.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 23, 2020)

daveman said:


> Are you ever going to actually do anything to merit your arrogance?


haha, why is it the most insulting assholes are always the whiniest crybabies?

I defer to the experts. You defer to your AM radio. If "arrogance" is what you want to call that to soothe yourself, be my guest.


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 23, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ... I defer to the experts ...



So you admit having no understanding of the material at hand ... you are simply acting the ape here ...


----------



## daveman (Feb 23, 2020)

mamooth said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > "Sarcasm".  That's the loser's way of trying to explain their hypocrisy.
> ...


You accuse me of that which you do.

You are, in fact, a hypocritical liar.


----------



## daveman (Feb 23, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Are you ever going to actually do anything to merit your arrogance?
> ...


So...haven't done anything, huh?

Not at all surprising.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 24, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> A joke of an OP.... A thoroughly discreted, debunked research paper that won't even make it to peer review...
> 
> How is this joke of a thread still alive?


Still spouting lies....

The only ones discredited are the warmers...  And you still haven't provided ANY empirical evidence to support your position...


----------



## mamooth (Feb 25, 2020)

daveman said:


> You accuse me of that which you do.



No, I highlighted your sleazy behavior by mirroring it back at you. And damn, does that make you blubber.

You've admitted to everyone that the generalization fallacy which you use so often is invalid.

Yet even after being prompted multiple times, you refuse to state you won't use it any more. That means you plan to use it more, even after you've admitted that it's dishonest sleaze.

Since you've so proudly announced your intention to lie to everyone, why shouldn't everyone assume everything you say is a lie?

Oops, too late. They already do.


----------



## daveman (Feb 25, 2020)

mamooth said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > You accuse me of that which you do.
> ...


No, you sniveling lying weasel, I will NOT abandon rational thought and join your cult.


----------



## basquebromance (Mar 2, 2020)

Donald Trump, after consulting with experts (Ann Coulter) and reading scientific journals (Breitbart), and watching the discovery channel (FOX News)...has concluded that climate change is a hoax.

my friends: DONALD TRUMP IS A HOAX! A HOAAAAAAX!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 2, 2020)

Why oh why is this embarrassing, debunked thread still alive?


----------



## daveman (Mar 2, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Why oh why is this embarrassing, debunked thread still alive?


There have been no posts for 6 days until your attention-whoring and virtue-signalling post, dumbass.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 2, 2020)

daveman said:


> There have been no posts for 6 days until your attention-whoring and virtue-signalling post, dumbass


Except the post above mine was posted 17 minutes before mine, you embarrassing little crybaby. Damn son, get your shit together.


----------



## daveman (Mar 2, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > There have been no posts for 6 days until your attention-whoring and virtue-signalling post, dumbass
> ...


Must be some dumbass retard leftist cultist I have on ignore.  

Nevertheless, you keep bumping the thread.  

Are you getting the attention you so desperately crave?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 2, 2020)

daveman said:


> Nevertheless, you keep bumping the thread.


Oops, you just bumped your own thread. Again. A debunked, embarrassing pile of shit thread. You must like embarrassment.


----------



## daveman (Mar 2, 2020)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Nevertheless, you keep bumping the thread.
> ...


I'll let you have the last word.  I know how much it means to you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 2, 2020)

daveman said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Thank you!

This embarrassing thread by an embarrassing climate science denier was prompted by a debunked study that was so thoroughly and publicly debunked within a day of it's release, that it was never even submitted for peer review. 

Any functioning, rational adult might have wondered about the credibility of one, single study that deviated so far from the mountains upon mountains of research that leads to and created the current consensus, and then spent a few seconds on Google to find all this out for himself.

But not Davey, no sir.


----------



## ReinyDays (Mar 4, 2020)

bump


----------

