Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I doubt he's an actual person, more like a busted bot. He seems to just parrot back what he responds to and adds mockery
Best to roll with the flow, cover yer ass.To get back to full scientific consensus, those who have spoken out will now be defunded, cancelled, and sacked.
Can you show us any examples of any of that taking place?To get back to full scientific consensus, those who have spoken out will now be defunded, cancelled, and sacked.
Don't act like you don't believe that would be a good thing. I've read your disparagement of Roy Spencer. It was brutal. You're a fucking climate nazi. Don't try to pretend you wouldn't come in your pants if they defunded the Roy Spencers of the world.Can you show us any examples of any of that taking place?
Spencer deserves disparagement. He has put out data he KNEW to be bullshit on multiple occasions.Don't act like you don't believe that would be a good thing. I've read your disparagement of Roy Spencer. It was brutal. You're a fucking climate nazi. Don't try to pretend you wouldn't come in your pants if they defunded the Roy Spencers of the world.
You are a joke. You disparage him for no other reason than he offers credible opposition to catastrophic AGW. You are anti-science.Spencer deserves disparagement. He has put out data he KNEW to be bullshit on multiple occasions.
I meant exactly what I said. "Spencer deserves disparagement. He has put out data he KNEW to be bullshit on multiple occasions."You are a joke. You disparage him for no other reason than he offers credible opposition to catastrophic AGW. You are anti-science.
“These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models,” said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University. [66]
www.realclimate.org
bbickmore.wordpress.com
bbickmore.wordpress.com
bbickmore.wordpress.com
Character assassination has no place in any scientific debate.I meant exactly what I said. "Spencer deserves disparagement. He has put out data he KNEW to be bullshit on multiple occasions."
August 2005
According to an August 12, 2005 New York Times article, Spencer, along with another well-known “skeptic,” John Christy, admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth’s lowest layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was occurring and the troposphere was getting warmer. [66]
Errors Cited in Assessing Climate Data (Published 2005)
Three scientific studies find inaccuracies in temperature records that are cited by those who claim human-caused global warming poses no threat; new studies find errors in complicated calculations used to generate old temperature records; show that warming trend largely agrees with warmer...www.nytimes.com
RealClimate: How to cook a graph in three easy lessons
RealClimate: These days, when global warming inactivists need to trot out somebody with some semblance of scientific credentials (from the dwindling supply who have made themselves available for such purposes), it seems that they increasingly turn to Roy Spencer, a Principal Research Scientist...
Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
The following is PART 1 of an extended critique of Roy Spencer’s The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists (New York: Encounter Boo…
Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 2
The following is PART 2 of my extended critique of Roy Spencer’s The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists (New York: Encounter Boo…
Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 3
The following is PART 3 of my extended critique of Roy Spencer’s The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists (New York: Encounter Books, 2010). …
How Roy Spencer and John Christy trick Anthony Watts and his deniers once again
Global warming & climate change. Eavesdropping on climate science deniers, their weird pseudo-science and crazy conspiracy theories.blog.hotwhopper.com
Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception
Global warming & climate change. Eavesdropping on climate science deniers, their weird pseudo-science and crazy conspiracy theories.
That's fine science if you live underground.In middle school science class we learn that the heat to raise a gram of water 1C is a calorie. Not the surface of the water but rather the entire mass. It's easy to raise the temp of a surface if we're only talking about the top layer of molecules. However, the mass of the earth is so big that if all the the solar radiation received was absorbed (100% greenhouse effect) it would take 10,000 years for the earth to warm up by just one degree C.
Every AGW advocate I've chatted w/ seems to ignore his middle school science...
Geesus, more copy paste you can’t even understand yourself.View attachment 853778
Note that lame excuses such as "carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere longer" and "water vapor increases with temperature" have zero impact or effect on either the concentrations shown above, or the absorption curves shown in blue and red. Cult followers attempt to corrupt the science by labelling the two gases differently, such as "following" and "leading."
They want you to "follow" their Cult.
Molecules do not react differently based on how long they have been wherever they sit. Does that make the least bit of sense at all, even to a layman?
"Oh, this is old gold and that new gold just arrived so the new gold is (fill in the blank with nonsense)."
Over 1800 scientists have signed the Declaration There Is No Climate Emergency.
. World Climate Declaration There is no climate emergency
You really don’t have a clue what you are posting do you ?View attachment 853778
Note that lame excuses such as "carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere longer" and "water vapor increases with temperature" have zero impact or effect on either the concentrations shown above, or the absorption curves shown in blue and red. Cult followers attempt to corrupt the science by labelling the two gases differently, such as "following" and "leading."
They want you to "follow" their Cult.
Molecules do not react differently based on how long they have been wherever they sit. Does that make the least bit of sense at all, even to a layman?
"Oh, this is old gold and that new gold just arrived so the new gold is (fill in the blank with nonsense)."
Over 1800 scientists have signed the Declaration There Is No Climate Emergency.
. World Climate Declaration There is no climate emergency
I would say the famous one would be Peter Ridd.Can you show us any examples of any of that taking place?
?That's fine science if you live underground.
I would say the famous one would be Peter Ridd.
He might have, but Clauser was never a climate scientist and had retired well before ever expressing any AGW denier sentiments.Did Dr. John Clauser get his speech cancelled?
Noam Chomsky is a linguist and is currently 94 years old.What about Noam Chomsky?
Shellenberger is an author and a public relations professional, not a climate scientist.Michael Shellenberger championed under Obama with renewables, he's seen the light and champions nuclear. Where is he now in the news and democrats?
Was I unaware of what? You have not identified a single instance supporting your initial claim that "To get back to full scientific consensus [among climate scientists on manmade global warming], those who have spoken out will now be defunded, cancelled, and sacked."Were you unaware of this????? Where on earth have you been??
Just wait until AMOC collapses, ya dumb mother fucker.
Peter Vincent Ridd is an Australian physicist, author, and former professor at James Cook University (JCU), North Queensland, Australia. Ridd is known for his participation in a media campaign seeking to discredit the science informing the protection of the Great Barrier Reef.
Great Barrier Reef article
With Piers Larcombe, Ridd wrote an opinion piece in November 2017, published in the January 2018 issue of Marine Pollution Bulletin, challenging the prevailing understanding of the state of the Great Barrier Reef, drawing attention to what he argued was a reproducibility crisis and certain specific papers relating to the state of the Great Barrier Reef, and recommending a new review body for policy science. A viewpoint article in rebuttal was printed in the April 2018 issue of the same journal by Schaffelke et al. Ridd replied in a further article in the June 2019 issue.
Dismissal from JCU
Beginning in April 2016, James Cook University took a number of disciplinary measures over two years against Ridd, which culminated in Ridd being fired, for refusing to take down confidential information which he had placed publicly online. The university denied that the dismissal was over Ridd's views on climate change. Ridd filed two crowdfunded lawsuits, the second over the dismissal.
On 16 April 2019, Ridd initially won the lawsuit, with James Cook University found to be in violation of the Fair Work Act 2009; in September 2019, Ridd was awarded in excess of AU$1 million, together with AU$125,000 pecuniary penalty. While the two parties continue to disagree whether the case related to academic freedom, the ruling judge said the case was "purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an enterprise agreement", although he also stated James Cook University had "not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom". In July 2020, JCU won an appeal against this judgement from the full bench of the Federal Court.[14][15] Ridd appealed to the High Court of Australia, but that appeal was dismissed.
So, Ridd was not a climate scientist and this action had nothing to do with climate science and the last entry in that legal history has him losing his case against Cook University
He might have, but Clauser was never a climate scientist and had retired well before ever expressing any AGW denier sentiments.
Noam Chomsky is a linguist and is currently 94 years old.
Shellenberger is an author and a public relations professional, not a climate scientist.
Michael D. Shellenberger (born June 16, 1971) is an American author and former public relations professional who writes about politics, the environment, climate change and nuclear power, as well as how he believes progressivism is linked to homelessness, drug addiction and mental illness, and more recently the lab leak hypothesis and UFO claims. He is a co-founder of the Breakthrough Institute and the California Peace Coalition. He is also the founder of Environmental Progress.
A controversial figure, Shellenberger disagrees with most environmentalists over the impending threats and the best policies for addressing them. He argues that global warming is "not the end of the world,"[4] and that GMO, industrial agriculture, fracking, and nuclear power are actually important tools in protecting the environment.
His writing on climate change and environmentalism have received criticism from environmental scientists and academics, who have called his arguments "bad science" and "inaccurate". Response to his work from journalists has been mixed. In a similar manner, many academics criticized Shellenberger's positions and writings on homelessness, while receiving mixed reception from writers and journalists on the topic.
Shellenberger ran unsuccessfully for Governor of California in 2018 and 2022.
Wikipedia's article covers several works he published and while many of them received unfavoable responses, I see no instances whatsoever of any censoring him.
Was I unaware of what? You have not identified a single instance supporting your initial claim that "To get back to full scientific consensus [among climate scientists on manmade global warming], those who have spoken out will now be defunded, cancelled, and sacked."
Wow. Cussing. That AMOC is at risk of collapse is something pointed out by climate scientists and is another piece of evidence supporting AGW and the harm that it can cause. What point are you trying to make here?Just wait until AMOC collapses, ya dumb mother fucker.
How could you possibly understand this when you don't even understand how the polar regions are thermally isolated from warmer marine currents in the first place.Wow. Cussing. That AMOC is at risk of collapse is something pointed out by climate scientists and is another piece of evidence supporting AGW and the harm that it can cause. What point are you trying to make here?
And no, it has nothing to do with AGW, dipshit. It happens at temperature and is why we have glacial cycles in the first place. Which you would understand if you understood the importance of the polar regions being thermally isolated. But don't worry this will all come out soon enough when your house of cards collapses. It's going to be epic watching these idiots actually study the paleo-climate history without their CO2 bias.Wow. Cussing. That AMOC is at risk of collapse is something pointed out by climate scientists and is another piece of evidence supporting AGW and the harm that it can cause. What point are you trying to make here?
I just asked you to explain that in another thread. The Arctic Ocean and the Southern Ocean are both in contact with the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. How are they isolated? And why weren't the isolated in the past? When did they switch into the current "unique" configuration? And why doesn't the 50% increase in CO2 have any effect? I'm thinking you're going to say because there's no feedback and then I'm going to have to ask why? Doesn't increasing the Earth's temperature increase the amount of water vapor in the Earth's atmosphere? Isn't water vapor a potent greenhouse gas?How could you possibly understand this when you don't even understand how the polar regions are thermally isolated from warmer marine currents in the first place.
