CO2 Has Almost No Effect on Global Temperature, Says Leading Climate Scientist

[otto105]

I know he wasn't referring to temperature.

So why did he try to hide it?

Hide what?

Geezsus sycophant, get a clue.

 

[otto105]

As I suspected and knew, no experiments, just models

Go ahead and double CO2 in a lab and show us how the cylinder with 560PPM of CO2 is 1.5C warmer than the one at 280. Can you do that?

Have the models presented in the IPCC been correct or false?


Again, no scientific organization presented by a denier.

 

[otto105]

I know he wasn't referring to temperature.

So why did he try to hide it?

Todd, you’re making the assertion without evidence to back the claim.

I provided links which provide the needed evidence to support my assertion.

Why can’t you?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Have the models presented in the IPCC been correct or false?


Again, no scientific organization presented by a denier.

Unless you show that CO2 can raise temperature at these levels, and you can't, they are demonstrably false

 

[otto105]

Unless you show that CO2 can raise temperature at these levels, and you can't, they are demonstrably false

Again, I defer to the scientific evidence provided by the IPCC and Exxon Mobil on subject.

Can you refute those?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Again, I defer to the scientific evidence provided by the IPCC and Exxon Mobil on subject.

Can you refute those?

Can you post this "evidence"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, you’re making the assertion without evidence to back the claim.

I provided links which provide the needed evidence to support my assertion.

Why can’t you?

What assertions?

 

[otto105]

What assertions?

Yeah, as a maga fuckup you don’t have a point.


Thanks

 

[Crick]

Can you post this "evidence"?

ipcc.ch
Look for Reports, then "The Physical Science Basis.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, as a maga fuckup you don’t have a point.


Thanks

Not like Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann, eh?

Mike's Nature Trick, not shady at all.

 

[Crick]

I know he wasn't referring to temperature.

So why did he try to hide it?

Is that what Nobel Prize winners do? Hide inconvenient facts?

Other people had used the exact same technique in other work and it is considered statistically valid.

From the previously quoted Wikipedia article on the CRU email controversy

John Tierney, writing in The New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[36] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context "trick" was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[37][38] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[39]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Other people had used the exact same technique in other work and it is considered statistically valid.

From the previously quote Wikipedia article on the CRU email controversy

John Tierney, writing in The New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[36] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context "trick" was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[37][38] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[39]

Other people had used the exact same technique in other work and it is considered statistically valid.

He wasn't the only liar? Good to know.

The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them

They weren't hiding the issues from the research community? Awesome!
Who were they hiding the issues from?

 

[Crick]

Other people had used the exact same technique in other work and it is considered statistically valid.

He wasn't the only liar? Good to know.

The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them

They weren't hiding the issues from the research community? Awesome!
Who were they hiding the issues from?

Give it up Todd. You've got nothing here but unsupportable speculation. The EVIDENCE shows there was nothing disingenuous taking place. Climategate is a flop because global warming is not a conspiratorial hoax.

Don't you think that if it was a hoax, that thousands of emails and documents would have yielded a little more evidence than these two, 3-word phrases.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Give it up Todd. You've got nothing here but unsupportable speculation. The EVIDENCE shows there was nothing disingenuous taking place. Climategate is a flop because global warming is not a conspiratorial hoax.

Don't you think that if it was a hoax, that thousands of emails and documents would have yielded a little more evidence than these two, 3-word phrases.

You've got nothing here but unsupportable speculation.

Which of my speculations is unsupportable?

The EVIDENCE shows there was nothing disingenuous taking place.

If it wasn't disingenuous, why were they hiding the decline?

Climategate is a flop because global warming is not a conspiratorial hoax.

Climategate showed that the dirty liars were lying.

Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann still owes some court ordered legal fees.
Or is that a hoax?

Where does he keep his Nobel Prize?
Or is that a hoax?

 

[Crick]

You've got nothing here but unsupportable speculation.

Which of my speculations is unsupportable?

That Jones and Mann behaved disingenuously

The EVIDENCE shows there was nothing disingenuous taking place.

If it wasn't disingenuous, why were they hiding the decline?

Because doing so gave both of them a woodie.

Climategate is a flop because global warming is not a conspiratorial hoax.
Climategate showed that the dirty liars were lying.

"Dirty liars"? Does this topic get you emotional?

Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann still owes some court ordered legal fees.
Or is that a hoax?

I wouldn't know.

Where does he keep his Nobel Prize?
Or is that a hoax?

I wouoldn't know.

Give it up here Todd. You've got nothing but unsupportable speculation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That Jones and Mann behaved disingenuously

Because doing so gave both of them a woodie.

"Dirty liars"? Does this topic get you emotional?

I wouldn't know.

I wouoldn't know.

Give it up here Todd. You've got nothing but unsupportable speculation.

Lying liars lie.

And in this case, they got caught.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That Jones and Mann behaved disingenuously

Who were they hiding the decline from?

 

[Dagosa]

There are 25,000 links and you're too stupid to post even one? LOL!

You’re too lazy to check iggy. Did you spoon feed your children till they were 21 goober ? Probably did. You’re a lazy Fk.

 

[otto105]

Not like Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann, eh?

Mike's Nature Trick, not shady at all.

Would anyone take todd over Michael Mann on climate science?


No.



So, there is that.

 

[Dagosa]

Lying liars lie.

And in this case, they got caught.

Sounds like a Trump statement.