Enough is enough - use RICO to restore science respect.

[westwall]

You keep on drinking the SKS boys kookaid...

Here are the facts on CO2 and they dont include a positive reaction by water vapor either.

View attachment 53497

Too funny that you cant produce even basic facts or evidence to support your religious dogma. The graph clearly shows that the warming you folks were screaming about didn't happen and can not happen.. If we had seen a temp rise as illustrated by the 2010 mark you might have had a chance... That just shows how wrong your models are and why they have failed.

How does it feel to be shown how totally wrong you idiots are?

The funny part is you believing you are .

The funny part is that you idiots believe you haven't been proven totally wrong.

Maybe because "we"haven't?
Also you clowns has this habit of premature ejaculations of victory.

Of course you have been proven totally and utterly wrong. You're just too stupid to know it. The empirical evidence proves you wrong every year for the last 20 years.

false

No, it is factual. Every time a claim is made by a warmist it has been found to be false. First it was global warming that was bleaching the corals. Now it is known that sun screen is the culprit. This happens every time one of your claims is actually checked.

 

[daws101]

Let me refute your bull shit with facts..

Legates Et Al...

Funny how Cook and Nuttercellie threw out all but 77 papers because they didn't say what they wanted.. Kind of like Mann throwing out 17 of his trees and keep just the one that appeared to prove him right... Never mind the majority that said his theory was bull shit. Most ethical scientists would have revisited their theroys..

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?


The Empirical Evidence
As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

Ya do know sheep that mars atmosphere is made up of 95% C02

Yes your point?
Making it deadly to all oxygen breathing life .
A few billion years ago so was ours
The only life on earth was an anirobic coral that breathed co2 and produced oxygen insuring it's own distruction.

 

[daws101]

The funny part is you believing you are .

The funny part is that you idiots believe you haven't been proven totally wrong.

Maybe because "we"haven't?
Also you clowns has this habit of premature ejaculations of victory.

Of course you have been proven totally and utterly wrong. You're just too stupid to know it. The empirical evidence proves you wrong every year for the last 20 years.

false

No, it is factual. Every time a claim is made by a warmist it has been found to be false. First it was global warming that was bleaching the corals. Now it is known that sun screen is the culprit. This happens every time one of your claims is actually checked.

Right I"ll consider the source on that little gem.

 

[westwall]

The funny part is that you idiots believe you haven't been proven totally wrong.

Maybe because "we"haven't?
Also you clowns has this habit of premature ejaculations of victory.

Of course you have been proven totally and utterly wrong. You're just too stupid to know it. The empirical evidence proves you wrong every year for the last 20 years.

false

No, it is factual. Every time a claim is made by a warmist it has been found to be false. First it was global warming that was bleaching the corals. Now it is known that sun screen is the culprit. This happens every time one of your claims is actually checked.

Right I"ll consider the source on that little gem.

No, you'll flee like a little coward and ignore factual data that is presented which blows your puerile shit out of the water. You NEVER post factual data. You, like all of your fellow morons, conflate opinion with fact so post opinion pieces all the time thinking they actually mean something.

Face it dude you don't know jack.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Let me refute your bull shit with facts..

Legates Et Al...

Funny how Cook and Nuttercellie threw out all but 77 papers because they didn't say what they wanted.. Kind of like Mann throwing out 17 of his trees and keep just the one that appeared to prove him right... Never mind the majority that said his theory was bull shit. Most ethical scientists would have revisited their theroys..

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?


The Empirical Evidence
As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

I just shredded your "predicted effect" as garbage by empirical evidence.

Also funny that when you clowns say that you are without fail wrong.

No, this is failure...

Reality is far from the models paths... This is epic failure of all of the IPCC's models.. Like I posted before, the models have no reliability or predictive powers.. Thus all your predictions of doom and gloom are just unfounded conjecture.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You keep on drinking the SKS boys kookaid...

Here are the facts on CO2 and they dont include a positive reaction by water vapor either.

View attachment 53497

Too funny that you cant produce even basic facts or evidence to support your religious dogma. The graph clearly shows that the warming you folks were screaming about didn't happen and can not happen.. If we had seen a temp rise as illustrated by the 2010 mark you might have had a chance... That just shows how wrong your models are and why they have failed.

How does it feel to be shown how totally wrong you idiots are?

The funny part is you believing you are .

The funny part is that you idiots believe you haven't been proven totally wrong.

Maybe because "we"haven't?
Also you clowns has this habit of premature ejaculations of victory.

Of course you have been proven totally and utterly wrong. You're just too stupid to know it. The empirical evidence proves you wrong every year for the last 20 years.

false

What is Mars' atmosphere made of?
The atmosphere of Mars is about 100 times thinner than Earth's, and it is 95 percent carbon dioxide. Here's a breakdown of its composition:

• Carbon dioxide: 95.32 percent
• Nitrogen: 2.7 percent
• Argon: 1.6 percent
• Oxygen: 0.13 percent
• Carbon monoxide: 0.08 percent
• Also, minor amounts of: water, nitrogen oxide, neon, hydrogen-deuterium-oxygen, krypton and xenon

Source


You know, you have posted a lot of crap, most of it factually a lie or intentionally misleading.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This requires repeating...

There is only one way for science to regain respect.

* They must be open and honest.
* They must make all data public. If you publish it, publish all of it!
* They must show their work (math, methods, Etc)
*They must be transparent and be OPEN TO PUBLIC DEBATE.. This includes multidisciplinary review as all areas of science are part of climate science.
* They must remember the key roll of the scientific method is to disprove the hypothesis by systematically ruling out all other possibilities.
* They must remain skeptical of all findings.

The science is NOT SETTLED.. it is never settled, ever!

Climate SCIENCE IS NOT CLEAR because the science has been politicized and is being used for a world domination agenda.

The word "CONSENSUS" is political and not scientific.

Threatening those, who do not agree with your religion, with prison or death is not even funny, we might mistake you for a radical Muslim extremist..

 

[Wyatt earp]

Let me refute your bull shit with facts..

Legates Et Al...

Funny how Cook and Nuttercellie threw out all but 77 papers because they didn't say what they wanted.. Kind of like Mann throwing out 17 of his trees and keep just the one that appeared to prove him right... Never mind the majority that said his theory was bull shit. Most ethical scientists would have revisited their theroys..

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?


The Empirical Evidence
As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

Ya do know sheep that mars atmosphere is made up of 95% C02

Yes your point?
Making it deadly to all oxygen breathing life .
A few billion years ago so was ours
The only life on earth was an anirobic coral that breathed co2 and produced oxygen insuring it's own distruction.

What was the temperature?

I dare ya to post it

 

[daws101]

Maybe because "we"haven't?
Also you clowns has this habit of premature ejaculations of victory.

Of course you have been proven totally and utterly wrong. You're just too stupid to know it. The empirical evidence proves you wrong every year for the last 20 years.

false

No, it is factual. Every time a claim is made by a warmist it has been found to be false. First it was global warming that was bleaching the corals. Now it is known that sun screen is the culprit. This happens every time one of your claims is actually checked.

Right I"ll consider the source on that little gem.

No, you'll flee like a little coward and ignore factual data that is presented which blows your puerile shit out of the water. You NEVER post factual data. You, like all of your fellow morons, conflate opinion with fact so post opinion pieces all the time thinking they actually mean something.

Face it dude you don't know jack.

What is it with you clowns making false claims and false assumptions?
I fact checked your sunscreen claim it is only partially correct .
Nothing I read stated, inferd or anything about it being the only or main cause of coral bleaching and die off.
However many articles did state that climate change I.e. warming of ocean water is main cause along with sunscreen,. Sewage. Particulate matter .
For the die off.
You stated that sunscreen was the main agent of distruction , that's blatantly false and bad science bordering on pseudoscience.

 

[daws101]

Let me refute your bull shit with facts..

Legates Et Al...

Funny how Cook and Nuttercellie threw out all but 77 papers because they didn't say what they wanted.. Kind of like Mann throwing out 17 of his trees and keep just the one that appeared to prove him right... Never mind the majority that said his theory was bull shit. Most ethical scientists would have revisited their theroys..

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?


The Empirical Evidence
As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

I just shredded your "predicted effect" as garbage by empirical evidence.

Also funny that when you clowns say that you are without fail wrong.

No, this is failure...

View attachment 53516

Reality is far from the models paths... This is epic failure of all of the IPCC's models.. Like I posted before, the models have no reliability or predictive powers.. Thus all your predictions of doom and gloom are just unfounded conjecture.

You keep believing that if it helps you sleep better .

 

[daws101]

The funny part is you believing you are .

The funny part is that you idiots believe you haven't been proven totally wrong.

Maybe because "we"haven't?
Also you clowns has this habit of premature ejaculations of victory.

Of course you have been proven totally and utterly wrong. You're just too stupid to know it. The empirical evidence proves you wrong every year for the last 20 years.

false

What is Mars' atmosphere made of?
The atmosphere of Mars is about 100 times thinner than Earth's, and it is 95 percent carbon dioxide. Here's a breakdown of its composition:

• Carbon dioxide: 95.32 percent
• Nitrogen: 2.7 percent
• Argon: 1.6 percent
• Oxygen: 0.13 percent
• Carbon monoxide: 0.08 percent
• Also, minor amounts of: water, nitrogen oxide, neon, hydrogen-deuterium-oxygen, krypton and xenon

Source


You know, you have posted a lot of crap, most of it factually a lie or intentionally misleading.

You guys always say that when you are on shaky scientific ground
Please post anything I said about mars that is false.

 

[daws101]

Let me refute your bull shit with facts..

Legates Et Al...

Funny how Cook and Nuttercellie threw out all but 77 papers because they didn't say what they wanted.. Kind of like Mann throwing out 17 of his trees and keep just the one that appeared to prove him right... Never mind the majority that said his theory was bull shit. Most ethical scientists would have revisited their theroys..

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?


The Empirical Evidence
As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

Ya do know sheep that mars atmosphere is made up of 95% C02

Yes your point?
Making it deadly to all oxygen breathing life .
A few billion years ago so was ours
The only life on earth was an anirobic coral that breathed co2 and produced oxygen insuring it's own distruction.

What was the temperature?

I dare ya to post it

What temperature? And where mars or earth's

 

[DonaldFG]

Too funny that you cant produce even basic facts or evidence to support your religious dogma. The graph clearly shows that the warming you folks were screaming about didn't happen and wont..

How does it feel to be shown how totally wrong you idiots are?

False documents and propaganda are amazingly easy to create. However, centuries of research and the volumes of factual data cannot be refuted by propaganda.

Lets expose you for the anti-science person you are..

First of all here is the LOG for CO2:
View attachment 53500

This is confirmed by empirical experiment in Boulder Colorado's Atmospheric Lab. This shows the rate of expected warming in a closed cylinder by CO2 and empirical evidence in our open atmosphere.

The graph in my previous post was that of Dr Spencer with my annotations.
View attachment 53501

Dr Spencer plotted the natural variation rate and the CO2 enhanced rate that the IPCC and the EPA uses as justification for their endangerment finding and power grabs.

The rise in temp is consistent with the empirical lab results and the IPCC's own AR1 stating the natural variation rate for temp rise.

Given the empirical data and the IPCC's own finding of the natural variation rate, there is no warming that can be attributed to CO2. The EPA's endangerment finding is not only a lie but it is soundly refuted by empirical evidence.

Hmm, the empirical evidence of one man. Very impressive. The IPCC has empirical evidence from thousands of climatologists.

As I said, fake evidence (propaganda) is easy to create.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Too funny that you cant produce even basic facts or evidence to support your religious dogma. The graph clearly shows that the warming you folks were screaming about didn't happen and wont..

How does it feel to be shown how totally wrong you idiots are?

False documents and propaganda are amazingly easy to create. However, centuries of research and the volumes of factual data cannot be refuted by propaganda.

Lets expose you for the anti-science person you are..

First of all here is the LOG for CO2:
View attachment 53500

This is confirmed by empirical experiment in Boulder Colorado's Atmospheric Lab. This shows the rate of expected warming in a closed cylinder by CO2 and empirical evidence in our open atmosphere.

The graph in my previous post was that of Dr Spencer with my annotations.
View attachment 53501

Dr Spencer plotted the natural variation rate and the CO2 enhanced rate that the IPCC and the EPA uses as justification for their endangerment finding and power grabs.

The rise in temp is consistent with the empirical lab results and the IPCC's own AR1 stating the natural variation rate for temp rise.

Given the empirical data and the IPCC's own finding of the natural variation rate, there is no warming that can be attributed to CO2. The EPA's endangerment finding is not only a lie but it is soundly refuted by empirical evidence.

Hmm, the empirical evidence of one man. Very impressive. The IPCC has empirical evidence from thousands of climatologists.

As I said, fake evidence (propaganda) is easy to create.

Too funny;

It is the belief of thousands of scientists who dare to ask real questions. Even scientists in Russia have figured it out. Why cant you?

 

[westwall]

Too funny that you cant produce even basic facts or evidence to support your religious dogma. The graph clearly shows that the warming you folks were screaming about didn't happen and wont..

How does it feel to be shown how totally wrong you idiots are?

False documents and propaganda are amazingly easy to create. However, centuries of research and the volumes of factual data cannot be refuted by propaganda.

Lets expose you for the anti-science person you are..

First of all here is the LOG for CO2:
View attachment 53500

This is confirmed by empirical experiment in Boulder Colorado's Atmospheric Lab. This shows the rate of expected warming in a closed cylinder by CO2 and empirical evidence in our open atmosphere.

The graph in my previous post was that of Dr Spencer with my annotations.
View attachment 53501

Dr Spencer plotted the natural variation rate and the CO2 enhanced rate that the IPCC and the EPA uses as justification for their endangerment finding and power grabs.

The rise in temp is consistent with the empirical lab results and the IPCC's own AR1 stating the natural variation rate for temp rise.

Given the empirical data and the IPCC's own finding of the natural variation rate, there is no warming that can be attributed to CO2. The EPA's endangerment finding is not only a lie but it is soundly refuted by empirical evidence.

Hmm, the empirical evidence of one man. Very impressive. The IPCC has empirical evidence from thousands of climatologists.

As I said, fake evidence (propaganda) is easy to create.

No. They have manufactured evidence from 74 climatologists. All of whom are paid to generate their crap. All of whom are helping the UN to concentrate its power and all of whom hope to get even more wealthy from their "sustainability" companies they have all founded, and who's continued profit depend on the laws they hope the various politicians will pass to help their companies.

Follow the money honey. The IPCC wants the world to spend 76 trillion dollars (low estimate) to completely reform the energy system of the world. The big beneficiaries are the very 1 percent that you all claim to hate...

 

[DonaldFG]

Misinformation is rampant. That is why we need to clean up all the garbage disguised as facts. Those who create fake facts should be held accountable. Global warming is affecting the climate, so what does lying get you? So far the warming oceans are having a huge impact on the weather.

Prove it is man made and then prove how much man contributes

Read. IPCC Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report

Read it when it first came out. Please show us the part that shows actual science and not opinion, or haven't YOU read it yet? On the other hand maybe you don't understand the difference between facts and opinions?

The consensus opinion is based on volumes of scientific facts accumulated over centuries. Even Exxon scientists saw it happening back in the fifties as Hartmann's video exposes. This is why their denial and fraudulent statements are criminal.

Consensus opinion is first off an appeal to authority so is by definition a logic fail (look it up) and secondly consensus is the language of politicians, NOT scientists. The consensus opinion was that the Earth was flat. Scientists proved that assertion wrong. The only fraud being committed is by the climatologists who have perverted science and actively committed scientific fraud to perpetrate the largest confidence game in the history of mankind.

I would LOVE to see this bullshit go to court. There we get to introduce the evidence that your hero's try like hell to bury. I suggest your wish might not end the way you think.

Science functions by verification of others in the field. Thousands of verifications is pretty convincing. That's consensus.

 

[westwall]

Prove it is man made and then prove how much man contributes

Read. IPCC Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report

Read it when it first came out. Please show us the part that shows actual science and not opinion, or haven't YOU read it yet? On the other hand maybe you don't understand the difference between facts and opinions?

The consensus opinion is based on volumes of scientific facts accumulated over centuries. Even Exxon scientists saw it happening back in the fifties as Hartmann's video exposes. This is why their denial and fraudulent statements are criminal.

Consensus opinion is first off an appeal to authority so is by definition a logic fail (look it up) and secondly consensus is the language of politicians, NOT scientists. The consensus opinion was that the Earth was flat. Scientists proved that assertion wrong. The only fraud being committed is by the climatologists who have perverted science and actively committed scientific fraud to perpetrate the largest confidence game in the history of mankind.

I would LOVE to see this bullshit go to court. There we get to introduce the evidence that your hero's try like hell to bury. I suggest your wish might not end the way you think.

Science functions by verification of others in the field. Thousands of verifications is pretty convincing. That's convincing.

Not when the supposed peer reviewers are the same small group over and over. Hell one paper was reviewed by the mans wife.
You really need to look into the level of corruption to which the peer review process has been subjected to in the climatology field. Hell, well known charlatans have a better predictive track record than these clowns.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Read. IPCC Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report

Read it when it first came out. Please show us the part that shows actual science and not opinion, or haven't YOU read it yet? On the other hand maybe you don't understand the difference between facts and opinions?

The consensus opinion is based on volumes of scientific facts accumulated over centuries. Even Exxon scientists saw it happening back in the fifties as Hartmann's video exposes. This is why their denial and fraudulent statements are criminal.

Consensus opinion is first off an appeal to authority so is by definition a logic fail (look it up) and secondly consensus is the language of politicians, NOT scientists. The consensus opinion was that the Earth was flat. Scientists proved that assertion wrong. The only fraud being committed is by the climatologists who have perverted science and actively committed scientific fraud to perpetrate the largest confidence game in the history of mankind.

I would LOVE to see this bullshit go to court. There we get to introduce the evidence that your hero's try like hell to bury. I suggest your wish might not end the way you think.

Science functions by verification of others in the field. Thousands of verifications is pretty convincing. That's convincing.

Not when the supposed peer reviewers are the same small group over and over. Hell one paper was reviewed by the mans wife.
You really need to look into the level of corruption to which the peer review process has been subjected to in the climatology field. Hell, well known charlatans have a better predictive track record than these clowns.

The incest of the alarmists is stunning. People like COOK, among others, who created false personas and peer reviewed their own work are rampant. The gate keeping of journals and other processes that were to ensure that one sided BS didn't pass muster have been badly corrupted.

Its hard to trust anything coming out of the warming camp these days without cross referencing and verifying with private, untainted sources that have credibility.

 

[DonaldFG]

No, it is factual. Every time a claim is made by a warmist it has been found to be false. First it was global warming that was bleaching the corals. Now it is known that sun screen is the culprit. This happens every time one of your claims is actually checked.

You know that is not true. But I hope the Koch brothers are paying you well for saying it.

 

[PK1]

Corporate control of government has gone too far when scientific research is muted or severely misrepresented. Good government uses science to help determine its policies for the common good. But when corrupted individuals get into positions of power, science reports are covered up and the authors become frustrated, give up and quit, or get laid off.

Most scientists are not rich. They don't do their type of work for the money, but for the quest for knowledge. So, they don't have the legal means to protect themselves from powerful corporate interests - unless their government does it for them. Similarly, the rest of us citizens expect the same from our government.

Climate scientists have known for decades that humans are hurting our Earth's environment with emissions from our machines and processes. But their reports have been erroneously and repeatedly dismissed as invalid by corporate powers that depend on continued use of their products for their profit levels, which have been enormous. This action to dismiss real science is illegal, as is any mass misinformation passed to influence the public. Having been frustrated for too long, a group of scientists has written a letter to the White House to prosecute the corporate offenders under the RICO Act. The prosecutor for the tobacco case agrees. Exxon’s Climate Cover-Up Should Be Investigated By DOJ, Tobacco Prosecutor Says

Thom Hartmann explains the criminal evidence. Maybe at last this will restore the respect science deserves. What do you think?

---
Yep, those who criticize leading scientists and their international consensus are either:
1) ignorant of scientific methods and/or
2) motivated by greed.

No wonder there are few Republican scientists in the USA.
.