Global warming, my ass!

[Sunsettommy]

More evidence GOP have a whole other planet and are conspiracy nut jobs...

But you manage to fail to provide clear evidence............

Carry on with your ugly partisanship.......

The only scientists and climatologists who who disagree with global warming are bought off tools of Big Oil or right wing propaganda.

Ha ha ha......,

It is clear you have NOTHING to counter me with. You don't show curiosity in what I said about the .30C per Decade rate (by the IPCC) or what DR. Jones, a noted warmist have to say either. You just post more useless funding fallacies which doesn't work in rational debate.

You offer nothing in the way of science or evidence. Your replies are utter garbage, that I have seen for 20 years, it is BORING!

I am the one posting quotes and references. You are the one posting nothing, that is zero, nada, zilch! Simply put, you do not back up what you say!

You have serious visual problems?

Go look at post 99.

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

I think you are having problems with the terms "directly" and "indirectly."

Funny..

I think your having problems with facts and fantasy...

I am the one offering references!

You are the one who doesn't really know what the AGW conjecture really is about and what the IPCC says about it.

You saying so does not make it true. Support you argument if you can. I still see no references.

Little boy, I see that you joined just a few days ago.

I posted it several times in the forum already, but your reply make clear you DON'T know about the IPCC Per Decade warming rate prediction/Projection that has been in every report since 1990.

You even show that you DIDN'T know that ALL of the temperature data sets fall below the projected .30C per decade warming rate, especially the best of the data sets, the Satellite data.

If you were really a good researcher, you would have learned this elementary stuff already.

I see you have reached such a point of insecurity that you must resort to condescending namecalling - as in "Little Boy." I will repeat again, back up what you say. I posted what the IPCC has to say about "climate sensitivity", and that is a report put out by hundreds of climatologists - and you, according to them, are wrong. You, on the other hand, want everyone to take your uninformed comments as truth from a higher being. Not going to happen!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Funny..

I think your having problems with facts and fantasy...

I am the one offering references!

You are the one who doesn't really know what the AGW conjecture really is about and what the IPCC says about it.

You saying so does not make it true. Support you argument if you can. I still see no references.

Little boy, I see that you joined just a few days ago.

I posted it several times in the forum already, but your reply make clear you DON'T know about the IPCC Per Decade warming rate prediction/Projection that has been in every report since 1990.

You even show that you DIDN'T know that ALL of the temperature data sets fall below the projected .30C per decade warming rate, especially the best of the data sets, the Satellite data.

If you were really a good researcher, you would have learned this elementary stuff already.

I see you have reached such a point of insecurity that you must resort to condescending namecalling - as in "Little Boy." I will repeat again, back up what you say. I posted what the IPCC has to say about "climate sensitivity", and that is a report put out by hundreds of climatologists - and you, according to them, are wrong. You, on the other hand, want everyone to take your uninformed comments as truth from a higher being. Not going to happen!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I see that you can not read actual quote from the 1990 IPCC report and link I posted along with the Satellite data that shows a far lower warming rate. It is right there in front of you at post 99!

The IPCC THEMSELVES made the Per Decade statements from day one in 1990, which they have use in EVERY report since then, therefore I have reason to see how well their prediction/Projection have fared over the 28 years since they published it.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Funny..

I think your having problems with facts and fantasy...

I am the one offering references!

You are the one who doesn't really know what the AGW conjecture really is about and what the IPCC says about it.

You saying so does not make it true. Support you argument if you can. I still see no references.

Little boy, I see that you joined just a few days ago.

I posted it several times in the forum already, but your reply make clear you DON'T know about the IPCC Per Decade warming rate prediction/Projection that has been in every report since 1990.

You even show that you DIDN'T know that ALL of the temperature data sets fall below the projected .30C per decade warming rate, especially the best of the data sets, the Satellite data.

If you were really a good researcher, you would have learned this elementary stuff already.

I see you have reached such a point of insecurity that you must resort to condescending namecalling - as in "Little Boy." I will repeat again, back up what you say. I posted what the IPCC has to say about "climate sensitivity", and that is a report put out by hundreds of climatologists - and you, according to them, are wrong. You, on the other hand, want everyone to take your uninformed comments as truth from a higher being. Not going to happen!

You are really that slow?

Climate Sensitivity is a separate issue from Per Decade warming rates.

Your sudden avoidance in discussing what I posted about in post 99, is hilarious.

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

I am the one offering references!

You are the one who doesn't really know what the AGW conjecture really is about and what the IPCC says about it.

You saying so does not make it true. Support you argument if you can. I still see no references.

Little boy, I see that you joined just a few days ago.

I posted it several times in the forum already, but your reply make clear you DON'T know about the IPCC Per Decade warming rate prediction/Projection that has been in every report since 1990.

You even show that you DIDN'T know that ALL of the temperature data sets fall below the projected .30C per decade warming rate, especially the best of the data sets, the Satellite data.

If you were really a good researcher, you would have learned this elementary stuff already.

I see you have reached such a point of insecurity that you must resort to condescending namecalling - as in "Little Boy." I will repeat again, back up what you say. I posted what the IPCC has to say about "climate sensitivity", and that is a report put out by hundreds of climatologists - and you, according to them, are wrong. You, on the other hand, want everyone to take your uninformed comments as truth from a higher being. Not going to happen!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I see that you can not read actual quote from the 1990 IPCC report and link I posted along with the Satellite data that shows a far lower warming rate. It is right there in front of you at post 99!

The IPCC THEMSELVES made the Per Decade statements from day one in 1990, which they have use in EVERY report since then, therefore I have reason to see how well their prediction/Projection have fared over the 28 years since they published it.

So I looked at post 99. Wow, you seem to be using the temperature change found in a single decade to do climate. No one does that! I will look for something to help you out, but it will take a little time. In the mean while, again, the projection per decade does not mean that will happen every decade. A decade is the very minimum ever mentioned in climatology and it has increased uncertainty. You are cherrypicking!

 

[Sunsettommy]

You are the one who doesn't really know what the AGW conjecture really is about and what the IPCC says about it.

You saying so does not make it true. Support you argument if you can. I still see no references.

Little boy, I see that you joined just a few days ago.

I posted it several times in the forum already, but your reply make clear you DON'T know about the IPCC Per Decade warming rate prediction/Projection that has been in every report since 1990.

You even show that you DIDN'T know that ALL of the temperature data sets fall below the projected .30C per decade warming rate, especially the best of the data sets, the Satellite data.

If you were really a good researcher, you would have learned this elementary stuff already.

I see you have reached such a point of insecurity that you must resort to condescending namecalling - as in "Little Boy." I will repeat again, back up what you say. I posted what the IPCC has to say about "climate sensitivity", and that is a report put out by hundreds of climatologists - and you, according to them, are wrong. You, on the other hand, want everyone to take your uninformed comments as truth from a higher being. Not going to happen!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I see that you can not read actual quote from the 1990 IPCC report and link I posted along with the Satellite data that shows a far lower warming rate. It is right there in front of you at post 99!

The IPCC THEMSELVES made the Per Decade statements from day one in 1990, which they have use in EVERY report since then, therefore I have reason to see how well their prediction/Projection have fared over the 28 years since they published it.

So I looked at post 99. Wow, you seem to be using the temperature change found in a single decade to do climate. No one does that! I will look for something to help you out, but it will take a little time. In the mean while, again, the projection per decade does not mean that will happen every decade. A decade is the very minimum ever mentioned in climatology and it has increased uncertainty. You are cherrypicking!

Wow you are THAT ignorant since the IPCC 2001 Report REPEATS the .30C Per Decade warming rate projection, this time it is the absolute minimum, No more .20-.50 range as it was in 1990. It is a minimum of .30C per decade.

Now since I anticipated that you were not going to read the link I provided, here is what I left out that will now make you look stupid:

"... this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3C before the end of the next century"

To year 2025 and to the end of the century.

 

[skookerasbil]

Sunset....once again.....schooling the religion!!!

Ice Age s0ns

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

You saying so does not make it true. Support you argument if you can. I still see no references.

Little boy, I see that you joined just a few days ago.

I posted it several times in the forum already, but your reply make clear you DON'T know about the IPCC Per Decade warming rate prediction/Projection that has been in every report since 1990.

You even show that you DIDN'T know that ALL of the temperature data sets fall below the projected .30C per decade warming rate, especially the best of the data sets, the Satellite data.

If you were really a good researcher, you would have learned this elementary stuff already.

I see you have reached such a point of insecurity that you must resort to condescending namecalling - as in "Little Boy." I will repeat again, back up what you say. I posted what the IPCC has to say about "climate sensitivity", and that is a report put out by hundreds of climatologists - and you, according to them, are wrong. You, on the other hand, want everyone to take your uninformed comments as truth from a higher being. Not going to happen!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I see that you can not read actual quote from the 1990 IPCC report and link I posted along with the Satellite data that shows a far lower warming rate. It is right there in front of you at post 99!

The IPCC THEMSELVES made the Per Decade statements from day one in 1990, which they have use in EVERY report since then, therefore I have reason to see how well their prediction/Projection have fared over the 28 years since they published it.

So I looked at post 99. Wow, you seem to be using the temperature change found in a single decade to do climate. No one does that! I will look for something to help you out, but it will take a little time. In the mean while, again, the projection per decade does not mean that will happen every decade. A decade is the very minimum ever mentioned in climatology and it has increased uncertainty. You are cherrypicking!

Wow you are THAT ignorant since the IPCC 2001 Report REPEATS the .30C Per Decade warming rate projection, this time it is the absolute minimum, No more .20-.50 range as it was in 1990. It is a minimum of .30C per decade.

Now since I anticipated that you were not going to read the link I provided, here is what I left out that will now make you look stupid:

"... this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and VC before the end of the next century"

To year 2025 and to the end of the century.

Well, I may have confused you with another poster (e.g. climate sensitivity person). I started this thread with a post affirming climate change by way of a post on the jet stream. Perhaps you should try explaining where we disagree.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Little boy, I see that you joined just a few days ago.

I posted it several times in the forum already, but your reply make clear you DON'T know about the IPCC Per Decade warming rate prediction/Projection that has been in every report since 1990.

You even show that you DIDN'T know that ALL of the temperature data sets fall below the projected .30C per decade warming rate, especially the best of the data sets, the Satellite data.

If you were really a good researcher, you would have learned this elementary stuff already.

I see you have reached such a point of insecurity that you must resort to condescending namecalling - as in "Little Boy." I will repeat again, back up what you say. I posted what the IPCC has to say about "climate sensitivity", and that is a report put out by hundreds of climatologists - and you, according to them, are wrong. You, on the other hand, want everyone to take your uninformed comments as truth from a higher being. Not going to happen!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I see that you can not read actual quote from the 1990 IPCC report and link I posted along with the Satellite data that shows a far lower warming rate. It is right there in front of you at post 99!

The IPCC THEMSELVES made the Per Decade statements from day one in 1990, which they have use in EVERY report since then, therefore I have reason to see how well their prediction/Projection have fared over the 28 years since they published it.

So I looked at post 99. Wow, you seem to be using the temperature change found in a single decade to do climate. No one does that! I will look for something to help you out, but it will take a little time. In the mean while, again, the projection per decade does not mean that will happen every decade. A decade is the very minimum ever mentioned in climatology and it has increased uncertainty. You are cherrypicking!

Wow you are THAT ignorant since the IPCC 2001 Report REPEATS the .30C Per Decade warming rate projection, this time it is the absolute minimum, No more .20-.50 range as it was in 1990. It is a minimum of .30C per decade.

Now since I anticipated that you were not going to read the link I provided, here is what I left out that will now make you look stupid:

"... this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and VC before the end of the next century"

To year 2025 and to the end of the century.

Well, I may have confused you with another poster (e.g. climate sensitivity person). I started this thread with a post affirming climate change by way of a post on the jet stream. Perhaps you should try explaining where we disagree.

I asked you questions at Posts 26 and 35, made a another comment at 38 with link.

You never replied.

 

[frigidweirdo]

All you global warming ding bats...I want you to take a good look at this weather map. Then tell me, with a straight face, that global warming is real. It isnt. Just step outside and you'll see what I mean.
View attachment 186708

The US is the whole world?

 

[skookerasbil]

All you global warming ding bats...I want you to take a good look at this weather map. Then tell me, with a straight face, that global warming is real. It isnt. Just step outside and you'll see what I mean.
View attachment 186708

The US is the whole world?

Yikes

 

[Billy_Bob]

I am done taking your word for crap science. You need to start citing your sources!!!

Funny;

I assess my opponents by what they know and believe not what they cite. You have shown me that you only accept those items from SKS and the IPCC. You have very little interest in what the data actually says and appear to be pushing an agenda.. I purposely included graphing that are clearly marked for their source to see if YOU can follow the information. You did not.

You appear, by your actions, to be following a specific set of talking points.

It was my intent to challenge those and i succeeded, evidenced by your responses.

As for crap science, the IPCC is the worst you can get. I even gave you a starting point with Dr David W Evans 12 minuet description of the situation.

Before I even begin to debate the SB equation and how potential forcing's are calculated I wanted to know what it is you know and how factual you are.

IF you want to know how the IPCC is discredited you need only look at the lack of a tropospheric hot spot, the failure of LWIR at TOA to be retained, and the fact that all 136 modeling (GCM's) FAIL empirical real world review. In others words, the ability of the molders to forecast is nonexistent. If you are incapable of modeling the system, you don't have a clue how it works. ITS CALLED EMPIRICAL REVIEW.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I am done taking your word for crap science. You need to start citing your sources!!!

Funny;

I assess my opponents by what they know and believe not what they cite. You have shown me that you only accept those items from SKS and the IPCC. You have very little interest in what the data actually says and appear to be pushing an agenda.. I purposely included graphing that are clearly marked for their source to see if YOU can follow the information. You did not.

You appear, by your actions, to be following a specific set of talking points.

It was my intent to challenge those and i succeeded, evidenced by your responses.

As for crap science, the IPCC is the worst you can get. I even gave you a starting point with Dr David W Evans 12 minuet description of the situation.

Before I even begin to debate the SB equation and how potential forcing's are calculated I wanted to know what it is you know and how factual you are.

IF you want to know how the IPCC is discredited you need only look at the lack of a tropospheric hot spot, the failure of LWIR at TOA to be retained, and the fact that all 136 modeling (GCM's) FAIL empirical real world review. In others words, the ability of the molders to forecast is nonexistent. If you are incapable of modeling the system, you don't have a clue how it works. ITS CALLED EMPIRICAL REVIEW.

They sure try hard to ignore the obvious failures to keep drumming for a long dead AGW conjecture.

They throw away basic science research guidelines so casually to keep their delusion intact. The Scientific Method, Reproducible research, Testability and Falsification have to be ignored. They also have no idea what the concept of the NULL hypothesis is either.

The question is WHY do they try so hard to delude and lie to themselves?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The 1990 IPCC Policymakers summary report states:

"Based on current model results, we predict:

• under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade)..."

LINK

bolding mine

.30C PER DECADE rate

Reality UAH:

LINK

It is actually far worse than it seems because the "business as usual emission scenario" was based on 1990 emissions, when actually it has been over 25% higher than expected by 2015. which means it should have warmed even more than the predicted .30C per decade rate.

Hansen Et. Al. and his testimony in front of congress is public record. The swing and miss was huge.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I am done taking your word for crap science. You need to start citing your sources!!!

Funny;

I assess my opponents by what they know and believe not what they cite. You have shown me that you only accept those items from SKS and the IPCC. You have very little interest in what the data actually says and appear to be pushing an agenda.. I purposely included graphing that are clearly marked for their source to see if YOU can follow the information. You did not.

You appear, by your actions, to be following a specific set of talking points.

It was my intent to challenge those and i succeeded, evidenced by your responses.

As for crap science, the IPCC is the worst you can get. I even gave you a starting point with Dr David W Evans 12 minuet description of the situation.

Before I even begin to debate the SB equation and how potential forcing's are calculated I wanted to know what it is you know and how factual you are.

IF you want to know how the IPCC is discredited you need only look at the lack of a tropospheric hot spot, the failure of LWIR at TOA to be retained, and the fact that all 136 modeling (GCM's) FAIL empirical real world review. In others words, the ability of the molders to forecast is nonexistent. If you are incapable of modeling the system, you don't have a clue how it works. ITS CALLED EMPIRICAL REVIEW.

They sure try hard to ignore the obvious failures to keep drumming for a long dead AGW conjecture.

They throw away basic science research guidelines so casually to keep their delusion intact. The Scientific Method, Reproducible research, Testability and Falsification have to be ignored. They also have no idea what the concept of the NULL hypothesis is either.

The question is WHY do they try so hard to delude and lie to themselves?

They are political partisans... Nothing more. They seek power over people and many are just useful idiots who are spouting talking points. It will not be until they lose their freedoms and quite possible their very lives before they will realize what they have done to themselves.

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

I see you have reached such a point of insecurity that you must resort to condescending namecalling - as in "Little Boy." I will repeat again, back up what you say. I posted what the IPCC has to say about "climate sensitivity", and that is a report put out by hundreds of climatologists - and you, according to them, are wrong. You, on the other hand, want everyone to take your uninformed comments as truth from a higher being. Not going to happen!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I see that you can not read actual quote from the 1990 IPCC report and link I posted along with the Satellite data that shows a far lower warming rate. It is right there in front of you at post 99!

The IPCC THEMSELVES made the Per Decade statements from day one in 1990, which they have use in EVERY report since then, therefore I have reason to see how well their prediction/Projection have fared over the 28 years since they published it.

So I looked at post 99. Wow, you seem to be using the temperature change found in a single decade to do climate. No one does that! I will look for something to help you out, but it will take a little time. In the mean while, again, the projection per decade does not mean that will happen every decade. A decade is the very minimum ever mentioned in climatology and it has increased uncertainty. You are cherrypicking!

Wow you are THAT ignorant since the IPCC 2001 Report REPEATS the .30C Per Decade warming rate projection, this time it is the absolute minimum, No more .20-.50 range as it was in 1990. It is a minimum of .30C per decade.

Now since I anticipated that you were not going to read the link I provided, here is what I left out that will now make you look stupid:

"... this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and VC before the end of the next century"

To year 2025 and to the end of the century.

Well, I may have confused you with another poster (e.g. climate sensitivity person). I started this thread with a post affirming climate change by way of a post on the jet stream. Perhaps you should try explaining where we disagree.

I asked you questions at Posts 26 and 35, made a another comment at 38 with link.

You never replied.

About "Do you know what the difference between ZONAL and MERIDONAL Jet streams are?" Of course I know, I did not find the question relevant to what I wrote in post 5. Again in 38, what is your point?

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

I am done taking your word for crap science. You need to start citing your sources!!!

Funny;

I assess my opponents by what they know and believe not what they cite. You have shown me that you only accept those items from SKS and the IPCC. You have very little interest in what the data actually says and appear to be pushing an agenda.. I purposely included graphing that are clearly marked for their source to see if YOU can follow the information. You did not.

You appear, by your actions, to be following a specific set of talking points.

It was my intent to challenge those and i succeeded, evidenced by your responses.

As for crap science, the IPCC is the worst you can get. I even gave you a starting point with Dr David W Evans 12 minuet description of the situation.

Before I even begin to debate the SB equation and how potential forcing's are calculated I wanted to know what it is you know and how factual you are.

IF you want to know how the IPCC is discredited you need only look at the lack of a tropospheric hot spot, the failure of LWIR at TOA to be retained, and the fact that all 136 modeling (GCM's) FAIL empirical real world review. In others words, the ability of the molders to forecast is nonexistent. If you are incapable of modeling the system, you don't have a clue how it works. ITS CALLED EMPIRICAL REVIEW.

About, "I assess my opponents by what they know and believe not what they cite", this is a fancy way of saying "Let's ignore the experts in favor of what? Someone like Dr. David W. Evans. It seems Dr. Evan is

(Quote)

Rocket Scientist, a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.[“and part-time 2008 to 2010, (it was disbanded in 2007 !) modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering”]

(End quote)

Gee, I did not see a climatology degree there - not to mention most people will rely on the "current thinking" in science that is form from the total of the peer review journals instead of one person.



About the word "nonexistent", it appear you are trying to say "the scientist know nothing, so let's burying our head and do nothing."

 

[Sunsettommy]

I am done taking your word for crap science. You need to start citing your sources!!!

Funny;

I assess my opponents by what they know and believe not what they cite. You have shown me that you only accept those items from SKS and the IPCC. You have very little interest in what the data actually says and appear to be pushing an agenda.. I purposely included graphing that are clearly marked for their source to see if YOU can follow the information. You did not.

You appear, by your actions, to be following a specific set of talking points.

It was my intent to challenge those and i succeeded, evidenced by your responses.

As for crap science, the IPCC is the worst you can get. I even gave you a starting point with Dr David W Evans 12 minuet description of the situation.

Before I even begin to debate the SB equation and how potential forcing's are calculated I wanted to know what it is you know and how factual you are.

IF you want to know how the IPCC is discredited you need only look at the lack of a tropospheric hot spot, the failure of LWIR at TOA to be retained, and the fact that all 136 modeling (GCM's) FAIL empirical real world review. In others words, the ability of the molders to forecast is nonexistent. If you are incapable of modeling the system, you don't have a clue how it works. ITS CALLED EMPIRICAL REVIEW.

About, "I assess my opponents by what they know and believe not what they cite", this is a fancy way of saying "Let's ignore the experts in favor of what? Someone like Dr. David W. Evans. It seems Dr. Evan is

(Quote)

Rocket Scientist, a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.[“and part-time 2008 to 2010, (it was disbanded in 2007 !) modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering”]

(End quote)

Gee, I did not see a climatology degree there - not to mention most people will rely on the "current thinking" in science that is form from the total of the peer review journals instead of one person.



About the word "nonexistent", it appear you are trying to say "the scientist know nothing, so let's burying our head and do nothing."

There is no such thing as a "climatology" degree.

Dr. Hansen, Dr. Schmidt do not have "climatology" degrees either.

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

I am done taking your word for crap science. You need to start citing your sources!!!

Funny;

I assess my opponents by what they know and believe not what they cite. You have shown me that you only accept those items from SKS and the IPCC. You have very little interest in what the data actually says and appear to be pushing an agenda.. I purposely included graphing that are clearly marked for their source to see if YOU can follow the information. You did not.

You appear, by your actions, to be following a specific set of talking points.

It was my intent to challenge those and i succeeded, evidenced by your responses.

As for crap science, the IPCC is the worst you can get. I even gave you a starting point with Dr David W Evans 12 minuet description of the situation.

Before I even begin to debate the SB equation and how potential forcing's are calculated I wanted to know what it is you know and how factual you are.

IF you want to know how the IPCC is discredited you need only look at the lack of a tropospheric hot spot, the failure of LWIR at TOA to be retained, and the fact that all 136 modeling (GCM's) FAIL empirical real world review. In others words, the ability of the molders to forecast is nonexistent. If you are incapable of modeling the system, you don't have a clue how it works. ITS CALLED EMPIRICAL REVIEW.

About, "I assess my opponents by what they know and believe not what they cite", this is a fancy way of saying "Let's ignore the experts in favor of what? Someone like Dr. David W. Evans. It seems Dr. Evan is

(Quote)

Rocket Scientist, a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.[“and part-time 2008 to 2010, (it was disbanded in 2007 !) modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering”]

(End quote)

Gee, I did not see a climatology degree there - not to mention most people will rely on the "current thinking" in science that is form from the total of the peer review journals instead of one person.



About the word "nonexistent", it appear you are trying to say "the scientist know nothing, so let's burying our head and do nothing."

There is no such thing as a "climatology" degree.

Dr. Hansen, Dr. Schmidt do not have "climatology" degrees either.

If you have ever done research, you know that the first thing you do is a research of the literature to understand "current thinking." You do this because your research needs to connect with other current research. It is that current thinking that you go by, not the views of one person.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I am done taking your word for crap science. You need to start citing your sources!!!

Funny;

I assess my opponents by what they know and believe not what they cite. You have shown me that you only accept those items from SKS and the IPCC. You have very little interest in what the data actually says and appear to be pushing an agenda.. I purposely included graphing that are clearly marked for their source to see if YOU can follow the information. You did not.

You appear, by your actions, to be following a specific set of talking points.

It was my intent to challenge those and i succeeded, evidenced by your responses.

As for crap science, the IPCC is the worst you can get. I even gave you a starting point with Dr David W Evans 12 minuet description of the situation.

Before I even begin to debate the SB equation and how potential forcing's are calculated I wanted to know what it is you know and how factual you are.

IF you want to know how the IPCC is discredited you need only look at the lack of a tropospheric hot spot, the failure of LWIR at TOA to be retained, and the fact that all 136 modeling (GCM's) FAIL empirical real world review. In others words, the ability of the molders to forecast is nonexistent. If you are incapable of modeling the system, you don't have a clue how it works. ITS CALLED EMPIRICAL REVIEW.

About, "I assess my opponents by what they know and believe not what they cite", this is a fancy way of saying "Let's ignore the experts in favor of what? Someone like Dr. David W. Evans. It seems Dr. Evan is

(Quote)

Rocket Scientist, a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.[“and part-time 2008 to 2010, (it was disbanded in 2007 !) modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering”]

(End quote)

Gee, I did not see a climatology degree there - not to mention most people will rely on the "current thinking" in science that is form from the total of the peer review journals instead of one person.



About the word "nonexistent", it appear you are trying to say "the scientist know nothing, so let's burying our head and do nothing."

There is no such thing as a "climatology" degree.

Dr. Hansen, Dr. Schmidt do not have "climatology" degrees either.

If you have ever done research, you know that the first thing you do is a research of the literature to understand "current thinking." You do this because your research needs to connect with other current research. It is that current thinking that you go by, not the views of one person.

It can take only ONE reproducible paper from one person to upend a whole science field. It has happened before.

You have no point to sell here.