T.E.C. - Iowa
Active Member
- Apr 7, 2018
- 132
- 7
- 31
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.
Actually, that is not true! If someone does an "upending study", it will not change current thinking until it has been replicated several times. Also, upending studies are usually quickly followed by critique papers. The critiques not only point out the weaknesses in the study (and there are always weaknesses in a single study), but also point to how the replication of the study should be done in a never ending pursuit of the truth.
So no, one study does not overturn "current thinking!" There is a process to all of this, and it is part of the "scientific method."