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.
Predictably, the character assassination has begun by the true deniers....now how about you show where the math error is. Failing to show any error in the work is failing to rebut it and as a result, it stands. We both know that Spencer won't go to the math...he gets his ass kicked every time he does....neither will any warmist cultist because the real science shows that AGW is a fraud...if you aren't allowed to operate on assumptions, tampered data, and outright lies, you can't operate at all...
So where is the error in the calculations above?
Expecting us to accept nonsense from unqualified people as valid science is tantamount to seeing nothing wrong with a brake mechanic conducting brain surgery. You need a reality check, dude.
And yet another one weighs in with an admission that no math error can be found. Thanks.
If it was a math error that was the concern, it would be taken up with the publisher and the researcher in question, not posted on a blog and used as political fodder. Why not? Because that is not how science is done, Bubba.
Really?
Yes, really.
ssdd said:I always thought that the way science was done was that a hypothesis was laid out, then tested in every possible way, and predictions were made based on the hypothesis...and if the predictions failed even once, the hypothesis was wrong and science went back to the drawing board to see where they went wrong...Tell me that is how climate science works and make yourself into the basest form of liar.
Apple and oranges. We are talking about an alleged math error (and how that is handled in a professional setting), not the failure of a hypothesis. Next.
Where is the error in Roy Spencer's work? He was first.
Why don't you summarize Spencer and then show us how LaTour has falsified him.
The error spencer made is that he assumes that CO2 will cause warming when it will not. The climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less.
Where is the error in Roy Spencer's work? He was first.
Why don't you summarize Spencer and then show us how LaTour has falsified him.
The error spencer made is that he assumes that CO2 will cause warming when it will not. The climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less.
Then how do you explain this:
?
Jiminie, you are a kick.. I love your posts, your nonsense is so humorous and it is daily. Thanks for the daily laugh!!!!!! Too bad you don't know climate theory!No, the real problem here is your failure to realize your own shortcomings. You haven't made a valid point - once - since we first met.
No one will address the band widths and depth of Ocean penetration of the varying bands...
Of course they do.
They just do it sensibly, instead of babbling nonsense. We've learned it's never worth the effort to attempt to decipher your babble.
Expecting us to accept nonsense from unqualified people as valid science is tantamount to seeing nothing wrong with a brake mechanic conducting brain surgery. You need a reality check, dude.
And yet another one weighs in with an admission that no math error can be found. Thanks.
If it was a math error that was the concern, it would be taken up with the publisher and the researcher in question, not posted on a blog and used as political fodder. Why not? Because that is not how science is done, Bubba.
Really?
Yes, really.
ssdd said:I always thought that the way science was done was that a hypothesis was laid out, then tested in every possible way, and predictions were made based on the hypothesis...and if the predictions failed even once, the hypothesis was wrong and science went back to the drawing board to see where they went wrong...Tell me that is how climate science works and make yourself into the basest form of liar.
Apple and oranges. We are talking about an alleged math error (and how that is handled in a professional setting), not the failure of a hypothesis. Next.
Not apples and oranges...picking cherries. Clearly you can find no error in the math...and clearly you know that in real science the AGW hypothesis would have been ash canned years ago due to failure and work begun on a more probable hypothesis...now you are just shucking and jivin.
And yet another one weighs in with an admission that no math error can be found. Thanks.
If it was a math error that was the concern, it would be taken up with the publisher and the researcher in question, not posted on a blog and used as political fodder. Why not? Because that is not how science is done, Bubba.
Really?
Yes, really.
ssdd said:I always thought that the way science was done was that a hypothesis was laid out, then tested in every possible way, and predictions were made based on the hypothesis...and if the predictions failed even once, the hypothesis was wrong and science went back to the drawing board to see where they went wrong...Tell me that is how climate science works and make yourself into the basest form of liar.
Apple and oranges. We are talking about an alleged math error (and how that is handled in a professional setting), not the failure of a hypothesis. Next.
Not apples and oranges...picking cherries. Clearly you can find no error in the math...and clearly you know that in real science the AGW hypothesis would have been ash canned years ago due to failure and work begun on a more probable hypothesis...now you are just shucking and jivin.
Strawman argument. I am not attempting to find a math error. I didn't make such a claim so it is not for me to support it. That's your job. So do get on with it, Bubba.
If it was a math error that was the concern, it would be taken up with the publisher and the researcher in question, not posted on a blog and used as political fodder. Why not? Because that is not how science is done, Bubba.
Really?
Yes, really.
ssdd said:I always thought that the way science was done was that a hypothesis was laid out, then tested in every possible way, and predictions were made based on the hypothesis...and if the predictions failed even once, the hypothesis was wrong and science went back to the drawing board to see where they went wrong...Tell me that is how climate science works and make yourself into the basest form of liar.
Apple and oranges. We are talking about an alleged math error (and how that is handled in a professional setting), not the failure of a hypothesis. Next.
Not apples and oranges...picking cherries. Clearly you can find no error in the math...and clearly you know that in real science the AGW hypothesis would have been ash canned years ago due to failure and work begun on a more probable hypothesis...now you are just shucking and jivin.
Strawman argument. I am not attempting to find a math error. I didn't make such a claim so it is not for me to support it. That's your job. So do get on with it, Bubba.
My point was already made with the OP....either you can find something wrong with it or you can't...clearly the only thing wrong with it is that you don't like it...it calls your dogma into question.
Talk about strawmen... let's see the hard evidence that additional CO2 causes warmingReally?
Yes, really.
ssdd said:I always thought that the way science was done was that a hypothesis was laid out, then tested in every possible way, and predictions were made based on the hypothesis...and if the predictions failed even once, the hypothesis was wrong and science went back to the drawing board to see where they went wrong...Tell me that is how climate science works and make yourself into the basest form of liar.
Apple and oranges. We are talking about an alleged math error (and how that is handled in a professional setting), not the failure of a hypothesis. Next.
Not apples and oranges...picking cherries. Clearly you can find no error in the math...and clearly you know that in real science the AGW hypothesis would have been ash canned years ago due to failure and work begun on a more probable hypothesis...now you are just shucking and jivin.
Strawman argument. I am not attempting to find a math error. I didn't make such a claim so it is not for me to support it. That's your job. So do get on with it, Bubba.
My point was already made with the OP....either you can find something wrong with it or you can't...clearly the only thing wrong with it is that you don't like it...it calls your dogma into question.
If the OP was your point, then you are admitting that you don't have a point. As Crick has already pointed out, you're basing your argument on so-called information from one of the most fringe web sites in existence. I'll also point as that if CO2 causes global cooling, as you claim, then Venus should be a giant snow ball - except that it not only is NOT a giant snow ball, it's atmospheric pressure is 93 times as great as our own, while the surface is hot enough to melt lead. And what is the primary constituent of the Venusian atmosphere? CO2. Next.
The movement begins to feed on its own. Roy Spencer, an actual scientist, decided to criticize Principia Scientific International, one of the most crap-ridden denier blogsites in existence, in the process of explaining the greenhouse effect to idiots like SSDD who would very much like to believe it isn't real. Dr LaTour, a vice president at PSI, attempts to rebut Dr Spencer.
Since its inception, the primary raison d'etre of PSI has been to claim that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas but that it actually cools the planet. They also claim that childhood vaccines are “one of the largest most evil lies in history.”
I'm going to grab a ringside seat and watch the fun. SSDD, doesn't it ever bother you to have to rely on obvious fringe whack jobs for supporting material?
Oh... I guess it wouldn't look that way to you, would it.
Really?
Yes, really.
ssdd said:I always thought that the way science was done was that a hypothesis was laid out, then tested in every possible way, and predictions were made based on the hypothesis...and if the predictions failed even once, the hypothesis was wrong and science went back to the drawing board to see where they went wrong...Tell me that is how climate science works and make yourself into the basest form of liar.
Apple and oranges. We are talking about an alleged math error (and how that is handled in a professional setting), not the failure of a hypothesis. Next.
Not apples and oranges...picking cherries. Clearly you can find no error in the math...and clearly you know that in real science the AGW hypothesis would have been ash canned years ago due to failure and work begun on a more probable hypothesis...now you are just shucking and jivin.
Strawman argument. I am not attempting to find a math error. I didn't make such a claim so it is not for me to support it. That's your job. So do get on with it, Bubba.
My point was already made with the OP....either you can find something wrong with it or you can't...clearly the only thing wrong with it is that you don't like it...it calls your dogma into question.
If the OP was your point, then you are admitting that you don't have a point. As Crick has already pointed out, you're basing your argument on so-called information from one of the most fringe web sites in existence. I'll also point as that if CO2 causes global cooling, as you claim, then Venus should be a giant snow ball - except that it not only is NOT a giant snow ball, it's atmospheric pressure is 93 times as great as our own, while the surface is hot enough to melt lead. And what is the primary constituent of the Venusian atmosphere? CO2. Next.
Talk about strawmen... let's see the hard evidence that additional CO2 causes warmingYes, really.
Apple and oranges. We are talking about an alleged math error (and how that is handled in a professional setting), not the failure of a hypothesis. Next.
Not apples and oranges...picking cherries. Clearly you can find no error in the math...and clearly you know that in real science the AGW hypothesis would have been ash canned years ago due to failure and work begun on a more probable hypothesis...now you are just shucking and jivin.
Strawman argument. I am not attempting to find a math error. I didn't make such a claim so it is not for me to support it. That's your job. So do get on with it, Bubba.
My point was already made with the OP....either you can find something wrong with it or you can't...clearly the only thing wrong with it is that you don't like it...it calls your dogma into question.
If the OP was your point, then you are admitting that you don't have a point. As Crick has already pointed out, you're basing your argument on so-called information from one of the most fringe web sites in existence. I'll also point as that if CO2 causes global cooling, as you claim, then Venus should be a giant snow ball - except that it not only is NOT a giant snow ball, it's atmospheric pressure is 93 times as great as our own, while the surface is hot enough to melt lead. And what is the primary constituent of the Venusian atmosphere? CO2. Next.
What sort of "hard evidence" would you accept, Frank?
Talk about strawmen... let's see the hard evidence that additional CO2 causes warmingYes, really.
Apple and oranges. We are talking about an alleged math error (and how that is handled in a professional setting), not the failure of a hypothesis. Next.
Not apples and oranges...picking cherries. Clearly you can find no error in the math...and clearly you know that in real science the AGW hypothesis would have been ash canned years ago due to failure and work begun on a more probable hypothesis...now you are just shucking and jivin.
Strawman argument. I am not attempting to find a math error. I didn't make such a claim so it is not for me to support it. That's your job. So do get on with it, Bubba.
My point was already made with the OP....either you can find something wrong with it or you can't...clearly the only thing wrong with it is that you don't like it...it calls your dogma into question.
If the OP was your point, then you are admitting that you don't have a point. As Crick has already pointed out, you're basing your argument on so-called information from one of the most fringe web sites in existence. I'll also point as that if CO2 causes global cooling, as you claim, then Venus should be a giant snow ball - except that it not only is NOT a giant snow ball, it's atmospheric pressure is 93 times as great as our own, while the surface is hot enough to melt lead. And what is the primary constituent of the Venusian atmosphere? CO2. Next.
