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.
NASA posts scientific facts that don't adhere to your scientific method?There are some legit climatologists. They are few and far between, but there are some.
and what is the criteria for legitimacy in your view -- ideology?
No. Adherence to the scientific method. Still waiting for you to post it up and how it affects appeals to authority.
on the point that the globe has warmed? Yes. As with all science new evidence could alter, upend, or even strengthen the point. NASA: Climate Change and Global WarmingBut the science is settled!
But if you want to claim NASA and most every single expert in the field of climate science is wrong...
please don't whine or complain when you are called a fool
I guess you haven't kept up with the current science. Here is what the the IPCC has to say about the "pause" (though they call it the hiatus) so even YOUR source for all that you hold dear says the pause is real and they can't explain it other than normal variability! Dude, you're now just making yourself look really fucking stupid.
"Surface Warming “Pause”
After a period of rapid warming during the 1990s, global mean surface temperatures have not warmed as rapidly over the past decade. The AR5 notes there are “differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10-15 years (e.g., 1998-2012)”. It concludes that the recent reduction in surface warming is probably due to a redistribution of heat in the ocean, volcanic eruptions, and the recent minimum in the 11-year solar cycle. Most importantly, the report specifically points out that these trends should not undermine our confidence in the “big picture” of our understanding of climate change: “trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends.”
In addition, there is new research proposing explanations for the recent trends that did not make the deadline to be included in the AR5. One paper suggests that some of this “lost” heat is actually in the deep ocean, while another notes that the warming “pause” is actually explained by the unusual number of La Niña (sea surface cooling events) in the Pacific Ocean. The second paper by Yu Kosaka and Shang-Ping Xie states that the “current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue.”
IPCC AR5 Working Group I Highlights | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
Is the hard-on you people have with the IPPC all over the 'I' - International?
NASA posts scientific facts that don't adhere to your scientific method?There are some legit climatologists. They are few and far between, but there are some.
and what is the criteria for legitimacy in your view -- ideology?
No. Adherence to the scientific method. Still waiting for you to post it up and how it affects appeals to authority.
NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming
The report? I have no hard-on with the IPPC IPCC ABCD none.How about addressing what they say in the Report numbskull. Go on, it won't hurt your peanut sized brain too much....I promise it won't!
The report? I have no hard-on with the IPPC IPCC ABCD none.How about addressing what they say in the Report numbskull. Go on, it won't hurt your peanut sized brain too much....I promise it won't!
The day the scientific community comes out and says "We were all wrong and that anonymous twit on the message board was correct" I'll struggle with my conscious. Until then, I will forever see you as an old fool who thinks his science degree from ages ago makes him more of an expert on climate science than most every single climate scientist in the world
The report? I have no hard-on with the IPPC IPCC ABCD none.How about addressing what they say in the Report numbskull. Go on, it won't hurt your peanut sized brain too much....I promise it won't!
The day the scientific community comes out and says "We were all wrong and that anonymous twit on the message board was correct" I'll struggle with my conscious. Until then, I will forever see you as an old fool who thinks his science degree from ages ago makes him more of an expert on climate science than most every single climate scientist in the world
evidence your objection to the climate science is one of ideology and not science and truth"A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.
It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.
“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.
CO2 is not causing global warming.
Read more: Australian scientist discovers ERRORS in Global Warming models that COMPLETELY undermine climate theory!!! » The Right Scoop -
Sorry, this is a non-starter. You violated the inherent truth of liberalism
You're the one with the anti science philosophy. You wish to absolutely squelch discussion of the subject. That is as anti science as you can get.
global warming is not JUST an opinion.The report? I have no hard-on with the IPPC IPCC ABCD none.How about addressing what they say in the Report numbskull. Go on, it won't hurt your peanut sized brain too much....I promise it won't!
The day the scientific community comes out and says "We were all wrong and that anonymous twit on the message board was correct" I'll struggle with my conscious. Until then, I will forever see you as an old fool who thinks his science degree from ages ago makes him more of an expert on climate science than most every single climate scientist in the world
It is fine that you believe in man made climate change,global cooling, global warming or whatever the flavor of the week is, I don't care.
I am not buying it, we have bigger fish to fry. It is also just fine if people Are not buying the man made climate change theory too.
I don't get why the climate change believers want everyone to believe as they do??
It's just a matter of opinion...
Okay. another ideological arguments from the self-professed scientist?The report? I have no hard-on with the IPPC IPCC ABCD none.How about addressing what they say in the Report numbskull. Go on, it won't hurt your peanut sized brain too much....I promise it won't!
The day the scientific community comes out and says "We were all wrong and that anonymous twit on the message board was correct" I'll struggle with my conscious. Until then, I will forever see you as an old fool who thinks his science degree from ages ago makes him more of an expert on climate science than most every single climate scientist in the world
You say there is no pause. THEY say there is. THEY are THE driving force in the political effort to impoverish the people of this planet. They say YOU.... are wrong.
again, another ideological argument, not a scientific oneevidence your objection to the climate science is one of ideology and not science and truth"A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.
It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.
“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.
CO2 is not causing global warming.
Read more: Australian scientist discovers ERRORS in Global Warming models that COMPLETELY undermine climate theory!!! » The Right Scoop -
Sorry, this is a non-starter. You violated the inherent truth of liberalism
You're the one with the anti science philosophy. You wish to absolutely squelch discussion of the subject. That is as anti science as you can get.
Yes, the data on global warming is clearly unclear. The scientific honesty is to keep an open mind. The last thing a liberal has. there is no validity in science until you can predict the future, not just explain the past. And the global warming science has been consistently wrong with every prediction
peer review?So a guy with degrees in math goes on his wife's blog, and he's your credible climate scientist, yet most every single climate scientist in the world agree with the globe has warmed and man has something to do with it?
Okay -- and you and your blogger know more about the science than NASA does NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming
No you dill; just one of many....and I have supplied you with some of them. I am interested in this guy's calculations and how they stand up to peer review. You aren't. You use the old Chicago style of politics....lie and cheat!!!
Greg
What peers, bloggers?
again, another ideological argument, not a scientific oneevidence your objection to the climate science is one of ideology and not science and truth"A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.
It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.
“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.
CO2 is not causing global warming.
Read more: Australian scientist discovers ERRORS in Global Warming models that COMPLETELY undermine climate theory!!! » The Right Scoop -
Sorry, this is a non-starter. You violated the inherent truth of liberalism
You're the one with the anti science philosophy. You wish to absolutely squelch discussion of the subject. That is as anti science as you can get.
Yes, the data on global warming is clearly unclear. The scientific honesty is to keep an open mind. The last thing a liberal has. there is no validity in science until you can predict the future, not just explain the past. And the global warming science has been consistently wrong with every prediction
global warming is not JUST an opinion.The report? I have no hard-on with the IPPC IPCC ABCD none.How about addressing what they say in the Report numbskull. Go on, it won't hurt your peanut sized brain too much....I promise it won't!
The day the scientific community comes out and says "We were all wrong and that anonymous twit on the message board was correct" I'll struggle with my conscious. Until then, I will forever see you as an old fool who thinks his science degree from ages ago makes him more of an expert on climate science than most every single climate scientist in the world
It is fine that you believe in man made climate change,global cooling, global warming or whatever the flavor of the week is, I don't care.
I am not buying it, we have bigger fish to fry. It is also just fine if people Are not buying the man made climate change theory too.
I don't get why the climate change believers want everyone to believe as they do??
It's just a matter of opinion...
there is a field in science concerned with climate change. you must have been one of those people who believed the science was not in on cigs and cancer
Denialevidence your objection to the climate science is one of ideology and not science and truth"A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.
It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.
“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.
CO2 is not causing global warming.
Read more: Australian scientist discovers ERRORS in Global Warming models that COMPLETELY undermine climate theory!!! » The Right Scoop -
Sorry, this is a non-starter. You violated the inherent truth of liberalism
You're the one with the anti science philosophy. You wish to absolutely squelch discussion of the subject. That is as anti science as you can get.
Yes, the data on global warming is clearly unclear. The scientific honesty is to keep an open mind. The last thing a liberal has. there is no validity in science until you can predict the future, not just explain the past. And the global warming science has been consistently wrong with every prediction
you attack opponents views as being views of a liberal.again, another ideological argument, not a scientific oneevidence your objection to the climate science is one of ideology and not science and truthSorry, this is a non-starter. You violated the inherent truth of liberalism
You're the one with the anti science philosophy. You wish to absolutely squelch discussion of the subject. That is as anti science as you can get.
Yes, the data on global warming is clearly unclear. The scientific honesty is to keep an open mind. The last thing a liberal has. there is no validity in science until you can predict the future, not just explain the past. And the global warming science has been consistently wrong with every prediction
That made no sense, Holmes. In fact you just showed the reverse, for you global warming's about ideology
When NASA launched men to go land on the moon and come back. The theories that this could happen were based on predictionsglobal warming is not JUST an opinion.The report? I have no hard-on with the IPPC IPCC ABCD none.How about addressing what they say in the Report numbskull. Go on, it won't hurt your peanut sized brain too much....I promise it won't!
The day the scientific community comes out and says "We were all wrong and that anonymous twit on the message board was correct" I'll struggle with my conscious. Until then, I will forever see you as an old fool who thinks his science degree from ages ago makes him more of an expert on climate science than most every single climate scientist in the world
It is fine that you believe in man made climate change,global cooling, global warming or whatever the flavor of the week is, I don't care.
I am not buying it, we have bigger fish to fry. It is also just fine if people Are not buying the man made climate change theory too.
I don't get why the climate change believers want everyone to believe as they do??
It's just a matter of opinion...
there is a field in science concerned with climate change. you must have been one of those people who believed the science was not in on cigs and cancer
Yet that "science" can't predict anything accurately, which is the basic first test of scientific theory
Denialevidence your objection to the climate science is one of ideology and not science and truth"A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.
It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.
“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.
CO2 is not causing global warming.
Read more: Australian scientist discovers ERRORS in Global Warming models that COMPLETELY undermine climate theory!!! » The Right Scoop -
Sorry, this is a non-starter. You violated the inherent truth of liberalism
You're the one with the anti science philosophy. You wish to absolutely squelch discussion of the subject. That is as anti science as you can get.
Yes, the data on global warming is clearly unclear. The scientific honesty is to keep an open mind. The last thing a liberal has. there is no validity in science until you can predict the future, not just explain the past. And the global warming science has been consistently wrong with every prediction
you attack opponents views as being views of a liberal.again, another ideological argument, not a scientific oneevidence your objection to the climate science is one of ideology and not science and truth
You're the one with the anti science philosophy. You wish to absolutely squelch discussion of the subject. That is as anti science as you can get.
Yes, the data on global warming is clearly unclear. The scientific honesty is to keep an open mind. The last thing a liberal has. there is no validity in science until you can predict the future, not just explain the past. And the global warming science has been consistently wrong with every prediction
That made no sense, Holmes. In fact you just showed the reverse, for you global warming's about ideology
that is an ideological argument
When NASA launched men to go land on the moon and come back. The theories that this could happen were based on predictionsglobal warming is not JUST an opinion.The report? I have no hard-on with the IPPC IPCC ABCD none.How about addressing what they say in the Report numbskull. Go on, it won't hurt your peanut sized brain too much....I promise it won't!
The day the scientific community comes out and says "We were all wrong and that anonymous twit on the message board was correct" I'll struggle with my conscious. Until then, I will forever see you as an old fool who thinks his science degree from ages ago makes him more of an expert on climate science than most every single climate scientist in the world
It is fine that you believe in man made climate change,global cooling, global warming or whatever the flavor of the week is, I don't care.
I am not buying it, we have bigger fish to fry. It is also just fine if people Are not buying the man made climate change theory too.
I don't get why the climate change believers want everyone to believe as they do??
It's just a matter of opinion...
there is a field in science concerned with climate change. you must have been one of those people who believed the science was not in on cigs and cancer
Yet that "science" can't predict anything accurately, which is the basic first test of scientific theory
Oh yeah, you disagree with NASA too
When NASA launched men to go land on the moon and come back. The theories that this could happen were based on predictionsglobal warming is not JUST an opinion.The report? I have no hard-on with the IPPC IPCC ABCD none.How about addressing what they say in the Report numbskull. Go on, it won't hurt your peanut sized brain too much....I promise it won't!
The day the scientific community comes out and says "We were all wrong and that anonymous twit on the message board was correct" I'll struggle with my conscious. Until then, I will forever see you as an old fool who thinks his science degree from ages ago makes him more of an expert on climate science than most every single climate scientist in the world
It is fine that you believe in man made climate change,global cooling, global warming or whatever the flavor of the week is, I don't care.
I am not buying it, we have bigger fish to fry. It is also just fine if people Are not buying the man made climate change theory too.
I don't get why the climate change believers want everyone to believe as they do??
It's just a matter of opinion...
there is a field in science concerned with climate change. you must have been one of those people who believed the science was not in on cigs and cancer
Yet that "science" can't predict anything accurately, which is the basic first test of scientific theory
Oh yeah, you disagree with NASA too
