Scientists Say New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria

[Procrustes Stretched]

Even Wikipedia gets it correct:

If I were wrong, then one would have been enough![4]

According to Goenner, the contributions to the book are a mixture of mathematical–physical incompetence, hubris, and the feelings of the critics of being suppressed by contemporary physicists advocating for the new theory. The compilation of the authors show, Goenner continues, that this was not a reaction within the physics community—only one physicist (Karl Strehl) and three mathematicians (Jean-Marie Le Roux, Emanuel Lasker and Hjalmar Mellin) were present—but an inadequate reaction of the academic educated citizenship, which didn't know what to do with relativity.​

Within the physics community there was an overwhelming consensus as is the case in the Climate Science community. Climate Science is not regarded as bunk by critics, it is the global warming argument(s). If the overwhelming majority of Climate scientists agree with the basic premises of global warming, they are more akin to the scientists in physics who agreed with Einstein.

The current debate is one obfuscated and manipulated by interests against doing something about global warming at the current time because of financial and ideological concerns. The arguments against are NOT scientifically based and/or peer reviewed...
Criticism of the theory of relativity - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

...

 

[jc456]

Right, and that the models provided fail to track empirical data. period.

you poor little creature, ponder this:

Theory basics
The University of California, Berkley defines a theory as "a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses."

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts.

...

The evolution of a scientific theory
A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

What is a Scientific Theory Definition of Theory​

Do you know what a theory is? It is a hypothesis validated. Do you have validation? Provide it.

you just responded to this: In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts.
are you seriously this clueless or are you just passing time by trolling the web before your Medicare Home Healthcare worker arrives?

S0n, theory is a validation of a hypothesis. Manipulation, reconstruction of datasets to prove a hypothesis is a lie. No, there is no evidence, none, zero, not a one piece of data that can say in fact that CO2 adds to surface temperatures. Post up that experiment that validates it. Just one.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No, the argument from you deniers has been that ALL models are false. And yet here you are supporting - a model. And by the way, the model that you support doesn't say what you think it says. Congratulations.

it isn't that they are false, it is that empirical data makes them wrong. And no attempt has been made to correct them. That sir is the argument. Get with what the argument is. BTW, still no experiment.

Right. Every climate scientist on the planet is wrong, and don't know how to run their own models, but you, who have no science education or experience, is right. Take a pill.

I never said every climate scientist, only those who says the models are all ok. You do know that there are climate scientist who don't agree with this right? Come on I figured you were smarter than that.

How many? What percentage? You have failed the most basic of tests

why is that important to you? If only one doesn't, it's enough. Judith Curry, ever hear of her. Others have been named in this forum for over a year and you ignore it. There is no such word as consensus in science. Provide the definition, Wikipedia page that includes that word in the definition.

It's important because you are missing the boat completely...

free
A Minority against developing scientific consensus on Climate Change 100 Authors against Einstein US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[jc456]

Even Wikipedia gets it correct:

If I were wrong, then one would have been enough![4]

According to Goenner, the contributions to the book are a mixture of mathematical–physical incompetence, hubris, and the feelings of the critics of being suppressed by contemporary physicists advocating for the new theory. The compilation of the authors show, Goenner continues, that this was not a reaction within the physics community—only one physicist (Karl Strehl) and three mathematicians (Jean-Marie Le Roux, Emanuel Lasker and Hjalmar Mellin) were present—but an inadequate reaction of the academic educated citizenship, which didn't know what to do with relativity.​

Within the physics community there was an overwhelming consensus as is the case in the Climate Science community. Climate Science is not regarded as bunk by critics, it is the global warming argument(s). If the overwhelming majority of Climate scientists agree with the basic premises of global warming, they are more akin to the scientists in physics who agreed with Einstein.

The current debate is one obfuscated and manipulated by interests against doing something about global warming at the current time because of financial and ideological concerns. The arguments against are NOT scientifically based and/or peer reviewed...
Criticism of the theory of relativity - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

...

yep, thanks for proving my point!!!!!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Right, and that the models provided fail to track empirical data. period.

you poor little creature, ponder this:

Theory basics
The University of California, Berkley defines a theory as "a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses."

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts.

...

The evolution of a scientific theory
A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

What is a Scientific Theory Definition of Theory​

Do you know what a theory is? It is a hypothesis validated. Do you have validation? Provide it.

you just responded to this: In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts.
are you seriously this clueless or are you just passing time by trolling the web before your Medicare Home Healthcare worker arrives?

S0n, theory is a validation of a hypothesis. Manipulation, reconstruction of datasets to prove a hypothesis is a lie. No, there is no evidence, none, zero, not a one piece of data that can say in fact that CO2 adds to surface temperatures. Post up that experiment that validates it. Just one.

You deny NASA science?
Refute one fact on NASA's climate change web site

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

 

[jc456]

it isn't that they are false, it is that empirical data makes them wrong. And no attempt has been made to correct them. That sir is the argument. Get with what the argument is. BTW, still no experiment.

Right. Every climate scientist on the planet is wrong, and don't know how to run their own models, but you, who have no science education or experience, is right. Take a pill.

I never said every climate scientist, only those who says the models are all ok. You do know that there are climate scientist who don't agree with this right? Come on I figured you were smarter than that.

How many? What percentage? You have failed the most basic of tests

why is that important to you? If only one doesn't, it's enough. Judith Curry, ever hear of her. Others have been named in this forum for over a year and you ignore it. There is no such word as consensus in science. Provide the definition, Wikipedia page that includes that word in the definition.

It's important because you are missing the boat completely...

free
A Minority against developing scientific consensus on Climate Change 100 Authors against Einstein US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

strawman. holy crap STRAWMAN!! HOLY CRAP!!!!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Even Wikipedia gets it correct:

If I were wrong, then one would have been enough![4]

According to Goenner, the contributions to the book are a mixture of mathematical–physical incompetence, hubris, and the feelings of the critics of being suppressed by contemporary physicists advocating for the new theory. The compilation of the authors show, Goenner continues, that this was not a reaction within the physics community—only one physicist (Karl Strehl) and three mathematicians (Jean-Marie Le Roux, Emanuel Lasker and Hjalmar Mellin) were present—but an inadequate reaction of the academic educated citizenship, which didn't know what to do with relativity.​

Within the physics community there was an overwhelming consensus as is the case in the Climate Science community. Climate Science is not regarded as bunk by critics, it is the global warming argument(s). If the overwhelming majority of Climate scientists agree with the basic premises of global warming, they are more akin to the scientists in physics who agreed with Einstein.

The current debate is one obfuscated and manipulated by interests against doing something about global warming at the current time because of financial and ideological concerns. The arguments against are NOT scientifically based and/or peer reviewed...
Criticism of the theory of relativity - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

...

yep, thanks for proving my point!!!!!

you've totally misread it.



what a troll

 

[jc456]

Right, and that the models provided fail to track empirical data. period.

you poor little creature, ponder this:

Theory basics
The University of California, Berkley defines a theory as "a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses."

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts.

...

The evolution of a scientific theory
A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

What is a Scientific Theory Definition of Theory​

Do you know what a theory is? It is a hypothesis validated. Do you have validation? Provide it.

you just responded to this: In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts.
are you seriously this clueless or are you just passing time by trolling the web before your Medicare Home Healthcare worker arrives?

S0n, theory is a validation of a hypothesis. Manipulation, reconstruction of datasets to prove a hypothesis is a lie. No, there is no evidence, none, zero, not a one piece of data that can say in fact that CO2 adds to surface temperatures. Post up that experiment that validates it. Just one.

You deny NASA science?
Refute one fact on NASA's climate change web site

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

Yes I do. I've stated that many times on here. You and yours have failed to prove them right.

 

[jc456]

Even Wikipedia gets it correct:

If I were wrong, then one would have been enough![4]

According to Goenner, the contributions to the book are a mixture of mathematical–physical incompetence, hubris, and the feelings of the critics of being suppressed by contemporary physicists advocating for the new theory. The compilation of the authors show, Goenner continues, that this was not a reaction within the physics community—only one physicist (Karl Strehl) and three mathematicians (Jean-Marie Le Roux, Emanuel Lasker and Hjalmar Mellin) were present—but an inadequate reaction of the academic educated citizenship, which didn't know what to do with relativity.​

Within the physics community there was an overwhelming consensus as is the case in the Climate Science community. Climate Science is not regarded as bunk by critics, it is the global warming argument(s). If the overwhelming majority of Climate scientists agree with the basic premises of global warming, they are more akin to the scientists in physics who agreed with Einstein.

The current debate is one obfuscated and manipulated by interests against doing something about global warming at the current time because of financial and ideological concerns. The arguments against are NOT scientifically based and/or peer reviewed...
Criticism of the theory of relativity - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

...

yep, thanks for proving my point!!!!!

you've totally misread it.



what a troll

Nope, and it is you the troll with no evidence.

 

[lake avenue]

show the experiment that shows what 10 PPM of manmade CO2 does differently than 10 PPM of natural CO2. Your answer will be that it does absolutely nothing. NOTHING!!!!

There is no difference, they both affect the environment the same, but we make significantly more CO2 than nature does.


Who said natural and man made CO2 was different?

 

[lake avenue]

Even Wikipedia gets it correct:

If I were wrong, then one would have been enough![4]

According to Goenner, the contributions to the book are a mixture of mathematical–physical incompetence, hubris, and the feelings of the critics of being suppressed by contemporary physicists advocating for the new theory. The compilation of the authors show, Goenner continues, that this was not a reaction within the physics community—only one physicist (Karl Strehl) and three mathematicians (Jean-Marie Le Roux, Emanuel Lasker and Hjalmar Mellin) were present—but an inadequate reaction of the academic educated citizenship, which didn't know what to do with relativity.​

Within the physics community there was an overwhelming consensus as is the case in the Climate Science community. Climate Science is not regarded as bunk by critics, it is the global warming argument(s). If the overwhelming majority of Climate scientists agree with the basic premises of global warming, they are more akin to the scientists in physics who agreed with Einstein.

The current debate is one obfuscated and manipulated by interests against doing something about global warming at the current time because of financial and ideological concerns. The arguments against are NOT scientifically based and/or peer reviewed...
Criticism of the theory of relativity - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

...

yep, thanks for proving my point!!!!!

"The arguments against climate science are not scientifically based out peer reviewed"
That doesn't prove your point.

 

[jc456]

show the experiment that shows what 10 PPM of manmade CO2 does differently than 10 PPM of natural CO2. Your answer will be that it does absolutely nothing. NOTHING!!!!

There is no difference, they both affect the environment the same, but we make significantly more CO2 than nature does.


Who said natural and man made CO2 was different?

prove it. That's all I ask, prove it. You can't. You do know that before man existed, there were natural CO2 readings in the thousands? Right? Additionally, CO2 does not cause more warming. so no matter who makes it, it means nothing to global warming other than a conduit to let heat out into space.

 

[jc456]

Even Wikipedia gets it correct:

If I were wrong, then one would have been enough![4]

According to Goenner, the contributions to the book are a mixture of mathematical–physical incompetence, hubris, and the feelings of the critics of being suppressed by contemporary physicists advocating for the new theory. The compilation of the authors show, Goenner continues, that this was not a reaction within the physics community—only one physicist (Karl Strehl) and three mathematicians (Jean-Marie Le Roux, Emanuel Lasker and Hjalmar Mellin) were present—but an inadequate reaction of the academic educated citizenship, which didn't know what to do with relativity.​

Within the physics community there was an overwhelming consensus as is the case in the Climate Science community. Climate Science is not regarded as bunk by critics, it is the global warming argument(s). If the overwhelming majority of Climate scientists agree with the basic premises of global warming, they are more akin to the scientists in physics who agreed with Einstein.

The current debate is one obfuscated and manipulated by interests against doing something about global warming at the current time because of financial and ideological concerns. The arguments against are NOT scientifically based and/or peer reviewed...
Criticism of the theory of relativity - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

...

yep, thanks for proving my point!!!!!

"The arguments against climate science are not scientifically based out peer reviewed"
That doesn't prove your point.

what is my point?

Sorry, what do you think my point is?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Even Wikipedia gets it correct:

If I were wrong, then one would have been enough![4]

According to Goenner, the contributions to the book are a mixture of mathematical–physical incompetence, hubris, and the feelings of the critics of being suppressed by contemporary physicists advocating for the new theory. The compilation of the authors show, Goenner continues, that this was not a reaction within the physics community—only one physicist (Karl Strehl) and three mathematicians (Jean-Marie Le Roux, Emanuel Lasker and Hjalmar Mellin) were present—but an inadequate reaction of the academic educated citizenship, which didn't know what to do with relativity.​

Within the physics community there was an overwhelming consensus as is the case in the Climate Science community. Climate Science is not regarded as bunk by critics, it is the global warming argument(s). If the overwhelming majority of Climate scientists agree with the basic premises of global warming, they are more akin to the scientists in physics who agreed with Einstein.

The current debate is one obfuscated and manipulated by interests against doing something about global warming at the current time because of financial and ideological concerns. The arguments against are NOT scientifically based and/or peer reviewed...
Criticism of the theory of relativity - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

...

yep, thanks for proving my point!!!!!

"The arguments against climate science are not scientifically based out peer reviewed"
That doesn't prove your point.

When I engage idiots like this guy/woman "JC" I have to ask myself, why continually argue with those armed with an opinion in search of arguments?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Even Wikipedia gets it correct:

If I were wrong, then one would have been enough![4]

According to Goenner, the contributions to the book are a mixture of mathematical–physical incompetence, hubris, and the feelings of the critics of being suppressed by contemporary physicists advocating for the new theory. The compilation of the authors show, Goenner continues, that this was not a reaction within the physics community—only one physicist (Karl Strehl) and three mathematicians (Jean-Marie Le Roux, Emanuel Lasker and Hjalmar Mellin) were present—but an inadequate reaction of the academic educated citizenship, which didn't know what to do with relativity.​

Within the physics community there was an overwhelming consensus as is the case in the Climate Science community. Climate Science is not regarded as bunk by critics, it is the global warming argument(s). If the overwhelming majority of Climate scientists agree with the basic premises of global warming, they are more akin to the scientists in physics who agreed with Einstein.

The current debate is one obfuscated and manipulated by interests against doing something about global warming at the current time because of financial and ideological concerns. The arguments against are NOT scientifically based and/or peer reviewed...
Criticism of the theory of relativity - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

...

yep, thanks for proving my point!!!!!

"The arguments against climate science are not scientifically based out peer reviewed"
That doesn't prove your point.

what is my point?

Sorry, what do you think my point is?

to attack Al gore?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

show the experiment that shows what 10 PPM of manmade CO2 does differently than 10 PPM of natural CO2. Your answer will be that it does absolutely nothing. NOTHING!!!!

There is no difference, they both affect the environment the same, but we make significantly more CO2 than nature does.


Who said natural and man made CO2 was different?

prove it. That's all I ask, prove it. You can't. You do know that before man existed, there were natural CO2 readings in the thousands? Right? Additionally, CO2 does not cause more warming. so no matter who makes it, it means nothing to global warming other than a conduit to let heat out into space.

I can see you demanding Einstein in the 1920s prove his theory

 

[jc456]

Even Wikipedia gets it correct:

If I were wrong, then one would have been enough![4]

According to Goenner, the contributions to the book are a mixture of mathematical–physical incompetence, hubris, and the feelings of the critics of being suppressed by contemporary physicists advocating for the new theory. The compilation of the authors show, Goenner continues, that this was not a reaction within the physics community—only one physicist (Karl Strehl) and three mathematicians (Jean-Marie Le Roux, Emanuel Lasker and Hjalmar Mellin) were present—but an inadequate reaction of the academic educated citizenship, which didn't know what to do with relativity.​

Within the physics community there was an overwhelming consensus as is the case in the Climate Science community. Climate Science is not regarded as bunk by critics, it is the global warming argument(s). If the overwhelming majority of Climate scientists agree with the basic premises of global warming, they are more akin to the scientists in physics who agreed with Einstein.

The current debate is one obfuscated and manipulated by interests against doing something about global warming at the current time because of financial and ideological concerns. The arguments against are NOT scientifically based and/or peer reviewed...
Criticism of the theory of relativity - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

...

yep, thanks for proving my point!!!!!

"The arguments against climate science are not scientifically based out peer reviewed"
That doesn't prove your point.

When I engage idiots like this guy/woman "JC" I have to ask myself, why continually argue with those armed with an opinion in search of arguments?

I agree, put me on ignore or leave. The fact is you presented nothing to a debate in here. you lose!

 

[jc456]

show the experiment that shows what 10 PPM of manmade CO2 does differently than 10 PPM of natural CO2. Your answer will be that it does absolutely nothing. NOTHING!!!!

There is no difference, they both affect the environment the same, but we make significantly more CO2 than nature does.


Who said natural and man made CO2 was different?

prove it. That's all I ask, prove it. You can't. You do know that before man existed, there were natural CO2 readings in the thousands? Right? Additionally, CO2 does not cause more warming. so no matter who makes it, it means nothing to global warming other than a conduit to let heat out into space.

I can see you demanding Einstein in the 1920s prove his theory

he would've invited it. You should read on who he was.

 

[jc456]

Even Wikipedia gets it correct:

If I were wrong, then one would have been enough![4]

According to Goenner, the contributions to the book are a mixture of mathematical–physical incompetence, hubris, and the feelings of the critics of being suppressed by contemporary physicists advocating for the new theory. The compilation of the authors show, Goenner continues, that this was not a reaction within the physics community—only one physicist (Karl Strehl) and three mathematicians (Jean-Marie Le Roux, Emanuel Lasker and Hjalmar Mellin) were present—but an inadequate reaction of the academic educated citizenship, which didn't know what to do with relativity.​

Within the physics community there was an overwhelming consensus as is the case in the Climate Science community. Climate Science is not regarded as bunk by critics, it is the global warming argument(s). If the overwhelming majority of Climate scientists agree with the basic premises of global warming, they are more akin to the scientists in physics who agreed with Einstein.

The current debate is one obfuscated and manipulated by interests against doing something about global warming at the current time because of financial and ideological concerns. The arguments against are NOT scientifically based and/or peer reviewed...
Criticism of the theory of relativity - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

...

yep, thanks for proving my point!!!!!

"The arguments against climate science are not scientifically based out peer reviewed"
That doesn't prove your point.

what is my point?

Sorry, what do you think my point is?

to attack Al gore?

who? Who is he? Why would I quote a loser politician?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Even Wikipedia gets it correct:

If I were wrong, then one would have been enough![4]

According to Goenner, the contributions to the book are a mixture of mathematical–physical incompetence, hubris, and the feelings of the critics of being suppressed by contemporary physicists advocating for the new theory. The compilation of the authors show, Goenner continues, that this was not a reaction within the physics community—only one physicist (Karl Strehl) and three mathematicians (Jean-Marie Le Roux, Emanuel Lasker and Hjalmar Mellin) were present—but an inadequate reaction of the academic educated citizenship, which didn't know what to do with relativity.​

Within the physics community there was an overwhelming consensus as is the case in the Climate Science community. Climate Science is not regarded as bunk by critics, it is the global warming argument(s). If the overwhelming majority of Climate scientists agree with the basic premises of global warming, they are more akin to the scientists in physics who agreed with Einstein.

The current debate is one obfuscated and manipulated by interests against doing something about global warming at the current time because of financial and ideological concerns. The arguments against are NOT scientifically based and/or peer reviewed...
Criticism of the theory of relativity - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

...

yep, thanks for proving my point!!!!!

"The arguments against climate science are not scientifically based out peer reviewed"
That doesn't prove your point.

When I engage idiots like this guy/woman "JC" I have to ask myself, why continually argue with those armed with an opinion in search of arguments?

I agree, put me on ignore or leave. The fact is you presented nothing to a debate in here. you lose!

you prove over and over again what a complete idiot you are. no halfway measures for you

Dante has NEVER put anyone on ignore, when all he has to do is simply -- ignore them.