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

[kiwiman127]

Now, don't you global warming nuts feel just a little silly?

New Study Is A Death Blow To Global Warming Hysteria The Daily Caller

Who is funding these scientist? Exxon? Koch Industries?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Bloggers and Novel Writers like Michael Crichton who are arguing against the phrase scientific consensus are NOT scientists putting forth a new scientific theory, they are deniers of a new theory that has built a new consensus -- backed up by scientific data. Framing the debate over climate science as one over the use of a phrase such as scientific consensus is specious at best

​

I can agree that as some people have written the consensus itself in the area of forecasting 100 year trends on global warming may be of marginal significance, but this doesn't in any way refute the science behind the consensus. After all it was the original Global Warming scientists who were the outliers who like Einstein took a decade or two to build the NEW consensus.

 

[jc456]

Then can you provide some papers or studies from scientists or reputable weather groups that state it's man-caused? Or not man caused I'd love to read them either way so I can form an opinion.

IPCC 4, IPCC 5, are two of over 12,000 reports/papers that come to that conclusion.

Scientific Consensus Global Warming IS Man-made Study Says 97 of Climate Scientists Agree VIDEO Environment Nature World News

Consensus is not a scientific word, only Cults use it

- said the blind man

no, the one who actually understands science.

says the idiot who mistakes idiocy for genius

and yet you can't point to any document that puts the word consensus with scientific definition. Provide one. All you have is climate inspired idots that think they know all of which they know nothing.

 

[jc456]

Now, don't you global warming nuts feel just a little silly?

New Study Is A Death Blow To Global Warming Hysteria The Daily Caller

Who is funding these scientist? Exxon? Koch Industries?

why does it matter? Where else would they get funds? Why doesn't government funding ever go to a study to disprove? Please explain that dilemma you have.

 

[jc456]

Bloggers and Novel Writers like Michael Crichton who are arguing against the phrase scientific consensus are NOT scientists putting forth a new scientific theory, they are deniers of a new theory that has built a new consensus -- backed up by scientific data. Framing the debate over climate science as one over the use of a phrase such as scientific consensus is specious at best

​

I can agree that as some people have written the consensus itself in the area of forecasting 100 year trends on global warming may be of marginal significance, but this doesn't in any way refute the science behind the consensus. After all it was the original Global Warming scientists who were the outliers who like Einstein took a decade or two to build the NEW consensus.

the theory is unproven. So how does one get to consensus?

 

[orogenicman]

Well, the majority of the world's scientists don't believe it is an argument.

The appeal to authority and the lie of a 97% consensus is laughable but not expected.. using 77 papers after throwing away over 11350 others which did not express that view was a hell of a away to get a lie going..

Legates Et Al showed the fallacy an dlie rather well.

You have it backwards. But you knew that.

LOL you really are clueless...

here, let me help you pull your head out of your ass..

Link

So, you prefer a post it from an unknown, unpublished source over a known, published one. Thanks for proving my points. Moreover, the question was not whether or not CO2 caused most of the global warming since 1950. The question was whether or not the current global warming is manmade. And the answer to that question is resoundingly, yes it is.

to which you have no evidence. Prove it dude, 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!!!!

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Take a pill.

 

[orogenicman]

IPCC 4, IPCC 5, are two of over 12,000 reports/papers that come to that conclusion.

Scientific Consensus Global Warming IS Man-made Study Says 97 of Climate Scientists Agree VIDEO Environment Nature World News

Based on failed and shown falsified models and theory's... they are junk pushed by UN socialists wanting world power.

Right, so we are back to models. But the model upon which the OP is based is somehow acceptable to you. Interesting.

Remember it was your precious models that we have shown to be false. The paper in the OP shows just one area that is grossly exaggerated by your cult and shows only part of the reasons your models always fail.

The empirical evidence however, shows even this revelation to be too high still.

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.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

IPCC 4, IPCC 5, are two of over 12,000 reports/papers that come to that conclusion.

Scientific Consensus Global Warming IS Man-made Study Says 97 of Climate Scientists Agree VIDEO Environment Nature World News

Consensus is not a scientific word, only Cults use it

- said the blind man

no, the one who actually understands science.

says the idiot who mistakes idiocy for genius

and yet you can't point to any document that puts the word consensus with scientific definition. Provide one. All you have is climate inspired idots that think they know all of which they know nothing.

you are NOT putting for an argument against the science.

 

[orogenicman]

Right, so we are back to models. But the model upon which the OP is based is somehow acceptable to you. Interesting.

Remember it was your precious models that we have shown to be false. The paper in the OP shows just one area that is grossly exaggerated by your cult and shows only part of the reasons your models always fail.

The empirical evidence however, shows even this revelation to be too high still.

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.

Your Models FAILED.... and still do today..
View attachment 39983

And not a one of them, from your graph, shows anything other than what climate scientists have been saying all along.

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

But the model you agree with does. RIGHT!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Bloggers and Novel Writers like Michael Crichton who are arguing against the phrase scientific consensus are NOT scientists putting forth a new scientific theory, they are deniers of a new theory that has built a new consensus -- backed up by scientific data. Framing the debate over climate science as one over the use of a phrase such as scientific consensus is specious at best

​

I can agree that as some people have written the consensus itself in the area of forecasting 100 year trends on global warming may be of marginal significance, but this doesn't in any way refute the science behind the consensus. After all it was the original Global Warming scientists who were the outliers who like Einstein took a decade or two to build the NEW consensus.

the theory is unproven. So how does one get to consensus?

you're arguing against the evolution of a scientific theory based on observational facts.

you not only have the cart before the horse you have a horses ass for a brain

 

[orogenicman]

IPCC 4, IPCC 5, are two of over 12,000 reports/papers that come to that conclusion.

Scientific Consensus Global Warming IS Man-made Study Says 97 of Climate Scientists Agree VIDEO Environment Nature World News

Consensus is not a scientific word, only Cults use it

- said the blind man

no, the one who actually understands science.

says the idiot who mistakes idiocy for genius

and yet you can't point to any document that puts the word consensus with scientific definition. Provide one. All you have is climate inspired idots that think they know all of which they know nothing.

All you have is a creationist, a dj, and a loser statistician who doesn't know the first thing about climate science, all of whom are on the dole of the petrochemical indusry. Congratulations.

 

[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​

 

[ClosedCaption]

 

[jc456]

Based on failed and shown falsified models and theory's... they are junk pushed by UN socialists wanting world power.

Right, so we are back to models. But the model upon which the OP is based is somehow acceptable to you. Interesting.

Remember it was your precious models that we have shown to be false. The paper in the OP shows just one area that is grossly exaggerated by your cult and shows only part of the reasons your models always fail.

The empirical evidence however, shows even this revelation to be too high still.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Right, so we are back to models. But the model upon which the OP is based is somehow acceptable to you. Interesting.

Remember it was your precious models that we have shown to be false. The paper in the OP shows just one area that is grossly exaggerated by your cult and shows only part of the reasons your models always fail.

The empirical evidence however, shows even this revelation to be too high still.

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

 

[jc456]

I agree, there is a guy in a pot on a flame. Yeppers.

 

[orogenicman]

Right, so we are back to models. But the model upon which the OP is based is somehow acceptable to you. Interesting.

Remember it was your precious models that we have shown to be false. The paper in the OP shows just one area that is grossly exaggerated by your cult and shows only part of the reasons your models always fail.

The empirical evidence however, shows even this revelation to be too high still.

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.

And you have names, right?

 

[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?

 

[jc456]

Remember it was your precious models that we have shown to be false. The paper in the OP shows just one area that is grossly exaggerated by your cult and shows only part of the reasons your models always fail.

The empirical evidence however, shows even this revelation to be too high still.

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.