The "Science is settled" narrative is STOOPID

[bripat9643]

You're wasting your time on Mamooth. She isn't capable of posting facts or logic. In fact most of the time she is incapable of posting undisputed facts, like the fact that 98 out of 100 models failed to come anywhere near the correct temperature for last year. She's simply a denial machine. Ironic, isn't it?

Back in reality, here's how the models compare to the real world. Pretty damn good, any honest person would have to say.

Obviously, that excludes Bri.

Bri, I suggest you now post that faked graph from Goddard which all the deniers love, just to absolutely confirm your status as a cult parrot.

The GISS data has been shown numerous times to be mostly fiction. It has been doctored to the point where it bares no resemblance to what stations actually reported.

Here's a more honest comparison between the models and satellite data:

Pretty damn inaccurate, any honest person would have to say. Obviously, that excludes Mamooth.

 

[orogenicman]

So turns out, Einsteins "Theory of Relativity", based upon the speed of light may have been wrong after all!!!!

Ahem:

Tests of general relativity - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You were saying?

 

[rdean]

So turns out, Einsteins "Theory of Relativity", based upon the speed of light may have been wrong after all!!!!

When Science Is Wrong The Threat of Truth by Consensus PJ Media


Would Einstein, were he alive, try to shut out any new scientific possibilities? Based upon many, many statements he made during his life............no way!!!


Albert Einstein Quotes - 183 Science Quotes - Dictionary of Science Quotations and Scientist Quotes



But climate science is "settled"????

duh





Meanwhile, despite volumes of evidence in the scientific community that puts into question the validity of AGW, the AGW climate crusaders refuse to recognize any science other than their own science.

Fred Dyson, the most brilliant physicist on the planet in the 1950's and who took over for Einstein at Princeton after he died, said THIS >> “I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic,” Dyson said.

Dyson also said THIS >>>

But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.

“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”

A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.

“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”



In other words, these people are so full of shit, its not even real.


Religion? Most definitely.

Science? Most definitely....................not.

To Republicans, statements are new scientific possibilities.

 

[bripat9643]

You're wasting your time on Mamooth. She isn't capable of posting facts or logic. In fact most of the time she is incapable of posting undisputed facts, like the fact that 98 out of 100 models failed to come anywhere near the correct temperature for last year. She's simply a denial machine. Ironic, isn't it?

Back in reality, here's how the models compare to the real world. Pretty damn good, any honest person would have to say.

Obviously, that excludes Bri.

Bri, I suggest you now post that faked graph from Goddard which all the deniers love, just to absolutely confirm your status as a cult parrot.

yo, yo, tooth, now show us the graph with the raw data, let's see the temperatures.

Even at that, the graph shows a difference of .7 degree C for a century, 1.26 degree F. Holy crap the sky is falling. What was the hundred years prior to 1900? Let's see that one.

Also consider when the models were published. If someone makes a model in the year 2000, he will tune it until it matches the temperature record for the previous 'N' years. Showing model results for the past century is utterly disingenuous and deliberately misleading because the models can be tuned and messaged to make the data match. All Mamooth did is prove that she's an AGW con artist who is deliberately trying to fool people.

Why would anyone listen to these people when it becomes apparent how profoundly dishonest they are?

 

[mamooth]

Thank you Bri. I asked you to put up Goddard's fudged graph, and you didn't disappoint. I'm proud of you, and your cult masters are pleased with you as well. Mucho cult brownie points for you.

Yes, it's all faked data, but that doesn't bother a true believer like you. For a cultist, the ends always justify the means. Faking data advances the agenda of your cult, therefore you define the data-faking as good and holy.

However, your cult masters did ask me to pass along to you that your sissyboy bedwetting routine is embarrassing the cult. They'd like you to stop with all the high-pitched hysterical squealing, being it's causing all the dogs in the neighborhood to howl.

Oh, you know I'm a dude, so please stop hitting on me. I don't swing that way.

 

[jc456]

Thank you Bri. I asked you to put up Goddard's fudged graph, and you didn't disappoint. I'm proud of you, and your cult masters are pleased with you as well. Mucho cult brownie points for you.

Yes, it's all faked data, but that doesn't bother a true believer like you. For a cultist, the ends always justify the means. Faking data advances the agenda of your cult, therefore you define the data-faking as good and holy.

However, your cult masters did ask me to pass along to you that your sissyboy bedwetting routine is embarrassing the cult. They'd like you to stop with all the high-pitched hysterical squealing, being it's causing all the dogs in the neighborhood to howl.

Oh, you know I'm a dude, so please stop hitting on me. I don't swing that way.

dude, dudette, just show the real temperatures. Let's see that. Again, the changes is 1.26 degree Fahrenheit in your graphs, so what?

 

[bripat9643]

Thank you Bri. I asked you to put up Goddard's fudged graph, and you didn't disappoint. I'm proud of you, and your cult masters are pleased with you as well. Mucho cult brownie points for you.

Yes, it's all faked data, but that doesn't bother a true believer like you. For a cultist, the ends always justify the means. Faking data advances the agenda of your cult, therefore you define the data-faking as good and holy.

However, your cult masters did ask me to pass along to you that your sissyboy bedwetting routine is embarrassing the cult. They'd like you to stop with all the high-pitched hysterical squealing, being it's causing all the dogs in the neighborhood to howl.

Oh, you know I'm a dude, so please stop hitting on me. I don't swing that way.

Goddard is the one who uncovered the faked data. NASA and Jim Hansen are the ones who doctored the data. The evidence is too overwhelming to deny.

 

[skookerasbil]

Thank you Bri. I asked you to put up Goddard's fudged graph, and you didn't disappoint. I'm proud of you, and your cult masters are pleased with you as well. Mucho cult brownie points for you.

Yes, it's all faked data, but that doesn't bother a true believer like you. For a cultist, the ends always justify the means. Faking data advances the agenda of your cult, therefore you define the data-faking as good and holy.

However, your cult masters did ask me to pass along to you that your sissyboy bedwetting routine is embarrassing the cult. They'd like you to stop with all the high-pitched hysterical squealing, being it's causing all the dogs in the neighborhood to howl.

Oh, you know I'm a dude, so please stop hitting on me. I don't swing that way.

Goddard is the one who uncovered the faked data. NASA and Jim Hansen are the ones who doctored the data. The evidence is too overwhelming to deny.

Thanks ..........somebody finally posting up a real graph. The AGW phonies post up fake graphs in here all the time. Ive been asking that fraud Matthew to post up a graph to define "warming" and "hotter" for almost a week and he hasn't delivered dick. Because the graphs you posted here bro is what I was looking for.........so he didn't want to look like a dick.


These fuckers always screw with the graph axis ( as anybody can do with any graph to make it look the way they want ) and then they display the extremes of the readings = fake. Plays to the Stoopids of the world.


Doctoring the data and doctoring graphs...................ghey.[URL='http://s59.photobucket.com/user/Cairu/media/HardGay.gif.html'][/URL]

 

[skookerasbil]

Thank you Bri. I asked you to put up Goddard's fudged graph, and you didn't disappoint. I'm proud of you, and your cult masters are pleased with you as well. Mucho cult brownie points for you.

Yes, it's all faked data, but that doesn't bother a true believer like you. For a cultist, the ends always justify the means. Faking data advances the agenda of your cult, therefore you define the data-faking as good and holy.

However, your cult masters did ask me to pass along to you that your sissyboy bedwetting routine is embarrassing the cult. They'd like you to stop with all the high-pitched hysterical squealing, being it's causing all the dogs in the neighborhood to howl.

Oh, you know I'm a dude, so please stop hitting on me. I don't swing that way.

dude, dudette, just show the real temperatures. Let's see that. Again, the changes is 1.26 degree Fahrenheit in your graphs, so what?

Exactly.............these phony AGW people want all of us jumping off cliffs due to less than 2 degrees F!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Lets start with the mid tropospheric hot spot which doe not exist..

Except it does exist. Some denier fables just refuse to die.

It is essential to the AGW theroy and a coupled state to water vapor. Since it does not exist, neither does the coupled state.

It's actually essential to any natural warming theory as well. It has to happen, no matter what the cause of the warming is.

This kind of illustreates how Billy works, in that he reliably gets every single thing totally wrong. There's too much of his crap to work through here, but the commonality of it is that all of his claims are the direct opposite of reality. He's basically fabricated his own special delusional reality.

Wrong...

It does not exist as the AGW theroy represents it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Thank you Bri. I asked you to put up Goddard's fudged graph, and you didn't disappoint. I'm proud of you, and your cult masters are pleased with you as well. Mucho cult brownie points for you.

Yes, it's all faked data, but that doesn't bother a true believer like you. For a cultist, the ends always justify the means. Faking data advances the agenda of your cult, therefore you define the data-faking as good and holy.

However, your cult masters did ask me to pass along to you that your sissyboy bedwetting routine is embarrassing the cult. They'd like you to stop with all the high-pitched hysterical squealing, being it's causing all the dogs in the neighborhood to howl.

Oh, you know I'm a dude, so please stop hitting on me. I don't swing that way.

Yes yours is a lie... and nice projection of your behavior on others.. dishonest troll..

 

[Billy_Bob]

You're wasting your time on Mamooth. She isn't capable of posting facts or logic. In fact most of the time she is incapable of posting undisputed facts, like the fact that 98 out of 100 models failed to come anywhere near the correct temperature for last year. She's simply a denial machine. Ironic, isn't it?

Back in reality, here's how the models compare to the real world. Pretty damn good, any honest person would have to say.

Obviously, that excludes Bri.

Bri, I suggest you now post that faked graph from Goddard which all the deniers love, just to absolutely confirm your status as a cult parrot.

Links for your made up graphs... Please.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy, I've asked you several times before for the source of your plainly fudged data. Every time, you refuse to give the source. You just throw out your fraudulent pictures, and demand that they be accepted as accurate.

I've also pointed out how your graphs are flatly contradicted by the actual data I show, with primary sources.

Conclusion: You are a fraud. You're proudly faking data.

So, why are you faking the data?

If you're not faking all the data, there's a way to prove it. Provide your sources.

DO you mean this data?

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate according to AR1 and succeeding papers.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

Now do you want to discuss how the "forcing" which is now zero by empirical evidence and how the null hypothesis shows the theroy of CO2 induced has failed at producing the base LOG rate warming, found in a closed cylinder lab environment, where water vapor has removed all warming possibly caused by CO2?

How many time are you going to be a lazy little hairball?

You keep spouting that lie over and over again, when I have on multiple occasions given you the exact site and where that site get's its data from. It is empirical fact..

So please provide your Data, Method and Math for your 120ppm of CO2 and how it was found to have caused all warming and stopping natural variation.

Your about to get your little fantasy world shredded..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Did you take time to read the whole paper and research the instruments in use?

That is not my field of science and I make no pretense of being a chemist, phsyicist, climate scientist, oceanographer or any sort of specialist - nor do I think are most of the participants here. I can read what other scientists write however and form opinions based on that. You like to throw out a lot of technical terms like confetti, which add nothing to the discussion beyond obfuscation.

Being technically precise is the only way the science can resolve the issue. Not understanding the mechanics of the convection cycle, atmospheric cycles or IR bandpass/absorption is the difference between actual predictive forecasts or failure, like we have seen from the current crop of failed models.

What has 120ppm of CO2 increase over 155 years done to our atmosphere? Please provide Data, Method and process used to determine this.

I'm not a scientist in that specialty so no. I'm not going to provide "data, method, and process". I'm happy to discuss it, but you don't seem to be doing that.

So you debate things from a feel good perspective rather than a fact based perspective.

No. I debate things from a fact based perspective but I have little respect for someone who's arguments are little more than the throwing out of a lot of technical terms intended to dazzle and/or confuse rather than discuss. I can discuss animal behavior, for example, and rattle off a lot of scientific jargon, technical terms and make myself look really good at the expense of the other person but what is the purpose? One of the complaints often said of scientists is they don't communicate their science well to the general public - on their level.

That is the problem with AGW'ers and fear mongers. they do not use facts, they use conjecture and non truths' and expect everyone to believe them.. You are the one who did not come here to debate it, you want religious adherence without basis in fact.

Actually, it's the problem with you. You want to impress everyone with your ability to rattle off terms and "facts" but are incapable of making the "facts" understandable to the average person. It comes off as either hokey (like you have a grasp of the terms but maybe not the science) or arrogant - you are so far above us "peons" that you can't communicate your position. Take your pick.

So in lib speak.. You have no answer to the facts presented but you demand that we toe the liberal fantasy line and give up our way of life, our property and our earnings so that you and your ilk can feel good.. control everything, and we are forced to serve you...

Blind faith in the UN and the IPCC AGW religion is that of a fool.

 

[bripat9643]

You're wasting your time on Mamooth. She isn't capable of posting facts or logic. In fact most of the time she is incapable of posting undisputed facts, like the fact that 98 out of 100 models failed to come anywhere near the correct temperature for last year. She's simply a denial machine. Ironic, isn't it?

Back in reality, here's how the models compare to the real world. Pretty damn good, any honest person would have to say.

Obviously, that excludes Bri.

Bri, I suggest you now post that faked graph from Goddard which all the deniers love, just to absolutely confirm your status as a cult parrot.

Links for your made up graphs... Please.

Mamooth's models are accurate back to 1880. I didn't know they had computers that did climate modelling back then!

 

[Billy_Bob]

You're wasting your time on Mamooth. She isn't capable of posting facts or logic. In fact most of the time she is incapable of posting undisputed facts, like the fact that 98 out of 100 models failed to come anywhere near the correct temperature for last year. She's simply a denial machine. Ironic, isn't it?

Back in reality, here's how the models compare to the real world. Pretty damn good, any honest person would have to say.

Obviously, that excludes Bri.

Bri, I suggest you now post that faked graph from Goddard which all the deniers love, just to absolutely confirm your status as a cult parrot.

Links for your made up graphs... Please.

Mamooth's models are accurate back to 1880. I didn't know they had computers that did climate modelling back then!

Its called "tuning" they force the model to be what they want and then they reverse forecast.. Funny that their reverse forecast failed.

 

[skookerasbil]

Makey-uppey graphs are ghey. AGW progressives do it all the time on this forum to skew the reality!! People who don't pay attention to the Y axis can easily get duped so that their reaction is when really, if the graph is plotted the way it should be, they'd see a virtual flat line related to temperature increases!! BriPat has posted up several REAL graphs in recent days................graphs that blow the AGW frauds phony graphs to shit.


Indeed......AGW climate crusaders wake up in the morning and their feet hit the floor ready to fleece the public with this faux strategy. So ghey............

 

[bripat9643]

Makey-uppey graphs are ghey. AGW progressives do it all the time on this forum to skew the reality!! People who don't pay attention to the Y axis can easily get duped so that their reaction is when really, if the graph is plotted the way it should be, they'd see a virtual flat line related to temperature increases!! BriPat has posted up several REAL graphs in recent days................graphs that blow the AGW frauds phony graphs to shit.


Indeed......AGW climate crusaders wake up in the morning and their feet hit the floor ready to fleece the public with this faux strategy. So ghey............

Also notice that Mamooth's graph's only go up to about 2005. That's only about 5 years after the cooling trend began. That's why it has to go back all the way to 1880, so it looks like most of it is fallowing the trend when the reality is that the small part of it that is actually a prediction doesn't follow the trend at all.

 

[mamooth]

You keep spouting that lie over and over again, when I have on multiple occasions given you the exact site and where that site get's its data from. It is empirical fact.

This is your faked graph.

Now, this is what NOAA says temperatures actually look like.

You can look at the image source info and see my image comes right from NOAA. It doesn't even remotely resemble your faked data. Yes, the CO2 line matches, but the temps are wildly different. So what was the original source of your faked image, the one you keep pretending comes from NOAA?

 

[bripat9643]

You keep spouting that lie over and over again, when I have on multiple occasions given you the exact site and where that site get's its data from. It is empirical fact.

This is your faked graph.

Now, this is what NOAA says temperatures actually look like.

You can look at the image source info and see my image comes right from NOAA. It doesn't even remotely resemble your faked data. Yes, the CO2 line matches, but the temps are wildly different. So what was the original source of your faked image, the one you keep pretending comes from NOAA?

Of course, the NOAA (NCDC) data has been thoroughly "homogenized" and "adjusted." In other words, it's fake.