What the science says

[Wyatt earp]

Still have nothing meaningful to say?

I am not the one bringing up totally dead horses all the time, every one knows cook is full of shit

 

[westwall]

Still have nothing meaningful to say?

You have presented nothing meaningful, thus there is nothing to say. When someone presents us a shit sandwich I toss it in the toilet and walk away. There IS nothing to be said.

 

[Crick]

Still have nothing meaningful to say?

I am not the one bringing up totally dead horses all the time, every one knows cook is full of shit

Even though no one has presented a single solitary shred of evidence to indicate that might be so?

 

[Crick]

You have presented nothing meaningful, thus there is nothing to say. When someone presents us a shit sandwich I toss it in the toilet and walk away. There IS nothing to be said.

Gosh, what a surprise to hear you say such a thing.

NOT.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Still have nothing meaningful to say?

I am not the one bringing up totally dead horses all the time, every one knows cook is full of shit

Even though no one has presented a single solitary shred of evidence to indicate that might be so?

Every one knows what cook did..

For example a published paper on the three blind mice..

3 blind mice walking down the street, the climate was fine, they went up to a man and asked for change.

Presto the writer says man made climate change is real

Also a bunch of those papers we're abstracts

 

[Crick]

Cook was not by himself on this study. You're suggesting they all agreed to do it dishonestly? And how do you explain the result of the author interviews? Or did they all just make it up? What evidence do you have to support your charges? Let me guess: "everyone knows".

 

[jc456]

One of the leading theories is that the Sun is getting hotter.

The taxpayer funded Tippys put that bogus theory out because it is easy to discredit. During the past million years, North America thawed while Greenland froze, all at the same time on the same planet with the same atmosphere with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, proving CO2 had NOTHING to do with either, because climate change is CONTINENT SPECIFIC, as are ice ages...

Apparently you were also unaware that the sun's TSI had been going down for decades and may be headed for a minimum.

Your mindless repetition is really and truly pathetic.

Think about something here Dickster. Start at any point on the Earth's surface and move either west or east till you have circled the Earth. Will you have experienced any temperature changes?

So again, you're saying that there is something else that warms the planet if you actually believe it is getting warmer. What is that something?

 

[jc456]

Cook was not by himself on this study. You're suggesting they all agreed to do it dishonestly? And how do you explain the result of the author interviews? Or did they all just make it up? What evidence do you have to support your charges? Let me guess: "everyone knows".

Evidence? Experiment?

 

[Crick]

So again, you're saying that there is something else that warms the planet if you actually believe it is getting warmer. What is that something?

Reading comprehension is not one of your strong points jc. The planet's equilibrium temperature is being raised primarily by the addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. If you think I'm saying something else or that I believe something else or that I have some ulterior motive, you're going to have to make a better case than you've made so far.

 

[Crick]

Evidence? Experiment?

AR5, Working Group I, the Physical Science Basis.

And to get back to the topic you're trying to get away from: precisely what is it you believe Cook et al have done and on what evidence is that belief based?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Evidence? Experiment?

AR5, Working Group I, the Physical Science Basis.

And to get back to the topic you're trying to get away from: precisely what is it you believe Cook et al have done and on what evidence is that belief based?

Models are not empirical evidence of anything.. and yet you continue to state it as if they presents some kind of scientific facts. You really are in fantasy land lust like the ipcc...How is Alice?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Cook was not by himself on this study. You're suggesting they all agreed to do it dishonestly? And how do you explain the result of the author interviews? Or did they all just make it up? What evidence do you have to support your charges? Let me guess: "everyone knows".

Cook chose his cronies well and they manufactured crap.

 

[jc456]

Evidence? Experiment?

AR5, Working Group I, the Physical Science Basis.

And to get back to the topic you're trying to get away from: precisely what is it you believe Cook et al have done and on what evidence is that belief based?

dude, I have no idea what you're referencing in AR5 as I've stated over ten times in here. Please offer up your observed evidence you feel exists in that report?

Also, you mean what Cook et al failed to do, and that is to provide scientific evidence. SCIENTIFIC, look up the word, it's obvious you have no clue its meaning. An experiment that shows adding 'x' amount of CO2 will cause 'y' 'z' to happen to the planet's temperatures. With the write up and description of what was observed during such experiments. Why is it you can't achieve this deliverable?

Popular Technology.net: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

snippet:

"The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors."

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Cook was not by himself on this study. You're suggesting they all agreed to do it dishonestly?

Likely. They have to know that they're rigging the info, if they come up with such preposterous numbers as 97%.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'll go with the scientists who put a man on the moon, and who are helping to unlock the secrets of our universe

NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

Yea and ignore common sense

Look up: counter-intutive

and the go away, far, far away

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

For the umpteenth time. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!

This is precious coming from a science-denier who backs a premise built upon drawing correlations

Feel free to present a statement of mine that backs up your drivel.

Too much work right now. But I am sure others have that info at the ready

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Look up: counter-intutive

and the go away, far, far away

Look up: appeal to authority.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Look up: counter-intutive

and the go away, far, far away

Look up: appeal to authority.

Appeal to authority?

Linking to facts and experts is an appeal to authority?

You can't even use the English language correctly: An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true.

 

[westwall]

For the umpteenth time. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!

This is precious coming from a science-denier who backs a premise built upon drawing correlations

Feel free to present a statement of mine that backs up your drivel.

Too much work right now. But I am sure others have that info at the ready

Good luck with that. Like most progressive silly people you are all long on prevarication and short on actual fact. You must be related to harry reid that paragon of lying so long as it furthers your purpose it's OK ethical behaviorism.

The facts are this OP, like 90% of the AGW bullshit, is based on correlation. Correlation that stopped 18+ years ago. Face it silly boy, you're the one who is the anti science denier.

 

[Old Rocks]

I'll go with the scientists who put a man on the moon, and who are helping to unlock the secrets of our universe

NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

I will go where science leads... Not where political whores tell me to go.. How is that Muslim out reach organization doing these days?

Silly Billy, you are a liar. You know that as does everyone else. The Scientific Societies, the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities state that AGW is real. Now who makes up those institutions? Scientists. And what do scientists study? Science. And what are you absolutely denying? Science.

You reject the research and findings of generations scientists to run with the rantings of obese junkies on the AM radio and fake English Lords. You reject the photographic evidence of what is happening in the cryosphere. You reject all the evidence gathered by government agencies over the whole world regarding land temperatures and sea level rise. In other words, you just flap yap without even bothering to understand any of the basics of science.