We'll put the ugliness aside, then. See my latest post linked below to see what I was saying. I was essentially saying in my original post that it was getting pretty damn cold last night for the gulf coast when summer is usually kicking in. I was tossing some humor out with it (nature trumps man), but saying such cold snaps would occur first infrequently, than more frequently over the decades and centuries IF an ice age was approaching. I didn't suggest that one was coming, though. That perhaps is where the misunderstanding occured. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=266584&perpage=6&pagenumber=3
Because those sources don't support his tenuous position. It's a typical hard right policy stance: "if the weight of the evidence is against me, I'll just invent new facts."
Dumbasses. You are just political sheep or morons. However, close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming; fortunately they clearly aren't buying it. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/97-consensus-is-only-76-self-selected.html And that is from 2010. The consensus has swung the other way in the last 4 years. Maybe you guys could figure out how to use Google and look it up yourselves. Probably not, neither of you are smart enough to do that on your own.
so basically 76 climatologists and even Jem agree man has an effect of global warming. (cutting down the rain forest has an eating cows has an effect). That is far different than saying those scientists state man made CO2 is causing the warming. I doubt any of them are saying that... since 100% of top UN climatologists wrote science has no no way to show CO2 effects temperature.
here is the proof that science has no idea if CO2 forces global temps. Note... the IPCC UN Model says it is only project temps based on incomplete info and on info saying CO2 forces temps. That is they study for the model dipshits like fc have been quoting and showing graphs from. Claiming CO2 has an effect. on temps. So in short fc CO2 has been rising and so far the best climatologists the left can offer say... man made CO2 has not been measured to effect warming. Quote from jem: http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot...d-amountnh.html 2.Very Unreliable Climate Forecasts - Modelling. The entire IPCC - Al Gore CAGW paradigm relies on the forecast of dangerous 21st century warming based on the projections (not, modellers are careful to say,predictions) of climate models. The outcome of models is not empirical data .The science is in the inputs i.e our knowledge ( often guesses and assumptions ) of the initial conditions and the physical processes at work on the initial state of the system as we can best establish it. Science section IPCC AR4 WG1 8.6 deals with forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity. The conclusions are in section 8.6.4 which deals with the reliability of the projections.It concludes: "Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed" What could be clearer. The IPCC in 2007 said that we dont even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- ie we don't know what future temperatures will be and we can't calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the "plausible" models to be tested anyway. This quoted statement was ignored by the editors who produced the Summary for Policymakers. Here predictions of disaster were illegitimately given âwith high confidence.â in complete contradiction to several sections of the WG1 science section where uncertainties and error bars were discussed. Almost all the worlds politicians, media and eco-activist organisations uncritically accepted and used these predictions as infallible guides to the futrure and acted on these delusions of certainty. A glance at this Figure 2-20 From AR4 WGI shows immediately that the IPCC models are structurally obviously highly implausible. The only natural forcing is TSI and everything else is anthropogenic. For example under natural should come such things as eg Milankovitch orbital cycles,Lunar related tidal effects on ocean currents and all the Solar activity data time series - eg Solar and Earth magnetic field strength, TSI ,SSNs ,GCRs ,( effect on aerosols,clouds and albedo) CHs, MCEs, EUV variations, and associated ozone variations and Forbush events. Unless the range and causes of natural variation are known within reasonably narrow limits it is simply not possible to calculate the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on climate.
blah blah blah. You still don't use anything from an authoritative reliable source like NOAA, NASA and Had crut. DO you? Of course not. No. you have to go to some denier moron's blog. Call me crazy, but I'll stay with the real science.
You're crazy. You wouldn't understand science if it slapped you in the face. We are already seeing that you don't understand what you are talking about in your discussion with wjk. Why don't you just say 'look it up in wiki' since all you can do is quote that sight?
are you that dense. That is a citation to the UN model. The IPCC model. The model you have been citing in all your misrepresentations and graphs... In the past here on elitetrade I cited you to the exact paragraph they are quoting at the UN. That is as authoritative as an global warming alarmist can get. Those are your authorities.