|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 15, 2015 12:40:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 15, 2015 22:07:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Apr 16, 2015 3:53:27 GMT
The Church Of Climate Scientology: How Climate Science Became A Religion"How do we protect ourselves against such abuses of science? By knowing the one key difference between real scientists and science abusers. Science abusers treat science as an infallible authority to be blindly obeyed by the public. Real scientists treat science as a method to be carefully explained to the public.
By this standard, today’s vaunted “climate science consensus”—that it’s been scientifically proven that we need to dismantle the fossil fuel industry, the economic engine of the world—is more Scientology than science." the biggest phenomenon in climate modeling over the last 15 years is the spectacular failure of the models to predict what happened over this period: flat global temperatures, no significant warming trend. This was the one test the climate modelers were forced to stick their necks out for, and they have failed it. Has this deterred the climate scientologists? No. In the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report they glossed over the failures of their hypothesis and doubled down with new apocalyptic predictions. BUT, BUT, BUTT ... the science is settled! How unsettling!!! |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 16, 2015 11:34:01 GMT
An interesting post to a thread in WUWT that was otherwise successfully trolled. See this response by George e. SmithIt's worth the read and seems to provide yet another falsification of the 'Green House Effect'. |
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Apr 17, 2015 20:59:45 GMT
An interesting post to a thread in WUWT that was otherwise successfully trolled. See this response by George e. SmithIt's worth the read and seems to provide yet another falsification of the 'Green House Effect'. In depth and fascinating response, put together in detail in a way that is often missing when an alarmist slams a denier  |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 20, 2015 14:31:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Apr 20, 2015 16:26:25 GMT
An interesting post to a thread in WUWT that was otherwise successfully trolled. See this response by George e. SmithIt's worth the read and seems to provide yet another falsification of the 'Green House Effect'. Best darn explanation I remember reading. But getting a 'believer' to absorb it, is like asking the 14 year old to flush the toilet. Just fourgettaboutit. It just rolls off the slipstream of the agenda. Perhaps an RPG with a note attached.  |
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Apr 20, 2015 20:07:29 GMT
www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtgGood shout on watching climate change related youtube vids Sig!!! Cant belive it never occured to me, i can be slow Have you seen the above documentary before?? slick C4 (british channel) production.....got investigated by OFCOM (industry standards organisation) they couldn't pull much, was a bit odd watching it as if it hadnt been produced in 2007, i'd swear they had been reading this forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Apr 20, 2015 21:11:21 GMT
www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtgGood shout on watching climate change related youtube vids Sig!!! Cant belive it never occured to me, i can be slow Have you seen the above documentary before?? slick C4 (british channel) production.....got investigated by OFCOM (industry standards organisation) they couldn't pull much, was a bit odd watching it as if it hadnt been produced in 2007, i'd swear they had been reading this forum. Excellent production. There IS hope for the 'cousins'. Thank God! Now, perhaps you can help US out. We need a bunch of these running on American media ... perhaps as small soundbites embedded in commercials. |
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Apr 20, 2015 21:53:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Apr 22, 2015 1:02:00 GMT
Thank you for that Sig! Now let's evaluate it. I note that their map shows Great Plains' March temperatures ranging from 1 to 4 degrees C above the 1951-80 Normal. Strange that they should choose such an OLD normal. Hint ... it's the coldest of the 30-year March ranges they could have chosen ... at least in the grain belt.  Given the headline ... hottest March on record for the globe ... almost guaranteed to be in the top five for the land record, it's only fair to see how it stacks up. So ... I took the station records for my two longitudinal cross sections for the Great Plains and ranked the March 2015 temperatures across the time series. I expected to get scorched  but I didn't even get warm . Mar. 2015 Rank Time Period Temp C Columbia, MO 7.72 40 1890-2015 Kirksville. MO 5.89 41 1895-2015 Ottumwa, IA 4.44 54 1894-2015 Waterloo, IA 1.94 55 1895-2015 Rochester, MN 0.28 32 1909-2015 Duluth,MN -0.78 8 1948-2015 Mar., 2015 Rank Time Period Temp C Emporia, KS 8.67 30 1893-2015 Manhattan, KS 7.83 39 1897-2015 Lincoln, NE 6.28 25 1903-2015 Sioux City, IA 5.56 17 1905-2015 Sioux Falls, SD 3.56 13 1932-2015 Fargo, ND 0.83 13 1900-2015 Grand Forks, ND -0.61 20 1895-2015 Sure is easy to 'fix' a record these days. No doubt April will be a record too! |
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Apr 25, 2015 22:48:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 13, 2015 19:41:16 GMT
There is a tour-de-force posting on WUWT that really bears reading. " 22 Very Inconvenient Climate Truths
Here are 22 good reasons not to believe the statements made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)" It gives 22 reasons and then the rest of the paper goes reason by reason through with references and citations. Really worth a read as it uses real science to rebut AGW. |
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 13, 2015 21:40:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 14, 2015 1:16:08 GMT
Ratty: AS usual, Tamino changes the statistical argument. Note how all of a sudden the question becomes one of a much longer time frame? And that he really does totally ignore the argument of how long since present have temperatures remained stable? Using the same argument as WUWT did, you start at present and go backwards in time until the argument is falsified. Tamino goes back over 100 years, which of course, changes the whole argument. IF he was a farmer, he would think prices of commodities are still going up, when in fact they have broken quickly negative in the past 18 months. Since 1900 tho, prices are in an up trend. But the past 18 months they sure as hell aren't!!!!!! Hard to believe that intelligent folks read Tamino and don't catch on to the sleigh of hand. |
|
but I didn't even get warm 