New study confirms climate models suck

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Tinfoil you're a tard.

[tinfoil]

Satellites are not the only source of proof for anthropogenic climate change. When you climate science deniers start doing ANYTHING AT ALL in the relevant science literature, you let us know.

I guess you must think the alarmists have been finding the flaws. LOL

[cancel2 2022]

Satellites are not the only source of proof for anthropogenic climate change. When you climate science deniers start doing ANYTHING AT ALL in the relevant science literature, you let us know.

Holy crapinski, how's about 1000 papers is that enough for you?

http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/03/1....bfLZcPHu.dpbs

Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo

[Micawber]

Now there you go displaying your ignorance to all and sundry. The author of that Guardian article Richard Tol is an economics professor specialising in the economics of climate change. He has also been a contributor to the IPCC.

Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo

Ridiculous. You asked me to tell you what that study I linked to said. It said it says. Read it. 97% AGW among other things.

[cancel2 2022]

Ridiculous. You asked me to tell you what that study I linked to said. It said it says. Read it. 97% AGW among other things.

I have read it already and well before now, indeed when it first came out. It's bullshit and the methodology has been discredited many times. John Cook is a fraud, nobody takes him seriously anymore.

Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo

[Micawber]

I have read it already and well before now, indeed when it first came out. It's bullshit and the methodology has been discredited many times. John Cook is a fraud, nobody takes him seriously anymore.

Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo

Of course you did. And I posted it before, and you said this before, and you apparently don't remember, and you wasted our time getting back here from start. I hate arguing with people when I always have to go from reboot.

If we do this again in three months or a year will you remember? I will. It's my burden I guess.

The study is an analysis of more than 1000 published peer reviewed climate science papers and determines that they by 97 percent accept the basic science and human cause of climate change being the predominant factor. That's the claim. Now carry your burden of proving the defamation you just published, without having first offered a damn thing, I might add. Libel per se. You are defaming a guy in his business trade or profession. Prove he is a fraud, non climate scientist.

"Scientist said x" - micawber
"Everyone knows he's a fraud" milgram

Thanks for your expert analysis.

[Bigdog]

Thanks for your expert analysis.

We're past the Al Gorian "point of no return". We have entered a self reinforcing feedback loop that can only end in a fireball Earth. Anything you or the U.N. do from this point on is fruitless. At least, that is, if you actually believe the "science".

[Micawber]

We're past the Al Gorian "point of no return". We have entered a self reinforcing feedback loop that can only end in a fireball Earth. Anything you or the U.N. do from this point on is fruitless. At least, that is, if you actually believe the "science".

Well of course that is a lie. Your leader has been a good teacher. I think there is some percentage of experts who think there is already an irreversible highly negative impact, but that is not the consensus yet. And not a cataclysmic irreversibility. And there is a tiny percentage who actually do believe your disgusting and disserving sarcasm.

Mock it. Mock pure science. Mock reason. You are the hostile party. Your leader is a lying orange joke. You want my country to be a joke. I love my country. I won't allow it. Your hate must end. Your self destruction must end.

[cancel2 2022]

Of course you did. And I posted it before, and you said this before, and you apparently don't remember, and you wasted our time getting back here from start. I hate arguing with people when I always have to go from reboot.

If we do this again in three months or a year will you remember? I will. It's my burden I guess.

The study is an analysis of more than 1000 published peer reviewed climate science papers and determines that they by 97 percent accept the basic science and human cause of climate change being the predominant factor. That's the claim. Now carry your burden of proving the defamation you just published, without having first offered a damn thing, I might add. Libel per se. You are defaming a guy in his business trade or profession. Prove he is a fraud, non climate scientist.

"Scientist said x" - micawber
"Everyone knows he's a fraud" milgram

Thanks for your expert analysis.

Now you are going back to fuckwit mode, if indeed you ever left it. Here is what Judith Curry, who is a climate scientist, had to say on the matter.

https://judithcurry.com/2013/07/26/the-97-consensus/

Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo

[cancel2 2022]

Well of course that is a lie. Your leader has been a good teacher. I think there is some percentage of experts who think there is already an irreversible highly negative impact, but that is not the consensus yet. And not a cataclysmic irreversibility. And there is a tiny percentage who actually do believe your disgusting and disserving sarcasm.

Mock it. Mock pure science. Mock reason. You are the hostile party. Your leader is a lying orange joke. You want my country to be a joke. I love my country. I won't allow it. Your hate must end. Your self destruction must end.

Good grief, how many whiskies have you had now?

Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo

[cancel2 2022]

Of course you did. And I posted it before, and you said this before, and you apparently don't remember, and you wasted our time getting back here from start. I hate arguing with people when I always have to go from reboot.

If we do this again in three months or a year will you remember? I will. It's my burden I guess.

The study is an analysis of more than 1000 published peer reviewed climate science papers and determines that they by 97 percent accept the basic science and human cause of climate change being the predominant factor. That's the claim. Now carry your burden of proving the defamation you just published, without having first offered a damn thing, I might add. Libel per se. You are defaming a guy in his business trade or profession. Prove he is a fraud, non climate scientist.

"Scientist said x" - micawber
"Everyone knows he's a fraud" milgram

Thanks for your expert analysis.

I again refer to the words of the incomparable Richard Lindzen, emeritus professor at MIT and the world's leading authority on atmospheric physics.

The 97% meme:

This claim is actually a come-down from the 1988 claim on the cover of Newsweek that all scientists agree. In either case, the claim is meant to satisfy the non-expert that he or she has no need to understand the science. Mere agreement with the 97% will indicate that one is a supporter of science and superior to anyone denying disaster. This actually satisfies a psychological need for many people. The claim is made by a number of individuals and there are a number of ways in which the claim is presented.

A thorough debunking has been given in the Wall Street Journal by Bast and Spencer. One of the dodges is to poll scientists as to whether they agree that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased, that the Earth has been warming (albeit only a little) and that man has played some part. This is, indeed, something almost all of us can agree on, but which has no obvious implication of danger. Nonetheless this is portrayed as support for catastrophism. Other dodges involve looking at a large number of abstracts where only a few actually deal with danger. If among these few, 97% support catastrophism, the 97% is presented as pertaining to the much larger totality of abstracts. One of my favorites is the recent claim in the Christian Science Monitor (a once respected and influential newspaper): “For the record, of the nearly 70,000 peer-reviewed articles on global warming published in 2013 and 2014,*four authors*rejected the idea that humans are the main drivers of climate change.” I don’t think that it takes an expert to recognize that this claim is a bizarre fantasy for many obvious reasons. Even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (this body, generally referred to as the IPCC is the body created by the UN to provide ‘authoritative’ assessments of manmade climate change) doesn’t agree with the claim.

Despite the above, I am somewhat surprised that it was necessary to use the various shenanigans described above. Since this issue fully emerged in public almost 30 years ago (and was instantly incorporated into the catechism of political correctness), there has been a huge increase in government funding of the area, and the funding has been predicated on the premise of climate catastrophism. By now, most of the people working in this area have entered in response to this funding. Note that governments have essentially a monopoly over the funding in this area. I would expect that the recipients of this funding would feel obligated to support the seriousness of the problem. Certainly, opposition to this would be a suicidal career move for a young academic. Perhaps the studies simply needed to properly phrase their questions so as to achieve levels of agreement for alarm that would be large though perhaps not as large as was required for the 97% meme especially if the respondents are allowed anonymity.

Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo