Scientist Exposes Climate ''Religion'' & Its Anti-Liberty Agenda

Borboletta said:
He is a renowned professor of chemistry with over 250 publications to his name. What do you have to bring to the table apart from being an annoying troll?
Click to expand...

I am not a retard.
Your Professor is.
soup-nazi-right.jpg

NO STEAK FOR YOU!​
 
Using the (very) few agreeing viewpoints on a subject just because they align with your own is called confirmation bias, and its a big no no in science.
 
Mr.Badguy said:
Using the (very) few agreeing viewpoints on a subject just because they align with your own is called confirmation bias, and its a big no no in science.
Click to expand...

Is it confirmation bias to say that both the UAH and RSS satellite datasets show no warming over nearly 19 years? Even the IPCC has recognised that fact and NASA said in 1990 that satellites are the most accurate way of determining troposphere temperatures. Is it confirmation bias to say that the computer models from whence all these predictions emanate have all been wildly inaccurate? The latest estimates for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity give a figure of around 1.2C for a doubling of CO2 concentration without any positive feedbacks, for which there is scant evidence and indeed virtually no empirical evidence.

I would remind you of the concept of falsifiabilty, something that warmists choose to ignore for the most part.

https://explorable.com/falsifiability
 
Last edited:
Borboletta said:
Is it confirmation bias to say that both the UAH and RSS satellite datasets show no warming over nearly 19 years? Even the IPCC has recognised that fact and NASA said in 1990 that satellites are the most accurate way of determining troposphere temperatures. Is it confirmation bias to say that the computer models from whence all these predictions emanate have all been wildly inaccurate? The latest estimates for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity give a figure of around 1.2C for a doubling of CO2 concentration without any positive feedbacks, for which there is scant evidence and indeed virtually no empirical evidence.

I would remind you of the concept of falsifiabilty, something that warmists choose to ignore for the most part.

https://explorable.com/falsifiability
Click to expand...

That's IT! NO STEAK FOR YOU!
Poor BORBO
 
Borboletta said:
I don't need trolling cunts like you, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

Thredban all dissenting opinion and you can have your little circle jerk of pro-polluter liars who wish to chime in. Like so many others who do that, your threads will die with 0 replies.
Poor BORBO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top