Why scientists disagree about global warming
- Thread starter Micawber
- Start date
zappasguitar
Well-known member
ROFL!!
Don't you love it when you ask a plain and simple question and you get the "clueless rube" response?
Tommy CLEARLY understands, but answering your question won't further his agenda so he plays dumb.
evince
Truthmatters
all research into anything set base premises on which then study will be built
KNOWN FACTS are that base.
Corporations do not pay for studies to have a base of facts that claim GW is false
why?????
because they dont pay for studies based on fucking lies because their out comes will be worthless
the corporations Prove GW deniers are liars
What the ever idiotic evince fails to grasp after hundreds of times of having it explained to her is that the CO2 climate sensitivity (the amount of forcing expected from increases in CO2 concentration) has been given too large of an effect in modeled climate simulations. The forecasts all show greater temps than observations show. Only after torturing the data can climate scientists keep up the charade. Not to worry. The sun is heading for another quiet spell and the extra cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere as a result of reduced sunspot activity will lead to an increase in cloud cover and an increase in albedo. We are heading for another slowdown in the rate of warming. I think I read that it's possible the ocean oscillations may align in negative phase at the same time period for an exceptionally chilly dip in global temps. We shall see. I think I recall the solar cycle 25 is under way and looks to be weak. We shall see. We shall see.
LOL
If only the religious warmers practiced science. They could see for themselves how flimsy the alarmist catastrophic predictions really are. But they choose to have faith in the climate scientists whom they deem infallible. How do you warmers lecture people about science when you ignore obvious biased science (for example ERSST V4 and the buoy to ship warm bias adjustment)? It must be that you don't really understand the science or you don't understand statistics, which is a large part of climate science.
LOL
If only the religious warmers practiced science. They could see for themselves how flimsy the alarmist catastrophic predictions really are. But they choose to have faith in the climate scientists whom they deem infallible. How do you warmers lecture people about science when you ignore obvious biased science (for example ERSST V4 and the buoy to ship warm bias adjustment)? It must be that you don't really understand the science or you don't understand statistics, which is a large part of climate science.