It's ok. Nobody's perfect.
Of course the "experts" who wrote the IPCC reports were mostly politicians anyway so you can't expect them to get the science exactly correct can you?
I mean this report is only affecting every policy of every administration for the last 12 years because the "experts" are telling us we have to do something now or risk extinction. ..... actually maybe we should expect them to get it right or at least we should expect our "leaders" to use their own brains before increasing the EPA budget by 350% over a 2 year span.
Either way I think we can finally put the whole AGW theory to rest already.
NASA
17 comments:
If the alarmists cared one iota about science, the debate would be over. They made their "best" guess, they were wrong, next.
Sadly they dont.
Congratulations. After my goading you for years, you have finally come up with ONE peer-reviewed article. I won't address the contents of the article or analyse his data and conclusions because I am no more qualified to do so than you are. But now that he's published it other scientists can do so. Why one article by one scientists disproves hundreds of others in your mind is not clear to me, particularly since it's by a well-known AGW denier, with ties to the Heartland Institute and Intelligent Design.
well known denier? Hmmm... so still not using your own brain?
That's ok. I'll do all the critical thinking for you.
1. this article is not analyzing the data. It's reporting the data that has already been analyzed by other scientists.
2. The reason why 1 peer reviewed article disproves all the rest is because this one has the actual data not "projected" data from the rest of the papers that you cite.
So the conclusions that were made 10 years ago based on projected data were completely and utterly wrong. Not a little bit off, not kind of close, but totally and completely incorrect.
Therefore those other peer reviewed studies were WRONG.
It's not a matter of opinion. Its FACT. This newest and latest data PROVES this.
Will anything change? I doubt it because the AGW community never cared about facts anyway and the politicians who protect them clearly like the money and power they can gain from it.
However the facts and the truth are still important to me. As is knowing that I can use my own brain instead of blindly following someone because of a certificate on their wall.
I lack the background in climatology and statistics to properly evaluate this article. But then so do you. And if a scientist on the other side publishes a criticism of this paper, which is likely, we will both lack the background to fully evaluate that. But I commend Spencer for publishing the article so that other actual scientists can consider it. One article PROVES nothing, the use of capital letters notwithstanding.
I will address this one more time but really gary you need to work on your reading comprehension.
Spencer the "denier" didn't write the peer reviewed paper. He's just reporting the FACTS.
and the FACTS say that AGW is not happening. That's it. End of story.
You keep relying on other people to do your thinking for you and you're going to end up thinking the polar bears are drowning and becoming edangered even though their numbers keep going up......oh that's right you already did believe that.....
Oh well. You can move along now....have a nice day.
Oh, well the FACTS. Of course the paper seems to contain a good deal of complex statistical analysis of the FACTS, beyond my ability to follow (and yours)but I guess if I say that AGW is supported by the FACTS and if I put the word in caps and bold and really big type then I must be right. The stoopid is hurting my brain.
once again i would suggest you read the article.
The ipcc models PREDICTED based on certain ASSUMPTIONS that x amount of carbon dioxide would be trapped in the earths atmosphere. They predicted based on these assumptions that x amount of ice would melt, that sea levels would rise x amount, that it would take x amount of time for the green house gases to escape into space. etc.
Well now we know for a FACT that all of those x's were wrong.
once again this is hard facts. not assumptions or predictions. This is not 1 data point. this is not me seizing on a snowy day in july and claiming that AGW is a hoax (like AGW idiots do whenever there's a hurricane or they find a dead polar bear) The facts speak for themselves. The predictions were wrong. We haven't had more hurricanes, the earth has been cooling not warming (which is why the new name is climate change not global warming) the polar bear numbers are growing, the sea level isn't rising, the co2 isn't being trapped at the rate that was predicted and it is escaping into space faster than predicted.
That's it. Game over.
I read the article. What I didn't read is the actual scientific paper itself, although there is a link to it. I glanced at it. The math is way over my head. Did you read it? Do you have the background to follow it? If six months from now another scientists publishes a detailed refutation do you have the background to understand that?
Your statements that the earth is cooling and that the sea levels are not rising are PROOF alone that you don't know what you're talking about.
http://planetsave.com/2011/07/29/no-global-warming-scientists-not-in-tatters-after-new-study/
so your rebuttal to the science is to link to a global warming blog that doesn't rebut the science either but attacks the scientists motives?
And what would be the motives of the bloggers at the GLOBAL WARMING blog?
The first author they link to even admits that although he likes to call the guy names and accuse him of being a big oil lackey he can't say for sure that report is wrong. Just that he doesn't believe it and it shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt.
So once again the FACTS are in. Just like the earth is NOT warming, the sea levels AREN'T rising, polar bears are NOT endangered, the polar ice cap did NOT disappear, we have NOT had more Katrina's or other devastating storms, etc. etc. etc.
You just keep believing opinion. I'll stick with FACTS.
Move along now.
The earth is warming. And the sky is blue.
What I've learned about climate change from The Aurora:
1) One peer-reviewed article in an obscure online journal outweights hundreds in the most prestigious journals.
2) Global warming is caused by the solar cycle AND the earth is cooling. Therefore the earth is getting warmer AND colder.
3) Climate change deniers will latch onto anything, even an article in a LaRouche magazine, while ignoring publications of the National Academy of Sciences.
4) Mars is getting warmer therefore proving that warming on earth is not caused by man. But the earth is cooling, proving that Aurorans can hold two contradictory thoughts in their minds at the same time.
5) It is a waste of time arguing with fools.
I'm glad we could help.
Realclimate.org? Now that's funny. Youre aware that they were founded by Moveon.org right?
You should have quit when you correctly admitted that you lack the intellect to debate this subject, because you dont, and not because you lack the scientific credential but because you are unable to think for yourself.
You are a sheep.
Baah.
And you're a fool.
Good one. What's your next rebuttal? Youre rubber and Im glue?
You admitted you couldnt think for yourself on this issue, I just agreed.
Baah!
First, you are always the first to resort to insult. Second, truth is a defense. You are a fool.
Post a Comment