Climate Science Doubts: Not Because of Payment, but Because the Science Is Bad

[mamooth]

Radiation escaping at the TOA is on the increase as it has been for some time....indicating that the earth is losing heat.

Check it out! SSDD is back with his mystery graph!

He's like Billy in that regard. The use of unsourced mystery graphs composed of faked data is a tactic common to all Sky Dragon Slayers. I suppose we might be able to find the origin of the faked graphic if we delved deeply enough into the bowels of PSI or Hockey Schtick, but I doubt anyone cares that much.

In addition a paper recently published in the Geophysical Research Letters

As far as the Zhou 2015 paper goes, if fails to mention that most models, including all of the mainstream ones, don't use that old solar approximation. Only a handful of minor models use the old solar approximation, with only a single old dodgy Russian model being bad enough to vary by 30 W/m^2. And even for that kind of models that did vary like that, the errors varied equally in both directions over the day.

That is, much ado about nothing. And such nothings are always the best the deniers have.

And even though SSDD now knows his claims here are bullshit, he'll keep trying to pass them off, since he believes he has a special dispensation to lie, handed to him by God and his cult.

 

[SSDD]

Radiation escaping at the TOA is on the increase as it has been for some time....indicating that the earth is losing heat.

Check it out! SSDD is back with his mystery graph!

He's like Billy in that regard. The use of unsourced mystery graphs composed of faked data is a tactic common to all Sky Dragon Slayers. I suppose we might be able to find the origin of the faked graphic if we delved deeply enough into the bowels of PSI or Hockey Schtick, but I doubt anyone cares that much.

And the hairball is still here offering up logical fallacies in lieu of any actual argument.....complaining over the source of the graph rather than proving what the graph says is false. If you have a graph of actual observation, in lieu of model output that says something other than what my graph says, by all means, lets see it.

In addition a paper recently published in the Geophysical Research Letters

As far as the Zhou 2015 paper goes, if fails to mention that most models, including all of the mainstream ones, don't use that old solar approximation. Only a handful of minor models use the old solar approximation, with only a single old dodgy Russian model being bad enough to vary by 30 W/m^2. And even for that kind of models that did vary like that, the errors varied equally in both directions over the day.

CIMP5 are the mainstream models you f'ing idiot and the paper finds the error in the CIMP5 models. Can't you read?...oh...that's right. You can't. Here, let me reiterate what the paper says:

However, in many Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) models, we find that the incident radiation exhibited zonal oscillations, with up to 30 W/m2 of spurious variations. This feature can affect the interpretation of regional climate and diurnal variation of CMIP5 results. This oscillation is also found in the Community Earth System Model.

And clearly, a model that is off by a factor of 18 is fine with you so long as it says what you want it to say.

That is, much ado about nothing. And such nothings are always the best the deniers have.

Typical alarmist response to studies that find your models failing miserably....move along...nothing to see here...except hairball, there is something to see there and no matter how much you whine and wet your panties, the models are failing miserably and will till they incorporate accurate physics at their foundation.

By the way hairball, here are a couple more graphs that say the same thing as the graph I provided.

I won't ask if you are an idiot or a brainwashed minion...we all know that you are an idiot who aspires to be a brainwashed minion.

 

[jc456]

Radiation escaping at the TOA is on the increase as it has been for some time....indicating that the earth is losing heat.

Check it out! SSDD is back with his mystery graph!

He's like Billy in that regard. The use of unsourced mystery graphs composed of faked data is a tactic common to all Sky Dragon Slayers. I suppose we might be able to find the origin of the faked graphic if we delved deeply enough into the bowels of PSI or Hockey Schtick, but I doubt anyone cares that much.

And the hairball is still here offering up logical fallacies in lieu of any actual argument.....complaining over the source of the graph rather than proving what the graph says is false. If you have a graph of actual observation, in lieu of model output that says something other than what my graph says, by all means, lets see it.

In addition a paper recently published in the Geophysical Research Letters

As far as the Zhou 2015 paper goes, if fails to mention that most models, including all of the mainstream ones, don't use that old solar approximation. Only a handful of minor models use the old solar approximation, with only a single old dodgy Russian model being bad enough to vary by 30 W/m^2. And even for that kind of models that did vary like that, the errors varied equally in both directions over the day.

CIMP5 are the mainstream models you f'ing idiot and the paper finds the error in the CIMP5 models. Can't you read?...oh...that's right. You can't. Here, let me reiterate what the paper says:

However, in many Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) models, we find that the incident radiation exhibited zonal oscillations, with up to 30 W/m2 of spurious variations. This feature can affect the interpretation of regional climate and diurnal variation of CMIP5 results. This oscillation is also found in the Community Earth System Model.

And clearly, a model that is off by a factor of 18 is fine with you so long as it says what you want it to say.

That is, much ado about nothing. And such nothings are always the best the deniers have.

Typical alarmist response to studies that find your models failing miserably....move along...nothing to see here...except hairball, there is something to see there and no matter how much you whine and wet your panties, the models are failing miserably and will till they incorporate accurate physics at their foundation.

I won't ask if you are an idiot or a brainwashed minion...we all know that you are an idiot who aspires to be a brainwashed minion.[/QUOTE]
He/she posts looking for attention.

 

[SSDD]

He/she posts looking for attention.

Certainly not to make any sort of rational argument. The hairball's posts mostly remind me of a monkey hurling feces...it's her knee-jerk reaction to anything that is outside of her comfort zone...comfort zone being that bubble of denial of the observable universe that she lives in.

 

[mamooth]

Yes! SSDD decided to play. Fresh meat, how sweet. I was getting bored with the other kooks, as they just cried at me.

[And the hairball is still here offering up logical fallacies in lieu of any actual argument.....complaining over the source of the graph rather than proving what the graph says is false. If you have a graph of actual observation, in lieu of model output that says something other than what my graph says, by all means, lets see it.

No, pissdrinker, that's not how it works. While it's no problem to post the real science, and I will, you don't get to post a mystery graph and then declare everyone else is responsible for refuting it. You have to back up your bullshit. Nor does posting two more mystery graphs help your case. Instead, that just confirms your status as a proud data fudger.

I'm guessing the basic nature of your fudge is that someone searched through many different sets of raw -- meaning incomplete -- data until they found the bit they liked. Lying by cherrypicking, that is. In contrast, the real studies look at all the data, and correct for known errors.

If you're not posting such faked data, it's easy enough to prove. Just show us the exact source of the data. We keep asking, you keep refusing. To normal people, that indicates you know you're faking your data.

Oh, as far as the backradiation goes, we have this exhaustive 10-year study showing the global increase in backradiation. Smoking gun. Your kook theory certainly can't explain it, which is why you'll have to run from it.

First direct observation of carbon dioxide s increasing greenhouse effect at Earth s surface -- ScienceDaily

For the OLR,
Gastineau et al 2014
https://skyros.locean-ipsl.upmc.fr/~ggalod/papers/GSDO2013_R2_v6.pdf
---
While the tropical ocean surface temperature has risen by roughly 0.2 K from 1982 to 2004, the reconstructed OLR remains stable over the ocean. Consequently, there is an increase in the clear-sky greenhouse effect (GHE) of 0.80 W m−2 decade−1.
---

Chapman et al 2013
SPIE Proceeding A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS
---
Decadal trends for AIRS spectra from 2002-2012 indicate continued decrease of -0.06 K/yr in the trend of CO2 BT (700cm-1 and 2250cm-1), a decrease of -0.04 K/yr of O3 BT (1050 cm-1), and a decrease of -0.03 K/yr of the CH4 BT (1300cm-1).
---

CIMP5 are the mainstream models you f'ing idiot and the paper finds the error in the CIMP5 models.

No. Some are mainstream. Some are minor, kept around for legacy purposes. The paper found an error in a few minor CMIP5 models. Namely: bcc-csm1-1, BNUESM, CanAM4, CCSM4, CESM1-CAM5, EC-EARTH, inmcm4, NorESM1-M.

The better models were ACCESS1-0, ACCESS1-3, CMCC-CM, CNRM-CM5, CSIRO-Mk3-6-0, FGOALS-g2, FGOALS-s2, GFDL-CM3, GFDL-HIRAM-C180, GISS-E2-R, HadGEM2-A, IPSL-CM5A-LR, IPSLCM5A-MR, IPSL-CM5B-LR, MIROC5, MPI-ESM-LR, MPI-ESM-MR, MRI-AGCM3-2H, MRI-AGCM3-2S, MRI-CGCM3.

So, 20 "good", 7 "bad". That "good" list includes all the major models., which are the Hadley, MPI and GFDL models. And you had absolutely no idea of that, given how you're so hilariously ignorant of every aspect of the science.

The only model off by 30W/m^2 was inmcm4, an old Russian model that nobody had every heard of. Yet you chose to lie and declare every model was off by a factor of 18. You're not the most dishonest poster on these boards, but you're in the running.

So, why did the older models do this? Because it's much computationally easier. And it all evens out. That is, the errors are balanced. More energy in one little spot meant less energy in another nearby little spot. If it's fine-grained enough, it's all a wash. Not being idiots, that's why the model makers allowed it. It was a tradeoff. With newer models, more computation power was available, so the approximations didn't have to be made.

What's more, it's a consistent error. Therefore, it can't explain any trends in a model. Therefore, even for an affected model, it doesn't change anything.

Damn, you just fail in so many ways, it's hard to keep track.

By the way, good luck with getting jc's lips removed from your rectum. Being he lacks higher brain function and operates purely on reflex action, he'll latch on, like some anus-seeking remora, to any passing fraudster who can lie well. You're going to lose skin in the process of getting him detached.

 

[SSDD]

Yes! SSDD decided to play. Fresh meat, how sweet. I was getting bored with the other kooks, as they just whined at me.

You would be laughable if you weren't so pathetic.

No, pissdrinker, that's not how it works. You don't get to post mystery data and then declare it's everyone else's responsibility to refute it. You have to back up your bullshit. Nor does posting two more mystery graphs help your case. Instead, that just confirms your status as a proud data fudger.

If you weren't so woefully uninformed, you would have recognized the well known observations showing an increase in outgoing LW at the TOA...contrary to the alarmist claims of decreasing outgoing LW. The graph from NOAA corroborates the other two....sorry you are too f'ing stupid to grasp that....of course you are to stupid to grasp much of anything, aren't you?

Oh, as far as the backradiation goes, we have this exhaustive 10-year study showing the global increase in backradiation. Smoking gun. Your kook theory certainly can't explain it, which is why you'll have to run from it.

Actually, we don't. Again you are terribly misinformed....ignorant one might say. If you look at the equipment used to measure this so called back radiation, you will see that each and every piece is cooled to a temperature far below that of the atmosphere. There is no back radiation at ambient temperature and the atmosphere radiating to an instrument that is colder than the atmosphere can hardly be characterized as back radiation...it is a warm radiator radiating to a cooler object just as the second law predicts.

First direct observation of carbon dioxide s increasing greenhouse effect at Earth s surface -- ScienceDaily

Right...and the instruments are cooled to a temperature cooler than the atmosphere so that they can collect radiation from the atmosphere. If there were actual back radiation at ambient temperature, supercooling of the instruments would not be required....certainly no cooling of airborne instrumentation is required to measure outgoing radiation from the warmer surface of the planet.

No. Some are mainstream. Some are minor. The paper found an error in a few minor CMIP5 models. Namely: bcc-csm1-1, BNUESM, CanAM4, CCSM4, CESM1-CAM5, EC-EARTH, inmcm4, NorESM1-M.

Again, your ignorance is showing. Enough said.

By the way, good luck with getting jc's lips removed from your rectum. Being he lacks higher brain function and operates purely on reflex action, he'll latch on, like some anus-seeking remora, to any passing fraudster who can lie well. You're going to lose skin in the process of getting him detached.

My but you do project, don't you. You should change your screen name to Barco....they make one of the best projectors that can be had today. Clearly JC has you shaken or you wouldn't take the time to hurl a gratuitous insult his way for no apparent reason. You are as transparent as you are stupid.

 

[mamooth]

If you weren't so woefully uninformed, you would have recognized the well known observations showing an increase in outgoing LW at the TOA...

Which you can't show, except with your fudged graphs, which you _still_ won't tell us the source of.

That would be because the source is "Some denier cultist yanked them out of his ass".

You're a fraud, and you're not even good at it.

Actually, we don't. Again you are terribly misinformed....ignorant one might say. If you look at the equipment used to measure this so called back radiation,

Like I said, all the actual data says you're cuckooforcocoapuffs, so you invent these excuses to handwave away all the actual data. In this case, you resort to your "There's no such thing as backradiation!" insanity, which can be instantly disproved by anyone who points an infrared spectrometer at the sky.

Again, your ignorance is showing. Enough said.

You didn't even try to counter the rest of my points. You're just whimpering now. I _own_ you, everyone knows it, and I'm laughing my ass off.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, let's see what the past has given us concerning the prognostificative abilities of the denialists versus the scientists. In 1981, the denialists were stating flat out that there was no warming of the Earth, period. In spite of evidence then being presented, they flat out denied anything at all was happening, and that nothing was going to happen. And what were the scientists stating?

Pubs.GISS Hansen et al. 1981 Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide


National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Goddard Space Flight Center
Sciences and Exploration Directorate
Earth Sciences Division
Publication Abstracts
Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

• Download PDF (2.6 MB; scanned, no OCR)
• Go to journal webpage

 

[jc456]

If you weren't so woefully uninformed, you would have recognized the well known observations showing an increase in outgoing LW at the TOA...

Which you can't show, except with your fudged graphs, which you _still_ won't tell us the source of.

That would be because the source is "Some denier cultist yanked them out of his ass".

You're a fraud, and you're not even good at it.

Actually, we don't. Again you are terribly misinformed....ignorant one might say. If you look at the equipment used to measure this so called back radiation,

Like I said, all the actual data says you're cuckooforcocoapuffs, so you invent these excuses to handwave away all the actual data. In this case, you resort to your "There's no such thing as backradiation!" insanity, which can be instantly disproved by anyone who points an infrared spectrometer at the sky.

Again, your ignorance is showing. Enough said.

You didn't even try to counter the rest of my points. You're just whimpering now. I _own_ you, everyone knows it, and I'm laughing my ass off.

Your ass fell off long ago when you first looked in the mirror

 

[ralfy]

Related:

US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016 Nafeez Ahmed Environment The Guardian

How Accurate are Future Projections of Climate Change A Look at Past IPCC Reports Provides Some Answers - The Equation

Bombshell Koch-Funded Study Finds Global Warming Is Real On The High End And Essentially All Due To Carbon Pollution ThinkProgress

Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97 global warming consensus Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

 

[Billy_Bob]

Well, let's see what the past has given us concerning the prognostificative abilities of the denialists versus the scientists. In 1981, the denialists were stating flat out that there was no warming of the Earth, period. In spite of evidence then being presented, they flat out denied anything at all was happening, and that nothing was going to happen. And what were the scientists stating?

Pubs.GISS Hansen et al. 1981 Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide


National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Goddard Space Flight Center
Sciences and Exploration Directorate
Earth Sciences Division
Publication Abstracts
Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

• Download PDF (2.6 MB; scanned, no OCR)
• Go to journal webpage

HANSEN ET AL...1981.... and its been debunked as a farce and fabrication.. many times over.. keep posting this crap.. we will keep telling you how stupid you look..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Related:

US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016 Nafeez Ahmed Environment The Guardian

How Accurate are Future Projections of Climate Change A Look at Past IPCC Reports Provides Some Answers - The Equation

Bombshell Koch-Funded Study Finds Global Warming Is Real On The High End And Essentially All Due To Carbon Pollution ThinkProgress

Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97 global warming consensus Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

OH COOL! more alarmist predictions that wont come true...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Radiation escaping at the TOA is on the increase as it has been for some time....indicating that the earth is losing heat.

Check it out! SSDD is back with his mystery graph!

He's like Billy in that regard. The use of unsourced mystery graphs composed of faked data is a tactic common to all Sky Dragon Slayers. I suppose we might be able to find the origin of the faked graphic if we delved deeply enough into the bowels of PSI or Hockey Schtick, but I doubt anyone cares that much.

And the hairball is still here offering up logical fallacies in lieu of any actual argument.....complaining over the source of the graph rather than proving what the graph says is false. If you have a graph of actual observation, in lieu of model output that says something other than what my graph says, by all means, lets see it.

In addition a paper recently published in the Geophysical Research Letters

As far as the Zhou 2015 paper goes, if fails to mention that most models, including all of the mainstream ones, don't use that old solar approximation. Only a handful of minor models use the old solar approximation, with only a single old dodgy Russian model being bad enough to vary by 30 W/m^2. And even for that kind of models that did vary like that, the errors varied equally in both directions over the day.

CIMP5 are the mainstream models you f'ing idiot and the paper finds the error in the CIMP5 models. Can't you read?...oh...that's right. You can't. Here, let me reiterate what the paper says:

However, in many Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) models, we find that the incident radiation exhibited zonal oscillations, with up to 30 W/m2 of spurious variations. This feature can affect the interpretation of regional climate and diurnal variation of CMIP5 results. This oscillation is also found in the Community Earth System Model.

And clearly, a model that is off by a factor of 18 is fine with you so long as it says what you want it to say.

That is, much ado about nothing. And such nothings are always the best the deniers have.

Typical alarmist response to studies that find your models failing miserably....move along...nothing to see here...except hairball, there is something to see there and no matter how much you whine and wet your panties, the models are failing miserably and will till they incorporate accurate physics at their foundation.

By the way hairball, here are a couple more graphs that say the same thing as the graph I provided.

I won't ask if you are an idiot or a brainwashed minion...we all know that you are an idiot who aspires to be a brainwashed minion.

Love the confirmation of TOA thermal release.. Just proof that our Convection cycle is working properly..

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

AlGore on suicide watch....no one cares!

Breitbart ^ | 03/25/2015 | Dr. Christopher Essex
Members of the Scientific Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) recently criticized the Royal Society’s positions on climate. Their clear, authoritative scientific objections to the Royal Society’s positions reveal the weak scientific foundation on which the great climate fervor has been based. The public must either become conversant enough to grasp this or step back and get out of the way of those who have. Scientists don’t need to be paid to oppose the ideas of climate orthodoxy, because those ideas are just so damn bad....

Jesus Christ you are a sucker

Global Warming Policy Foundation - SourceWatch

 

[Vigilante]

AlGore on suicide watch....no one cares!

Breitbart ^ | 03/25/2015 | Dr. Christopher Essex
Members of the Scientific Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) recently criticized the Royal Society’s positions on climate. Their clear, authoritative scientific objections to the Royal Society’s positions reveal the weak scientific foundation on which the great climate fervor has been based. The public must either become conversant enough to grasp this or step back and get out of the way of those who have. Scientists don’t need to be paid to oppose the ideas of climate orthodoxy, because those ideas are just so damn bad....

Jesus Christ you are a sucker

Global Warming Policy Foundation - SourceWatch

And you're an ass.... why did we have an ICE AGE? Pollution?...CO2 levels, ... Mastodon farts?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

AlGore on suicide watch....no one cares!

Breitbart ^ | 03/25/2015 | Dr. Christopher Essex
Members of the Scientific Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) recently criticized the Royal Society’s positions on climate. Their clear, authoritative scientific objections to the Royal Society’s positions reveal the weak scientific foundation on which the great climate fervor has been based. The public must either become conversant enough to grasp this or step back and get out of the way of those who have. Scientists don’t need to be paid to oppose the ideas of climate orthodoxy, because those ideas are just so damn bad....

Jesus Christ you are a sucker

Global Warming Policy Foundation - SourceWatch

And you're an ass.... why did we have an ICE AGE? Pollution?...CO2 levels, ... Mastodon farts?

it got colder. Did you read the link I posted? No one even knows who funds these asshats.

 

[Vigilante]

AlGore on suicide watch....no one cares!

Breitbart ^ | 03/25/2015 | Dr. Christopher Essex
Members of the Scientific Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) recently criticized the Royal Society’s positions on climate. Their clear, authoritative scientific objections to the Royal Society’s positions reveal the weak scientific foundation on which the great climate fervor has been based. The public must either become conversant enough to grasp this or step back and get out of the way of those who have. Scientists don’t need to be paid to oppose the ideas of climate orthodoxy, because those ideas are just so damn bad....

Jesus Christ you are a sucker

Global Warming Policy Foundation - SourceWatch

And you're an ass.... why did we have an ICE AGE? Pollution?...CO2 levels, ... Mastodon farts?

it got colder. Did you read the link I posted? No one even knows who funds these asshats.

But WE KNOW the Socialist gov'ts around the world GRANT the Coalition of liars to say it's true! Climate change the new Socialism!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

AlGore on suicide watch....no one cares!

Breitbart ^ | 03/25/2015 | Dr. Christopher Essex
Members of the Scientific Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) recently criticized the Royal Society’s positions on climate. Their clear, authoritative scientific objections to the Royal Society’s positions reveal the weak scientific foundation on which the great climate fervor has been based. The public must either become conversant enough to grasp this or step back and get out of the way of those who have. Scientists don’t need to be paid to oppose the ideas of climate orthodoxy, because those ideas are just so damn bad....

Jesus Christ you are a sucker

Global Warming Policy Foundation - SourceWatch

And you're an ass.... why did we have an ICE AGE? Pollution?...CO2 levels, ... Mastodon farts?

it got colder. Did you read the link I posted? No one even knows who funds these asshats.

But WE KNOW the Socialist gov'ts around the world GRANT the Coalition of liars to say it's true! Climate change the new Socialism!

Did you read the link?

 

[Vigilante]

AlGore on suicide watch....no one cares!

Breitbart ^ | 03/25/2015 | Dr. Christopher Essex
Members of the Scientific Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) recently criticized the Royal Society’s positions on climate. Their clear, authoritative scientific objections to the Royal Society’s positions reveal the weak scientific foundation on which the great climate fervor has been based. The public must either become conversant enough to grasp this or step back and get out of the way of those who have. Scientists don’t need to be paid to oppose the ideas of climate orthodoxy, because those ideas are just so damn bad....

Jesus Christ you are a sucker

Global Warming Policy Foundation - SourceWatch

And you're an ass.... why did we have an ICE AGE? Pollution?...CO2 levels, ... Mastodon farts?

it got colder. Did you read the link I posted? No one even knows who funds these asshats.

But WE KNOW the Socialist gov'ts around the world GRANT the Coalition of liars to say it's true! Climate change the new Socialism!

Did you read the link?

Yes, now read this

Report 95 percent of global warming models are wrong The Daily Caller

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Jesus Christ you are a sucker

Global Warming Policy Foundation - SourceWatch

And you're an ass.... why did we have an ICE AGE? Pollution?...CO2 levels, ... Mastodon farts?

it got colder. Did you read the link I posted? No one even knows who funds these asshats.

But WE KNOW the Socialist gov'ts around the world GRANT the Coalition of liars to say it's true! Climate change the new Socialism!

Did you read the link?

Yes, now read this

Report 95 percent of global warming models are wrong The Daily Caller

“have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979,"

So you and Roy Spencer agree there has been a warming trend since 1979?