Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Trakar uses data from scientific sources. Perhaps you should try that someday.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
more like exaggeration and manipulation. I liked this graph though.
yah, he seems pretty oblivious to the possibility that there may just be a different side to climate science to the one he has been exposed to.
yah, he seems pretty oblivious to the possibility that there may just be a different side to climate science to the one he has been exposed to.
I think he is/was olfraud. The two would never post at the same time. I was posting at the same time traker was and then all of a sudden he disappeared and olfraud took over......very fishy if you ask me
I think he is/was olfraud. The two would never post at the same time. I was posting at the same time traker was and then all of a sudden he disappeared and olfraud took over......very fishy if you ask me
hahaha. stronger evidence for that than the Hockey Stick. gotta pseudonym Old Rocks?
yah, he seems pretty oblivious to the possibility that there may just be a different side to climate science to the one he has been exposed to.
yah, he seems pretty oblivious to the possibility that there may just be a different side to climate science to the one he has been exposed to.
If it is science, it is supported with journal publications and compelling empiric evidences. Present the journal references which support your claims of contradictory hypotheses and theories, and demonstrate the compelling evidence. Lacking this it isn't a "different side" of climate science, mere politically inspired pseudoscience befuddlement and ranting rhetoric.
The empiric evidence that "scientist" cling to based on computer models has been debunked many time over.
From a Univ of Rochester study:
The study, published online this week in the International Journal of Climatology, found that while most of the models predicted that the middle and upper parts of the troposphere —1 to 6 miles above the Earth's surface — would have warmed drastically over the past 30 years, actual observations showed only a little warming, especially over tropical regions.
Not to mention the falsified documents that were uncovered last year.
The problem is there is so much wealth to be made and so much to be redistributed if these claims are proved, I am hesitant to believe the hysteria. Just as the news of an ice age in the 70's proved to be a myth, based on evidence uncovered, this is proving to be much of the same.
yah, he seems pretty oblivious to the possibility that there may just be a different side to climate science to the one he has been exposed to.
If it is science, it is supported with journal publications and compelling empiric evidences. Present the journal references which support your claims of contradictory hypotheses and theories, and demonstrate the compelling evidence. Lacking this it isn't a "different side" of climate science, mere politically inspired pseudoscience befuddlement and ranting rhetoric.
Had the climatologists not corrupted he peer review process I would of course agree with you. However, in light of the fact that they DID destroy the peer review process I no longer consider them relevent. The fact that they allowed Steig to be a reviewer on a paper that challenged his findings (a clear violation of the ethics of peer review) reveals that the peer review process is still broken and needs to be revamped completely in their case.
So all you have is unsupported conspiracy theories?
If it is science, it is supported with journal publications and compelling empiric evidences. Present the journal references which support your claims of contradictory hypotheses and theories, and demonstrate the compelling evidence. Lacking this it isn't a "different side" of climate science, mere politically inspired pseudoscience befuddlement and ranting rhetoric.
Had the climatologists not corrupted he peer review process I would of course agree with you. However, in light of the fact that they DID destroy the peer review process I no longer consider them relevent. The fact that they allowed Steig to be a reviewer on a paper that challenged his findings (a clear violation of the ethics of peer review) reveals that the peer review process is still broken and needs to be revamped completely in their case.
So all you have is unsupported conspiracy theories?
CLIMATEGATE is riddled with Jones and Mann as well as others conspiring to deny opposing views to theirs. But keep on keeping on, your side is done. It's just a matter of time and it is all their fault.
If you consider computer models science then you need to take some geology classes to learn about the limitations of computer models.
I can present historical data that shows everything that is claimed to be evidence of GW, has happened in the past long before man was able to produce large quantities of CO2.
Stable isotope ratios of the life science elements carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen vary slightly, but significantly in major compartments of the earth. Owing mainly to antropogenic activities including land use change and fossil fuel burning, the 13C/12C ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere has changed over the last 200 years by 1.5 parts per thousand (from about 0.0111073 to 0.0110906). In between interglacial warm periods and glacial maxima, the 18O/16O ratio of precipitation in Greenland has changed by as much as 5 parts per thousand (0.0019350.001925). While seeming small, such changes are
detectable reliably with specialised mass spectrometric techniques. The small changes reflect natural fractionation processes that have left their signature in natural archives. These enable us to investigate the climate of past times in order to understand how the Earths climatic system works and how it can react to external forcing. In addition, studying contemporary isotopic change of natural compartments can help to identify sources and sinks for atmospheric trace gases provided the respective isotopic signatures are large enough for measurement and have not been obscured by unknown processes...
How do you reconcile those well known historical facts with your theory?
CLIMATEGATE is riddled with Jones and Mann as well as others conspiring to deny opposing views to theirs. But keep on keeping on, your side is done. It's just a matter of time and it is all their fault.
HEY GREENIES, HAVE A LOOK AT THIS! Heliogenic Climate Change | The Sun, not a harmless essential trace gas, drives climate change
HEY GREENIES, HAVE A LOOK AT THIS! Heliogenic Climate Change | The Sun, not a harmless essential trace gas, drives climate change
There are a number of factors that influence climate. While the sun is one, GHGs are definitely another. Tell me what would happen to the extra trapped energy, if GHGs keep rising? If you can't explain what happens, considering the LAW of Conservation of Energy, then either you don't really know anything about the subject, are lying yourself or are falling for a lie spread by others. Which is it?!?!
CLIMATEGATE is riddled with Jones and Mann as well as others conspiring to deny opposing views to theirs. But keep on keeping on, your side is done. It's just a matter of time and it is all their fault.
That is your conspiracy theory, but it has nothing to do with climate science or the very real and demonstrable climate change that this science studies.