Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #261
All of these are fucking models you moron.. Not one of these is empirical evidence of any kind. To damn funny... You all think if you post up more dirivitave modeling you will be vindicated... Guess what, Dr. John Christy just spilled the beans on your models...
Done that. They match well. For example, RATPAC is very close to RSS, and RSS is very close to the models.
So, where did Spencer's "weather balloon" data come from? It's wildly different from the RATPAC data, which is considered the gold standard for radiosondes. That's how I know you and Spencer are lying. Your data isn't anywhere close to the real data.
You can demonstrate you're not a fraud. Just show where Spencer's "weather balloon data" comes from. Alternately, you can have another screaming meltdown, which will confirm to everyone that you're upset about being caught pushing fraud again.
A conversation with John Christy, for Association des climato-réalistes
"John Christy: One of the fundamental characteristics of the scientific method is that if we understand a system, then we can predict the behavior of that system. Our work in which we compare “predictions” from climate models against the actual changes of the real world indicate the current understanding of climate change is rather poor. This understanding is certainly not mature enough for regulatory policy. That certain experts and elites refuse to see the level of immaturity of understanding regarding climate, is astonishing.
However, it is understandable since climate is such a complex system, it is easier and more comforting for these elites to simply ignore the complexity and declare they believe CO2 is dangerous and we should believe them because of some status of authority they have garnered for themselves. They claim the “Science is Settled” only because they have not performed the necessary scientific tests which I believe would lead them to the opposite conclusion."
Dr Christy calls out bull shit as bull shit... Bravo!!!
Last edited:
