Scientists Say New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria

[Crick]

Data collected over decades by thousands of degreed scientists gives no credibility but the misinterpretation of three words in a stolen email is all the evidence you need.

SO fooking stupid!

Exactly

You're making progress jc

 

[Crick]

Right, and that the models provided fail to track empirical data. period.

you poor little creature, ponder this:

Theory basics
The University of California, Berkley defines a theory as "a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses."

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts.

...

The evolution of a scientific theory
A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

What is a Scientific Theory Definition of Theory​

Can you please state the theory of manmade climate change?

Alzheimer's, Frank?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Right, and that the models provided fail to track empirical data. period.

you poor little creature, ponder this:

Theory basics
The University of California, Berkley defines a theory as "a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses."

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts.

...

The evolution of a scientific theory
A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

What is a Scientific Theory Definition of Theory​

Can you please state the theory of manmade climate change?

Alzheimer's, Frank?

Lying scumbag sez wha?

What's this "Theory" of yours?

 

[Crick]

I said "Alzheimer's Frank?"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No theory. No lab work. Nothing but lies and insults and death wishes. That's AGWCult "Science"

Ask him how CO2 drives temperature -- he posts a chart without a temperature axis.

Amazing.

Laughable

But amazing nevertheless

 

[Crick]

Frank, I think everyone here understands that you haven't the faintest grasp of basic physics. There's really no need to keep embarrassing yourself.

 

[jc456]

Frank, I think everyone here understands that you haven't the faintest grasp of basic physics. There's really no need to keep embarrassing yourself.

So you can't post a graph with temperatures axis?

 

[jon_berzerk]

No theory. No lab work. Nothing but lies and insults and death wishes. That's AGWCult "Science"

Ask him how CO2 drives temperature -- he posts a chart without a temperature axis.

Amazing.

Laughable

But amazing nevertheless

--LOL

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, I think everyone here understands that you haven't the faintest grasp of basic physics. There's really no need to keep embarrassing yourself.

Right, you nailed it, Bozo

We've asked you repeatedly to show us the lab work linking a wisp of CO2 to temperature and you post a chart with no temperature axis or you post a 500,000 year data set showing CO2 lagging temperature.

Are the Koch Brothers paying you to embarrass the AGWCult

 

[jon_berzerk]

Frank, I think everyone here understands that you haven't the faintest grasp of basic physics. There's really no need to keep embarrassing yourself.

Right, you nailed it, Bozo

We've asked you repeatedly to show us the lab work linking a wisp of CO2 to temperature and you post a chart with no temperature axis or you post a 500,000 year data set showing CO2 lagging temperature.

Are the Koch Brothers paying you to embarrass the AGWCult

good points

 

[jc456]

Hahaha. Stevens has done it again! His latest paper supports the 'Iris Effect'. This should be fun to watch how it plays out in the press. And the blogs of course.

Missing iris effect as possible cause of muted hydrological change and high sensitivity in climate models

Thorsten Mauritsen and Bjorn Stevens


Abstract. Equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 falls between 2.0 and 4.6 K in current climate models, and they suggest a weak increase in global mean precipitation. Inferences from the observational record, however, place climate sensitivity near the lower end of this range and indicate that models underestimate some of the changes in the hydrological cycle. These discrepancies raise the possibility that important feedbacks are missing from the models. A controversial hypothesis suggests that the dry and clear regions of the tropical atmosphere expand in a warming climate and thereby allow more infrared radiation to escape to space. This so-called iris effect could constitute a negative feedback that is not included in climate models. We find that inclusion of such an effect in a climate model moves the simulated responses of both temperature and the hydrological cycle to rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations closer to observations. Alternative suggestions for shortcomings of models — such as aerosol cooling, volcanic eruptions or insufficient ocean heat uptake — may explain a slow observed transient warming relative to models, but not the observed enhancement of the hydrological cycle. We propose that, if precipitating convective clouds are more likely to cluster into larger clouds as temperatures rise, this process could constitute a plausible physical mechanism for an iris effect.




hahahahaha. Stevens even put 'Iris Effect' in the title!!!!!

It might be a bit harder to walk back into camp this time. twice in a month? I bet there are some pissed off people in the background.

I found this comment on Curry's site:

"JC comment: Bjorn Stevens hits the bullseye with the bolded statement above. The scientists griping about all this are advocates, trying to convince the public of the ‘reality’ of climate change so that they will support emissions reductions policies. As Stevens rightly points out, this is not the job of climate scientists."

Bolded statement:
“My job,” Mr. Stevens said, “isn’t to convince the public more” about the reality of climate change. “I have a naïve faith the truth will win out.”

 

[lake avenue]

Frank, I think everyone here understands that you haven't the faintest grasp of basic physics. There's really no need to keep embarrassing yourself.

Right, you nailed it, Bozo

We've asked you repeatedly to show us the lab work linking a wisp of CO2 to temperature and you post a chart with no temperature axis or you post a 500,000 year data set showing CO2 lagging temperature.

Are the Koch Brothers paying you to embarrass the AGWCult

Still claiming temperature is the only measurement of heat, huh? The lack of anything beyond a middle school education is rampant here.

 

[IanC]

Bump for Orogenicman

 

[skookerasbil]

Global warming hysteria started to die in 2007...........and now, in 2015, very few Americans share the sentiments of the handful of AGW k00ks on this forum.

Just the way it is s0ns.............can post up a number of polls if you'd like me to back up my statement above!!!

Upon request of course!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/steamroller.jpg.html][/URL]