AGW Scam Main Points

[SSDD]

Over 13,000 peer reviewed studies examined in Cook et al's study and you think no experiments have been conducted?

And if you're relying on Roy Spencer's lies about CMIP results for your contention that models have failed, you've hitched your pony to the wrong cart.

And 0.5 % said that most of the observed warming was due to man.

 

[Crick]

Do you think that no one here read the description of Legates' method for reaching that absurd number? Do YOU want to argue that Legates methods are statistically sound? Do you even want to argue that they're honest?

If you think it's meaningful to only accept papers that explicitly state an agreement with the IPCC findings and to compare them to thousands of papers that expressed NO opinion re attribution, you can logically have no objection to comparing them to every science paper written in that time period on any conceivable topic. You could pare it down further to only accept papers that quote from the IPCC's reports or provide active links to their websites. We can trim that down to near zero. Of course we'd have to throw honesty out the window, but that's no problem for you and Legates.

 

[SSDD]

I literally laugh at every thing you say crick....few people on this earth have ever been as profoundly hoaxed as you....you have swallowed the lie hook line and sinker and unfortunately for you, the hook seems to have been a treble hook and it must be so deeply lodged in your throat that you will eventually die with it still in there.

The things you say in an attempt to support your faith are just stupid...you will defend any lie, any dishonest manipulation of the facts, any fabrication, any miserable criminal scoundrel, and any mathematical sleight of hand.

 

[Crick]

OOOooooh! I AM a naughty boy!

 

[SSDD]

OOOooooh! I AM a naughty boy!

Don't know about that...but stupid and profoundly duped...yeah..

 

[Crick]

I'm not the one who believes in a universe running on magic.

 

[skookerasbil]

Yet another study has been completed.......top story on DRUDGE right now by the way........NO WARMING IN THE PAST 19 YEARS!!!

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_warming_for_19_years


Another nut sack kick to the religion.

 

[skookerasbil]

mAgIc

 

[Crick]

Yet another study has been completed.......top story on DRUDGE right now by the way........NO WARMING IN THE PAST 19 YEARS!!!

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_warming_for_19_years


Another nut sack kick to the religion.

Had you not noticed this topic being discussed here before this? You act as if this is some big bombshell of new news. It's not.

 

[Crick]

Here's an interesting graph. It came from a commenter on your Herald Sun article. His text submissions read as follows:

Dr Brian replied to Giorgio
Tue 02 Sep 14 (12:42pm)
Geoff, for a highly regarded professor and statistician , McItrick is still cherry picking, but he is still cherry picking.

Here is an alternative set of data. [Graph below, though there is other info at the link --Crick]

Dr Brian replied to Giorgio
Tue 02 Sep 14 (12:56pm)
And I note that the Graph is not by McItrick, but the “ever excellent” WUWT, who have not shown the actual WFT trend line, but put in one more to their liking.

Watts is so excellent he repudiated the central content of two of his own sections, referring to it as “minutiae” when neither he nor his fans could counter what I said about graphs he was presenting, and telling me to pull my head out of my rear end.

Excellent. Truly excellent.

Dr Brian replied to Giorgio
Tue 02 Sep 14 (01:07pm)
Pardon me mods for doing this piecemeal, but I should add that the actual trend for the Hadcrut4 data which Watts’ crew have misrepresented is

Trend: 0.093 ±0.100 °C/decade (2?)

While not statistically significant this is higher than the warming rate for the last century:

Trend: 0.073 ±0.011 °C/decade (2?)

 

[SSDD]

I'm not the one who believes in a universe running on magic.

Of course you are...you are the one who believes in a thing that has never been measured or observed....it must be magic...I, on the other hand am going with every observation ever made...nothing magic about things you can see and measure.

 

[Crick]

Yeah... that's why no authority supports your "ideas". Did you ever explain why Stefan-Boltzman even HAS a two body version?

 

[SSDD]

Yeah... that's why no authority supports your "ideas". Did you ever explain why Stefan-Boltzman even HAS a two body version?

Because here on earth nothing radiates into a vacuum. Energy transfer between objects in the real world had to be explained and it was explained by a one way energy flow just as the second law states. If the SB law described a two way flow of energy, the equation would be written differently....the SB equation, as written, describes a one way energy flow whose magnitude is determined by the temperature difference between the emitter and the cooler object.

 

[Crick]

.the SB equation, as written, describes a one way energy flow whose magnitude is determined by the temperature difference between the emitter and the cooler object.

And how does the warmer object:
1) know the temperature of distant objects
2) throttle its own radiation

 

[SSDD]

.the SB equation, as written, describes a one way energy flow whose magnitude is determined by the temperature difference between the emitter and the cooler object.

And how does the warmer object:
1) know the temperature of distant objects
2) throttle its own radiation

How does a rock "know" to fall down when dropped? Interesting how you think that anything that doesn't agree with your belief must be magic. How does air "know" to exit a hole in a tire? How do chemicals "know" how and when to react with each other and how might one chemical "know" that it isn't supposed to react with another? how does the earth "know" in which direction to rotate?

 

[IanC]

no particular reason.