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.
Data doesn't prove. It's evidence. And mainstream science has many thousands of times more data than do you and have clearly demonstrated what is wrong with your data while you have yet to show ANYTHING wrong with THEIR data save that it disagrees with the small set you favor. Does any of that mean anything to you?
You calling it fudge isn't evidence of anything except your stunted and puerile vocabulary. You have yet to present a single piece of evidence that there is anything wrong with the data that tens of thousands of degreed research scientists rely on on a daily basis. Your science foundation doesn't come up to a decent high school graduate so why the fuck should ANYONE here care what you think?We have two and only two measures of atmospheric temps = satellites and balloons. That is THE DATA.
You still have not learned the difference between data and FUDGE.
What you call "mainstream science" isn't even science, it is complete taxpayer funded FRAUD.
you saying it isn't fudge isn't evidence either. see how that works? IPCC is fake, scientists will tell you if you ask the right ones. I posted one earlier in here. You should listen to a scientist explain why it's fake.You calling it fudge isn't evidence of anything except your stunted and puerile vocabulary. You have yet to present a single piece of evidence that there is anything wrong with the data that tens of thousands of degreed research scientists rely on on a daily basis. Your science foundation doesn't come up to a decent high school graduate so why the fuck should ANYONE here care what you think?
name five!tens of thousands of degreed research scientists
Here are the 234 authors of AR6's "The Physical Science Basis": IPCC Authors (beta)name five!
thanks! Will it tell me what each's contribution was to the report?Here are the 234 authors of AR6's "The Physical Science Basis": IPCC Authors (beta)
Yes. For once in your willfully ignorant existence, open a fucking link and LEARN SOMETHING.thanks! Will it tell me what each's contribution was to the report?
So I looked up this guy from the list, DOUVILLE Hervé Internet doesn't explain what he did. I see that he was with a group of others, CMIP6 Citation 'MRI MRI-ESM2.0 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP piControl'thanks! Will it tell me what each's contribution was to the report?
Post #128Yes. For once in your willfully ignorant existence, open a fucking link and LEARN SOMETHING.
Do you know what CMIP6 is?So I looked up this guy from the list, DOUVILLE Hervé Internet doesn't explain what he did. I see that he was with a group of others, CMIP6 Citation 'MRI MRI-ESM2.0 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP piControl'
Again, reading page after page, doesn't give his particular contribution. Seems like a waste of time bullsnot that means absolutely nothing.
I looked it up, seems like a bunch of nonsense with guys spending money achieving no goal. Let me know what ole Herve did for them.Do you know what CMIP6 is?
Well, I should have known. Nothing has changed. Talking with you is an absolute, total, 100%, guaranteed, certified waste of time. We are required to post links supporting factual claims. We are NOT required to explain them, particularly to people who have no interest in the first place. You really are a profoundly ignorant asshole.I looked it up, seems like a bunch of nonsense with guys spending money achieving no goal. Let me know what ole Herve did for them.
I did provide a link, are you fking blind?Well, I should have known. Nothing has changed. Talking with you is an absolute, total, 100%, guaranteed, certified waste of time. We are required to post links supporting factual claims. We are NOT required to explain them, particularly to people who have no interest in the first place. You really are a profoundly ignorant asshole.
The lot of you have no familiarity with basic science. Why, then do you choose to argue science?I have an intimate familiarity with vague weasel words, which are rife in the lexicon of you warmers.....It's one of the leading indicators that you're full of shit.
The lot of you have no familiarity with basic science. Why, then do you choose to argue science?
The lot of you have no familiarity with basic science. Why, then do you choose to argue science?
ohhhkay Francis!!!!!The lot of you have no familiarity with basic science. Why, then do you choose to argue science?
That doesn't answer the question. When you complain about scientific studies using modal verbs (must, shall, will, should, would, can, could, may, and might) you are exposing your ignorance. You may have read me here noting that there are no proofs in the natural sciences. Without proofs, scientists are forced to use modal verbs. Surely you've noted that scientific theories are always subject to revision. Do you not see the connection? If a scientist could prove the cause of some event in natural science, they would use have, be and do, the non-modal auxiliary verbs, But then, their findings would not be subject to revision.Ok science boy.
That doesn't answer the question. When you complain about scientific studies using modal verbs (must, shall, will, should, would, can, could, may, and might) you are exposing your ignorance. You may have read me here noting that there are no proofs in the natural sciences. Without proofs, scientists are forced to use modal verbs. Surely you've noted that scientific theories are always subject to revision. Do you not see the connection? If a scientist could prove the cause of some event in natural science, they would use have, be and do, the non-modal auxiliary verbs, But then, their findings would not be subject to revision.
Sich versteht?
Also, du versteht es nichtI'm not the one who's "ignorant", that would be you. I don't believe ion junk science that has no basis in proof, that would be yourself.
