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.
To deflect WHAT? You've still provided NO EVIDENCE for an argument (that Hansen and Mann and Romm committed the same 'crime' as Soon) that has absolutely NO BEARING on Soon's case.
Do you and do you not have evidence that Soon did NOT lie when he signed statements claiming he had no conflicts of interest?
How? Haven't seen the experiment that proves that! Hmmmmmmmmm failWhen the AGWCult mentions "science" they're talking about turning on the Weather Channel and shrieking "manmade global climate warming change"
Hardly, Frank. The vast majority of peer reviewed, published studies and the scientists who did them, accept AGW as settled science. Mainstream science simply is no longer debating the point.
Science is still not done by consensus, you're describing cult behavior.
Then science's near universal belief that disease is caused by germs and virus particles, that all matter has gravity, that the sun shines by means of nuclear fusion and that the universe is expanding - they are all cult beliefs. Got it.
Also, if the "science" is settled why are we still funding your "research".
Because the conclusion that human activity is the primary cause of contemporary global warming is not the sum of all knowledge to be had concerning the Earth's climate and the effects driving it. Don't be an idiot, Frank. You love to jump on these denier memes, but for once think about them before you do. Your reputation here for a lack of thinking does you no good. Surprise us for once.
The data is apparently irrelevant to your models. You could feed in the weekly attendance at Santa Anna racetrack to your model and still show global....what are you calling it today, is it climate change or global warming or something else
Comments like this do nothing for your reputation Frank.
Nor have I seen yours or any other warmer's. Your point?What we haven't seen is ANY evidence for ANY of the claims you've made here.
Nor have I seen yours or any other warmer's. Your point?What we haven't seen is ANY evidence for ANY of the claims you've made here.
sure the good old boy's club funded by each other. wow. Now let's take old Herr Koch in 1901, and still today no one has disproved his experiment. Hmmmm, the lies the left tells. you Fail crickster.Nor have I seen yours or any other warmer's. Your point?What we haven't seen is ANY evidence for ANY of the claims you've made here.
The data upon which i base my claims may be seen at IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and in thousands of peer reviewed study publications.
Where are yours?
you can't disprove his experiment. BTW, if you could, you would have provided it by now.EVERY single reference you consult will tell you Koch and Angstrom were wrong.
How do you maintain that level of ignorance? It must be hard work.
My evidence may be found, in spades, at IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Where is yours?
EVERY single reference you consult will tell you Koch and Angstrom were wrong.
How do you maintain that level of ignorance? It must be hard work.
My evidence may be found, in spades, at IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Where is yours?
EVERY single reference you consult will tell you Koch and Angstrom were wrong.
How do you maintain that level of ignorance? It must be hard work.
My evidence may be found, in spades, at IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Where is yours?
To funny: citing a ;left wing socialist organization which has now openly stated it is not about climate but wealth redistribution as a valid source.
The IPCC is no longer proof it is a political agenda driven organization. nothing more.
EVERY single reference you consult will tell you Koch and Angstrom were wrong.
How do you maintain that level of ignorance? It must be hard work.
My evidence may be found, in spades, at IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Where is yours?
To funny: citing a ;left wing socialist organization which has now openly stated it is not about climate but wealth redistribution as a valid source.
The IPCC is no longer proof it is a political agenda driven organization. nothing more.
The IPCC is a left wing socialist organization that does't care about the climate but about redistributing wealth. God are you stupid.
And he meant it as a slap in my face, yet he is to stupid to realize it..EVERY single reference you consult will tell you Koch and Angstrom were wrong.
How do you maintain that level of ignorance? It must be hard work.
My evidence may be found, in spades, at IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Where is yours?
To funny: citing a ;left wing socialist organization which has now openly stated it is not about climate but wealth redistribution as a valid source.
The IPCC is no longer proof it is a political agenda driven organization. nothing more.
The IPCC is a left wing socialist organization that does't care about the climate but about redistributing wealth. God are you stupid.
God, you actually posted the truth for once.
And he meant it as a slap in my face, yet he is to stupid to realize it..EVERY single reference you consult will tell you Koch and Angstrom were wrong.
How do you maintain that level of ignorance? It must be hard work.
My evidence may be found, in spades, at IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Where is yours?
To funny: citing a ;left wing socialist organization which has now openly stated it is not about climate but wealth redistribution as a valid source.
The IPCC is no longer proof it is a political agenda driven organization. nothing more.
The IPCC is a left wing socialist organization that does't care about the climate but about redistributing wealth. God are you stupid.
God, you actually posted the truth for once.
I wonder if they are still reeling from the alarmists who turn their graphs upside down and change the axis names?
As someone who had high hopes for the BEST program, I must admit I have been disappointed with them. By their own admission one out of three temperature stations has a cooling trend yet by the time they are finished with their adjustments all stations have a positive trend. It has to do with station 'reliability' and multiple iterations of corrections. What they consider a good station can be weighted up to 26 times higher than a 'poor' station. And there are typically 10-60 iterations done until the station converges on the trend that they consider correct.
Likewise it is somewhat incomprehensible that BEST finds the UHI effect to have an overall cooling bias.
As someone who had high hopes for the BEST program, I must admit I have been disappointed with them. By their own admission one out of three temperature stations has a cooling trend yet by the time they are finished with their adjustments all stations have a positive trend. It has to do with station 'reliability' and multiple iterations of corrections. What they consider a good station can be weighted up to 26 times higher than a 'poor' station. And there are typically 10-60 iterations done until the station converges on the trend that they consider correct.
Likewise it is somewhat incomprehensible that BEST finds the UHI effect to have an overall cooling bias.
