Can ANYONE refute the claims of "Corporate Ties"?

[Crick]

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?

 

[Billy_Bob]

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?

Soon committed NO CRIME! You prove your silly ass allegation.

 

[jc456]

When 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.

How? Haven't seen the experiment that proves that! Hmmmmmmmmm fail

 

[Crick]

What we haven't seen is ANY evidence for ANY of the claims you've made here.

 

[jc456]

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?

 

[Crick]

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?

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?

 

[jc456]

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?

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?

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.

 

[Crick]

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?

 

[jc456]

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?

you can't disprove his experiment. BTW, if you could, you would have provided it by now.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

 

[Crick]

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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..

 

[Old Rocks]

Billy Boob, no one wants to slap your face. One doesn't do that to the mentally infirm.

 

[bripat9643]

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..

Yeah, I know. Hilarious, isn't it?

 

[ralfy]

Related:

Bombshell Koch-Funded Study Finds Global Warming Is Real On The High End And Essentially All Due To Carbon Pollution ThinkProgress

 

[Billy_Bob]

Related:

Bombshell Koch-Funded Study Finds Global Warming Is Real On The High End And Essentially All Due To Carbon Pollution ThinkProgress

Left wing communist/socialist hack blog called think progress funded by George Soros and a whole host of left wing enviro wacko nut jobs..

Credibility = Zero... Known for outright lying and fabrication..

 

[IanC]

Related:

Bombshell Koch-Funded Study Finds Global Warming Is Real On The High End And Essentially All Due To Carbon Pollution ThinkProgress

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.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Related:

Bombshell Koch-Funded Study Finds Global Warming Is Real On The High End And Essentially All Due To Carbon Pollution ThinkProgress

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.

I wonder if they are still reeling from the alarmists who turn their graphs upside down and change the axis names?

 

[ralfy]

Related:

Bombshell Koch-Funded Study Finds Global Warming Is Real On The High End And Essentially All Due To Carbon Pollution ThinkProgress

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.

It has to do with more than just temperature stations or UHI but multiple data sets. For that, something like the NAS final report will be more helpful:

America s Climate Choices Final Report Climate Change at the National Academies

Not to mention many more reports from multiple science organizations:

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Consensus

As for that consensus, even skeptics have spoken up on the matter:

Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97 global warming consensus Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

Finally, Skeptical Science refers to reports from science organizations, as seen in the reference section.