Climate research too "woke" for Trump!

[elektra]

OK so basically you just don't believe the review studies? The reason I gave you Lynas is because it literally gives you a link to their research data so that you can see what studies they designated as being 'for anthropoenic change' vs 'against'.

From the Lynas Study:
"We searched the Web of Science for English language ‘articles’ added between the dates of 2012 and November 2020 with the keywords ‘climate change’, ‘global climate change’ and ‘global warming’. C13 used the latter two phrases but not ‘climate change’ without the preceding ‘global’. (As discussed below, this was justified post-facto in our study because the majority of sceptical papers we found would not have been returned had we used the same search phrases as C13.) This wider set of search terms yielded a total of 88125 papers, whereas C13 identified a total of 11944 abstracts from papers published over the years 1991 and 2011. (Using our expanded search terms over the same 1991–2011 time period as C13 would have yielded 30627 results.)"

They go into large detail on how they clasify endoresment vs rejection.


Out of the 88,000+, here is the subset they found:

View attachment 1195708

Do you really think that science is on your side in this argument? If so, why does NASA disagree with you?

If you don't like the Lynas studies or other studies, then once again, I am asking you, what sources do you have? Because unless your links are being blocked, I don't see any? Why do I have to give you so much, and then you give nothing? Could it be because you have nothing?

EDIT: to break down this image. This is 2718 that were randomly selected out of the 88,000+ dataset. of these 2718, most did not meet some kind of keyword to suggest they were either an endorsement of anthropogenic climate change or a rejection of that. This is because many studies do not necessarily say EXPLICITLY whether man made climate change is happening or not. Even if many of these studies imply it is happening, if it doesn't meet the keywords then it isn't included as an endorsement. But those that did say something distinctly, were overwhelming an endorsement.

I asked for a link from you. You refuse to link. I read this study you refer to years ago, hence I challenge you to prove yourself. Why you wont link is beyond logical reasoning. Unless the study does not prove what you state.

Here is the link

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

 

[EMH]

If I might ask, why don't you take those questions to science based forums?

LOL!!!

That's been up for almost two years. They won't answer them. They censor them. The answers prove CO2 is not the cause of Earth climate change. If you cannot answer them correctly, you have zero understanding of Earth climate change.

Every one of these questions has been answered in the peer-reviewed literature for decades.

bullshit, and you won't answer them either...


Try answering one...

Why is there ice age glacier south of Arctic Circle on Greenland but no such ice age glacier north of Arctic Circle on Alaska?

 

[EMH]

Climate science has been very accurate in their predictions unlike anthropegenic climate change deniers.

Why can't you show us one single photo of ocean rise?

If Earth was warming, which it isn't, would surface air pressure rise?

 

[EMH]

OK. let's focus on the Lynas study that I originally posted then? What are your criticisms with that study?

I also posted you links to Nasa and the Royal Soceity? What are wrong exactly with those links? If you want to tell me that I need to prove it, then you need to tell me what is factually wrong with the links I supplied?

Science is not


1. parroting
2. fraud
3. fudging data


hence you do not practice science....

 

[EMH]

OK. let's focus on the Lynas study that I originally posted then? What are your criticisms with that study?

I also posted you links to Nasa and the Royal Soceity? What are wrong exactly with those links? If you want to tell me that I need to prove it, then you need to tell me what is factually wrong with the links I supplied?

Science starts with data and theory.

Your theory is that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes warming.

What did the ACTUAL DATA show?

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

"satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling."



Translation from NBC - for more than three decades of rising atmospheric CO2, the highly correlated satellite and balloon data showed precisely NO WARMING in the atmosphere



"Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or" time to fudge the data again with laughable bullshit excuses that do not explain the result of the fudge job.



If Earth was warming, which it isn't, surface air pressure would rise.


Hence, ALL THREE measures, satellites, balloons, and surface air pressure


100% REFUTE THE THEORY THAT INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CO2 causes "warming"


THEORY REFUTED

 

[EMH]

The actual climate data still reads precisely


1. NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
2. NO WARMING in the OCEANS
3. NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT
4. NO OCEAN RISE
5. NO BREAKOUT in CANE Activity
6. NO RISE in SURFACE AIR PRESSURE


= EARTH NOT WARMING

 

[Hafar1014]

Trump administration moves to dissolve national climate research lab in Colorado

The Trump administration is moving to dissolve the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.

apnews.com

Not that Trump or his Republican members give a rats ass, but their efforts to destroy as much of the planet as they can will impact their grand kids much more than themselves. It's just amazing how these morons oppose anything that benefits people, because they consider it backed by Democrats.

History, that they cannot change, will not be kind to these fools!

Bigly!!!

Renewable energy will destroy the economy. A bad solution to a problem that never existed. No one cares anymore. Green energy met reality and reality won