Green Energy Red In The Face

[Toddsterpatriot]

You know, the fellow routinely identified as "one of the scummiest humans on the planet". That fella.

He's no Nobel Prize winner, like Michael Mann, that's for sure.

Did Michael Mann pay those court ordered legal fees yet?

What a scummy human.........

 

[Sunsettommy]

He's no Nobel Prize winner, like Michael Mann, that's for sure.

Did Michael Mann pay those court ordered legal fees yet?

What a scummy human.........

He is evading by claiming he didn't lose the case and has unsurprisingly fooled his brainless followers to the lie.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He is evading by claiming he didn't lose the case and has unsurprisingly fooled his brainless followers to the lie.

He is evading by claiming he didn't lose the case

He claims many things that just aren't so.

 

[skookerasbil]

Green energy is coming in a big way.

Not for decades....fact....if ever

The rubes have been bamboozled...just like the EV cheerleaders. Suckers to the Reality Manufacturing Co.

Hardly any EV's on US roads...less than 3%.
Solar/wind combined generate less than 7% of US electricity.

Drrrrrrrr

Akin to a flat chested woman getting a boob job and bragging that she's doubled her chest size




More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

 

[Crick]

He's no Nobel Prize winner, like Michael Mann, that's for sure.

Did Michael Mann pay those court ordered legal fees yet?

What a scummy human.........

Todd S Patriot, a Tucker Carlsen fan. Who woulda' thunk it?

 

[westwall]

Todd S Patriot, a Tucker Carlsen fan. Who woulda' thunk it?

Has Mann paid his legal fees yet? Did he ever receive his "Nobel Prize"?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're a piece of work. I bet you'd like to be the next Tucker Carlson. You know, the fellow routinely identified as "one of the scummiest humans on the planet". That fella.

Explain to us how the increased CO2 in the atmosphere could have FAILED to warm the planet.

Let's simply say that I am somewhere between you and 'wise" and leave it at that, you dunce.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Let's simply say that I am somewhere between you [Crick] and 'wise" and leave it at that, you dunce.

That's an awfully wide gap, and an awfully low bar.

You could be a serious dumbass, and still wall within that range.

 

[Crick]

I suggest you take a quick review of Ms Chic's posts in this forum and see how much hard science you find. She's a polemicist, nothing more.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I suggest you take a quick review of Ms Chic's posts in this forum and see how much hard science you find. She's a polemicist, nothing more.

Sooooo.....your claiim is that we're cut from the same cloth???

 

[Crick]

Sooooo.....your claiim is that we're cut from the same cloth???

Sooooo.....your claiim is that we're cut from the same cloth???

My claim is that the value of any debate on any topic is only made less by your participation.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[westwall]

My claim is that the value of any debate on any topic is only made less by your participation.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

Says the asshat who can only trot out proven false claims year after year after year.

Where is Manns "Nobel Prize"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd S Patriot, a Tucker Carlsen fan. Who woulda' thunk it?

Gosh, how clever and sophisticated you are.

 

[PoliticalChic]

My claim is that the value of any debate on any topic is only made less by your participation.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

Debate?????

There's no debate.....you are simply a little girly-man, ready to dance to whatever jigg the Left plays.


I just get a kick out of pummelling you.
The beatings will continue until I see the light of learning on your part….and then they will continue for the sheer joy of it.

 

[Crick]

Debate?????

There's no debate.....you are simply a little girly-man, ready to dance to whatever jigg the Left plays.


I just get a kick out of pummelling you.
The beatings will continue until I see the light of learning on your part….and then they will continue for the sheer joy of it.

I'm afraid I'll just have to pass on that. Close the door behind you on your way out, eh.

 

[ding]

I'm afraid I'll just have to pass on that. Close the door behind you on your way out, eh.

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[task0778]

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Then there are a large number of people both in and out of science who believe neither case is necessarily true. First, a lot of people do not trust the temperature data, especially after the scandal 10-12 years ago concerning the manipulation of information. Second, I suspect that if freed from intimidation, many scientitsts would probably say that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century MAY OR MAY NOT have been partly or mostly due to human-caused emissions. IOW, they don't really know the true extent of all the factors involved in climate change, and that the various factors involved are most likely to be fluid rather than static.

 

[ding]

Then there are a large number of people both in and out of science who believe neither case is necessarily true. First, a lot of people do not trust the temperature data, especially after the scandal 10-12 years ago concerning the manipulation of information. Second, I suspect that if freed from intimidation, many scientitsts would probably say that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century MAY OR MAY NOT have been partly or mostly due to human-caused emissions. IOW, they don't really know the true extent of all the factors involved in climate change, and that the various factors involved are most likely to be fluid rather than static.

That is 100% true....

There are reviews and articles that have either been undecided, or else argued for significant but subtle effects of solar variability on climate change.

For example:
Labitzke & van Loon (1988); van Loon & Labitzke (2000); Labitzke (2005); Beer et al. (2000); Reid (2000); Carslaw et al. (2002); Ruzmaikin & Feynman (2002); Ruzmaikin et al. (2004, 2006); Feynman & Ruzmaikin (2011); Ruzmaikin & Feynman (2015); Salby & Callaghan (2000, 2004, 2006); Kirkby (2007); de Jager et al. (2010); Tinsley & Heelis(1993); Tinsley (2012); Lam & Tinsley (2016); Zhou et al. (2016); Zhang et al. (2020b); Dobrica et al. (2009); Dobrica et al. (2010); Demetrescu & Dobrica (2014); Dobrica et al. (2018); Blanter et al. (2012); van Loon & Shea (1999); van Loon & Meehl (2011); van Loon et al. (2012); Roy & Haigh (2012); Roy (2014, 2018); Roy & Kripalani (2019); Lopes et al. (2017); Pan et al. (2020).