New Climate Paper Gives Global Warming Alarmists ‘One Helluva Beating’

Vigilante

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
51,329
Reaction score
18,064
Points
2,290
Location
Waiting on the Cowardly Dante!!
But it's settled science.... bullshit!

Breitbart News via fox ^
A new scientific paper has driven yet another nail into the coffin of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. (H/T Bishop Hill) The paper – Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing by Bjorn Stevens of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, published in the American Meteorological Society journal – finds that the effects of aerosols on climate are much smaller than those in almost all the computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
 

Billy000

Democratic Socialist
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
23,729
Reaction score
4,865
Points
290
Location
Colorado
But it's settled science.... bullshit!

Breitbart News via fox ^
A new scientific paper has driven yet another nail into the coffin of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. (H/T Bishop Hill) The paper – Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing by Bjorn Stevens of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, published in the American Meteorological Society journal – finds that the effects of aerosols on climate are much smaller than those in almost all the computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
As usual you cons cherry pick papers that are not peer-reviewed and largely insigificant to create your own narrative. I feel sorry for you.
 
OP
Vigilante

Vigilante

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
51,329
Reaction score
18,064
Points
2,290
Location
Waiting on the Cowardly Dante!!
But it's settled science.... bullshit!

Breitbart News via fox ^
A new scientific paper has driven yet another nail into the coffin of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. (H/T Bishop Hill) The paper – Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing by Bjorn Stevens of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, published in the American Meteorological Society journal – finds that the effects of aerosols on climate are much smaller than those in almost all the computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
As usual you cons cherry pick papers that are not peer-reviewed and largely insigificant to create your own narrative. I feel sorry for you.
What makes you say it wasn't peer reviewed?... Because it DIDN'T get a sack full of cash from a government grant?

 

Billy000

Democratic Socialist
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
23,729
Reaction score
4,865
Points
290
Location
Colorado
But it's settled science.... bullshit!

Breitbart News via fox ^
A new scientific paper has driven yet another nail into the coffin of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. (H/T Bishop Hill) The paper – Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing by Bjorn Stevens of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, published in the American Meteorological Society journal – finds that the effects of aerosols on climate are much smaller than those in almost all the computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
As usual you cons cherry pick papers that are not peer-reviewed and largely insigificant to create your own narrative. I feel sorry for you.
What makes you say it wasn't peer reviewed?... Because it DIDN'T get a sack full of cash from a government grant?

Obviously you don't know what peer-reviewed even means.
 
OP
Vigilante

Vigilante

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
51,329
Reaction score
18,064
Points
2,290
Location
Waiting on the Cowardly Dante!!
But it's settled science.... bullshit!

Breitbart News via fox ^
A new scientific paper has driven yet another nail into the coffin of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. (H/T Bishop Hill) The paper – Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing by Bjorn Stevens of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, published in the American Meteorological Society journal – finds that the effects of aerosols on climate are much smaller than those in almost all the computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
As usual you cons cherry pick papers that are not peer-reviewed and largely insigificant to create your own narrative. I feel sorry for you.
What makes you say it wasn't peer reviewed?... Because it DIDN'T get a sack full of cash from a government grant?

Obviously you don't know what peer-reviewed even means.
Obviously, I do!
 
OP
Vigilante

Vigilante

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
51,329
Reaction score
18,064
Points
2,290
Location
Waiting on the Cowardly Dante!!
Feds To Block FEMA Funds For States That Deny Man-Made Global Warming

What was that definition of Fascists again?

Downtrend ^ | March 20, 2015 | Brian Anderson
Well, there’s one way to ensure that everyone buys into the man-made global warming hoax: extortion. Starting next year the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will stop funds from going to states that refuse to believe that humans are causing climate change. This news comes straight from the leftist eco-nuts at Inside Climate News, so you can be assured that it isn’t a “paranoid” conservative interpretation of an innocuous FEMA regulation: The Federal Emergency Management Agency is making it tougher for governors to deny man-made climate change. Starting next year, the agency will approve disaster preparedness funds only for states...
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
24,912
Reaction score
11,275
Points
1,280
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
But it's settled science.... bullshit!

Breitbart News via fox ^
A new scientific paper has driven yet another nail into the coffin of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. (H/T Bishop Hill) The paper – Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing by Bjorn Stevens of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, published in the American Meteorological Society journal – finds that the effects of aerosols on climate are much smaller than those in almost all the computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
As usual you cons cherry pick papers that are not peer-reviewed and largely insigificant to create your own narrative. I feel sorry for you.
What makes you say it wasn't peer reviewed?... Because it DIDN'T get a sack full of cash from a government grant?

Obviously you don't know what peer-reviewed even means.
Obviously you practice PAL Review and censorship of non-approved liberal bull shit agenda/propaganda..

The alarmist appeal to authority is a dead giveaway that you dont have a dam clue about what is truly science..
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
24,912
Reaction score
11,275
Points
1,280
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
Feds To Block FEMA Funds For States That Deny Man-Made Global Warming

What was that definition of Fascists again?

Downtrend ^ | March 20, 2015 | Brian Anderson
Well, there’s one way to ensure that everyone buys into the man-made global warming hoax: extortion. Starting next year the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will stop funds from going to states that refuse to believe that humans are causing climate change. This news comes straight from the leftist eco-nuts at Inside Climate News, so you can be assured that it isn’t a “paranoid” conservative interpretation of an innocuous FEMA regulation: The Federal Emergency Management Agency is making it tougher for governors to deny man-made climate change. Starting next year, the agency will approve disaster preparedness funds only for states...
Failure to uphold the law and equal protection clause... I believe this boarders on treason because this is a regulation put in place by Obama administratively. Seems this little dictator needs a stint at the grey bar hotel...
 

Billy000

Democratic Socialist
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
23,729
Reaction score
4,865
Points
290
Location
Colorado
But it's settled science.... bullshit!

Breitbart News via fox ^
A new scientific paper has driven yet another nail into the coffin of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. (H/T Bishop Hill) The paper – Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing by Bjorn Stevens of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, published in the American Meteorological Society journal – finds that the effects of aerosols on climate are much smaller than those in almost all the computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
As usual you cons cherry pick papers that are not peer-reviewed and largely insigificant to create your own narrative. I feel sorry for you.
What makes you say it wasn't peer reviewed?... Because it DIDN'T get a sack full of cash from a government grant?

Obviously you don't know what peer-reviewed even means.
Obviously you practice PAL Review and censorship of non-approved liberal bull shit agenda/propaganda..

The alarmist appeal to authority is a dead giveaway that you dont have a dam clue about what is truly science..
Peer reviewed rarely has anything to do with politics.
 
OP
Vigilante

Vigilante

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
51,329
Reaction score
18,064
Points
2,290
Location
Waiting on the Cowardly Dante!!
But it's settled science.... bullshit!

Breitbart News via fox ^
A new scientific paper has driven yet another nail into the coffin of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. (H/T Bishop Hill) The paper – Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing by Bjorn Stevens of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, published in the American Meteorological Society journal – finds that the effects of aerosols on climate are much smaller than those in almost all the computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
As usual you cons cherry pick papers that are not peer-reviewed and largely insigificant to create your own narrative. I feel sorry for you.
What makes you say it wasn't peer reviewed?... Because it DIDN'T get a sack full of cash from a government grant?

Obviously you don't know what peer-reviewed even means.
Obviously you practice PAL Review and censorship of non-approved liberal bull shit agenda/propaganda..

The alarmist appeal to authority is a dead giveaway that you dont have a dam clue about what is truly science..
Peer reviewed rarely has anything to do with politics.
Except Global Warming! How stupid do you think people are that read the news?
 

Billy000

Democratic Socialist
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
23,729
Reaction score
4,865
Points
290
Location
Colorado
As usual you cons cherry pick papers that are not peer-reviewed and largely insigificant to create your own narrative. I feel sorry for you.
What makes you say it wasn't peer reviewed?... Because it DIDN'T get a sack full of cash from a government grant?

Obviously you don't know what peer-reviewed even means.
Obviously you practice PAL Review and censorship of non-approved liberal bull shit agenda/propaganda..

The alarmist appeal to authority is a dead giveaway that you dont have a dam clue about what is truly science..
Peer reviewed rarely has anything to do with politics.
Except Global Warming! How stupid do you think people are that read the news?
Stop pretending you know what peer-reviewed means.
 
OP
Vigilante

Vigilante

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
51,329
Reaction score
18,064
Points
2,290
Location
Waiting on the Cowardly Dante!!
What makes you say it wasn't peer reviewed?... Because it DIDN'T get a sack full of cash from a government grant?

Obviously you don't know what peer-reviewed even means.
Obviously you practice PAL Review and censorship of non-approved liberal bull shit agenda/propaganda..

The alarmist appeal to authority is a dead giveaway that you dont have a dam clue about what is truly science..
Peer reviewed rarely has anything to do with politics.
Except Global Warming! How stupid do you think people are that read the news?
Stop pretending you know what peer-reviewed means.
Why, you want me to C&P it from wiki, to make you feel better? Here asshole...

Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication. Peer review can be categorized by the type of activity and by the field or profession in which the activity occurs, e.g., medical peer review.

So because 97% of the corrupt scientists, and scared to death ones that might disagree with the TRILLIONS of dollars invested in Global Warming didn't agree with these findings, they are officially wrong in your demented mind.... Another liberal, 2 digit IQ'd freak that can't think for himself, but has to follow the PARTY LINE!.... Congrats kid, you'll get a gold star on your membership card!
 

Billy000

Democratic Socialist
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
23,729
Reaction score
4,865
Points
290
Location
Colorado
Obviously you don't know what peer-reviewed even means.
Obviously you practice PAL Review and censorship of non-approved liberal bull shit agenda/propaganda..

The alarmist appeal to authority is a dead giveaway that you dont have a dam clue about what is truly science..
Peer reviewed rarely has anything to do with politics.
Except Global Warming! How stupid do you think people are that read the news?
Stop pretending you know what peer-reviewed means.
Why, you want me to C&P it from wiki, to make you feel better? Here asshole...

Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication. Peer review can be categorized by the type of activity and by the field or profession in which the activity occurs, e.g., medical peer review.

So because 97% of the corrupt scientists, and scared to death ones that might disagree with the TRILLIONS of dollars invested in Global Warming didn't agree with these findings, they are officially wrong in your demented mind.... Another liberal, 2 digit IQ'd freak that can't think for himself, but has to follow the PARTY LINE!.... Congrats kid, you'll get a gold star on your membership card!
So you're actually dumb enough to believe that 97% of those climate scientists and the vast majority of the peer reviewed articles FROM AROUND THE WORLD supporting the human caused climate change fact are just in the pockets of democrats? That's your grand conclusion is it?

Let's face it. You found out just now what peer-reviewed means.
 
OP
Vigilante

Vigilante

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
51,329
Reaction score
18,064
Points
2,290
Location
Waiting on the Cowardly Dante!!
Obviously you practice PAL Review and censorship of non-approved liberal bull shit agenda/propaganda..

The alarmist appeal to authority is a dead giveaway that you dont have a dam clue about what is truly science..
Peer reviewed rarely has anything to do with politics.
Except Global Warming! How stupid do you think people are that read the news?
Stop pretending you know what peer-reviewed means.
Why, you want me to C&P it from wiki, to make you feel better? Here asshole...

Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication. Peer review can be categorized by the type of activity and by the field or profession in which the activity occurs, e.g., medical peer review.

So because 97% of the corrupt scientists, and scared to death ones that might disagree with the TRILLIONS of dollars invested in Global Warming didn't agree with these findings, they are officially wrong in your demented mind.... Another liberal, 2 digit IQ'd freak that can't think for himself, but has to follow the PARTY LINE!.... Congrats kid, you'll get a gold star on your membership card!
So you're actually dumb enough to believe that 97% of those climate scientists and the vast majority of the peer reviewed articles FROM AROUND THE WORLD supporting the human caused climate change fact are just in the pockets of democrats? That's your grand conclusion is it?

Let's face it. You found out just now what peer-reviewed means.
Not DemocRATS stupid child, in the pockets of the subversive 1% that will make a killing with Carbon credits, Environmental laws, and the collapse of nations as they try to comply to corrupt governments attempts to REGULATE OUR LIVES.... But you aren't this smart to understand what's involved!
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
24,912
Reaction score
11,275
Points
1,280
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
So you're actually dumb enough to believe that 97% of those climate scientists and the vast majority of the peer reviewed articles FROM AROUND THE WORLD supporting the human caused climate change fact are just in the pockets of democrats? That's your grand conclusion is it?

Let's face it. You found out just now what peer-reviewed means.
Out comes the John Cook Et Al lie, that was placed in peer reviewed paper, that was found to be a total fabrication, yet passed PAL REVIEW..



Liberals and their math... Go figure..
 
Last edited:

Billy000

Democratic Socialist
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
23,729
Reaction score
4,865
Points
290
Location
Colorado
So you're actually dumb enough to believe that 97% of those climate scientists and the vast majority of the peer reviewed articles FROM AROUND THE WORLD supporting the human caused climate change fact are just in the pockets of democrats? That's your grand conclusion is it?

Let's face it. You found out just now what peer-reviewed means.
Out comes the John Cook Et Al lie, that was placed in peer reviewed paper, that was found to be a total fabrication, yet passed PAL REVIEW..



Liberals and their math... Go figure..
Tha stat is bullshit and it's easy to explain why. The stat your graph gives is simply stating most of those studies did not say the words of man causing climate change. If you understood how science works, you would get this. What Those studies say is that the level of CO2 and other elements is what is changing our climate. Where is all that CO2 coming from? Man made activities. See climate scientists aren't in the profession to say anything sociological, political, or economically related. They just point to facts. They are simply stating the massive levels of CO2 generated are what is causing climate chance. It's man who has generated all that CO2. It doesn't take a scientist to make the connection.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top