-
[IMG]https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/my350z.com-vbulletin/550x225/80-parkerbsig_5096690e71d912ec1addc4a84e99c374685fc03 8.jpg[/IMG
-
[IMG]https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/my350z.com-vbulletin/550x225/80-parkerbsig_5096690e71d912ec1addc4a84e99c374685fc03 8.jpg[/IMGComment
-
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
New Hawtness: 1995 540i/6 Claptrap
Defunct too: Cirrusblau m30 Project
Defunct (sold): Alta Vista
79 Bronco SHTF BuildComment
-
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
New Hawtness: 1995 540i/6 Claptrap
Defunct too: Cirrusblau m30 Project
Defunct (sold): Alta Vista
79 Bronco SHTF BuildComment
-
Two seconds on Google clearly shows NASA's involvement with climate change......
Comment
-
Apparently these radicals are outside the 97% binkie
Maybe you’d care to critique their research?
Seriously, you just can’t drink the cool-aide from either side. There is vastly more money and inherent conflict of interest issues on the world is going to die CAGW side, but more inherent business bias on the flip side. There is no 97* consensus, it’s a bullshit stat and you’d be better educated looking at how they came up with that %. It’s is seriously bad statistics. NOBODY actually thinks it is anywhere close to reality.
None of the catastrophe the CAGW warming models predicted has come to pass. CO2 continues to rise and the world warms slowly. If the models are wrong the hypothesis is wrong. There is no panic or tipping point.
Here’s one more. There is so much noise in the data that nobody can with any certainty predict global temps.
And in before you and others shoot the messenger. These are smart people qualified to have an opinion that conflicts with your 97%.Last edited by gwb72tii; 02-24-2018, 08:35 PM.“There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
Sir Winston ChurchillComment
-
Weren't you the one who recently asserted a requirement for qualifications to crunch the hard data? By that rationale "smart people" aint good enough.Comment
-
What I find interesting is that you say we are drinking cool aid & not to shoot the messenger in the same post.Apparently these radicals are outside the 97% binkie
Maybe you’d care to critique their research?
Seriously, you just can’t drink the cool-aide from either side. There is vastly more money and inherent conflict of interest issues on the world is going to die CAGW side, but more inherent business bias on the flip side. There is no 97* consensus, it’s a bullshit stat and you’d be better educated looking at how they came up with that %. It’s is seriously bad statistics. NOBODY actually thinks it is anywhere close to reality.
None of the catastrophe the CAGW warming models predicted has come to pass. CO2 continues to rise and the world warms slowly. If the models are wrong the hypothesis is wrong. There is no panic or tipping point.
Here’s one more. There is so much noise in the data that nobody can with any certainty predict global temps.
And in before you and others shoot the messenger. These are smart people qualified to have an opinion that conflicts with your 97%.
Unlike you & your pals, I will read these links and make a determination instead of just saying it's fake news.
[IMG]https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/my350z.com-vbulletin/550x225/80-parkerbsig_5096690e71d912ec1addc4a84e99c374685fc03 8.jpg[/IMGComment
-
I read the first few pages, seems like opinion not fact so I looked up the people that created it and they are all conservatives with limited credentials.
Also, it was not published in any scientific journal and also this:
Peer-Reviewed Study Proves All Recent Global Warming Fabricated by Climatologists?
A blog post, even if you like it and it is presented in downloadable PDF form, is not a peer-reviewed study.
On 9 July 2017, Breitbart News ran a story written by chart enthusiast James Delingpole, which carried a characteristically provocative and demonstrably false headline:
‘Nearly All’ Recent Global Warming Is Fabricated, Study Finds
In it, Delingpole alleges that a “peer-reviewed” study (first “exclusively” highlighted by the Daily Caller), written by “two scientists and a veteran statistician” found evidence that “much of global warming has been fabricated by climate scientists”:
The peer-reviewed study by two scientists and a veteran statistician looked at the global average temperature datasets (GAST) which are used by climate alarmists to argue that recent years have been “the hottest evah” and that the warming of the last 120 years has been dramatic and unprecedented.
What they found is that these readings are “totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.” That is, the adjusted data used by alarmist organizations like NASA, NOAA, and the UK Met Office differs so markedly from the original raw data that it cannot be trusted.
A Peer-Reviewed Study?
Breitbart here lowers the bar for what passes as both “peer-reviewed” and a “study”. This report, published on a WordPress blog run by co-author Joseph D’Aleo — a meteorologist who did not complete a PhD, but who prominently advertises his honorary doctorate on the document’s cover page — is not published in a scientific journal.
Additionally, this study is not (as implied by some coverage) an official publication of the Cato Institute, despite the fact that co-author Craig Idso is an adjunct scientist there. “This study was not published by the Cato Institute,” a representative of the libertarian think tank told us.
[IMG]https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/my350z.com-vbulletin/550x225/80-parkerbsig_5096690e71d912ec1addc4a84e99c374685fc03 8.jpg[/IMGComment
-
Maybe you should enquire about these "scientists" who are funded by the fossil fuel industry... Which obviously immediately discredits the "research" and puts it in the misinformation bin.Apparently these radicals are outside the 97% binkie
Maybe you’d care to critique their research?
"The claim is based on what can charitably be described as a white paper, written by fossil fuel-funded contrarians Joseph D’Aleo and Craig Idso along with James Wallace III. Two months ago, D’Aleo and Wallace published another error-riddled white paper on the same website with fellow contrarian John Christy; both papers aimed to undermine the EPA’s Endangerment Finding."
Predictably, a number of conservative media outlets like the Daily Caller and Climate Depot picked up on the white paper. The Daily Caller even went as far as to call it a “peer-reviewed study.” In a sense that’s true – a number of other fossil fuel-funded contrarian scientists who are technically the authors’ peers signed onto the paper. But of course that’s really pal review, not peer review; the white paper was not published in a peer-reviewed journal because it obviously would not withstand scrutiny by scientific experts.
Last edited by Massive Lee; 02-25-2018, 05:35 AM.Brake harder. Go faster. No shit.
massivebrakes.com
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Massiv...78417442267056
Comment
-
blah blah blah
here's what was promised by you and your ilk
runaway temps - not happening
the end of polar bears - populations are increasing
no more arctic ice - not happening
Greenland losing ice - not happening
end of snow in the Alps - record cold and snow
on and on
why should we believe you? all you have is models that are not accurate.“There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
Sir Winston ChurchillComment
Comment