Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Rush Limbaugh: Hurricanes are a liberal conspiracy for promoting climate change

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    CO2 is a trace gas
    That just means it makes up less than 1% of the total mass of the Earth's atmosphere. It says nothing about what kind of effect it can have on the scattering of infrared radiation from the ground. If I filled your room with a trace gas... lets say 0.02% mass of the air your room. And the gas was hydrogen cyanide, you'd still die. Being a trace gas does not mean that gas is negligible.

    that has a negligible impact on global temperatures.
    No, even if we ignore all the positive feedback looks, like the water-vapor feedback, you'd still get roughly 1C temperature rise per doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, simple from its effect on trapping infrared radiation. Is it negligible? Well 1C temperature rise represents roughly 0.3% more heat in the atmosphere. That doens't look like much from an absolute perspective, but from the perspective of humans 1C is very significant.

    Due to the water vapor feedback, and other effects, its more like 3C per doubling of CO2, which is thankfully much less than what scientists feared it would be in the eighties. Thankfully there are some negative feedbacks that curp the forcing somewhat.

    [cite=notrickszone.com]mass pressure (gravity) explanation for variances in planetary temperatures[/quote]

    This one is interesting. I might open a thread about it. Though I have a few points, one of them being that this doesn't preclude CO2 as an explanation for heating, as that has already been very much verified as a sound model, is based on very simple assumptions about how infrared light is absorbed and scattered in the atmosphere, which is knowledge we've had down since the thirties. This explanation would still be there, and would still explain a majority of the heating. When I have some free time I'll down into it, and I'll open a post about it.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      Then they need to stop using deceptive language. The word "PREVENT" does not mean "slow down"
      When I was younger I was a grammar nazi and a pedant for how words are to be used. Now a days when it comes to political movements I don't care as much. It would be nice for proper word usage to be there, but there are bigger fish to fry than the exact correct terms freely used by bloggers and article writers. The scientists themselves aren't using those words, nor are they encouraging them. However I don't think they should waste time writing dictionaries of proper words to use. People just wouldn't read them anyway.

      Again, I'm not arguing with those estimates at all. Just the ridiculous language being used to apparently scare people into action.
      I sympathize, but I'd rather deal with the problem of people thinking that the Earth is magically getting colder despite all the evidence, that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere, and so forth. That's a problem to deal with. Personally I don't understand why US Conservatives are so adamant on the narrative that Global Warming is a conspiracy made by US Liberals.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassmoron View Post
        Is this the same Michael Crichton who wrote Jurassic Park, i.e. the science fiction writer. Great book, bad science! But, well done, you’ve finally found a link of sorts to confirm all your biased presuppositions about Climate Change. But unsurprisingly, it’s not without controversy.

        “In 2003, Michael Crichton delivered a lecture at Caltech titled "Aliens Cause Global Warming". This lecture has since circulated widely and its arguments often come up in critiques of climate science. An excerpt was even published posthumously in The Wall Street Journal. I wish to comment briefly on two particular sections of the lecture: consensus and climate models”.

        “Although he never defines exactly what he means by "consensus", Crichton's use of the term seems to rely on a limited and largely incorrect view of the scientific process...”

        “Crichton then argues that scientific consensus has a poor track record and points to examples where the "consensus" was eventually overturned. The implication is that the consensus isn't always correct. But none of his examples are good analogues for the current consensus on climate change...”

        “Finally, Crichton states that "consensus is only invoked in situations where the science is not solid enough." He revisits his idea that science boils down to clear "yes or no" answers by suggesting that it's obviously unnecessary to invoke consensus around something like E = mc2. According to Crichton, this is apparently real science with a right answer. Again, this is not very analogous to something like climate science, but it's also not a valid example in its own right...”

        “Aside from his discussion of consensus and climate models, Crichton builds an indirect case against climate change science based on guilt by association, although he never convincingly demonstrates association, nor guilt. It is a tremendous logical leap of faith to conclude that the search for extraterrestrial radio signals and one group of scientists' research on the potential impacts of nuclear war somehow invalidate decades of climateresearch by thousands of individuals. Overall, Crichton's lecture is primarily supported by his rhetorical skills, not his arguments”.

        https://skepticalscience.com/Crichto...l_Warming.html
        Yeah, that's about the quality of work I expect from "Skeptical Science", where they whine about stuff that contradicts their agenda without actually disproving it.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • And for the record, Crichton wasn't just a writer. He also held a doctorate in medicine and worked for a time as a hospital physician, so he was intimately familiar with the scientific process and the abuses of "consensus science" and the manner in which it was invoked.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            This is just more of the "You referenced facts and theories that contradict my preferred point of view!" crybaby routine.
            No, it's the 'You think those are facts? point-and-laugh' routine.
            Anybody who claims that a scientific question is closed for debate is someone who has little if any respect for science. So now the question has to be asked: Should anybody here take your opinions seriously?
            Yes, because unlike you he knows that creationist claptrap is not and never has been based on a 'strictly scientific perspective'. Unlike you, he knows that claims like this:
            Source: creation.com

            "Flat gaps—where one rock layer sits on another rock layer but with supposedly millions of years of time missing, yet the contact plane lacks significant erosion. E.g. Redwall Limestone / Tapeats Sandstone in the Grand Canyon (more than a 100 million year gap)."

            © Copyright Original Source

            are just ignorant paraphrasing of deliberate chicanery by fraudsters who know that their target audience consists of wilfully ignorant gullible sluggards like you who are too lazy to check their so-called 'facts' and discover that the Redwall Limestone and the Tapeats Sandstone not only show significant erosion, but are separated by several other limestone and shale strata and so don't even have a contact plane at the Grand Canyon.
            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

            MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
            MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

            seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
              Personally I don't understand why US Conservatives are so adamant on the narrative that Global Warming is a conspiracy made by US Liberals.
              Three reasons, I think.

              1. There's more corruption / big money controlling the politicians and propaganda media outlets in the US than elsewhere in the world, so the oil industry has more scope to push its climate denial narrative in the US than elsewhere in the world.

              2. There's a tendency among US Conservatives to say "up" for the sake of it if democrats say "down". Al Gore was a Democratic presidential candidate. So his choice to subsequently try to bring attention to the global issue of climate change may have backfired somewhat in the US because it leads conservatives to think "well if Al Gore says it, it must be false".

              3. US Conservatives have fostered a climate of anti-intellectualism for decades. They have told themselves that the nasty scientists are lying about the age of the earth and evolution, that universities and colleges are liberal propaganda institutes, that the media is a bastion of liberalism, and Wikipedia is unreliable because anyone can edit it. They have essentially been convinced themselves that the only valid sources of information are the bible, their pastor, and ultra-right-wing and/or christian fundamentalist conservative talk-show hosts.


              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              Then they need to stop using deceptive language. The word "PREVENT" does not mean "slow down"
              The rate of natural temperature change is negligible on the scale of a century. The rapid temperature changes we're seeing are ~100% human caused, so somebody talking about "preventing [human-caused] climate change" is functionally equivalent to talking about stopping climate change. I also think you are being disingenuously willfully blind to the implied presence of "[human-caused]" that typically is present as an unstated implication of such talk.
              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                And for the record, Crichton wasn't just a writer. He also held a doctorate in medicine and worked for a time as a hospital physician, so he was intimately familiar with the scientific process and the abuses of "consensus science" and the manner in which it was invoked.
                Hospital physicians and medical doctors are not research scientists, so are not necessarily familiar with the scientific process.
                Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                  That just means it makes up less than 1% of the total mass of the Earth's atmosphere. It says nothing about what kind of effect it can have on the scattering of infrared radiation from the ground. If I filled your room with a trace gas... lets say 0.02% mass of the air your room. And the gas was hydrogen cyanide, you'd still die. Being a trace gas does not mean that gas is negligible.



                  No, even if we ignore all the positive feedback looks, like the water-vapor feedback, you'd still get roughly 1C temperature rise per doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, simple from its effect on trapping infrared radiation. Is it negligible? Well 1C temperature rise represents roughly 0.3% more heat in the atmosphere. That doens't look like much from an absolute perspective, but from the perspective of humans 1C is very significant.

                  Due to the water vapor feedback, and other effects, its more like 3C per doubling of CO2, which is thankfully much less than what scientists feared it would be in the eighties. Thankfully there are some negative feedbacks that curp the forcing somewhat.
                  Yes, I'm familiar with the hypothesis. I'm also familiar with the fact that the earth's temperatures have not behaved as we would expect if the hypothesis were true which has befuddled the global warming crowd. For a while they reasoned that all that extra heat that was supposed to be boiling our planet must have been absorbed by the ocean, except later studies showed that ocean temperatures weren't anywhere near warm enough to explain where all the "missing" heat went.

                  Source: NASA

                  Oct. 6, 2014: The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.

                  https://science.nasa.gov/science-new...14/06oct_abyss

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  ...which is to say that the facts didn't support the global warming hypothesis. In fact, the hypothesis is so untenable that certain organizations have been caught red-handed fudging the numbers to make them fit. And more than once!


                  I could go on, but I think you get the idea. As I'm always asking, if the science was "settled" then why are global warming proponents so afraid to simply let the raw, unadjusted data speak for itself? Probably because it doesn't say what they want it to say.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • So what actual man made technology is causing the most global warming? Automobiles? Factories? Breathing? Farts?

                    Most of the causes like burning fossil fuels should be eliminated sometime in the next 50 years or so. Cars are going all electric - probably within the next 25 years, alternative power generating schemes are coming into the mainstream (such as solar power), batteries and solar cells are getting more efficient.

                    seems like the problem is solving itself. so why the panic?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                      No, it's the 'You think those are facts? point-and-laugh' routine.
                      It's OK, I know a substanceless response when I see one.

                      The thing is, there aren't "old earth" facts, and "young earth" facts. There are simply facts. I've seen time and time again where old earth proponents will simply narrate their point of view and then point to one fact or another as if that settles the debate, except that young earth proponents have access to the exact same facts and are able to explain how, say, a worldwide flood followed by rapid runoff can account for many of the geological features we see in, say, the Grand Canyon.

                      As for this hysterical temper tantrum...

                      Originally posted by Roy View Post
                      Yes, because unlike you he knows that creationist claptrap is not and never has been based on a 'strictly scientific perspective'. Unlike you, he knows that claims like this:
                      Source: creation.com

                      "Flat gaps—where one rock layer sits on another rock layer but with supposedly millions of years of time missing, yet the contact plane lacks significant erosion. E.g. Redwall Limestone / Tapeats Sandstone in the Grand Canyon (more than a 100 million year gap)."

                      © Copyright Original Source

                      are just ignorant paraphrasing of deliberate chicanery by fraudsters who know that their target audience consists of wilfully ignorant gullible sluggards like you who are too lazy to check their so-called 'facts' and discover that the Redwall Limestone and the Tapeats Sandstone not only show significant erosion, but are separated by several other limestone and shale strata and so don't even have a contact plane at the Grand Canyon.
                      First let me say,

                      I just love how you "open-minded" types strike the pose of an indignant toddler when your ox is being gored.

                      Of course you pulled that quote from here and pretended that's all they had to say about it, but if you had followed the links in the essay itself and did a little digging then you would have found this article, and this one, and this one which go into much greater detail and provide comprehensive support for the hypothesis that the Grand Canyon was formed relatively rapidly.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        So what actual man made technology is causing the most global warming? Automobiles? Factories?
                        Electricity production is 29%
                        Transportation is 27%
                        Industry is 21% (25% of that is caused by the cement industry)

                        https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sou...-gas-emissions
                        http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs...nergy.26.1.303

                        Breathing? Farts?
                        Thankfully those are CO2 neutral, and at any rate utterly negligible.

                        Most of the causes like burning fossil fuels should be eliminated sometime in the next 50 years or so.
                        Yes, thankfully. It is inevitable that the market forces will kill the fossil fuel industry since there's no lower limit to how cheap you can make renewables. They're not as bottle necked as coal and oil are, and are more easily scalable, not requiring nearly as many permits. However the fossil fuel industry still enjoys a lot of subsidies and tax breaks and deregulations, so its not really a level playing field yet.

                        seems like the problem is solving itself. so why the panic?
                        "If no one is working on improving the technology, it doesn't get better." Elon Musk on why most rockets use the same technology they did in the seventies.

                        The problem is definitely not solving itself. Its taken tons of research to get solar power this cheaply. A lot of universities meticulously researching photo-voltaics of various types. A lot of failed start ups trying to make a business model that could compete with the big established players, who enjoyed a virtual monopoly rights to distribute electricity and charge for repairs of the grid. To this day these people are still exploiting those rules to punish solar panel owners with tariffs to discourage adoption of it. Those mastodonts aren't giving up without a fight.

                        Fracking is given a free pass, but zoning regulations are thrown in the face of wind turbines. Forbes, and various mostly conservative outlets writes multiple columns about how many birds they might kill, without comparing it to other things to see if it was significant at all.

                        But now we have Solar City and Tesla, we've had a few companies that managed to make a breakthrough, got a foothold and are now changing the standards of things. Like or not, that was due to some initiatives from Obama (as was SpaceX btw).

                        The change is inevitable for two reasons, one, we'll run out of cheap oil and fracking is kinda gross. Secondly, we'll have to do it curb global warming. India, China, Europe are doing it, and the US will also be doing it. But it doesn't happen by itself.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                          Electricity production is 29%
                          Transportation is 27%
                          Industry is 21% (25% of that is caused by the cement industry)

                          https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sou...-gas-emissions
                          http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs...nergy.26.1.303



                          Thankfully those are CO2 neutral, and at any rate utterly negligible.



                          Yes, thankfully. It is inevitable that the market forces will kill the fossil fuel industry since there's no lower limit to how cheap you can make renewables. They're not as bottle necked as coal and oil are, and are more easily scalable, not requiring nearly as many permits. However the fossil fuel industry still enjoys a lot of subsidies and tax breaks and deregulations, so its not really a level playing field yet.



                          "If no one is working on improving the technology, it doesn't get better." Elon Musk on why most rockets use the same technology they did in the seventies.

                          The problem is definitely not solving itself. Its taken tons of research to get solar power this cheaply. A lot of universities meticulously researching photo-voltaics of various types. A lot of failed start ups trying to make a business model that could compete with the big established players, who enjoyed a virtual monopoly rights to distribute electricity and charge for repairs of the grid. To this day these people are still exploiting those rules to punish solar panel owners with tariffs to discourage adoption of it. Those mastodonts aren't giving up without a fight.

                          Fracking is given a free pass, but zoning regulations are thrown in the face of wind turbines. Forbes, and various mostly conservative outlets writes multiple columns about how many birds they might kill, without comparing it to other things to see if it was significant at all.

                          But now we have Solar City and Tesla, we've had a few companies that managed to make a breakthrough, got a foothold and are now changing the standards of things. Like or not, that was due to some initiatives from Obama (as was SpaceX btw).

                          The change is inevitable for two reasons, one, we'll run out of cheap oil and fracking is kinda gross. Secondly, we'll have to do it curb global warming. India, China, Europe are doing it, and the US will also be doing it. But it doesn't happen by itself.
                          The best way to solve a problem is not with fear, but with incentive to create something better and/or more profitable. If we can make electricity easier than having to dig up coal or oil, then the market will move to that technology. If the new technology is also better for the environment, then bonus! - same with cars. Once they make batteries able to charge faster and hold a longer charge (or get fuel cell technology working better) then cars will move towards electric, because electric cars are better. Faster, more torque, simpler to build and maintain.

                          Forcing the issue just ticks off everyone and puts people out of work. Invent better technology and the market will solve the problem naturally.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            Forcing the issue just ticks off everyone and puts people out of work. Invent better technology and the market will solve the problem naturally.
                            Right, Texas, one of the most conservative states, has the most wind generated electricity, other conservative states like Kansas, Idaho, North Dakota, Oklahoma are right behind.: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=15851
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              Yes, I'm familiar with the hypothesis. I'm also familiar with the fact that the earth's temperatures have not behaved as we would expect if the hypothesis were true which has befuddled the global warming crowd. For a while they reasoned that all that extra heat that was supposed to be boiling our planet must have been absorbed by the ocean, except later studies showed that ocean temperatures weren't anywhere near warm enough to explain where all the "missing" heat went.
                              The idea that there was an actual pause in need of explanation was not the dominant hypothesis at the time. The main hypothesis was that it was just a statistical fluke, which is what it has turned out to be. There's no sign that the pause was anything other than an El Nino year in 2004, followed by a relative lul in the temperature rise due likely to our lack of instrumentation. If you see the reconstructed graphs the period where the 'pause' ostensible is has about the same width as the random fluctuations, so it was never rendered likely to have been an actual pause. Granted if it had kept up into 2025 then that would have cried out for an explanation.

                              In fact, the hypothesis is so untenable that certain organizations have been caught red-handed fudging the numbers to make them fit. And more than once!
                              Oh great, a Gishops Gallop. I'll go through the list, see if there's anything here.

                              So... again, this isn't actually the news report. This is a letter to Breitbart, of something that was written on Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta.../#4842cbed7f9d

                              James Taylor on Forbes did not supply any references, so I had to dig out that myself to see where this "fudge factor" came from. Because apparently, as you said, they were caught red handed just willy nilly inserting false data into the result to save global warming from the truth.

                              Here's what I found. They document the fact that the sea floor is rebounding from the melting ice sheets. This makes sense, less pressure on the ground by the smaller ice sheets, the less weight, and therefore they will rise. This should be included in the model. They have a full explanation of it on their FAQ page, where they show four different models of what that rebound would be like that pecks it at -0.3mm/year, and they compare that to the uncertainty of the data about sea level rise +/-0.4mm/years. The papers themselves are based upon geology, so I can't evaluate those, but there's nothing too fudgy about this. They realize there's an effect that wasn't considered, they give a best attempt at estimating, providing numerous references to it, and the correction is at any rate less than half of the uncertainty and so not really that important.

                              Source: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/faq#n3113

                              What is glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA), and why do you correct for it?
                              The correction for glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) accounts for the fact that the ocean basins are getting slightly larger since the end of the last glacial cycle. GIA is not caused by current glacier melt, but by the rebound of the Earth from the several kilometer thick ice sheets that covered much of North America and Europe around 20,000 years ago. Mantle material is still moving from under the oceans into previously glaciated regions on land. The effect is that currently some land surfaces are rising and some ocean bottoms are falling relative to the center of the Earth (the center of the reference frame of the satellite altimeter). Averaged over the global ocean surface, the mean rate of sea level change due to GIA is independently estimated from models at -0.3 mm/yr (Peltier, 2001, 2002, 2009; Peltier & Luthcke, 2009). The magnitude of this correction is small (smaller than the ±0.4 mm/yr uncertainty of the estimated GMSL rate), but the GIA uncertainty is at least 50 percent. However, since the ocean basins are getting larger due to GIA, this will reduce by a very small amount the relative sea level rise that is seen along the coasts.

                              © Copyright Original Source


                              So either I'm missing something, or Breitbart and Forbes misread them. Where's the fudge factor?

                              James Taylor again on a witch hunt, this time on climate scientists not liking to be audited, and discussing ways to avoid having that done. Like with the original climate gate mails there's nothing here about fudging data.

                              A report on Dr. Roy Spencer and Steven Goddard's idea that the entire one degree heating is all caused by a software bug. I apologize but that rabbit hole will take a long time to get into. I might open a thread on it, but it'll need to know specifically what Steven Goddard is referring to with the 'bug' because he doesn't describe it in this article. I know Roy Spencer takes the position of urban heat islands being the explanation, but I'd need to know what his response is to the fact that if you only use weather stations independent of cities, that filtered list that the Watts Up With Blog got so hyped up about, you get pretty much the same result with only minor variations.

                              Goddard's claim that its all a fudge factor. The problem again, here, is that even without adjustments heating is still apparent. The second thing not responded to, and that I never see climate change dissenters respond to, is that the calibrations made are completely transparent. They're all of them available, online, code and reports for each of them made. Here's an example, there was a flaw in the dates of some of the measurements that caused them to be marked a different month that they should be, discovered by a sharp discontinuity in the data. This was fixed, and is well documented. (I saw that I had forgotten to add the example and now I have to run out of the door as I've been invited out to eat with friends. Will add the example later)

                              The article that Breitbart refers to here isn't available anymore, again, no way for me to tell what was changed, why and for what reason. Can't verify or disconfirm anything said here, so I'll dismiss it.

                              Half of that article is just Wattz whining about a conspiracy, and only in the last half of it does he mention his grief that the "Pause" in global warming, which was already just considered a fluke, completely disappears if you take ocean data from ships into account. No discussion of the data except he personally believes the engines of the ships are messing with the thermometers. I guess engines in the eighties are a lot colder than those in the nineties, and the engines of our decade are running much hotter, just in the right progression to save global warming.

                              Any confirmation of this suspicion of his, any attempt to compare a thermometer on a ship with a control, to see if there's the huge difference he believes there is? Of course not, because he's not a scientist, he's a conspiracy theorist. He had one big spiel a while ago about malplaced weather stations, and it turned out that this had already been accounted for and there was no effect when the right ones were taken into account. Then it was about the second attempt at resconstructing the global temperature, and he loudly proclaimed he would accept the result, except when those scientists came out and ended up more or less reproducing the hockey stick.

                              Now he's just anomaly hunting, hoping to find a small flaw somewhere and proclaim victory. One day he'll probably find something small and irrelevant and be right about that. I'm not holding my breath though.

                              And I'm done. That was roughly 15k words of stuff, most of it fluff.

                              I could go on,
                              So could Gishop.
                              Last edited by Leonhard; 09-13-2017, 08:42 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                                blah blah blah
                                So your "refutations" basically amount to, "I don't entirely disagree with the way the numbers were fudged." But you don't disagree that they were fudged to one extent or another.



                                I mean, don't you find it just a little suspicious that all the "adjustments" are only ever in favor of the "global warming" hypothesis? If these were really random variations then you would expect to see an equal number of "adjustments" in both directions.
                                Last edited by Mountain Man; 09-13-2017, 08:44 AM.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                136 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                112 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                361 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X