Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Revie

LOL, yes, always attack the messenger.

 

Sorry - but you are NOT fooling anyone - especially those who understand what I am asking for

 

2% of Earth's atmosphere is made up of greenhouse gas, 3.62% of the gas is CO2 and 3.4% of that CO2 is of human origin, how much global warming is anthropogenic?

Answers on the back of a small postage stamp, please.

 

Your complete disinterest in finding out the truth is noted.

 

Do you understand what she's asking for?

 

She wants critiques of the 97% but will not accept any critique of the 97%.

The 97% ‘consensus’

 

Simple, don't proffer any.

 

The list shows that contrary to another poster's statement, global warming IS about increasing atmospheric temperatures. That was the sole point of the list.

BTW - You didn't miss the last entry did you?

 

Don't care - it is a catch all phrase that can and does refer to anything - and defining it is about as useful as defining the word "Deadly" which, here has come to also mean "brilliant" "cool" "right on" and "ideal"

- - - Updated - - -

Wiggle wiggle wiggle

No I want a critique of the research

 

You have gotten it but not surprisingly, you ignored it.

 

because it is NOT fit the criteria of a critique - it was a criticism (AGAIN) and I thought we were talking of Cook's paper?

 

This should give a few people something to think about:

 

volcanic activity on the rise equals more greenhouse gases than man could produce by himself. Listen, this planet has gone through so many climate changes without Man........ Tell us O Saged One, what happened to the Sahara rain forests?

 

Ah yes, when people point out the flaws in the Cook paper it is not a critique but a criticism. Gotcha.

 

You completely made that up. Because there is no source backing it up.

 

Yes, of course, a climate scientists critique of a poll by a cartoonist is just not good enough for you. Should I find another cartoonist to critique it so you will pay attention?

 

then tell me what happened to the Sahara greenlands?

 

You're also on the wrong bus.

 

“Arctic temperature anomalies in the 1930s were apparently as large as those in the 1990s and 2000s. There is still considerable discussion of the ultimate causes of the warm temperature anomalies that occurred in the Arctic in the 1920s and 1930s.” - IPCC AR5 Chapter 10

 

so, this is the first and only climate change this planet has gone through? Since you seem to be unable to say it, the Sahara sveltlands were demolished by climate change around 5000 years ago. It is believed that volcanic activity spawned that major climate change because MAN WASN"T AROUND with his fire-breathing dragons they call cars. No industry to contribute to the change in weather.....
Got it? good..............Now say it with me, Krakatoa affected the weather for 3 years after busting its cap.
and repeat after me......solar flares are NOT caused by Man, but they have a definitive affect on weather as well...
Now, I want YOU to explain to me how throwing money at a pollution problem is going to alter the weather back to 50 years ago? Gonna fine them mean ol' volcanoes into bankruptcy? You do realize that the ones pandering for money are the same ones who profit from fossil fuels so they can "fix" the problem they have allegedly created.......
as for the bus, is that a lib climate blaming bus or the conservative climate bus?

 

If you bother to have a look around the threads to see where my hat is hanging, you'll realise you're appealing to the wrong person, I'm one of the good guys.

 

Michael Mann: “One of the more robust predictions is that in the Atlantic, hurricane intensities have increased and they will likely continue to increase, and so, it’s part of a trend, Katrina, the record season of 2005 was part of a trend towards more destructive storms.”

It's true, Glowbull warming really was Mann made.

 

Mann is citing research and you are citing……………………………...

 

And the discussion centres around how accurate the records were in the 1920's and 1930's for the Arctic given that there were not that many temperature stations up that way

 

And yet another straw man argument!
Who defines global warming by record high temperatures of the continents? What peer-reviewed paper concludes that continental high temperature records will be set within 30 years?