Climate sensitivity

Ok so I looked up the first four:

Roger J. Braithwaite Couldn't find

Simon J. Brown Engineer

Ruth M. Doherty Academic Author

Hayley J. Fowler Author again

No scientist in the first four, Now I'm not going to look up any of the others, because I doubt they are scientists. So, your leverage is where?

Oh, and I asked where your causal proof is at. You still haven't answered that.

 

Get me to understand what? Why not know the outcome of your questions before you post them.

 

This is gonna be fun!

 

We just learned the outcome of my question. You have no clue why Venus is hotter than Mercury. Therefore I win, because I know the answer and you don't.

 

How odd that you couldn't find them, since they are listed both on PopTech's list as authors, and also on the UK Science Community statement. Your search skills are obviously atrocious.

Sure I did, but you missed it. The proof is, Venus is hotter than Mercury. Apparently you think that happens by magic, as you have no other explanation for it.

 

Really? The statement "We still have compelling evidence of a man-made greenhouse effect." isn't clear enough for you? What part of "man-made greenhouse effect." doesn't make him a 97%er?

 

That doesn't even make any sense. I have said on multiple occasions that the signers of the Oregon Petition are qualified to review and understand the science of climate change, especially those with advanced degrees.

These 25 were just a cursory check to demonstrate you do not do any research when making your claims and is not certainly not comprehensive nor am I going to waste any more time on your strawman argument as your inability to do basic research has been demonstrated effectively.

 

Are you kidding me? This is getting really pathetic. Why are you falsely claiming I quoted the entire petition or implied such? I simply quoted the section relevant to my argument. The section I quoted is irrelevant to the part about Kyoto but relevant to arguing against alarmism. Quoting it in it's entirety does not change my argument;

They agree with all of it, otherwise they would not sign it. The petition was very short and clear to its purpose.

This is false and it appears I am going to have to write an article debunking such myths as people keep making them.

 

Making obvious statements seems to be your specialty. It is of no surprise that some of the older scientists on the list have died, especially when I did my quick check from the beginning of it as the list is chronological. None of those scientists denied the holocaust so please stop libeling them as such. You seem perpetually confused about the purpose of the list though,

 

Is my list a resource for skeptics or a list of skeptics? This is explicitly stated in the Rebuttals section,

 

Win what? Yes, you're right... you win poor debater award.

 

I never stated that humans don't release CO2 and we know that CO2 is part of the greenhouse affect. The issue is how much if any does the human CO2 contribute to an increase in temperature. He was unwilling to go where the 97%'s took it. It certainly is amazing to me how hypocritical you all are on the alarmist side. You post one after another about a thing called cherry picking and then do it yourself. How simply amazing.

 

so you admit you have no list then. Thanks for playing.

Get a life dude. Prove it here. You can't and why you choose the strawman to Venus and Mercury. BTW, no man made CO2 there.

Oh and the big yellow circle thing in the sky is responsible for the heat on the surface of earth. Just thought you should learn that today. Oh and the surface of Venus and Mercury are affected by that same yellow circle thing.

 

What you stated is irrelevant. We were discussing van Storch's views.
Here is the quote from the peer-reviewed paper:
"97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
Here is van Storch's quote:
"We still have compelling evidence of a man-made greenhouse effect."
Please explain to me how you come to the conclusion van Storch is not a "97%'er".

 

Again, I don't see in his quote any mention that man made CO2 causes global warming?

 

BTW, another comment from Mr. Storch:

"On the climate aspects of the flooding that has just occurred in Germany, HvStorch:

In my view the climate hysteria has decreased. There are still people who with every natural catastrophe are ritually calling out: ‘You see, it’s climate change’s fault!’ But indeed many more people are talking about the real causes of the flooding, like covering the ground with asphalt and concrete and the disappearance of natural flood plains. That’s good.”"

 

And another few excepts from Mr. Storch:
"Models facing a serious problem

On the current temperature stagnation while CO2 is rising, Klimazwiebel quotes HvStorch: “We face a puzzling problem. Only 2% of the models foresaw this, and if nothing changes in the next 5 to 6 years, research will be faced with a serious problem as not a single model projected that.”

SPIEGEL asks: ”That’s pretty dismal for your colleagues when they have to go back to the drawing board to adjust the models to fit reality…”

HvStorch: “Why? That’s how the process of science works. In science, also in climate science, there is no last word. We never deliver the truth. Rather we deliver the closest approximation of reality. It’s just that this often gets forgotten in the public perception and communication.”

HvStorch adds, “the mistake is that science often produces the impression that it is the keeper of the truth.”"

What he is basically saying is science isn't always right. Hah!!

 

We weren't discussing the models. We were discussing your claim that van Storch is not a 97%'er. You cannot back your claim so you deflected

I win

 

reading is a virtue I get it. So go back to my post number 503 and there I quote:

"From one of the original 97%'ers you like to talk about, found this on another message board:"

So please explain where I said he wasn't a 97%er?

You win, hah, you lose!

 

Derp! Derp-de-derrpa-doo! Duh, derp?

Von Storch isn't a major player. How'd he get all this bandwidth?

646:

He's rambling. He has no quotes, for reply.

Will Farrell, as the achorman RON BURGUNDY:

"Some people say, get out of Dodge. But I say, GET INTO ONE!"

Then he falls over.

Since you are quoting some guy, and you did seem to be ambiguous, about what YOU thought he was into, why are you still rambling?

But hey, I have one RWNJ, who keeps deflecting the 1997-1998 El Nino, with a repeated rant, about there's-no-warming-for-the-last-13-14-16-18 years, which changes, without any links or other proper references, since hey!

HE DEFLECTS, TO DERAIL THE THREAD, at another forum, so I won't link to it.

Now that you burgundied, drink it or spill it, and move on, jc.

 

Whatever gets you through the day!

The only one deflecting is you!

BTW, the link to the article was there. But hey why read the whole post.

 

Yeah, when he got to the loaded language, re "In my view the climate hysteria has decreased. There are still people who with every natural catastrophe are ritually calling out: ‘You see, it’s climate change’s fault!’ But indeed many more people are talking about the real causes of the flooding, like covering the ground with asphalt and concrete and the disappearance of natural flood plains. That’s good.”

See, when he uses a lot of people-are-talking-invectives, three times, in this one para, and he doesn't have any links, to polls or to other comments, he's just some German, who has nothing, but generalities, and HE ISN'T ROMMEL, dude.

He has no new information. You are in love, with his style, for some reason, which seems to be a rwnj-character flaw, so lose your kraut, or post why he's important. HE IS NOT IMPORTANT, except your focus on his ramble shows you like rambles, to suck up the PF bandwidth.

 

Well finally, a true expression of your scientific knowledge.

 

Dude, again whatever gets you through the day. Go read who he is, but when folks are interviewing scientists it must be for some reason other than he's German. The point on here and remains the point with all of you deniers is the 97%, LOL, well sir, he is a highly qualified scientist who believes man's influence in weather, yet agrees with folks like me who actually read and comprehend data, that 98% of models used by climate scientists are wrong. WRONG.. And that science is not about truths. Huh you ask? how can that be? what a sting to you deniers. And he is perplexed with why the models are wrong since he does support man's footprint. He is willing to concede the point that so far the temperatures for 15 years aren't tracking to the expected belief that CO2 is an influence. Again, how is that possible? That's something he'd like to learn as well.

 

Really? You think I'm going to let you direct me to a post?

I win again