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

No. They post a 'manifesto'. 'Nuf said.

 

Absolutely ridiculous. Temperatures continue to rise, I'm fact the 2000s was the hotest decade recorded, and 2012 was the warmest year on record.

 

Recorded is the key word. Since man began recording temperatures annually. The Earth is billions of years old.

 

15 years with no statistically significant warming. 95% of all past climate models busting out of the upper bound of credibility. No hypothesis test of AGW.

NOTHING ACTIONABLE. You cannot spend my money with that crap as a basis.

 

Set the Cool-Aide down.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html <--- Not Warmed in 16 years.

Now, that is just a "blip on the radar", in reality we are 100% coming out of an ice age right now. We will be warming over the next thousands of years with or without human contributions. It will mean more arable land.

There is no demonstrative proof that humans are the cause and to attack economies is not more than an authoritarian power and control move by leftists.

 

So global warming is now a law of science like gravity? who knew?

 

Don't try to make your point by posting the daily fail.. face meet desk

 

Are you really going to imply that tens of thousands of scientists over the past 4 decades went through a decade of intense schooling just so they could do fake research to come up with fake results to get more funding for fake research? Does that make ANY sense to you?

 

Makes more sense to me than humans caused climate change. Our climate has always been changing and will continue doing so long after humans are gone.

There's literally nothing we can do about this. And too much money is being wasted on research. That money should be going to the hardest hit areas. And helping those people and not lining the pockets of the rich.

 

When?...

 

Nope



Seriously stop making (*)(*)(*)(*) up. In what world do you think you can get away with it.

- - - Updated - - -

There aren't tens of thousands of scientists studying global warming. Of the biggest problems of the few dozen guys driving climate science is their inability to convince the other tense of thousands of scientists.

 

Then it is extremely clear that you have no interest in the actual science and only care what your mind can grasp.

I don't know why anyone wouldnt think that pumping trillions of tonnes of CO2 into the air would have effects on the atmosphere and oceans.

 

No offense, but my blog has a lot more cred than your blog....


Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

.

 

Yeah... nice straegically placed starting point there. Starting at 1998 which was an extreme el nino year and the hottest year in awhile. Naturally every year after that is going to show a downward trend.

Why don't you be honest and start it from a non extreme.

Like 1990.

 

That's what I'd like to know.

 

Maybe due to the fact that on average there has been a warming trend 150 years before every ice age.
(ask the scientists).

In fairness... the alarmism you posted is easy to fall for... if you choose to ignore all opposing research.

 

Maybe the data that showed no warming for 15 years?

Just a guess.

 

Because you are actually talking about something entirely different. You are talking about natural climate change. Unprecedented increased rates and volumes of green house gases in the last 150 years because of the industrial revolution, is not natural climate change.

 

The atmosphere doesn't even coronation a trillion tons of CO2.

And you say you care about science. You wouldn't know science from hyperbole if it bit you in the ass.

- - - Updated - - -

You are right an increase in gasses is not climate change. You have to show that one can have a considerable enough effect on the other to be distinguishable from noise.

 

Can you read?

My graph says

rss/from:1996.7

Is 1996.7 == 1998?

I suggest you stop lying especially when your dishonest lies are plainly obvious to anyone who can read.

As to your pathetic graph. It proves that you were are wrong. If there is no trend from 1996.7 but there is a trend from 1990. Then the warming had to have occurred between 1990 and 1996.7. Extending the trend doesn't create warming over the last 17 years. It just proves that there hasn't been any.

 

El Nino lasted from 1997 to 1998. It is a strategic starting point to create the false impression of a negative trend by starting at a high extreme.

 

sweet, can you provide me, with proof, the CO2 concentrations in 1897?

Ill wait.

 

Volcanoes emit toxic gas. They have been around since the beginning of earth. Are you going to claim Volcanoes were the cause of climate change before humans?

 

How many times do you have to be called out on your cherry picking bull(*)(*)(*)(*) before you knock it the (*)(*)(*)(*) off? Anyone can cherry pick points on a graph to make them for your view.

For example, look at the last 20 years



Or zomg the last five years!

Oddly enough it doesn't appear I ever said tens of thousands of scientists were studying global warming. I said tens of thousands of scientists have studied the effects of climate change. Which they have. Some on its effects on temperature, some on ice, many on the effects it has on the environment and on various plants and animals.

 

Isnt that what the global warming "scientist" did during ClimateGate?