- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 16,501
- Reaction score
- 3,829
- Location
- Sheffield
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
See table in post #465...
Constant evaision of a simple question.
How do you deal with your inability to answer it and still hold to your religion?
LOL.
Apparently ‘evasion’ is now defined by giving someone more information than they are capable of reading.
Yes, just like when the christians tell you to go and read the Texas papers or some such drivel.
You have to answer the question for all those people silently watching the thread and show that you can actually answer the question directly and straight forwardly. Or look like you have no clue.
Doesn't justify tens of thousands of copied and pasted utter crap posts from pseudoscience conspiracy blogs.
I do not expect you to know any data. I expect you to understand what it is you are talking about. To be able to explain why there is going to be a problem in your own words and then to back this up with some sort of science that shows how it is going to happen and to what extent.
Should be easy.
OK,so you don't understand the topic.Duly noted.
*chuckle*
To be honest LoP or some of te others are better at that sort of thing. There are lots of posts about it. Try Longview.
I stick to looking at what would actually happen if the warming as predicted actually happens. So far the worst is that Maple syrup production will move North a bit.
And I love real maple syrup. Screw that high fructose corn syrup artificial crap.
Dammit...
Now I may have to switch sides!
There’s literally a cut and pasted list of stuff posted because of your whining! And you don’t address it because it needs to be explained to you instead.
Isn't that the truth! The fact of the matter is that these Denialists are AFRAID of Science. They don't understand it, as is being demonstrated over and over by their inability to grasp the simplest concepts. So how can anybody expect them to read and comprehend a complex issue like climate change? A revelation of ignorance is all they have to offer.
The "denialists" aren't the problem.
[h=2]Admitting mistakes in a ‘hostile environment’[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Posted on[/FONT] [URL="https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/19/admitting-mistakes-in-a-hostile-environment/"]November 19, 2018[/URL] by curryja | 38 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
Reflections on Nic Lewis’ audit of the Resplandy et al. paper.
Continue reading →
Did you get that "isotope" concept down yet? You submitted a post on Nuclear Energy, without understanding what an isotope is??? I will not take any of your posts seriously, until you demonstrate a semblance of some knowledge about science.
I'm not here to take a test administered by any other poster, and I'm indifferent to your reactions to my posts. Fact is that your #511 is looking the wrong way through the telescope.
As was pointed out, how can you say that science is wrong, when you don't even understand elementary school science?
The fact that I decline to be tested by another poster says nothing about what I know and what I don't. And science is not wrong.
No, but you are wrong about science.
LOL...
Such a hypocrite.
You guys post from blogs, and places no better than blogs yourself.
Step up if you are going to complain, and quote papers. Not blogs or media.
The claim now is that warming is worse. The claim then was that cooling was worse.:roll:
The 1970s Global Cooling Consensus was not a Myth
[FONT=&]By Angus McFarlane, There was an overwhelming scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was heading into a period of significant cooling. The possibility of anthropogenic warming was relegated to a minority of the papers in the peer-reviewed literature.
[/FONT][h=3]Introduction[/h][FONT="]Whether or not there was a global cooling consensus in the 1970s is important in climate science because, if there were a cooling consensus (which subsequently proved to be wrong) then it would question the legitimacy of consensus in science. In particular, the validity of the 93% consensus on global warming alleged by [URL="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf"]Cook et al (2103)[/URL] would be implausible. That is, if consensus climate scientists were wrong in the 1970s then they could be wrong now.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Purpose of Review[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]It is not the purpose of this review to question the rights or wrongs of the methodology of the 93% consensus. For-and-against arguments are presented in several peer-reviewed papers and non-peer-reviewed weblogs. The purpose of this review is to establish if there were a consensus in the 1970s and, if so, was this consensus cooling or warming?[/FONT]
[FONT="]In their 2008 paper, [URL="http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1"]The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus[/URL], Peterson, Connolley and Fleck (hereinafter PCF-08) state that, “There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.”This conclusion intrigued me because, when I was growing up in the early 1970s, it was my perception that global cooling dominated the climate narrative. My interest was further piqued by allegations of “cover-up” and “skulduggery” in 2016 in NoTricksZoneand Breitbart.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Therefore, I present a review that examines the accuracy of the PCF-08 claim that 1970s global cooling consensus was a myth. This review concentrates on the results from the data in the peer-reviewed climate science literature published in the 1970s, i.e., using similar sources to those used by PCF-08. . . . [/FONT]
[FONT=&]
[/FONT]
Watts, the High Schooler:lamo But it gets even worse - Breitbart :lamo:lamo:lamo
Jack Hays; said:The "denialists" aren't the problem.
[h=2]Admitting mistakes in a ‘hostile environment’[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Posted on[/FONT] [URL="https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/19/admitting-mistakes-in-a-hostile-environment/"]November 19, 2018[/URL] by curryja | 38 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
Reflections on Nic Lewis’ audit of the Resplandy et al. paper.
Continue reading →
As was pointed out, how can you say that science is wrong, when you don't even understand elementary school science?
I have detailed many things over the years. You are new and ignorant to my ability it be insightful, and accurate.
Show yourself worthy of me taking time for explanations, and I will. I already spend too much time in these forums.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?