cobran20

Debunking The Man-Made Global Warming Myth Consensus

1300 posts in this topic

22 hours ago, staringclown said:

So no evidence of widespread fudging of data then? I thought not.

I have already posted about fudging of data where it has been made public. But here are some recaps:

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever . I like that hockey stick trick. Homogenise the past to make that stick look so much better!

Fudging the Global Temperature Record

Swiss Meteorologist Calls Media Claims Of Germany Extreme Heat “Complete Nonsense”

‘Weather Amnesia’ erases memories of the sweaty days of yore

But at the end of the day all you need to do is compare the predictions from the Dept of Settled Science against the actuals.

So why are frosts appearing when we're supposed to be melting?

Edited by cobran20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, cobran20 said:

Is Mr Snowflake cluster melting because the actual evidence contradicts what the warming gurus' predicted?

Perhaps you should take a summer skiing holiday in one of clown's favourite buttf@ck places:

Skiing On The 4th Of July

It's been decades since I've skied. I probably wouldn't manage one beginners slope these days before I joined Tor in the bar for the rest of the day. The video in your link shows sludge, not snow - good for beginners. I wouldn't ski on that sludge either. A seven year high/low of any weather event in any area means bugger all. 

Quote

Now can you explain why there is so much of that ever disappearing white powdery stuff when your gurus predicted otherwise, almost 20 years ago?

My eyes glaze over at these sort of posts by you. Globull warming doesn't really interest me that much but I do find your anti science posts intriguing. I'm more interested in reducing the burning of fossil fuels to reduce air borne fine particulate matter that cause cancer. 

Quote

Or are you just still upset about the Federal election results?

A little.

Shorten was shifty looking and Scomo a big cuddly teddy bear. That's why Scomo won. 

I hope Morrison gets some more clean energy happening. Industry is quite capable of generating the power but govt needs to build the batteries. Which is politically problematic when that means damning. eg - SEQ could raise the height of dams, build a quite a few more and use them as batteries for renewable generation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Cobran

Do you want to buy a rental property in the snow with me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, zaph said:

It's been decades since I've skied. I probably wouldn't manage one beginners slope these days before I joined Tor in the bar for the rest of the day. The video in your link shows sludge, not snow - good for beginners. I wouldn't ski on that sludge either. A seven year high/low of any weather event in any area means bugger all. 

My eyes glaze over at these sort of posts by you. Globull warming doesn't really interest me that much but I do find your anti science posts intriguing. I'm more interested in reducing the burning of fossil fuels to reduce air borne fine particulate matter that cause cancer. 

A little.

Shorten was shifty looking and Scomo a big cuddly teddy bear. That's why Scomo won. 

I hope Morrison gets some more clean energy happening. Industry is quite capable of generating the power but govt needs to build the batteries. Which is politically problematic when that means damning. eg - SEQ could raise the height of dams, build a quite a few more and use them as batteries for renewable generation. 

Excuses, excuses, excuses ... endless excuses.

BTW, my anti-science posts is nothing more that comparing forecasts vs actuals. If you can't handle the truth, then stick your head back in the sand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/07/2019 at 7:36 AM, cobran20 said:

I have already posted about fudging of data where it has been made public. But here are some recaps:

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever . I like that hockey stick trick. Homogenise the past to make that stick look so much better!

Fudging the Global Temperature Record

Swiss Meteorologist Calls Media Claims Of Germany Extreme Heat “Complete Nonsense”

‘Weather Amnesia’ erases memories of the sweaty days of yore

But at the end of the day all you need to do is compare the predictions from the Dept of Settled Science against the actuals.

So why are frosts appearing when we're supposed to be melting?

Hmmm. Where to start?

‘Weather Amnesia’ erases memories of the sweaty days of yore

Not even about data fudging

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever 

Christopher Booker

Quote

Booker wrote a number of articles raising concerns about the Family Court system in England and Wales. However, his writings on this issue drew criticism from the judiciary for alleged inaccuracy.[42][43] In a High Court judgement in April 2011, Judge Bellamy stated that: "Mr Booker's articles contain significant factual errors and omissions",[44] and took issue with Booker on two cases he had covered.[44]

Booker championed the cause of Victoria Haigh, bringing him into further conflict with the judiciary.[45][46] According to the High Court, Haigh falsely claimed that her former husband had sexually abused their daughter and coached the child into backing up the story, going on to spread the allegations on the internet and in her local community when the courts rejected them as a fabrication.[47][48]

Booker also championed the cause of Marie Black, who fled the UK with her partner and daughter in order to evade social services.[49] Black was subsequently convicted of 23 charges of serious sexual offences against children, including rape.[50]

Fudging the Global Temperature Record

New American

Quote

The New American (TNA) is a conservative print magazine published twice a month by American Opinion Publishing Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the John Birch Society (JBS), a far-right organization.[2][3][4][5] The magazine was created in 1985 from the merger of two JBS magazines: American Opinion and The Review of the News.

 

Meteorologist Calls Media Claims Of Germany Extreme Heat “Complete Nonsense”

Jörg Kachelmann - rockstar weatherman and rampant self promoter (a denialist blog article about a twitter post) - admittedly he was found innocent of the rape charges

So no actual evidence yet again. Just your usual freaks and charlatans. You know that when you cite these 'sources', that their credibility reflects back on you?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2019 at 7:27 PM, staringclown said:

Hmmm. Where to start?

‘Weather Amnesia’ erases memories of the sweaty days of yore

Not even about data fudging

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever 

Christopher Booker

Fudging the Global Temperature Record

New American

 

Meteorologist Calls Media Claims Of Germany Extreme Heat “Complete Nonsense”

Jörg Kachelmann - rockstar weatherman and rampant self promoter (a denialist blog article about a twitter post) - admittedly he was found innocent of the rape charges

So no actual evidence yet again. Just your usual freaks and charlatans. You know that when you cite these 'sources', that their credibility reflects back on you?

 

 

Here is your UN IPCC scientist. He is not qualified either? What about Jennifer Marohasy?

But at the end of the day, the litmus test is their forecasts vs actual results. So why is snow so common and making records when almost 20 years ago it was stated that it would be ever disappearing? Maldives still above water, Polar bears still thriving? Should give it another 100-200 years to give the forecaster a better chance at being correct? But in the meantime, the 'F' word hits tropical Brazil, that looks like it has joined your list of buttf@ck places:

ALL-TIME LOW TEMPERATURE RECORD FALLS IN BRAZIL

Quote

The brutal cold-front infecting South America is beginning to take names. Urupema, a municipality in the state of Santa Catarina in southern Brazil, recorded it’s coldest ever temperature on the morning of July 07.

The mercury plunged to -9.2C (15.4F) at the Epagri-Ciram weather station, making it the lowest temperature ever recorded there, comfortably busting the -8.8C (16.2F) set on June 28, 2011.
It got so cold that one of Santa Catarina’s main tourist attractions, the Morro das Torres cascade, actually froze over.

...While anecdotal reports indicate 0C was actually recorded on some coasts, with snow also falling...

In short:

Quote

fraud
n.    A deception practiced in order to induce another to give up possession of property or surrender a right.
n.    A piece of trickery; a trick.

 

Edited by cobran20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cobran20 said:

and his qualifications in climate? Glad we saved a major bullett at the election

Haha. Unlike you who have been nowhere and know nothing, I would suggest that a man who has discovered papua new guinean tribes and travelled widely to compare remote places yesterday (since 1956) versus today has more credibility than your cranks and arseholes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cobran20 said:

Here is your UN IPCC scientist. He is not qualified either? What about Jennifer Marohasy?

But at the end of the day, the litmus test is their forecasts vs actual results. So why is snow so common and making records when almost 20 years ago it was stated that it would be ever disappearing? Maldives still above water, Polar bears still thriving? Should give it another 100-200 years to give the forecaster a better chance at being correct? But in the meantime, the 'F' word hits tropical Brazil, that looks like it has joined your list of buttf@ck places:

ALL-TIME LOW TEMPERATURE RECORD FALLS IN BRAZIL

In short:

 

No dickhead. You keep citing circus clowns for evidence. Your ultra right wing propagandists from the new american are impotent. That's a bad look for you and yours. Here's a hint: If you really want to argue about climate change, take a leaf from Anders B and base it on science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, staringclown said:

No dickhead. You keep citing circus clowns for evidence. Your ultra right wing propagandists from the new american are impotent. That's a bad look for you and yours. Here's a hint: If you really want to argue about climate change, take a leaf from Anders B and base it on science.

I base it on forecasts vs actuals. It is the ultimate acid test. If you would have bet money on your Dept of Settled Science's forecast, you'd be bankrupt, begging for money. If you had bet on the two dissidents' forecast, you'd get these actuals (and you favourite buttf@ck place as well):

By the numbers: Midwestern US endures worst of polar vortex, all-time record lows broken

Quote

...Records were shattered as the polar vortex unleashed the harshest cold in years on the midwestern United States during the final days of January....

Is the Accuweather site now a bona fide far right wing organisation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, staringclown said:

No dickhead. You keep citing circus clowns for evidence. Your ultra right wing propagandists from the new american are impotent. That's a bad look for you and yours. Here's a hint: If you really want to argue about climate change, take a leaf from Anders B and base it on science.

This link has Jennifer Marohasy's contact details. Why don't you drop her a line and tell her that her assertions of the BoM manipulating the data is nothing more than a right wing conspiracy. Feel free to publish the exchange. Looking forward to the outcome.

You also haven't answered this inconveniences that are getting in the way of a good story:

Quote

So why is snow so common and making records when almost 20 years ago when it was stated that it would be ever disappearing? Maldives still above water, Polar bears still thriving? 

 

Edited by cobran20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a sh!tload of ever disappearing white powdery stuff in summer, in a buttf@ck place USA:

Hinsdale County's emergency management begins preparing for flood risk

Quote

Unusually high snowpack and avalanche activity have Hinsdale County volunteers and community members working hard to prepare for potential flooding.

Colorado's statewide snowpack totals are 240% of normal, according to May 23 numbers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, with some areas in southwestern Colorado up to nearly 600% of average for this time of year.

Looks like the website is now officially run by a right wing conspiracy group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Fort Denison is excluded from those rising sea levels prediction by the Dept of Settled Science back in 2007

Rising Sea Levels – The Climate Debate

Could be time to report the hydrographic surveyor to ASIO as an unstable right wing conspiracy theorist!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC, have a look at the latest report from the climate shrills Dept of Settled Science:

L.A. Among 40 U.S. Cities Expected to Experience Abnormal Flooding Rates Due to Rising Seas, El Niño

Now let's go back almost 100 years

Global Warming: 1922

Is that hard evidence that history repeats or is Snopes now classified as a bona fide extreme right wing organisation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AndersB, since you live/lived in Sweden, which is close to Finland, do you know if their scientists are known fascists (along with ones from Japan)?

I've looked up Science Daily and could not find any info about being a regular fake news or extreme right wing outlet. Are they?

This paper was published late last month, which is making the rounds:

Quote

...The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because
a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models. If we pay
attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is
anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does
not exist in practice. The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans [6],
according to Henry‘s law. The low clouds practically control the global average
temperature. During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about
0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.
3. Conclusion
We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute
correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The
reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction
on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large
portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why
6 J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI
IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger
than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased
CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The
low clouds control mainly the global temperature....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The snake oil salesman did indeed post on the 1/7/2019, specifically mentioning the 15 & 16th of this month.

1.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, cobran20 said:

AndersB, since you live/lived in Sweden, which is close to Finland, do you know if their scientists are known fascists (along with ones from Japan)?

I've looked up Science Daily and could not find any info about being a regular fake news or extreme right wing outlet. Are they?

This paper was published late last month, which is making the rounds:

 

The paper is not peer review published anywhere yet. It seems to be like a work in progress, so I will reserve my judgement for now.

One of the authors, Jyrki Kauppinen, was an expert reviewer of the IPCC AR5 report: http://www.climatechange2013.org/contributors/reviewers#kl

So I think the academics are fair dinkum.

They previously published an interesting paper: Major Portions in Climate Change: Physical Approach (2011):

http://butler.cc.tut.fi/~trantala/opetus/files/FS-1550.Fysiikan.seminaari/Fileita/J.Kauppinen-IREPHY-21Nov13.pdf

In that paper they claimed that half of the temperature increase over the last century is due to humans (anthropogenic). But they also assessed that climate sensitivity R = dT/dQ to be 0.0863 or 0.0251 K/(Wm2)

That would equate to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would lead to a warming of 0.22 degrees or 0.14 degrees.

For those numbers to be correct there would be no positive feedback loop on the greenhouse gas effect with the increase of CO2. From a pure physics point of view, a doubling of CO2 would have a logarithmic effect. That is, if quantity X extra CO2 causes 1 degree of warming - then you need 2X CO2 for another degree of warming.

The logarithmic effect is not in dispute - it is the feedback loop that is the big issue:

https://skepticalscience.com/why-global-warming-can-accelerate.html

It is interesting that the authors have changed their view about the warming over the last century from "About one half of the temperature increase was anthropogenic" in 2011 to now claiming that CO2 is causing a fraction of observed global warming (0.1 degrees), of which the anthropogenic component is 0.01 degrees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now