Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

[McBain]

Empirical Evidence Shows Temperature Increases Before CO2 Increase in ALL Records

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball The question is how does the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) determine that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temperature? The…

wattsupwiththat.com

There ya go, blue

Dr Tim Ball? He must be an eminent Climatologist!

Tim Ball - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tim Ball - RationalWiki

rationalwiki.org

Even a tiny bit of digging uncovers he was chair of the failed Natural Resources Stewardship Project.

Friends of Science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A initiative of the High Park Group who on their website state

Our Experience - High Park Group

High Park Group has a successful track record of providing high quality research and analysis to both industry and government. We have worked in the areas of regulatory process, Canada - U.S. affairs, energy and natural resources, multi-stakeholder project management, education, transportation...

highparkgroup.com

"We have advocated for the needs of a broad range of Canadian and international companies
in the areas of natural gas, nuclear, mining, and renewables, among others."

Bought and paid for by 'clients'. Wonder why they would argue against 'Big Science'

You really need to open your peepers mate.

 

[Barry Rathbone]

Dr Tim Ball? He must be an eminent Climatologist!

Tim Ball - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tim Ball - RationalWiki

rationalwiki.org

Even a tiny bit of digging uncovers he was chair of the failed Natural Resources Stewardship Project.

Friends of Science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A initiative of the High Park Group who on their website state

Our Experience - High Park Group

High Park Group has a successful track record of providing high quality research and analysis to both industry and government. We have worked in the areas of regulatory process, Canada - U.S. affairs, energy and natural resources, multi-stakeholder project management, education, transportation...

highparkgroup.com

"We have advocated for the needs of a broad range of Canadian and international companies
in the areas of natural gas, nuclear, mining, and renewables, among others."

Bought and paid for by 'clients'. Wonder why they would argue against 'Big Science'

You really need to open your peepers mate.

"In their seminal paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999) [1] note that CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousand years "

You must have missed the salient point based on the above. You really need to open your peepers mate, lol.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Dr Tim Ball? He must be an eminent Climatologist!

Tim Ball - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tim Ball - RationalWiki

rationalwiki.org

Even a tiny bit of digging uncovers he was chair of the failed Natural Resources Stewardship Project.

Friends of Science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A initiative of the High Park Group who on their website state

Our Experience - High Park Group

High Park Group has a successful track record of providing high quality research and analysis to both industry and government. We have worked in the areas of regulatory process, Canada - U.S. affairs, energy and natural resources, multi-stakeholder project management, education, transportation...

highparkgroup.com

"We have advocated for the needs of a broad range of Canadian and international companies
in the areas of natural gas, nuclear, mining, and renewables, among others."

Bought and paid for by 'clients'. Wonder why they would argue against 'Big Science'

You really need to open your peepers mate.

 

[McBain]

@Barry Rathbone

"In their seminal paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999) [1] note that CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousand years "

You must have missed the salient point based on the above. You really need to open your peepers mate, lol.

 

[Prevenger17]

"In their seminal paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999) [1] note that CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousand years "

You must have missed the salient point based on the above. You really need to open your peepers mate, lol.

Mate, you've been wrecked here. Walk away quietly, nobody will think any less of you. They probably couldn't if they tried anyway

 

[verreauxi]

The explanation is we are in an interglacial period the planet SHOULD be warming so quoting symptoms of warming is merely confirmation of the null hypothesis ie natural forces are doing their thing and your examples confirming the cause as man made co2 bomb at first principle level.

Slavishly following headlines without checking the ACTUAL science is the baseline fallacy of the whole canard. The hiatus in temps (sic IPCC) as co2 continued to rise empirically demonstrates the hypothesis is bust it really is that simple.

Add in the ONLY long term science re the co2/temp relationship (800k yrs of ice core samples) irrefutably showing co2 does NOT cause global warming and it's undeniable you and the similar minded are being taken for a ride.

Sorry, dems da facts

You are simply choosing to disregard other forms of data that don't fit into your preconceived narrative. I addressed the relationship between temperature and CO2 and tagged you, and you ignored it.

As to that NASA letter, that is a joke. As has been reported, NASA employs about 17000 people, so it is not surprising you would find 49 or so people who would deny climate change to fit their political views. And the vast majority of those signatories have no experience/background in climate science. This happens all the time in my field--evolutionary biology--where some idiotic letter is signed by 600 "scientists" doubting evolution, and when you look at the signers, you find that most don't know anything about the facts of human evolution, and many have mail order degrees from Christian Universities.

As to the "we are in an interglacial" does not explain the recent uptick in global temperatures on the scale of 100s of years, whereas interglacials happen on the scale of 10000s of years.

Can you please post your exchanges of all the "name" climate scientists that you asked for peer-reviewed evidence of climate change? You wrote, "That's because not a single such paper exists (don't worry I've asked most of the "name" climate scientists and they all run away) let alone 97%." I simply don't believe you here.

Finally, I still want to know about your thoughts on the moon landing. Fake or not? You seem to repeat the trope that computer models, especially those of NASA, are imprecise and even wrong, and only empirical evidence will do. If this is the case, how did NASA get astronauts to the moon?

 

[Barry Rathbone]

Mate, you've been wrecked here. Walk away quietly, nobody will think any less of you. They probably couldn't if they tried anyway

Still bereft of the requisite peer reviewed paper I see.

Do you have a fetish for embarrassing yourself or do you just not understand the "scientific method" ?

I have eviscerated you with one simple question but keep posturing your continued inability to supply the paper is a given lol

 

[verreauxi]

Still bereft of the requisite peer reviewed paper I see.

Do you have a fetish for embarrassing yourself or do you just not understand the "scientific method" ?

I have eviscerated you with one simple question but keep posturing your continued inability to supply the paper is a given lol

Nope...I posted one, and you chose to ignore it. It shouldn't matter if me or someone else posts the information you ask for.

 

[Prevenger17]

Still bereft of the requisite peer reviewed paper I see.

Hahahaha. These words almost mean what they think you mean, but not enough to conceal the fact that you're an idiot trying to sound clever

Mate, I and many others have provided links for peer-reviewed papers, not that you would read them or understand them. I'm sorry they weren't from whatsupwiththat.com, but I'm not doing any more googling for you

 

[Prevenger17]

You are simply choosing to disregard other forms of data that don't fit into your preconceived narrative. I addressed the relationship between temperature and CO2 and tagged you, and you ignored it.

As to that NASA letter, that is a joke. As has been reported, NASA employs about 17000 people, so it is not surprising you would find 49 or so people who would deny climate change to fit their political views. And the vast majority of those signatories have no experience/background in climate science. This happens all the time in my field--evolutionary biology--where some idiotic letter is signed by 600 "scientists" doubting evolution, and when you look at the signers, you find that most don't know anything about the facts of human evolution, and many have mail order degrees from Christian Universities.

As to the "we are in an interglacial" does not explain the recent uptick in global temperatures on the scale of 100s of years, whereas interglacials happen on the scale of 10000s of years.

Can you please post your exchanges of all the "name" climate scientists that you asked for peer-reviewed evidence of climate change? You wrote, "That's because not a single such paper exists (don't worry I've asked most of the "name" climate scientists and they all run away) let alone 97%." I simply don't believe you here.

Finally, I still want to know about your thoughts on the moon landing. Fake or not? You seem to repeat the trope that computer models, especially those of NASA, are imprecise and even wrong, and only empirical evidence will do. If this is the case, how did NASA get astronauts to the moon?

I think we're probably spending too much time on this clueless chump tbh. Let him shout at the sky

 

[Barry Rathbone]

You are simply choosing to disregard other forms of data that don't fit into your preconceived narrative. I addressed the relationship between temperature and CO2 and tagged you, and you ignored it.

As to that NASA letter, that is a joke. As has been reported, NASA employs about 17000 people, so it is not surprising you would find 49 or so people who would deny climate change to fit their political views. And the vast majority of those signatories have no experience/background in climate science. This happens all the time in my field--evolutionary biology--where some idiotic letter is signed by 600 "scientists" doubting evolution, and when you look at the signers, you find that most don't know anything about the facts of human evolution, and many have mail order degrees from Christian Universities.

As to the "we are in an interglacial" does not explain the recent uptick in global temperatures on the scale of 100s of years, whereas interglacials happen on the scale of 10000s of years.

Can you please post your exchanges of all the "name" climate scientists that you asked for peer-reviewed evidence of climate change? You wrote, "That's because not a single such paper exists (don't worry I've asked most of the "name" climate scientists and they all run away) let alone 97%." I simply don't believe you here.

Finally, I still want to know about your thoughts on the moon landing. Fake or not? You seem to repeat the trope that computer models, especially those of NASA, are imprecise and even wrong, and only empirical evidence will do. If this is the case, how did NASA get astronauts to the moon?

Apologies I had not read your previous intro.

The co2 lag is not disputed by anyone the only wrinkle put forward by advocates of co2 doom is the thoroughly debunked statistical effort by Shakun et al. The essence being orbital cycles start the ice melt but not being strong enough to cause warming of any note co2 from the warming seas takes over creating a self perpetuating warming loop. Miraculously this self perpetuating loop is then crushed by, wait for it ..... orbital cycles. Yep, the same WEAK orbital cycles demolishes the all powerful warming loop. It is tenuous lunacy in the extreme trying to rescue the co2 causation story thoroughly demolished by all outside of the echo chamber.

Michael Mann, Trenberth, Hausfather, Hansen, De Grasse and loads more they all got in a right paddy as well

The uptick in temps is based on hapless historical data records and Michael Mann's debunked hockey stick graph and is of no relevance. The reason the USCRN temp collation system was brought in was to correct the inadequacies of the historic garbage and although not global provide a large enough sample to show nothing of concern re temps. This is backed up globally by satellite data.

Your moon landing question is of no relevance

 

[Barry Rathbone]

Hahahaha. These words almost mean what they think you mean, but not enough to conceal the fact that you're an idiot trying to sound clever

Mate, I and many others have provided links for peer-reviewed papers, not that you would read them or understand them. I'm sorry they weren't from whatsupwiththat.com, but I'm not doing any more googling for you

You don't understand requisite do you?

Hint: what is asked for not what you MISTAKENLY BELIEVE is being asked. You are funny

 

[Prevenger17]

You don't understand requisite do you?

Hint: what is asked for not what you MISTAKENLY BELIEVE is being asked. You are funny

Just stop Baz, it's over

 

[Barry Rathbone]

Just stop Baz, it's over

It was over the first time you couldn't supply the peer reviewed paper based on empirical evidence confirming Obama's bluster.lol

 

[SteveSC]

It was over the first time you couldn't supply the peer reviewed paper based on empirical evidence confirming Obama's bluster.lol

Wrong thread mate. Way off topic. Maybe take it to the climate change thread where they can continue to show you up.