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

[BirkenheadBlue]

I also seem to be reading alot of posts that should really be in some climate change/global warming or natural disaster forum thread.

If I was advising the Dems and they told me they were intent on pushing impeachment, I would advise them to make absolutely certain they had incontrovertible proof against a serious charge that no reasonable Republican could genuinely oppose. What they have produced after the Russia hoax appears to be yet another hoax. I'd be furious if I was American. The Dems telling us how dangerous the president is have thus far produced diddly squat and are simply pushing one witch hunt after another. There's no way they are rewarded for this in 2020.

That right there is your problem...

 

[nsno-chris]

Off down the dock to punch one those wind turbines, do they count as windmills???

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

So this Barry fella is good value...

"DISREGARD COMPUTER MODELLING"... well yeah.. let's just chuck away a good half of modern science... Including a huge amount of that cancer research that you're so keen on, since it comes out of those infernal number boxes...

 

[verreauxi]

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

Suggesting the Shakun et al. paper is thoroughly debunked is untrue. Where is a peer-reviewed reference for this?

I know how precession, obliquity, and eccentricity work; while there are some unknowns, there is nothing controversial about how these things are linked to temperature fluctuations on earth. But again, your obsession with the past does not speak to the present uptick in earth's temperatures on a very recent time-scale.

The moon landing question is of serious relevance: you have repeatedly claimed here that "computer modeling" by NASA is fallible and unreliable; yet computer modeling by NASA is what allowed humans to land on the moon. So you either believe that NASA's computer models are robust, or maybe you believe the moon-landing was faked, or maybe something else. Can you please explain how NASA's computer models are unreliable given that they were able to land people on the moon?

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Suggesting the Shakun et al. paper is thoroughly debunked is untrue. Where is a peer-reviewed reference for this?

I know how precession, obliquity, and eccentricity work; while there are some unknowns, there is nothing controversial about how these things are linked to temperature fluctuations on earth. But again, your obsession with the past does not speak to the present uptick in earth's temperatures on a very recent time-scale.

The moon landing question is of serious relevance: you have repeatedly claimed here that "computer modeling" by NASA is fallible and unreliable; yet computer modeling by NASA is what allowed humans to land on the moon. So you either believe that NASA's computer models are robust, or maybe you believe the moon-landing was faked, or maybe something else. Can you please explain how NASA's computer models are unreliable given that they were able to land people on the moon?

Youtube.com

 

[Barry Rathbone]

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

Don't be silly the convo come about via Trump's renunciation of the science bereft climate doom cult mentioned earlier in the thread so completely related. But if you think my offerings of robust science amidst others failing to provide likewise is being "shown up" then you clearly now nothing about science.

Try proper research before steaming in you won't look such a balloon.

 

[Prevenger17]

But if you think my offerings of robust science

lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

 

[Prevenger17]

Requisite, robust, these are the words you need when you've been thoroughly bludgeoned in an argument

 

[Barry Rathbone]

Suggesting the Shakun et al. paper is thoroughly debunked is untrue. Where is a peer-reviewed reference for this?

I know how precession, obliquity, and eccentricity work; while there are some unknowns, there is nothing controversial about how these things are linked to temperature fluctuations on earth. But again, your obsession with the past does not speak to the present uptick in earth's temperatures on a very recent time-scale.

The moon landing question is of serious relevance: you have repeatedly claimed here that "computer modeling" by NASA is fallible and unreliable; yet computer modeling by NASA is what allowed humans to land on the moon. So you either believe that NASA's computer models are robust, or maybe you believe the moon-landing was faked, or maybe something else. Can you please explain how NASA's computer models are unreliable given that they were able to land people on the moon?

You don't need a mechanic to tell if you if you have a flat tyre equally the Shakun material is so obviously flawed you don't need a peer review paper to point out the failings. Here's a sample for bedtime reading and remember to attack the messenger rather than the detail you're letting the side down otherwise

Shakun Redux: Master tricksed us! I told you he was tricksy!

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach The quote above is from Lord of the Rings, an exchange between Gollum and Smeagol, and it encapsulates my latest results from looking into the Shakun 2012 paper, &#8…

wattsupwiththat.com

http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews12No20.pdf

Glad to see you concede despite the Shakun bluster it is the orbit that controls glacial events not co2

The moon landings were based on computer models devised by empirical observation - animals sent into space - climate models have no such grasp of the variables hence their failures but thanks for directing the reader to their inherent problems.

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." IPCC

 

[Barry Rathbone]

Requisite, robust, these are the words you need when you've been thoroughly bludgeoned in an argument

I've got right under your skin haven't I? lol

 

[toffee9]

That right there is your problem...

The vast majority of Republican's are eminently reasonable people. There are many that are business owners that make decisions everyday about their staff and their customers that are reasonable. Just as they make decisions for their families and friends that are reasonable. Having no respect for Republican's is not reasonable, nor is using impeachment to pursue a partisan campaign against the President that has almost zero evidentiary value.

 

[Prevenger17]

You don't need a mechanic to tell if you if you have a flat tyre equally the Shakun material is so obviously flawed you don't need a peer review paper to point out the failings. Here's a sample for bedtime reading and remember to attack the messenger rather than the detail you're letting the side down otherwise

Shakun Redux: Master tricksed us! I told you he was tricksy!

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach The quote above is from Lord of the Rings, an exchange between Gollum and Smeagol, and it encapsulates my latest results from looking into the Shakun 2012 paper, &#8…

wattsupwiththat.com

http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews12No20.pdf

Glad to see you concede despite the Shakun bluster it is the orbit that controls glacial events not co2

The moon landings were based on computer models devised by empirical observation - animals sent into space - climate models have no such grasp of the variables hence their failures but thanks for directing the reader to their inherent problems.

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." IPCC

Whatsupwiththat.com to the rescue again. So robust. Wakey wakey

 

[Barry Rathbone]

Whatsupwiththat.com to the rescue again. So robust. Wakey wakey

There's 2 independent citations there you remarkably inept clutz, lol

 

[SteveSC]

Don't be silly the convo come about via Trump's renunciation of the science bereft climate doom cult mentioned earlier in the thread so completely related. But if you think my offerings of robust science amidst others failing to provide likewise is being "shown up" then you clearly now nothing about science.

Try proper research before steaming in you won't look such a balloon.

Alright there fella whatever you say. The only one looking such a balloon as you say is you. State off you.

 

[Toffee in Jandals]

You don't need a mechanic to tell if you if you have a flat tyre equally the Shakun material is so obviously flawed you don't need a peer review paper to point out the failings. Here's a sample for bedtime reading and remember to attack the messenger rather than the detail you're letting the side down otherwise

Shakun Redux: Master tricksed us! I told you he was tricksy!

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach The quote above is from Lord of the Rings, an exchange between Gollum and Smeagol, and it encapsulates my latest results from looking into the Shakun 2012 paper, &#8…

wattsupwiththat.com

http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews12No20.pdf

Glad to see you concede despite the Shakun bluster it is the orbit that controls glacial events not co2

The moon landings were based on computer models devised by empirical observation - animals sent into space - climate models have no such grasp of the variables hence their failures but thanks for directing the reader to their inherent problems.

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." IPCC

If I may interject here, hello Barry.

Your favorite website that you keep referring to, is, well, a pile of poo. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/
I'd suggest that readers of this particular brand of toilet are also likely to believe the moon landings didn't happen, the earth is flat, and that the planet and all it's beings were created by a deity 6,000 years ago.

Barry, I'm sure you're a reasonable fella, please, give up now. You're embarrassing yourself, and by extension, Evertonians and GOT'ers everywhere.