New Study Finds 'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated
New Study Finds 'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is
Fabricated
truthandaction.org
Saturday, July 22, 2017
http://www.truthandaction.org/new-study-finds-nearly-all-globa l-warming-data-is-fabricated/
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote
New Study Finds 'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is
Fabricated
truthandaction.org
Saturday, July 22, 2017
http://www.truthandaction.org/new-study-finds-nearly-all-globa
l-warming-data-is-fabricated/
all science is a leftist lie undermining conservative common sense
and the christian way.
non-christians and scientists cannont be trusted and hopefully
will one day be exterminated from the face of the earth so that
once again our hearts will fill with the love of jesus christ, our
lord and savior.
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote
New Study Finds 'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is
Fabricated
truthandaction.org
Saturday, July 22, 2017
http://www.truthandaction.org/new-study-finds-nearly-all-globa l-warming-data-is-fabricated/
all science is a leftist lie undermining conservative common sense
and the christian way.
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote
New Study Finds 'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is
Fabricated
truthandaction.org
Saturday, July 22, 2017
http://www.truthandaction.org/new-study-finds-nearly-all-globa
l-warming-data-is-fabricated/
all science is a leftist lie undermining conservative common sense
and the christian way.
non-christians and scientists cannont be trusted and hopefully
will one day be exterminated from the face of the earth so that
once again our hearts will fill with the love of jesus christ, our
lord and savior. many say that trump is the emissary and will
lead the charge to free the minds of the people.
On 7/23/2017 6:20 PM, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
New Study Finds 'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated
FALSE!
http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 13:22:28 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/23/2017 6:20 PM, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
New Study Finds 'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated
FALSE!
http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/
The Snopes response is meandering and very much open to criticism.
Select it as a valid counter-argument at your peril.
In any case the work of the original authors is open to examination
and there is no reason why it cannot be repeated by someone else.
On 7/25/2017 3:22 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 13:22:28 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/23/2017 6:20 PM, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
New Study Finds 'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated
FALSE!
http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/
The Snopes response is meandering and very much open to criticism.
Select it as a valid counter-argument at your peril.
In any case the work of the original authors is open to examination
and there is no reason why it cannot be repeated by someone else.
Snopes seemed pretty clear to me.
'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated
On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated
Maybe this will simplify it enough for you.
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated
Maybe this will simplify it enough for you.
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/
But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and
the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's
not science.
On 7/26/2017 2:10 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated
Maybe this will simplify it enough for you.
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/
But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and
the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's
not science.
They are explaining the data, what it is and how breitbarts article got
it wrong. If you can't understand their points, you have a problem.
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 06:07:16 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/26/2017 2:10 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated
Maybe this will simplify it enough for you.
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/
But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and
the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's
not science.
They are explaining the data, what it is and how breitbarts article got
it wrong. If you can't understand their points, you have a problem.
And if you trust their data then you have a problem.
I'm not saying their data is wrong. I'm saying we just don't know.
What is the source of their data and what has been done to it?
On 7/26/2017 3:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 06:07:16 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/26/2017 2:10 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>
On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated
Maybe this will simplify it enough for you.
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/
But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and
the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's
not science.
They are explaining the data, what it is and how breitbarts article got
it wrong. If you can't understand their points, you have a problem.
And if you trust their data then you have a problem.
I'm not saying their data is wrong. I'm saying we just don't know.
What is the source of their data and what has been done to it?
Please feel free to get a degree related to climate science, do your >research, and submit it to a REAL scientific journal for REAL peer
review. Claiming belief in a "study" that doesn't meet these criteria
doesn't stand for much. The claim in that fake research is that the
changes to the data INCREASE the appearance of warming. The articles
that I referred you to clearly show that the data changes have actually >decreased the appearance of warming, which is still significantly visible.
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:08:28 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/26/2017 3:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 06:07:16 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/26/2017 2:10 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated
Maybe this will simplify it enough for you.
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/
But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and >>>>> the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's >>>>> not science.
They are explaining the data, what it is and how breitbarts article got >>>> it wrong. If you can't understand their points, you have a problem.
And if you trust their data then you have a problem.
I'm not saying their data is wrong. I'm saying we just don't know.
What is the source of their data and what has been done to it?
Please feel free to get a degree related to climate science, do your
research, and submit it to a REAL scientific journal for REAL peer
review. Claiming belief in a "study" that doesn't meet these criteria
doesn't stand for much. The claim in that fake research is that the
changes to the data INCREASE the appearance of warming. The articles
that I referred you to clearly show that the data changes have actually
decreased the appearance of warming, which is still significantly visible.
Yes. 'The claim is ...'. But, the articles to which you referred to,
do not clearly show anything. They merely reiterate the claims of
others.
In any case, ther is not, and never has been any denial of global
warming over the lasr several centuries. The important question is how
much has mankind contributed to it and what the particular
contribution of man-made CO2 has been.
On 7/26/2017 7:32 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:08:28 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote:Do you even comprehend the scientific principle of global warming?
On 7/26/2017 3:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:Yes. 'The claim is ...'. But, the articles to which you referred to,
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 06:07:16 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>
On 7/26/2017 2:10 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>
On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated
Maybe this will simplify it enough for you.
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/
But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and >>>>>> the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's >>>>>> not science.
They are explaining the data, what it is and how breitbarts article got >>>>> it wrong. If you can't understand their points, you have a problem.
And if you trust their data then you have a problem.
I'm not saying their data is wrong. I'm saying we just don't know.
What is the source of their data and what has been done to it?
Please feel free to get a degree related to climate science, do your
research, and submit it to a REAL scientific journal for REAL peer
review. Claiming belief in a "study" that doesn't meet these criteria
doesn't stand for much. The claim in that fake research is that the
changes to the data INCREASE the appearance of warming. The articles
that I referred you to clearly show that the data changes have actually
decreased the appearance of warming, which is still significantly visible. >>
do not clearly show anything. They merely reiterate the claims of
others.
In any case, ther is not, and never has been any denial of global
warming over the lasr several centuries. The important question is how
much has mankind contributed to it and what the particular
contribution of man-made CO2 has been.
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 20:58:15 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/26/2017 7:32 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:08:28 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote:Do you even comprehend the scientific principle of global warming?
On 7/26/2017 3:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:Yes. 'The claim is ...'. But, the articles to which you referred to,
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 06:07:16 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
On 7/26/2017 2:10 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:And if you trust their data then you have a problem.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated
Maybe this will simplify it enough for you.
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/
But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and >>>>>>> the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's >>>>>>> not science.
They are explaining the data, what it is and how breitbarts article got >>>>>> it wrong. If you can't understand their points, you have a problem. >>>>>
I'm not saying their data is wrong. I'm saying we just don't know.
What is the source of their data and what has been done to it?
Please feel free to get a degree related to climate science, do your
research, and submit it to a REAL scientific journal for REAL peer
review. Claiming belief in a "study" that doesn't meet these criteria
doesn't stand for much. The claim in that fake research is that the
changes to the data INCREASE the appearance of warming. The articles
that I referred you to clearly show that the data changes have actually >>>> decreased the appearance of warming, which is still significantly visible. >>>
do not clearly show anything. They merely reiterate the claims of
others.
In any case, ther is not, and never has been any denial of global
warming over the lasr several centuries. The important question is how
much has mankind contributed to it and what the particular
contribution of man-made CO2 has been.
Yes - enough to know that there isn't one.
On 7/26/2017 9:50 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 20:58:15 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/26/2017 7:32 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:08:28 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>Do you even comprehend the scientific principle of global warming?
On 7/26/2017 3:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 06:07:16 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>
On 7/26/2017 2:10 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:And if you trust their data then you have a problem.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated
Maybe this will simplify it enough for you.
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/
But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and >>>>>>>> the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's >>>>>>>> not science.
They are explaining the data, what it is and how breitbarts article got >>>>>>> it wrong. If you can't understand their points, you have a problem. >>>>>>
I'm not saying their data is wrong. I'm saying we just don't know. >>>>>> What is the source of their data and what has been done to it?
Please feel free to get a degree related to climate science, do your >>>>> research, and submit it to a REAL scientific journal for REAL peer
review. Claiming belief in a "study" that doesn't meet these criteria >>>>> doesn't stand for much. The claim in that fake research is that the >>>>> changes to the data INCREASE the appearance of warming. The articles >>>>> that I referred you to clearly show that the data changes have actually >>>>> decreased the appearance of warming, which is still significantly visible.
Yes. 'The claim is ...'. But, the articles to which you referred to,
do not clearly show anything. They merely reiterate the claims of
others.
In any case, ther is not, and never has been any denial of global
warming over the lasr several centuries. The important question is how >>>> much has mankind contributed to it and what the particular
contribution of man-made CO2 has been.
Yes - enough to know that there isn't one.
Just as I thought - not a clue.
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 06:35:52 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/26/2017 9:50 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 20:58:15 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/26/2017 7:32 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:08:28 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>Do you even comprehend the scientific principle of global warming?
On 7/26/2017 3:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 06:07:16 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 7/26/2017 2:10 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:And if you trust their data then you have a problem.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated
Maybe this will simplify it enough for you.
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/
But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and >>>>>>>>> the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's >>>>>>>>> not science.
They are explaining the data, what it is and how breitbarts article got
it wrong. If you can't understand their points, you have a problem. >>>>>>>
I'm not saying their data is wrong. I'm saying we just don't know. >>>>>>> What is the source of their data and what has been done to it?
Please feel free to get a degree related to climate science, do your >>>>>> research, and submit it to a REAL scientific journal for REAL peer >>>>>> review. Claiming belief in a "study" that doesn't meet these criteria >>>>>> doesn't stand for much. The claim in that fake research is that the >>>>>> changes to the data INCREASE the appearance of warming. The articles >>>>>> that I referred you to clearly show that the data changes have actually >>>>>> decreased the appearance of warming, which is still significantly visible.
Yes. 'The claim is ...'. But, the articles to which you referred to, >>>>> do not clearly show anything. They merely reiterate the claims of
others.
In any case, ther is not, and never has been any denial of global
warming over the lasr several centuries. The important question is how >>>>> much has mankind contributed to it and what the particular
contribution of man-made CO2 has been.
Yes - enough to know that there isn't one.
Just as I thought - not a clue.
Please demonstrate your knowledge by telling us how it works.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and
Maybe this will simplify it enough for you. >>https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated
the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's
not science.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and
Maybe this will simplify it enough for you. >>https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated
the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's
not science.
On 7/27/2017 3:26 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 06:35:52 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/26/2017 9:50 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 20:58:15 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>
On 7/26/2017 7:32 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:08:28 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>Do you even comprehend the scientific principle of global warming?
On 7/26/2017 3:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 06:07:16 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 7/26/2017 2:10 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:And if you trust their data then you have a problem.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated
Maybe this will simplify it enough for you.
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/
But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and >>>>>>>>>> the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's >>>>>>>>>> not science.
They are explaining the data, what it is and how breitbarts article got
it wrong. If you can't understand their points, you have a problem. >>>>>>>>
I'm not saying their data is wrong. I'm saying we just don't know. >>>>>>>> What is the source of their data and what has been done to it? >>>>>>>>
Please feel free to get a degree related to climate science, do your >>>>>>> research, and submit it to a REAL scientific journal for REAL peer >>>>>>> review. Claiming belief in a "study" that doesn't meet these criteria >>>>>>> doesn't stand for much. The claim in that fake research is that the >>>>>>> changes to the data INCREASE the appearance of warming. The articles >>>>>>> that I referred you to clearly show that the data changes have actually >>>>>>> decreased the appearance of warming, which is still significantly visible.
Yes. 'The claim is ...'. But, the articles to which you referred to, >>>>>> do not clearly show anything. They merely reiterate the claims of
others.
In any case, ther is not, and never has been any denial of global
warming over the lasr several centuries. The important question is how >>>>>> much has mankind contributed to it and what the particular
contribution of man-made CO2 has been.
Yes - enough to know that there isn't one.
Just as I thought - not a clue.
Please demonstrate your knowledge by telling us how it works.
Knowing that you don't have a clue is sufficient for me to give up on
you. You make your decisions with no knowledge of the subject.
In sci.environment Eric Stevens <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and
Maybe this will simplify it enough for you. >>>https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated
the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's
not science.
Anyone can do the analysis for themselves.
Here's one I did a few days back just for this occasion:
Av global land temperatures:
(1) "No fiddling":
By Season:
Qtr Av temp (C)
JFM 11.9678 <-- min
AMJ 12.0434
JAS 12.1164 <-- max range = 0.1486
OND 12.1000
By Decade:
1850 10.2157
1860 10.0582 <-- min
1870 11.6637
1880 12.0983
1890 11.6004
1900 11.5632
1910 11.3273
1920 11.5756
1930 11.8176
1940 11.6241
1950 12.9994
1960 12.9619
1970 12.6084
1980 11.5884
1990 13.6056 <-- max range = 3.5474
trend = 0.016392 +- 0.0067382 C/yr 90% CI
(2) With Area Homogenization (5x5 deg grid):
Year deg C rel to ann avg for each grid
1850 0.0260
1860 -0.0051
1870 0.0292
1880 -0.0121
1890 -0.1490
1900 -0.2386
1910 -0.2985 <-- min
1920 -0.0942
1930 0.2594
1940 0.0719
1950 0.0405
1960 -0.0998
1970 -0.0906
1980 0.0911
1990 0.9522 <-- max range = 1.2507
trend = 0.00730697 +- 0.00679848 C/yr 90% CI
(3) With Seasonality:
Year deg C rel to mly avg for each grid
1850 0.0769
1860 0.0507
1870 0.0541
1880 -0.1550
1890 -0.1992
1900 -0.2320
1910 -0.2851 <-- min
1920 -0.0830
1930 0.2694
1940 0.0849
1950 0.0544
1960 -0.0857
1970 -0.0789
1980 0.0986
1990 0.6032 <-- max range = 0.8883
trend = 0.00568312 +- 0.00513942 C/yr 90 %CI
I'm a world-ranked data scientist at one time ranked #184 out of
approx 500,000 statisticians and analysis registered at Kaggle.com.
Here's my page:
kaggle.com/kymhorsell1
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 16:32:52 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/27/2017 3:26 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 06:35:52 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/26/2017 9:50 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 20:58:15 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
On 7/26/2017 7:32 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:08:28 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>Do you even comprehend the scientific principle of global warming?
On 7/26/2017 3:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 06:07:16 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/26/2017 2:10 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:And if you trust their data then you have a problem.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated
Maybe this will simplify it enough for you.
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/
But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and
the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's
not science.
They are explaining the data, what it is and how breitbarts article got
it wrong. If you can't understand their points, you have a problem. >>>>>>>>>
I'm not saying their data is wrong. I'm saying we just don't know. >>>>>>>>> What is the source of their data and what has been done to it? >>>>>>>>>
Please feel free to get a degree related to climate science, do your >>>>>>>> research, and submit it to a REAL scientific journal for REAL peer >>>>>>>> review. Claiming belief in a "study" that doesn't meet these criteria >>>>>>>> doesn't stand for much. The claim in that fake research is that the >>>>>>>> changes to the data INCREASE the appearance of warming. The articles >>>>>>>> that I referred you to clearly show that the data changes have actually
decreased the appearance of warming, which is still significantly visible.
Yes. 'The claim is ...'. But, the articles to which you referred to, >>>>>>> do not clearly show anything. They merely reiterate the claims of >>>>>>> others.
In any case, ther is not, and never has been any denial of global >>>>>>> warming over the lasr several centuries. The important question is how >>>>>>> much has mankind contributed to it and what the particular
contribution of man-made CO2 has been.
Yes - enough to know that there isn't one.
Just as I thought - not a clue.
Please demonstrate your knowledge by telling us how it works.
Knowing that you don't have a clue is sufficient for me to give up on
you. You make your decisions with no knowledge of the subject.
"Don't have a clue"? At least I can tell you how it is supposed to
work and the evidence which shows that that the necessary stuff is not happening.
But you - all you can do is back off and start running when asked to
justify your faith.
On 7/28/2017 3:17 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:--- snip ---
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 16:32:52 -0700, Bob F <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes - enough to know that there isn't one.Do you even comprehend the scientific principle of global warming? >>>>>>
And if you trust their data then you have a problem.
I'm not saying their data is wrong. I'm saying we just don't know. >>>>>>>>>> What is the source of their data and what has been done to it? >>>>>>>>>>
Please feel free to get a degree related to climate science, do your >>>>>>>>> research, and submit it to a REAL scientific journal for REAL peer >>>>>>>>> review. Claiming belief in a "study" that doesn't meet these criteria >>>>>>>>> doesn't stand for much. The claim in that fake research is that the >>>>>>>>> changes to the data INCREASE the appearance of warming. The articles >>>>>>>>> that I referred you to clearly show that the data changes have actually
decreased the appearance of warming, which is still significantly visible.
Yes. 'The claim is ...'. But, the articles to which you referred to, >>>>>>>> do not clearly show anything. They merely reiterate the claims of >>>>>>>> others.
In any case, ther is not, and never has been any denial of global >>>>>>>> warming over the lasr several centuries. The important question is how >>>>>>>> much has mankind contributed to it and what the particular
contribution of man-made CO2 has been.
Just as I thought - not a clue.
Please demonstrate your knowledge by telling us how it works.
Knowing that you don't have a clue is sufficient for me to give up on
you. You make your decisions with no knowledge of the subject.
"Don't have a clue"? At least I can tell you how it is supposed to
work and the evidence which shows that that the necessary stuff is not
happening.
Well then, why didn't you offer that information when you were asked.
Please do show us your knowledge pf the theory, and detail the exact
reasons you think the theory is wrong. Then we can talk about your >misinterpretation of the data.
Now you are twisting.
But you - all you can do is back off and start running when asked to
justify your faith.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 05:49:28 |
| Calls: | 12,100 |
| Calls today: | 8 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,914 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
