Re: More proof that global warming is a hoax ...

Dr. Dweeb wrote:
Maverick wrote:

Dr. Dweeb wrote:

Maverick wrote:


JF Mezei wrote:


Dr. Dweeb wrote:



a) Yes by historical evidence and known temperature cycles. The
earth temperature cycles over time.


Earth's normal temperature cycles happen over periods of thousands
of years.

We are observing a warming over a period of 50 years at a rate that
does not match that of a normal/natural slowly evolving temperature
change.

The period between the medieval warm period and the mini-ice age was
about 50 years. We've been warming since 1680.



The CO2 hypothesis is unproven,


Do you refuse to admit that they have proven that CO2 and other
gases act as a "greenhouse" effect by absolbing infrared instead of
letting it through ?


At 0.04% atmospheric content of CO2 is too much?



If you accept that in a lab that CO2 has this effect on a small
scale, why do you refuse to admit that it would also have a similar
effect on a planetary scale ?

Because the earth is not a greenhouse...
The lab is not a valid scale. What is needed is good observation
and measurement methods. So far, all I've seen is junk science,
which leads to http://www.junkscience.org.


Yep Mav. Beat me to it.



Actually, I'm appalled at the politicization of climatology. People
should be able to freely hash over what is scientifically correct and
what isn't. When scientists get their jobs threatened because they
don't go along with the current political policy shows just how
political and highly likely that there is a bad agenda afoot for some
other purposes other than our own welfare at stake.


This one is pretty damning. For anyone familiar with the language of academia, they will note that this paper is close the equivalent of a direct charge of selective use of data, the production of results by manipulation of the data and "bad science". I leave it to the careful reader to extract the most damning commentaries.

I again note that the climate models are exposed for what they are for the nth time. The models' inability to predict the empirical data based on the known empirical inputs is a sad indictment indeed. I suspect a rethink of the fundamental premises of the models is in order, since they are clearly not even in the ballpark at the moment, and apparently not getting much closer.

I have a suspicion that several contributors to this thread, should they be capable of reading and understanding this article, may enter into one of two states - denial or cognitive dissonance.

Dweeb
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_recovering_from_LIA.pdf



I know. I've been burned on computer models before in electrical simulations. Models are based on certain assumptions, and if the assumptions are incorrect or based on unscientific ideals, then all the model is false.
.

Quantcast