New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
... So, you've opted for the denier-of-reality position and look the fool.
We're not surprised
I'm not denying your denier reality... at all! I'm highlighting it; I'm relishing it! Again, your denier reality is to continue to ignore the reality of Arctic sea-ice melting... to continue to ignore the reality of multi-decadal Arctic sea-ice extent/volume melting loss. That's your denier reality!
no worries! You've got no game... I have yet to see you put forward any subject related posts in any GW/AGW/CC related threads. You haven't the metal to make a statement/claim and attempt to support/substantiate it. When all you can manage is to C&P drywall related pics, you simply reinforce you've got no game! :mrgreen:
:mrgreen: DenierFool is as DenierFool does!
.
.
.
hey clubhouse crew! CC Forum... Dead Board Walking! Keep on trolling... keep on posting your infantile pics! You are getting the board you deserve!
hey clubhouse crew! CC Forum... Dead Board Walking! Keep on trolling... keep on posting your infantile pics! You are getting the board you deserve!
any chance... any at all... to bring this thread back on track? Or will the DrywallWizard continue to showcase he has NO GAME?
standard British tabloid/Booker bullshyte! But hey now, this was exactly the impetus behind the Koch Brothers funded Best Project... you know, the denier/skeptic fueled undertaking that ultimately confirmed the integrity of the existing major surface temperature dataset records. WotHappened there, hey deniers!
how about another British rag article like this one: Leading group of climate change deniers accused of creating 'fake controversy' over claims global temperature data may be inaccurate
of course, there are no shortage of reviews done that have shown the insignificant difference homogenization makes to the global results... in fact, adding a slight cooling influence overall.
the 5 declared GWPF "top scientists" have a long-standing record of questioning climate science... why the pack-leader, Pielke, is the "technical support" behind the ill-fated surfacestations nonsense from Tony Willard Watts of WTFIUWT infamy! :mrgreen: So ya, a completely denier manufactured 'fake controversy' to supposedly investigate adjustments... adjustments that have all been published and stood the test of peer-response! If there was any supposed legitimacy behind the GWPF undertaking, they wouldn't have purposely so skewed the selection of the declared "top scientists"!
of course, a real legitimate review is actually underway, undertaken by 9 legitimate scientists actively involved in homogenization efforts/pursuits... one intended to improve on existing homogenization, has been underway for some time now... per the World Meteorological Organization: Task Team on Homogenization (TT-HOM)
Terms of Reference
- Explore ways, building on the existing work, to identify the best performing, skilled and efficient homogenization methods and quality control procedures for the different climate essential variables and time scales (from monthly to sub-daily);
- Identify and evaluate currently available procedures and software for climate time-series quality control (e.g., identifying non-systematic biases in climatic records);
- Identify and assess skills and efficiencies of modern and innovative homogenization methods, to identify more robust and efficient methods including the associated software;
- Provide guidance to Members on methodologies, standards and software required for quality control of climate time-series, with a special focus on temperature and precipitation variables at the daily scale, but also explore existing quality controls for other variables and time-scales.
standard British tabloid/Booker bullshyte! But hey now, this was exactly the impetus behind the Koch Brothers funded Best Project... you know, the denier/skeptic fueled undertaking that ultimately confirmed the integrity of the existing major surface temperature dataset records. WotHappened there, hey deniers!
how about another British rag article like this one: Leading group of climate change deniers accused of creating 'fake controversy' over claims global temperature data may be inaccurate
of course, there are no shortage of reviews done that have shown the insignificant difference homogenization makes to the global results... in fact, adding a slight cooling influence overall.
the 5 declared GWPF "top scientists" have a long-standing record of questioning climate science... why the pack-leader, Pielke, is the "technical support" behind the ill-fated surfacestations nonsense from Tony Willard Watts of WTFIUWT infamy! :mrgreen: So ya, a completely denier manufactured 'fake controversy' to supposedly investigate adjustments... adjustments that have all been published and stood the test of peer-response! If there was any supposed legitimacy behind the GWPF undertaking, they wouldn't have purposely so skewed the selection of the declared "top scientists"!
of course, a real legitimate review is actually underway, undertaken by 9 legitimate scientists actively involved in homogenization efforts/pursuits... one intended to improve on existing homogenization, has been underway for some time now... per the World Meteorological Organization: Task Team on Homogenization (TT-HOM)
Terms of Reference
- Explore ways, building on the existing work, to identify the best performing, skilled and efficient homogenization methods and quality control procedures for the different climate essential variables and time scales (from monthly to sub-daily);
- Identify and evaluate currently available procedures and software for climate time-series quality control (e.g., identifying non-systematic biases in climatic records);
- Identify and assess skills and efficiencies of modern and innovative homogenization methods, to identify more robust and efficient methods including the associated software;
- Provide guidance to Members on methodologies, standards and software required for quality control of climate time-series, with a special focus on temperature and precipitation variables at the daily scale, but also explore existing quality controls for other variables and time-scales.
well... what is the "petros normal"? You keep asking that question, yet you're very hesitant to provide your own statement/claim on normal. Imagine that!
That's not important... What IS important is to start the bank transfer process immediately if we stand any chance of stemming this yet-to-be-defined catastrophe!
A question for you weir, er, waldo... Do you eat it plain or maybe just a little snick of marmalade on it?
oh my! The half-wit has a very strong aversion to having his many times repeated question asked of himself! Go figure. C'mon, what's the "petros normal"?