Search results

Why would it mean atmospheric CO2 should have doubled by now? I calculated how long it takes to double at the current growth rate, but that actually a whole lot different than saying it should have doubled from 315 ppm by now. For one, the current growth rate is attributed to burning fossil...

But thinking scientifically is not, and that's part of being a good skeptic.

Well, for me it's actually fun...I know I'm weird.

Or...check the math for yourself...but Hadfield is right on the money, read the primary literature. It's not rocket science.

Yup, the denialist parrots never think to check the math on the bloggers who make big claims about overturning all science on it's head...one would think that sort of claim requires more scrutiny. It's not even hard to check...

Way wrong. Just try some math. This looks linear to you? If you plot the annual growth rate in ppm/year, you do not get a curve without slope...that means that it's not increasing linearly. The slope is positive, which means exponential, and in fact the log transformed data is not...

It's a great lecture. I particularly liked his treatment of Douglas et al., that was the paper that some of those stolen CRU emails concerned, which resulted in some editors quitting the editorial board. Anyone with a lick of statistical acumen can tell you that the standard error of the mean...

No. I'm saying that one of those groups was wrong, and when you say I disagree with NASA, I'm saying that I disagreed with that group mentioned in the news story that NASA posted. Only a moron would read that as disagreeing with NASA...

Yes, you baked yourself in the sun.

It's called news. NASA news ran a story about two research groups who disagree about the strength and timing of the current solar cycle. Petros' article that he cut and pasted said time will tell, and I simply commented that time has told, and one of those groups was wrong. I have no idea why...

Looks like I am going to have to hold your hand, notice anything in that URL? Maybe if I bold it for you... NASA Sciencescience-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10mar_stormwarning/ It's not NASA research just because it's on NASA's news page. Wave your hands all you like, be a fool. I don't really...

Hide the Incline with the “Rank Trick” Posted on December 9, 2010 by tamino| 1 Comment or, Hey David Whitehouse — why is the sky orange? It seems that...

No you fruit loop, pay attention. There wasn't anyone from NASA in that post you cut and pasted, there was a fellow from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and a fellow from National Space Science & Technology Center. The fellow from NSSTC is the one who thought the solar max would...

And post #892, which preceded my comment, ended with this: So, I said they're wrong, time has already told. Maybe you should pay attention to what you're posting yourself...

They weren't right, the first sun spot of cycle 24 appeared Jan 10, 2008. And no sign of a max underway for this year (almost over) or next year, nor does it appear to be an especially intense cycle:

Yup, and that's the difference between a true expert in a field, and hiring some white coat for your tobacco denial inspired PR. Disinformation takes time to craft, tacit knowledge can be dispensed on the spot, sometimes it's even understandable by us lay folk!

Here is the reason for global warming, presented overly simplified: The Sun. End of story! It is now thought to be the blame for all warming of all planets that are experiencing a heat up right now. Ddduuuhhh. What a load of rubbish. Four planets are warming, not all of them, but it must be...

Tea Party Caucus Takes $1 Billion In Earmarks - Hotline On Call The folks leading the charge against earmarks....kind of like when Bush said Americans are addicted to oil. Didn't mean he was going to take active measures through policies to mitigate the addiction. Well, one wonders if the Tea...

Quid pro quo. You showed me yours, and then I showed you mine. If you don't want to look, then go find another sandbox PeeWee.

Does the phrase "Read the phucking manual" mean anything to you? I watched your Suzuki program, which I find odd considering the way you and other climate cranks disparage his work! So read the studies I linked and see for yourself.