Global Warming: still the ‘Greatest Scam in History’

[waldo]

Mike's "nature trick would not have survived peer review in any journal I would publish in"

of course, Goddard absolutely knows this is a specious misrepresentation... and perhaps you do too. That "trick" was not a part of a formal journal publication (it was a magazine cover)... nor was it a "trick" in the way deniers presume to present it, to denigrate with reference to it... nor was there any, per your referenced video, "hiding of a decline". In fact, the decline aspect has absolutely nothing to do with the the "trick". It never fails to amaze just how far denier parrots will go without actually realizing the nature/basis of the points they presume to fallaciously present..... or... they know, and are quite willing to purposely perpetuate falsehoods! And point in fact, the speaker within your referenced video makes the same mistake of improperly conflating "decline" and "trick".

the decline speaks to tree rings and the well known aspect of dendrochronology, the so-called 'divergence problem'. As was fully described and even conveyed on the cover graphic, the "trick" was nothing more than applying the instrumental record to the tail-end of a paleo-reconstruction. Standard denier BS!

 

[Zipperfish]

Can Climate Science be any more Ridiculous?

Let’s simply state what the First Law of Thermodynamics is. From Wiki:

First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, its internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible.
​

So whether you’re talking of a steel shell around a heated sphere, or a gas around a planet, or a component of a gas around a planet, ask yourself the question:

“Does it pass energy as work, heat, or with matter, into the sphere or planet?“

Consider the passive steel shell around the internally heated sphere, the so-called steel greenhouse.

1. Does the passive steel shell do work on the sphere? No, it doesn’t touch the sphere, or at most, simply rests upon the sphere’s surface.

2. Does the passive steel shell send heat to the sphere? No, it’s passive firstly, and secondly, it’s cooler. It has no heat to send to the sphere. Therefore, it sends no heat to the sphere.

3. Does the passive steel shell pass matter into the sphere? No, there’s no exchange of matter.

Therefore, the shell does not cause the sphere to heat up beyond the heat input that the sphere is internally provided. QED.

The same goes for a gas around a planet, in the context of the sophistically-named “radiative greenhouse effect” of climate pseudoscience.

The First Law of Thermodynamics is all you need to debunk climate alarm, and its sophistical greenhouse effect.
Comical, really.


Read more

What is this dude talking about? TheFirst Law of Thermodynamics is that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Also, the steel shell heats. Everything that we know of in the universe heats. Sheesh.

 

[waldo]

What is this dude talking about? TheFirst Law of Thermodynamics is that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Also, the steel shell heats. Everything that we know of in the universe heats. Sheesh.

as I said, these are the loons from Principa, the outright loons that published the book, Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory!

 

[DaSleeper]

of course, Goddard absolutely knows this is a specious misrepresentation... and perhaps you do too. That "trick" was not a part of a formal journal publication (it was a magazine cover)... nor was it a "trick" in the way deniers presume to present it, to denigrate with reference to it... nor was there any, per your referenced video, "hiding of a decline". In fact, the decline aspect has absolutely nothing to do with the the "trick". It never fails to amaze just how far denier parrots will go without actually realizing the nature/basis of the points they presume to fallaciously present..... or... they know, and are quite willing to purposely perpetuate falsehoods! And point in fact, the speaker within your referenced video makes the same mistake of improperly conflating "decline" and "trick".

the decline speaks to tree rings and the well known aspect of dendrochronology, the so-called 'divergence problem'. As was fully described and even conveyed on the cover graphic, the "trick" was nothing more than applying the instrumental record to the tail-end of a paleo-reconstruction. Standard denier BS!

Good Post!

as I recall your go-to C&P stable of blogs and twitter feeds, effectively, presents what you're labeling "DISSENT"; it represents nothing more than, typically, unsubstantiated claims put forward on denier blogs... to you, Blog Science Rules! To you, denier bloggers aren't required to formally challenge existing published science... to you, denier bloggers aren't required to formally publish their blog claims in legitimate journals. To you, denier bloggers who have never published anything, who do no actual scientific work/research... these are your "DISSENTING" sources. And you presume to speak of legitimizing your representations of "DISSENT"???

We Want more charts.....

 

[Locutus]

JunkScience.com ‏@JunkScience

Fake Nobel laureate @MichaelEMann-child explains why he blocks non-sycophantic followers

bonus bit:

Who Are My Peers? | Real Science

 

[waldo]

MichaelEMann explains why he blocks non-sycophantic followers

member Locutus, I'm somewhat confused here... I do believe that it was you just a short while back, in your moderator role, that suggested a means to deal with CC board trolls was to simply put them on the CC Board's from of blocking... i.e., put them on one's IGNORE LIST? Please correct me if I'm incorrect or simply misinterpreted.

(note: as an aside, I highly recommend your suggestion on how to deal with trolls, as I've recently punted a few of the worst here and, as theMann says, "they pollute the public discourse and are not part of the good faith discussion that is to be had")

bonus bit:

Who Are My Peers? | Real Science

:mrgreen: yes, this is a, as you say, "bonus bit"! I've pointed out the fact your regular go-to guy, "Goddard", hasn't published a lick of anything... and to read him here, it's not the perpetual debunking he takes at the blog level that keeps him from actually formally publishing to substantiate his challenges/claims..... it's that "Steve Goddard" HAS NO PEERS! Thanks for the genuine LOL here, Locutus!

 

[petros]

Formally Publishing? Big deal!

Débutantes publish. Scientists cash pay cheques.

 

[DaSleeper]

member Locutus, I'm somewhat confused here... I do believe that it was you just a short while back, in your moderator role, that suggested a means to deal with CC board trolls was to simply put them on the CC Board's from of blocking... i.e., put them on one's IGNORE LIST? Please correct me if I'm incorrect or simply misinterpreted.

(note: as an aside, I highly recommend your suggestion on how to deal with trolls, as I've recently punted a few of the worst here and, as theMann says, "they pollute the public discourse and are not part of the good faith discussion that is to be had")



:mrgreen: yes, this is a, as you say, "bonus bit"! I've pointed out the fact your regular go-to guy, "Goddard", hasn't published a lick of anything... and to read him here, it's not the perpetual debunking he takes at the blog level that keeps him from actually formally publishing to substantiate his challenges/claims..... it's that "Steve Goddard" HAS NO PEERS! Thanks for the genuine LOL here, Locutus!

Good post; but More Graphs damn you
You seem to be crying for attention now, I wonder how many forums have punted you or ignoring your attempt at debate, because your know-it-all style leaves a lot to be desired.....

 

[waldo]

Formally Publishing? Big deal!

Débutantes publish. Scientists cash pay cheques.

yes, formal publishing... as scientists pursue, even those with a denier predilection. Note: this doesn't include the typical denier blogger who is anything but... a scientist. Unfortunately for deniers, Blog Science doesn't count in the real world of recognized and advancing scientific knowledge. Ya gots to publish... formally publish... in recognized journals, not "denier blogs"

 

[DaSleeper]

yes, formal publishing... as scientists pursue, even those with a denier predilection. Note: this doesn't include the typical denier blogger who is anything but... a scientist. Unfortunately for deniers, Blog Science doesn't count in the real world of recognized and advancing scientific knowledge. Ya gots to publish... formally publish... in recognized journals, not "denier blogs"

Good post; but More Graphs damn you
You seem to be crying for attention now, I wonder how many forums have punted you or ignoring your attempt at debate, because your know-it-all style leaves a lot to be desired.....

 

[MHz]

Good post; but More Graphs damn you
You seem to be crying for attention now, I wonder how many forums have punted you or ignoring your attempt at debate, because your know-it-all style leaves a lot to be desired.....

Guess which direction the 'hockey-stick' goes when your style is fed in? (post nothing as it is always wrong)

 

[DaSleeper]

Guess which direction the 'hockey-stick' goes when your style is fed in? (post nothing as it is always wrong)

Nothing he says but can't read...
Your baffle-gab is noted, but not surprising!

 

[Locutus]

How Come 2014 Was Not The 'Hottest-Evah!' For The U.S.? NOAA Knows

Many stalwart advocates of the propaganda that global-warming-will-kill-us-all "tipping point" fiasco are currently eating some humble crow...their promise of the hottest U.S. year ever did not happen...and NOAA offers a simple answer as to why not.....



Per the Real Climate science site, this NOAA chart shows why the 'hottest-evah' did not happen in 2014.

Simply, well over half of the U.S. experienced cooler temperatures than normal.

And the warmer temperatures out west were more likely the result of an El Nino brewing than due to human CO2 emissions.

As this map suggests, CO2-caused "global" warming is highly suspect since normal regional weather/climate oscillations easily overwhelm its impact.

And as the satellites report, global warming over the last 18 years is not what one would call 'robust.'

Original source of temp map. Additional regional and global temperature charts.


C3: How Come 2014 Was Not The 'Hottest-Evah!' For The U.S.? NOAA Knows

 

[DaSleeper]

Good fix, Now megahurts can read it...

 

[EagleSmack]

 

[Locutus]

Cool high speed video: Rainfall can release aerosols, study finds

High-speed imaging captures raindrops releasing clouds of aerosols on impact, showing once again that we just don’t know all the sources for aerosols and other climate forcings.


here: Cool high speed video: Rainfall can release aerosols, study finds | Watts Up With That?

 

[Locutus]

The Sound Of Settled Science


The Lukewarmer;

Short version-some people who were (mostly) not scientists and certainly don't know how to do research properly conducted a series of studies that had foregone conclusions supporting their position on climate policy. For Prall, Cook and Lewandowsky the foregone nature of the conclusions was explicit-they wrote on various websites that they were conducting the studies with a predetermined end. For Oreskes it was implicit, but easy to see, as she structured her research carefully, not to show the breadth of opinion on climate change, but rather to conceal it.


The Sound Of Settled Science - Small Dead Animals

​

 

[Zipperfish]

Well it's official--both NOAA and NASA measurements surface measurements rate 2014 as the warmest yet. The satellite record ranks 2014 third or fourth.

 

[Locutus]

Y2Kyoto: I'll Miss The Moose The Most


During a $750,000 research effort to blame "global warming"...

In response to the dramatic decline of moose in northeastern Minnesota, over 100 moose were equipped with radio-collars that could alert biologists to the moose's impending death, allowing biologists to account for the deaths of 35 calves and 19 adults. [...] 13 calves (37%) calves died due to mother abandonment. Eleven were caused when the mothers abandoned the calve during the act of attaching the collars, 2 were abandoned later.
​

Y2Kyoto: I'll Miss The Moose The Most - Small Dead Animals

 

[Locutus]

Climate And Truth: A Tale Of Immorality?