Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
stew-STR160 said:
So, from that report, your take from it was that all 100 people involved said the sun wasn't involved with anything to do with any short term effects?
he didn't read it all, it's from a list of articles used by warmists supposedly to refute denier claims on various areas of the climate debate,sks,desmog and a few other warmist sites have a standard list. he is too dumb to use them properly though, doesn't understand you have to actually read links provided by "deniers" to understand what he is supposed to be challenging.there are other known solar effects that can have an effect on climate, no doubt there are plenty unknown unknowns in terms of solar effects. uv light output appears to have a large effect on ozone and uv variability is large in comparison to the other components of tsi if i remember correctly. tb will know for certain.
Edited by wc98 on Thursday 18th October 11:34
wc98 said:
stew-STR160 said:
So, from that report, your take from it was that all 100 people involved said the sun wasn't involved with anything to do with any short term effects?
he didn't read it all, it's from a list of articles used by warmists supposedly to refute denier claims on various areas of the climate debate,sks,desmog and a few other warmist sites have a standard list. he is too dumb to use them properly though, doesn't understand you have to actually read links provided by "deniers" to understand what he is supposed to be challenging.there are other known solar effects that can have an effect on climate, no doubt there are plenty unknown unknowns in terms of solar effects. uv light output appears to have a large effect on ozone and uv variability is large in comparison to the other components of tsi if i remember correctly. tb will know for certain.
Edited by wc98 on Thursday 18th October 11:34
Who was saying that the link I provided was a rebuttal to Anthony 'not a scientist' Watts article?
I was pointing out the differences between my sources and you deniers sources.
100 Scientists vs wattsupwiththat
You have but a few tired old discredited sources whilst the rest of us have almost the whole of Climate Scientific Academia to call on - those 100 scientists for a start - all of the institutions in the list can also be added.
Of course, being Trolls, you deliberately misconstrue my post.
The 'stupid' is overwhelming in here, that's what happens when the class listens to fake professors and quack blogs.
Joint statement
“In 2005, the Academies issued a statement emphasizing that climate change was occurring and could be attributed mostly to human activities, and calling for efforts to tackle both the causes of climate change and the inevitable consequences of past and unavoidable future emissions. Since then the IPCC has published the Working Group 1 part of the Summary for Policymakers of its fourth assessment report, and further reports are expected later this year from IPCC. Recent research strongly reinforces our previous conclusions. It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.”
The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States."
When you can come up with a similar joint statement from reputable institutions to back up your argument please wake me up. Troll.
wc98 said:
anthony watts is a meteorologist as far as i know, making him far more qualified than you to comment on climate related topics.
No, he's fecking not...He has a certificate for attending but f
k all for graduating 
https://web.archive.org/web/20160922224118/http://...
This is Watt happens when you start saying you are something you are not - you on here should know that by now.
My Mum has as many Meteorological qualifications as him.
Like you say Troll "as far as I know" - which isn't very 'far' at all.
LoonyTunes said:
Who was saying that the link I provided was a rebuttal to Anthony 'not a scientist' Watts article?
I was pointing out the differences between my sources and you deniers sources.
100 Scientists vs wattsupwiththat
You have but a few tired old discredited sources whilst the rest of us have almost the whole of Climate Scientific Academia to call on - those 100 scientists for a start - all of the institutions in the list can also be added.
Of course, being Trolls, you deliberately misconstrue my post.
The 'stupid' is overwhelming in here, that's what happens when the class listens to fake professors and quack blogs.
Joint statement
“In 2005, the Academies issued a statement emphasizing that climate change was occurring and could be attributed mostly to human activities, and calling for efforts to tackle both the causes of climate change and the inevitable consequences of past and unavoidable future emissions. Since then the IPCC has published the Working Group 1 part of the Summary for Policymakers of its fourth assessment report, and further reports are expected later this year from IPCC. Recent research strongly reinforces our previous conclusions. It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.”
The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States."
When you can come up with a similar joint statement from reputable institutions to back up your argument please wake me up. Troll.
LoonyTunes said:
No, he's fecking not...
He has a certificate for attending but fk all for graduating
https://web.archive.org/web/20160922224118/http://...
This is Watt happens when you start saying you are something you are not - you on here should know that by now.
My Mum has as many Meteorological qualifications as him.
Like you say Troll "as far as I know" - which isn't very 'far' at all.
given he was employed as a meteorologist on tv for a number of years i think he would have been found lacking had he not been up to the job. i would put his climate knowledge way beyond any you and your mum have any day of the week. you have demonstrated many times in this thread you don't even understand the basic tenets of science in general never mind the basics of climate science.He has a certificate for attending but f
k all for graduating https://web.archive.org/web/20160922224118/http://...
This is Watt happens when you start saying you are something you are not - you on here should know that by now.
My Mum has as many Meteorological qualifications as him.
Like you say Troll "as far as I know" - which isn't very 'far' at all.
there is only one person meeting the definition of troll recently on this thread and that is loonymacgadgettunes.
With This Staff said:
The difference between Einstein and Climate Scientists.
None of Einstein's hypotheses have been found lacking
None of Climate Scientists predictions have even remotely crystallised despite billions of dosh.
Ponder, ponder.
If the scientific consensus on AGW had been found lacking then that would be the new consensus. Till then. . None of Einstein's hypotheses have been found lacking
None of Climate Scientists predictions have even remotely crystallised despite billions of dosh.
Ponder, ponder.
El stovey said:
With This Staff said:
The difference between Einstein and Climate Scientists.
None of Einstein's hypotheses have been found lacking
None of Climate Scientists predictions have even remotely crystallised despite billions of dosh.
Ponder, ponder.
If the scientific consensus on AGW had been found lacking then that would be the new consensus. Till then. . None of Einstein's hypotheses have been found lacking
None of Climate Scientists predictions have even remotely crystallised despite billions of dosh.
Ponder, ponder.
Baaaaaa.
El stovey said:
dickymint said:
With This Staff said:
Wake me up before you go go.
If only it would sleep!Despite dickys obvious attempts to get others banned
My sides are hurting too much now
I've got to take a break from this bunch of pretend professors and their faux Meteorologists.
I'll leave them to all huddle round and play soggy biscuit together with quotes from WUWT and the Heartland Institute.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff