Does Tin Foil Hat Jerry Understand?
Continuing Do We Really Understand? From a Naybob of AGW - Anthropogenic Global Warming...
Tin Foil Hat Jerry interjects with debunked volcanic and sun spot activity theories...
And at this point Tin Foil Hat Jerry bites off more than he can chew by claiming the existence of cold weather means there is no global warming...
Winter storms, cold weather and snow pack in select locales, none of these things mean or prove that global warming is not happening.
1. You link to a discredited carbon industry funded (Koch, Exxon Mobil, American Petroleum Institute) climate science denial think tank. FYI, Cato (Koch) recently shut down its climate disinformation shop.
2. You link to the discredited carbon industry funded NIPCC. The scientific validity of the claims made by the NIPCC reports have been heavily criticized as has the methodology of their reports and the lack of expertise of many of their authors.
3. "results are always dependent on a predetermined result so the data is usually missing whole sets." You make false claims about the IPCC data and results. NIPCC authors are paid with the specific goal of arguing against the scientific evidence in the IPCC report, whereas the only goal of the unpaid IPCC scientists is to produce an accurate, comprehensive review of climate science literature.
Tin Foil Hat Jerry: They argue to defend the truth. The IPCC has regularly been busted LYING AND INTERPRETING DATA, not reporting factual findings...the whole hockey stick theory they pushed and pushed AND PUSHED, has been disproven over and over again. All because, well the result did not meet the stated goal. So you go ahead and protect an organization that does research in the name of a predetermined agenda.
So the hockey stick theory was debunked by carbon industry paid climate denial shills at Heartland and NIPCC who are defenders of the truth? Tin Foil Hat Jerry needs to share some of whatever he is on?
AGW Naybob: To summarize,
1. the Heartland Institute has no credibility, scientific or otherwise
2. the NIPCC and its reports are not a credible scientific undertaking
3. false claims in a non credible scientific undertaking, based upon a carbon funded institute, with no credibility, scientific or otherwise
Cue up Ron Luciano: strike three, your out. Speaking of naivete and not keeping an open mind, your entire viewpoint is based in debunked myths, propagated as MSM parrot food.
Cato Shuts Down Climate Shop
Leak Exposes Heartland
Heartlands Selective NIPCC Science
Heartland Institute and its NIPCC report fail the credibility test
Tin Foil Hat Jerry: oh my god you are insufferable. Keep up tiring the line being fed to you. You are a good tool of disinformation.
AGW Naybob: Based upon your responses consider this motto: MSM parrot food, its whats for breakfast. Those who do not wish to learn, cannot be taught, and I shall leave you where you are. Good luck, you'll need it.
Tin Foil Hat Jerry: yet you still haven’t addressed the volcanoes and sun spot activity. Hell, volcanoes make up something like 60% of all the crap in the air which is accused of causing climate change, not man. And how about that big ball of gas in the middle of our solar system. Are you telling me that the actions of man is bigger than the sun? Why is it that YOUR science always seems to leave out logic?
AGW Naybob: "Are you telling me that the actions of man is bigger than the sun?" Never did, but our contributions through our actions have consequences. When monitoring status, or the condition of ones condition, one must pay attention to large or abnormal delta ROC on the trend charts. When temps and CO2 go vertical, the "operators" might want to note something is afoot. The hockey stick was never broke because 800K years of ice cores and other proxies don't lie.
The Nattering One muses... Lets put an end to Tin Foil Hat Jerry's misconceived go to's: solar and volcanic activity.
Above, this NASA trend chart displays a parabolic rise since 1900 (industrial age) in average surface temperature of +1.2C. Of which 1.0C is concomitant with a 46% spike in CO2 since 1950, and decline in average solar irradiance. Coincidence? Maybe the Sun is just cranking out more energy? Its obviously not, so what ever could be the cause?
Do the current "operators" think a decline in avg solar irradiance, concomitant with a parabolic ROC (or delta) spike in avg surface temperature, and a 46% spike in CO2 levels never before seen in 800K yrs of ice cores, might be a warning or an alarming trend? What's next?
Is it more plausible that reflective radiation created by conspiracy theorists in tin foil hats like Jerry, have made a greater contribution to AGW? Whats next? Tin Foil Hat Jerry vomits up some more of his carbon funded parrot food. More to come in Some Like It Hot? Stay tuned, no flippin.
To learn more, READ MORE. Our minds and planet are a terrible thing to waste.
Recommended Reading:
Do We Really Understand?
The Terrorists Have Struck?
Monkey See, Monkey Do?
Ye' Reap What Ye' Sow?
Carbon Capture and a Warming Plate?
The Clocks Ticking?
Tilt? Game Over?
That Map Is Melting?
One Polar Ice Cap - Neat Please?
Tin Foil Hat Jerry interjects with debunked volcanic and sun spot activity theories...
The volcanic activity and sun spots are the two biggest causes of the perceived green house effect and that is fact. Even volcanic activity is found to be cyclical.
And for every place you site another place around the world is seeing record cold. Hell they are STILL skiing in California this year. Just like weather itself, snow packs have discernible patterns. [IPCC] results are always dependent on a predetermined result so the data is usually missing whole sets. Naïveté at its best. Wait I know. You disagree there for it’s discredited. No matter.The AGW Naybob proceeds to open a can of whoop ass on Tin Foil Hat Jerry...
Winter storms, cold weather and snow pack in select locales, none of these things mean or prove that global warming is not happening.
1. You link to a discredited carbon industry funded (Koch, Exxon Mobil, American Petroleum Institute) climate science denial think tank. FYI, Cato (Koch) recently shut down its climate disinformation shop.
2. You link to the discredited carbon industry funded NIPCC. The scientific validity of the claims made by the NIPCC reports have been heavily criticized as has the methodology of their reports and the lack of expertise of many of their authors.
3. "results are always dependent on a predetermined result so the data is usually missing whole sets." You make false claims about the IPCC data and results. NIPCC authors are paid with the specific goal of arguing against the scientific evidence in the IPCC report, whereas the only goal of the unpaid IPCC scientists is to produce an accurate, comprehensive review of climate science literature.
Tin Foil Hat Jerry: They argue to defend the truth. The IPCC has regularly been busted LYING AND INTERPRETING DATA, not reporting factual findings...the whole hockey stick theory they pushed and pushed AND PUSHED, has been disproven over and over again. All because, well the result did not meet the stated goal. So you go ahead and protect an organization that does research in the name of a predetermined agenda.
So the hockey stick theory was debunked by carbon industry paid climate denial shills at Heartland and NIPCC who are defenders of the truth? Tin Foil Hat Jerry needs to share some of whatever he is on?
AGW Naybob: To summarize,
1. the Heartland Institute has no credibility, scientific or otherwise
2. the NIPCC and its reports are not a credible scientific undertaking
3. false claims in a non credible scientific undertaking, based upon a carbon funded institute, with no credibility, scientific or otherwise
Cue up Ron Luciano: strike three, your out. Speaking of naivete and not keeping an open mind, your entire viewpoint is based in debunked myths, propagated as MSM parrot food.
Cato Shuts Down Climate Shop
Leak Exposes Heartland
Heartlands Selective NIPCC Science
Heartland Institute and its NIPCC report fail the credibility test
Tin Foil Hat Jerry: oh my god you are insufferable. Keep up tiring the line being fed to you. You are a good tool of disinformation.
AGW Naybob: Based upon your responses consider this motto: MSM parrot food, its whats for breakfast. Those who do not wish to learn, cannot be taught, and I shall leave you where you are. Good luck, you'll need it.
Tin Foil Hat Jerry: yet you still haven’t addressed the volcanoes and sun spot activity. Hell, volcanoes make up something like 60% of all the crap in the air which is accused of causing climate change, not man. And how about that big ball of gas in the middle of our solar system. Are you telling me that the actions of man is bigger than the sun? Why is it that YOUR science always seems to leave out logic?
AGW Naybob: "Are you telling me that the actions of man is bigger than the sun?" Never did, but our contributions through our actions have consequences. When monitoring status, or the condition of ones condition, one must pay attention to large or abnormal delta ROC on the trend charts. When temps and CO2 go vertical, the "operators" might want to note something is afoot. The hockey stick was never broke because 800K years of ice cores and other proxies don't lie.
The Nattering One muses... Lets put an end to Tin Foil Hat Jerry's misconceived go to's: solar and volcanic activity.
If the warming were caused by a more active Sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere.
Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases. - NASA The Causes Of Climate ChangeOver the eons of geologic time, both volcanic activity and sun spot cycles have contributed to global warming. Of late, those contributions have paled in comparison to AGW. In fact, over the last 35 years, the Sun is cooling while the Earth is getting hotter, and volcanic activity has played little part in the modern global warming trend that began in the 1970s.
Do the current "operators" think a decline in avg solar irradiance, concomitant with a parabolic ROC (or delta) spike in avg surface temperature, and a 46% spike in CO2 levels never before seen in 800K yrs of ice cores, might be a warning or an alarming trend? What's next?
Is it more plausible that reflective radiation created by conspiracy theorists in tin foil hats like Jerry, have made a greater contribution to AGW? Whats next? Tin Foil Hat Jerry vomits up some more of his carbon funded parrot food. More to come in Some Like It Hot? Stay tuned, no flippin.
To learn more, READ MORE. Our minds and planet are a terrible thing to waste.
Recommended Reading:
Do We Really Understand?
The Terrorists Have Struck?
Monkey See, Monkey Do?
Ye' Reap What Ye' Sow?
Carbon Capture and a Warming Plate?
The Clocks Ticking?
Tilt? Game Over?
That Map Is Melting?
One Polar Ice Cap - Neat Please?
Comments