Top physicist on climate change....

[tetelestai]

Ahh, the jester has arrived! :juggle:

You do know you just claimed a ship 70 feet long, 20 feet wide with a draft of 10 feet, an engine and fuel, a crew of 6 men, and enough supplies for five years could navigate through water 1 meter deep?

People who make such foolish claims really shouldn't be calling other people "jesters".

 

[gcthomas]

15% a year. Sounds like a made up story. How did they arrive at that because I've already posted a paper that refutes the notion of an increasing rate of sea level rise.

From what I remember you showed a graph that you claimed you could for a straight line to, but which looked like the gradient could be increasing.

If that is your idea of a refutation, no wonder climate deniers are usually laughed at by real climate scientists.

 

[gcthomas]

You do know you just claimed a ship 70 feet long, 20 feet wide with a draft of 10 feet, an engine and fuel, a crew of 6 men, and enough supplies for five years could navigate through water 1 meter deep?

People who make such foolish claims really shouldn't be calling other people "jesters".

I'm still waiting for the proof that the Northwest Passage was warmer than now. Given there were thermometers then, where is your direct data?

 

[tetelestai]

More proof the Northwest Passage singlehandedly proves global warming wrong:

From July 22, 2015:

Arctic research expedition put on hold after vessel diverted to break ice

Ironically, the name of the ship is CCGS Amundsen, named after Ronald Amundsen, the captain of the Gjoa, the first ship to navigate the Northwest Passage in 1903.

From the article:

"Instead of carrying 40 scientists deep into the Arctic to research climate change, the Amundsen has been temporarily reassigned to break ice for several commercial supply ships trying to reach remote communities on the Hudson Bay coast."

As we see above, ships were stuck in the ice during this year's Summer Solstice.

Once again, how could wooden ships navigate the Northwest passage over a hundred years ago, but ships today get stuck in the ice?

 

[gcthomas]

So no temperature records to contradict the scientists measurements, then? No actual global chilling proved?

Clown.

 

[journey]

Fabricated and sloppy data can lead to all kinds of false assumptions. Man-made global warming is little more than a con game.

God said:

Genesis 8:21-22 KJV And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. 22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

 

[tetelestai]

I'm still waiting for the proof that the Northwest Passage was warmer than now.

I would think that even a jester would be able to figure it out.

If a wooden ship was able to navigate the Northwest Passage over a hundred years ago, but ships can't do it today, wouldn't that mean it was warmer back then?

Before you start with your "it took three years baloney", the Northwest Passage was navigated in one season in 1944 by the St. Roch.

Before you run to scepticalscience.com about the St. Roch HERE, please note that the article in scepticalscience.com is from 2011. Therefore their claims about the Northwest Passage being ice free "today" are no longer true, not to mention how they try to downplay what the St. Roch accomplished in 1944.

However, your scepticalscience.com has no answer for the Gjoa navigating the Northwest Passage in 1903-1906.

So far, you have yet to give a valid response for how the Gjoa was able to make the voyage.

 

[Stripe]

Ahh, the jester has arrived! :juggle:

Welcome, 'Tripe.

So you've gone from ad hominem and tu quoque to hostility and now mockery. When were you going to present something rational; on topic even?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Tell you what. When you can find a blog from a reputable climatologist that has sources, references, and data sets from reputable sources that counters the current theories held by the IPCC, we will talk. Until then... :wave2:

The problem is that you still think that the IPCC are reputable climatologists.

 

[genuineoriginal]

They are definitely smarter than you

Once again, that has not been proven.

and there is definitely a consensus CONSPIRACY among climate scientists.

FTFY, and you are welcome.

Is there a consensus of experts you DON'T think you know better than?

Isn't it amazing that when a smart person challenges the "consensus", the idiots start complaining?

 

[gcthomas]

When were you going to present something rational; on topic even?

When are you going to come up with something original? You write the same comments over and over. You could be a bot and no one would notice.
:juggle:

 

[gcthomas]

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how a wooden ship with a 10 foot draft draught was able to navigate the Northwest Passage in 1903?

Still doesn't look like a ten foot draught. You are still wrong on so much.

Spoiler

Unload the ship so it floats higher, and tow it with the boat. That woman has got to be only about 1.5 m tall, so 1 m depth of water shouldn't be too much of a problem. The whole ship from keel to gunwales looks to be about 10 feet - I think your Wikipedia source for the draught (spell it right!) was wrong. Don't trust Wikipedia, Tet. :wave:

 

[Stripe]

When are you going to come up with something original? You write the same comments over and over. You could be a bot and no one would notice.

Of course irrational people want their mistakes to be left alone.

You started out with the ad hominem and tu quoque fallacies. When called on them you turned to hostility and mockery. Now you're demanding that I stop pointing out how utterly useless your contributions have been because — get this — I've said it too many times?

You're an irrational fool.

 

[gcthomas]

Of course irrational people want their mistakes to be left alone.

You want me to leave you alone? Why didn't you say so?

You're an irrational fool.

Silly ad hominem. :loser:

 

[Quetzal]

Fabricated and sloppy data can lead to all kinds of false assumptions. Man-made global warming is little more than a con game.

For what? This is what I don't get. What do they have to really gain from fabricating the data? Deniers continue to call foul with absolutely no evidence of their own. None, zilch, nada, zero.

 

[Quetzal]

The problem is that you still think that the IPCC are reputable climatologists.

Even if you take their reports out, there are still others that claim the same thing. That is why the consensus on this topic is so important.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Even if you take their reports out, there are still others that claim the same thing. That is why the consensus on this topic is so important.

There is no consensus, especially among all scientists of all fields but not even among those who have published papers on either climate change or global warming. The 97% figure comes as a result of an ambiguous question. They were asked if man was causing global warming. They did not ask for quantification. They did not ask how much of global warming was caused by man. Cook will not redo his study with a more specific question like that because HE KNOWS he won't get the result he wants.

If you ask a quantified question of mans contribution to all scientists at large, I suspect the consensus will be less than 25% for those who think the majority of warming is mans responsibility. Meteorology has been the science that tackled climate in the past. Climatology is a recent discipline and unproven as a real science in that they start with a conclusion and only seek out evidence that supports their position and ignore other evidence. This is not science.

It is estimated that there are about 35,000 pure climatologists in the world. Why do you guys put so much faith in a new psuedo science with few practioners and ignore the ideas of other scientists even meteorologists?

 

[Quetzal]

There is no consensus, especially among all scientists of all fields but not even among those who have published papers on either climate change or global warming. The 97% figure comes as a result of an ambiguous question. They were asked if man was causing global warming. They did not ask for quantification. They did not ask how much of global warming was caused by man. Cook will not redo his study with a more specific question like that because HE KNOWS he won't get the result he wants.

If you ask a quantified question of mans contribution to all scientists at large, I suspect the consensus will be less than 25% for those who think the majority of warming is mans responsibility. Meteorology has been the science that tackled climate in the past. Climatology is a recent discipline and unproven as a real science in that they start with a conclusion and only seek out evidence that supports their position and ignore other evidence. This is not science.

It is estimated that there are about 35,000 pure climatologists in the world. Why do you guys put so much faith in a new psuedo science with few practioners and ignore the ideas of other scientists even meteorologists?

You have no idea what you are talking about. Source.

 

[Stripe]

You want me to leave you alone?

Do what you please. :thumb:

Silly ad hominem. :loser:

Nope. Evidence, remember? You stormed into this thread with nothing but nonsense and when called on it turned to hostility and mockery.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Even if you take their reports out, there are still others that claim the same thing. That is why the consensus on this topic is so important.

Have you read the report by Zbigniew Jaworowski?

CO₂: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time (PDF)