Man-Made Global Warming Theory Takes Major Hit

Oh! I accept there may be a blog but blogs are useless bits of ***** since anyone can write them, put any twaddle they like on it and claim whatever they like

That is not science that is snake oil masquerading as liniment

Thai is a paper so bad not even Anthony Watts will stand by it and that has to be one of the lowest bars on the planet!

WUWT is a “denialist” blog known for its stance against global warming science and THEY won’t touch this piece of trash

The fact that anyone would even begin to believe this twaddle speaks volumes for confirmation bias.

Just wanting it to be true does not make it true
This blog shows what a peer review does

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/clouds-and-climate-change/

I linked to climatefeedback review earlier in this thread but this blog has a nice summary of the main points. Now the authors may yet be accepted for publication but I will tell you that this paper would NOT get a passing grade at a University let alone publication in a peer reviewed journal. I know I mark papers and we insist on at least 20 references. This paper has 6.

More criticisms
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07...the-significant-anthropogenic-climate-change/

 

Firstly I am going to ignore your demands for verification

You ghave not verified your claims so until you do I feel no need to verify mine

But us look at what weight of evidence IPCC reports rest on. This is just ONE working group report (WG2)

1scopingmeetingtooutline30chapters
• 1217authornominationsrepresenting92nationalities
• 242leadauthorsand66revieweditorsfrom70countries • 436contributingauthorsfrom54countries
• over12,000scientificreferencescited

(Doesn’t cp well sorry and the IPad won’t let me alter it )
http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/AR5/images/uploads/IPCC_WG2AR5_FactSheet.pdf

I want you to look at the relevant points though

Over 200 lead authors
But more that 400 contributing authors

Over 1,200 citations

Now you on the other hand have an unpublished paper with 2 authors and 6 citations

 

Are you standing by the “science” in the paper in the OP?

 

Did you actually read and understand any of this stuff ?? All you did is cut and paste. Too funny.

BTW please review Henry's Law.

 

I'm standing by the fact that there is no evidence of AGW coming from people who think wearing a dress transforms your biology.

The left: "we're the party of science"

Also the left: "there are 60 bajillion genders".

 

You ignore because there is no verification.

I've given you a free book to read.

 

Wow! Confirmation bias! And attempt at derailing

Do you stand by the paper in the OP?

Now can you tell me why you think that 12,000 scientific papers can be wrong?

 

I'm telling you I haven't read it or researched it, but I'm familiar enough with the AGW threads here enough to know how it goes.

I'm also familiar enough with the topic to know there is no conclusive evidence that AGW exists, as we haven't been studying it for the thousands (if not tens of thousands) of years to have the needed data.

"Muh lots of papers says it's true".

I mean you're welcome to show me an actual experiment with a control group that proves AGW is real if you want.

You can't though, because it doesn't exist.

The ONLY thing the AGW crowd has is a bunch of failed predictions stretching back to the 60's.

"Muh polar bears goin 'stinct!" "Muh Manhattenz under waterz!"

 

Yep read it it’s trash

See two can play at that game

Now tell me how a book compiled by some person wanting to make money from denialism is right when 400 contributing authors who were NOT paid for thier time are wrong.

That is just ONE working group

https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/publications/fact-sheet-ipcc
And you think you one book is better?

 

Sooooo your expertise comes from reading threads on a political message board

Right! Well that explains a lot!

Any time you want to let’s go over the IPCC synthesis report page by page and see if we can determine exactly where the data errors are

I am game

I am even willing to give a donation to PF for every errata we find

I mean if objections are that the science is not sound then let us look at the science itself

 

Interesting that all your previous post dismiss the study and concentrate on the blog that links to it as a denial blog and then as your so called evidence you present a blog of your own that attempts to trash the study. I guess in your opinion blogs are acceptable as officially peer reviewing a study?
As for Watts up with that the only criticism was in the remarks section. The only official comment by Watts was :
"I didn’t vet this before posting and have no idea as to its real strengths or weaknesses. Have at it"

Again is this your idea of peer review?

 

I didn't say that.

I said I'm familiar with the arguments presented here by AGW cultists.

Sure.

Go ahead and link the one you want.

 

Where did you extract that conclusion? I have previously critiqued the paper, I have linked to others who have critiqued the paper and yes WUWT have posted the paper without support, something not usual for them. The comments section is an interesting read as you can see where people are directing the underpinning science
These blogs show what peer review feedback to an author would look like

Now can you further support the paper, can you show me any validation anywhere of the findings?

 

What specifically do you consider to be trash ?? Never mind - this is what alarmists do. ^^^

BTW why would someone who wanted to get rich from book sales give it away ???

 

Ok I will be kind and start with the physical basis report
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf

However time is short and I have to leave for a while so will return to this later

 

Speaking tours

As I said it’s trash because there is no way the underpinning science is as strong as that in the IPCC

 

Why does the IPCC assume that all global warming is the result of increasing CO2 concentration when the previous 9 very similar warming periods took place at constant CO2 ???

 

What speaking tours has the author been on ??? BTW it’s a pdf which is a compilation of over 600 peer reviewed papers.

The IPCC assumes that all warming is the result of increasing CO2 when that has never been the case in the previous 9 warming periods in the current Holocene ???

Why does the IPCC ignore the Holocene data ??

 

I was trying to live up to leftist standards. I thought I was pretty spot on.

 

Nope. But my statement still stands.

 

They don’t like when that happens.

 

They did? How do you know that if temperature measurements were purportedly not reliable until last century?

 

Want to critique the Critiques? I mean if th science is so robust then it should be easy to defend

 

Actually all you “proved” was that you do not understand academic level discussion