Man-Made Global Warming Theory Takes Major Hit

Really? Is it? Might be and might not be as so far you have failed to offer any proof of its actual existence other than “I linked to a book”. No mention of who what when so I treated your imaginary evidence with an imaginary critique but I can make one sure bet . Those 600 citations would be in three categories

A) blogs and other bandwidth wastes
B) unpublished or pay for publish articles
C) random papers that on reading actually support AGW

 

The IPCC only considers AGW. You didn't know that. Global mean temperature measurement is not reliable today. The only region in which the effects of urban heat islands and land use are negligible is the US.

 

The book is based on 600 scientific papers. Unfortunately climate change faith based alarmists are not interested in the truth and make up excuses to avoid the truth as you have demonstrated above. Carry on with the faith based lock step. The pattern repeats regardless of which alarmist you talk to. It's like watching the leftie talking heads repeat things like "manufactured crisis" as if there is some kind of journo-list in play as there was ~ 10 years ago. very amusing.

All it takes is some curiosity and initiative. The who, what, when is contained in:

https://www.academia.edu/35571845/D...h_the_most_extensive_peer_reviewed_references

 

And yet you refuse to challenge your faith based unquestioning belief in the alarmism of AGW.

For example localized SST (sea surface temperature) measurement has nothing to do with the composition of the atmosphere over the ocean. It is dependent on cycical ocean currents. cyclical wind patterns, and cyclical solar irradiation. So why is SST included in the global temperature data sets ??

 

After I stop laughing about your comment that some kid cult member living in moms basement and posting on blogs is the same as being peer reviewed but I'll just enjoy laughing about that for now.

 

A’ you never named the book or the author now THAT is, well I can’t say

 

Click on the link. Not even the curiosity or initiative to do that ??? Hilarious but Pathetic.

 

Ok

I will read your book BUT you have to also read something. You have to read the original reports of the ipcc

Fair?

 

WHAT ****ing link

This was the first time you offered a link

 

You’re kidding right ???

 

They were valid criticisms which I note you were NOT addressing. As for blogs, they come in differing levels of academic rigor and I do judge that for validity before quoting them

Can’t defend your paper can you? Not even my critique

 

Already done.

 

Nope THAT was the first link I saw. Posting on an IPAD and links do not always show if they are embedded

 

OKAY I will make the same claim

I read your book

 

And the pattern continues. That’s what faith based alarmism does. Enjoy your safe space.

 

I am just matching you effort for effort

I am so over being the one chasing down the research and links whilst denialists sit on thier hands going “duh! I Don fink so”. Now I am matching effort for effort. You demonstrate that you not only have read something but understand it to the point where you can discourse intelligently on the subject then I will debate you all day long. Throw out unreferenced talking points from shock jupocks and expect the same in return.

BTW you “free” book comes courtesy of the Koch brothers in all probability. Why else would anyone write a book and publishe it for “free”? This is hardly the first time the fossil fuel industry has used tobacco industry play book to sow disinformation.

Your precious book also has a fatal flaw

Does NOT offer an alternative hypothesis to the observed change

 

"Holy link" (being used as a false authority fallacy) discarded on sight, especially after seeing all the argument by RandU fallacies contained therein.

NASA is a government agency; it is not science. Science, rather, is a set of falsifiable theories, and science is what is applicable here. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics makes it quite clear that [insert magick gas here] cannot heat the Earth. Heat doesn't flow backwards.

 

Really at the moment I can't take you serious in any way shape or form. Your first several post on this were trashing the blog the study was linked to on. Then when I shamed you into responding to the actual study you ran to your own blogs searching for negative comments to copy and paste pretending they were your own words.
What I will say about this just released study is there has been no time for any real vetting of it by peer reviews. It looks like the only real debate will be if this is the primary driver of climate change or just another in a growing list of things which effects climate which incidentally is the same criticism the AGW hypothesis faces when it's proponents call it the primary driver of climate change. If this new hypothesis is proven 100% correct it's the end of the AGW hypothesis while if it's shown to be yet another factor in climate change that AGW pushers have not factored in it's just another nail in the coffin of the AGW hypothesis. Stay tuned.

 

Argument via meme ignored on sight.

AGW theory, with the CO2 warms the Earth claim, rejects science, specifically the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

No need... The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is quite clear...

You cannot use Wikipedia as a source with me. It is too often incorrect, incomplete, and can be edited by virtually anyone. I tend to discard Wikipedia on sight. With regard to this specific discussion, Wikipedia is not science. Science is, rather, a set of falsifiable theories.

 

Please go on

This is almost as entertaining as the time we were told that the CO2 levels were recorded wrong because as everyone knows CO2 is heavier than air

Or the time we were told that earth is epheating uo because it is moving through a “hot spotted in space”
Then there is the current theory

Earth is heating up because....... well, it just does......

 

Can you address the critique?

I posted originally stating that I found it profoundly lacking in academic rigor due to non academic language and what can only be describes as a pre schoolers attempt at adding citations

Can you defend the paper on these points?

 

Argument via meme ignored on sight.

Google is not science. I suggest that you take a look at currently standing theories of science, such as the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. I also suggest that you take a look at Statistical Mathematics.

We do not have the means to measure global temperature nor global CO2 content. NASA and NOAA only make use of several thousand thermometers, and they are not uniformly spaced nor simultaneously read by the same observer. No variances have been declared, and no margin of error has been calculated. We would need upwards of 200 million thermometers to even begin such a statistical analysis of Earth's temperature. A few thousand thermometers isn't gonna cut it... Measuring global CO2 content faces similar issues...

 

...because they go against your AGW religion?

Peer review does not make a theory into a theory of science.

Then don't take Climategate's word for it... Look at the theories of science themselves... Look at Statistical Mathematics itself...

 

Your opinion is noted and I have no need or desire to defend this study that is just out. I'm not emotionally invested in it as you are the AGW hypothesis. I'm a seeker of wisdom and truth not a defender of an entrenched position and I'll wait for some real comments by real scientist that have taken real time to look into this real new study. Unlike you I'm not a knee jerk rabid defender of any position on this or any other subject really and am always open to new data whereas you run screaming from the room with your eyes shut and your hands over your ears anytime someone presents evidence counter to what you want to believe. Having said that this study is interesting and apparently brings a new dynamic into the climate debate. As I said earlier stay tuned.

 

Please keep up the entertainment

Meanwhile I will listen to these people
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

And this