Physicist Offers $10,000 to Anyone Who Can Disprove Global Warming

And let me guess, the NOAA chart consisted of just one month right?

 

You didn't even read the article, but are here protesting it like a true cultist.

 

You would have to prove it causes global warming in the first place. As it stands, observations are now out of line with all of the computer models so something is wrong with the computer models based on CO2 sensitivity. There is another model, posted in this thread, that is predicting cooling. Since the CO2 models are wrong, only time will tell which one is right.

 

Yes...global warming periods usually end in a ice age. The tropic flow gets disrupted, sending the Earth into a cooling period.

- - - Updated - - -

Come back when you have an idea of what a FLUKE is.

 

No one really knows what starts or ends glacial periods. There are only theories why.

 

If I had a dollar for every time the warmest ( usually uneducated , democrat , and welfare collecting ) had to change course to explain why they were wrong I'd have like 300 dollars .

 

A scientific theory or a laymen's theory?

 

I can point you to one of the latest theories of what ended the last glacial period.

Read More: http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=5886

 

Five reasons scientists do not like the consensus on climate change

 

OR, some GW denier will throw out proof like "the Bible is proof of God's existence."

 

Strawman.

 

closer to the truth, freedom is my order

it's a good analogy


Doubling Down With 'Global Cooling'

Climate change deniers seized on an op-ed Henrik Svensmark wrote in 2009 for a conservative Danish newspaper claiming that the sun had entered a cooling cycle, and therefore the Earth would begin to cool as well.

“There is no credible data nor any credible scientist who would make this claim,” says John Abrahams. “Perhaps Cliff Clavin from Cheers might say this but not even the few contrarian scientists would agree that this statement is correct.”

Several of the other scientists we spoke to agreed that this claim is simply bizarre.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

 

Uuuuhhhh.... Nope. Wrong. Very wrong. The precession of the earth does not move the earth closer to the sun far enough to warm it. The same as when the seasons have the tilt of the earth pointing closer to the sun or farther away, the change in distance does nothing to heat or cool the earth.

The fact that you don't know this is evidence of your blind fallowing to a cultist like movement with religious fervor.

Go back to school.

 

Your claim the most of those who do not support the hypothesis are funded by corporations, prove the most of those that do do not receive government funding either directly or indirectly through universities. If you dodge this time they we will know you can't. Checkmate.

- - - Updated - - -

White flag noted.......

 

Milankovitch cycles

The degrees effects the sun light as it hits the Earth. As it decreases, the Earth cools off.

Now time for you to go back to school.

 

Only if based on accurate assumptions. How accurate have the global warming assumptions been, not very. Therefore by the logic you choose to use the computer models cannot be taken with any accurate or veracity thus your argument for the hypothesis is fallacious.

 

You said most scientist and when how do you know you said you've read them then when asked if you indeed have read most scientist you say no you have not.

Do you see the flaw in your assertion?

- - - Updated - - -

Atheist do not engage in such folly, we're still waiting for those of faith to prove there are gods and supernatural beings looking over us just as we await the AGW faithful to prove their assertions.

- - - Updated - - -

Got your dancing shoes on I see, he asked you a question first. Or is this another white flag......

 

Yes

"Shocking" Greenland Ice Melt: Global Warming or Just Heat Wave?

Ker Than
for National Geographic News
PUBLISHED JULY 25, 2012

After just a few days of intense melting this month, nearly the entire of the surface of Greenland's massive ice sheet had turned to slush, NASA images show—the fastest thaw rate since satellites began keeping score 30 years ago.


It may be tempting to link the event to global warming, but scientists say such melts might occur every 150 years.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ice-sheet-melt-satellites-nasa-space-science/

 

Oh this is funny, very funny. I never discounted the precession cycle, which is what you referred to as a wobble. I highlighted how you ignorantly think its the distance to the sun that creates the temp differential at certain points of the Earth's precession. So along with demonstrating basic scientific ignorance you doubled down on stupid and showed us your lack of basic reading comprehension skills.

Well done.

 

Typical lib misdirection. Same thing happens on Skeptical Science. Old data presented as new and new data ignored.

 

Au contraire. We have proof you can hold in your hand. The first verse starts, "In the beginning, God created.."

Just because you fail to accept it doesn't mean it fails to exist.

If someone offered $10,000 to prove there is no God, could you do it?

 

the taliban has that too


The Republicans:

#1 Conservative Christians
#2 Religious fanatics (look at presidential candidates they presented)
#3 Want to seriously limit the freedoms of women (till nothing is left ?)
#4 Oppose equality for man and woman. (oppose equal pay for women)
#5 Want to redefine RAPE so it can be blamed more to the woman
#6 Are in favor of a theocracy based on the bible

The Taliban:

#1 Conservative Muslims
#2 Religious fanatics (speaks for itself)
#3 Want to seriously limit the freedoms of women (till nothing is left ?)
#4 Oppose equality for man and woman. (oppose education for women)
#5 RAPE is always blamed on the woman
#6 Are in favor of a theocracy based on the koran

really, this dumb question again? my answer is still the same

there is no flaw


from page 18:

 

I DID say "like". It was an analogy, not a strawman.

 

No but Richard Dawkins might - and I would lay odds he would win

 

The Bible is not proof, it is merely a collection of stories of which there is no evidence of it's claims, conjecture. You can't prove a negative, you claim he exist then you prove it with empirical evidence. Just because you accept it on faith doesn't prove it.