Climate change has intensified hurricane rainfall, and now we know how much

[johnnyAU 3,634]

You are a CAGW cultist. Own it yourself. Nature doesn't care what you believe.

Now be sure to repent your carbon sins, and pay your carbon tithes.

[johnnyAU 3,634]

[HVAU 673]

Just to throw more wood on the fire...

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/file/2558

Not all data agrees, but NOAA makes some conclusions here, as I am sure many others do.

"

Paleoclimatic Data for the Last 2,000 Years

 

Beginning in the 1970s, paleoclimatologists began constructing a blueprint of how Earth's temperature changed over the centuries before the widespread use of thermometers. Over the last two decades, there has been a major breakthrough in our understanding of global temperature change over the last 2,000 years. Several different but important studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, revolutionized what we know about the present day in the context of past centuries. The research of the late 1990s formed the foundation for a progression of studies that followed, incorporating advances in statistical techniques and information from a broad range of proxy data types.

Although there are differences between individual proxy temperature records, due in part to the diverse statistical methods utilized and sources of the proxy data, they all indicate similar patterns of temperature variability over the last 2,000 years. For example, it has become apparent that the "Medieval Climate Anomaly” temperatures from about 950 to 1250 AD were mostly warmer averaged over the Northern Hemisphere than during the subsequent "Little Ice Age” from roughly 1450 to 1850 AD. The timing and spatial structure of the Medieval Climate Anomaly and Little Ice Age are regionally complex, however. One region where these temperature variations played an important role in human history is the North Atlantic, where warmer temperatures during the Medieval Climate Anomaly allowed Norse seafaring and colonization of Greenland that began at the end of the 10th century and continued until cooler Little Ice Age conditions developed in the 15th century.

The similarity of characteristics among the different paleoclimate reconstructions of the last 2,000 years provides confidence in the following important conclusions, as reported in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report(link is external):

• Dramatic warming has occurred since the 19th century.
• For average annual Northern Hemisphere temperatures, the period 1983–2012 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years and likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1,400 years.
• Warmer than average temperatures are more widespread over the Northern Hemisphere since the mid 20th century than in any previous time."

[HVAU 673]

I think it is all well and good to use natural warming trends over a 10k year period, or even 100k year period, but more relevant perspectives are gained by looking trajectories in the last 2k years.  

It's also, I think, important to include in a discussion of global climate change species extinction rates, sea habitability, aquifer levels, atmospheric toxicity levels.  Much of these, as is the current climate trends, are correlated to human activity.  

The conservatives' refusal to take action on these issues is senseless.  Development of new technologies could be economically prosperous and dissolve some of our difficult geopolitical entanglements.  Reducing pollution and improving national living spaces through more thoughtful planning would be beneficial to the health and well-being of the population.  There is a lot to gain, and, done correctly, not a lot to lose.

At the end of the day I take a "better safe than sorry" approach.  That philosophy typically resonates with conservatives.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Some studies I saw awhile back show that methane from cow crap is a significant contributor to GW. Guess we need to eat more beef and less chicken

[HVAU 673]

2 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Some studies I saw awhile back show that methane from cow crap is a significant contributor to GW. Guess we need to eat more beef and less chicken

Pro-global warming eh?  You're consistent, not the type of consistency I go for, but consistent.

[homersapien 11,396]

6 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

You are a CAGW cultist. Own it yourself. Nature doesn't care what you believe.

Now be sure to repent your carbon sins, and pay your carbon tithes.

First I can tell you take offense at the term "denier".  While it seems appropriate to me, perhaps you would prefer something like "under informed skeptic"?

As far as my carbon sins, yes I am guilty along with every other person in our culture.  Unfortunately, repenting them means nothing.  What counts is what we do as a culture to mitigate the damage already baked-in.  I would suggest that as a first step, we start minimizing the amount of carbon in the form of CO2 we keep pumping into the atmosphere.  And yes, placing a price on emitting carbon would be a good approach.

Back to substance: 

The graph above has as it's last data point 1855, (1950 - 95) which is long before the modern global warming period began.  It also reflects regional Greenland warming and not global warming.

Bottom line, it's pretty much irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[homersapien 11,396]

5 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

 

Not sure what this is supposed to prove, but if you look carefully, this graph shows a steady increase from about the time the modern era of global warming began.

And keep in mind this historical data is derivative from such things as tree ring growth.  It cannot reflect what is happening now and has no predictive value in a world that has been rapidly accumulating greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution.

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, HVAU said:

Pro-global warming eh?  You're consistent, not the type of consistency I go for, but consistent.

Me pro-GW? I'm for doing everything reasonable to prevent it but I'm not a GW cult member.

You should go talk to Dr. Christy at UAH sometime.

[HVAU 673]

6 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Me pro-GW? I'm for doing everything reasonable to prevent it but I'm not a GW cult member.

You should go talk to Dr. Christy at UAH sometime.

Maybe I misinterpreted the wording from your post.  It reads strangely as greater beef consumption would require greater beef production adding more cattle and more methane and more global warming.

 

I'm not familiar with Dr. Christy.  I can certainly ask around though.  I think the staff I know are primarily in the business, music and history departments.

[homersapien 11,396]

6 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

 

 

This one is easy to address - it's an outdated argument. 

The graph does not reflect the corrections related to the decaying orbit of sensing satellites:

"After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998. This is in comparison to the previous version 3 of the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data published in 2009."

 

I should also point out that 1998 represented a warming spike and the choice of that date as a an arbitrary beginning point is a classic case of "cherry picking", which is an important point in understanding the trend.

 

And more (fairly) recent observations concerning RRS data:

Climate Deniers’ Favorite Temperature Dataset Just Confirmed Global Warming

Joe Romm Mar 2, 2016, 7:43 pm

February smashed monthly global temperature records, according to the satellite data analyzed by the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). At the same time, a brand new study concludes that miscalculations explain why the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) satellite temperature dataset had appeared to show a relatively slow rate of global warming.

So Ted Cruz and his fellow climate science deniers need a new meme to replace their “satellites find no warming since 1998” talking point, which replaced the “there’s been no warming since 1998” talking point after that one fell apart when 2014 became the hottest year on record — and again when 2015 blew away the 2014 record.

In fact, for those who live in reality, as opposed to in denial, satellite data, ground-based weather stations, sea-based buoys, and even weather balloons all reveal a steady long-term warming trend.

Let’s start with the UAH data, which show a stunning 1.5°F (0.83°C) warming in February 2016 compared to the historical (1981–2010) average for the lower troposphere (the lowest part of the atmosphere):

How amazing is this temperature jump? First off, remember that the 1981–2010 baseline used by the UAH is itself some 0.8°F (0.45°C) hotter than pre-industrial levels — so you can add that to all of the numbers here.

Second, February was more than half a degree Fahrenheit — 0.52°F (0.29°C) — warmer than January, which itself was “the warmest January in satellite record.”

Third, it was so hot last month that Dr. Roy Spencer of the UAH reports, “Incredibly, land areas outside the tropics in the Northern Hemisphere were a ‘whopping’ 1.46 degrees C above average, 0.5 degrees above any previous monthly anomaly.” This is a 2.6°F warming above the 1981–2010 average — topping the previous anomaly by 0.9°F.

Lower atmospheric warming over land outside of the tropics (vs. the 1981–2020 average) via UAH scientist Roy Spencer.

Fourth, it was so hot last month that Spencer — one of country’s leading climate science deniers — told the Washington Post:

I’ve always cautioned fellow skeptics that it’s dangerous to claim no warming. There has been warming. The question is how much warming there’s been and how does that compare to what’s expected and what’s predicted.

Now we know there has been a lot of warming, it’s consistent with what scientists predicted, and, most worrisome of all, scientists now predict it will keep speeding up! Maybe we should start listening to them.

I’m sure you’ve heard from Ted Cruz and other climate science deniers that there hasn’t been any warming in the satellite record since 1998. What they really meant was there was not as much warming as expected in the lower troposphere in the (questionable) RSS data.

The UAH’s Spencer and Dr. John Christy — both leading deniers — reported just last month that the UAH data shows a “Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978 [of] +0.12 C [0.22F] per decade.”

In fact out of all the temperature datasets — land, sea, weather balloons, and two from satellites (UAH and RSS) — only one dataset had shown unexpectedly slow warming in recent years, the RSS data. Unsurprisingly, that is the dataset deniers like Ted Cruz have glommed on to — despite the fact that it was widely believed the RSS data was being misanlayzed.

Indeed, back in 2011, Spencer himself explained the discrepancy between the UAH data and the RSS data on his website: “my UAH cohort and boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality.”

The drift correction is needed because different parts of the planet are observed by satellites at different times during the day — and because satellites drift from orbit to orbit. Spencer adds that the UAH data is probably better because “We have not used NOAA-15 for trend information in years…we use the NASA Aqua AMSU [advanced microwave sounding unit], since that satellite carries extra fuel to maintain a precise orbit.”

Since Spencer is a leading climate science denier, however, he did not urge his fellow deniers to avoid using the likely flawed RSS data. Quite the reverse:

But, until the discrepancy is resolved to everyone’s satisfaction, those of you who REALLY REALLY need the global temperature record to show as little warming as possible might want to consider jumping ship, and switch from the UAH to RSS dataset.

Seriously! Spencer is such a gung-ho denier of climate science he is telling his fellow deniers who want to minimize the reality of global warming that they should not use his own data set, which he and Christy believes is superior, but instead they should use the RSS data, which they believe had a flawed diurnal cycle drift correction.

So only hard-core climate science deniers should be surprised to learn that the new study in the Journal of Climate by members of the RSS team finds that the … wait for it … the RSS data had been low-balling recent global warming because of a flawed diurnal cycle drift correction. That study, aptly titled, “Sensitivity of satellite-derived tropospheric temperature trends to the diurnal cycle adjustment,” concluded, “Previous versions of the RSS dataset have used a diurnal climatology derived from general circulation model output to remove the effects of drifting local measurement time. In this paper, we present evidence that this previous method is not sufficiently accurate, and present several alternative methods to optimize these adjustments using information from the satellite measurements themselves.”

The researchers then use an improved and optimized adjustments methodology and report:

The new dataset shows substantially increased global-scale warming relative to the previous version of the dataset, particularly after 1998. The new dataset shows more warming than most other middle tropospheric data records constructed from the same set of satellites. We also show that the new dataset is consistent with long-term changes in total column water vapor over the tropical oceans, lending support to its long-term accuracy.

In short, once a long-standing analytical error was fixed, the RSS data showed long-term global warming comparable to UAH. Here is the result:

https://thinkprogress.org/climate-deniers-favorite-temperature-dataset-just-confirmed-global-warming-838eb198e246/

 

(Note: I highlighted Roy Spencer and John Christy as they are the "go to" climatologists for deniers.  Hopefully, we can avoid a discussion on these two, who have both ego and financial conflicts when it comes to the issue of climate change.)

[johnnyAU 3,634]

15 minutes ago, HVAU said:

Maybe I misinterpreted the wording from your post.  It reads strangely as greater beef consumption would require greater beef production adding more cattle and more methane and more global warming.

 

I'm not familiar with Dr. Christy.  I can certainly ask around though.  I think the staff I know are primarily in the business, music and history departments.

This guy...https://www.uah.edu/science/departments/atmospheric-science/faculty-staff/dr-john-christy

 

[homersapien 11,396]

27 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Me pro-GW? I'm for doing everything reasonable to prevent it but I'm not a GW cult member.

You should go talk to Dr. Christy at UAH sometime.

  So predictable.

I knew we would be able to keep him and Spencer out of the discussion.

[johnnyAU 3,634]

Did someone say outdated data? Notice the most recent trend.

[homersapien 11,396]

22 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

This guy...https://www.uah.edu/science/departments/atmospheric-science/faculty-staff/dr-john-christy

 

Also:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_John_Christy.htm

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/us/skeptic-of-climate-change-john-christy-finds-himself-a-target-of-suspicion.html

https://www.desmogblog.com/john-christy

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists

[johnnyAU 3,634]

The fact that you try and demonize both Christy and Spencer is a testament to the ridiculous ideology and alarmist sites you visit, likely Desmog blog and such.  That article on Lysenko and the CAGW cult would be good reading for you if you had the stones to actually read it. 

[johnnyAU 3,634]

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

This one is easy to address - it's an outdated argument. 

The graph does not reflect the corrections related to the decaying orbit of sensing satellites:

"After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998. This is in comparison to the previous version 3 of the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data published in 2009."

 

I should also point out that 1998 represented a warming spike and the choice of that date as a an arbitrary beginning point is a classic case of "cherry picking", which is an important point in understanding the trend.

 

And more (fairly) recent observations concerning RRS data:

Climate Deniers’ Favorite Temperature Dataset Just Confirmed Global Warming

Joe Romm Mar 2, 2016, 7:43 pm

February smashed monthly global temperature records, according to the satellite data analyzed by the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). At the same time, a brand new study concludes that miscalculations explain why the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) satellite temperature dataset had appeared to show a relatively slow rate of global warming.

So Ted Cruz and his fellow climate science deniers need a new meme to replace their “satellites find no warming since 1998” talking point, which replaced the “there’s been no warming since 1998” talking point after that one fell apart when 2014 became the hottest year on record — and again when 2015 blew away the 2014 record.

In fact, for those who live in reality, as opposed to in denial, satellite data, ground-based weather stations, sea-based buoys, and even weather balloons all reveal a steady long-term warming trend.

Let’s start with the UAH data, which show a stunning 1.5°F (0.83°C) warming in February 2016 compared to the historical (1981–2010) average for the lower troposphere (the lowest part of the atmosphere):

How amazing is this temperature jump? First off, remember that the 1981–2010 baseline used by the UAH is itself some 0.8°F (0.45°C) hotter than pre-industrial levels — so you can add that to all of the numbers here.

Second, February was more than half a degree Fahrenheit — 0.52°F (0.29°C) — warmer than January, which itself was “the warmest January in satellite record.”

Third, it was so hot last month that Dr. Roy Spencer of the UAH reports, “Incredibly, land areas outside the tropics in the Northern Hemisphere were a ‘whopping’ 1.46 degrees C above average, 0.5 degrees above any previous monthly anomaly.” This is a 2.6°F warming above the 1981–2010 average — topping the previous anomaly by 0.9°F.

Lower atmospheric warming over land outside of the tropics (vs. the 1981–2020 average) via UAH scientist Roy Spencer.

Fourth, it was so hot last month that Spencer — one of country’s leading climate science deniers — told the Washington Post:

I’ve always cautioned fellow skeptics that it’s dangerous to claim no warming. There has been warming. The question is how much warming there’s been and how does that compare to what’s expected and what’s predicted.

Now we know there has been a lot of warming, it’s consistent with what scientists predicted, and, most worrisome of all, scientists now predict it will keep speeding up! Maybe we should start listening to them.

I’m sure you’ve heard from Ted Cruz and other climate science deniers that there hasn’t been any warming in the satellite record since 1998. What they really meant was there was not as much warming as expected in the lower troposphere in the (questionable) RSS data.

The UAH’s Spencer and Dr. John Christy — both leading deniers — reported just last month that the UAH data shows a “Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978 [of] +0.12 C [0.22F] per decade.”

In fact out of all the temperature datasets — land, sea, weather balloons, and two from satellites (UAH and RSS) — only one dataset had shown unexpectedly slow warming in recent years, the RSS data. Unsurprisingly, that is the dataset deniers like Ted Cruz have glommed on to — despite the fact that it was widely believed the RSS data was being misanlayzed.

Indeed, back in 2011, Spencer himself explained the discrepancy between the UAH data and the RSS data on his website: “my UAH cohort and boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality.”

The drift correction is needed because different parts of the planet are observed by satellites at different times during the day — and because satellites drift from orbit to orbit. Spencer adds that the UAH data is probably better because “We have not used NOAA-15 for trend information in years…we use the NASA Aqua AMSU [advanced microwave sounding unit], since that satellite carries extra fuel to maintain a precise orbit.”

Since Spencer is a leading climate science denier, however, he did not urge his fellow deniers to avoid using the likely flawed RSS data. Quite the reverse:

But, until the discrepancy is resolved to everyone’s satisfaction, those of you who REALLY REALLY need the global temperature record to show as little warming as possible might want to consider jumping ship, and switch from the UAH to RSS dataset.

Seriously! Spencer is such a gung-ho denier of climate science he is telling his fellow deniers who want to minimize the reality of global warming that they should not use his own data set, which he and Christy believes is superior, but instead they should use the RSS data, which they believe had a flawed diurnal cycle drift correction.

So only hard-core climate science deniers should be surprised to learn that the new study in the Journal of Climate by members of the RSS team finds that the … wait for it … the RSS data had been low-balling recent global warming because of a flawed diurnal cycle drift correction. That study, aptly titled, “Sensitivity of satellite-derived tropospheric temperature trends to the diurnal cycle adjustment,” concluded, “Previous versions of the RSS dataset have used a diurnal climatology derived from general circulation model output to remove the effects of drifting local measurement time. In this paper, we present evidence that this previous method is not sufficiently accurate, and present several alternative methods to optimize these adjustments using information from the satellite measurements themselves.”

The researchers then use an improved and optimized adjustments methodology and report:

The new dataset shows substantially increased global-scale warming relative to the previous version of the dataset, particularly after 1998. The new dataset shows more warming than most other middle tropospheric data records constructed from the same set of satellites. We also show that the new dataset is consistent with long-term changes in total column water vapor over the tropical oceans, lending support to its long-term accuracy.

In short, once a long-standing analytical error was fixed, the RSS data showed long-term global warming comparable to UAH. Here is the result:

https://thinkprogress.org/climate-deniers-favorite-temperature-dataset-just-confirmed-global-warming-838eb198e246/

 

(Note: I highlighted Roy Spencer and John Christy as they are the "go to" climatologists for deniers.  Hopefully, we can avoid a discussion on these two, who have both ego and financial conflicts when it comes to the issue of climate change.)

For this nonsense, you get the dreaded....

[homersapien 11,396]

20 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Did someone say outdated data? Notice the most recent trend.

 

C'mon, even Spencer and Christy have finally admitted their earlier data were misleading.  Both allow that the earth is warming. 

[homersapien 11,396]

17 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

The fact that you try and demonize both Christy and Spencer is a testament to the ridiculous ideology and alarmist sites you visit, likely Desmog blog and such.  That article on Lysenko and the CAGW cult would be good reading for you if you had the stones to actually read it. 

He's not an impartial scientist. He operates to a personal agenda.

 

"Christy and Spencer have also been affiliated with various conservative fossil fuel-funded think tanks. And Spencer is on the Board of Advisors of the Cornwall Alliance – a religious group that essentially believes God wouldn’t let damaging climate change happen. Spencer has also made some controversial comments, calling those who disagree with him “global warming Nazis” as well as declaring “I love FoxNews” and saying,

I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.

Spencer and Christy made a valuable scientific contribution by creating their atmospheric temperature data set. However, given how few climate scientists dispute the expert consensus on human-caused global warming, it’s useful to examine their research and comments with a critical eye. When we do, it becomes clear that they have less in common with Galileo than with the scientists who disputed the links between smoking and cancer."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists

[homersapien 11,396]

Christy is on the board of this organization. 

While it's quite possible for a scientist to have general faith in God, no true scientist could support such a position is this and work in the field.

https://cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

WHAT WE BELIEVE

 

1. We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory.  Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
2. We believe abundant, affordable energy is indispensable to human flourishing, particularly to societies which are rising out of abject poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it. With present technologies, fossil and nuclear fuels are indispensable if energy is to be abundant and affordable.
3. We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels, will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies.
4. We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries.

 

WHAT WE DENY

 

1. We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
2. We deny that alternative, renewable fuels can, with present or near-term technology, replace fossil and nuclear fuels, either wholly or in significant part, to provide the abundant, affordable energy necessary to sustain prosperous economies or overcome poverty.
3. We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.
4. We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression.

[homersapien 11,396]

25 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

For this nonsense, you get the dreaded....

Sorry but that is not an appropriate response for this forum. No actual substance.

You made a very specific claim by posting a well known chart of data and I took my own good time to dismantle it. 

If you have a question or rebuttal fine.  But that post was nothing more than a "poo fling". It should be deleted and taken to the smack talk forum.

So what about it monitors?  Are we going to enforce the rules or not?

[johnnyAU 3,634]

29 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Also:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_John_Christy.htm

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/us/skeptic-of-climate-change-john-christy-finds-himself-a-target-of-suspicion.html

https://www.desmogblog.com/john-christy

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists

LOL again...the Guardian, NY times, Skeptical Science, Desmog blog....you don't anything from Huffpost, NPR or BBC?  

 

[homersapien 11,396]

1 minute ago, johnnyAU said:

LOL again...the Guardian, NY times, Skeptical Science, Desmog blog....you don't anything from Huffpost, NPR or BBC?  

 

Got anything more than criticizing the messenger? Maybe pick out something to refute because you think it's false?

  Perhaps its time for you to quit this and retire back to the smack talk forum.

[homersapien 11,396]

37 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

The fact that you try and demonize both Christy and Spencer is a testament to the ridiculous ideology and alarmist sites you visit, likely Desmog blog and such.  That article on Lysenko and the CAGW cult would be good reading for you if you had the stones to actually read it. 

I am simply revealing the facts about Christy and Spencer.  You just think it's demonizing.  Bet it's stuff you didn't know either, huh?

And forget the "cult" stuff.  It's no more relevant to the issue than accusations of a hoax.  

Where's those "science chops" you claim?   If you can't hang with me on a technical discussion of the facts, then just stop posting.  At least on the serious discussion forum.

[johnnyAU 3,634]

26 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I am simply revealing the facts about Christy and Spencer.  You just think it's demonizing.  Bet it's stuff you didn't know either, huh?

And forget the "cult" stuff.  It's no more relevant to the issue than accusations of a hoax.  

Where's those "science chops" you claim?   If you can't hang with me on a technical discussion of the facts, then just stop posting.  At least on the serious discussion forum.

I've read both the ridiculous profiles of Christy and Spencer from Desmog blog/Skeptical Science long ago, along with many other ridiculous profiles of any and all scientists who are skeptical of the narrative, and who are disingenously labeled "deniers" by the left. 

Quoting liberal sources like the Guardian or Huffpost, etc...in addition to those two above buys you no credibility on the subject. It's the same reason I haven't quoted from Wattsupwiththat, Notrickszone, Breitbart, etc....

If you continue to use the idiotic term "denier" I'll continue to refer to the "cult".  I again refer you to the following article....https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/28/the-disgraceful-episode-of-lysenkoism-brings-us-global-warming-theory/#34d87ee17ac8