Are Climatologists Stupid?

I think you might be rapidly heading for my "ignore" list

Note - not all links are valid on that website and most are to PDF files where the papers may have simply been scanned

But the most common reason why, on the internet we do not quote papers is that none of the denialists will read them. You can spend hours and hours building an argument to get the response of

"Duh Dat's reel rong!"

It is disheartening so, you tend to simplify and that means using secondary and tertiary sources because they might be better understood and still you get a point blank refusal from people to even open the links

After a while you do not bother.

Now I DID open your links and they were ..........................interesting

Is it your contention that these articles somehow prove that global warming is non-existent?

Oh! and BTW - there is a difference between a "secondary source" and a systematic analysis and a meta-analysis

 

Put your shoes back on.

 

So... 1990 was not above average warming? His argument in that regards is that the chart is inherently flawed if it takes 1990 as its baseline, because 1990 wasn't average in the trend, it was a small spike in the graph, whereas temperatures before and after were cooler, at least until five years later. Meanwhile, this coincides beautifully with the trendline analysis.

The first link says, "Get this paper free". There you can read the full study.
The second link is free. You click on the little PDF icon where it says "cached" and you can read the fulltext article.
Do I have to walk you through every (*)(*)(*)(*)ing step? Do I have to explain that you need Adobe Reader to use the PDFs?

And I repeatedly provide the studies. At that point, it's not my fault if you're too stupid to read. Even providing the fulltext is going above and beyond, really; more commonly, what you'll get is simply "here's the name of the study, go find it yourself".

 

Till you can create and replicate a man made global warming scenario , it's not science .

 

And until you can create and replicate several billion years of natural selection, that's not science either. And until you can create and replicate a singularity, the big bang isn't science either. Come on, man.

 

Yes , you are exactly right . They are theories , not facts or anything of the sort .

 

That was sarcasm on my part, I do wish you'd pick up on that. People with a fundamental lack of understanding of science should stay out of scientific debates.

 

Yes , and I ignored your "witty" ( snicker) sarcasm to remind you that those again are theories , not facts . Confirmation through ignorance

 

Yes , and I ignored your "witty" ( snicker) sarcasm to remind you that those again are theories , not facts . Confirmation through ignorance

 

As I said, people with a fundamental lack of understanding of science should stay out of scientific debates.

 

Please highlight my lack of understanding .... I eagerly await ... All though you probably just come up with an excuse to not answer the question . this should be entertaining none the less .

 

Has this ploy worked EVER?

I mean I have seen it used again and again and again and usually, and in the vast number of times, it is people who do not know that there is more than one research paper out there or more than about 3 scientists

In other words - fundamental ignorance displayed for all to see

 

Lol ??? Fact remains , theories are theories facts are facts . Man made global warming is a theory ( and we are cooling right now) . Why don't you focus on the statements instead of verbal attacks ? When people get angry and resort to ad homs , it's not because they have a wealth of information to share ... Quite the opposite !!!

 

I did not attack you - merely pointed out how contentless your post was

For a start we are NOT in a cooling period - a statement for which you have no proof

Secondly although AGW IS a theory it is a well supported one with a wealth of research to back it
And I will not spend time posting links until you do - been there had THAT game played on me one too many times!

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...lobal-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/

First of many...

 

The problem is the only solutions for this whole climate change thing involves severe social, financial and legal sacrifices of a large group of westerners, while requiring none from the 3rd world, or China despite the fact those are the biggest "polluters".

 

The false premise here is that you understand the distinction between weather and climate. It is evident that you do not.

 

Anyone spot the irony here? (By the way it's 'you're', not 'your'). Oh, and 'English' is a proper noun, and as such must be capitalized.

Always happy to educate.

 

You wanted original research. Beer-Lambert Law is the basis of atmospheric warming. Or did our resident CO[SUB][SUP]2[/SUP][/SUB] expert not know that?

Wow! You're quoting a Deadhead?!?! I am impressed.

 

Hey, kotcher! Are you going to explain to this guy what original research is?

Tipping elements in the Earth's climate system

Original enough for ya, kotcher?

 

Nice link, I guess I just caught it the one second it has nothing to offer

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/6/1786.full

 

All you climate change nuts are so angry, the greatest of you does not have the education and experience to use the terminology that is correct which immediately tells me he is simply parroting an article, when called on it, when challenged to link to one time he used the correct terminology he can not do it. I challenge every person here to provide one link to a full article, a paper, by the scientist who wrote the paper and nobody can do that, hours go by, which means most likely your eating lunch, I understand. That said, if you really are experts you would of had the link on hand, you would be so educated on your subject that the link would be in your memory, its not. You read articles.

So all you fools start smelling your socks, you start getting mad, trying to find something on google to prove me wrong and you can not do it. Now I have to chase a bunch of links you find on google. I know most you think google is some sort of magical knowledge teacher but its not, they make money by selling keywords that are then used by you on google.

I gave links to a dozen papers by one researcher, this researcher's work is then used by another scientist, who's work is then cherry picked by another scientist, who's work is then manipulated by your researcher and put into an article with brightly colored graphs and multi-color pie charts.

So I see all of you parrots posting pie-charts from articles so far removed the actual science, its easy to see not a one of you knows the truth. Nice taunts though, real clever.

 

You know why we're angry? Because we're stuck listening to stupid, stupid mother(*)(*)(*)(*)ers who are too dumb to click one (*)(*)(*)(*)ing link to get at fulltext versions of articles, who assume that because we said something slightly off, our entire argument is nonsensical, and who have the approximate understanding of rational debate of the average bullfrog, act like they're king of the world and their opinion is worth solid gold. You know, the hypothetical people AGW proponents typically debate.

And again, what are you even talking about? Are you still after the legendary "one Global Warming paper" which I have explained didn't exist? I directly cited the peer-reviewed literature that demonstrates that CO2 is causing a physical warming effect. What more do you wish to know? Tell me, and we can get to work on it! We're all stuck here parroting the peer-reviewed literature, because none of us are publishing scientists, and even if we were, without proof thereof, it would be meaningless to say so.

Google is a search engine. We use it to find the things you seem to be incapable of reading: citations.

You gave us a gigantic article dump with no context whatsoever. You didn't say what it was supposed to mean, or what it even had to do with the topic! What were you even trying to say with those articles?

 

Another example of why those who read the AGW articles are stupid,

1. I did not, "dump an article", Stagnant does not know the difference
2. Stagnant does not recognize, "links" from "articles"
3. Stagnant needs me to explain who "Stephens" is, and found "Stephens" in Stagnant's link
4. Stagnant does not understand what the University of Colorado has to with the topic

Stagnant, funny user name, because your posts are real Stagnant, same rant over and over, even when your on topic.

I pic you apart because you can not use the correct term for AIRS, you call it a satellite that gives us a, "yes" answer, then I later provide the man that did tons of research used to develop AIRS and you do not recognize that right off the back.

Nice job at proving that you know nothing about the what you post.

Too close this post on topic, Climatologist are clever, those who google, cut, and paste the colored pie charts are stupid.

 

And yet you chose to ignore the link I provided. I've go dozens more, but why bother posting them if your going to ignore them!