Writer claims Trump raped her

[Subduction Zone]

I did, I did not see any other then the Cook claim. On the other hand, here is a list of 133 papers published in 2016 alone that show Solar influence is more than that used by the alarmist agw crowd of scientists. These are not a part of any so called consensus.

Skeptic Papers 2016 (1)

Sorry, those are not "skeptic papers". They are examples of cherry picking articles that appear to go against AGW. The first one was about climate change over the last 500 years. Of course human activity is not going to be the driving force for most of that time. You would think that they would put their best article first and it only showed that you used another dishonest source.

Unlike you I do check the sources of other people. The link that I gave listed several different studies. I would suggest that you try to read it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry, those are not "skeptic papers". They are examples of cherry picking articles that appear to go against AGW. The first one was about climate change over the last 500 years. Of course human activity is not going to be the driving force for most of that time. You would think that they would put their best article first and it only showed that you used another dishonest source.

Unlike you I do check the sources of other people. The link that I gave listed several different studies. I would suggest that you try to read it.

So listen to yourself, "those are not skeptic papers"...they are"articles that appear to go against AGW." Fyi, a skeptics are skeptics because they go against agw, they are not a part of any agw consensus.

The papers in that linked page were pro-agw, but they were not about a 97% consensus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So listen to yourself, "those are not skeptic papers"...they are"articles that appear to go against AGW." Fyi, a skeptics are skeptics because they go against agw, they are not a part of any agw consensus.

The papers in that linked page were pro-agw, but they were not about a 97% consensus.

No, they aren't. The first one was not a skeptic at all. He dealt with long term natural climate change since as early as the 14th century. There is no reason to think that he is a AGW denier or even "skeptic". The link was to this page of his articles:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...nho_region_NW_Portugal_since_the_19th_century

Go ahead and look at them. You won't find one that opposes AGW. Before man got involved sunlight was probably a driving cause. That is not the case right now. In fact I can post articles showing that if anything by sunlight it should be getting cooler right now. Not warmer.

And that was their supposed "best" source. You do not seem to understand that we know that climate changes naturally. That is not what we are concerned with. We are concerned with the changes caused by man.

Those articles do not go against the consensus. They do not support it either. They simply describe another time in the Earth's history.

You really really should vet your sources.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, they aren't. The first one was not a skeptic at all. He dealt with long term natural climate change since as early as the 14th century. There is no reason to think that he is a AGW denier or even "skeptic". The link was to this page of his articles:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...nho_region_NW_Portugal_since_the_19th_century

Go ahead and look at them. You won't find one that opposes AGW. Before man got involved sunlight was probably a driving cause. That is not the case right now. In fact I can post articles showing that if anything by sunlight it should be getting cooler right now. Not warmer.

And that was their supposed "best" source. You do not seem to understand that we know that climate changes naturally. That is not what we are concerned with. We are concerned with the changes caused by man.

Those articles do not go against the consensus. They do not support it either. They simply describe another time in the Earth's history.

You really really should vet your sources.

From the paper.."Solar footprints on terrestrial temperatures [are] due to the strong non-linear hydrodynamic interactions across the Earth’s surface, and
the accepted longerterm solar activity influence creating temperature oscillations for tens or even hundreds of years

Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked IPCC report
Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked IPCC report

I have no idea what is causing those lines, but the point is that planetary temperature is affected by the Sun in this way but the IPCC is not factoring it in.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From the paper.."Solar footprints on terrestrial temperatures [are] due to the strong non-linear hydrodynamic interactions across the Earth’s surface, and
the accepted longerterm solar activity influence creating temperature oscillations for tens or even hundreds of years

Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked IPCC report
Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked IPCC report

I have no idea what is causing those lines, but the point is that planetary temperature is affected by the Sun in this way but the IPCC is not factoring it in.

Yes, that paper is about climate before man had a significant effect. What part of that is so hard to understand?

An inability to understand science does not refute it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From the paper.."Solar footprints on terrestrial temperatures [are] due to the strong non-linear hydrodynamic interactions across the Earth’s surface, and
the accepted longerterm solar activity influence creating temperature oscillations for tens or even hundreds of years

Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked IPCC report
Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked IPCC report

I have no idea what is causing those lines, but the point is that planetary temperature is affected by the Sun in this way but the IPCC is not factoring it in.

Yes, that paper is about climate before man had a significant effect. What part of that is so hard to understand?

An inability to understand science does not refute it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, that paper is about climate before man had a significant effect. What part of that is so hard to understand?

An inability to understand science does not refute it.

It has not to do with the time, it is to do with the complexity of Sun's influence on the world's temperature. IPCC computer models use Solar forcing calculations in the agw computer project models, and the paper makes the point that a single Solar forcing may be illusive to find because of strong spatial and regional variability. It means that the science is not settled, there are still lots of unknowns in the relationship of the Sun and Earth's climate. And most of the model projections run hotter than the observed....why? Because they want to create the impression that the world needs saving from GHG emissions by some form of emissions tax.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It has not to do with the time, it is to do with the complexity of Sun's influence on the world's temperature. IPCC computer models use Solar forcing calculations in the agw computer project models, and the paper makes the point that a single Solar forcing may be illusive to find because of strong spatial and regional variability. It means that the science is not settled, there are still lots of unknowns in the relationship of the Sun and Earth's climate. And most of the model projections run hotter than the observed....why? Because they want to create the impression that the world needs saving from GHG emissions by some form of emissions tax.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

View attachment 30816

97 Articles Refuting The '97% Consensus' on global warming

97 Articles Refuting The '97% Consensus' on global warming

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

97 Articles Refuting The '97% Consensus' on global warming

97 Articles Refuting The '97% Consensus' on global warming

97 "articles" from Breitbart and similar? Pass.

Find ANY vaguely credible actual scientist with standing in the field who says anthropogenic climate change isn't a thing.

I'll wait.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

97 "articles" from Breitbart and similar? Pass.

Find ANY vaguely credible actual scientist with standing in the field who says anthropogenic climate change isn't a thing.

I'll wait.

I'll keep it simple...Judith Curry is a skeptic. I will add, that like most skeptics, she understands that GHG does cause warming.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It has not to do with the time, it is to do with the complexity of Sun's influence on the world's temperature. IPCC computer models use Solar forcing calculations in the agw computer project models, and the paper makes the point that a single Solar forcing may be illusive to find because of strong spatial and regional variability. It means that the science is not settled, there are still lots of unknowns in the relationship of the Sun and Earth's climate. And most of the model projections run hotter than the observed....why? Because they want to create the impression that the world needs saving from GHG emissions by some form of emissions tax.

I love it when deniers use terms that they do not understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll keep it simple...Judith Curry is a skeptic. I will add, that like most skeptics, she understands that GHG does cause warming.

if that was the case you should be able to find articles from a reliable source supporting that. Judy looks like a denier, an "alarmist" if you wish.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I love it when deniers use terms that they do not understand.

What does consensus mean?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

if that was the case you should be able to find articles from a reliable source supporting that. Judy looks like a denier, an "alarmist" if you wish.

I have already provided more than enough, you can lead a horse to water but ........

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I love it when deniers use terms that they do not understand.

Really? It frustrates the **** out of me. Smart people are fine. Dumb people are fine. Smart people who think they're dumb can be wearing, but they're mostly fine. Dumb people who think they're smart people? I'm not a violent person, but if there was a demographic I'd have rounded up into camps...

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I'll keep it simple...Judith Curry is a skeptic. I will add, that like most skeptics, she understands that GHG does cause warming.

Got a link? The onus is one you.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Got a link? The onus is one you.

I have provided a link to 400 odd of her scientific papers in the last past few of pages of this thread, so do a search if you are interested. But you know what, by not knowing who Dr Curry is, you have shown me how much you know about this subject, next to nothing, so there is no point in wasting my time repeating it all for each new agw alarmist that comes along.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I have provided a link to 400 odd of her scientific papers in the last past few of pages of this thread, so do a search if you are interested. But you know what, by not knowing who Dr Curry is, you have shown me how much you know about this subject, next to nothing, so there is no point in wasting my time repeating it all for each new agw alarmist that comes along.

The only link I saw was to articles in Breitbart and other tabloid newspapers. But that's cool, if you don't want to provide links, I accept your tacit admission that you can't provide them.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The only link I saw was to articles in Breitbart and other tabloid newspapers. But that's cool, if you don't want to provide links, I accept your tacit admission that you can't provide them.

It was on the last page, post #593 in response to ecco who asked...."Is it even accurate to call J. Curry a climate scientist? Can you show any actual scientific research she has done in the past five years? Understand, I am talking about research, not opinion pieces."

Here is a link to it...Writer claims Trump raped her