New York DEFR Concerns Update
3 hours ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
-
Ellen Flees To The UK17 hours ago
-
-
-
-
Reconstructing the Esper Reconstruction5 months ago
-
Energy output dented by wind drought5 months ago
-
ビタミンと勃起の関係9 months ago
-
What I’ve Been Up To10 months ago
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
4 comments:
Note also Phil Jones' hideously incorrect remark on November 2, 2009
"C02 does warm the planet - we'd be 33 deg C cooler if it didn't!"
Even on the assumption that greenhouse gasses, expecially water vapour, warm the planet 33 degC, no careful scientist would ascribe that degree of warming to CO2 alone. It's both scientific nonsense and alarmist.
This ubiquitous 33c BS is the junk anti-science which got me involved in this battle in the first place . Does Jones actually have a PhD ?
Jones: The point is that the rate of change is quicker now than it has ever been
in the past. You can't prove that it isn't.
JK: Pardon me, Phil, you are the one making the claim - it is you job to provide the proof, not demand that others disprove your claim.
Jones: Any millennial series you consider has to be global (not NH) and has to be the whole
calendar year. Most are NH, so your rise has to be even greater in the past than 1979-2005.
JK: What? We have missing data (SH) so the NH has to be much warmer to prove the point??
Hey, Jones, how about you prove your claim that the rate of rise is unusual, in light of the missing data form the SH?
Instead you just make the claim and expect others to disprove it.
Once again a top climate scientist shows a lack of science.
Thanks
JK
Jim Karlock wrote:
"Hey, Jones, how about you prove your claim that the rate of rise is unusual"
He can't. Didn't you hear that the dog ate his data?
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228291/dog-ate-global-warming/patrick-j-michaels
You're being too harsh on them gentlemen
They're not doing science... They're practicing grantsmanship. ;-)
fs
Post a Comment