/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8713715
>>>8711971
>>>8712060
>https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

I rarely look at SimpletonScience because 95% of there arguments are strawman arguments, the rest are inane or flat out lying. This one LIES somewhere between inane and strawman. Seriously, look at this:

"By adding greenhouse gases, we force the radiation to space to come from higher, colder air, reducing the flow of radiation to space. And there is still a lot of scope for more greenhouse gases to push 'the action' higher and higher, into colder and colder air, restricting the rate of radiation to space even further."

Nice strawman with some good stupidity thrown in. That "argument" begs the question as to whether or not CO2 has a diminishing effect. It simply argues that it doesn't by, get this, assuming the effect "By adding greenhouse gases, we force the radiation to space to come from higher, colder air, reducing the flow of radiation to space." If the effect of increased CO2 is diminishing then the "force[ing] the radiation" is diminishing also.

How can anyone take these clowns, Crook and Nuttercelli, seriously? They prey on the gullible.

>>7950691
>The consensus is that mankind's release of co2 is the cause of rapid excessive warming since the industrial revolution, doesn't mention anything about 1950, fuck off
>https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Fuck off SimpletonPseudoScience nut job. John Crook and Dana Nutter are well known paid shills. Not to mention less than honest.

hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/john-cook-is-a-filthy-liar/
www.forbes.com/ sites/ jamestaylor/ 2013/ 05/ 30/ global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims /
wattsupwiththat .com/2012/02/03/monckton-responds-to-skeptical-science/
http://impactofcc.blogspot.com/2013/05/john-cook-et-al-willfully-lie.html
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

>>7728821
Wow, a graph made up by John Crook. Where is the actual graph?, give the specific IPCC reference (it should be on the internet.) I know where the graph is, in John Cooks head and nowhere else.

>>7287098
>I always get my science from a psychology graduate student.
You mean "realigned' AKA shifted, to hide the abject failure of the models.

>>7057700
Where did I say that all varves were bad? The site specifically addresses varves used by Ljungqvist.

Seriously, you're so quick to use ad hominem, you're beyond inconsistent. Honestly, shouldn't you be hanging out with the SkS Boyz?

>>6694273

>And they're not very good at math either!

Did you even bother to do the SIMPLE math?
You know calculating slope*time to get the change in temperature as of now, 2014?

DO IT! The total change is 0.0753 degrees Celsius ADDED to the temperatures. That means that the graphed temperatures have been given a net positive amount. Meaning the temperature anomaly (and actual slope) is
COLDER that that depicted.

Your silly buddies over at Simpleton Science can't even calculate y = slope*x
What a joke!

>>6575622

SkS run by psychology graduate student John Cook is a spectacular dis-information campaign. Cook and Co. routinely distort, prevaricate and outright lie.

His biggest whopper is the whole 97% consensus crap which has been disproven:

>"Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis"

Richard Tol, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.045

>Abstract

>A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.