NC State Global Warming Professor accused of "recklessly falsified work"

[jem]

Actually Fraudcurrents the difference is that NASA recently stated CO2 is a very efficient coolant in our atmosphere and that it acts a thermostat. In other words it acts as a negative feedback mechanism in our atmosphere. That is real science from the real science team at NASA.... not the climate whores at climate.nasa... which recently got rid of Hansen.

Remember only 41 out 14000 papers support the consensus and out of those the ones I could find all used models which have now failed.

 

[futurecurrents]

Actually Fraudcurrents the difference is that NASA recently stated CO2 is a very efficient coolant in our atmosphere and that it acts a thermostat. In other words it acts as a negative feedback mechanism in our atmosphere. That is real science from the real science team at NASA.... not the climate whores at climate.nasa... which recently got rid of Hansen.

Remember only 41 out 14000 papers support the consensus and out of those the ones I could find all used models which have now failed.

Don't you know we are laughing you? You're like the crazy street person yelling about the alien conspiracy.

 

[jem]

I cite science,

you argue the earth is still flat because Obama Pelosi and Reid want you to think its flat so they can't tax the shit out of you under the theory they have to prevent you from falling off the sides.


Here is the science.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.
“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”

Don't you know we are laughing you? You're like the crazy street person yelling about the alien conspiracy.

 

[Ricter]

I cite science,

you argue the earth is still flat because Obama Pelosi and Reid want you to think its flat so they can't tax the shit out of you under the theory they have to prevent you from falling off the sides.


Here is the science.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.
“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”

This does not mean that, on net, more energy is not now being "trapped" within the atmosphere than is being released.

 

[stu]

Stu, your criticism of me is valid, and it is well that you pointed out that I have mostly ignored what are fairly obvious errors of the "doubters". (I think, "doubter" is a much better word then "denier" to describe those not sure if anthropomorphic CO2 is causing a significant problem with climate, so thank you for using "doubter" rather than "denier".

This wouldn't be nearly so serious a problem if there were not so much at stake. We must understand the science better before the law making phase. It is very difficult to undo mistakes codified in statutory law.

Thank you piezo, and I appreciate your civility.
I just do not accept that doubts like the ones you raise are in any way substantial or substantiated. This whole GW debate does remind me of the Evolution one, where those who simply don't believe or more precisely don't want to believe evolution is real, would pick one aspect apart to make any kind of non-concrete contention, then from that ridiculous position, denounce the whole established Evolutionary process as invalid. As if all known science, knowledge and understanding just disappears because of an assertion, no matter its own validity. I suggest that's what's happening in GW, only very much more so.

The serious problem is being described in science. There will be mistakes in there and there will be those areas for those to pick apart and then not follow through (like Salby et al). But that on its own in no way nullifies all the grounded fundamental base of scientifically supported evidence , as the likes of Peterson would assert for example. That anthropic CO2 GHG will cause significant changes in climate and ecosystems is not going to be thrown over in that way. For one thing, there is too much classical science supporting consensus.

The policy making is a separate thing altogether. Lawmaking on specific situations is shaky enough. But to reflect a projected risk is very rocky territory indeed though an entirely separate issue as you have previously pointed out. However it can produce great opportunities as well as downsides.
I respect the position of doubter. Doubter is good. All good scientists doubt but don't throw out babies in bathwater because of it. Doubt has served already to verify and confirm and strengthen all of science including the science which comes to confirm AGW (and evolution) and there is no reason why it won’t continue to do so.

 

[jem]

It is much like the evolution debate we have had. You have been spouting bullshit about you having proof of life evolving from non life... yet you never produced it.
Now you pretend our debate was about something else. Few of us doubt humans have evolved over time to some degree. We don't doubt life evolved once it was formed. However, there is no proof life evolved from non life here on earth.

I had to teach you that at the time the top scientists in the field still did not even have a complete plausible pathway from non life to life.
That is the main difference... some of us wait for science while leftist trolls like you and fraudcurrents try to take a belief and pretend it is fact.

So now you have 2 challenges for your leftist brain. They both involve being truthful.

1. admit science has no proof showing man made co2 is on net warming the earth.
2. admit that science does no have proof life evolved from non life here on earth.

Thank you piezo, and I appreciate your civility.
I just do not accept that doubts like the ones you raise are in any way substantial or substantiated. This whole GW debate does remind me of the Evolution one, where those who simply don't believe or more precisely don't want to believe evolution is real, would pick one aspect apart to make any kind of non-concrete contention, then from that ridiculous position, denounce the whole established Evolutionary process as invalid. As if all the known science, knowledge and understanding just disappears because of an assertion, no matter its own validity. I suggest that's what's happening in GW, only very much more so.

The serious problem is being described in science. There will be mistakes in there and there will be those areas for those to pick apart and then not follow through (like Salby et al). But that on its own in no way nullifies all the grounded fundamental base of scientifically supported evidence as it is asserted via the likes of Peterson for example. That anthropic CO2 GHG will cause significant changes in climate and ecosystems is not going to be thrown over by that. For one thing, there is too much classical science to support the consensus.

The policy making is a separate thing altogether. Lawmaking on specific situations is shaky enough. But to reflect a projected risk is very rocky territory indeed though an entirely separate issue as you have previously pointed out. However it can produce great opportunities as well as downsides.
I respect the position of doubter. Doubter is good. All good scientists doubt but don't throw out babies in bathwater because it. Doubt has served already to verify and confirm and strengthen all of science including the science which comes to confirm AGW (and evolution) and there is no reason why it won’t continue to do so.

 

[jem]

that is the point science does not know if adding more co2 is net warming or cooling right now.

its is a complicated system... made even more complicated by the fact water vapor is a bigger factor and we don't even know what the clouds are doing on net. And we speculate co2 makes more clouds.

There was an article today about Noctilucent clouds increasing... probably because the upper atmosphere has gotten very cold.

Are these clouds a negative feedback because of the low solar activity or a positive feedback... we don't know...

Science... just does not know enough about our system yet.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/...ncrease-climate-change-will-likely-be-blamed/

This does not mean that, on net, more energy is not now being "trapped" within the atmosphere than is being released.

 

[stu]

You're too angry Jem and comparatively recently have developed yourself into a fully fledged irrational troll. You teach me...yeah sure, well here's something I'll teach you. Evolution is not about the origins of life. I'm not going to waste time on you. Once you learn the basics, get back to me.

It is much like the evolution debate we have had. You have been spouting bullshit about you having proof of life evolving from non life... yet you never produced it.
Now you pretend our debate was about something else.

Few of us doubt humans have evolved over time to some degree. We don't doubt life evolved once it was formed. However, there is no proof life evolved from non life here on earth.

I had to teach you that at the time the top scientists in the field still did not even have a complete plausible pathway from non life to life.

That is the main difference... some of us wait for science while leftist trolls like you and fraudcurrents try to take a belief and pretend it is fact.

So now you have 2 challenges for your leftist brain. They both involve being truthful.

1. admit science has no proof showing man made co2 is on net warming the earth.
2. admit that science does no have proof life evolved from non life here on earth.

 

[futurecurrents]

Thank you piezo, and I appreciate your civility.
I just do not accept that doubts like the ones you raise are in any way substantial or substantiated. This whole GW debate does remind me of the Evolution one, where those who simply don't believe or more precisely don't want to believe evolution is real, would pick one aspect apart to make any kind of non-concrete contention, then from that ridiculous position, denounce the whole established Evolutionary process as invalid. As if all known science, knowledge and understanding just disappears because of an assertion, no matter its own validity. I suggest that's what's happening in GW, only very much more so.

The serious problem is being described in science. There will be mistakes in there and there will be those areas for those to pick apart and then not follow through (like Salby et al). But that on its own in no way nullifies all the grounded fundamental base of scientifically supported evidence , as the likes of Peterson would assert for example. That anthropic CO2 GHG will cause significant changes in climate and ecosystems is not going to be thrown over in that way. For one thing, there is too much classical science supporting consensus.

The policy making is a separate thing altogether. Lawmaking on specific situations is shaky enough. But to reflect a projected risk is very rocky territory indeed though an entirely separate issue as you have previously pointed out. However it can produce great opportunities as well as downsides.
I respect the position of doubter. Doubter is good. All good scientists doubt but don't throw out babies in bathwater because of it. Doubt has served already to verify and confirm and strengthen all of science including the science which comes to confirm AGW (and evolution) and there is no reason why it won’t continue to do so.

Bravo, great post stu. I particularly like this, which describes their "arguments" to a T.

pick one aspect apart to make any kind of non-concrete contention, then from that ridiculous position, denounce the whole established Evolutionary process

 

[futurecurrents]

science has no proof showing man made co2 is on net warming the earth.


That's true.