Yet more proof.

[Nick]

If we ignore night time we might have this scenario.

If its cloudy in the morning the temperature is 15 degrees from 8am until 11am, the clouds burn off and its then 27 degrees from midday until 8pm. According to you the average temperature is (15+27)/2 is 21 degrees using max and min. The mean is 21.75, but the median and mode are both 27 degrees. So your min max has already produced a 0.75 degree error over the mean average and that's before we even add into it the fact that the person taking a reading from a column of mercury might not have been particularly diligent or understood what parallax angle was.

And just to add another ingredient to the mix, Sunspot cycles. When Sunspot cycles increase we get less cloud cover and therefore increased temperature, as per the below graph. If you look at the volume under the graph you will see that since the 1900's we have had a large increase in Sunspots. And bless my cotton socks if we don't see an increase in temperature and CO2.

So we have orbital variations, we have Sunspots, and potentially something that happened 800 years that warmed the oceans. Add to that the fact that the earth is now covered in Concrete that retains heat, errors in readings from 100 years ago and you are telling us that that a 1 degree MEASURED increase in temperature is down to human activity? Until about 20 years ago the Met Office couldn't get the weather right for the next day and we are supposed to believe a climate model that has massive flaws in it?

It's like trying to converse with some kind of cult!!

This. 

[Scott777]

And many more climate PHDs working at NASA that agree with "my" science.

Why should we weight the few voices over the many voices?

I guess science is not your strong point.  The scientific process is not a democracy.  If only 1 disagreed, you look at both arguments.  You don't just go with the majority.

[Scott777]

In 2001, scientific American managed to contact 21 randomly selected names and only 11 said they would sign again.

I wonder how many were frightened of losing a job.

[Scott777]

Nick, that anyone still thinks man is not factor in climate change has their head stuck up their backside. 

Which man did it?  😁  I'm only joking.  You're justification is so powerful, I cannot argue it.  🤣

[Nick]

And many more climate PHDs working at NASA that agree with "my" science.

Why should we weight the few voices over the many voices?

John Christy

https://youtu.be/ULpGDnuz308?s

[BeElBeeBub]

Well as I've listed before there are climate PHD's working for NASA that disagree with your science.

And many more climate PHDs working at NASA that agree with "my" science.

Why should we weight the few voices over the many voices?

Edit: which NASA climate scientists? - it seems that, if you are going to play the "they work at NASA" to give them weight, we probably do need to know who they are. A NASA chief of climate science is has more reputation than a NASA propulsion scientist or NASA rocket control system scientist.

[BeElBeeBub]

And can we bottom this out?

Why can Nick assert O3 can drive temperatures whilst CO2 doesn't?

Why can Nick claim that CO2 leading temperature conclusively never happened because they don't appear in his records but also claim that sharp temperature  rises could have happened despite them not appearing in the same records.




 

[Nick]

Except there is no mechanism for retracting.

How many of those that signed 10 or 15 years ago (and actually existed, see Dr Halliwell) still would sign?

Luckily we have a vague idea.

In 2001, scientific American managed to contact 21 randomly selected names and only 11 said they would sign again.

Well as I've listed before there are climate PHD's working for NASA that disagree with your science. 

[BeElBeeBub]

I see you don't respond to the graph showing sunspot cycles that perfectly follow CO2 and Temperature. I believe Piers Corbyn did an article on this.

Honestly, I missed it with all the fuckery about steel beams.

Post it again - but aren't your always shouting "correlation doesn't equal causation" when graphs of co2 and temperature are put up?

[BeElBeeBub]

9000 PHD scientists, can you show me another example of science where so many very intelligent scientists disagree? 

Is a PHD in metallurgy relevent? Zoology?

Why is your "9,000 scientists" strong evidence when "99%+ of climate scientists agree with AGW" can just be dismissed?

[BeElBeeBub]

. The fact is that the petition started then, it's been gaining numbers ever since so is very much pertinent.

Except there is no mechanism for retracting.

How many of those that signed 10 or 15 years ago (and actually existed, see Dr Halliwell) still would sign?

Luckily we have a vague idea.

In 2001, scientific American managed to contact 21 randomly selected names and only 11 said they would sign again.
 

[Nick]

A telegraph article from 2008 about a petition from 1998,

The names and qualifications were unverified and *even if* every single name and qualification were true (Dr Geri Halliwell was a signatory) the list contains less than 500 people claiming to have a relevant qualification (climatology, atmospheric science and meteorology)

The meteorologists (the bulk of the 500) are out outnumbered by the Metallurgists.

9000 PHD scientists, can you show me another example of science where so many very intelligent scientists disagree? I see you don't respond to the graph showing sunspot cycles that perfectly follow CO2 and Temperature. I believe Piers Corbyn did an article on this. 

[Nick]

Nick, that anyone still thinks man is not factor in climate change has their head stuck up their backside. That is why I have not commented until now. I have let you carry on digging an even bigger hole for yourself.

Absolute nonsense, it's cause you can't formulate a meaningful counter argument. You have 5 stock arguments and if one doesn't go you just go missing.

[papasmurf]

I see you've been quiet whilst actual debates have been happening, a bit too many words passing back and forth. You just pop up when you THINK you can score an easy point. The fact is that the petition started then, it's been gaining numbers ever since so is very much pertinent.

Nick, that anyone still thinks man is not factor in climate change has their head stuck up their backside. That is why I have not commented until now. I have let you carry on digging an even bigger hole for yourself.

[Nick]

Look at the date.

I see you've been quiet whilst actual debates have been happening, a bit too many words passing back and forth. You just pop up when you THINK you can score an easy point. The fact is that the petition started then, it's been gaining numbers ever since so is very much pertinent.