Well, that didn't take long...
You source is one kook with a PhD in electrical engineering writing blog posts on a website dedicated to free-market economics. ie. paid for by the corporations who stand to lose from global warming. Remember, you just have to follow the money.
Of course Evan's claims do appear to be full of shit as explained . Only a fool would seriously present one debunked electrical engineer versus the established scientific consensus on climate change.
You know why I'm not a shill? Because pretty much nobody pays environmentalists to promote the truth and try to preserve the environment. You on the other hand really stink like a shill and, unlike my side, there are plenty of massive evil corporations ready to give assholes like you money.
What else do you have? I think nobody takes you cunts seriously anymore after you kept claiming that global warming had ended.. .
>Evan's claims do appear to be full of shit as explained here. Only a fool would seriously present one debunked electrical engineer versus the established scientific consensus on climate change.
Your link: Posted on 15 April 2011 by dana1981... dana1981
If my link is bad because it is written by someone with a PHD in electrical engineering, what does that make your article when the author doesn't even use their real name, let alone credentials. And you neglected to mention that Evans "consulted full time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products." He knows his shit.
Now stop side tracking the argument with pissing contests over sources, and get back to the point.
Do you agree or disagree that the data I presented to you and is correct. Can we at least establish that much?
Your link: Posted on 15 April 2011 by dana1981... dana1981
Regarding climate sensitivity, all dana1981 did was point out the numerous studies by other authors, summarised by the IPCC, that show that Evans is lying. (Try reading what was written).
Evans is completely alone in his crazy claims, which is why nobody knows or cares who he is. My the way, Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental consultant with a PhD in astrophysics from Berkely.
So are you conceding that Evans' climate sensitivity claims are completely stupid and fully debunked?
Do you agree or disagree that the data I presented to you here and here is correct. Can we at least establish that much?
No shill. So your entire argument still rests on one lying electrical engineer?
Hansen's predictions are discussed in my link above and more fully . They were remarkably good. This strategy of trying to discredit the entire body of global warming theory by picking tiny holes in the future predictions of a scientist clearly isn't going anywhere.
Our knowledge of the future is always probabilistic, based on our best current knowledge. On a much shorter time scale weather prediction is often wrong, but we don't go trashing the entire science of meteorology, unless we're pieces of shit paid by a coal company.
Follow the money!!
all dana1981 did was point out the numerous studies by other authors
And all Evans did was plot the predicted data from said studies against real life data.
You're STILL arguing sources. Fuck that shit. I'm going to straight to the raw data.
Do you agree or disagree that the data I presented to you here and here is correct. Can we at least establish that much?
No shill...
OK, fine, I accept that. Now lets narrow it down. Starting with this: https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/full_width/s3/evans_figure3.png?itok=Z7e6_uZu
Which part is wrong? Hansen's 1988 predictions, or subsequent reality from NASA satellites. No more back tracking and attacking the person who collated the information, lets go straight to the data itself, that you said is WRONG.
(post is archived)