March 19, 2016

Dr. Tim Ball: Proof that computer climate models CAN'T work

Tim BallRebel Columnist
 

Before the advent of computers, meteorologists received data from regional weather stations and plotted a weather map.

The map consisted of creating lines called isobars that connected points of equal barometric pressure (Figure 1):

I know from personal experience from Air Force days that when these meteorologists gave a forecast, it was because they knew and understood patterns and achieved a reasonable accuracy. Forecast accuracy deteriorated after computer models produced the forecasts.

As recently as 2008 Tim Palmer, climate modeler at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading England said in New Scientist:

I don’t want to undermine the IPCC, but the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain.

None of this is surprising.There is inadequate data on which to build the models. Also, many of the mechanisms that create the weather are inadequately understood.

With global climate models, it is worse because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) leave out major mechanisms. They acknowledged one of the limitations in the Third Assessment Report (TAR) when they wrote:

In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

Nobody provided that quote at the recent Paris Climate Conference. They were all led to believe the long-term predictions were possible and accurate.


(Figure 2)

Figure 2 shows the basic theoretical structure of a global climate model.

It is not a model like a miniature replica of a car. It is a mathematical model with numbers and formulae representing data and mechanisms. They mathematically divide the world into a series of cubes based on the grid system of latitude and longitude with a vertical scale.

They claim that the smaller the grid system, the more accurate the model, but this is inaccurate because it doesn’t matter how small the grid is if the data is not available – and it isn’t.

Oceans cover 70 percent and land 30 percent of the Earth’s surface. There is essentially no weather data for approximately 85 percent of the globe.

Virtually none for the 70 percent that is an ocean and of the 30 percent land surface, there are very few stations for the 19 percent mountains, 20 percent deserts, 20 percent boreal forest, 20 percent grasslands and 6 percent tropical rain forest.

There is so little data that for many parts of the world they use a single station as representative of a 1200 km radius.

Figure 3 shows 1200 km radius circles drawn around Calgary and Toronto to illustrate the problem.


(Figure 3)

Surface data is completely inadequate, but it’s worse in the vertical, with no data in space and time.

Even the smallest grid size is so large that major weather systems such as thunderstorms and tornadoes cannot be included.

In addition, there are virtually no measures of atmospheric constituents such as water or dust particles.

The data for building computer climate models is inadequate and, therefore, the forecasts are always wrong.

To get the results they wanted they created the data and selected the mechanisms. As IPCC reviewer Dr. David Wojick explained:

“The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”

Professors Green and Armstrong note:

"We audited the forecasting processes described in Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report to assess the extent to which they complied with forecasting principles.”

“The forecasting procedures that were described violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. … The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing.

"Research on forecasting has shown that experts’ predictions are not useful."

However, there is one major reason they were able to fool most of the people. It relates to the unjustified adulation and lack of knowledge of the limitations of computers. Pierre Gallois explains.

If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out but tomfoolery.

But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled, and no-one dares criticize it.

Proof that it is tomfoolery comes from the fact that every single forecast the IPCC ever made was wrong.

They don’t advertise the failures. Instead, they attack and try to silence the few who do criticize.




 

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-03-21 13:15:53 -0400
“the reality of global warming supported by 97% of scientists worldwide. "

Now you are lying. There are some 10 million scientists in the world. Are you claiming that archaeologists, who have never seen anything about climate science, are all accepting of the myth?

No. The John Cook survey wasnt even of one climate scientist. It was a survey of a handful of abstracts. That’s why it was a flawed survey.

You cant even get your own side correct.
commented 2016-03-21 13:03:25 -0400
“Lad Reme commented 16 mins ago
MR KOKES.
You are sounding more and more like a Political Hot Air Balloon, with every comment.
View and inwardly digest the following”.

I never hung my hat on what Al Gore said. Like those from the anti-climate group, he is not an expert on global warming. In other words, he does not have the scholastic background nor the expertise to speak on the data. He likely spoke to some scientists but without knowing the jargon he misrepresented some facts. No biggie, the essence of his discussion regarding the reality of global warming supported by 97% of scientists worldwide. This should be the focus not what some layperson has said.
commented 2016-03-21 12:12:06 -0400
“this Georgia professor is branded a heretic”

So was Eldredge and Gould considered “heretics” when they published on Punctuated Equilibrium. Now they are considered visionaries since that process of evolution has been widely accepted.

Tuso Wilson was considered a “heritc” when he proposed the continents moved. We now call it plate tectonics.
commented 2016-03-21 12:07:54 -0400
Of course I know who Curry is. I read her blog.

KOKES, so by your criteria the only real climate scientists are the one’s who believe that humans cause the climate to change. Anyone, even those with the credentials, are not legitimate scientists because they question the dogma of human cause climate change? Those kinds of tactics belongs in the realm of religion, not science.

That’s like saying those biologists who accept Punctuated Equilibrium are not biologists because they question the assumption of gradualism in evolution.

Only in climate science does this effort exist to prevent anyone questioning their theories. That makes it a religion.

You wont answer this: Provide one science paper which shows the climate behaving abnormally.
commented 2016-03-21 11:52:42 -0400
“He believes climate change is also occurring on other planets.”

As has been observed on Mars and Jupiter. The fact is, the climate on earth has been changing for 4.5 billion years, or do you deny that Canada was covered with 2 km of ice some 14000 years ago?
commented 2016-03-21 11:51:40 -0400
“Richard Wakefield commented 2 mins ago
“It that a rhetorical question Richard? Of course it is. And all your links in support of the fraud of the 97% are bogus, with most citing the WhatsUpWithThat website which I have already pointed out have ulterior motives and won’t waste my time addressisng. "
Judith Curry is a climate scientist, one of the links on the fraud of the 97% explaining why it was a fraud. You clearly dont want to read it.
“However, I am interested with your comment that “WUWT won the best science blog award”. Please provide the link to this so called award keeping in mind the fool analogy. "
Wow, are you out of touch. Google: WUWT best science blog awards"

Couldn’t find the link, I didn’t think so. As for Judith Curry here are some links for you:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_art.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_quote.htm
http://desmogblog.com/judith-curry
Judith A. Curry is the chairman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and has held this position since 2002. Judith Curry writes and speaks prolifically on the climate change issue, and runs the blog Climate Etc.

Judith Curry has been invited by Republicans to testify at climate change hearings regarding alleged uncertainties regarding man-made climate change. She has also participated in a variety of blogs in the skeptical community including Climate Audit, the Air Vent and the Black-board.

Curry has been criticized by climate scientists for her climate outreach in the blogosphere based on assertions not necessarily supported by the evidence: particularly that the “climate always changes.”
Scientist Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder, points out that “Climate doesn’t change all by itself for no good reason. Something has to force it.” When she was questioned about potential conflicts of interest, this was her response to the Scientific American. Curry stated: “I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry".

For engaging with skeptics, and discussing uncertainties in projections frankly, this Georgia professor is branded a heretic
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.html
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/11/11/207018/judith-curry-climate-science/

Man, I am really crushing your belief system Richard. But I am done with you now so you can speak to my hand.
commented 2016-03-21 11:49:19 -0400
“Nice attempt to deflect from the truth. None of the links you posted have any credibility as they are associated with the anti-climate movement. And in your case Richard, ignorance is truly bliss.”

You clearly do NOT want them to be credible, but they are peer reviewed papers. No comment about the temperature data I see. Talk about ignorance is truly bliss. You dont even want to learn what is physically happening.
commented 2016-03-21 11:45:04 -0400
Published paper debunking the 97% claim:

Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change

David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
commented 2016-03-21 11:43:18 -0400
Richard Wakefield commented 24 mins ago
Richard Wakefield commented 16 mins ago
Richard Wakefield commented 13 mins ago
Richard Wakefield commented 5 mins ago

Nice attempt to deflect from the truth. None of the links you posted have any credibility as they are associated with the anti-climate movement. And in your case Richard, ignorance is truly bliss.
commented 2016-03-21 11:43:13 -0400
“It that a rhetorical question Richard? Of course it is. And all your links in support of the fraud of the 97% are bogus, with most citing the WhatsUpWithThat website which I have already pointed out have ulterior motives and won’t waste my time addressisng. "

Judith Curry is a climate scientist, one of the links on the fraud of the 97% explaining why it was a fraud. You clearly dont want to read it.

“However, I am interested with your comment that “WUWT won the best science blog award”. Please provide the link to this so called award keeping in mind the fool analogy. "

Wow, are you out of touch. Google: WUWT best science blog awards
commented 2016-03-21 11:37:00 -0400
“Lad Reme commented 9 hours ago
Mr. Kokes;

Al Gore admits that he was wrong. … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vapMyAvbsbg …What is your opinion about that"

No he does not. In the video, David Wilcock suggested he did but that’s not true. David Wilcock is a professional lecturer, filmmaker and researcher of ancient civilizations, consciousness science, and new paradigms of matter and energy.

His upcoming Hollywood film CONVERGENCE unveils the proof that all life on Earth is united in a field of consciousness, which affects our minds in fascinating ways. He believes climate change is also occurring on other planets. He also writes books on UFOs.

Wilcock has made some controversial claims, most notably that he might be the reincarnation of Edgar Cayce, who had died in 1945, some 28 years before his birth. In fact, all his claims are controversial. In other words he is an idiot. And if you believe him Lad, I have a bridge to sell you.
commented 2016-03-21 11:34:45 -0400
“My only mission in this is for people to take global warming serious. "

Why? Not one person can be shown to have died from human caused global warming. Yet how many people have died because of plate tectonic events? In the millions. So why are you not serious about moving humanity away from all active tectonic zones? Haiti alone lost 300,000 people from one earth quake event. Destroyed entire towns. Yet people are rebuilding in those same towns. If you are so concerned about the well being of future people, children and grand children, why are you not championing a cause to relocate those people off Haiti? Another quake is going to happen, somewhere and kill hundreds of thousands.

Yet you focus on a theory that has not shown one death. Not one bad event because of the theory.

Strange…
commented 2016-03-21 11:26:55 -0400
The consistent message received from a consensus of scientists around the world say this.
“Fifteen of the 16 hottest years on record have all been this century, with 2015 being significantly warmer than the record-level temperatures seen in 2014. Underlining the long-term trend, 2011-15 is the warmest five-year period on record.”

Point one: GOOD!!! Let that continue!

Point two: No evidence this has anything to do with our CO2.
commented 2016-03-21 11:23:19 -0400
“And above all, please don’t tell your children or grandchildren that there is no such thing as global warming. "

I’ll do as I please. What exactly is this warming? What is physically going on around the world? Are summers getting hotter?

No they are not. In fact, in North American summers are COOLING! That’s correct. I downloaded all of Environment Canada daily temperature data for every station they have. Now only about a dozen go back to 1900, like Station 4333 Ottawa. So I plotted yearly TMax. It’s been falling since 1920s. That means summers have cooled. The number of heat wave days has also dropped in Canada.

But the average temperature has been rising. How can that be? Because winter TMin is increasing. That is, winters are getting less cold faster than summer have been getting cooler.

In the period from 1900-1920 Canada had short hot summers with long deep cold winters. But today we have longer more moderated summer temps, with shorter milder winters.

If that trend continues, which I doubt it will because everything in the climate is cycles, then I can tell my grandchildren they will have a very comfortable future with lower energy bills to keep warm, and keep cool, and also enjoy a longer growing season.

None of that change in temps can be empirically linked to CO2 emissions. Cycles happen, and they change the direction the climate goes in:
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/aatsonis/www/publications/2007-07_Tsonis-AA_Anewdynamicalmechanismformajorclimateshifts-2.pdf
commented 2016-03-21 11:14:57 -0400
“Show me one true green organization in which Exxon donates to? "

You dont know how to use the internet? Exxon has invested in green technologies in the hundreds of millions. For example, this one that failed:
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Biofuels/Exxons-100m-Algae-Investment-Falls-Flat.html

“This was a creditable study…”
But according to you because CO2science.org at one time got a small donation from Exxon nothing they post is credible. THAT’S THE POINT!

Here is one of your links of “empirical” data, which it is not. It’s PROXY data, which is not empirical, but that is besides the point:

“Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3 deg-C for doubled CO2”

Yet we have this paper:

Loehle, C., 2014. A minimal model for estimating climate sensitivity. Ecological Modelling, 276, 80-84.

Which puts the sensitivity at half that. And this one is even lower:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-014-2342-y

and

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n5/full/nclimate2219.html

By empirical I mean experiments. That is, go back in time, take humans off the planet, and see what the climate would have done without us. Those kinds of empirical experiments cannot be done. Hence, there is no way anyone can claim that the climate is doing anything abnormal.

For example: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
commented 2016-03-21 11:12:22 -0400
“darryl john commented 3 hours ago”

I have similar frustration in this as you do Darryl. Like I said earlier, I do not agree with a carbon tax. I also don’t agree with studies for the sake of studies. There needs to be an overseer to ensure studies are geared towards obtaining new information as opposed to regurgitation stuff we already know. And yes, I also agree that we are so focused on climate change that environmental issues in our backyard do not get the attention they deserve. It was extremely hypocritical and irresponsible for the Fed Government to allow Montreal to dump 8m litres of raw sewage into the St Lawrence.

And I am attempting to get involved both personally and politically. But firstly, we must dispel the myths about global warming. That it is very real phenomenon requiring practical solutions. The Paris Climate Change talks reduced funding towards adaptive management which bothers me considerably. In my mind, it’s a step backwards as so much more scientist information can be gleaned on studying adaptive management approaches. Also much of the money will be spent on administration. Having said that, that’s the beast we have and all we can do is voice our concerns to our government who in turn will represent those concerns to the UN. But we are at a complete standstill if some think global warming is not real. The intellectual segment of society will not buy into this argument. It’s not logical nor based on any real science.

I know I have been arguing with a few in here and I believe I have done a fairly good job at presenting the facts. I just ask those disbelievers to think outside the box and look around to the events that are happening around the world. And above all, please don’t tell your children or grandchildren that there is no such thing as global warming. Most know better and you’ll lose respect in the process.
commented 2016-03-21 10:58:57 -0400
“Paul McCullough commented 10 hours ago
The man made global cooling / warming / climate change farce has been going on far too long now. We’ve seen doomsday predictions pass by & then be repeated with a new date attached, which then passes by & is recycled again. We’ve seen “warmest year on record” nonsense which is always based on questionable surface based data while satellite data (which shows no warming for almost 2 decades now) is ignored.”

The satellite data you speak of was manipulated by the anti-climate folks and more importantly, address years prior to this century.

The consistent message received from a consensus of scientists around the world say this.
“Fifteen of the 16 hottest years on record have all been this century, with 2015 being significantly warmer than the record-level temperatures seen in 2014. Underlining the long-term trend, 2011-15 is the warmest five-year period on record.”

I ask you to look at the table half way done the page and then read the information from the NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513
The table lists the global combined land and ocean annually-averaged temperature rank and anomaly for each of the 16 (two tied at #15) warmest years on record. Last 15 years have been the hottest. Much of the record warmth for the globe can be attributed to record warmth in the global oceans.

Compare that information with that presented by the World Meteorological Organization:
https://www.wmo.int/media/content/2015-hottest-year-record

Now compare the previous information sources to what NASA is saying:
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015 And I quote, “Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Last year was the first time the global average temperatures were 1 degree Celsius or more above the 1880-1899 average.”

Finally, take a few minutes to watch this video made by NASA that really puts everything into perspective: Earth’s Long-Term Warming Trend, 1880-2015
https://youtu.be/gGOzHVUQCw0

If you open your eyes to this and look at the information objectively, you will come to the same alarming conclusion I have.
commented 2016-03-21 10:47:29 -0400
LIZA ROSIE well said liza
commented 2016-03-21 10:24:37 -0400
If you don’t believe that man has much significant influence over the effects of climate change then you are branded a denier. If we say, we don’t believe what you say makes sense anymore, because there is evidence to the contrary, we are told we don’t have the qualifications to even question the ‘professionals’, and how dare we.
We are preached to by condescending environmental cultists who dictate what they have decided is the only truth. There is ample evidence that much of what they are saying can and should be questioned. We are told we have to accept it. We have to take the measures they dictate to us, whether they make sense or not. We are being bullied to go along with political agenda which makes no sense, and told not to question it.
Its starting to fall apart. People are starting to say, hey wait a minute, this is something to change our whole way of life over? There are beginning to be clear winners and losers. and the little guy on the globe trying to survive will be the loser. If nothing else its good that these morally vain pontificators realize just how many people (and growing) aren’t buying what they are selling anymore.
Swallowing those theories without question is for sheep.
commented 2016-03-21 07:43:46 -0400
MR. KOKES commented 17 hours ago
Nasa has the list and maintains it Darryl. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
That is still not an answer just another 97% agree, , Just more of the same. Seems to me there is no list just people saying 97% agree, how do they know, the list seems to be there own hand picked people, numbers moved so more tax money can be funneled into more endless studies. Some of us taxpayers are tired of this game. We would like to see more than words, and YET MORE ENDLESS STUDIES. Carbon taxes DO NOTHING TO HELP THE ENVIRONMENT ZERO, lists DO NOTHING TO HELP THE ENVIRONMENT ZERO, high taxes the same thing, When will this movement GET OFF THERE ASSES and do something. Stop POLLUTION STOP AS IN MONTREALS CASE DUMPING BILLIONS OF LITRES OF SEWAGE INTO RIVERS, VICTORIA IS NO BETTER. All you offer is 1%ers telling the rest of us we need to pay more taxes so you can fund more studies, it is an endless cycle of grabbing our money for yet more studies. You offer no solutions that are useful. Windmills and solar panels nope, know alot about power production and solar , it will never power cities ever, Take a page out of DR DAVID MOORES BOOK GET INVOLVED AND DO SOMETHING POSITIVE BESIDES MORE ENDLESS STUDIES AND TAXES. He is someone who should be listened to, the rest well, to much crying wolf people are sick and tired of it all. Not to mention david suzuki he is a complete IDIOT living a 1%er lifestyle while telling the rest of us to live small. Politicans and celebrities attacking alberta oil all the while the tankers of middle eastern oil are running down the st lawrence sea way, Nothing said no one holding these countries acountable NO ONE, Green jobs is a big thing we always hear about, WELL WHAT ARE THEY SPECIFICALLY WHAT ARE THEY WHERE DO YOU TRAIN FOR THEM HOW MUCH DO THEY PAY, no answers ever just buzz words and feel good slogans, endless BS,
commented 2016-03-21 06:13:33 -0400
Wow. Have some more faith in math. We can compensate for these 85% of missing information.
commented 2016-03-21 00:41:54 -0400
The man made global cooling / warming / climate change farce has been going on far too long now. We’ve seen doomsday predictions pass by & then be repeated with a new date attached, which then passes by & is recycled again. We’ve seen “warmest year on record” nonsense which is always based on questionable surface based data while satellite data (which shows no warming for almost 2 decades now) is ignored. We’ve seen climate cultists blame anyone that questions their idiocy of being in the back pocket of big oil while turning a blind eye to the hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money being thrown at this pseudoscience & the non-solutions to nonexistent problems (along with the government corruption & cronyism.) We’ve seen phoney consensus surveys which, when examined, show almost no support for the position of the IPCC (usually lumping every scientist with an opinion on anthropogenic global warming together to cast an illusion of a consensus.)

Climate cultists are far more concerned with shutting up skeptics than they are with actual science. The high priests of the climate cult (like David Suzuki, Al Gore, pretty much everyone that went to the IPCC circus in Paris, etc.) don’t walk the walk when it comes to this pseudoscience. Their followers must maintain their blind, cult-like faith in order to ignore that & accept & preach the BS they’re being fed.
commented 2016-03-20 22:50:36 -0400
Thou protest too much Bill. I don’t fall prey too much, certainly not from the anti-climate establishment. And you should look through this thread and others before suggesting folks around here are not saying humans have no effect on climate. Hell, I’ve been inundated with such rhetoric.

Your statement that “Anthropogenic climate change is NOT professional, if not political, is highly suspect from a professional discipline perspective” is you saying the same thing you suggest others have not. You should just listen to your incredulous self and tell me otherwise. You do spin a fine web of deceit Mr. Elder, I’ll give you that. But tell me, which professional discipline do you speak from? Cause from my perspective, only a layperson would entertain such thoughts.

And to suggest that it’s blown out of proportion, all for money and power, when the empirical evidence states otherwise is only shortsightedness on your part. Conversely, it is the anti-climate folks that are in this for the money. One only has to look at the donations they get and from where.

Despite your implied suspicious, I don’t have a horse in the race. It is with sound reason that brings me into this debate and my moral obligation to set the record straight. I have sat on the sidelines far too long while this debate raged onward, not only on this site but others as well. Yes, some scientists may try to exaggerate the facts but that is what a peer-review is for. It serves as a measure of reliability and credibility within the scientific community. And I have yet to see a peer review coming from the anti-climate bunch who exaggerates the findings, misleads the public and suggests all is well. They only review themselves and pat each other on that back, put up a multitude of propaganda websites, and share in the wealth from the sponsored fossil fuel industry.

To be honest, when Gore first came out on global warming, I was skeptical as well. I figured he was talking way too much into the future. But from what I have seen since he came out and what is happening now, I fear events are happening much faster than anticipated. Weather patterns have been affected more severely of late and if we don’t have a cool year in the next few, which have been the hottest in recorded history, than my fear is compounded. The West Nile disease will pale in comparison to the advent of the Zika virus, which has been linked to global warming as well. So you see, this is more than just about the climate Bill, this is about every biotic species that can be effected by it. Listen to the news and judge for yourself. The erratic climate behaviour world wide, ocean species washing unto shore, honey bees disappearing, neo-tropical birds at all time lows, and the list goes on.

My only mission in this is for people to take global warming serious. To make people aware that corporate interests play a large role in promoting misconceptions. You may be surprised to learn that I do not agree with the carbon tax on citizens as industry should pay since they have benefited from the use of the land and should be responsible to keep it as pristine as possible. I do not agree with many of the actions coming out from the Paris climate talks either. The bureaucracy of it all will eat up most of the well-intended monies. However, I do worry when governments finally act as they have. And I do agree that we need economic viability but not at the cost of our children’s children. We need to seek a balance so we can prosper in good health.
commented 2016-03-20 22:48:15 -0400
I guess Mr. Ball’s days in the Air Force must have been 60+ years ago before the advent of weather satellites.
commented 2016-03-20 21:06:27 -0400
Mr Kokes is living testament to the faith based cultic momentum of bad science and unethical exploitaition of unsubstantiated conclusion;

There are millions like him, those aware and intelligent people who fall prey to the deadly combination of fear mongering, political partisanism and appeal to moral superiority which climate alarmism propagates.

Kokes, I’m not here to get into some pissing match with you over spurious data sources and cult like faith in non issues, all I will say is that as a degreed professional with mandatory ethical and procedural procedure binding me to a societal code, most of the shoddy work presented on so called Anthropogenic climate change is NOT professional and, if not political, is highly suspect from a professional discipline perspective.

That said, no one you are wildly flailing at here is saying climate doesn’t change, they aren’t even saying that humans have no effect on climate/environment, they ARE saying that this impact is overstated and being wildly blown out of proportion in relation to the hierarchy of impact vectors on climate – it’s done on purpose and it’s done for capital and political gain – and once money and power are introduced into a scientific hypothesis, scientific method goes out the window. If you can’t admit to that, you are an unwitting climate cultist and have abandoned reason for mob think.
commented 2016-03-20 20:51:12 -0400
Somebody forgot to mention Suzuki and Gore and all the "peer reviewed " papers that they have produced in the name of the climate scam. Although they might be great model builders……….. Lmao
commented 2016-03-20 19:07:16 -0400
“liza Rosie commented 1 hour ago
My apologies, Kokes, it should have read F.O. I find that with certain obnoxious types the occasion does arrive when you have to tell them to”.

I’m thinking that hostility is the first sign of sexual frustration.