tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673758362916429937.post831859745637153941..comments2024-03-22T20:18:45.865+11:00Comments on Jack Lacton: Announcing the death of Climate Science as we know itJack Lactonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07297939283546740918noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673758362916429937.post-34432144048100787192008-08-08T09:07:00.000+10:002008-08-08T09:07:00.000+10:00Krumhorn - the flaws in the two studies you quote ...Krumhorn - the flaws in the two studies you quote have been quite comprehensively discussed. What I was asking for was not links to any old random study on any old random subject, but studies which backed the claims you made in your previous posts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673758362916429937.post-7942725053535876232008-08-05T05:37:00.000+10:002008-08-05T05:37:00.000+10:00I gave you two links. One to the Harvard-Smithson...I gave you two links. One to the Harvard-Smithsonian survey and the other was a link to the Loehle study. Both made clear that a 2000 year examination shows that the MWP....over 1000 years ago...... was warmer than today.<BR/><BR/>Don't let contray science shake your convictions. What you <I>buh-ieve</I> is apparently far more important than what you <I>know</I>.<BR/><BR/>--Krumhorn<BR/><BR/>.........................Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673758362916429937.post-47672253920561054772008-08-04T23:50:00.000+10:002008-08-04T23:50:00.000+10:00'Krumhorn' - links to studies? Funny how you and ...'Krumhorn' - links to studies? Funny how you and Lacton seem to find the concept of linking to papers so difficult to grasp.<BR/><BR/>ellen k - try not to confuse the US with the world. They're really very different. The statement <I>Drought, famine, pestilence. weather and growth are all cyclical in nature</I> is entirely false.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673758362916429937.post-52876215961158978112008-08-04T04:24:00.000+10:002008-08-04T04:24:00.000+10:00Would someone care to explain the Dust Bowl of the...Would someone care to explain the Dust Bowl of the 1930's to me? This occurred in a then largely undeveloped section of the U.S. Yet it wiped out crops. Today it's 107 in Dallas and people are claiming in serious tones "when was the last time that happened." The answer is it happened in 1980, and 1956, and 1930's. Drought, famine, pestilence. weather and growth are all cyclical in nature. So we are in a warming period. So what? We can't change it and the draconian measures deemed worthy by the world's new religious zealots are have about as much to do with science as alchemy.Ellen Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02845981491726296767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673758362916429937.post-15059599148251658452008-08-04T03:19:00.000+10:002008-08-04T03:19:00.000+10:00I believe that it was Dr. Evans' point that if you...I believe that it was Dr. Evans' point that if you believe this wind-shear-thumb-on-the-scales-with-idiotic-fudge-factors nonsense....you'll believe just about anything.<BR/><BR/>That would be a Luddite. Jack doesn't need me to speak for him since he can more than handle your plump loopy lib rump, but while the Luddites were busy breaking looms trying to keep people enslaved, the Lactons were trying to free people from the tyranny of agenda-driven zealots like you warming co-religionists.<BR/><BR/>How about just taking measurements of temperature at various altitudes and see what you find?<BR/><BR/>The answer to that would be...nuthin'.<BR/><BR/>--Krumhorn<BR/><BR/>................<BR/><BR/>...........Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673758362916429937.post-66376079819946022182008-08-03T17:50:00.000+10:002008-08-03T17:50:00.000+10:00Key prediction? Not really. Just one of many. A...Key prediction? Not really. Just one of many. And despite your yapping, one that is <A HREF="http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/sondeanal.pdf" REL="nofollow">confirmed by observations</A>. Even if it was not confirmed by observations, it would be idiotic in the extreme to declare that <I>climate science is shown to be false</I>. To do that you'd have to be a retarded anti-intellectual Luddite. And that's exactly what lacton is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673758362916429937.post-56173899256085052842008-08-03T14:17:00.000+10:002008-08-03T14:17:00.000+10:00Aren't you the perfect sophist idiot?The hotspot i...Aren't you the perfect sophist idiot?<BR/><BR/>The hotspot is a key prediction of the alarmists' models that also predict the inundation of Naples, FL as well as broiling heat. Not having found the hotspot, the models are obviously fatally flawed as is the basic CO2 forcing theory.<BR/><BR/>However, the so-called Big Bang theory didn't make predictions about the velocity or acceleration, but rather focused on how it all started. This was a key prediction of General Relativity that even Einstein failed to grasp until Hubble showed up with evidence of deeply red-shifted galaxies that demonstrated the expansion of the universe....also predicted by General Relativity.<BR/><BR/>It wasn't until later when mass calculations and evidence of acceleration that dark matter and dark energy theories emerged....also supported by General Relativity.<BR/><BR/>But the Big Bang theory made no such predictions. The most that can be said is that they made assumptions about velocity as a means of establishing event horizons. However, the discernment of acceleration didn't alter the Standard Big Bang theory. At the most, it altered certain of the implications such as the age of the universe, the temperature of space and dark energy features. And it's not even clear that those predictions have changed.<BR/><BR/>The global warming hoax is disintegrating and you are going down with the ship of fools.<BR/><BR/>--KrumhornAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673758362916429937.post-52848491082897487532008-08-02T10:38:00.000+10:002008-08-02T10:38:00.000+10:00Right, well, the big bang theory did not predict t...Right, well, the big bang theory did not predict that the expansion of the universe was accelerating. Therefore, there was no big bang. Correct?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673758362916429937.post-40982640485419885442008-08-02T07:56:00.000+10:002008-08-02T07:56:00.000+10:00Fudgie,It's not that hard...If there were a millio...Fudgie,<BR/><BR/>It's not that hard...<BR/><BR/>If there were a million correct observations and one shown to be false then the theory is invalidated.Jack Lactonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07297939283546740918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673758362916429937.post-78945399220300744102008-08-02T05:04:00.000+10:002008-08-02T05:04:00.000+10:00Finally! Some climate warming apostle is discussi...Finally! Some climate warming apostle is discussing this within the framework of scientific <I>theory</I> rather than "settled science...the debate is over".<BR/><BR/>I have said frequently that I do not know that there is not an unnatural warming event taking place. But I know to a certainty that the alarmists do not know that there is.<BR/><BR/>I see no reason for us to up-end our economies in response to some fruity, substantially flawed <I>theory</I>, and, in the process, grant command and control powers to international socialists.<BR/><BR/>Let's keep straight who the advocates of this fraud are.<BR/><BR/>--KrumhornAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673758362916429937.post-91679505088447922392008-08-02T00:55:00.000+10:002008-08-02T00:55:00.000+10:00Yeah, but there isn't even one falsification here....Yeah, but there isn't even one falsification here. And even if observations were inconsistent with one prediction of climate models, that would not mean that the entire science of climate studies was 'false'.<BR/><BR/>Imagine there was a theory which actually made a million predictions which had been verified, and one which observations contradicted. Generally speaking, would you say that theory must therefore contain nothing of value, and must be scrapped in its entirety, or would you say that much of the theory was likely to be correct, with some minor aspect probably needing revision?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673758362916429937.post-78183828445657362802008-08-01T20:40:00.000+10:002008-08-01T20:40:00.000+10:00Fudgie,It only takes ONE falsification to kill a t...Fudgie,<BR/><BR/>It only takes ONE falsification to kill a theory even if there are a MILLION observations that support it.<BR/><BR/>If you knew anything about science then you would know that.<BR/><BR/>Science is dead. Long live science.Jack Lactonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07297939283546740918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673758362916429937.post-77366813995579254492008-08-01T19:46:00.000+10:002008-08-01T19:46:00.000+10:00Ha ha ha! I think this is probably your most grot...Ha ha ha! I think this is probably your most grotesquely Luddite, anti-scientific, anti-intellectual load of bullshit yet. <I>climate science is shown to be false</I> - ha ha ha! Every last aspect of it? Do we now have no understanding whatsoever of how the climate works?<BR/><BR/>The vertical profile of the temperature of the atmosphere is in fact quite consistent with model predictions, and on top of that, models predicted that the stratosphere would cool as CO2 concentrations increase (observed), that the Arctic would warm faster than the rest of the world (observed), that large volcanic eruptions would lead to sharp but short-lived cooling (observed), and that surface temperatures would rise by about 0.2°C/decade if CO2 concentrations rose by 1-2ppm annually (observed).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673758362916429937.post-21085143255973854512008-08-01T14:22:00.000+10:002008-08-01T14:22:00.000+10:00Dude! we're supposed to vote on it, like we did wi...Dude! we're supposed to vote on it, like we did with gravity. You know, like concensus, know what I'm sayin'?.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673758362916429937.post-68952762611163380472008-08-01T12:34:00.000+10:002008-08-01T12:34:00.000+10:00Jack....boobie...proof or disproof isn't important...Jack....boobie...proof or disproof isn't important. It's the consensus that's important.<BR/><BR/>What they buh-lieve is all that matters to the loopy libs.<BR/><BR/>Another great post.<BR/><BR/>--KrumhornAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com