hmmm

sandbagger · Sep 5, 2011

PGT said: ↑

sandbagger said: ↑

PGT said: ↑

sandbagger said: ↑

PGT said: ↑

sandbagger said: ↑

PGT said: ↑

sandbagger said: ↑

PGT said: ↑

I see sandbagger didn't come back. Surprise.
Click to expand...

For what? The flow of time for us humans is past, present, and future. The inability of garamet to understand that Svensmark's past statement has been invalidated by the man himself based on the present results of CLOUD is not my concern.
Click to expand...

Except that your understanding of the report is totally erroneous. Tool.
Click to expand...

Let's see. Climate Computer models are at the heart of the study of Climate Change. As a result of this report all current Climate Computer models are now(snicker) inaccurate. Meaning that everything we knew about Climate Change has to be reevaluated. Nope I'm error free with a solid grasp of what the CLOUD report means for the study of Climate Change. It means the science is far from settled.
Click to expand...

So just to be clear, the report itself disagrees with your interpretation of the report.
Click to expand...

No it does not.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes it does.
Click to expand...

CERN: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised'

No it does not.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier what the CERN report really concluded was (to quote from their press release):

This result leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could also influence climate. However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed.
Click to expand...

From the CERN press release.

"We’ve found that cosmic rays significantly enhance the formation of aerosol particles in the mid troposphere and above. These aerosols can eventually grow into the seeds for clouds. However, we’ve found that the vapours previously thought to account for all aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can only account for a small fraction of the observations – even with the enhancement of cosmic rays."
[…]
"t is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone.

Click to expand...

PGT · Sep 5, 2011

Read it again and work out what you got wrong. I'm done.

sandbagger · Sep 5, 2011

That's not possible as I didn't get anything wrong.

garamet · Sep 5, 2011

Western civilization will end with neither a bang nor a whimper, but with a lack of reading comprehension.

sandbagger · Sep 5, 2011

^You giggin' someone for lack o' reading comprehension that's mighty humorous.

And then there's this.

The Science Is Settled: Editor of Journal Which Published AGW-Skeptical Article Resigns In Shame

Not that there was anything wrong with the article. It was peer-reviewed, checked, and followed protocols.
Unfortunately, the science it brought light to -- that more heat was being lost from the earth than climate "models" accounted for (thus meaning they are wrong as currently configured) -- harms the cause.
So the "guilty" editor resigned, apparently in protest of his own decision.

Wolfgang Wagner, the editor of new open access science journal Remote Sensing has resigned, re-opening the debate about the politicisation of science publishing.
The August edition of Remote Sensing included a peer-reviewed paper by Spencer and Braswell [original PDF/370KB], citing satellite evidence showing that more heat energy is being lost to space than climate models account for.

Resigning is a very unusual step, notes Retraction Watch. The Spencer and Braswell paper has not been retracted, and in his statement [PDF/93KB] Wagner acknowledges protocols were followed. Standard operating procedure would be for critics to examine, and rebut if needed, the science in other journals.
But peer-reviewed publication in a journal has become a powerful propaganda weapon – the lead scientists who submit and review each others' papers are often chapter editors for the IPCC's assessment reports, the "bible" used by politicians to formulate climate policy. Several efforts where editors were pressured to keep dissenting views out of the prestigious journals have been documented.
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" vowed Dr Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Jones and Trenberth were both co-ordinating lead authors on the IPCC's Fourth Assessment report, published in 2007.
Click to expand...

The science is settled, and here's how they did it: By simply censoring any contradictory science.
Thanks to ArthurK.
Click to expand...

Bonus:

Green energy and jobs will cripple the UK economy

The report, The Myth of Green Jobs by economist Professor Gordon Hughes of Edinburgh University, examines the long-term impacts of subsidising expensive "green" renewable energy projects. It says that if the UK continues to do so, it will lose 2 to 3 per cent GDP a year for around 20 years. If reducing CO2 emissions is your goal, says Hughes, your economy really can't afford renewable energy.
How does he get to this figure?
He explains that one reason is that labour inputs are a cost, not a benefit. This is common sense: the goal for a productive economy is to have the highest value creation at the lowest cost. If your workforce is mostly employed doing the basics, such as cultivating manglewurzels, it is going to have fewer doctors, teachers or rocket scientists. North Korea is a good example. Or, for the same cost, you can have a cleaner environment.
(Hughes uses the example of two crops, one of which requires 50 hours of labour per hectare, and one that requires 100 hours of labour.)
"All forms of green energy tend to be substantially more expensive than conventional energy, so there is a trade-off between higher costs and lower emissions," writes Hughes. "This trade-off is not specific to green energy, since there are many ways of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Hence, the starting point of any assessment of such programmes should be the total cost per tonne of carbon dioxide saved – or its equivalent – which will be incurred by relying upon different measures or policies to reduce emissions."
Turning to job creation, Hughes points out that short-term gains will be cancelled out by medium- to long-term pain. Investing in renewables, the EU Commission claims, will create two million jobs, a figure not supported by any evidence.
But Hughes explains, higher costs don't just disappear from an economy – they must materialise somewhere.
"In terms of the labour market, the gains for a small number of actual or potential employees in businesses specialising in renewable energy has to be weighed against the dismal prospects for a much larger group of workers producing tradeable goods in the rest of the manufacturing sector."
Click to expand...

garamet · Sep 5, 2011

sandbagger said: ↑

^You giggin' someone for lack o' reading comprehension that's mighty humorous.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is, but not in the way you think.

Now, make sure to play "FTFY."

sandbagger · Sep 5, 2011

garamet said: ↑

sandbagger said: ↑

^You giggin' someone for lack o' reading comprehension that's mighty humorous.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is, but not in the way you think.

Now, make sure to play "FTFY."
Click to expand...

Sheehit! That response of yours wasn't worth the click. I guess I should be impressed by your consistency in that regard.

garamet · Sep 5, 2011

sandbagger said: ↑

garamet said: ↑

sandbagger said: ↑

^You giggin' someone for lack o' reading comprehension that's mighty humorous.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is, but not in the way you think.

Now, make sure to play "FTFY."
Click to expand...

Sheehit! That response of yours wasn't worth the click. I guess I should be impressed by your consistency in that regard.
Click to expand...

Margaritae ante porcos.

sandbagger · Sep 5, 2011

garamet · Sep 5, 2011

^It seems you've found your metier.

sandbagger · Sep 5, 2011

garamet · Sep 5, 2011

^Your sweater clashes with your jammies. But it looks as if you've lost weight.

China Benefits as U.S. Solar Industry Withers

John Castle · Sep 5, 2011

garamet said: ↑

sandbagger said: ↑

garamet said: ↑

sandbagger said: ↑

^You giggin' someone for lack o' reading comprehension that's mighty humorous.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is, but not in the way you think.

Now, make sure to play "FTFY."
Click to expand...

Sheehit! That response of yours wasn't worth the click. I guess I should be impressed by your consistency in that regard.
Click to expand...

Margaritae ante porcos.
Click to expand...

Nobody cares what you did with the pig, granny.

sandbagger · Sep 5, 2011

garamet said: ↑

^Your sweater clashes with your jammies. But it looks as if you've lost weight.
Click to expand...

garamet · Sep 5, 2011

sandbagger said: ↑

Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

hmmm

sandbagger Fresh Meat

PGT Fuck the fuck off

sandbagger Fresh Meat

garamet "The whole world is watching."

sandbagger Fresh Meat

garamet "The whole world is watching."

sandbagger Fresh Meat

garamet "The whole world is watching."

sandbagger Fresh Meat

garamet "The whole world is watching."

sandbagger Fresh Meat

garamet "The whole world is watching."

John Castle Banned Writer

sandbagger Fresh Meat

garamet "The whole world is watching."

Log in or Sign up

hmmm

sandbagger Fresh Meat

PGT Fuck the fuck off

sandbagger Fresh Meat

garamet "The whole world is watching."

sandbagger Fresh Meat

garamet "The whole world is watching."

sandbagger Fresh Meat

garamet "The whole world is watching."

sandbagger Fresh Meat

garamet "The whole world is watching."

sandbagger Fresh Meat

garamet "The whole world is watching."

John Castle Banned Writer

sandbagger Fresh Meat

garamet "The whole world is watching."

Useful Searches