It's the one you said you read; except for the supplement for which I supplied a link.

The one you said the critics obviously hadn't read, because it didn't say anything about statistical significance.

Do you remember now? You said you had read it.

It's the one you wanted to debate me on its merits, but hadn't even read their methodology, only the nicely printed conclusions.

innocentbystander. wrote on Jul 8^th, 2015 at 11:32am:


You are the sheep. I understand the science from first principles. You cower and hide when anybody asks anything remotely technical. You know perfectly well that your knowledge of the basics is much less than that of a high school student, but ramble on on the basis that you think it's a political fight. (it isn't - and don't ever slur me with left wing labels.)

It just goes to prove that sometimes BS can prevail for some, especially if well-reasoned argument makes the brain hurt too much. Have another beer.

John_Taverner wrote on Jul 9^th, 2015 at 6:21am:


So what well reasoned argument was there for the Karl et al paper, when you hadn't read the methodology?

innocentbystander. wrote on Jul 8^th, 2015 at 11:32am:

Science doesn't prove anything:

[size=10] it disproves![/size

** Are we learning yet or still smoking crack in a batman suit?

innocentbystander. wrote on Jul 9^th, 2015 at 8:15am:

Really?!?!

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.”  Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.…

The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes.  Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists.  Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common...

So you can't prove there is man made global warming ... thank you at least for proving my point though

John_Taverner wrote on Jul 9^th, 2015 at 11:53am:


Hey Johno

You claim to be some sort of climate scientist can you refute any of the 22 on the list in the OP or do you just blindly accept what the computer climate models are telling their users and in turn the followers AGW religion.

You say you're a smart man yet you put your faith in computer models that have been proven wrong in their predictions.

That's stupid in my books.....sorry mate ... but its the truth.....

I accept that climate change is happening. I don't use the term "believe in climate change" because that implies that their is some uncertainty about the issue.

Thank you for posting the link to this essay, it was a pretty interesting read. I did note that all the points were refuted by people with more credibility and lucidity than me in the comments section of the article, and that it should not be confused with a peer reviewed article due to its broad scope and limited depth.

My only contribution would be to note that both of the authors of the essay François-Marie Bréon(who is erroneously listed as director for research CNRS) and Jean Poitou published this out of IPSL lab in france. Sounds really smart heh? bbuuuttt, IPSL doesnt have a physical lab in France. They list two contact addresses at prestigious french universities, but the neither university had heard of them when I emailed them. Bon!
Also, if you go through the IPSL site they don't actually do anything. They don't have any published papers or research. Compare their site to CNRS and see what I mean.
Also, if you try to phone them there is no answer.

I wouldn't claim that IPSL was a vehicle designed to lend credibility to an otherwise unremarkable essay.
I just know what else it could be for.

Also, I couldn't find an original untranslated version of the essay. Both of the co-authors are French, and it written in France. Usually scientific papers are written in your native tongue, and then translated.
Just my 2C