Mortdooley wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2021 at 12:04am:


Even Fox threw this guy out eventually.

For me his biggest highlight was when he was caught on a hot Mic telling Rupert that the idiots that follow him will believe anything.

Quote:


The one thing that is certain is that Bill wouldn't know.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2021 at 4:56pm:


I don't need to petal. The null hypothesis is that it is natural until such time as it is proven otherwise.

But thanks for showing your "scientific" credentials.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2021 at 4:56pm:


Which economists?

Which skeptics with no scientific qualifications? W. A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer?

"Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Canada, wlaser@yorku.ca2
Department of Physics, Princeton University, USA, happer@Princeton.edu"



philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2021 at 4:56pm:


Read para one above.

Do you want to try again?

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2021 at 4:56pm:


Please show where any thinking person denies climate changes. The LIA - a change in climate. The MWP - a change in climate. The Holocene Optimum - a change in climate.

Do you deny climate changes?

Climate changes. And all things being equal increasing CO2 will have a marginal effect. The problem is all things don't remain equal.

"We use statistical methods for nonstationary time series to test the anthropogenic interpretation of global warming (AGW), according to which an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations raised global temperature in the 20th century. Specifically, the methodology of polynomial cointegration is used to test AGW since during the observation period (1880–2007) global temperature and solar irradiance are stationary in 1st differences whereas greenhouse gases and aerosol forcings are stationary in 2nd differences. We show that although these anthropogenic forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols, solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated. This implies that recent global warming is not statistically significantly related to anthropogenic forcing. On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcing might have had a temporary effect on global temperature."

http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/3/173/2012/esd-3-173-2012.pdf

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2021 at 7:02pm:



You now go to the garudian for evidence of AGW? Not peer reviewed journals? Oh dear.

BTW - Cook et al 2013 was a "citizen science" project and not peer-reviewed. And quoting a hit piece by Dana (SKS contributor and part author of Cook's 97% shemozzle).

Btw- "Climate models have accurately reproduced the past, but let's put them aside for a moment." That's because they are tuned to the past. They have no ability to predict anything.

And what didn't you understand about science not being done by consensus. I also noticed you haven't rebutted what I wrote. Just a blanket statement. Why can't you do that?

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2021 at 7:11pm:


Poor petal I will try to break it down into simple steps.

You said "."

I replied lee wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2021 at 6:56pm:


Refute that. A rebuttal showing what you alleged was said was in fact said.

Talk about a time waster. You can't even back up what you say.




philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2021 at 7:11pm:



Poor petal. The truth finally emerges. I didn't say there was no Global Warming. That's just you making schist up. I am saying it is a noisy signal and we or may not have measurable AGW.

Of course feel free to link to a paper that quantifies any AGW.

Don't use CMIP5 or CMIP6 which runs hotter. They have many parameters. (parameters - where they insert numbers when they can't do data.

"John von Neumann famously said

    With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk."

"By this he meant that one should not be impressed when a complex model fits a data set well. With enough parameters, you can fit any data set."

https://towardsdatascience.com/deep-learning-overfitting-846bf5b35e24

Finally the null hypothesis -

"In response to Trenberth’s argument a second review, by Dr Judith Curry, focuses on the concept of a ‘null hypothesis’ the default position which is taken when research is carried out. Currently the null hypothesis for climate change attribution research is that humans have no influence."

https://judithcurry.com/2011/11/03/climate-null-hypothesis/

Judith Curry is a lukewarmer. She thinks there is warming but it is not bad.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2021 at 8:21pm:



Of course they can petal. One talks science and provides peer-reviewed references and the other references the garudian.

The other references something called "climate change denial", but offers no proof.

The biggest mistake people here in Australia make is to think that Democrats = Labor and Republicans = LNP....

Each nation is distinct in its political separations......

Quote:

Where is Biden now days, some are saying he died peacefully from old age in his sleep last night.