Then what is then?? Geez

 

And let me get this straight, you are saying the sun is heating the earth at an increasing rate? I'm not even sure you understand what you are saying.

 

That he failed to provide his facts says an awful lot about his “science”.

 

And let me get this straight, you are saying the sun’s effect on the earth is a constant? Solar minima is not a factor?

 

In court? Before a jury of his "peers"? That's not how the justice system really works. When the topic is technically complex, lawyer BS plays an ever greater role in the outcome. The judge and jury were neither tasked, nor remotely competent, to give a ruling on global warming.

I do agree that many climate scientists, in an apparent rush to cash in on the hysteria, have done their cause more harm than good simply by appearing to have ulterior motives and taking shortcuts.

 

I am saying you guys instantly blame humans when every morning you get up and there is a big fireball in the sky.

Little Ice ages, glaciers making the great lakes, the earth has cooled/warmed countless times over the years and it had NOTHING to do with humans and automobiles which didnt even show up until the 1900's.

The icing on the cake is that global warming is GOOD for mankind but no one cares about that important fact.

No one mentions the inaccuracy of measuring the earths climate and its changes prior to the last 50 or so years.

I say you take a chill pill, wait another 11 years and if the earth is still here then you can admit you were wrong.

 

He has always failed to show his work. He acts like he has something to hide. His E Mails that started this thread indicated he had something to hide. That is not science.

 

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/ful...S-D-13-00083.1

An excerpt:

 

Who is "you guys" and you are saying that the earth is warming because the sun is getting hotter? Where is your science for this?

Yes, and what you just posted has nothing to do with the postulate about climate change. You don't even understand what the theory is. Hint: It's not that it's getting warmer. It's gotten warmer and cooler before. Given that you don't even understand the most basic theory about it, I have to question why you are saying anything about it?



Besides the loss of life and business in low-lying areas, permafrost, etc., there are plenty of other dramatic effects, like massive ocean bacteria/algae blooms that kill off marine life and render the sea life poisonous to humans, salmon being killed off before spawning due to the streams being too warm, ever increasing energy usage (and cost) due to rising cooling costs, having to constantly replace infrastructure and technology because the temps foreseen keep being exceeded. This is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak, much more dramatic effects happen as currents and weather patterns change. By your other comments, you seem to think that the theory is that one day a giant switch will be pulled and these things will happen overnight to the extent where no life can survive afterwards. That is pretty far from the truth, which is that these things are happening at increasing rates and frequency.

What do you mean "no one"? You mean to say you haven't read any papers on the subject where the scientists describe the accuracy and the margin of error? This is how temperatures are determined:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-temperatures/

So you have evidence that this is not accurate to determine the fluctuations in the earths global temperatures? Please share this new evidence!

You have knowledge of a theory that tells the end of the earth in 11 years? Please share this theory and where you got it!

 

Here is what happened:

Mann had his theory that CO2 is bad supported by his manipulated data. He kept his manipulations secret.

Ball said bull**** you are a fraud.

Mann used legal system to try to silence Ball.

15 years later Mann attempts yet another delay to try to cost Ball more money. Ball says ok we accept your delay if you provide your now 20 year old data. Court sides with Ball.

Mann decided to give up rather than to support his science.

You and I both know that it wasn’t going to be Joe Hoser sitting on the Jury deciding if Mann was a fraud. It was an appeals court, and what would have happened is Mann would have presented his “proof”, Ball would have rebutted it, the court would have had neutral experts help them decide who was the wronged party.

Mann was the aggressor and folded like leaf in a rain forest denied CO2.