Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #550532 > unrolled thread

Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 12:51 -0600
    Re: Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 13:00 -0600
    Re: Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-04 19:18 +0000
    Re: Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-04 14:11 -0600
      sNELL's what noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 12:53 -0800
    Re: Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 14:15 -0800
      'xplainin' noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 13:42 -0800
    Re: Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-04 22:31 +0000

#550532 — Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation

Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation
> http://www.skepticalscience.com
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy



> Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge
> themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what
> happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any
> evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any
> argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global
> warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism.
> Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer
> reviewed scientific literature say?


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#550533

http://www.skepticalscience.com/nsh/?

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550541

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation
>> http://www.skepticalscience.com
>> http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy
> 
> 
> 
>> Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge
>> themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what
>> happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any
>> evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any
>> argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global
>> warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism.
>> Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer
>> reviewed scientific literature say?
 
That most of the temperature measurments are nowhere accurate enough
to provide data to a fraction of a degree and none of the climate
models can be verified against reality.

And this has little to nothing to do with physics.

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550547

On 2/4/2016 12:51 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation
>> http://www.skepticalscience.com
>> http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy
>
>
>
>> Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge
>> themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what
>> happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any
>> evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any
>> argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global
>> warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism.
>> Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer
>> reviewed scientific literature say?
>
>

website is simply misleading, promoting political adjenda.

it refuses to acknowledge the FACT that climate data is very poor before 
1986 when sattilites started to measure Earth, although NOT calibrated 
to 0.1 degree F, nor emisitivity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550554 — sNELL's what

there are two ab-initios to deal with: a)
spherical this, and b)
Snell's thaT

> >> warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism.
> >> Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer
> >> reviewed scientific literature say?
> >
> >
> 
> website is simply misleading, promoting political adjenda.
> 
> it refuses to acknowledge the FACT that climate data is very poor before 
> 1986 when sattilites started to measure Earth, although NOT calibrated 
> to 0.1 degree F, nor emisitivity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550567

On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 10:51:32 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation
> > http://www.skepticalscience.com
> > http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy

Skeptical Science website is neither skeptical or science.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550770 — 'xplainin'

but, you might be able to find an explication
of Snsll's laW, in there, some where ... c'est possible remotement

> Skeptical Science website is neither skeptical or science.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550568

Sam Wormley wrote:

> Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming
> misinformation
>> http://www.skepticalscience.com
>> http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy


Fake science from less informed climate trolls posting from United States.


This is a physics newsgroup where sigma 5 means it is considered science.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web