Alarmists - take you best shot

Or - nobody could be arsed watching it.

 

Geez louise...

The sun's energy is included in all GCMs, and GCMs have also been used to model the impact of solar variance.

Your statement:
"The IPCC models base all the heating on the concentration of CO2 and have not taken the SUN into consideration." is 100% wrong.

Get over it and grow up.

 

Yeah i guess you are right in a way so i accept my ignorance.

But for the IPCC to amplify the effects of CO2 40 fold compared to the radiation from the sun at the input of the GCM is erenous and fraudulant to say the least dont you think?

Like i keep saying sh!t in sh!t out.

 

Oh! Please! Anthony Watts should hire himself out to the Cherry industry to save them money at picking time!!

Just in case you have not noticed this is from a critique of the AR5 review which is not even due until 2013/2014 depending on the working party. And it is the authors word alone on what was included in that FIRST DRAFT - the author even admits that he is "hiding the lolly" by using his own words

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/...ate-driver-rates-one-oblique-sentence-in-ar5/


And, you know - it is always a good idea to check who the authors of crap on websites actually ARE - in this case http://www.rawls.org/ make up your own mind as to whether you really want to believe anything from this person

 

Speaking of cherry picking, the IPCC hasn`t been in the news for info stacking for days & days now. Futhermore, the IPCC aren`t overly famous for presenting an unbiased assessment of AGW.

As for biased decision making, I always get a laugh at the expense of hypocrits who condemn a person for wearing swimming togs wnile swimming, then complain about sexism.

The hyper intolerant AGW church, with their politically correct hym books, will never accept Anthony Watts, or anyone who they deem inferior, in this new age of tolerance and respect for each other. Anthony Watts, according to the AGW religion, is nothing but infidel scum. How dare he question the new religion!!!!!

 

OOHH please bowergirl

Here is a guy who is reviewing the AR5 papers, like you say there not due to come out till 2014, he has given his opinion on the paper just like alarmists give theirs.

What now your saying people that have been selected to review the paper are not worth listening to unless its what you want to hear.

You know sometimes it doesn't hurt to listen to the other side, you might actually learn something.

For instance did you know that CO2 warming effect was amplified by a factor of 14 when compared to the radiation from the sun in AR4.

I didn't know that and probably would never have known it.

But in AR5 they have gone further and amplified CO2 effect by 40 comapered to the radiation from the sun.

These are the conditions they first put into the computer to obtain a GCM.

Garbage in garbage out.

And if you do know and are still supporting the IPCC, then please spare us all and just dont bother posting your GGEEEZZZ or your PLLEEASZZZEEs.

People blinded by political blinkers can never see the light.

thanks.

 

Hey Bowergirl

The bottom line is the IPCC are producing fraudulant claims, by amplifying the effects of CO2 40 fold in comparison to the effects of the radiation of the sun.

Now the questions i want to ask you,

1. How can you still belive what the IPCC and their GCM's saying showing respectively.
2. Do you still think CO2 is the PRIME agent that drives global warming?
3. Is AGW the biggest SCAM presented to the people of this WORLD to fleece nations of their wealth?

This guy does say that if 50% of total global wamring is attributed to the sun then the effects of CO2 are benign.

 

Sceintific papers

that claim the global mean average temperature is directly related to the effects of the sun and not the effects of CO2.

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~dougla...ress_final.pdf

http://www.friendsofscience.org/asse...use_Effect.htm

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/...hylek_etal.pdf

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10/c010p069.pdf

http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publ...lanki/c153.pdf

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/2...plant-stomata/


Articles about the fraudulant IPCC claims

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/2...plant-stomata/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research...odel-evidence/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/2...ntence-in-ar5/

http://westernfrontonline.net/news/1...global-warming