New Study Finds No Significant Human-...

New Study Finds No Significant Human-Induced Warming

There are 87 comments on the Power Line story from Jan 5, 2013, titled New Study Finds No Significant Human-Induced Warming. In it, Power Line reports that:

At the journal Earth System Dynamics , M. Beenstock, Y. Reingewertz, and N. Paldor have published a paper titled "Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming" which Anthony Watts describes as a potential bombshell.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Power Line.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#62 Jan 25, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
And of course the fact that we are normally right has nothing to do with it. We must be paid because we do not have the ideological purity of your beliefs.
Of course you have no proof that anyone is paying me other than your claims. You might claim that my posts are proof but consider that I could claim that your posts are proof that you are being paid to post what you post.
So are you being paid or not, Tina.

And why are you equivocating, if not.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#63 Jan 26, 2013
Yes you walloped the dictators again and again. Only the dictators cut and paste scientific science fiction is to be posted.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#64 Jan 29, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you show me.
Since everything I've checked out from you so far HAS been a lie, that gives me to comfort when you speak.
You say you have a degree? In what. I can't fathom it could be science because you make even simple mistakes, including ones that can easily be checked out.
REally, it doesn't bother you being proven WRONG all the time. You seem to take it with PRIDE. And I am sad to say that, of anyone.
Based on the posts between us the only mistake I have seem to have made is disagreeing with your world view.

As for my degree, I now have two different computer science degrees and am in the process of adding a third.

For the question of being proved wrong, I have been proving you wrong repeatedly and yet it seems to bother you not. Then again I would have to say that you have questionable contact with what most refer to as the real world. Then again I am sure you think that place where you currrently reside is reality.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#65 Jan 29, 2013
So have you been dimissed or just got a snow day?

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#66 Jan 29, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on the posts between us the only mistake I have seem to have made is disagreeing with your world view.
Just a quick list of mistakes.

(1) You said Mercury was hotter than Venus -- you ran off after I proved you wrong.

(2) You said it was Venus' atmospheric pressure not its CO2 atmosphere than made Venus abnormally warm. I showed you there is stronger pressure under Earth's oceans -- no warmth. You ran off

(3) You claimed volcanic eruptions should be warming the earth. It is well documented in the science literature it has a cooling effect.

(4) You proclaimed no one took global warming seriously anymore. I showed how virtually all the reputable world renown SCIENCE organizations have strong statements supporting the threat of manmade global warming.

You pretened to see only AAAS on the list and to proclaim it a lobbying organization. You ignore for example Britain's Royal Society -- knowing you, you probably don't know who they are.

(5) I showed you where NASA's official view was pro global warming and provided a link that showed a long list of evidence and asked you to respond: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

You gave me a whacky post on Spencer saying he was from NASA. I showed the paper you gave me on Spencer had such bad errors, that the editor of his journal that published it resigned in disgrace. You ran off.

(6) You came back insisting there were OTHER NASA websites that stated global warming was not valid. I challenged you for proof using a website with an official logo from NASA.

You ran off.

Next?
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
As for my degree, I now have two different computer science degrees and am in the process of adding a third.
Computer science is not a "science" that would help you understand climatology.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>

For the question of being proved wrong, I have been proving you wrong repeatedly and yet it seems to bother you not. Then again I would have to say that you have questionable contact with what most refer to as the real world. Then again I am sure you think that place where you currrently reside is reality.
You lie. You'd list those errors if you could
Just as I recounted above the above ridiculous statements you have made to me.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#67 Jan 30, 2013
It was a late night hour the wallop10 responded to Tina. It is the early morning hour that the wallop10 is in for another day of being walloped.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#68 Jan 31, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just a quick list of mistakes.
(1) You said Mercury was hotter than Venus -- you ran off after I proved you wrong.
(2) You said it was Venus' atmospheric pressure not its CO2 atmosphere than made Venus abnormally warm. I showed you there is stronger pressure under Earth's oceans -- no warmth. You ran off
(3) You claimed volcanic eruptions should be warming the earth. It is well documented in the science literature it has a cooling effect.
(4) You proclaimed no one took global warming seriously anymore. I showed how virtually all the reputable world renown SCIENCE organizations have strong statements supporting the threat of manmade global warming.
You pretened to see only AAAS on the list and to proclaim it a lobbying organization. You ignore for example Britain's Royal Society -- knowing you, you probably don't know who they are.
(5) I showed you where NASA's official view was pro global warming and provided a link that showed a long list of evidence and asked you to respond: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
You gave me a whacky post on Spencer saying he was from NASA. I showed the paper you gave me on Spencer had such bad errors, that the editor of his journal that published it resigned in disgrace. You ran off.
(6) You came back insisting there were OTHER NASA websites that stated global warming was not valid. I challenged you for proof using a website with an official logo from NASA.
You ran off.
Next?
<quoted text>
Computer science is not a "science" that would help you understand climatology.
<quoted text>
You lie. You'd list those errors if you could
Just as I recounted above the above ridiculous statements you have made to me.
You claim that I lie and did not actually show proof but just made claims. I could make the claim that you made every last thing up and be just as right. That you in your metally challenged state are seeing what you want to see.

As for NASA sites, I showed where those who work in NASA, the actual scientist and not a administrative/political activist like Dr Hansen. Also you seem to think that the only NASA site is the one you keep posting the link to.

As for how computer science and how it can have any bearing on climate change. Computer models are the biggest and most common. How many times have claims about how man is responsible been based on computer models. Another is the data itself. How much of it is stored on various computers and how much of that data is massaged into claims supporting AGW. And later used to debunk AGW.

AAAS is on several lists as a lobbying organization. They try to claim that they are not but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck then it is a duck. If you are wandering the halls of the hill and you are not a elected, working for someone elected, or working for the government support those who are elected then what are you. Most likely a lobbist or a tourist and if you are there more than one day a week you are not a tourist.

http://www.wcsr.com/events/harkins-moderates-...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2...

http://www.faseb.org/portals/0/pdfs/opa/2008/...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/nasa...

http://www.profellow.com/fellowships/aaas-con...
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#70 Jan 31, 2013
All scientific science fiction. NASA in their reports say could be my opinion and prediction. Now that is real science would you not agree?

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#71 Jan 31, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
You claim that I lie and did not actually show proof but just made claims. I could make the claim that you made every last thing up and be just as right. That you in your metally challenged state are seeing what you want to see.
Since I show my work, anyone can go back and see you are the person in that mentally challenged state.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
As for NASA sites, I showed where those who work in NASA, the actual scientist and not a administrative/political activist like Dr Hansen.
Also you seem to think that the only NASA site is the one you keep posting the link to.
You said:
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you still believe in AGW after all this time really is a peek into your mind. After all, AGW stopped being a theory in 2008.
I gave you two official NASA websites (with their logo) on climatology

http://climate.nasa.gov/

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

And I challenged you to find me an official NASA website (including with their logo) on climatology that supported your claim.

You've been **MAKING UP LIES ON IT** ever since!
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
As for how computer science and how it can have any bearing on climate change. Computer models are the biggest and most common. How many times have claims about how man is responsible been based on computer models.
There are many lines of evidence. Since you only parrot right wing crap, you wouldn't know any science if you tripped over it.

You seem to have trouble even finding an official NASA website on climatology. LOL.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#72 Feb 1, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Since I show my work, anyone can go back and see you are the person in that mentally challenged state.
<quoted text>
You said:
<quoted text>
I gave you two official NASA websites (with their logo) on climatology
http://climate.nasa.gov/
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
And I challenged you to find me an official NASA website (including with their logo) on climatology that supported your claim.
You've been **MAKING UP LIES ON IT** ever since!
<quoted text>
There are many lines of evidence. Since you only parrot right wing crap, you wouldn't know any science if you tripped over it.
You seem to have trouble even finding an official NASA website on climatology. LOL.
Walloped, walloped, walloped all day long. How are those walloped tires working for you?
SpaceBlues

United States

#73 Feb 3, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text> to tina
Since I show my work, anyone can go back and see you are the person in that mentally challenged state.
<quoted text>
You said:
<quoted text>
I gave you two official NASA websites (with their logo) on climatology
http://climate.nasa.gov/
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
And I challenged you to find me an official NASA website (including with their logo) on climatology that supported your claim.
You've been **MAKING UP LIES ON IT** ever since!
<quoted text>
There are many lines of evidence. Since you only parrot right wing crap, you wouldn't know any science if you tripped over it.
You seem to have trouble even finding an official NASA website on climatology. LOL.
You are right but tina likes to lie!

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#74 Feb 3, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You are right but tina likes to lie!
Do you know how ABSURD it is her arguing that NASA must have multiple websites, some of them saying global warming is true, and the others false.

I realized how I backed her into a corner. She had earler insisted all reputable organizations claimed global warming was a hoax.

So when I gave her NASA's webpage, her alibi was there must be OTHER websites.

So pathetic. Such a pathological liar.
SpaceBlues

United States

#75 Feb 3, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know how ABSURD it is her arguing that NASA must have multiple websites, some of them saying global warming is true, and the others false.
I realized how I backed her into a corner. She had earler insisted all reputable organizations claimed global warming was a hoax.
So when I gave her NASA's webpage, her alibi was there must be OTHER websites.
So pathetic. Such a pathological liar.
Exactly.

I do appreciate your care in research and content. Remember tina is here to disturb and disinform. And she collaborates with anybody who does the same.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#76 Feb 4, 2013
Only the disturbed and disinformed as you three are with scientific science fiction cut and paste useless babble research would object to any real science.You poke fun at all when you have no real scientific argument.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#77 Feb 4, 2013
Hey Tina, here is a third OFFICIAL NASA cite on global warming

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Still waiting on that ONE official NASA website from you that claims they don't believe in global warming.

HA HA HA HA HA HA
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#78 Feb 4, 2013
Only the disturbed and disinformed as you three are with scientific science fiction cut and paste useless babble research would object to any real science.You poke fun at all when you have no real scientific argument.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#79 Feb 5, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
Hey Tina, here is a third OFFICIAL NASA cite on global warming
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Still waiting on that ONE official NASA website from you that claims they don't believe in global warming.
HA HA HA HA HA HA
Actually, when you look up the basis of that pages claim and you discover that the response rate was far from the ringing endorsement. They sent out 10,257 surveys and only got back, 3,146 responses and of which a grand total of 79 or five percent were climate scientist.

Looks like your "Official NASA web site" is full of spin.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_fi...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/20...
litesong

Everett, WA

#80 Feb 5, 2013
tiny-minded anne wrote:
.....is full of spin.
'tiny-minded anne' can't properly spin, if she were on a merry-go-round.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#81 Feb 5, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
'tiny-minded anne' can't properly spin, if she were on a merry-go-round.
And you think topix doesn’t know what you publish? Attacks on me won't delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.
SpaceBlues

United States

#82 Feb 7, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
'tiny-minded anne' can't properly spin, if she were on a merry-go-round.
She could not deal with this one:

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/02/07/the-...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Conservative Political News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Lawyer for Wasserman Schultz' ex-IT aide: Fraud... 2 hr TrumpSupporter2016 2
News The French Conspiracy With The Russian Orthodox... 10 hr Tony Price 77 15
News 1 Million Illegal Immigrants To Have California... 18 hr Cordwainer Trout 4
News Illegal Immigrant Repeatedly Raped 12-Year-Old ... Jul 25 spytheweb 1
News Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Take Veiled Jab at ... Jul 24 carolwelsh 1
News Black Trump Supporter Goes Nuclear on Maxine Wa... Jul 22 General Kakaka Oba 37
News Feminist Website Argues On-Screen Interracial R... Jul 21 jewboy 10
More from around the web