Superstition Based Peer-Reviewed Science

2015-11-18-08-11-17

NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming – The Data

A few people at NOAA understand that recent warming is just background noise in the long term picture, and that Michael Mann’s hockey stick is meaningless junk science.

But they have a fundamental gap in their knowledge of science.

These older records show that climate has changed abruptly in the past, and also reveal a remarkable correspondence between carbon dioxide change and temperature change

Every geologist knows that CO2 solubility in the oceans varies with ocean temperature. When the oceans warm up, they outgas CO2. Thus a warming ocean increases atmospheric CO2, and a cooling climate decreases atmospheric CO2.

In the historical record, CO2 is a response to warming – not a driver of warming. Because climate scientists don’t understand this most fundamental scientific fact, they have built up an entire body of superstition based peer-reviewed science.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Superstition Based Peer-Reviewed Science

  1. Steve Case says:

    Oh, they understand it alright, they just know that a manifestation of that understanding isn’t going to garner them any grant money.

    • Gail Combs says:

      They certainly do understand it!
      Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski has been writing about it for over 20 years:
      CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time
      http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

      So have a number of other scientists but like the temperature record the CO2 record has also been twisted out of all recognition.

      Science has gone out the window and all that is left is Propaganda pushed by Leftest academics masquerading as ‘scientists’

  2. scott allen says:

    This is from a “PER REVIEWED” paper with the heading of

    Rampant software errors may may undermine scientific results.
    http://f1000research.com/articles/3-303/

    Even if you go by the best case scenario (section 2) with only one line in 1,000 lines of code is wrong the result is a 10% error. think of the millions and millions of lines of code in a climate change report contains. that is even based of the premiss that the temperature are valid to begin with.
    How can any researchers believe any results especially results using as many computations as global warming.

  3. gregole says:

    …that recent warming is just background noise in the long term picture…

    Background noise. Man-Made Global Warming we have seen is so minute no one would notice it without sensitive instruments on satellites and without the incessant babbling of warmunists. Where are my tipping points?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s