Thank “stan” that he is here to save us.

Not that fraud, and the lesser “stan-crime” of error, in science hasn’t been around since alchemy. Or fraud in medicine, or law. What does “stan” practice by the way, becides absolute infallibility?

Cheers, even though we are not worthy, stan.

Dr Roy Brown’s answer to the ‘denier’ smear (published in WUWT) is a classic that every high school student should read.

The best model available is one that simply continues a straight line trend from the date of the temperature turn around 1815 with a sixty year sine curve around it. Of course, that has nothing to do with CO2 levels and thus provides no opportunity for massive grants or political graft.

re: replication — check out the Amgen and Bayer experiences trying to replicate studies featured in Nature and Science (the two most prestigious science journals).

Also John Ioannides’ work beginning with his British Medical Journal article (around 2005 IIRC).

McCullough and McKitrick have an excellent Fraser article which points out that academics rarely provide enough data and code to allow others to replicate (even if someone were willing). It includes descriptions of a number of badly flawed studies which government has relied upon to pass harmful legislation. McKitrick has made the point that academics are focused on chasing grants and there are no grants for replication.

note — McKitrick did some work with Steve McIntyre in the early days of Climate Audit

She lied. Knowingly and purposefully lied.

This isn’t about competence or perfection. It’s about lying. Difference. A difference most people can grasp. Even preschool children.

We can only hope that you can marshal enough brain power to understand the difference. Keep trying. We’re rooting for you. You really should try to understand such things before you throw around personal insults. Good luck.

Somehow, I repeated Roy Spencer’s blog address. Sorry ’bout that. 🙁

I meant to link seven questions to Drs. Roy Spencer and John Christy from the Huntsville, AL news. Done in 2015., it’s still relevant.
https://www.al.com/news/huntsville/2015/04/7_questions_with_john_christy.html

Beyond that, even if CO2 is actually a problem, the proposed solutions – solar and wind are not feasible at scale. Only two energy generators that are low carbon are scalable – nuclear and hydroelectric. If the Greens want to go that direction, I’m with ’em. Those are at least feasible. What they are doing with their no fossil fuels drive is self-inflicted poverty.

https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ijaos.20210502.12

“From this data it is concluded that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO2 contributing 3.3K and CH4 and N2O combined just 0.3K. Climate sensitivity to future increases in CO2 concentration is calculated to be 0.50K, including the positive feedback effects of H2O, while climate sensitivities to CH4 and N2O are almost undetectable at 0.06K and 0.08K respectively. This result strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO2 will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature and that increases in CH4 and N2O will have very little discernable impact.”

https://climate-science.press/2021/09/22/the-greenhouse-effect-a-summary-of-wijngaarden-and-happer/

https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2021/07/04/climate-sensitivity-to-co2-what-do-we-know-part-1/

https://wvanwijngaarden.info.yorku.ca/files/2021/03/WPotency.pdf?x45936

It exists to try to refute any scientist that questions their science. The SCIENCE IS SETTLED is their mantra. They invented the climate denier trope and it’s been very successful. Climategate exposed a lot of their anti-science science, but the MSM has kept up a steady stream of propaganda. It’s now down the memory hole.

I used to comment there and ask questions that were explained away by telling me I could not understand what they were doing. Eventually, it was admitted that CO2 alone could not cause the warming they said they were seeing. They had to invent the ideas of “forcings.” Forcings = water vapor, aerosols, methane, etc. All of which are deemed to strengthen the effect of CO2.

CO2 is a minor trace gas in the atmosphere that is relatively well mixed and evenly distributed. So, it’s easy to model. Water vapor and aerosols are not evenly distributed and change dramatically from place to place and time to time. They are not easy to model. The values for water vapor and aerosols used in their models are “educated guesses.” None of the climate models, except the Russian model (which few ever mention), have come close to matching the observed temperature changes. Yet they rely on them for predictions of the coming climate crisis. 🙁

They eventually barred me from commenting because Iwas asking bad questions. 🙂

Better climate info is available at:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ (Old, but still relevant.)
https://www.climatedepot.com/author/marcmorano/
and, of course,
https://judithcurry.com/