Why the dumbest "science" of all time thinks there were positive feedbacks..

Time to drop the bomb: @elonmusk can't get Starship going. It can carry some payload, or be re-usable, not both. A 100t to LEO are off limit. He just keeps "testing" that thing, hoping no one would notice a failed $2tn bet against physics. Have a nice day, EM!

Enhüllt: Endlich erfahren wir was das Problem mit Hitler war.. krone.at/4321720

If the emitting layers warms over twice as much as the surface, what might that possibly mean as a climate feedback..?

Blocking the street, protesting for climate for sake of the children.. and abusing a 3yr old girl! Then, after being blackmailed over it, demanding his money back. "Climate justice" in action..

Remove Water Vapor, the "strongest greenhouse gas", and the Earth.. WARMS!

The ONE pivotal question in Climate Science: Is the slope of these (real) data <3.3 and WV a pos. feedback, or is it >3.3 and WV a neg. feedback.

Lapse Rate Feedback should not be hard to understand. Yet: NOT A SINGLE "CLIMATE SCIENTIST" DOES!!!

Simple Fact: Water Vapor is a negative Feedback - and "climate scientists" are too stupid to do regressions..

Why do climate scientists believe Water Vapor was a Positive Feedback? It is because they have not learned how to do regressions.

Climate: Is water vapor feedback positive, or is it just an illicit regression..?

What positive climate feedbacks are made of - fabricated outliers (>3 sigma) - distorted, unproportional scales - illicit OLS regressions

If climate scientists could only do statistics - they would not have an agenda greenhousedefect.com/the-hol…

Maybe Hanlon’s Razor needs some reversal. Never assume malice when idiocy could explain it all. But if socialism, in its core, is the conspiration of the deplorables against the able, then such a distinction may be futile.

Climate science claims this scatter plot (Chung et al 2010) was flatter then the benchmark (Planck Response, black lines), indicating pos. feedbacks. What do you think? Hint: the 2 outliers in Ts never occurred, are just artefacts due to clear sky filtering.

Chung et al 2010 presented a 2.4W/m2/K interannual as evidence of a strong positive WV/LR Feedback. Reanalysis of that data reveal it is actually 3.55W/m2/K. That is on par with the Planck Respone suggesting no Feedback at all!?!

"Selensky is not welcome - he is a herald of war" Try that meme in AI, with Witkoff and Trump - good luck ;)

You people should stop guessing - and start learning. It is then not so hard to understand where climate science errs. And it DOES err in its fundamentals.. greenhousedefect.com/the-hol… xitter.cf/otokyo__/status/198715…