SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,966
- 280
It's not character assassination. It's qualification. Why should we take the word of a dropout who makes AGW skeptic graphs for a hobby over the word of virtually every, degreed, professional researcher on the planet? The answer is: we shouldn't.
Care to explain where Mr Lansner got a 0.6C rise between 1900 and 2010? Do YOU have data that shows such a number?
No, it's character assassination...you don't prove that the data is wrong...you simply say that "whoever" is not qualified to put numbers into a graph because he or she isn't a phD...and when they are a phD....you still engage in character assassination. You don't touch the data because clearly it is correct....it is evidence that you and yours have been lying for quite some time now about the warming since the LIA being unprecedented....just as us skeptics have been pointing out since the lie began. The whole climate scare is a lie and it keeps falling apart on you one piece at a time.
As to the 0.6 degree rise, look at the data before the past started being adjusted on a daily basis.