1900-2014 Warming -->Extraordinary or Normal?

[SSDD]

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.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Lysenkoism: "Lysenkoism is used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives."

Lysenkoism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What marxists did back in the 1920's is no different than what marxists are trying to do today. Poor stupid sheep in government and academia are bludgeoned into "consensus," into "the science is settled" quack camp, for fear of peer censure, or from fear of losing their jobs if they don't conform.

Stalin adopted Lysenko's quack "science" in the field of agronomy. It existed from the 1920's right up till the mid 1960's. It destroyed the Soviet Union's ability to feed itself. Any Soviet scientist who rejected this quack Lysenko "science" was shot or sent to the gulag. If marxists could get away with that in the US, we’d have burial pits as massive as Cambodia’s. Don't support warmie quackery, support ammunition manufacturers instead.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah Sweetie baby, you are coming across as a real kook and weirdo. Support ammunition manufacturers? Brass and lead make for a poor diet. Enjoy your theme song;

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

And a fine society it is. Your fellow travelers are on trial in Cambodia, old knocks. Are you blubbering in your crying towel?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Dr John Cook (aka: SKS) has been caught lieing again!

Paul Homewood notes: According to John Cook, Antarctic sea ice has been expanding because the Southern Ocean is getting warmer. He also claims that anyone thinking more ice is due to colder conditions is “ignorant”.

He forgets that some of us know how to check the data.

Looks like Cook was cooking the books and lying out his ass.

Source

 

[Old Rocks]

WUWT. LOL

 

[SSDD]

WUWT. LOL

Again....nothing. Is the data correct or wrong?

 

[SSDD]

Dr John Cook (aka: SKS) has been caught lieing again!

Paul Homewood notes: According to John Cook, Antarctic sea ice has been expanding because the Southern Ocean is getting warmer. He also claims that anyone thinking more ice is due to colder conditions is “ignorant”.

He forgets that some of us know how to check the data.

Looks like Cook was cooking the books and lying out his ass.

Source

Yeah, I saw that. Climate science scratching its head over why ice in Antarctica is growing while the temperatures of southern oceans is increasing....and claiming that more ice is due to warming...turns out, more ice is due to cooling just as skeptics have been saying all along. It appears that to follow the story line and be a good little warmer, you must suspend all of your critical thinking skills and maybe be congenitally missing any form of common sense at all.

 

[Crick]

As to the 0.6 degree rise, look at the data before the past started being adjusted on a daily basis.

You don't get medical services from your barber and I don't take science from college dropouts that's available from a thousand PhDs. And the temperature increase since 1900 is not 1.0C. Data that says it's 0.6C is crap. I understand that you prefer crap that supports your position - whatever that position might actually be - but I'll take the most accurate data available. THAT says 1.0C.

 

[SSDD]

As to the 0.6 degree rise, look at the data before the past started being adjusted on a daily basis.

You don't get medical services from your barber and I don't take science from college dropouts that's available from a thousand PhDs. And the temperature increase since 1900 is not 1.0C. Data that says it's 0.6C is crap. I understand that you prefer crap that supports your position - whatever that position might actually be - but I'll take the most accurate data available. THAT says 1.0C.

You sure don't get science from climate pseudoscience...you get ad hoc constructs designed to fit a predetermined story line. Your problem is that you can't differentiate the difference between science and pseudoscience fiction any more than you can differentiate the difference between an anonymous poster suggesting that you hold your breath and a public figure, using the press to call for the imprisonment and execution of skeptics.

 

[Crick]

The odds of getting crap from the blog of a single college dropout are many orders of magnitude larger than the odds of getting crap from peer-reviewed publications of the world's degree'd, professional, active climate researchers. No one pays Lansner to do actual research because no one cares what he - a college dropout - thinks about the topic. He's well equipped for the office water cooler and entertaining idiots on the web like you; but that's the limits of the man's ability.

 

[SSDD]

The odds of getting crap from the blog of a single college dropout are many orders of magnitude larger than the odds of getting crap from peer-reviewed publications of the world's degree'd, professional, active climate researchers. No one pays Lansner to do actual research because no one cares what he - a college dropout - thinks about the topic. He's well equipped for the office water cooler and entertaining idiots on the web like you; but that's the limits of the man's ability.

Is the data correct or not? Logical fallacy on your part isn't much of an argument.

 

[IanC]

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?

did you bother reading the article?

he specifically answers your question, and others....

2) I have used 0,7K for the temperature increase 1900-2010. This is obviously highly questionable due to significant UHI measuring problems and adjustment issue that is likely to have exaggerated the temperature increase 1900-2010. On the other hand, temperature variations at Vostok are likely to be larger than global temperature changes, so perhaps a qualitative compare is somewhat fair after all. At least, if you claim that the present temperature increase is extraordinarily large, I think one should show data that supports it. And, as I showed, Vostok data does not really support the claim.

 

[SSDD]

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?

did you bother reading the article?

he specifically answers your question, and others....

2) I have used 0,7K for the temperature increase 1900-2010. This is obviously highly questionable due to significant UHI measuring problems and adjustment issue that is likely to have exaggerated the temperature increase 1900-2010. On the other hand, temperature variations at Vostok are likely to be larger than global temperature changes, so perhaps a qualitative compare is somewhat fair after all. At least, if you claim that the present temperature increase is extraordinarily large, I think one should show data that supports it. And, as I showed, Vostok data does not really support the claim.

Of course he didn't read nor is he likely to...kneejerk character assassination don't require no steenkin reading.

 

[mamooth]

Yeah, I saw that. Climate science scratching its head over why ice in Antarctica is growing

You've been shown many times before that this was specifically predicted back in 1991 by Dr. Manabe, and thus expected. You're just deliberately lying about it again, because your cult commands you to lie.

and claiming that more ice is due to warming..

Nobody said that, especially John Cook. You are, again, deliberately lying. As is Billy_Bob, but that's also expected. Billy is much too stupid to do anything but parrot WUWT. And since WUWT always lies, Billy will always ends up lying as well. He can't claim ignorance as an excuse for lying, because it's been demonstrated over and over that his cult masters always lie.

You actually still seem confused as to why the world holds your cult in such open contempt. No, it's not because of a global socialist conspiracy. I'll list the actual reasons for you.

A. Most deniers are morons.

B. Most deniers are pathological liars.

C. Most deniers are authoritarian thugs.

Understand now? If you need clarification, I can't help, because I don't see how I can dumb it down any further. You act like reprehensible human beings in a multitude of ways, hence decent people want nothing to do with you.

 

[jc456]

Yeah, I saw that. Climate science scratching its head over why ice in Antarctica is growing

You've been shown many times before that this was specifically predicted back in 1991 by Dr. Manabe, and thus expected. You're just deliberately lying about it again, because your cult commands you to lie.

and claiming that more ice is due to warming..

Nobody said that, especially John Cook. You are, again, deliberately lying. As is Billy_Bob, but that's also expected. Billy is much too stupid to do anything but parrot WUWT. And since WUWT always lies, Billy will always ends up lying as well. He can't claim ignorance as an excuse for lying, because it's been demonstrated over and over that his cult masters always lie.

You actually still seem confused as to why the world holds your cult in such open contempt. No, it's not because of a global socialist conspiracy. I'll list the actual reasons for you.

A. Most deniers are morons.

B. Most deniers are pathological liars.

C. Most deniers are authoritarian thugs.

Understand now? If you need clarification, I can't help, because I don't see how I can dumb it down any further. You act like reprehensible human beings in a multitude of ways, hence decent people want nothing to do with you.

and more and just so we're clear But hey, we know you hate losing. But without any evidence of anything you claim, it is what it is.....LoSiNg

 

[SSDD]

Yeah, I saw that. Climate science scratching its head over why ice in Antarctica is growing

More evidence of how shitty climate science is...they predict every possible think so that idiots like you can pick a single correct predictions from an ocean of incorrect predictions and claim that climate science knew what it was talking about all along....key attribute of pseudoscience....hurl as much shit against the wall as you can and hope that something will stick. That has been the tactic of climate science all along...Hell, hairball, look at this chart...

All of those models are supposed to be running the same basic physics with the same parameters....why is there such wide variation among them? If they are running the same physics and same data input, why the differences?...and if they are not running the same physics, then why not? Are the basic physics suspect?...or are the input data suspect?

Any number of models running the same parameters should come up with very similar results....clearly that isn't the case with climate science.

 

[Crick]

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?

did you bother reading the article?

he specifically answers your question, and others....

2) I have used 0,7K for the temperature increase 1900-2010. This is obviously highly questionable due to significant UHI measuring problems and adjustment issue that is likely to have exaggerated the temperature increase 1900-2010. On the other hand, temperature variations at Vostok are likely to be larger than global temperature changes, so perhaps a qualitative compare is somewhat fair after all. At least, if you claim that the present temperature increase is extraordinarily large, I think one should show data that supports it. And, as I showed, Vostok data does not really support the claim.

So he thinks 0.7C is a high estimate. Do you agree with him?

 

[Billy_Bob]

WUWT. LOL

Again....nothing. Is the data correct or wrong?

He will not address the data. his only goal is to discredit those who do not toe his marxist, pathological liar line. Alarmists and facts dont mix well cause they get caught in their lying.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yeah, I saw that. Climate science scratching its head over why ice in Antarctica is growing

You've been shown many times before that this was specifically predicted back in 1991 by Dr. Manabe, and thus expected. You're just deliberately lying about it again, because your cult commands you to lie.

and claiming that more ice is due to warming..

Nobody said that, especially John Cook. You are, again, deliberately lying. As is Billy_Bob, but that's also expected. Billy is much too stupid to do anything but parrot WUWT. And since WUWT always lies, Billy will always ends up lying as well. He can't claim ignorance as an excuse for lying, because it's been demonstrated over and over that his cult masters always lie.

You actually still seem confused as to why the world holds your cult in such open contempt. No, it's not because of a global socialist conspiracy. I'll list the actual reasons for you.

A. Most deniers are morons.

B. Most deniers are pathological liars.

C. Most deniers are authoritarian thugs.

Understand now? If you need clarification, I can't help, because I don't see how I can dumb it down any further. You act like reprehensible human beings in a multitude of ways, hence decent people want nothing to do with you.

Mamooth is looking in the mirror again... Not a single fact just adhom after adhom and crap... Do you have even one functioning brain cell or are all your posts manufactured by the alarmist left wit branch of the Obama Communist government?