Extreme heat events taking place in both summer and winter

[Crick]

Show us what you believe to have been the real global temperature history since 1880.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh, gosh, I see what you mean. I guess these last few years really show that global warming never really took place.

LOL @ ocean data accurate to a tenth of a degree in 1880.

You've been busted so so so many times on this fraud yet you persist.

Warmists ignore this reality over and over:

View attachment 233202 View attachment 233203

ZERO Ocean temperature data.

They added the oceans in only a few years ago to make their models work. Think Bernie Madoff working for NOAA

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Show us what you believe to have been the real global temperature history since 1880.

Pretty easy to do plus or minus 5 degrees. Accurate to a tenth of a degree is fiction

 

[skookerasbil]

Show us what you believe to have been the real global temperature history since 1880.

But according to NASA cooling the past two years.

Nobody cares about the trend from 1915 - 1920....trust me

 

[Wyatt earp]

Oh, gosh, I see what you mean. I guess these last few years really show that global warming never really took place.

LOL @ ocean data accurate to a tenth of a degree in 1880.

You've been busted so so so many times on this fraud yet you persist.

Warmists ignore this reality over and over:

View attachment 233202 View attachment 233203

ZERO Ocean temperature data.

They added the oceans in only a few years ago to make their models work. Think Bernie Madoff working for NOAA

Exactly..


.

 

[Crick]

So... you believe no valid data are available? That all data have been falsified? If so, we are back to the perfect mass conspiracy by thousands of scientists and other workers you have claimed lie to us to make grant money, despite the fact that research grants are not researcher's income and that these data (GISTEMP, NOAA, NWS, HADCRUT, JMA) are being collected and processed by government employees.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

So... you believe no valid data are available? That all data have been falsified? If so, we are back to the perfect mass conspiracy by thousands of scientists and other workers you have claimed lie to us to make grant money, despite the fact that research grants are not researcher's income and that these data (GISTEMP, NOAA, NWS, HADCRUT, JMA) are being collected and processed by government employees.

So... you believe no valid data are available?

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.

Ummm...yeah, you can trust a liberal as much as you can trust a Muslim.....Just for you....<SARCASM> because you peabrain doesn't understand sarcasm...

 

[Crick]

Your newspaper article is over nine years old. And Christopher Booker, its author, has zero expertise in climate science. From Wikipedia:

Christopher John Penrice Booker (born 7 October 1937) is a British journalist and author. In 1961, he was one of the founders of the magazine Private Eye, and has contributed to it since then. He has been a columnist for The Sunday Telegraph since 1990.[1] He has taken a stance which runs counter to the scientific consensus on a number of issues, including global warming, the link between passive smoking and cancer,[2] and the dangers posed by asbestos.[3] In 2009, he published The Real Global Warming Disaster.

In collaboration with Richard North, Booker has written a variety of publications advancing a eurosceptic, though academically disputed, popular historiography of the European Union.

On a range of health issues, Booker has put forward a view that the public is being unnecessarily "scared", as detailed in his book Scared to Death. Thus he argues that asbestos, passive smoking[2] and BSE[13] [Mad Cow disease] have not been shown to be dangerous. His views on these matters go against scientific consensus, and as a result have attracted much criticism from other journalists as well as public bodies. Thus his articles on asbestos and on global warming have been repeatedly challenged by George Monbiot of The Guardian,[14][15] and the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has repeatedly refuted his claims about asbestos.

Booker has repeatedly claimed that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent" risk to human health,[16] relying primarily on a 2000 paper for the HSE by John Hodgson and Andrew Darnton.[17] He wrote in January 2002 that "HSE studies, including a paper by John Hodgson and Andrew Darnton in 2000, concluded that the risk from the substance is "virtually zero".[18] In response, the HSE's Director General, Timothy Walker, wrote that Booker's articles on asbestos had been "misinformed and do little to increase public understanding of a very important occupational health issue."[19] The HSE issued further rebuttals to articles written by Booker in both 2005[20][21] and in 2006.[22][23]

In an article in May 2008, Booker again cited the Hodgson and Darnton paper, claiming that 'they concluded that the risk of contracting mesothelioma from white asbestos cement was "insignificant", while that of lung cancer was "zero"'.[24] This article was also criticised by the HSE as "substantially misleading",[25] as well as by George Monbiot, who argued that Booker misrepresented the authors' findings.[26] Booker's claims were also critically analysed by Richard Wilson in his book Don't Get Fooled Again (2008). Wilson highlighted Booker's repeated endorsement of the alleged scientific expertise of John Bridle, who in 2004 was convicted under the UK's Trade Descriptions Act of making false claims about his qualifications.[27]

In the autumn of 2009, he published The Real Global Warming Disaster. The book, which became his best-selling work, claims that there is not actually a consensus on climate change, and postulates that the measures taken by governments to combat climate change "will turn out to be one of the most expensive, destructive, and foolish mistakes the human race has ever made".[30] The book was characterised by Philip Ball in The Observer as being as "the definitive climate sceptics' manual", in which "he has rounded up just about every criticism ever made of the majority scientific view that global warming, most probably caused by human activity, is under way, and presented them unchallenged".[31]

Ball went on to note that Booker's position required the reader to believe that "1) Most of the world's climate scientists, for reasons unspecified, decided to create a myth about human-induced global warming and have managed to twist endless measurements and computer models to fit their case, without the rest of the scientific community noticing. George W Bush and certain oil companies have, however, seen through the deception. 2) Most of the world's climate scientists are incompetent and have grossly misinterpreted their data and models, yet their faulty conclusions are not, as you might imagine, a random chaos of assertions, but all point in the same direction."[31]

In December 2009, Christopher Booker and Richard North had published an article in The Sunday Telegraph in which they questioned whether Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was using his position for personal gain,[32][33][34][35] with a follow-up Telegraph article in January 2010.[36] On 21 August 2010, The Daily Telegraph issued an apology,[33] and withdrew the December article from their website[34] having reportedly paid legal fees running into six figures.[34] Dr Pachauri described the statements against him as "another attempt by the climate sceptics to discredit the IPCC."[37]

Now that is the sort of source one can feel confident using when attempting to refute the opinions of thousands and thousands of PhD scientists and researchers from around the planet as the products of a massive conspiracy with out the slightest shred of evidence.

Fool.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So... you believe no valid data are available? That all data have been falsified? If so, we are back to the perfect mass conspiracy by thousands of scientists and other workers you have claimed lie to us to make grant money, despite the fact that research grants are not researcher's income and that these data (GISTEMP, NOAA, NWS, HADCRUT, JMA) are being collected and processed by government employees.

It's like saying you know the average height of all hominids to a tenth of an inch based upon the one Lucy skeleton. It's not at all realistic.

Moreover, in 2015 NOAA rewrote the data to fit their foregone conclusion. That's not science, that's abuse

 

[Wyatt earp]

So... you believe no valid data are available? That all data have been falsified? If so, we are back to the perfect mass conspiracy by thousands of scientists and other workers you have claimed lie to us to make grant money, despite the fact that research grants are not researcher's income and that these data (GISTEMP, NOAA, NWS, HADCRUT, JMA) are being collected and processed by government employees.

Some data has been fuck with, god damn Mann and cook are both out right liars..if you can't see that you are an idiot.

.

 

[Crick]

Prove to us that they lie. If only an idiot could miss it, it should be quite simple.

And, just as an FYI, the original contention I challenged was that no valid temperature data were available. Do you agree with that claim?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Your newspaper article is over nine years old. And Christopher Booker, its author, has zero expertise in climate science. From Wikipedia:

Christopher John Penrice Booker (born 7 October 1937) is a British journalist and author. In 1961, he was one of the founders of the magazine Private Eye, and has contributed to it since then. He has been a columnist for The Sunday Telegraph since 1990.[1] He has taken a stance which runs counter to the scientific consensus on a number of issues, including global warming, the link between passive smoking and cancer,[2] and the dangers posed by asbestos.[3] In 2009, he published The Real Global Warming Disaster.

In collaboration with Richard North, Booker has written a variety of publications advancing a eurosceptic, though academically disputed, popular historiography of the European Union.

On a range of health issues, Booker has put forward a view that the public is being unnecessarily "scared", as detailed in his book Scared to Death. Thus he argues that asbestos, passive smoking[2] and BSE[13] [Mad Cow disease] have not been shown to be dangerous. His views on these matters go against scientific consensus, and as a result have attracted much criticism from other journalists as well as public bodies. Thus his articles on asbestos and on global warming have been repeatedly challenged by George Monbiot of The Guardian,[14][15] and the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has repeatedly refuted his claims about asbestos.

Booker has repeatedly claimed that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent" risk to human health,[16] relying primarily on a 2000 paper for the HSE by John Hodgson and Andrew Darnton.[17] He wrote in January 2002 that "HSE studies, including a paper by John Hodgson and Andrew Darnton in 2000, concluded that the risk from the substance is "virtually zero".[18] In response, the HSE's Director General, Timothy Walker, wrote that Booker's articles on asbestos had been "misinformed and do little to increase public understanding of a very important occupational health issue."[19] The HSE issued further rebuttals to articles written by Booker in both 2005[20][21] and in 2006.[22][23]

In an article in May 2008, Booker again cited the Hodgson and Darnton paper, claiming that 'they concluded that the risk of contracting mesothelioma from white asbestos cement was "insignificant", while that of lung cancer was "zero"'.[24] This article was also criticised by the HSE as "substantially misleading",[25] as well as by George Monbiot, who argued that Booker misrepresented the authors' findings.[26] Booker's claims were also critically analysed by Richard Wilson in his book Don't Get Fooled Again (2008). Wilson highlighted Booker's repeated endorsement of the alleged scientific expertise of John Bridle, who in 2004 was convicted under the UK's Trade Descriptions Act of making false claims about his qualifications.[27]

In the autumn of 2009, he published The Real Global Warming Disaster. The book, which became his best-selling work, claims that there is not actually a consensus on climate change, and postulates that the measures taken by governments to combat climate change "will turn out to be one of the most expensive, destructive, and foolish mistakes the human race has ever made".[30] The book was characterised by Philip Ball in The Observer as being as "the definitive climate sceptics' manual", in which "he has rounded up just about every criticism ever made of the majority scientific view that global warming, most probably caused by human activity, is under way, and presented them unchallenged".[31]

Ball went on to note that Booker's position required the reader to believe that "1) Most of the world's climate scientists, for reasons unspecified, decided to create a myth about human-induced global warming and have managed to twist endless measurements and computer models to fit their case, without the rest of the scientific community noticing. George W Bush and certain oil companies have, however, seen through the deception. 2) Most of the world's climate scientists are incompetent and have grossly misinterpreted their data and models, yet their faulty conclusions are not, as you might imagine, a random chaos of assertions, but all point in the same direction."[31]

In December 2009, Christopher Booker and Richard North had published an article in The Sunday Telegraph in which they questioned whether Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was using his position for personal gain,[32][33][34][35] with a follow-up Telegraph article in January 2010.[36] On 21 August 2010, The Daily Telegraph issued an apology,[33] and withdrew the December article from their website[34] having reportedly paid legal fees running into six figures.[34] Dr Pachauri described the statements against him as "another attempt by the climate sceptics to discredit the IPCC."[37]

Now that is the sort of source one can feel confident using when attempting to refute the opinions of thousands and thousands of PhD scientists and researchers from around the planet as the products of a massive conspiracy with out the slightest shred of evidence.

Fool.

Yeah, it is that old, but you know what? When you start the argument then it is found out your argument was based on falsehoods, it is very hard to get any credibility again. Just look at the Lame Stream Media, only you dipshits believe what they say, the rest of the 85% of US citizens wont trust them..

Fool you once, shame on them, fool you twice shame on you.

 

[Crick]

Yeah, it is that old, but you know what? When you start the argument then it is found out your argument was based on falsehoods, it is very hard to get any credibility again. Just look at the Lame Stream Media, only you dipshits believe what they say, the rest of the 85% of US citizens wont trust them..

Unfortunately, you have no proof that ANY of it has been falsified. That puts you a very, very, very long ways from proving that ALL of it has been.

Fool you once, shame on them, fool you twice shame on you.

No... It actually goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me"

 

[Wyatt earp]

Prove to us that they lie. If only an idiot could miss it, it should be quite simple.

And, just as an FYI, the original contention I challenged was that no valid temperature data were available. Do you agree with that claim?

I proved it numerous times cook and Mann we're lying scum.


They can't help it they need cash for their Porsches..


.

 

[Crick]

Neither Cook nor Mann are responsible or even involved in the production of temperature datasets for NOAA, NASA, NWS, HADCRUT, JWA, BEST or anyone else.

 

[polarbear]

Neither Cook nor Mann are responsible or even involved in the production of temperature datasets for NOAA, NASA, NWS, HADCRUT, JWA, BEST or anyone else.

Hahaha and that supposedly absolves Mann because he was no longer able to fabricate data sets as usual after the method was changed. And then this ridiculous statement:
"Show us what you believe to have been the real global temperature history since 1880."
If he would, why would that never make it past the "believe" while if fraud artists like Mann etc "show us" it`s "evidence". Thermometers existed over 100 years before that 1880 base line start. So did news papers and the Almanac. So it`s not as if there were no other way than having to rely on these liars to find out what real thermometers recorded after 1880. But these fraud artists will have none of that and dismiss it as "anecdotal evidence" because it blows their case right out of the water.

 

[Crick]

You were trying to come up with evidence that the global temperature datasets had been falsified. So far you have failed completely.

 

[polarbear]

You were trying to come up with evidence that the global temperature datasets had been falsified. So far you have failed completely.

Can`t you ever stick to the truth? I specifically said its the pre-instrumentation data set and there is lots of evidence that you chose to ignore, or as it were for most of it the total lack of evidence that proxies are accurate enough to vindicate the hockey stick. Nobody falsified the emails where Mann was urging everybody else to support his junk "science" and its that same junk science that refuses to publish the raw data....because its junk !
It`s not my problem to disprove this junk science, its Mann`s problem to prove it`s science, not junk.
He says he can tell you within a fraction of a millimeter how wide any of these rings is:

And you believe him !!! Hahahaha and I am supposed to prove to an idiot like you that it`s not possible....
So why don`t you prove that it is instead of being a total jerk.

 

[Crick]

Show me, from any source, a temperature climb in Earth's history as rapid as what we are experiencing right now.

 

[tycho1572]

A new study shows extreme heat events both in the summer and in the winter are increasing across the US and Canada, while extreme cold events in summer and winter are declining.

Extreme heat increasing in both summer and winter

The increases in record warm temps throughout the year should give deniers cause to pause with claims that temperature data is falsified.

There’s a record of climate changes happening over the past thousands/millions of years.

How much are you willing to pay for the democrats promise of stopping this one from happening?