If deniers are arguing facts, why would they change their focus?

[EMH]

View attachment 892517

Holy crap, a degree and a half in 175 years? We'd better get right on this. Raise taxes!

You don't understand what this is. This is a taxpayer funded Co2 FRAUD color FUDGE chart. IT was overwhelmingly based on surface ground temp readings in GROWING URBAN AREAS. URBAN AREAS warm 1-10 degrees from surrounding undeveloped land. As a city grows, it gets warmer at the surface. That is THE ONLY WARMING the Co2 FRAUD has that is organic. The rest of the temp data is as follows... precisely


NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
NO WARMING in the OCEANS
NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT
NO OCEAN RISE
NO BREAKOUT in CANE ACTIVITY

 

[Crick]

View attachment 892517

Holy crap, a degree and a half in 175 years? We'd better get right on this. Raise taxes!

Is this better?

Temperature record of the last 2,000 years - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Or how about this:

Climate Change Indicators: Ocean Heat | US EPA

This indicator describes trends in the amount of heat stored in the world’s oceans.

www.epa.gov

How much energy do you think that is? 18 e22 joules? That is equivalent to 43,020,000 MTons (43.02 terratons), 860,400 TIMES as powerful as the largest nuclear explosion ever set off (Tsar Bomba, 50 MT)

And that is not the ocean's total heat content. That is only the anomaly global warming has produced above the 1971-2000 average.

 

[Orangecat]

Is this better?
View attachment 892524

Temperature record of the last 2,000 years - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Equally uninspiring, tbh.
Three questions:
1. Who was keeping accurate temperature records in the year 200?
2. How were they doing it?
3. Do you believe man cannot adapt to a 1.5 degree temperature change over 175 years?

 

[EMH]

Is this better?
View attachment 892524

Temperature record of the last 2,000 years - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We wanted butterscotch fudge, not chocolate....

 

[Crick]

Three questions:

Three answers:

1. Who was keeping accurate temperature records in the year 200?

Global temperatures have been reconstructed from multiple proxies by several different studies.

2. How were they doing it?

By proxy reconstruction. How long have you been participating on this forum?

3. Do you believe man cannot adapt to a 1.5 degree temperature change over 175 years?

Do you have a link to a reputable source that says warming has stopped?

 

[Orangecat]

Global temperatures have been reconstructed from multiple proxies by several different studies.

By proxy reconstruction. How long have you been participating on this forum?

Do you have a link to a reputable source that says warming has stopped?

Proxy reconstruction = bullshit propaganda.

 

[Crick]

Proxy reconstruction = bullshit propaganda.

You just don't know diddly squat about actual science, do you.

Loading…

www.science.org

A global multiproxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common Era - Scientific Data

Design Type(s) observation design • data integration objective • time series design Measurement Type(s) archaeal metabolite • calcification • glacial ice • radiance • sediment • stable isotope analysis • temperature of environmental material • trace metal analysis • wood Technology Type(s) data...

www.nature.com

Loading…

www.researchgate.net

Loading…

www.pnas.org

How Reliable Are Global Temperature Reconstructions of the Common Era?

Global mean annual temperature has increased by more than 1 °C during the past 150 years, as documented by thermometer measurements. Such observational data are, unfortunately, not available for the pre-industrial period of the Common Era (CE), for which the climate development is reconstructed...

www.mdpi.com

Loading…

www.sciencedirect.com

Multi—Proxy Reconstructions of Climate Change and Human Impacts Over the Past 7000 Years From an Archive of Continental Shelf Sediments off Eastern Hainan Island, China

Abrupt climatic events and the history of human activities on Hainan Island are poorly understood, due to the lack of high-resolution records. We present high-resolution multiproxy records from the coastal shelf off eastern Hainan Island in China to investigate abrupt climate change and regional...

www.frontiersin.org

 

[Orangecat]

You just don't know diddly squat about actual science, do you.

Loading…

www.science.org

A global multiproxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common Era - Scientific Data

Design Type(s) observation design • data integration objective • time series design Measurement Type(s) archaeal metabolite • calcification • glacial ice • radiance • sediment • stable isotope analysis • temperature of environmental material • trace metal analysis • wood Technology Type(s) data...

www.nature.com

Loading…

www.researchgate.net

Loading…

www.pnas.org

How Reliable Are Global Temperature Reconstructions of the Common Era?

Global mean annual temperature has increased by more than 1 °C during the past 150 years, as documented by thermometer measurements. Such observational data are, unfortunately, not available for the pre-industrial period of the Common Era (CE), for which the climate development is reconstructed...

www.mdpi.com

Loading…

www.sciencedirect.com

Multi—Proxy Reconstructions of Climate Change and Human Impacts Over the Past 7000 Years From an Archive of Continental Shelf Sediments off Eastern Hainan Island, China

Abrupt climatic events and the history of human activities on Hainan Island are poorly understood, due to the lack of high-resolution records. We present high-resolution multiproxy records from the coastal shelf off eastern Hainan Island in China to investigate abrupt climate change and regional...

www.frontiersin.org

Wall of text = desperation spin.
Feel free to spend your life freaking out over the weather. I have far more productive ways to spend my time, like contemplating where my missing socks go in the laundry.

 

[Crick]

Wall of text = desperation spin.
Feel free to spend your life freaking out over the weather. I have far more productive ways to spend my time, like contemplating where my missing socks go in the laundry.

Where is your evidence that proxy temperature reconstructions are just propaganda? That's how its supposed to work around here. When you want to claim something as a fact, you bring along some fucking evidence. If you don't have any evidence, you just don't have a fucking claim.

 

[Orangecat]

Where is your evidence that proxy temperature reconstructions are just propaganda? That's how its supposed to work around here. When you want to claim something as a fact, you bring along some fucking evidence. If you don't have any evidence, you just don't have a fucking claim.

Yawn.
Sorry, kid, I've been vaccinated against paranoia by logic.
Keep shrieking, though, if it gives your life purpose.

 

[Crick]

Yawn.
Sorry, kid, I've been vaccinated against paranoia by logic.
Keep shrieking, though, if it gives your life purpose.

So you have no evidence. So you just made it up. So you're a liar. Got it.

 

[BackAgain]

Why don’t the AGW faithers accept science? I mean, real science.

 

[Crick]

Why don’t the AGW faithers accept science? I mean, real science.

What real science do you think we're not accepting?

 

[Orangecat]

So you have no evidence. So you just made it up. So you're a liar. Got it.

Logic triggers your dumb ass every time, Crock 'o shite.

 

[BackAgain]

What real science do you think we're not accepting?

All of it.

 

[elektra]

Is this better?

No, you are destroying the world.

 

[Crick]

No, you are destroying the world.
View attachment 892573

No one is suggesting that the level of atmospheric CO2 should - or even could - be brought lower than the pre-industrial 280-300 ppm level. So, what do you call it when you manufacture a false argument to oppose?

You call it another AGW denier lie.

 

[elektra]

No one is suggesting that the level of atmospheric CO2 should - or even could - be brought lower than the pre-industrial 280-300 ppm level. So, what do you call it when you manufacture a false argument to oppose?

You call it another AGW denier lie.

CO2 is at a historic low, dangerously low.

Your idea that this caused the earth to warm is false.

 

[Seymour Flops]

What I see seems to be the abandonment of any attacks on the basic science and its replacement by ad hominem attacks

Examples?

My position is based on layer upon layer upon layer of peer reviewed hard science.

Examples?

That's not a false assumption, its a goddamned physical observation.

An observation that compares measurements taken by 21st century instruments to measurements by 20th century and 19th century instruments. Completely invalid comparisons, obviously.

You accuse my side of this argument of false assumptions and then choose to reject the observed warming?

See above.

No one has ever attempted to explain because no one has ever made that claim. The damage that will be caused by a 1 or 2C temperature increase has been explored thoroughly. You simply haven't been paying attention. Refer to https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf

IPCC? Is that organization paid money to promote the AGW theory?

The same link above will also show you what economists think can and should be done. The human race has a problem. It will cost money to deal with it.

Fine. Pay for it yourself. I have better things to do with my money than spend it on other people’s greed.

AR6 has enormous amounts of evidence supporting all their conclusions. Why don't you actually examine what you've decided to condemn at the behest of lying, ignorant pundits.

www.ipcc.ch

www.ipcc.ch

I’ve seen it. That profit motivated propaganda doesn’t impress me as much as it does you, I’m afraid.

 

[Crick]

Examples?

See the OP

Examples?

See AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

An observation that compares measurements taken by 21st century instruments to measurements by 20th century and 19th century instruments. Completely invalid comparisons, obviously.

Not obviously. It simply requires that each domain display its error margins.

See above.

You reject the observed warming. That makes you a liar or an idiot.

IPCC? Is that organization paid money to promote the AGW theory?

No, it is not.

Fine. Pay for it yourself. I have better things to do with my money than spend it on other people’s greed.

Fixing the world will be on your behalf as well. You don't get to skate out of the bill, asshole

I’ve seen it. That profit motivated propaganda doesn’t impress me as much as it does you, I’m afraid.

It's not a matter of being impressed. Its a matter of your understanding basic science. You don't and thus your opinion on the matter is worthless. And whether you understand it or not, you will benefit from such efforts and thus you get to pay the bills just like all the rest of us.