It took 12 million years for the temperature to finally respond to CO2

[ding]

For that 12 million years, did CO2 lead temperature?

Yes, and it only took 12 million years.

 

[ding]

Then what do you believe is driving the current temperature change?

don't know but we do know temperature change since end of LIttle Ice Age its tiny change compared to many many other changes over last 10,000 years

Water vapor, ocean circulation, cloud cover, orbital forcing, etc.

 

[Crick]

And tens of thousands of scientists studying this issue have failed to notice this vague causation?

For that 12 million years, did CO2 lead temperature?

Yes, and it only took 12 million years.

CO2 led temperature? Do you realize how many times it has been noted that temperature change has always led CO2 in the geological record? To what specific 12 million year period do you refer and could we see the data that shows CO2 leading temperature for that 12 million years?

You would also seem to suggesting that the high end of that period was due entirely to CO2; that nothing else was sustaining that elevated temperature. Is that your position?

 

[ding]

And tens of thousands of scientists studying this issue have failed to notice this vague causation?

For that 12 million years, did CO2 lead temperature?

Yes, and it only took 12 million years.

CO2 led temperature? Do you realize how many times it has been noted that temperature change has always led CO2 in the geological record? To what specific 12 million year period do you refer and could we see the data that shows CO2 leading temperature for that 12 million years?

You would also seem to suggesting that the high end of that period was due entirely to CO2; that nothing else was sustaining that elevated temperature. Is that your position?

 

[mamooth]

Ding's big fails here.

1. CO2 is not the only driver of climate.

2. Cherrypicking. He uses a single study from 2000, and ignores all other studies. For example, Royer (2006), which summarizes many proxies, shows no sign of the spike he raves about.

http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf

]

3. Bad use of graphs, his hallmark. He's comparing two graphs that may not even be related.

4. Assuming CO2 drove temp, and not the reverse.

5. Failure to attribute sources. His graph on the right says it comes from Pearson and Palmer 2000, but that paper has nothing like it in it.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8714/d901415d8e2b860e21f40aace3f50c8fc1be.pdf

That is, even his representation of his cherrypick might be fraudulent. After all, Ding just copied it from a blog, and did no independent checking of it. Ding, what denier blog did you copy the graph from?

(Ding, of course, will not address any of this. Instead, he'll evade by reposting the same nonsense over and over.)

 

[ding]

Ding's big fails here.

1. CO2 is not the only driver of climate.

2. Cherrypicking. He uses a single study from 2000, and ignores all other studies. For example, Royer (2006), which summarizes many proxies, shows no sign of the spike he raves about.

http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf

]

3. Bad use of graphs, his hallmark. He's comparing two graphs that may not even be related.

4. Assuming CO2 drove temp, and not the reverse.

5. Failure to attribute sources. His graph on the right says it comes from Pearson and Palmer 2000, but that paper has nothing like it in it.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8714/d901415d8e2b860e21f40aace3f50c8fc1be.pdf

That is, even his representation of his cherrypick might be fraudulent. After all, Ding just copied it from a blog, and did no independent checking of it. Ding, what denier blog did you copy the graph from?

(Ding, of course, will not address any of this. Instead, he'll evade by reposting the same nonsense over and over.)

So you can't explain why it took 12 million years for the effect of decreasing CO2 to be felt?

 

[Billy_Bob]

In other words, to support your wild ass suppositions, you are accusing them of fraudulent science. LOL

What an obtuse dumb fuck!

If I average the last 500 years to ONE or two data points what happens to your temperature rise? IT VANISHES because the temporal resolution changed. This is also the reason we can not judge our current rise from previous rises. There is INSUFFICIENT DATA TO SAY THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE or that it is "historic" in rate of rise. The assumption made by these people is pure conjecture and would not pass real peer review.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ding's big fails here.

1. CO2 is not the only driver of climate.

2. Cherrypicking. He uses a single study from 2000, and ignores all other studies. For example, Royer (2006), which summarizes many proxies, shows no sign of the spike he raves about.

http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf

]

3. Bad use of graphs, his hallmark. He's comparing two graphs that may not even be related.

4. Assuming CO2 drove temp, and not the reverse.

5. Failure to attribute sources. His graph on the right says it comes from Pearson and Palmer 2000, but that paper has nothing like it in it.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8714/d901415d8e2b860e21f40aace3f50c8fc1be.pdf

That is, even his representation of his cherrypick might be fraudulent. After all, Ding just copied it from a blog, and did no independent checking of it. Ding, what denier blog did you copy the graph from?

(Ding, of course, will not address any of this. Instead, he'll evade by reposting the same nonsense over and over.)

Another idiot post up cherry picked crap which doesn't have the resolution to make these SWAG's. Mamooth, There is so much you believe that isn't backed up by empirical fact...

 

[SSDD]

In other words, to support your wild ass suppositions, you are accusing them of fraudulent science. LOL

What an obtuse dumb fuck!

If I average the last 500 years to ONE or two data points what happens to your temperature rise? IT VANISHES because the temporal resolution changed. This is also the reason we can not judge our current rise from previous rises. There is INSUFFICIENT DATA TO SAY THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE or that it is "historic" in rate of rise. The assumption made by these people is pure conjecture and would not pass real peer review.

You can't show graphs to crick or try to explain graphs to crick...he simply can't get it.

 

[SSDD]

Another idiot post up cherry picked crap which doesn't have the resolution to make these SWAG's. Mamooth, There is so much you believe that isn't backed up by empirical fact...

The opposite of skeptical is gullible and these guys have gullibility in spades.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Another idiot post up cherry picked crap which doesn't have the resolution to make these SWAG's. Mamooth, There is so much you believe that isn't backed up by empirical fact...

The opposite of skeptical is gullible and these guys have gullibility in spades.

Its hard to have an intelligent conversation with these retards. None of them can discern spatial or temporal resolution and why their so called evidence is nothing but pure conjecture. No one with cognitive thought process could make these wild ass assumptions using science. This leads me to the thousands of papers making the same errors over and over again. Agenda? Stupidity, or is it money?

 

[mamooth]

So you can't explain why it took 12 million years for the effect of decreasing CO2 to be felt?

So why did you post a faked graph?

Given that you're now resorting to open fraud, why shouldn't everyone correctly assume that everything you post here is fraudulent? Because that's what everyone is doing now.

You were busted, fraud. And Billy and SSDD have also been busted for supporting the fraud. The 3 of your are proud cult scam artists, and the whole world knows it.

You can attempt to demonstrate you're not a fraud. Start by telling us exactly where you got the faked graphs, with links.

 

[skookerasbil]

So you can't explain why it took 12 million years for the effect of decreasing CO2 to be felt?

So why did you post a faked graph?

Given that you're now resorting to open fraud, why shouldn't everyone correctly assume that everything you post here is fraudulent? Because that's what everyone is doing now.

You were busted, fraud. And Billy and SSDD have also been busted for supporting the fraud. The 3 of your are proud cult scam artists, and the whole world knows it.

You can attempt to demonstrate you're not a fraud. Start by telling us exactly where you got the faked graphs, with links.

The whole world knows it?

s0n.........where is the proof of that? That's an opinion from one asshole. If skeptics are the scam artists, why is their side winning huge in the PR battle? Its 2016......a large majority thinks AGW is a bunch of hooey

 

[skookerasbil]

hOoEy

 

[mamooth]

So skook, you support the use of the faked graphs too, I see.

Is there even one denier here who doesn't support open fraud?

 

[ding]

So you can't explain why it took 12 million years for the effect of decreasing CO2 to be felt?

So why did you post a faked graph?

Given that you're now resorting to open fraud, why shouldn't everyone correctly assume that everything you post here is fraudulent? Because that's what everyone is doing now.

You were busted, fraud. And Billy and SSDD have also been busted for supporting the fraud. The 3 of your are proud cult scam artists, and the whole world knows it.

You can attempt to demonstrate you're not a fraud. Start by telling us exactly where you got the faked graphs, with links.

There's nothing fake about the graph. Why don't you post the data that you believe is real and show me how the data I posted was fake. How's that?

 

[ding]

So skook, you support the use of the faked graphs too, I see.

Is there even one denier here who doesn't support open fraud?

This data really shakes you up, doesn't it? Good because there is more to come.

 

[mamooth]

Of course it's faked. It says it came from a certain paper, yet that paper doesn't contain such data. Hence, it is faked. And you're hiding the faker's identity, which makes you a willing accomplice to the fraud.

Hence, everything you say here should be assumed to be an attempt at more deliberate fraud, unless independent evidence shows otherwise.

 

[ding]

Of course it's faked. It says it came from a certain paper, yet that paper doesn't contain such data. Hence, it is faked. And you're hiding the faker's identity, which makes you a willing accomplice to the fraud.

Hence, everything you say here should be assumed to be an attempt at more deliberate fraud, unless independent evidence shows otherwise.

The data came from them, dumbass. Not the graphics. Prove me wrong.

 

[Crick]

For that 12 million years, did CO2 lead temperature?

Yes, and it only took 12 million years.

So CO2 drives global warming.