Massive data manipulation by AGW industry!

[mamooth]

Quite frankly, no one believes that solar output varies enough to drastically affect the climate on Earth.

Obviously incorrect, as many of the deniers right here state that the current warming is due to solar output.

The tilt of the Earth refers to the the Milankoch(sp?) cycles. Way too much time. What the "believers"(as opposed to the deniers") believe is that a minor, extremely minor, input of GHGs portends massive irreversible catastrophe. I for one call bs.

And I call bs on your sentence. "Extremely minor input" is junk pseudoscience on your part, contradicted by the hard data, and "massive irreversible catastrophe" is hyperbole on your part.

What I find interesting from your own statements, for the last half century at least (NASA/NOAA), Warming has been caused by something else. Based on what?

The directly measured evidence.

What's your explanation for the directly measured stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation and decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands? Being there's no natural explanation for such things, they're clearly not due to any natural factors. AGW theory, OTOH, does explain it all. That's why it's the accepted science, because it's currently the only theory that explains all of the observed data.

As according to utterly garbage "global" data from the past? It amazes me that satellite data is now being compared to what?
The utterly incomplete and "adjusted" and "homogenized" historical data coming from NOAA? Historical data from the past that is being literally changed every day

Oh, you're a conspiracy cultist. Why didn't you just say so right off? If all the data didn't flatly contradict you, you wouldn't have to retreat to conspiracy theories. But it does, so you do.

I like science, I am disgusted by what I am seeing. I listen to NOAA try to explain the average temp of the US over the course of a year, to a tenth of a degree. I can only hope that they are joking

You just told us there that you're also clueless about statistics.

When something that I "have a gut feeling about" is at odds with what the smartest minds in the worlds all say, I don't think to myself "I obviously know more than those eggheads, so they must be engaged in a fraudulent conspiracy". I do think "It's almost certain that what I believe is wrong, so I should research this issue more." That's because I'm not a paranoid narcissist.

 

[abu afak]

Quite frankly, no one believes that solar output varies enough to drastically affect the climate on Earth. The tilt of the Earth refers to the the Milankoch(sp?) cycles. Way too much time. What the "believers"(as opposed to the deniers") believe is that a minor, extremely minor, input of GHGs portends massive irreversible catastrophe. I for one call bs. There is nothing to back that up, nothing. .

"LOL
You're in no position to say "Quite Frankly".
There are many shorter cycles warming/cooling periods than Milankovich Cycles.
I'm sure they've been posted here.

What I find interesting from your own statements, for the last half century at least (NASA/NOAA), Warming has been caused by something else. Based on what? Is this warming unusual? As according to utterly garbage "global" data from the past? It amazes me that satellite data is now being compared to what? The utterly incomplete and "adjusted" and "homogenized" historical data coming from NOAA? Historical data from the past that is being literally changed every day?

I like ....

About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds)
Search Results
Web results

How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/.../how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/Apr 4, 2017 - Last week, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, chaired by climate contrarian Lamar Smith, R-Texas, held a hearing on ...

How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? | Climate ...
www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_do_we_know_it_is_not_a_natural_cycleNov 7, 2009 - Answer. If the Earth's temperature had been steady for millions of years and only started rising in the past half century or so, the answer would ...

How do we know? - Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of ...
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. ...Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up .... the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the ...

Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cycles
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htmHowever, internal forces do not cause climate change. ... and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but ...

How Do We Know Humans Are Causing Climate Change? | Climate ...
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/.../how-do-we-know-humans-are-causing-climat...Feb 1, 2019 - Yes, we know humans are responsible for the climate changewe see ... as if we're wrapping another, not-so-natural blanket around the Earth.

Global warming isn't just a natural cycle » Yale Climate Connections
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/.../global-warming-isnt-just-a-natural-cycle/Sep 18, 2018 - Here's how we know that. ... Global warming isn't just anatural cycle. By Sara Peach on Sep ... The earth's temperature changesnaturally over time. Variations ... Earth's warming: How scientists know it'snot the sun. From Yale ...

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global ...
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science.../human-contribution-to-gw-faq.htmlJump to Natural and human factors that influence the climate (known as ...- Natural climate drivers include the energy ... in snow and ice cover thatchange how much ... if it were not for these human-made and natural tiny particles.

[.....]
`

 

[mamooth]

AGW is fake science, shit for brains.

You're acting like the Stalinist Lysenkoists, who said that genetics was fake science, solely because genetics science contradicted the dogma of TheParty.

The term "denier" is Stalinism.

Are you willing to condemn the Republican party for trying to prosecute and jail climate scientists?

Of course you aren't. I've asked here many times, and not a single denier has ever been willing to criticize the open Stalinism of their party.

Hence, "Stalinist" is an accurate term for describing deniers.

The USSR made any disagreement with the government a mental illness, and that is exactly what the left is attempting here.

It's not the left attempting to shut down any discussion here. It's only the right doing that. And you love it, just like all the deniers here.

Silencing Climate Science - Sabin Center for Climate Change Law

 

[skookerasbil]

Quite frankly, no one believes that solar output varies enough to drastically affect the climate on Earth.

Obviously incorrect, as many of the deniers right here state that the current warming is due to solar output.

The tilt of the Earth refers to the the Milankoch(sp?) cycles. Way too much time. What the "believers"(as opposed to the deniers") believe is that a minor, extremely minor, input of GHGs portends massive irreversible catastrophe. I for one call bs.

And I call bs on your sentence. "Exrtremely minor input" is junk pseudoscience on your part, contradicted by the hard data, and "massive irreversible catastrophe" is hyperbole on your part.

What I find interesting from your own statements, for the last half century at least (NASA/NOAA), Warming has been caused by something else. Based on what?

The directly measured evidence.

What's your explanation for the directly measured stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation and decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands? Being there's no natural explanation for such things, they're clearly not due to any natural factors. AGW theory, OTOH, does explain it all. That's why it's the accepted science, because it's currently the only theory that explains all of the observed data.

As according to utterly garbage "global" data from the past? It amazes me that satellite data is now being compared to what?
The utterly incomplete and "adjusted" and "homogenized" historical data coming from NOAA? Historical data from the past that is being literally changed every day

Oh, you're a conspiracy cultist. Why didn't you just say so right off? If all the data didn't flatly contradict you, you wouldn't have to retreat to conspiracy theories. But it does, so you do.

I like science, I am disgusted by what I am seeing. I listen to NOAA try to explain the average temp of the US over the course of a year, to a tenth of a degree. I can only hope that they are joking

You just told us there that you're also clueless about statistics.

When something that I "have a gut feeling about" is at odds with what the smartest minds in the worlds all say, I don't think to myself "I obviously know more than those eggheads, so they must be engaged in a fraudulent conspiracy". I do think "It's almost certain that what I believe is wrong, so I should research this issue more." That's because I'm not a paranoid narcissist.

But the egghead skeptics are winning s0n!

What we see is a billion posts from the omnipotent AGW crowd....always about the science being settled. We've heard this for well over 10 years now!

But besides a billboard to take bows in front of, how is the science mattering in the real world?

The answer is.....its not mattering because people aren't caring....

Recently in REALCLEAR
....

You, Too, Are in Denial of Climate Change

 

[mamooth]

But the egghead skeptics are winning s0n!

That's good. Stage 1 is admitting to your fraud, and you've managed that. Now you need to move on to stage 2, and stop committing the fraud.

What we see is a billion posts from the omnipotent AGW crowd....always about the science being settled. We've heard this for well over 10 years now!

And as a result, the whole world is laughing at you. You've all been reduced to whimpering on message boards.

Think about it. We have data. You all have stupid cartoons and other outright lies. It's not even a contest. The whole planet now considers you to be cult losers. Fraud is ghey, skook, so deniers look like the gheyest people on the planet.

You can flap your wrists even harder now, and look for more fraud to post. After all, it's not like you've ever been capable of anything else.

 

[bripat9643]

AGW is fake science, shit for brains.

You're acting like the Stalinist Lysenkoists, who said that genetics was fake science, solely because genetics science contradicted the dogma of TheParty.

That isn't what Lysenkoism is, you fucking dumbass. So-called "climate science" has more in common with Lysenkoism that any climate skeptic.

The term "denier" is Stalinism.

Are you willing to condemn the Republican party for trying to prosecute and jail climate scientists?

Of course you aren't. I've asked here many times, and not a single denier has ever been willing to criticize the open Stalinism of their party.

Hence, "Stalinist" is an accurate term for describing deniers.

Why would I condemn prosecution of fraud? That's what you're talking about, climate hoaxers who used government funds to promote a con.

The USSR made any disagreement with the government a mental illness, and that is exactly what the left is attempting here.

It's not the left attempting to shut down any discussion here. It's only the right doing that. And you love it, just like all the deniers here.

Silencing Climate Science - Sabin Center for Climate Change Law

Wrong. The left wants to make it illegal to disagree with their dogma. They've tried it countless times. Why do you image Michael Mann is suing Mark Steyn? Since when do scientists have immunity from criticism?[/QUOTE]

 

[skookerasbil]

But the egghead skeptics are winning s0n!

That's good. Stage 1 is admitting to your fraud, and you've managed that. Now you need to move on to stage 2, and stop committing the fraud.

What we see is a billion posts from the omnipotent AGW crowd....always about the science being settled. We've heard this for well over 10 years now!

And as a result, the whole world is laughing at you. You've all been reduced to whimpering on message boards.

Think about it. We have data. You all have stupid cartoons and other outright lies. It's not even a contest. The whole planet now considers you to be cult losers. Fraud is ghey, skook, so deniers look like the gheyest people on the planet.

You can flap your wrists even harder now, and look for more fraud to post. After all, it's not like you've ever been capable of anything else.

Whimpering?

s0n.....if you haven't noticed, all I do in here is laugh and celebrate the winning. Find me one single post where Im all pissed and miserable like you guys do......perpetually! Every day I make Abu shit the bed he gets so pissed due to my laughing.

When the AGW crowd can post up one single link displaying ANY kind of win on climate change action, I'll tip my cap. But Ive been waiting 10 years and have yet to see it. Until then, the science isn't mattering for dick my friends!

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL......more fodder new green deal a huge loser!!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6737693/Thousands-yellow-vest-protesters-streets-France-15th-weekend-running.html

hUgE

 

[SSDD]

Actual weather records over the past 100 years show no correlation between rising carbon dioxide levels and local temperatures.

When you look at the unaltered data there is no change in warming or cooling rates. I think its funny as hell to watch the alarmists squirm when even after their Karl et al manipulations we are now cooling...

Is this our government's official stats on the issue?

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

I found the following paragraph amusing.

"Across inaccessible areas that have few measurements, scientists use surrounding temperatures and other information to estimate the missing values. Each value is then used to calculate a global temperature average. This process provides a consistent, reliable method for monitoring changes in Earth's surface temperature over time."

I can understand how "estimate the missing values" could lead to a consistent method. Reliable, not so much.

Good point....we typically see graphs like this showing how the earth is burning.. Note the real hotspots....the places where its the hottest evah...

Here is what the map looks like if we only use data where we have instrumentation.....most of the global temperature data is simply made up...and they invariably make the places with the least instrumental coverage, the hottest places on earth.

 

[Toronado3800]

But the egghead skeptics are winning s0n!

That's good. Stage 1 is admitting to your fraud, and you've managed that. Now you need to move on to stage 2, and stop committing the fraud.

What we see is a billion posts from the omnipotent AGW crowd....always about the science being settled. We've heard this for well over 10 years now!

And as a result, the whole world is laughing at you. You've all been reduced to whimpering on message boards.

Think about it. We have data. You all have stupid cartoons and other outright lies. It's not even a contest. The whole planet now considers you to be cult losers. Fraud is ghey, skook, so deniers look like the gheyest people on the planet.

You can flap your wrists even harder now, and look for more fraud to post. After all, it's not like you've ever been capable of anything else.

Whimpering?

s0n.....if you haven't noticed, all I do in here is laugh and celebrate the winning. Find me one single post where Im all pissed and miserable like you guys do......perpetually! Every day I make Abu shit the bed he gets so pissed due to my laughing.

When the AGW crowd can post up one single link displaying ANY kind of win on climate change action, I'll tip my cap. But Ive been waiting 10 years and have yet to see it. Until then, the science isn't mattering for dick my friends!

How extreme are you getting? All them Republican govenor voting fellows in California got us unleaded gas and catalytic converters. Are you looking for leglislation from the last two years or something?

 

[skookerasbil]

But the egghead skeptics are winning s0n!

That's good. Stage 1 is admitting to your fraud, and you've managed that. Now you need to move on to stage 2, and stop committing the fraud.

What we see is a billion posts from the omnipotent AGW crowd....always about the science being settled. We've heard this for well over 10 years now!

And as a result, the whole world is laughing at you. You've all been reduced to whimpering on message boards.

Think about it. We have data. You all have stupid cartoons and other outright lies. It's not even a contest. The whole planet now considers you to be cult losers. Fraud is ghey, skook, so deniers look like the gheyest people on the planet.

You can flap your wrists even harder now, and look for more fraud to post. After all, it's not like you've ever been capable of anything else.

Whimpering?

s0n.....if you haven't noticed, all I do in here is laugh and celebrate the winning. Find me one single post where Im all pissed and miserable like you guys do......perpetually! Every day I make Abu shit the bed he gets so pissed due to my laughing.

When the AGW crowd can post up one single link displaying ANY kind of win on climate change action, I'll tip my cap. But Ive been waiting 10 years and have yet to see it. Until then, the science isn't mattering for dick my friends!

How extreme are you getting? All them Republican govenor voting fellows in California got us unleaded gas and catalytic converters. Are you looking for leglislation from the last two years or something?

Do Mustangs or Corvettes even exist in California anymore?

 

[baileyn45]

Quite frankly, no one believes that solar output varies enough to drastically affect the climate on Earth. The tilt of the Earth refers to the the Milankoch(sp?) cycles. Way too much time. What the "believers"(as opposed to the deniers") believe is that a minor, extremely minor, input of GHGs portends massive irreversible catastrophe. I for one call bs. There is nothing to back that up, nothing. .

"LOL
You're in no position to say "Quite Frankly".
There are many shorter cycles warming/cooling periods than Milankovich Cycles.
I'm sure they've been posted here.

What I find interesting from your own statements, for the last half century at least (NASA/NOAA), Warming has been caused by something else. Based on what? Is this warming unusual? As according to utterly garbage "global" data from the past? It amazes me that satellite data is now being compared to what? The utterly incomplete and "adjusted" and "homogenized" historical data coming from NOAA? Historical data from the past that is being literally changed every day?

I like ....

About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds)
Search Results
Web results

How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/.../how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/Apr 4, 2017 - Last week, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, chaired by climate contrarian Lamar Smith, R-Texas, held a hearing on ...

How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? | Climate ...
www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_do_we_know_it_is_not_a_natural_cycleNov 7, 2009 - Answer. If the Earth's temperature had been steady for millions of years and only started rising in the past half century or so, the answer would ...

How do we know? - Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of ...
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. ...Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up .... the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the ...

Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cycles
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htmHowever, internal forces do not cause climate change. ... and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but ...

How Do We Know Humans Are Causing Climate Change? | Climate ...
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/.../how-do-we-know-humans-are-causing-climat...Feb 1, 2019 - Yes, we know humans are responsible for the climate changewe see ... as if we're wrapping another, not-so-natural blanket around the Earth.

Global warming isn't just a natural cycle » Yale Climate Connections
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/.../global-warming-isnt-just-a-natural-cycle/Sep 18, 2018 - Here's how we know that. ... Global warming isn't just anatural cycle. By Sara Peach on Sep ... The earth's temperature changesnaturally over time. Variations ... Earth's warming: How scientists know it'snot the sun. From Yale ...

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global ...
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science.../human-contribution-to-gw-faq.htmlJump to Natural and human factors that influence the climate (known as ...- Natural climate drivers include the energy ... in snow and ice cover thatchange how much ... if it were not for these human-made and natural tiny particles.

[.....]
`

I read the very first article, There are some fairly obvious issues. Right off of the bat the 97% nonsense has been debunked so many times it's hardly worth mentioning.

The ice cores do show a correlation between CO2 and temperature. What they conveniently fail to mention is the CO2 follows after the heat rise.

They also fail to mention that the majority of glacial retreat happened before increased CO2 emissions.

The heat records in the US mention a half century. Obviously they didn't want to talk about the 1930s.

CO2 acidifying the oceans makes no sense since warmer water holds less CO2 than colder water.

There's no evidence sea level rise is accelerating. Hell there is some evidence that in 2016 sea levels fell. Sea level data is, however, notoriously unreliable.

The oceans should be warming, we are still rebounding from the little ice age. The oceans take along time to react to temp swings. There was a paper that came out fairly recently that shows evidence that the deep oceans are still cooling from the little ice age.

The heating of the troposphere is not being registered by the satellite data, much to the dismay of the warming community.

I like how they say temp rises are unprecedented in 1300 years and throw in ice ages. I'm not aware of any ice ages in the last 1300 years, seeing as the last one ended what 12,000 years ago.

Of course they're absolutely certain of their conclusions because their models say so.It's the certainty that drives me. They can't show scientific certainty in the surface data they're putting out now.

 

[skookerasbil]

Quite frankly, no one believes that solar output varies enough to drastically affect the climate on Earth. The tilt of the Earth refers to the the Milankoch(sp?) cycles. Way too much time. What the "believers"(as opposed to the deniers") believe is that a minor, extremely minor, input of GHGs portends massive irreversible catastrophe. I for one call bs. There is nothing to back that up, nothing. .

"LOL
You're in no position to say "Quite Frankly".
There are many shorter cycles warming/cooling periods than Milankovich Cycles.
I'm sure they've been posted here.

What I find interesting from your own statements, for the last half century at least (NASA/NOAA), Warming has been caused by something else. Based on what? Is this warming unusual? As according to utterly garbage "global" data from the past? It amazes me that satellite data is now being compared to what? The utterly incomplete and "adjusted" and "homogenized" historical data coming from NOAA? Historical data from the past that is being literally changed every day?

I like ....

About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds)
Search Results
Web results

How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/.../how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/Apr 4, 2017 - Last week, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, chaired by climate contrarian Lamar Smith, R-Texas, held a hearing on ...

How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? | Climate ...
www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_do_we_know_it_is_not_a_natural_cycleNov 7, 2009 - Answer. If the Earth's temperature had been steady for millions of years and only started rising in the past half century or so, the answer would ...

How do we know? - Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of ...
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. ...Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up .... the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the ...

Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cycles
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htmHowever, internal forces do not cause climate change. ... and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but ...

How Do We Know Humans Are Causing Climate Change? | Climate ...
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/.../how-do-we-know-humans-are-causing-climat...Feb 1, 2019 - Yes, we know humans are responsible for the climate changewe see ... as if we're wrapping another, not-so-natural blanket around the Earth.

Global warming isn't just a natural cycle » Yale Climate Connections
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/.../global-warming-isnt-just-a-natural-cycle/Sep 18, 2018 - Here's how we know that. ... Global warming isn't just anatural cycle. By Sara Peach on Sep ... The earth's temperature changesnaturally over time. Variations ... Earth's warming: How scientists know it'snot the sun. From Yale ...

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global ...
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science.../human-contribution-to-gw-faq.htmlJump to Natural and human factors that influence the climate (known as ...- Natural climate drivers include the energy ... in snow and ice cover thatchange how much ... if it were not for these human-made and natural tiny particles.

[.....]
`

I read the very first article, There are some fairly obvious issues. Right off of the bat the 97% nonsense has been debunked so many times it's hardly worth mentioning.

The ice cores do show a correlation between CO2 and temperature. What they conveniently fail to mention is the CO2 follows after the heat rise.

They also fail to mention that the majority of glacial retreat happened before increased CO2 emissions.

The heat records in the US mention a half century. Obviously they didn't want to talk about the 1930s.

CO2 acidifying the oceans makes no sense since warmer water holds less CO2 than colder water.

There's no evidence sea level rise is accelerating. Hell there is some evidence that in 2016 sea levels fell. Sea level data is, however, notoriously unreliable.

The oceans should be warming, we are still rebounding from the little ice age. The oceans take along time to react to temp swings. There was a paper that came out fairly recently that shows evidence that the deep oceans are still cooling from the little ice age.

The heating of the troposphere is not being registered by the satellite data, much to the dismay of the warming community.

I like how they say temp rises are unprecedented in 1300 years and throw in ice ages. I'm not aware of any ice ages in the last 1300 years, seeing as the last one ended what 12,000 years ago.

Of course they're absolutely certain of their conclusions because their models say so.It's the certainty that drives me. They can't show scientific certainty in the surface data they're putting out now.

Great post summarizing all the fakery.

 

[mamooth]

Whimpering?

What else would anybody call your constant pout-stalking?

You don't see any of the rational people here pout-stalking people. Just you, plus JC and SSDD. If that's how you choose to spend your days, you're clearly miserable and lacking a life.

I imagine that all the rational people here making you their beeyatch for 10 years running has something to do with that. 10 years of humiliation must really wear you down. No wonder you're so butthurt.

 

[mamooth]

That isn't what Lysenkoism is, you fucking dumbass.

Yes it is. You stink as badly at history as you do at science.

Learn some history. Lysenkoism was junk science about how environmental influence that a parent experienced could be passed down to offspring. That is, if out of two identifcal parent plants, one survived a drought, the drought-survivor would breed more drought-resistant offspring than the plant that had never been exposed to drought.

Stalinists loved that, because it squared with the propaganda about how the suffering peasants would pass down their strength to the next generation. And the Communist Party persecuted any scientist not adhering to that junk science, just as your party persecutes any scientists not adhering to your junk science.

Why would I condemn prosecution of fraud? That's what you're talking about, climate hoaxers who used government funds to promote a con.

See? You proudly support the prosecution and jailing of climate scientists, based on faked stories of them being criminals and enemies of the people. You're exactly like the Stalinists.

Wrong. The left wants to make it illegal to disagree with their dogma.

And yet you're the one who just said he wanted to see the mass jailing of scientists. After all, you do say they're all frauds, and you want to jail all frauds. Your zeal to jail anyone who disagrees probably surpasses that of the Stalinists.

Why do you image Michael Mann is suing Mark Steyn?

For defamation. Was that a tough question?

Since when do scientists have immunity from criticism?

Is comparing them to child molesters what you now call "criticism"?

 

[mamooth]

The ice cores do show a correlation between CO2 and temperature. What they conveniently fail to mention is the CO2 follows after the heat rise.

So? Why do you think that's a problem? CO2 is both a feedback and a forcing.

They also fail to mention that the majority of glacial retreat happened before increased CO2 emissions.

So, why do you think that's a problem? Natural variability in the past does not prevent humans from influencing climate now.

The heat records in the US mention a half century. Obviously they didn't want to talk about the 1930s.

That's conspiracy nonsense.

CO2 acidifying the oceans makes no sense since warmer water holds less CO2 than colder water.

That major ignorance of chemistry on your part. Concentration of a gas in a liquid is proportional to partial pressure of the gas in the atmosphere above it, and inversely proportional to temperature. Partial pressure is up 40%. Temperature is up less than 1%. That's a net effect of +39%.

There's no evidence sea level rise is accelerating.

That's flatly contradicted by the data.

The oceans should be warming, we are still rebounding from the little ice age.

That's nonsense. The earth was fully recovered from the LIA by 1850.

The oceans take along time to react to temp swings.

We've been measuring ocean temps a long time. The upturn didn't start until recently. Thus, your theory fails.

The heating of the troposphere is not being registered by the satellite data, much to the dismay of the warming community.

Incorrect. Your propaganda is badly out of date.

I like how they say temp rises are unprecedented in 1300 years and throw in ice ages. I'm not aware of any ice ages in the last 1300 years, seeing as the last one ended what 12,000 years ago.

Random rambling.

Of course they're absolutely certain of their conclusions because their models say so. It's the certainty that drives me. They can't show scientific certainty in the surface data they're putting out now.

What's your explanation for the stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, and decrease in outgoing longwave in the greenhouse gas bands? As there are no natural explanations for those directly observed factors (no models required), those are all smoking guns for warming caused by greenhouse gases. Your "it's natural!" theory is contradicted by the observed data, so your theory is wrong.

 

[skookerasbil]

Whimpering?

What else would anybody call your constant pout-stalking?

You don't see any of the rational people here pout-stalking people. Just you, plus JC and SSDD. If that's how you choose to spend your days, you're clearly miserable and lacking a life.

I imagine that all the rational people here making you their beeyatch for 10 years running has something to do with that. 10 years of humiliation must really wear you down. No wonder you're so butthurt.

Pouting?

a0n....find me a single post in here of me pouting. I have far more laughs than anybody in here....at your expense btw.....

But please do find me that post s0n....

How can one possibly put when every post is a winning post. I never have lost in this forum....because nobody is caring about climate change, I win every time!

And s0n.....again....you have issues because you know people secretly laugh at your ass due to owning that faggoty cat as a single guy. Doy....most men wouldnt be caught dead owning a designer cat. C'mon now!. Do you come home from the gym and hit some poses in front of the cat s0n?? LMAO.....you're pwn'd!!!

 

[mamooth]

And s0n.....again....you have issues because you know people secretly laugh at your ass due to owning that faggoty cat as a single guy.

I use the cat avi to find out who has issues with women.

Men will treat cats as they treat women. Some will say "I dislike cats for their independence". Women should run fast from such men.

If a man is triggered by cats, it means even the presence of a woman will trigger him.

Sorry to hear that about you.

 

[baileyn45]

The ice cores do show a correlation between CO2 and temperature. What they conveniently fail to mention is the CO2 follows after the heat rise.

So? Why do you think that's a problem? CO2 is both a feedback and a forcing.

They also fail to mention that the majority of glacial retreat happened before increased CO2 emissions.

So, why do you think that's a problem? Natural variability in the past does not prevent humans from influencing climate now.

The heat records in the US mention a half century. Obviously they didn't want to talk about the 1930s.

That's conspiracy nonsense.

CO2 acidifying the oceans makes no sense since warmer water holds less CO2 than colder water.

major ignorance of chemistry on your part. Concentration of a gas in a liquid is proportional to partial pressure of the gas in the atmosphere aThat bove it, and inversely proportional to temperature. Partial pressure is up 40%. Temperature is up less than 1%. That'

There's no evidence sea level rise is accelerating.

That's flatly contradicted by the data.

The oceans should be warming, we are still rebounding from the little ice age.

That's nonsense. The earth was fully recovered from the LIA by 1850.

The oceans take along time to react to temp swings.

We've been measuring ocean temps a long time. The upturn didn't start until recently. Thus, your theory fails.

The heating of the troposphere is not being registered by the satellite data, much to the dismay of the warming community.

We've been measuring ocean temps a long time. The upturn didn't start until recently. Thus, your theory fails.

I like how they say temp rises are unprecedented in 1300 years and throw in ice ages. I'm not aware of any ice ages in the last 1300 years, seeing as the last one ended what 12,000 years ago.

Random rambling.

Of course they're absolutely certain of their conclusions because their models say so. It's the certainty that drives me. They can't show scientific certainty in the surface data they're putting out now.

What's your explanation for the stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, and decrease in outgoing longwave in the greenhouse gas bands? As there are no natural explanations for those directly observed factors (no models required), those are all smoking guns for warming caused by greenhouse gases. Your "it's natural!" theory is contradicted by the observed data, so your theory is wrong.

So? Why do you think that's a problem? CO2 is both a feedback and a forcing.

The planet warms. the oceans warm, much later, warmer water releases CO2. This is an accepted reality. Warmer water holds less CO2.. If you believe in the feedback, why did the planet not continue to warm? The planet cooled and CO2 fell. ???????

That's conspiracy nonsense.

Conspiracy my ass. Unless you are relying on manufactured historical data. The raw temperature data shows clearly that the temps in the US were by far warmer in the US in the 30s than anything now.120 degrees in Fargo ND? Even today high temp records around the US are predominantly from the 30s. Unless of course you employe "Mike's trick". As in Michael Mann.

That major ignorance of chemistry on your part. Concentration of a gas in a liquid is proportional to partial pressure of the gas in the atmosphere above it, and inversely proportional to temperature. Partial pressure is up 40%. Temperature is up less than 1%. That's a net effect of +39%.

???? Is this supposed to make sense? Partial pressure is up 40%? Partial pressure of what? The atmosphere? Please explain.

That's flatly contradicted by the data.

And what data would that be? There isn't a knowledgeable oceanographer on the planet than can or will venture such arrogance. The satellites suck at global sea level, the tide gauges are so few and far between as to be useless. Look into the battles between the two, they rip each others data to shreds. It's no different from global average temperature data. It's a joke. Missing data, averaged data, homogenized data. You've got to be kidding.

That's nonsense. The earth was fully recovered from the LIA by 1850.

NASA disagrees...

Deep Pacific Ocean waters are still cooling from the Little Ice Age • Earth.com

We've been measuring ocean temps a long time. The upturn didn't start until recently. Thus, your theory fails.

And that data sucks. A guy with a bucket and a thermometer, where ever the ship might be? You're kidding right? Care to give me the global coverage of the historical data? Care to even try to give me the current coverage of such data? I'll give you a hint, it sucks..Just like the the ground temp data today, the amount of estimated data outweighs any actual data. You've been duped.

Random rambling.

Read the article and explain to me how you can speak of 1300 years and ice ages.

What's your explanation for the stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, and decrease in outgoing longwave in the greenhouse gas bands? As there are no natural explanations for those directly observed factors (no models required), those are all smoking guns for warming caused by greenhouse gases. Your "it's natural!" theory is contradicted by the observed data, so your theory is wrong

You miss the point. This proves that CO2 is the main driver of climate change? GHGs DO affect the climate, we know this. Are they the main driver? This you cannot show. Period.

As I've stated over and over and over, It's about scientific certainties. The current temp data sucks, full of missing data, adjusted data, "homogenized" data, the changing of historical data, Mike's trick "to hide the decline", "get rid of the medieval warm period", (ref "climategate"), Cook refusing to show data because someone might want to prove him wrong. This has become a joke. Anyone with respect for the scientific method would have to be appalled.

Of course, the models agree with AOC we're all going to die unless we pay racial reparation, repair all historical injustices and totally change all of society.

Idiocy.

By the way, how are the global warming predictions doing, Is NYC under water? Arctic ice gone? My grandchildren HAVE seen snow. Hurricanes more frequent and more powerful? More tornados? More drought? Do a little research on recent crop losses ( last 2-3 years) you'll find cold and snow losses. Hear anything about record snows, record cold? Of course it's all global warming. It's becoming a running joke.

My beard is turning grey, global warming, my golden retriever isn't as active, global warming, more snow, global warming, more drought, global warming, more floods, global warming, young chicks look hotter, global warming, movies suck, global warming, politicians get dumber by the day, global warming, my shoe's untied, global warming..

 

[skookerasbil]

And s0n.....again....you have issues because you know people secretly laugh at your ass due to owning that faggoty cat as a single guy.

I use the cat avi to find out who has issues with women.

Men will treat cats as they treat women. Some will say "I dislike cats for their independence". Women should run fast from such men.

If a man is triggered by cats, it means even the presence of a woman will trigger him.

Sorry to hear that about you.

Oh.....ok then!!