New ice age in the near future !

[SSDD]

decrease in solar activity may indicate looming drop in global temps ! Diminishing solar activity may bring new Ice Age by 2030 – Astronomy Now

WOULDN'T THAT BE THE HOWL that after years of leftist loons screaming climate change and global warming, they ended up 180° wrong like they do everything else?

No, that's retarded, as usual. First, any temporarycold period will be warmer than otherwise due to agw drivers. Second, the collomg period will end, and the agw drivers will still be there.

Got any actual observed, measured evidence to support that claim?

Didn't think so.

 

[SSDD]

The science is settled! We adjusted the baseline! We added in a whole new, never tested data set: The deep ocean and we never provided a single experiment! We have CONSENSUS!

oh look, an uneducated slob doesn't understand the data. How surprising.

So do explain.. I have been asking for a rational, scientifically valid reason for altering temperatures from20,30, 50, 70, and even 100 years ago and further for a good long time now. So far, no one has even attempted to offer up such an explanation.

Now here you are implying that you understand why the data has been changed and that you know a rational, scientifically valid reason for altering temperatures so far in the past.

Lets hear it. I'm all ears.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The science is settled! We adjusted the baseline! We added in a whole new, never tested data set: The deep ocean and we never provided a single experiment! We have CONSENSUS!

oh look, an uneducated slob doesn't understand the data. How surprising.

Fort Fun Indiana explains it all.

The data was adjusted because....

 

[Billy_Bob]

The science is settled! We adjusted the baseline! We added in a whole new, never tested data set: The deep ocean and we never provided a single experiment! We have CONSENSUS!

oh look, an uneducated slob doesn't understand the data. How surprising.

Fort Fun Indiana explains it all.

The data was adjusted because....

Fee Fee has blocked his profile from view... I guess he doesn't want people to know who he is and where his troll farm is located. And not one item explains his rant on changes to the record.

 

[mamooth]

The data was adjusted because....

Because it had known errors, and it would have been open fraud to not correct those errors.

Naturally, every denier cultist demands the "open fraud" option. All the data flatly contradicts their cult ravings, and they know that open fraud is the only way to defend their sacred cult dogma from the attacks of the reason-based heretics.

The weird thing is why all the deniers here think they can get away with pushing fraud. They really think that if they all scream their fraud loud enough and often enough, nobody will notice that it's fraud.

 

[mamooth]

So other than violating the rules of this forum by flaming all the members without contributing to the ongoing discussion about climate change do you have anything meaningful to contribute?

Trolling troll is being ironic.

How about the functional model that AOC apparently has, and that you apparently support, that can prove the earth is screwed in another decade.

AOC Derangement Syndrome has replaced Gore Derangement Syndrome among the denier cult. It's a trendier thing.

Why is you deniers rave about politicians instead of discussing facts? Oh, that's right. All the facts contradict you, so you have to deflect somehow.

Anyways, as you seem totally ignorant of the science, let me help you out concerning tipping points. This should get you started.

We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN

Or would you like me to simply start reporting you for trolling in a Zone 2 area?

Here's a challenge, troll. Make a post without any of your dopey troll pictures and videos. Are you capable of that, or would it send you into trolling withdrawal?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The data was adjusted because....

Because it had known errors, and it would have been open fraud to not correct those errors.

Naturally, every denier cultist demands the "open fraud" option. All the data flatly contradicts their cult ravings, and they know that open fraud is the only way to defend their sacred cult dogma from the attacks of the reason-based heretics.

The weird thing is why all the deniers here think they can get away with pushing fraud. They really think that if they all scream their fraud loud enough and often enough, nobody will notice that it's fraud.

In science you don't attempt to adjust errors.

Any adjustment might be just as wrong as the measurement already taken.

You throw the data out and start over.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, please explain to us

Okay:

Global temp data is noisy data. That is why it is treated and analyzed using "running means". So picking the data point of one year and drawing a line to a data point of another year is not valid analysis. In fact, it would get you laughed out of the room, in a science or math class.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In science you don't attempt to adjust errors.

Of course you do, what a retarded thing to say. You clearly know nothing about science and should stop talking about it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Got any actual observed, measured evidence to support that claim?

Yes, of course. Thanks for asking, troll.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Trolling troll is being ironic.

If anyone you should know.

AOC Derangement Syndrome has replaced Gore Derangement Syndrome among the denier cult. It's a trendier thing.

So where's that working model with it's accurate predictions?

Why is you deniers rave about politicians instead of discussing facts? Oh, that's right. All the facts contradict you, so you have to deflect somehow.

Still waiting for that working model of predictions.

Anyways, as you seem totally ignorant of the science, let me help you out concerning tipping points. This should get you started.

We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN

And the Unitied Nations is a certified scientific institution in what way?

Here's a challenge, troll. Make a post without any of your dopey troll pictures and videos. Are you capable of that, or would it send you into trolling withdrawal?

Do you have issues with individuality?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[SSDD]

Because it had known errors, and it would have been open fraud to not correct those errors.

Really? Describe some of the "known" errors in the data...and explain why they keep altering their corrections as the predictions get further and further from observations.

For example: 30 years ago, NOAA said that most of the global warming occurred between 1881 and 1919 and that the earth cooled from 1921 to 1979.

Today, NOAA shows the exact opposite...They show the earth cooling from 1881 to 1919 and warming from 1921 to 1979.

The fact is that the temperature record has become so hopelessly tortured and manipulated that it is worse than useless.

 

[SSDD]

Got any actual observed, measured evidence to support that claim?

Yes, of course. Thanks for asking, troll.

I can't help but notice that you didn't post any..nor will you because your claim of such evidence is just another warmer cultist lie.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

In science you don't attempt to adjust errors.

Of course you do, what a retarded thing to say. You clearly know nothing about science and should stop talking about it.

Yeah that would have worked well for Max Plank.

We'll just error on the side we think it should be and it should be right.

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****

 

[mamooth]

[So where's that working model with it's accurate predictions?

How much hand holding do you need? I can tell you're a conservative, from your inability to do any research yourself.

Start here. That will lead to you the thousands of papers.

Global Warming of 1.5 ºC —

And the Unitied Nations is a certified scientific institution in what way?

It's not. The IPCC is, because it's composed of many scientists who summarize all the science. What about this confuses you?

Do you have issues with individuality?

Everyone is just dying to know what music you like, you know. Really they are. After all, you're a very special snowflake.

 

[mamooth]

Really? Describe some of the "known" errors in the data...

I'll let Judith Curry's blog do it. If you'd like, you can tell her why she's a big fraudy fraud.

Understanding adjustments to temperature data

and explain why they keep altering their corrections as the predictions get further and further from observations.

They don't. That's just a crazy story you made up.

Today, NOAA shows the exact opposite...They show the earth cooling from 1881 to 1919 and warming from 1921 to 1979.

No, that shows the warming taking off around 1970, when the greenhouse gas warming starts to overwhelm the aerosol-induced cooling.

The fact is that the temperature record has become so hopelessly tortured and manipulated that it is worse than useless.

The corrections have made the warming look _smaller_. That's not debatable by any non-liar. The corrections have made the past look warmer, which makes the warming look less severe.

Thus, according to your conspiracy theory, scientists have faked data ... too make the warming look smaller. As that's a totally retarded thing to claim, your conspiracy theory is clearly idiot babbling. Thanks for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you.

This has been explained to you before. You know you're pushing a fraud. You're going to ignore the evidence and keep pushing the fraud.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

[So where's that working model with it's accurate predictions?

How much hand holding do you need? I can tell you're a conservative, from your inability to do any research yourself.

Start here. That will lead to you the thousands of papers.

Global Warming of 1.5 ºC —

There's other scientists who say we're in a global cooling trend... or if you like a ice age is coming.

And the Unitied Nations is a certified scientific institution in what way?

It's not. The IPCC is, because it's composed of many scientists who summarize all the science. What about this confuses you?

Nothing. Why should I believe a politically appointed group of scientists who are going to back up whatever political group they represent because they want grants?

Do you have issues with individuality?

Everyone is just dying to know what music you like, you know. Really they are. After all, you're a very special snowflake.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[mamooth]

There's other scientists who say we're in a global cooling trend... or if you like a ice age is coming.

And since the hard data says that's totally wrong, such claims are ignored.

Your "Someone has a different opinion, so all claims are equally valid, so we can't be sure of anything" reasoning is nonsense. The roundness of the earth is not in question because a scientist somewhere is a flat-earther. The data says what it says.

Why should I believe a politically appointed group of scientists who are going to back up whatever political group they represent because they want grants?

Oh, you're a religious fanatic! Why didn't you just say so up front? It would have saved time.

There is literally no data that, in your mind, could disprove your cult conspiracy theory. When such data is presented, you simply declare how that the data is also obviously part of the conspiracy. Being that your beliefs can't be falsified, they are entirely religious in nature.

In stark contrast, there are many examples of hard data that could falsify the beliefs of the rational people, because our beliefs are scientific in nature.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

There's other scientists who say we're in a global cooling trend... or if you like a ice age is coming.

And since the hard data says that's totally wrong, such claims are ignored.

Your "Someone has a different opinion, so all claims are equally valid, so we can't be sure of anything" reasoning is nonsense. The roundness of the earth is not in question because a scientist somewhere is a flat-earther. The data says what it says.

Why should I believe a politically appointed group of scientists who are going to back up whatever political group they represent because they want grants?

Oh, you're a religious fanatic! Why didn't you just say so up front? It would have saved time.

There is literally no data that, in your mind, could disprove your cult conspiracy theory. When such data is presented, you simply declare how that the data is also obviously part of the conspiracy. Being that your beliefs can't be falsified, they are entirely religious in nature.

In stark contrast, there are many examples of hard data that could falsify the beliefs of the rational people, because our beliefs are scientific in nature.

That's funny. I think the same thing about people who say we have a "scientific consensus" but can't show me a working model of their theory that can accurately predict their claims of global calamity.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[SSDD]

Really? Describe some of the "known" errors in the data...

I'll let Judith Curry's blog do it. If you'd like, you can tell her why she's a big fraudy fraud.

So a cut and paste that you don't understand is all you have?

Understanding adjustments to temperature data

and explain why they keep altering their corrections as the predictions get further and further from observations.

They don't. That's just a crazy story you made up.

Today, NOAA shows the exact opposite...They show the earth cooling from 1881 to 1919 and warming from 1921 to 1979.

No, that shows the warming taking off around 1970, when the greenhouse gas warming starts to overwhelm the aerosol-induced cooling.

So you can't read a graph either...why does that not suprise me.

The corrections have made the warming look _smaller_. That's not debatable by any non-liar. The corrections have made the past look warmer, which makes the warming look less severe.

Sorry hairball.. simply not true..but then you simply regurgitate whatever bullshit you are told to spew..

Thus, according to your conspiracy theory, scientists have faked data ... too make the warming look smaller. As that's a totally retarded thing to claim, your conspiracy theory is clearly idiot babbling. Thanks for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you.

The climate gate emails provided examples of scientists having great fun discussing the data they faked...sorry you missed it.

This has been explained to you before. You know you're pushing a fraud. You're going to ignore the evidence and keep pushing the fraud.

If you mean I have heard the same old bullshit before with no rational, scientifically valid reason..yes, I have...the lack of rational, scientifically valid reasons is where I have a problem with the propaganda.