Sattelite Data Show 2015 Was NOT EVEN CLOSE to Being Hottest on Record.

[CrusaderFrank]

I think what may be needed here is a course in basic English. NOAA clearly stated that the 1997 report had been superseded. Hanging on to a data point that objectively requires correction, because it supports your hypotheses, is no more valid than adjusting one without cause to get such support... Is it.

I'm sorry, but that made no fking sense.

Can you say that again in English?

They fudged the data. It refused to back up the AGWCult theory, so it got altered

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you tell us in your own words how 58 is warmer than 62?

I already did. You used a baseline that was 4.3F colder. If you were honest, you'd admit that 58 + 4.3 = 62.3 is warmer than 62, but you won't admit it, being that you're pathologically dishonest.

And every denier here weighing in on the topic has joined in with circling the wagons and backing your open dishonesty. Not one of them has the courage and integrity to contradict the official cult line. The denier cult said "lie", hence all the cultists are complying.

Were they reading the thermometers incorrectly? Did they not say 62?

We're supposed to have confidence in your amazing ability to tell us the temperature in 1880 to a tenth of a degree, but you're off by 4.3F in 1997?

 

[skookerasbil]

"hottest"

How about an operational definition of "hottest"!!!


ghey

 

[Crick]

Can you tell us in your own words how 58 is warmer than 62?

I already did. You used a baseline that was 4.3F colder. If you were honest, you'd admit that 58 + 4.3 = 62.3 is warmer than 62, but you won't admit it, being that you're pathologically dishonest.

And every denier here weighing in on the topic has joined in with circling the wagons and backing your open dishonesty. Not one of them has the courage and integrity to contradict the official cult line. The denier cult said "lie", hence all the cultists are complying.

Were they reading the thermometers incorrectly? Did they not say 62?

We're supposed to have confidence in your amazing ability to tell us the temperature in 1880 to a tenth of a degree, but you're off by 4.3F in 1997?

Frank, calculating the Earth's average temperature involves considerably more than reading a mercury thermometer.

 

[whitehall]

There is a book by a Swedish Phd called "Neanderthal Man- in search for the lost Genomes". There are several pages of positive reviews from everyone from Salon to Harpers to Science News. It should be mandatory reading not so much for the Neanderthal connection but for the (unintended?) insight into the scientific community. In page 52 the author states "I was inclined to study human history by molecular means but as generally practiced it was riddled with conjecture and biases stemming from preconceived ideas". This is the scientific community he was talking about. It seems that the "scientists" are afflicted with the same weaknesses as ordinary people. They are biased, greedy, angry, ambitious and subject to peer pressure. The bottom line is that if you throw enough money at a university or other scientific entity they will come up with whatever conclusion you pay for. That's where we stand in the global warming front.

 

[Crick]

Your premise - which itself remains undemonstrated - does not support your conclusion.

 

[mamooth]

Frank, jc, jon and Billy are just desperate. All of their old lies got debunked and laughed at, so they got propaganda-drunk and tried parroting an amazingly stupid new lie.

Even the other deniers won't stoop to that level of fraud, which speaks to how especially lame this most recent WUWT fraud is. The only people willing to stoop that low are the most diehard of the cult fruit loops, the people with no credibility left to lose.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you tell us in your own words how 58 is warmer than 62?

I already did. You used a baseline that was 4.3F colder. If you were honest, you'd admit that 58 + 4.3 = 62.3 is warmer than 62, but you won't admit it, being that you're pathologically dishonest.

And every denier here weighing in on the topic has joined in with circling the wagons and backing your open dishonesty. Not one of them has the courage and integrity to contradict the official cult line. The denier cult said "lie", hence all the cultists are complying.

Were they reading the thermometers incorrectly? Did they not say 62?

We're supposed to have confidence in your amazing ability to tell us the temperature in 1880 to a tenth of a degree, but you're off by 4.3F in 1997?

Frank, calculating the Earth's average temperature involves considerably more than reading a mercury thermometer.

That's absolutely fucking hysterical!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, jc, jon and Billy are just desperate. All of their old lies got debunked and laughed at, so they got propaganda-drunk and tried parroting an amazingly stupid new lie.

Even the other deniers won't stoop to that level of fraud, which speaks to how especially lame this most recent WUWT fraud is. The only people willing to stoop that low are the most diehard of the cult fruit loops, the people with no credibility left to lose.

So 58F is warmer than 62F?

 

[Billy_Bob]

There is a book by a Swedish Phd called "Neanderthal Man- in search for the lost Genomes". There are several pages of positive reviews from everyone from Salon to Harpers to Science News. It should be mandatory reading not so much for the Neanderthal connection but for the (unintended?) insight into the scientific community. In page 52 the author states "I was inclined to study human history by molecular means but as generally practiced it was riddled with conjecture and biases stemming from preconceived ideas". This is the scientific community he was talking about. It seems that the "scientists" are afflicted with the same weaknesses as ordinary people. They are biased, greedy, angry, ambitious and subject to peer pressure. The bottom line is that if you throw enough money at a university or other scientific entity they will come up with whatever conclusion you pay for. That's where we stand in the global warming front.

NASA and NOAA... The best adjusted, altered, and falsified data for agenda that money can buy.. You dont like the numbers ... CHANGE THEM!

 

[mamooth]

Frank, your claims that Guam was sinking were more sensible and more honest.

So, what do you hope to accomplish with this new lie?

 

[Billy_Bob]

"hottest"

How about an operational definition of "hottest"!!!


ghey

Taking a list of 14 years and claiming all the years were hot and then say this last one was hotter than the rest.. and if we go back to 1998.. it wasn't the hottest anything.. This is how the left does their statistics.. Change the definition so they can say what they want..

 

[Billy_Bob]

And yet no one has challenged the OP... Dam those pesky facts... They keep getting int he way of the political agenda..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, your claims that Guam was sinking were more sensible and more honest.

So, what do you hope to accomplish with this new lie?

LOL! you fucking retard!!! Your Cult said Guam was going to tip over and sink! I hope you get paid to embarrass yourself with these amazing "thoughts"

 

[saveliberty]

Data should not need confidence.

It's a statistical term. Would you prefer data they weren't confident in?

It is manipulated data so confidence should be 100%.

 

[konradv]

The bottom line is that if you throw enough money at a university or other scientific entity they will come up with whatever conclusion you pay for. That's where we stand in the global warming front.

That doesn't prove anything, particularly that the denialists aren't being tempted by the same factors. How much money do the energy companies throw around, are their scientists actually doing any experiments or are they just paid to bash those who do?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Data should not need confidence.

It's a statistical term. Would you prefer data they weren't confident in?

It is manipulated data so confidence should be 100%.

Less than three people in 10 are confident in this data... like most alarmist drivel..

 

[konradv]

Data should not need confidence.

It's a statistical term. Would you prefer data they weren't confident in?

It is manipulated data so confidence should be 100%.

You're just twisting in an attempt words to fool those who don't understand scientific statistical analysis.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The bottom line is that if you throw enough money at a university or other scientific entity they will come up with whatever conclusion you pay for. That's where we stand in the global warming front.

That doesn't prove anything, particularly that the denialists aren't being tempted by the same factors. How much money do the energy companies throw around, are their scientists actually doing any experiments or are they just paid to bash those who do?

What a load of left wing anti-science crap.. Complete with adhomenims. Now show us facts that prove you opinion..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Data should not need confidence.

It's a statistical term. Would you prefer data they weren't confident in?

It is manipulated data so confidence should be 100%.

You're just twisting in an attempt words to fool those who don't understand scientific statistical analysis.

Funny... thats what your doing