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

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

I deny that 58 > 62.

You?

 

[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?

I deny that 58 > 62.

You?

Its the new liberal science.. Right in line with common core math...

 

[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%.

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

Hardly, the data is manipulated to fit the Faither model. Then we increase the satellite temp settings to match our fixed data and so on and so forth.

 

[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?

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

What ad hominems? I gave an opinion much the same way the OP did. If I'm guilty, so is the OP. As for being anti-science, we weren't even discussing the science per se; we we discussing scientific ethics and conventions in 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..

What ad hominems? I gave an opinion much the same way the OP did. If I'm guilty, so is the OP. As for being anti-science, we weren't even discussing the science per se; we we discussing scientific ethics and conventions in statistical analysis.

Denier...Denialist.. same old adhoms...

The worse part about your use of these terms is it is you that is denying science not us..

 

[Old Rocks]

And which of the many disciplines in which you have Phd's are you basing that on? LOL

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

I deny that 58 > 62.

You?

Its the new liberal science.. Right in line with common core math...

56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 58

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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..

What ad hominems? I gave an opinion much the same way the OP did. If I'm guilty, so is the OP. As for being anti-science, we weren't even discussing the science per se; we we discussing scientific ethics and conventions in statistical analysis.

Denier...Denialist.. same old ahoms...

The worse part about your use of these terms is it is you that is denying science not us..

They're denying basic math

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And which of the many disciplines in which you have Phd's are you basing that on? LOL

Walk me through how 58>62.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Thread highlight thus far, maybe more hilarious than 58>62

 

[jc456]

Data should not need confidence.

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

Does that mean they can't see the thermometer? Are they blind? Why would they need to be confident if all they're doing is collecting data off a device?

Are you another libturd walking in stupid land?

LOL

 

[jc456]

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.

What? All they need to do is enter the reading in a spreadsheet and average the data. How fking hard is that? It's basic statistics.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Data should not need confidence.

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

You have no confidence in reading that refuse to back up the AGWCult Therory

 

[jc456]

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

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

I know, to figure out how 58 is greater than 62.

 

[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?

I know, to figure out how 58 is greater than 62.

It's the last we'll see of the AGWCult brain trust in this thread

 

[jc456]

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?

So curious, where do you believe the money should come from? Are you saying that they pay for a conclusion? Well fk, what do you suppose the government money is for?

Funny, when I pay for a gallon of milk, I want it to taste like milk!

 

[jc456]

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..

What ad hominems? I gave an opinion much the same way the OP did. If I'm guilty, so is the OP. As for being anti-science, we weren't even discussing the science per se; we we discussing scientific ethics and conventions in statistical analysis.

Funny how the scientific method and definition is nothing like what warmers claim, meaning, the claim is not scientific!

Understand?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

See? they're gone. Not coming back, maybe only to fling pooh

 

[jc456]

See? they're gone. Not coming back, maybe only to fling pooh

Eaglerising.com has a feature I saw on Facbk. 3X4=11 Common core math. I can't get the link off my phone.

 

[jc456]

Si if I draw three circles with four ticks in each circle I would get 11 ! You can't make this shit up.