Some Daytime Temperatures In The Midwest

[Sunsettommy]

View attachment 243111

^^

The literarary heights of deniers.

Meanwhile, climate scientists are filling libraries with published scientific research.

Those statements were made by warmists, not skeptics, try reading the top of the chart next time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

as was stated above, models are not evidence.

The AGW cult believes they are. Otherwise, what evidence to they have?

Data are the evidence.

You are being slippery here, since it is the AGW conjecture that are based on climate models, which run to year 2050,2100 and yes even 3100. That means NO data are being used, and not subject to falsification.

there are probably millions of points of data...historic and current temperatures, historic and current volcanic activity, historic and current CO2 levels, historic and current solar output, historic and current human population levels.

Most of it is open source data that anyone that takes the time can download and run in a program like SPSS or R and do analysis of the data

It is clear you are a confused boy since you have failed to address my point at all.

Here it is again, this time use glasses:

"You are being slippery here, since it is the AGW conjecture that are based on climate models, which run to year 2050,2100 and yes even 3100. That means NO data are being used, and not subject to falsification. "

Your reply was dead on arrival.

Of course, that's moronic, as the models are refined using data going back 10s of 1000s of years.

Just shut up dummy. If, at any time, you think you have the stones and knowledge to challenge the global scientific community ( you don't), then go do some science and attempt that very thing. Otherwise STFU.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Those statements were made by warmists, not skeptics, try reading the top of the chart next time.

Yes I know. And your cartoons are the height of the literary contribution by you denier morons. Get it now? Good, because I won't explain it again.

 

[Oddball]

Those statements were made by warmists, not skeptics, try reading the top of the chart next time.

Yes I know. And your cartoons are the hieght of the literary contribution by you deniers morons.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

as was stated above, models are not evidence.

The AGW cult believes they are. Otherwise, what evidence to they have?

Data are the evidence.

You are being slippery here, since it is the AGW conjecture that are based on climate models, which run to year 2050,2100 and yes even 3100. That means NO data are being used, and not subject to falsification.

there are probably millions of points of data...historic and current temperatures, historic and current volcanic activity, historic and current CO2 levels, historic and current solar output, historic and current human population levels.

Most of it is open source data that anyone that takes the time can download and run in a program like SPSS or R and do analysis of the data

It is clear you are a confused boy since you have failed to address my point at all.

Here it is again, this time use glasses:

"You are being slippery here, since it is the AGW conjecture that are based on climate models, which run to year 2050,2100 and yes even 3100. That means NO data are being used, and not subject to falsification. "

Your reply was dead on arrival.

I do not give a fuck about the models. There is a mountain of data out there. With that data you can look at what happened in the past compared to what is happening now. you can run an analysis on the variables and see which one has the most impact on the outcome.

 

[bripat9643]

Those with minds as open as yours is, will believe anything anyone wants to stuff in there.. I guess the old saying is true:

"When you don't have anything to believe in, you'll believe anything..."

I go where the evidence leads, I do not discount things because my party masters told me or because the savior in the White House said so.

Big fat lie. The evidence does not support the AGW con.

of course it does.

Wrong. You simply ignore all the evidence that proves AGW is wrong. like the fact that 98% of all the climate models failed to predict the current world ave temperature.

as was stated above, models are not evidence.

Then why do the AGW cultists keep claiming they are evidence?

 

[Sunsettommy]

The AGW cult believes they are. Otherwise, what evidence to they have?

Data are the evidence.

You are being slippery here, since it is the AGW conjecture that are based on climate models, which run to year 2050,2100 and yes even 3100. That means NO data are being used, and not subject to falsification.

there are probably millions of points of data...historic and current temperatures, historic and current volcanic activity, historic and current CO2 levels, historic and current solar output, historic and current human population levels.

Most of it is open source data that anyone that takes the time can download and run in a program like SPSS or R and do analysis of the data

It is clear you are a confused boy since you have failed to address my point at all.

Here it is again, this time use glasses:

"You are being slippery here, since it is the AGW conjecture that are based on climate models, which run to year 2050,2100 and yes even 3100. That means NO data are being used, and not subject to falsification. "

Your reply was dead on arrival.

Of course, that's moronic, as the models are refined using data going back 10s of 1000s of years.

Just shut up dummy. If, at any time, you think you have the stones and knowledge t9 challenge the global scientific commenting ( you don't), then go do some science and attempt that very thing. Otherwise STFU.

You are too stupid to notice that years 2050, 2100 and 3100 are far into the future, they can't be "refined" at all. This means they have no predictive value and not subject to verification.

Junk useless pseudoscience.

 

[bripat9643]

The AGW cult believes they are. Otherwise, what evidence to they have?

Data are the evidence.

You are being slippery here, since it is the AGW conjecture that are based on climate models, which run to year 2050,2100 and yes even 3100. That means NO data are being used, and not subject to falsification.

there are probably millions of points of data...historic and current temperatures, historic and current volcanic activity, historic and current CO2 levels, historic and current solar output, historic and current human population levels.

Most of it is open source data that anyone that takes the time can download and run in a program like SPSS or R and do analysis of the data

It is clear you are a confused boy since you have failed to address my point at all.

Here it is again, this time use glasses:

"You are being slippery here, since it is the AGW conjecture that are based on climate models, which run to year 2050,2100 and yes even 3100. That means NO data are being used, and not subject to falsification. "

Your reply was dead on arrival.

I do not give a fuck about the models. There is a mountain of data out there. With that data you can look at what happened in the past compared to what is happening now. you can run an analysis on the variables and see which one has the most impact on the outcome.

The data shows that the average temp hasn't increased since 1998.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The AGW cult believes they are. Otherwise, what evidence to they have?

Data are the evidence.

You are being slippery here, since it is the AGW conjecture that are based on climate models, which run to year 2050,2100 and yes even 3100. That means NO data are being used, and not subject to falsification.

there are probably millions of points of data...historic and current temperatures, historic and current volcanic activity, historic and current CO2 levels, historic and current solar output, historic and current human population levels.

Most of it is open source data that anyone that takes the time can download and run in a program like SPSS or R and do analysis of the data

It is clear you are a confused boy since you have failed to address my point at all.

Here it is again, this time use glasses:

"You are being slippery here, since it is the AGW conjecture that are based on climate models, which run to year 2050,2100 and yes even 3100. That means NO data are being used, and not subject to falsification. "

Your reply was dead on arrival.

I do not give a fuck about the models. There is a mountain of data out there. With that data you can look at what happened in the past compared to what is happening now. you can run an analysis on the variables and see which one has the most impact on the outcome.

Bla, bla, bla….., you drone on and on without saying anything specific, what was your point if you have one?

 

[bripat9643]

How many sexes are there?

two. Nobody questions that.

Dead wrong. All the SJWs question it.

no, they question how many genders there are.

Gender and sex are not the same thing even though they are mistakenly used interchangeably

They're the same damn thing. There are two sexes and two genders, period.

they are not the same thing at all.,

Sex is biological term and gender is a literary term

It's a "literary" term? You mean it's fiction?

 

[bripat9643]

View attachment 243111

^^

The literarary heights of deniers.

Meanwhile, climate scientists are filling libraries with published scientific research.

You mean bullshit, of course.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Those statements were made by warmists, not skeptics, try reading the top of the chart next time.

Yes I know. And your cartoons are the height of the literary contribution by you denier morons. Get it now? Good, because I won't explain it again.

Ha ha ha, then you admitted that warmist scientists were wrong, badly wrong.

Get it now? Good, because I won't explain it again...……...

 

[OnePercenter]

It's 67 here in Vegas right now.

Historically it should be snowing.

On a happy note, the warmer than normal weather we are enjoying is making the weather in the Midwest MUCH-MUCH worse.

 

[otto105]

The whole quote...since you are too dishonest to post it all..


On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

Yeah, and?....It still reads the same.

Of course it does to you, you have the open mind of a steel bear trap...

Those with minds as open as yours is, will believe anything anyone wants to stuff in there.. I guess the old saying is true:

"When you don't have anything to believe in, you'll believe anything..."

I go where the evidence leads, I do not discount things because my party masters told me or because the savior in the White House said so.

Big fat lie. The evidence does not support the AGW con.

Sure, so it should be easy to provide a peer reviewed study that supports your lie that AGW is not happening.

 

[otto105]

Heres my side.

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Disprove all that consensus.

 

[otto105]

BTW bripat


The thermometer in your backyard only proves that its cold in your backyard.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Heres my side.

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Disprove all that consensus.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Nobody denies that climate changes over time, nobody. Strike One.

Nobody denies that it has been warming for over 100 years, Strike Two.

Nobody denies that some people wet their pants over climate modeling junk science, while pushing the meaningless consensus crap. Strike Three.

The only thing that gets disproved is the AGW conjecture, which was refuted years ago, when will you catch up?

 

[otto105]

Heres my side.

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Disprove all that consensus.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Nobody denies that climate changes over time, nobody. Strike One.

Nobody denies that it has been warming for over 100 years, Strike Two.

Nobody denies that some people wet their pants over climate modeling junk science, while pushing the meaningless consensus crap. Strike Three.

The only thing that gets disproved is the AGW conjecture, which was refuted years ago, when will you catch up?

Again, it must be so easy to provide your evidence which can convince anyone that AGW is just conjecture.


So where is it?

 

[bripat9643]

Heres my side.

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Disprove all that consensus.

"Consensus" doesn't need to be disproved. Consensus doesn't prove jack shit.

 

[bripat9643]

BTW bripat


The thermometer in your backyard only proves that its cold in your backyard.

More than my backyard was cold, moron.