Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
IF you actually read the article, it links you to the NOAA/NWS data bases from where the information is derived. Discounting the messenger without checking the facts is the mark of an alarmist who is clueless.Got any sources other than wattsupwiththat.com?
Do scientists from NOAA believe AGW is a hoax?IF you actually read the article, it links you to the NOAA/NWS data bases from where the information is derived. Discounting the messenger without checking the facts is the mark of an alarmist who is clueless.
I will make it simple for you. The anomaly is marked on a 30-year running mean. This means it changes year to year. The long running average is that of the record and does not change. You tell me which is more accurate in assessing the current state of our globe. Short-term moving isn't it...
Really?Some of them do.
Lies? What lies?Anthony Watts has done it again and its simplicity is amazing...
View attachment 765748
You just have to love it. SO Simple and the Warmers lies are exposed.
Anthony Watts is a discredited fraud who has published no climate science ever.Anthony Watts has done it again and its simplicity is amazing...
View attachment 765748
You just have to love it. SO Simple and the Warmers lies are exposed.
Yes, surely you outsmarted the global scientific community by listening to AM radio on your way home.If you dont know its a hoax....you arent paying attn......just gobbling down talking points
Rube says what.....Yes, surely you outsmarted the global scientific community by listening to AM radio on your way home.
So damn dumb....
Again, the best comedy writes itself.I actually had no idea you were this stpid.
Arrogance and ignorance know no bounds.Yes, surely you outsmarted the global scientific community by listening to AM radio on your way home.
So damn dumb....
That's not gong to work for ya, dumbass. Gotta publish some science. That's why you knobs are sitting in the corner whining, while everyone else else laughs at you.Rube says what.....
All been put up here before,,,,just like the covid, the rubes cling to their liesThat's not gong to work for ya, dumbass. Gotta publish some science. That's why you knobs are sitting in the corner whining, while everyone else else laughs at you.
You cant publish your science with the government gate keep on publishing... Censorship has been a problem for over 40 years on this issue.That's not gong to work for ya, dumbass. Gotta publish some science. That's why you knobs are sitting in the corner whining, while everyone else else laughs at you.
So that's a no on those names and studies from active NOAA scientists? Is there not something inherently dishonest about using the work of these scientists in that way? You act like it means something towards discrediting AGW, when in reality the scientists that collected that data don't seem to have had their minds changed.You cant publish your science with the government gate keep on publishing... Censorship has been a problem for over 40 years on this issue.
The only people laughing are those of us who do the science and publish it without your approval.
Not one of you alarmists are challenging the data. You are all yelling names and belittling those who see it differently and dare to call you out. And that is the point. You will not dare to enter the realm of real science and debate.. Your go to is calling names and belittlement never once going near the science.
You attack those who dare call you out... that is all you do. You have lost the debate before you even start....
So that's a no on those names and studies from active NOAA scientists? Is there not something inherently dishonest about using the work of these scientists in that way? You act like it means something towards discrediting AGW, when in reality the scientists that collected that data don't seem to have had their minds changed.
I really wish I knew whether you guys are deeply dishonest or just profoundly ignorant. Then I would know if I should pity you or find you contemptuous. Imagine being relegated to getting news from Wattsupwiththat.
You're trying to build a house on water. I'm just pointing out the stream.You are just ranting in circles as you completely avoid post one article CONTENT which is why it remains UNCHALLENGED.
Try a real debate instead.
Really?
You're suggesting that some scientists actively collecting data for NOAA believe that AGW is a hoax?
Do you have some names and links to their studies?
