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.
It's empirical climate data which shows that temperature does not correlate to CO2.Is much too vague to be useful for anything. What's the baseline being used? How old is the most recent temperature data being used?
And, aside from that, it's hilariously stupid on your part to claim that the thermal inertia of the oceans is meaningless, and that temperature should _immediately_ correlate with CO2 levels exactly. No normal person makes such a stupid argument. Being an imbecile at that level means you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.
That you're very, very stupid and butthurt.
And that you're going to cry and run now, so that you don't have to address my points. Like you always do. You're a consistent little coward.
Ask Dr. James Hansen and Makiko Sato it's based on their work. Do you know who those guys are?What's the baseline being used?
Ask Dr. James Hansen and Makiko Sato it's based on their work. Do you know who those guys are?How old is the most recent temperature data being used?
That is literally the basis for the argument you are making. That temperature correlates to CO2. Which empirical climate data clearly proves it doesn't.And, aside from that, it's hilariously stupid on your part to claim that the thermal inertia of the oceans is meaningless, and that temperature should _immediately_ correlate with CO2 levels exactly. No normal person makes such a stupid argument. Being an imbecile at that level means you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.
That is a textbook example of the dunning effect. Let's see if you can figure out where that falls on this matrix.That you're very, very stupid and butthurt.
And that you're going to cry and run now, so that you don't have to address my points. Like you always do. You're a consistent little coward.
And as been pointed out before, that's a fictional story, a big whopper based on pretending that one spot -- Greenland -- represents global temperatures.
But because the big lie supports their religion, every denier embraces it. The cult commands, they obey.
Is much too vague to be useful for anything. What's the baseline being used? How old is the most recent temperature data being used?
And, aside from that, it's hilariously stupid on your part to claim that the thermal inertia of the oceans is meaningless, and that temperature should _immediately_ correlate with CO2 levels exactly. No normal person makes such a stupid argument. Being an imbecile at that level means you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.
That you're very, very stupid and butthurt.
And that you're going to cry and run now, so that you don't have to address my points. Like you always do. You're a consistent little coward.
That is a textbook example of the dunning effect. Let's see if you can figure out where that falls on this matrix.
View attachment 755348
pro tip: hover mouse over graphic
Tell us, when did you take Statistical Mechanics class in university? For me it was 1983. The physics degree followed shortly.
It's that learning thing, which requires actual reading of actual science, and lots of homework and study. The fact that you scanned some conspiracy blogs does not mean you understand a topic.
I've never seen a professional behave that way and I've worked with professionals for 37 years.At another forum he claims he has a Physics degree, said so openly.
Quoting this obvious liar:
Why do you think deep ocean temps were being measured by thermometers in 1860? Who told you such a stupid thing, and why did you fall for it?
Hint: Learn what a proxy is. Just because you're ignorant of the basics, that doesn't mean everyone else is.
Greenlandian CO2 is different- it just isAnd as been pointed out before, that's a fictional story, a big whopper based on pretending that one spot -- Greenland -- represents global temperatures.
But because the big lie supports their religion, every denier embraces it. The cult commands, they obey.
Well, yes. That's why it's so easy for me to destroy your stupid cult blather.At another forum he claims he has a Physics degree, said so openly.
I didn't ask for you to deflect. I asked what the baseline temperature was. If you don't know, just say so. Evading fools nobody, and it makes you look dishonest and cowardly.Ask Dr. James Hansen
Even your own graph doesn't say that. Given how many years of practice you've had, you have no excuse so sucking so hard at lying.Why do you believe that matters? Everyone knows that the present interglacial is 2C cooler
First, you were previously on record telling there was a massive dataset of ocean temperature from which we were able to derive statistically significant data. Are you for or against thermometers?
Sounds like you are the one deflecting, dear. Where is your empirical climate data that proves temperature correlates with CO2 and is a function of CO2?I didn't ask for you to deflect. I asked what the baseline temperature was. If you don't know, just say so. Evading fools nobody, and it makes you look dishonest and cowardly.
Do you understand why it's necessary to know the baseline? If you don't, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.
As expected, you didn't even acknowledge my main point, which is that it's very stupid to think that a process that took centuries in the previous cycles should be fully complete in a few decades. Because you're so stupid and so proud of it, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.
Now, deflect! Deflect! Deflect! What else can you do? Summon the other jackals! Sadly for you, 3 or 4 jackals isn't nearly enough to threaten a lion. You need at least 10 other jackals to bury my posts in whiny trolling. Go find more jackals.
Even your own graph doesn't say that. Given how many years of practice you've had, you have no excuse so sucking so hard at lying.
Well, yes. That's why it's so easy for me to destroy your stupid cult blather.
When was the last time you talked about the science? Actual science, and not just conspiracy rambling. I ask because you spend most of your time here engaging in personal attacks. I can see why, given what laughable dogshit your conspiracy theories are. You have to deflect somehow.
What _are_ you babbling about, kook?
Don't drink and post.
Well, yes. That's why it's so easy for me to destroy your stupid cult blather.
When was the last time you talked about the science? Actual science, and not just conspiracy rambling. I ask because you spend most of your time here engaging in personal attacks. I can see why, given what laughable dogshit your conspiracy theories are. You have to deflect somehow.
You're one of the most dishonest people I've ever met and I've met some real beauts!
Wait ... does Mammory make claims to an education she doesn't have? ... I thought she was just some slut working 7th Avenue ...
Claims that "I can handle things! I'm smart! Not like everybody says... like dumb. I'm smart and I want respect!"
