Climate Scientists are Laughing at You

[SSDD]

How many times have you and yours used Roy Spencer as an impeccable reference? Fools.

I don't use roy spencer as a reference...he is a warmer also...he just doesn't believe the magic is as strong as the far out wackos like you...his religious beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with scientific statements that he makes however....unless you can point out him citing some scientific nugget and referencing a bible verse...

Either you can argue against his scientific statements or you can't...his religious beliefs are irrelavent and bringing them up is just one more logical fallacy in a long line of them.

 

[SSDD]

Can't stand it when they debunk the bullshit huh?

Yeah, a tobacco interest lobbyist's debunking is particularly compelling. One knows he wouldn't do just any old thing for money.

And that has what to do with climate science and their failure? Do you have a "big book of logical fallacies" and a personal goal to try them all?

 

[SandSquid]

How many times have you and yours used Roy Spencer as an impeccable reference? Fools.

I don't use roy spencer as a reference...he is a warmer also...he just doesn't believe the magic is as strong as the far out wackos like you...his religious beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with scientific statements that he makes however....unless you can point out him citing some scientific nugget and referencing a bible verse...

Either you can argue against his scientific statements or you can't...his religious beliefs are irrelavent and bringing them up is just one more logical fallacy in a long line of them.

His religious anti-Christian statement is what he uses to fill in the holes from his papers. I agree they are a logical fallacy.

 

[SandSquid]

Archaeologists, climatologists, geneticists, an other scientists working together have discovered earth may have been down to it's last 300 or so breeding pairs of humans at the time.

Any actual evidence to support that claim or is it just speculation....perhaps a story told to frighten people into getting on board the global warming express?

Effects of that climate change have already been seen in changes in growing seasons, species ranges, and patterns of seasonal breeding. It's already caused animals to go extinct.

You think maybe the growing seasons are a bit different now than they were during the little ice age, or during the medieval warm period or during the roman warm period, or during the holocene optimum, or the younger dryas? The climate changes and life adapts or dies... As you can see...the climate on earth is extremely variable...it always has been and probably always will be...we are along for the ride...we are not driving the climate..

Most known species of animals have small ranges of climates where they live. And even if they are able to adapt, is their food source able to? Are their predators able to? Will their defense mechanisms still be viable in a new climate?

Life evolves, adapts, or dies...99% of all the creatures that ever walked on the earth are now extinct. The first to go are those that have become so specialized that they can only live in very small and limited areas.

A grizzly bear might be able to live anywhere from Alaska down to Texas. But for the ones in Alaska, what happens to them as Salmon which have a very low temperature tolerance and already are struggling with the effects of climate change die out or change spawning grounds further north?

Present grizzly bears are a product of evolution...and they are still in the process...The ancestors of present day grizzly bears were walking about during the time before the present ice age....they survived the ice age, they survived the warmer climate since the holocene optimum and the cooling since...they have demonstrated that they are capable of adapting to wildly varying climate...

Your belief that somehow climate and life is static is somewhat misguided...both the climate and life is constant change.

And the small things are are the big ones. Malaria is spreading to higher elevations as mosquitos are able to expand into now warmer climates, and longer mosquito seasons are keeping it around longer every year. Leishmaniasis was a tropical disease, which is now making it's way into Northern Texas.

My first assignment in the military was at Elmendorf Air Force Base back in the 1960's...the mosquitoes were terrible there and north along the coast at the early warning sites...mosquitoes can live anywhere where liquid water exists...You seem to have a very narrow, and limited world view...expand and see how adaptable life is.

All of what I wrote takes a couple seconds on google to fact check if you'd like to educate yourself on what the scientific community stands by. Or you can stay uneducated and remain ignorant. I really could care less what your choice is.

Yes, I narrow my view on science. I think the scientists who use scientific method and facts when writing their peer reviewed papers are a better source than politicians views on science and the conspiracy theorists who try and use flawed arguments unable to pass a peer review.

Just me though.

 

[SSDD]

How many times have you and yours used Roy Spencer as an impeccable reference? Fools.

I don't use roy spencer as a reference...he is a warmer also...he just doesn't believe the magic is as strong as the far out wackos like you...his religious beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with scientific statements that he makes however....unless you can point out him citing some scientific nugget and referencing a bible verse...

Either you can argue against his scientific statements or you can't...his religious beliefs are irrelavent and bringing them up is just one more logical fallacy in a long line of them.

His religious anti-Christian statement is what he uses to fill in the holes from his papers. I agree they are a logical fallacy.

Got an example or is that just something that someone told you which you chose to believe based on your political leanings?

 

[SSDD]

Archaeologists, climatologists, geneticists, an other scientists working together have discovered earth may have been down to it's last 300 or so breeding pairs of humans at the time.

Any actual evidence to support that claim or is it just speculation....perhaps a story told to frighten people into getting on board the global warming express?

Effects of that climate change have already been seen in changes in growing seasons, species ranges, and patterns of seasonal breeding. It's already caused animals to go extinct.

You think maybe the growing seasons are a bit different now than they were during the little ice age, or during the medieval warm period or during the roman warm period, or during the holocene optimum, or the younger dryas? The climate changes and life adapts or dies... As you can see...the climate on earth is extremely variable...it always has been and probably always will be...we are along for the ride...we are not driving the climate..

Most known species of animals have small ranges of climates where they live. And even if they are able to adapt, is their food source able to? Are their predators able to? Will their defense mechanisms still be viable in a new climate?

Life evolves, adapts, or dies...99% of all the creatures that ever walked on the earth are now extinct. The first to go are those that have become so specialized that they can only live in very small and limited areas.

A grizzly bear might be able to live anywhere from Alaska down to Texas. But for the ones in Alaska, what happens to them as Salmon which have a very low temperature tolerance and already are struggling with the effects of climate change die out or change spawning grounds further north?

Present grizzly bears are a product of evolution...and they are still in the process...The ancestors of present day grizzly bears were walking about during the time before the present ice age....they survived the ice age, they survived the warmer climate since the holocene optimum and the cooling since...they have demonstrated that they are capable of adapting to wildly varying climate...

Your belief that somehow climate and life is static is somewhat misguided...both the climate and life is constant change.

And the small things are are the big ones. Malaria is spreading to higher elevations as mosquitos are able to expand into now warmer climates, and longer mosquito seasons are keeping it around longer every year. Leishmaniasis was a tropical disease, which is now making it's way into Northern Texas.

My first assignment in the military was at Elmendorf Air Force Base back in the 1960's...the mosquitoes were terrible there and north along the coast at the early warning sites...mosquitoes can live anywhere where liquid water exists...You seem to have a very narrow, and limited world view...expand and see how adaptable life is.

All of what I wrote takes a couple seconds on google to fact check if you'd like to educate yourself on what the scientific community stands by. Or you can stay uneducated and remain ignorant. I really could care less what your choice is.

Yes, I narrow my view on science. I think the scientists who use scientific method and facts when writing their peer reviewed papers are a better source than politicians views on science and the conspiracy theorists who try and use flawed arguments unable to pass a peer review.

Just me though.

And everything I said can be verified in a few seconds as well...We are both saying the same thing...only I am simply imparting information where you are attempting to create a sense of unease, and uncertainty in an effort to gain support for your political cause. Maybe you are so programmed that you don't realize that what you are spewing is political propaganda disguised as science...

 

[SandSquid]

So add .75 of a degree and the present will still be cooler than most of the past 10,000 years.

Anyway, let's compare apples with apples.

In 2018, as of today (Feb. 26), "there have already been 61 hours above freezing at Cape Morris Jesup, Greenland," with the previous record — 16 hours — set in 2011, Rohde wrote on Twitter.


In 2018, there have already been 61 hours above freezing at Cape Morris Jesup, Greenland.

The previous record was 16 hours before the end of April in 2011. pic.twitter.com/BCgcxAtKng

— Robert Rohde (@rarohde) February 26, 2018

Freakishly Warm Weather in the Arctic Has Climate Scientists 'Stunned'​

So now we are talking about weather and calling it climate? You pick one location and call that climate?

And I could go on and on showing decreasing temperatures...the fact remains that the present is cooler than most of the past 10,000 years.

So when you ask for facts, you are talking about how NOAA monitors the temperatures from all 344 climate zones in the US recorded from weather stations in the Global Historical Climatology Network.

National Climate Report - January 2019 | State of the Climate | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

And a quick read through their actual numbers debunks yours immediately.

 

[SandSquid]

And everything I said can be verified in a few seconds as well...We are both saying the same thing...only I am simply imparting information where you are attempting to create a sense of unease, and uncertainty in an effort to gain support for your political cause. Maybe you are so programmed that you don't realize that what you are spewing is political propaganda disguised as science...

Nope, no political stance here. Just science bud. You don't like the science so you try and manipulate the numbers to create your myth. Sorry bud, I'll believe the scientists rather than you intentionally leaving giant holes which have already been pointed out ad nauseum in your ranting on your conspiracy theory here.

Have a good day bud.

 

[SSDD]

So add .75 of a degree and the present will still be cooler than most of the past 10,000 years.

Anyway, let's compare apples with apples.

In 2018, as of today (Feb. 26), "there have already been 61 hours above freezing at Cape Morris Jesup, Greenland," with the previous record — 16 hours — set in 2011, Rohde wrote on Twitter.


In 2018, there have already been 61 hours above freezing at Cape Morris Jesup, Greenland.

The previous record was 16 hours before the end of April in 2011. pic.twitter.com/BCgcxAtKng

— Robert Rohde (@rarohde) February 26, 2018

Freakishly Warm Weather in the Arctic Has Climate Scientists 'Stunned'​

So now we are talking about weather and calling it climate? You pick one location and call that climate?

And I could go on and on showing decreasing temperatures...the fact remains that the present is cooler than most of the past 10,000 years.

So when you ask for facts, you are talking about how NOAA monitors the temperatures from all 344 climate zones in the US recorded from weather stations in the Global Historical Climatology Network.

National Climate Report - January 2019 | State of the Climate | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

And a quick read through their actual numbers debunks yours immediately.

No..the point was that he cherry picked a particular piece of information and claimed that it somehow proved man made global warming...it didn't...I merely demonstrated that you can say anything with cherry picked information but it doesn't prove causation...

 

[SSDD]

And everything I said can be verified in a few seconds as well...We are both saying the same thing...only I am simply imparting information where you are attempting to create a sense of unease, and uncertainty in an effort to gain support for your political cause. Maybe you are so programmed that you don't realize that what you are spewing is political propaganda disguised as science...

Nope, no political stance here. Just science bud. You don't like the science so you try and manipulate the numbers to create your myth. Sorry bud, I'll believe the scientists rather than you intentionally leaving giant holes which have already been pointed out ad nauseum in your ranting on your conspiracy theory here.

Have a good day bud.

What I provide was just science as well...nothing about it was alarming though...yours was pure alarm....spoken for no other reason than to try to advance your political agenda...and like I said...we both said the same thing...science supports what I said the just as much as it supports what you said...you are an alarmist...I am not.

 

[SandSquid]

So add .75 of a degree and the present will still be cooler than most of the past 10,000 years.

Anyway, let's compare apples with apples.

In 2018, as of today (Feb. 26), "there have already been 61 hours above freezing at Cape Morris Jesup, Greenland," with the previous record — 16 hours — set in 2011, Rohde wrote on Twitter.


In 2018, there have already been 61 hours above freezing at Cape Morris Jesup, Greenland.

The previous record was 16 hours before the end of April in 2011. pic.twitter.com/BCgcxAtKng

— Robert Rohde (@rarohde) February 26, 2018

Freakishly Warm Weather in the Arctic Has Climate Scientists 'Stunned'​

So now we are talking about weather and calling it climate? You pick one location and call that climate?

.

This is amazing. You literally are trying to call someone out for calling weather climate because they are using one area. In one area, that is a climate. But then you use the "hottest single day" bit. Which is literally weather, ignoring the temperatures on 364 of 365 days to make your point.

Really? That's your defense there?

And where are you getting your info. Just using NOAA's easily searchable dataset, I am not finding your info matching their own so far.

Datasets | Climate Data Online (CDO) | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Care to source your graphs there, using NOAA's actual records of HCN stations, because according to their site, your numbers appear completely made up.

 

[SandSquid]

So add .75 of a degree and the present will still be cooler than most of the past 10,000 years.

Anyway, let's compare apples with apples.

In 2018, as of today (Feb. 26), "there have already been 61 hours above freezing at Cape Morris Jesup, Greenland," with the previous record — 16 hours — set in 2011, Rohde wrote on Twitter.


In 2018, there have already been 61 hours above freezing at Cape Morris Jesup, Greenland.

The previous record was 16 hours before the end of April in 2011. pic.twitter.com/BCgcxAtKng

— Robert Rohde (@rarohde) February 26, 2018

Freakishly Warm Weather in the Arctic Has Climate Scientists 'Stunned'​

So now we are talking about weather and calling it climate? You pick one location and call that climate?

And I could go on and on showing decreasing temperatures...the fact remains that the present is cooler than most of the past 10,000 years.

So when you ask for facts, you are talking about how NOAA monitors the temperatures from all 344 climate zones in the US recorded from weather stations in the Global Historical Climatology Network.

National Climate Report - January 2019 | State of the Climate | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

And a quick read through their actual numbers debunks yours immediately.

No..the point was that he cherry picked a particular piece of information and claimed that it somehow proved man made global warming...it didn't...I merely demonstrated that you can say anything with cherry picked information but it doesn't prove causation...

You literally cherry picked hot days in Missouri as your source. And your's at a glance don't appear to be standing up to NOAA's searchable records either.


So you are saying that only looking at one source would be like you cherry picking from papers that global warming isn't man-made when the scientific community, especially those who study climatology disagree because you can point out one spot.

Sorry bud. You debunked your entire premise by saying you need to look at the entire picture, just not pick and choose the single outliers that you like. Well the entire picture is clear. Scientific communities from 80 countries specifically endorse that ideal together. 0 oppose it. And plenty of those countries have no political diversity on the subject.

Global warming is happening. We are the cause. It will negatively impact our lives. You just proved that claim by debunking the outliers. Thank you.

Have a good day bud.

 

[SandSquid]

And everything I said can be verified in a few seconds as well...We are both saying the same thing...only I am simply imparting information where you are attempting to create a sense of unease, and uncertainty in an effort to gain support for your political cause. Maybe you are so programmed that you don't realize that what you are spewing is political propaganda disguised as science...

Nope, no political stance here. Just science bud. You don't like the science so you try and manipulate the numbers to create your myth. Sorry bud, I'll believe the scientists rather than you intentionally leaving giant holes which have already been pointed out ad nauseum in your ranting on your conspiracy theory here.

Have a good day bud.

What I provide was just science as well...nothing about it was alarming though...yours was pure alarm....spoken for no other reason than to try to advance your political agenda...and like I said...we both said the same thing...science supports what I said the just as much as it supports what you said...you are an alarmist...I am not.

But you just said you need to look at it as a whole, not cherry pick the pieces you like.

Now as a whole where do climatologists stand on global warming?

OUCH bud, you debunked yourself.

Not being an alarmist. If I say "we should vaccinate our kids because otherwise they could suffer some very debilitating and potentially deadly disease outbreaks", that doesn't make me an alarmist. It means I follow the science behind it. Your conspiracy theory doesn't change that.

 

[SSDD]

You literally cherry picked hot days in Missouri as your source. And your's at a glance don't appear to be standing up to NOAA's searchable records either.

Maybe this is all to confusing for you...In the OP there is a true statement that the present is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years. CRN doesn't like that and while he has no evidence to the contrary, made a failed attempt to disprove the statement...he cried that the graph I provided ended in the year 2000...but since the pause continues, the temperatures in 2000 are statistically the same as they are today...especially when you consider the margin of error in the global average temperature which is over half of the claimed temperature increase....

So he pulls out one location from the entire globe which had had more days above freezing last year than any year since we started keeping records...the funny thing was, that he picked a spot in greenland.....here, look at this gold standard temperature reconstruction made from an ice core taken in greenland...

He posts a short period of slightly warmer than usual weather and claims that it is proof that the present is warmer than most of the past 10,000 years...look at that chart...does the bit of warming he showed convince you that the present is warmer than the past 10,000 years? He cherry picked a single piece of data and attempted to make a case of it...I cherry picked some single pieces of data to make a point that cherry picking data doesn't prove anything...the 10,000 temperature reconstruction above demonstrates that the present is cooler than most of the past 10,000 years...

The same temperature trends are visible in the antarctic as in the arctic...here is a temperature reconstruction of both on a much larger, 50,000 year scale.. they both show the same warming trends and they both show that the present is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

The point was that cherry picking means nothing other than that you have a weak case and are trying to twist information in an effort to make your case seem stronger.....like cherry picking grizzly bears, or malaria in an attempt to prove man made global warming...

So you are saying that only looking at one source would be like you cherry picking from papers that global warming isn't man-made when the scientific community, especially those who study climatology disagree because you can point out one spot.

Not at all...I look at all the sources and do you know what you can't find in any of them? You can't find a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability....

Know what else you can't find? You can't find a single published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses...not a single published paper...

So since there is no observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and there has never been a paper published in which the warming we are supposed to be causing has ever been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses...exactly what do you think that consensus is built upon?

Sorry bud. You debunked your entire premise by saying you need to look at the entire picture, just not pick and choose the single outliers that you like. Well the entire picture is clear. Scientific communities from 80 countries specifically endorse that ideal together. 0 oppose it. And plenty of those countries have no political diversity on the subject.

Again... no observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...no published paper in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses....what exactly do you suppose the consensus is based on...and it seems that you are simply assuming that because the scientific community agrees on a thing, that it must be true...there were tens of thousands of scientists on the planet who believe that cholesterol caused heart disease...that stress caused ulcers, that salt caused high blood pressure, that the earth was expanding, that there were canals on mars, that light transmitted through the universe via aether, that phrenology was real, that the universe was static, that there were strong genetic differences between the races, that Neanderthals didn't exist alongside of humans, that earth might be the only place in the solar system where water exists, that complex organisms have more genes than simple organisms like an amoeba, that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, that black holes can't exist near young stars...and on and on and on...pick a scientific topic and you can bet that at one time, nearly 100% of scientists at some time were wrong on that topic....the fact that scientists "believe" it doesn't make it true.

Global warming is happening. We are the cause. It will negatively impact our lives. You just proved that claim by debunking the outliers. Thank you.

The warming started about 14,000 years ago...that is to be expected as the planet exists a glacial period. As to the cause, you can't provide any actual observed, measured evidence which supports the man made change hypothesis over natural variability...so upon what, exactly do you base your claim other than that the science community agrees? To which I ask, based on what? And you have no real answer to that question...

 

[SandSquid]

You literally cherry picked hot days in Missouri as your source. And your's at a glance don't appear to be standing up to NOAA's searchable records either.

Maybe this is all to confusing for you...In the OP there is a true statement that the present is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years. CRN doesn't like that and while he has no evidence to the contrary, made a failed attempt to disprove the statement...he cried that the graph I provided ended in the year 2000...but since the pause continues, the temperatures in 2000 are statistically the same as they are today...especially when you consider the margin of error in the global average temperature which is over half of the claimed temperature increase....

So he pulls out one location from the entire globe which had had more days above freezing last year than any year since we started keeping records...the funny thing was, that he picked a spot in greenland.....here, look at this gold standard temperature reconstruction made from an ice core taken in greenland...

He posts a short period of slightly warmer than usual weather and claims that it is proof that the present is warmer than most of the past 10,000 years...look at that chart...does the bit of warming he showed convince you that the present is warmer than the past 10,000 years? He cherry picked a single piece of data and attempted to make a case of it...I cherry picked some single pieces of data to make a point that cherry picking data doesn't prove anything...the 10,000 temperature reconstruction above demonstrates that the present is cooler than most of the past 10,000 years...

The same temperature trends are visible in the antarctic as in the arctic...here is a temperature reconstruction of both on a much larger, 50,000 year scale.. they both show the same warming trends and they both show that the present is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

The point was that cherry picking means nothing other than that you have a weak case and are trying to twist information in an effort to make your case seem stronger.....like cherry picking grizzly bears, or malaria in an attempt to prove man made global warming...

So you are saying that only looking at one source would be like you cherry picking from papers that global warming isn't man-made when the scientific community, especially those who study climatology disagree because you can point out one spot.

Not at all...I look at all the sources and do you know what you can't find in any of them? You can't find a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability....

Know what else you can't find? You can't find a single published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses...not a single published paper...

So since there is no observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and there has never been a paper published in which the warming we are supposed to be causing has ever been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses...exactly what do you think that consensus is built upon?

Sorry bud. You debunked your entire premise by saying you need to look at the entire picture, just not pick and choose the single outliers that you like. Well the entire picture is clear. Scientific communities from 80 countries specifically endorse that ideal together. 0 oppose it. And plenty of those countries have no political diversity on the subject.

Again... no observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...no published paper in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses....what exactly do you suppose the consensus is based on...and it seems that you are simply assuming that because the scientific community agrees on a thing, that it must be true...there were tens of thousands of scientists on the planet who believe that cholesterol caused heart disease...that stress caused ulcers, that salt caused high blood pressure, that the earth was expanding, that there were canals on mars, that light transmitted through the universe via aether, that phrenology was real, that the universe was static, that there were strong genetic differences between the races, that Neanderthals didn't exist alongside of humans, that earth might be the only place in the solar system where water exists, that complex organisms have more genes than simple organisms like an amoeba, that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, that black holes can't exist near young stars...and on and on and on...pick a scientific topic and you can bet that at one time, nearly 100% of scientists at some time were wrong on that topic....the fact that scientists "believe" it doesn't make it true.

Global warming is happening. We are the cause. It will negatively impact our lives. You just proved that claim by debunking the outliers. Thank you.

The warming started about 14,000 years ago...that is to be expected as the planet exists a glacial period. As to the cause, you can't provide any actual observed, measured evidence which supports the man made change hypothesis over natural variability...so upon what, exactly do you base your claim other than that the science community agrees? To which I ask, based on what? And you have no real answer to that question...

You got busted already trying to use fake numbers to support your conspiracy theory. So you just want to move on like that didn't happen?????????

YOU then debunked your entire conspiracy theory by proving it shouldn't be acknowledged as it creates a false premise. That was the best part and you seem to be running like a little puppy wetting itself from it.Now you are showing how uneducated you are by being unable to read the hundreds of peer reviewed studies alll across the globe showing global warming is increasing beyond expected rates incrementally over and over from every possible angle as soon as the industrial revolution got going with the proof that man made influences are the cause.

Your defense is literally shoving your head in the dirt and pretending if you willingly decide not to educate yourself on the topic and remain ignorant at least you can be right in your mind. Intentionally being dumb is no way to go through life bud.

So were your lies intentional? Or are you just completely ignorant on this topic and had no idea they were lies when you wrote them?

YOU LITERALLY DEBUNKED YOURSELF AND YOU CAN"T WALK THAT ONE BACK KIDDO.

Sorry bud. Done with you.

 

[SSDD]

You got busted already trying to use fake numbers to support your conspiracy theory. So you just want to move on like that didn't happen?????????

Guess this is to difficult for you. I didn't use fake numbers....I used real numbers to demonstrate that real numbers don't mean anything unless they are in context...his use of the geenland short warming period didn't mean anything in terms of global climate any more than my use of short term numbers mean anything in terms of global climate...I wasn't trying to prove anything with the numbers other than they don't mean anything in the long term.

YOU then debunked your entire conspiracy theory by proving it shouldn't be acknowledged as it creates a false premise. That was the best part and you seem to be running like a little puppy wetting itself from it.Now you are showing how uneducated you are by being unable to read the hundreds of peer reviewed studies alll across the globe showing global warming is increasing beyond expected rates incrementally over and over from every possible angle as soon as the industrial revolution got going with the proof that man made influences are the cause.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you this far behind the curve...the numbers I used were to prove a point..that point being that you can't take numbers from a short period of time and prove anything with regard to global temperature trends.

As far as the data goes...what I have proven is that you can't provide the first piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...I can make that statement in perfect confidence that nether you, nor anyone who may read this post will provide any such evidence and embarrass me...it doesn't exist...and the fact that you believe it does, but don't seem to be able to bring any of it here speaks volumes about the amount of actual research you have done...you can't find it because it doesn't exist...and neither does a published paper in which the warming we are supposed to be causing has been empirically measured, quantified and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses...again, I can state in perfect confidence that no such paper exists and know for a fact that neither you, nor anyone else is going to embarrass me by producing one. Unlike you, I have actually spent a great deal of time looking at the data rather than being spoon-fed my opinion by people with a political agenda...

Your defense is literally shoving your head in the dirt and pretending if you willingly decide not to educate yourself on the topic and remain ignorant at least you can be right in your mind. Intentionally being dumb is no way to go through life bud.

Actually, I am not playing defense...I am playing offense. I am asking for ONE SINGLE PIECE of observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...or ONE SINGLE PUBLISHED PAPER in which the warming we are supposed to be causing by our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses...That is known as offense...you are the one playing defense...your MO is logical fallacies, claims that evidence exists which doesn't, and name calling.... Poor defense at best...A good defense would be to slap me down with that single piece of evidence I asked for to to shut me up with that published paper that I said doesn't exist. The problem is that the evidence you need to make a good defense doesn't exist...you are in an indefensible position and I am still asking for the data and you can do nothing but make mewling excuses for why you can't produce it...

You lost before you even got started...you didn't even know that you were on the defensive...and now it is to late to back out..

So were your lies intentional? Or are you just completely ignorant on this topic and had no idea they were lies when you wrote them?

Feel free to point out a lie on my part...Do provide the quote and the evidence that it was a lie...or is this just more poor defense on your part...some weak effort to detract from the fact that you can't even provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?

Sorry bud. Done with you.

Poorest defense of all...slink away with your tail tucked between your legs...I get that one a lot from you climate warriors....you talk a great game till someone starts asking for actual evidence...then you realize that whoever gave you your opinion didn't prepare you to actually engage someone in a real discussion...so what else can you do but run away....don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out...

 

[SandSquid]

You got busted already trying to use fake numbers to support your conspiracy theory. So you just want to move on like that didn't happen?????????

Guess this is to difficult for you. I didn't use fake numbers....I used real numbers to demonstrate that real numbers don't mean anything unless they are in context...his use of the geenland short warming period didn't mean anything in terms of global climate any more than my use of short term numbers mean anything in terms of global climate...I wasn't trying to prove anything with the numbers other than they don't mean anything in the long term.

YOU then debunked your entire conspiracy theory by proving it shouldn't be acknowledged as it creates a false premise. That was the best part and you seem to be running like a little puppy wetting itself from it.Now you are showing how uneducated you are by being unable to read the hundreds of peer reviewed studies alll across the globe showing global warming is increasing beyond expected rates incrementally over and over from every possible angle as soon as the industrial revolution got going with the proof that man made influences are the cause.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you this far behind the curve...the numbers I used were to prove a point..that point being that you can't take numbers from a short period of time and prove anything with regard to global temperature trends.

As far as the data goes...what I have proven is that you can't provide the first piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...I can make that statement in perfect confidence that nether you, nor anyone who may read this post will provide any such evidence and embarrass me...it doesn't exist...and the fact that you believe it does, but don't seem to be able to bring any of it here speaks volumes about the amount of actual research you have done...you can't find it because it doesn't exist...and neither does a published paper in which the warming we are supposed to be causing has been empirically measured, quantified and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses...again, I can state in perfect confidence that no such paper exists and know for a fact that neither you, nor anyone else is going to embarrass me by producing one. Unlike you, I have actually spent a great deal of time looking at the data rather than being spoon-fed my opinion by people with a political agenda...

Your defense is literally shoving your head in the dirt and pretending if you willingly decide not to educate yourself on the topic and remain ignorant at least you can be right in your mind. Intentionally being dumb is no way to go through life bud.

Actually, I am not playing defense...I am playing offense. I am asking for ONE SINGLE PIECE of observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...or ONE SINGLE PUBLISHED PAPER in which the warming we are supposed to be causing by our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses...That is known as offense...you are the one playing defense...your MO is logical fallacies, claims that evidence exists which doesn't, and name calling.... Poor defense at best...A good defense would be to slap me down with that single piece of evidence I asked for to to shut me up with that published paper that I said doesn't exist. The problem is that the evidence you need to make a good defense doesn't exist...you are in an indefensible position and I am still asking for the data and you can do nothing but make mewling excuses for why you can't produce it...

You lost before you even got started...you didn't even know that you were on the defensive...and now it is to late to back out..

So were your lies intentional? Or are you just completely ignorant on this topic and had no idea they were lies when you wrote them?

Feel free to point out a lie on my part...Do provide the quote and the evidence that it was a lie...or is this just more poor defense on your part...some weak effort to detract from the fact that you can't even provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?

Sorry bud. Done with you.

Poorest defense of all...slink away with your tail tucked between your legs...I get that one a lot from you climate warriors....you talk a great game till someone starts asking for actual evidence...then you realize that whoever gave you your opinion didn't prepare you to actually engage someone in a real discussion...so what else can you do but run away....don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out...

So in all that you didn't defend your lie, but kinda just slip by it smoothly. Again, was that intentional that you lied? Or was it just because you are ignorant on the topic? Just trying to find out if you are intentionally trying to support something you know is not true, or if you just are not educated on the topic. Or both it seems would fit you.

You literally said you can't look at the outliers... when you are basing your entire premise on the outliers. This is amazing.

YOU LITERALLY DEBUNKED YOUR ENTIRE PREMISE.

Thanks bud! have a great day.

 

[SSDD]

So in all that you didn't defend your lie, but kinda just slip by it smoothly.

I can't help but notice that you didn't provide any quote by me which you claim is a lie...nor did you provide any evidence that it was a lie...very poor defense by a person in an indefensible position..

You literally said you can't look at the outliers... when you are basing your entire premise on the outliers. This is amazing.

What I can't help but notice, and what anyone else reading this will notice is your attempt to completely ignore my requests for just a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....Can't find it, can you...so instead, you make up stories about lies which you don't seem to be able to provide a quote of, or evidence that it is a lie.

YOU LITERALLY DEBUNKED YOUR ENTIRE PREMISE.

What's the matter bucky...when they are in a hole, rational people stop digging...you just keep digging deeper though, don't you....I can ask all day for you to provide a quote from me and evidence that I told a lie...same thing over and over...and your reply is always going to be something other than the quote and evidence that I lied...how do you suppose that looks to people who are reading this? You never delivering either evidence that I lied, or evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...you just mewling....shucking and jiving...dodging and weaving but never delivering.....looks bad for you bucky...bad...

 

[SSDD]

As long as the topic seems to be lies...how about you explain yours... You said "You literally said you can't look at the outliers.." till just now, I have not used the word outliers...do you know what literal means? Why did you claim that I said something that I did not?

 

[Wuwei]

What I can't help but notice, and what anyone else reading this will notice is your attempt to completely ignore my requests for just a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

What is your definition of "natural variability"?