Geologists On Global Climate Change

[jc456]

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. In the meantime, Ernie has obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen.

Problem is, it is not just weather records that are being presented. We have the thawing of the arctic, the shrinking North Polar Ice Cap, the Ice Caps of Greenland and Antarctica losing billions of tons of ice per year, and almost all of our alpine glaciers in rapid retreat. GHGs in the atmosphere are at a level unseen for millions of years. But the deniars just continue to state that nothing is happening.

AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Just because you keep posting that particular group of words over and over, does not make it true, dumbass.

OK, dear little corksmoker, link us to Scientific Societies that AGW is not real. Same for National Academies of Science and major Universities. You cannot, because there are none. So you are just flapping yap.

Tell them to show the real data. That's simple right?

 

[IanC]

"There is no tropospheric hotspot!" was one of most most sacred denier sacred cows.

It died long ago, but deniers have been propping up its rotting corpse. Now the zombie sacred cow has been decapitated, and they don't know what to do.

The only zombie science going on is Sherwood's further attempt at finding the hot spot with tortured wind data.

Anyone looking for background info on this subject could go over to JoNova's blog. Lots of links and background discussion.

 

[Liminal]

 

[Old Rocks]

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. In the meantime, Ernie has obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen.

Problem is, it is not just weather records that are being presented. We have the thawing of the arctic, the shrinking North Polar Ice Cap, the Ice Caps of Greenland and Antarctica losing billions of tons of ice per year, and almost all of our alpine glaciers in rapid retreat. GHGs in the atmosphere are at a level unseen for millions of years. But the deniars just continue to state that nothing is happening.

AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Just because you keep posting that particular group of words over and over, does not make it true, dumbass.

OK, dear little corksmoker, link us to Scientific Societies that AGW is not real. Same for National Academies of Science and major Universities. You cannot, because there are none. So you are just flapping yap.

Tell them to show the real data. That's simple right?

Show that they are not showing the real data. That simple.

 

[jc456]

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. In the meantime, Ernie has obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen.

Problem is, it is not just weather records that are being presented. We have the thawing of the arctic, the shrinking North Polar Ice Cap, the Ice Caps of Greenland and Antarctica losing billions of tons of ice per year, and almost all of our alpine glaciers in rapid retreat. GHGs in the atmosphere are at a level unseen for millions of years. But the deniars just continue to state that nothing is happening.

AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Just because you keep posting that particular group of words over and over, does not make it true, dumbass.

OK, dear little corksmoker, link us to Scientific Societies that AGW is not real. Same for National Academies of Science and major Universities. You cannot, because there are none. So you are just flapping yap.

Tell them to show the real data. That's simple right?

Show that they are not showing the real data. That simple.

look real hard at the title. I know you all have issues with comprehending words like majority, reconstruction, expected, could and should. But here is a link and again, in the title the word to pay attention to is reconstruction.

I know this is difficult for you, but that word means the data in the report has been touched. So, not the raw data. holy crap, why is this such a difficult thing for you?

credit: National Academies Press
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2 000 Years

Title:
SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTIONS FOR THE LAST 2,000 YEARS

additionally, here right from the FAQs page at the GISS:
credit GISS:
link,
Data.GISS GISTEMP -- Frequently Asked Questions

abstract:
"Q. Does GISS deal directly with raw (observed) data?
A. No. GISS has neither the personnel nor the funding to visit weather stations or deal directly with data observations from weather stations. GISS relies on data collected by other organizations, specifically, NOAA/NCDC's Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) v3 adjusted monthly mean data as augmented by Antarctic data collated by UK Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) and also NOAA/NCDC's Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) v3b data."

Please, show me where there are graphs using raw data sets.

 

[jc456]

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. In the meantime, Ernie has obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen.

Problem is, it is not just weather records that are being presented. We have the thawing of the arctic, the shrinking North Polar Ice Cap, the Ice Caps of Greenland and Antarctica losing billions of tons of ice per year, and almost all of our alpine glaciers in rapid retreat. GHGs in the atmosphere are at a level unseen for millions of years. But the deniars just continue to state that nothing is happening.

AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Just because you keep posting that particular group of words over and over, does not make it true, dumbass.

OK, dear little corksmoker, link us to Scientific Societies that AGW is not real. Same for National Academies of Science and major Universities. You cannot, because there are none. So you are just flapping yap.

Tell them to show the real data. That's simple right?

Show that they are not showing the real data. That simple.

here from another thread in the forum:

I've learnt to do about one post of data then leave the invincible deniers to it. Invincible ignorance is after all invincible.

View attachment 41549

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf

Temperature data HadCRUT4

Yes we see the adjusted temperature set by the EAU. tell me why there is such a divergence in the RAW data to the shiny adjusted data.( a full 3 deg C upward adjustment) What are their reasons for the homogenization of areas not covered by actual station data and how they came to the conclusion to infill almost a full degree warmer than the surrounding areas of these vast regions?

Without justification all your adjusted graph becomes is a nice shiny turd...

Again, note the highlighted word adjusted.

 

[orogenicman]

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. In the meantime, Ernie has obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen.

Problem is, it is not just weather records that are being presented. We have the thawing of the arctic, the shrinking North Polar Ice Cap, the Ice Caps of Greenland and Antarctica losing billions of tons of ice per year, and almost all of our alpine glaciers in rapid retreat. GHGs in the atmosphere are at a level unseen for millions of years. But the deniars just continue to state that nothing is happening.

AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Just because you keep posting that particular group of words over and over, does not make it true, dumbass.

OK, dear little corksmoker, link us to Scientific Societies that AGW is not real. Same for National Academies of Science and major Universities. You cannot, because there are none. So you are just flapping yap.

Tell them to show the real data. That's simple right?

Show that they are not showing the real data. That simple.

here from another thread in the forum:

I've learnt to do about one post of data then leave the invincible deniers to it. Invincible ignorance is after all invincible.

View attachment 41549

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf

Temperature data HadCRUT4

Yes we see the adjusted temperature set by the EAU. tell me why there is such a divergence in the RAW data to the shiny adjusted data.( a full 3 deg C upward adjustment) What are their reasons for the homogenization of areas not covered by actual station data and how they came to the conclusion to infill almost a full degree warmer than the surrounding areas of these vast regions?

Without justification all your adjusted graph becomes is a nice shiny turd...

Again, note the highlighted word adjusted.

Recall that it was Westwall himself who argued that data must be calibrated/adjusted for it to have any meaning - on this we are both in complete agreement).

 

[jc456]

Just because you keep posting that particular group of words over and over, does not make it true, dumbass.

OK, dear little corksmoker, link us to Scientific Societies that AGW is not real. Same for National Academies of Science and major Universities. You cannot, because there are none. So you are just flapping yap.

Tell them to show the real data. That's simple right?

Show that they are not showing the real data. That simple.

here from another thread in the forum:

I've learnt to do about one post of data then leave the invincible deniers to it. Invincible ignorance is after all invincible.

View attachment 41549

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf

Temperature data HadCRUT4

Yes we see the adjusted temperature set by the EAU. tell me why there is such a divergence in the RAW data to the shiny adjusted data.( a full 3 deg C upward adjustment) What are their reasons for the homogenization of areas not covered by actual station data and how they came to the conclusion to infill almost a full degree warmer than the surrounding areas of these vast regions?

Without justification all your adjusted graph becomes is a nice shiny turd...

Again, note the highlighted word adjusted.

Recall that it was Westwall himself who argued that data must be calibrated/adjusted for it to have any meaning - on this we are both in complete agreement).

so why all the hoopla then when I are anyone uses the phrases that the data is adjusted. If you know it is, why do you need me or anyone to provide info proving it. What a laugh.

I'm not Westwall, I am jc and I want to see a graph of the raw data.

 

[SSDD]

The fact is that the AGW hypothesis has failed...the lack of a tropospheric hot spot is a clear failure. If climate science were an actual science and not a political movement, that failure alone would be enough to discredit the hypothesis and send them back to the drawing board for another hypothesis that had some predictive power. Instead, due to a clear lack of eithics, climate science ignores failures and grabs on to every possible weather occurrence and claims it is due to AGW....

One failure of a hypothesis is enough to invalidate it....how many failures has the AGW hypothesis experienced so far?

What sort of science predicts more and less Antarctic ice, more and fewer fires, the rotation of the earth itself both speeding up and slowing down, more and less rain, more and fewer coral reefs, more and less snow, oceans becoming more and less salty, more and less antarctic ice, stronger and weaker winds, more and fewer hurricanes, more and fewer tornadoes, warmer and colder winters, fish getting larger and smaller, more and fewer mosquitoes, and on and on and on.

Tell me, do you really take proclamations from a "science" that is all over the board like that seriously?...or do you see climate science as simply a means to a political end...that end being more government?

 

[orogenicman]

OK, dear little corksmoker, link us to Scientific Societies that AGW is not real. Same for National Academies of Science and major Universities. You cannot, because there are none. So you are just flapping yap.

Tell them to show the real data. That's simple right?

Show that they are not showing the real data. That simple.

here from another thread in the forum:

I've learnt to do about one post of data then leave the invincible deniers to it. Invincible ignorance is after all invincible.

View attachment 41549

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf

Temperature data HadCRUT4

Yes we see the adjusted temperature set by the EAU. tell me why there is such a divergence in the RAW data to the shiny adjusted data.( a full 3 deg C upward adjustment) What are their reasons for the homogenization of areas not covered by actual station data and how they came to the conclusion to infill almost a full degree warmer than the surrounding areas of these vast regions?

Without justification all your adjusted graph becomes is a nice shiny turd...

Again, note the highlighted word adjusted.

Recall that it was Westwall himself who argued that data must be calibrated/adjusted for it to have any meaning - on this we are both in complete agreement).

so why all the hoopla then when I are anyone uses the phrases that the data is adjusted. If you know it is, why do you need me or anyone to provide info proving it. What a laugh.

I'm not Westwall, I am jc and I want to see a graph of the raw data.

You are the one who has a problem with it. Every data set in science has had some adjustment made to it. Every single one. They are meaningless without it. I've said this repeatedly. How many times does it need to be said?

 

[jc456]

Tell them to show the real data. That's simple right?

Show that they are not showing the real data. That simple.

here from another thread in the forum:

I've learnt to do about one post of data then leave the invincible deniers to it. Invincible ignorance is after all invincible.

View attachment 41549

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf

Temperature data HadCRUT4

Yes we see the adjusted temperature set by the EAU. tell me why there is such a divergence in the RAW data to the shiny adjusted data.( a full 3 deg C upward adjustment) What are their reasons for the homogenization of areas not covered by actual station data and how they came to the conclusion to infill almost a full degree warmer than the surrounding areas of these vast regions?

Without justification all your adjusted graph becomes is a nice shiny turd...

Again, note the highlighted word adjusted.

Recall that it was Westwall himself who argued that data must be calibrated/adjusted for it to have any meaning - on this we are both in complete agreement).

so why all the hoopla then when I are anyone uses the phrases that the data is adjusted. If you know it is, why do you need me or anyone to provide info proving it. What a laugh.

I'm not Westwall, I am jc and I want to see a graph of the raw data.

You are the one who has a problem with it. Every data set in science has had some adjustment made to it. Every single one. They are meaningless without it. I've said this repeatedly. How many times does it need to be said?

you're exactly right, I have a problem with adjusted data sets in reference to temperature across the globe. Yep, fact. I cry foul at every graph because of it. I'm sure you've seen them all.and yet, you and yours wanted me to prove my claim that all datasets shown are adjusted. What a bunch of nut jobs. My god man, if you know it and proud of it, then stand tall and pronounce when I claim it as such. why do you retreat into a hole and shimmer and shake like I have lied? what a bunch of friggn bobbleheads..

again, me, jc, wants to see the raw data. The data that says what was actually captured by the thermometers. I also would like to know if the thermometers collect at the one thousandth or hundredth data point.

 

[orogenicman]

Show that they are not showing the real data. That simple.

here from another thread in the forum:

Yes we see the adjusted temperature set by the EAU. tell me why there is such a divergence in the RAW data to the shiny adjusted data.( a full 3 deg C upward adjustment) What are their reasons for the homogenization of areas not covered by actual station data and how they came to the conclusion to infill almost a full degree warmer than the surrounding areas of these vast regions?

Without justification all your adjusted graph becomes is a nice shiny turd...

Again, note the highlighted word adjusted.

Recall that it was Westwall himself who argued that data must be calibrated/adjusted for it to have any meaning - on this we are both in complete agreement).

so why all the hoopla then when I are anyone uses the phrases that the data is adjusted. If you know it is, why do you need me or anyone to provide info proving it. What a laugh.

I'm not Westwall, I am jc and I want to see a graph of the raw data.

You are the one who has a problem with it. Every data set in science has had some adjustment made to it. Every single one. They are meaningless without it. I've said this repeatedly. How many times does it need to be said?

you're exactly right, I have a problem with adjusted data sets in reference to temperature across the globe. Yep, fact. I cry foul at every graph because of it. I'm sure you've seen them all.and yet, you and yours wanted me to prove my claim that all datasets shown are adjusted. What a bunch of nut jobs. My god man, if you know it and proud of it, then stand tall and pronounce when I claim it as such. why do you retreat into a hole and shimmer and shake like I have lied? what a bunch of friggn bobbleheads..

again, me, jc, wants to see the raw data. The data that says what was actually captured by the thermometers. I also would like to know if the thermometers collect at the one thousandth or hundredth data point.

But JC, that is only because you are an idiot who doesn't know the first thing about scientific databases.

 

[jc456]

here from another thread in the forum:

Again, note the highlighted word adjusted.

Recall that it was Westwall himself who argued that data must be calibrated/adjusted for it to have any meaning - on this we are both in complete agreement).

so why all the hoopla then when I are anyone uses the phrases that the data is adjusted. If you know it is, why do you need me or anyone to provide info proving it. What a laugh.

I'm not Westwall, I am jc and I want to see a graph of the raw data.

You are the one who has a problem with it. Every data set in science has had some adjustment made to it. Every single one. They are meaningless without it. I've said this repeatedly. How many times does it need to be said?

you're exactly right, I have a problem with adjusted data sets in reference to temperature across the globe. Yep, fact. I cry foul at every graph because of it. I'm sure you've seen them all.and yet, you and yours wanted me to prove my claim that all datasets shown are adjusted. What a bunch of nut jobs. My god man, if you know it and proud of it, then stand tall and pronounce when I claim it as such. why do you retreat into a hole and shimmer and shake like I have lied? what a bunch of friggn bobbleheads..

again, me, jc, wants to see the raw data. The data that says what was actually captured by the thermometers. I also would like to know if the thermometers collect at the one thousandth or hundredth data point.

But JC, that is only because you are an idiot who doesn't know the first thing about scientific databases.

well the idiot that I am, wants to see the evidence. you know, the raw data that says the globe is warming. Not someone's mathematical readjustment done to happy out a model.

 

[Wyld Kard]

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. In the meantime, Ernie has obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen.

Problem is, it is not just weather records that are being presented. We have the thawing of the arctic, the shrinking North Polar Ice Cap, the Ice Caps of Greenland and Antarctica losing billions of tons of ice per year, and almost all of our alpine glaciers in rapid retreat. GHGs in the atmosphere are at a level unseen for millions of years. But the deniars just continue to state that nothing is happening.

AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Just because you keep posting that particular group of words over and over, does not make it true, dumbass.

OK, dear little corksmoker, link us to Scientific Societies that AGW is not real. Same for National Academies of Science and major Universities. You cannot, because there are none. So you are just flapping yap.

Hey dumbass, when are you going to post something that is truthful, factual, and based on real science that proves what you've been claiming about AGW?

Oh that's right, you can't.

You'll just continue to post more bullshit, trying to convince others of your brainwashed beliefs.

 

[orogenicman]

Recall that it was Westwall himself who argued that data must be calibrated/adjusted for it to have any meaning - on this we are both in complete agreement).

so why all the hoopla then when I are anyone uses the phrases that the data is adjusted. If you know it is, why do you need me or anyone to provide info proving it. What a laugh.

I'm not Westwall, I am jc and I want to see a graph of the raw data.

You are the one who has a problem with it. Every data set in science has had some adjustment made to it. Every single one. They are meaningless without it. I've said this repeatedly. How many times does it need to be said?

you're exactly right, I have a problem with adjusted data sets in reference to temperature across the globe. Yep, fact. I cry foul at every graph because of it. I'm sure you've seen them all.and yet, you and yours wanted me to prove my claim that all datasets shown are adjusted. What a bunch of nut jobs. My god man, if you know it and proud of it, then stand tall and pronounce when I claim it as such. why do you retreat into a hole and shimmer and shake like I have lied? what a bunch of friggn bobbleheads..

again, me, jc, wants to see the raw data. The data that says what was actually captured by the thermometers. I also would like to know if the thermometers collect at the one thousandth or hundredth data point.

But JC, that is only because you are an idiot who doesn't know the first thing about scientific databases.

well the idiot that I am, wants to see the evidence. you know, the raw data that says the globe is warming. Not someone's mathematical readjustment done to happy out a model.

Then I suggest you get off your rump and either subscribe to a relevant peer reviewed publication, or if you are too cheap or poor, go to the friggin library.

 

[Old Rocks]

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. In the meantime, Ernie has obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen.

Problem is, it is not just weather records that are being presented. We have the thawing of the arctic, the shrinking North Polar Ice Cap, the Ice Caps of Greenland and Antarctica losing billions of tons of ice per year, and almost all of our alpine glaciers in rapid retreat. GHGs in the atmosphere are at a level unseen for millions of years. But the deniars just continue to state that nothing is happening.

AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Just because you keep posting that particular group of words over and over, does not make it true, dumbass.

OK, dear little corksmoker, link us to Scientific Societies that AGW is not real. Same for National Academies of Science and major Universities. You cannot, because there are none. So you are just flapping yap.

Hey dumbass, when are you going to post something that is truthful, factual, and based on real science that proves what you've been claiming about AGW?

Oh that's right, you can't.

You'll just continue to post more bullshit, trying to convince others of your brainwashed beliefs.

TheOther Greenhouse Gases. Theories are discussed in the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)

To get an overview, start with Summary: the Story in a Nutshell and then come back here.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

You can continue to stupidly flap yap, or actually read what real scientists have to say on the subject. I am sure it will be the former.

 

[Wyld Kard]

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. In the meantime, Ernie has obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen.

Problem is, it is not just weather records that are being presented. We have the thawing of the arctic, the shrinking North Polar Ice Cap, the Ice Caps of Greenland and Antarctica losing billions of tons of ice per year, and almost all of our alpine glaciers in rapid retreat. GHGs in the atmosphere are at a level unseen for millions of years. But the deniars just continue to state that nothing is happening.

AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Just because you keep posting that particular group of words over and over, does not make it true, dumbass.

OK, dear little corksmoker, link us to Scientific Societies that AGW is not real. Same for National Academies of Science and major Universities. You cannot, because there are none. So you are just flapping yap.

Hey dumbass, when are you going to post something that is truthful, factual, and based on real science that proves what you've been claiming about AGW?

Oh that's right, you can't.

You'll just continue to post more bullshit, trying to convince others of your brainwashed beliefs.

TheOther Greenhouse Gases. Theories are discussed in the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)

To get an overview, start with Summary: the Story in a Nutshell and then come back here.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

You can continue to stupidly flap yap, or actually read what real scientists have to say on the subject. I am sure it will be the former.

No matter what you post trying to prove AGW/CC is real, and that it's man-made and that it's a threat, it's all BULLSHIT!

You're just too ignorant to realize it.

 

[jc456]

so why all the hoopla then when I are anyone uses the phrases that the data is adjusted. If you know it is, why do you need me or anyone to provide info proving it. What a laugh.

I'm not Westwall, I am jc and I want to see a graph of the raw data.

You are the one who has a problem with it. Every data set in science has had some adjustment made to it. Every single one. They are meaningless without it. I've said this repeatedly. How many times does it need to be said?

you're exactly right, I have a problem with adjusted data sets in reference to temperature across the globe. Yep, fact. I cry foul at every graph because of it. I'm sure you've seen them all.and yet, you and yours wanted me to prove my claim that all datasets shown are adjusted. What a bunch of nut jobs. My god man, if you know it and proud of it, then stand tall and pronounce when I claim it as such. why do you retreat into a hole and shimmer and shake like I have lied? what a bunch of friggn bobbleheads..

again, me, jc, wants to see the raw data. The data that says what was actually captured by the thermometers. I also would like to know if the thermometers collect at the one thousandth or hundredth data point.

But JC, that is only because you are an idiot who doesn't know the first thing about scientific databases.

well the idiot that I am, wants to see the evidence. you know, the raw data that says the globe is warming. Not someone's mathematical readjustment done to happy out a model.

Then I suggest you get off your rump and either subscribe to a relevant peer reviewed publication, or if you are too cheap or poor, go to the friggin library.

No, I want the assholes who make claims To actually prove them. So I'm still waiting. And currently proclaim there is no warming in 18 years because assholes can't accurately prove differently. Kapeesh

Have fun at the library

 

[jc456]

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. In the meantime, Ernie has obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen.

Problem is, it is not just weather records that are being presented. We have the thawing of the arctic, the shrinking North Polar Ice Cap, the Ice Caps of Greenland and Antarctica losing billions of tons of ice per year, and almost all of our alpine glaciers in rapid retreat. GHGs in the atmosphere are at a level unseen for millions of years. But the deniars just continue to state that nothing is happening.

AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Just because you keep posting that particular group of words over and over, does not make it true, dumbass.

OK, dear little corksmoker, link us to Scientific Societies that AGW is not real. Same for National Academies of Science and major Universities. You cannot, because there are none. So you are just flapping yap.

Hey dumbass, when are you going to post something that is truthful, factual, and based on real science that proves what you've been claiming about AGW?

Oh that's right, you can't.

You'll just continue to post more bullshit, trying to convince others of your brainwashed beliefs.

TheOther Greenhouse Gases. Theories are discussed in the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)

To get an overview, start with Summary: the Story in a Nutshell and then come back here.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

You can continue to stupidly flap yap, or actually read what real scientists have to say on the subject. I am sure it will be the former.

1234times now

 

[orogenicman]

You are the one who has a problem with it. Every data set in science has had some adjustment made to it. Every single one. They are meaningless without it. I've said this repeatedly. How many times does it need to be said?

you're exactly right, I have a problem with adjusted data sets in reference to temperature across the globe. Yep, fact. I cry foul at every graph because of it. I'm sure you've seen them all.and yet, you and yours wanted me to prove my claim that all datasets shown are adjusted. What a bunch of nut jobs. My god man, if you know it and proud of it, then stand tall and pronounce when I claim it as such. why do you retreat into a hole and shimmer and shake like I have lied? what a bunch of friggn bobbleheads..

again, me, jc, wants to see the raw data. The data that says what was actually captured by the thermometers. I also would like to know if the thermometers collect at the one thousandth or hundredth data point.

But JC, that is only because you are an idiot who doesn't know the first thing about scientific databases.

well the idiot that I am, wants to see the evidence. you know, the raw data that says the globe is warming. Not someone's mathematical readjustment done to happy out a model.

Then I suggest you get off your rump and either subscribe to a relevant peer reviewed publication, or if you are too cheap or poor, go to the friggin library.

No, I want the assholes who make claims To actually prove them. So I'm still waiting. And currently proclaim there is no warming in 18 years because assholes can't accurately prove differently. Kapeesh

Have fun at the library

In other words, you are too lazy to do anything resembling research yourself. You're like a child who wants what he wants when he wants it and doesn't want to work for it himself. Oh dear.