How many posters here are smarter than all the world's scientists?

[Crick]

Where do they get their funding?

Your conspiracy theory can't be disproved. No matter what the data says, you always have an excuse to handwave it away. Because cult. Your beliefs are religious in nature. You weren't reasoned into them, so you can't be reasoned out of them.

From agencies that have been caught red handed fabricating data you fucking moron.

If you could ever provide any evidence for such a thing, you wouldnt look like such an obvious fraud yourself. But you can't, so you do. Your masters tell you to lie, so you lie, and you hate anyone who won't lie along with you.

Besides, even if it is true that does not prove AGW. Not in a period of post glacial warming. Do you even know the difference between AGW and natural post glacial warming?

The earth had been slowly cooling for the past 6000 - 8000 years, making you look insane when you invoke "post-glacial warming". The natural cycle is for more slow cooling. Since the earth is now warming strongly, that means the strong warming isn't natural.

I do understand. Your masters deliberately neglected to inform you that the earth had been slowly cooling for 6000 - 8000 years. They wanted to keep you ignorant of the basics. And you're proud of only knowing what your masters want you to know, so you remained ignorant.

What's your point with all of this?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is a inconvenient fact for the Global Warming Alarmist...

No it isn't, and this is a stupid attempt on your part. What matters is our emissions, and not just from barrels of oil.

Oh really, , you need to cry about this to your mother....

Somebody is desperate for attention....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You can measure accurately to a tenth of a degree back in 1890?

Individual thermometers, no. The statistical average, absolutely yes. That's basic statistics, which means every denier fails completely at it. Deniers are literally too stupid to understand how stupid they are on this topic, making them prime examples of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.

The mechanics have been explained to Frank before, in small words and great detail. He's not actually as stupid as he appears. He's just trolling.

LOL!!! Is this imaginary "dataset" of hundreds of measurements, including those in the deep ocean, filed under the lab experiment showing the temperature increase from increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

There is no issue as who is the most intelligent. The question really is who is the most willing to sell out their integrity despite what intelligence they might have.

 

[Crick]

You can measure accurately to a tenth of a degree back in 1890?

Individual thermometers, no. The statistical average, absolutely yes. That's basic statistics, which means every denier fails completely at it. Deniers are literally too stupid to understand how stupid they are on this topic, making them prime examples of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.

The mechanics have been explained to Frank before, in small words and great detail. He's not actually as stupid as he appears. He's just trolling.

Actually, I think it would not be difficult to measure to a tenth of a degree with 19th century technology. It is commonly assumed that most analog displays such as a thermometer can be read one order of magnitude beyond their smallest division. If a thermometer is marked to the nearest degree, it can be read to a tenth. Accuracy could be improved simply by increasing the length of the glass tube and decreasing the diameter of the mercury or alcohol column. They can always be calibrated with boiling water and a water/ice mix.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Where do they get their funding?

Your conspiracy theory can't be disproved. No matter what the data says, you always have an excuse to handwave it away. Because cult. Your beliefs are religious in nature. You weren't reasoned into them, so you can't be reasoned out of them.

From agencies that have been caught red handed fabricating data you fucking moron.

If you could ever provide any evidence for such a thing, you wouldnt look like such an obvious fraud yourself. But you can't, so you do. Your masters tell you to lie, so you lie, and you hate anyone who won't lie along with you.

Besides, even if it is true that does not prove AGW. Not in a period of post glacial warming. Do you even know the difference between AGW and natural post glacial warming?

The earth had been slowly cooling for the past 6000 - 8000 years, making you look insane when you invoke "post-glacial warming". The natural cycle is for more slow cooling. Since the earth is now warming strongly, that means the strong warming isn't natural.

I do understand. Your masters deliberately neglected to inform you that the earth had been slowly cooling for 6000 - 8000 years. They wanted to keep you ignorant of the basics. And you're proud of only knowing what your masters want you to know, so you remained ignorant.

OMG!!!!

That can only mean that the internal combustion engine is far older than we thought!

 

[Crick]

There is no issue as who is the most intelligent. The question really is who is the most willing to sell out their integrity despite what intelligence they might have.

Who has more money with which to buy data? The environmentalists or the oil industry? And which of those two are facing an existential threat?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You can measure accurately to a tenth of a degree back in 1890?

Individual thermometers, no. The statistical average, absolutely yes. That's basic statistics, which means every denier fails completely at it. Deniers are literally too stupid to understand how stupid they are on this topic, making them prime examples of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.

The mechanics have been explained to Frank before, in small words and great detail. He's not actually as stupid as he appears. He's just trolling.

Actually, I think it would not be difficult to measure to a tenth of a degree with 19th century technology. It is commonly assumed that most analog displays such as a thermometer can be read one order of magnitude beyond their smallest division. If a thermometer is marked to the nearest degree, it can be read to a tenth. Accuracy could be improved simply by increasing the length of the glass tube and decreasing the diameter of the mercury or alcohol column. They can always be calibrated with boiling water and a water/ice mix.

Assuming the 1890 thermometer is accurate to 1 degree, how many readings must you have to establish a temperature accurate to a tenth of a degree?

 

[mamooth]

Assuming the 1890 thermometer is accurate to 1 degree, how many readings must you have to establish a temperature accurate to a tenth of a degree?

100.

Error of the average drops by the square root of the number of readings. Sqrt(100) = 10, so 100 readings causes the error of the average to drop tenfold.

 

[Concerned American]

more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists.

This statement makes the premise of the OP invalid. Please link any report that says ALL OF THE WORLD'S ACTIVE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS are in lockstep on this issue.

 

[Stryder50]

more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists.

This statement makes the premise of the OP invalid. Please link any report that says ALL OF THE WORLD'S ACTIVE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS are in lockstep on this issue.

EXACTLY!

Like most gorebots, we see coming from Crick gross distortion, hyperbole, and/or a dose of fibbing.

 

[Stryder50]

Where do they get their funding?

Your conspiracy theory can't be disproved. No matter what the data says, you always have an excuse to handwave it away. Because cult. Your beliefs are religious in nature. You weren't reasoned into them, so you can't be reasoned out of them.

From agencies that have been caught red handed fabricating data you fucking moron.

If you could ever provide any evidence for such a thing, you wouldnt look like such an obvious fraud yourself. But you can't, so you do. Your masters tell you to lie, so you lie, and you hate anyone who won't lie along with you.

Besides, even if it is true that does not prove AGW. Not in a period of post glacial warming. Do you even know the difference between AGW and natural post glacial warming?

The earth had been slowly cooling for the past 6000 - 8000 years, making you look insane when you invoke "post-glacial warming". The natural cycle is for more slow cooling. Since the earth is now warming strongly, that means the strong warming isn't natural.

I do understand. Your masters deliberately neglected to inform you that the earth had been slowly cooling for 6000 - 8000 years. They wanted to keep you ignorant of the basics. And you're proud of only knowing what your masters want you to know, so you remained ignorant.

What's your point with all of this?

If you can't figure out the information these charts convey, than you are either dumber and/or more ignorant than we thought and than you present.

 

[Crick]

more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists.

This statement makes the premise of the OP invalid. Please link any report that says ALL OF THE WORLD'S ACTIVE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS are in lockstep on this issue.

Okay.

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually, I think it would not be difficult to measure to a tenth of a degree with 19th century technology.

It's simple, even today.

Just take the old data and "adjust" it.

 

[Concerned American]

more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists.

This statement makes the premise of the OP invalid. Please link any report that says ALL OF THE WORLD'S ACTIVE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS are in lockstep on this issue.

Okay.

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Putting aside the fact that your source is suspect, I did not see ONE place in that entire article where it said ALL of the world's active climate scientists. Maybe you should learn to read your own sources.

 

[Indeependent]

more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists.

This statement makes the premise of the OP invalid. Please link any report that says ALL OF THE WORLD'S ACTIVE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS are in lockstep on this issue.

Okay.

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Putting aside the fact that your source is suspect, I did not see ONE place in that entire article where it said ALL of the world's active climate scientists. Maybe you should learn to read your own sources.

I suspect you are attempting to persuade a Liberal to apply logic to an emotion.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Assuming the 1890 thermometer is accurate to 1 degree, how many readings must you have to establish a temperature accurate to a tenth of a degree?

100.

Error of the average drops by the square root of the number of readings. Sqrt(100) = 10, so 100 readings causes the error of the average to drop tenfold.

Interesting.

So all you have to do is have 100 readings for the year 1890 and you can positively say the average temperature for 1890 was some number accurate to a tenth of a degree with a 100% confidence?

 

[mamooth]

Assuming the 1890 thermometer is accurate to 1 degree, how many readings must you have to establish a temperature accurate to a tenth of a degree?

100.

Error of the average drops by the square root of the number of readings. Sqrt(100) = 10, so 100 readings causes the error of the average to drop tenfold.

Interesting.

So all you have to do is have 100 readings for the year 1890 and you can positively say the average temperature for 1890 was some number accurate to a tenth of a degree with a 100% confidence?

No.

And since you just demonstrated you have zero interest in honest discussion, just fuck right off, troll.

 

[mamooth]

It's simple, even today.

Just take the old data and "adjust" it.

Who do you think we are, deniers?

Just because your side commits fraud more readily than most people breathe doesn't mean that honest people do the same. Try to understand that we are not like you. All of the fraud comes from your side. That's because all of the corrupting money flows to your side.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Actually, I think it would not be difficult to measure to a tenth of a degree with 19th century technology.

It's simple, even today.

Just take the old data and "adjust" it.

Assuming the 1890 thermometer is accurate to 1 degree, how many readings must you have to establish a temperature accurate to a tenth of a degree?

100.

Error of the average drops by the square root of the number of readings. Sqrt(100) = 10, so 100 readings causes the error of the average to drop tenfold.

Interesting.

So all you have to do is have 100 readings for the year 1890 and you can positively say the average temperature for 1890 was some number accurate to a tenth of a degree with a 100% confidence?

No.

And since you just demonstrated you have zero interest in honest discussion, just fuck right off, troll.

You said we only need 100 readings, right?