If CO2 is so powerful, why are there no experiments?

[westwall]

You have not established (haven't even given us a hint) that the process favors any particular direction.

Actually there has. EVERY time the data is "corrected" it cools the past and warms the present. Every single time. Only a brainless fool would ignore that fact.

Hello brainless fool

Every single time?

Yes. Every single time. You really don't know how to read a graph do you! Man, how can you exist when you are so ******* stupid?

 

[Kosh]

And yet each time the AGW cult breathes out, they pollute the planet. Why don't they show us how committed to their religion they are and just stop breathing..

 

[Crick]

Ah, another suicide request from the deniers to add to my collection. Thanks Kosh for so consistently holding up the lower end.

 

[Kosh]

Ah, another suicide request from the deniers to add to my collection. Thanks Kosh for so consistently holding up the lower end.

Says the AW cult member that denies real science in favor of their religion!

 

[Crick]

HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception

 

[Kosh]

HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception

And further proof that the AGW cult will manipulate the numbers to try and prove their religion..

Notice how it does not even come close to matching the original graph posted..

But they will run with the narrative no matter how much it does not use real science..

They will use the same debunked religious sites over and over even when they have been proven wrong!

 

[Crick]

What's the problem Kosh? The colors don't match? Having trouble with the concept of a "Composite Mean"?

Sou isn't the one who altered the data to get a desired and dishonest result. That would be Spencer and Christy in YOUR graph. Go to the Hot Whopper link, Kosh, and READ.

 

[SSDD]

HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception

You actually believe that lie? Oh wait..of course you do...good one crick.

 

[Crick]

You've never been able to refute a single one of her charges. Neither has anyone else here. Spencer wrote her and attempted to defend himself and she just tore him a new asshole. It's all at the link. Read, Learn, Decide.

 

[SSDD]

You've never been able to refute a single one of her charges. Neither has anyone else here. Spencer wrote her and attempted to defend himself and she just tore him a new asshole. It's all at the link. Read, Learn, Decide.

Sorry goober...Ian already refuted exactly that...there is no point in me repeating what he provided....or are you so stupid that everyone you talk to must tell you and show you the same thing?....never mind...of course you are that stupid.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You have not established (haven't even given us a hint) that the process favors any particular direction.

Actually there has. EVERY time the data is "corrected" it cools the past and warms the present. Every single time. Only a brainless fool would ignore that fact.

Hello brainless fool

And after 26 corrections over 16 years the changes are massive and scientifically unsupportable...

Were gonna make the data more accurate after we Change the last chance, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that,and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that,and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that,and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that,....

After 26 changes of 0.06 deg C (26 x 0.06 = 1.56 deg C) it doesn't take long to go way beyond what is actual or real and make up what it is you wanted..

 

[Billy_Bob]

HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception

You got caught by Miriam O'Brien's lie... Too Funny!

I am not surprised however...

 

[Crick]

You have not established (haven't even given us a hint) that the process favors any particular direction.

Actually there has. EVERY time the data is "corrected" it cools the past and warms the present. Every single time. Only a brainless fool would ignore that fact.

Hello brainless fool

And after 26 corrections over 16 years the changes are massive and scientifically unsupportable...

Were gonna make the data more accurate after we Change the last chance, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that,and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that,and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that,and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that,....

After 26 changes of 0.06 deg C (26 x 0.06 = 1.56 deg C) it doesn't take long to go way beyond what is actual or real and make up what it is you wanted..

Despite numerous opportunities, not one of you has made the slightest attempt to actually show that these adjustments are unjustified. Not once. Losers.

 

[westwall]

You have not established (haven't even given us a hint) that the process favors any particular direction.

Actually there has. EVERY time the data is "corrected" it cools the past and warms the present. Every single time. Only a brainless fool would ignore that fact.

Hello brainless fool

And after 26 corrections over 16 years the changes are massive and scientifically unsupportable...

Were gonna make the data more accurate after we Change the last chance, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that,and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that,and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that,and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that,....

After 26 changes of 0.06 deg C (26 x 0.06 = 1.56 deg C) it doesn't take long to go way beyond what is actual or real and make up what it is you wanted..

Despite numerous opportunities, not one of you has made the slightest attempt to actually show that these adjustments are unjustified. Not once. Losers.

Science doesn't work that way asshat. Your high priests have altered historical data. They are the ones who have to justify falsification of data.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now here is a very good documentary that demonstrates the current experiment we are conducting. Thanks to Crusader Frank;

 

[IanC]

You have not established (haven't even given us a hint) that the process favors any particular direction.

Actually there has. EVERY time the data is "corrected" it cools the past and warms the present. Every single time. Only a brainless fool would ignore that fact.

Hello brainless fool

And after 26 corrections over 16 years the changes are massive and scientifically unsupportable...

Were gonna make the data more accurate after we Change the last chance, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that,and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that,and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that,and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that,....

After 26 changes of 0.06 deg C (26 x 0.06 = 1.56 deg C) it doesn't take long to go way beyond what is actual or real and make up what it is you wanted..

Despite numerous opportunities, not one of you has made the slightest attempt to actually show that these adjustments are unjustified. Not once. Losers.

I have talked about Reykjavik numerous times.

GISS was specifically asked how such large adjustments were justified. After initial cooperation said the details would soon follow, nothing was forthcoming. after several follow up requests, months later a response was sent stating the description of the methodology was on their website and the case was closed.

1940 was an especially wondrous year for Reykjavik. an adjustment (down) of over 3C!!!!!

from the GISS dataset-

1940 -1.6 -1.5 -3.4 -0.2 4.4 6.5 8.0 6.9 3.9 3.1 -1.9 -0.9 -1.6 0.3 7.1 1.7 1.88

hmmmm.... from +1.7 all the way down to -1.5. a 3.2C swing! amazing!

Should I bring up the statement from the (now ex) head of the Icelandic Met who stated that all Reykjavik data had already been quality controlled and fully documented for any changes in thermometer type, station moves, etc? he had no idea why GISS would make such drastic adjustments to one of the best long term temperature stations in the world.

so....have I proven the adjustments were unjustified? no. how can you prove something unjustified when you cannot even get information on what was done?

crick- can you give me some suggestions as to how a 3C+ correction can be accounted for?

in 2012 there was basically no trend either way and the 30s-40s was the warmest era. now, three years later there is a huge warming trend and the past temps have been cooled dramatically. please enlighten me with some sort of coherent reason for such massive adjustments.

 

[Crick]

Looking for an explanation of the Reykjavik adjustments. Along the way I found this

Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to interpret large datasets with numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and other so-called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years. Their methods may not be perfect, and are certainly not immune from critical analysis, but that critical analysis should start out from a position of assuming good faith and with an understanding of what exactly has been done.

--Judith Curry

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You have not established (haven't even given us a hint) that the process favors any particular direction.

Actually there has. EVERY time the data is "corrected" it cools the past and warms the present. Every single time. Only a brainless fool would ignore that fact.

Hello brainless fool

And after 26 corrections over 16 years the changes are massive and scientifically unsupportable...

Were gonna make the data more accurate after we Change the last chance, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that,and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that,and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that,and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that, and the change before that,....

After 26 changes of 0.06 deg C (26 x 0.06 = 1.56 deg C) it doesn't take long to go way beyond what is actual or real and make up what it is you wanted..

Despite numerous opportunities, not one of you has made the slightest attempt to actually show that these adjustments are unjustified. Not once. Losers.

The adjustments are justified because the raw data is a striking DENIER! so it had it coming.

You're supporting fraud and no one is surprised

 

[SSDD]

The adjustments are justified because the raw data is a striking DENIER! so it had it coming.

You're supporting fraud and no one is surprised

There is no cesspool so stinking, and no gutter so full of vile offal that crick would not crawl through it in support of his cult. Hell, on another thread he spent post after post claiming that these two statements were not admissions of data fabrication on the part of climate scientists.

For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there..

Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with the early release of information (via Australia), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature, etc., etc.?

I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.

How could anyone who is not completely blinded by cultist dogma look at those two statements and not see a clear admission to fabricating data. He even went so far as to suggest that their vocabularies didn't include big words like interpolating and in filling so they had to use words like "made up" and "inventing"....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Now here is a very good documentary that demonstrates the current experiment we are conducting. Thanks to Crusader Frank;

I watched an hour of it and they described a very complex weather system. Maybe the crap about the imaginary CO2 control knob is coming up.

Also, thats not an experiment