LeroyDumonde
Platinum Member
- May 30, 2023
- 4,543
- 2,944
- 938
Okay. But I notice that you didn't say that they were wrong. All the Left has is ad hominem attacks.
Scientist express horror as they see a 2.5 C increase in earth's temperature
- Thread starter JimH52
- Start date
To cowardly to use the reply button?Regarding ding's recycled farts here:
RealClimate: A distraction due to errors, misunderstanding and misguided Norwegian statistics
RealClimate: A friend asked me if a discussion paper published on Statistics Norway’s website, ‘To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?’, was purposely timed for the next climate summit (COP28). I don’t know the answer to his question. But this discussion...www.realclimate.org
There's no misunderstanding. The data is what the data is and the limitations of modeling are what the limitations of modeling are. Feel free to challenge the data, cuck.
Most of them are completely irrelevant but give the uneducated the impression that they are meaningful in this context.
LeroyDumonde
Platinum Member
- May 30, 2023
- 4,543
- 2,944
- 938
So when the data disagrees with climate hystericism the data is meaningless. Got it.
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,321
- 12,903
- 2,400
He didn't make ANY of the chart you moron!
1) Made by Dr. Maue and shown on the
2024 Accumulated Cyclone Energy [ACE]
blog.2) Next chart is from Nature Magazine
3) Based on JLA made by Kyrie
4) Chris Martz made it and based on NOAA data.
5) Made by a scientist with link to the BOM database.
You fail....... yet again!
Last edited:
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,321
- 12,903
- 2,400
You LIE since it was a big deal when that massive 2005 Hurricane season came along then for the next few years the media and several warmist/alarmist blogs flogged it to the world as they pushed the apocalypse claims that it was caused by global warming, in last decade any major Hurricane making landfall is touted as evidence of climate change and so and on and on, you sure forget a lot.
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,321
- 12,903
- 2,400
Crick fails to realize it created by a PHD scientist who studies Tropical storm development and more, the website source was right there, that is how stupid Crick is he attacks a person who didn't make them.
Hurricane Database Source and several other links.
Seen at Post 39
The irony is the data they dismiss is literally empirical evidence of earth's climate and how our present landmass distribution affects the planet's climate. It's data that existed before AGW even became a thing. The idiocy of elevating models over empirical evidence is astonishing. But not surprising since they provide absolutely no context for today's climate.
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 153,085
- 78,311
- 2,645
Grumblenuts
Gold Member
- Oct 16, 2017
- 15,429
- 5,225
- 210
Said and done, stupid. You quoted it. Targeted and direct from real climate scientists:
RealClimate: A distraction due to errors, misunderstanding and misguided Norwegian statistics
RealClimate: A friend asked me if a discussion paper published on Statistics Norway’s website, ‘To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?’, was purposely timed for the next climate summit (COP28). I don’t know the answer to his question. But this discussion...
www.realclimate.org
Grumblenuts
Gold Member
- Oct 16, 2017
- 15,429
- 5,225
- 210
The idiocy is thinking Koch Industries paid liars like you earn being taken the slightest bit seriously.
Except it wasn't. There was absolutely no refuting the empirical climate data cited.Said and done, stupid. You quoted it. Targeted and direct from real climate scientists:
RealClimate: A distraction due to errors, misunderstanding and misguided Norwegian statistics
RealClimate: A friend asked me if a discussion paper published on Statistics Norway’s website, ‘To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?’, was purposely timed for the next climate summit (COP28). I don’t know the answer to his question. But this discussion...
Glad to see you finally grew a pair of grumblenuts.
No one has paid me anything. Were you paid by someone? That must be where you are getting that from.
Debate the data, Dumbnuts.
Why do none of his graphs include simple global temperature? How about CO2 or methane levels? Sea level rise? Global ice mass balance? Ocean heat content?
There's a reason. Think real hard about it and you might figure out why.
LeroyDumonde
Platinum Member
- May 30, 2023
- 4,543
- 2,944
- 938
You know that the global warming trend started thousands of years ago, right?
No. I know that it did not and now I know that you don't know what you're talking about.
LeroyDumonde
Platinum Member
- May 30, 2023
- 4,543
- 2,944
- 938
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,321
- 12,903
- 2,400
As usual you are incorrect since the Minoan high it has been in slow decline over all ever since around 3,000 years long cooling trend. There are additional large charts in the link to view.
LINK
Grumblenuts
Gold Member
- Oct 16, 2017
- 15,429
- 5,225
- 210
Except it was despite your denials. And here's a bit regarding Sunsettommy's tiresome BS:
Confusing Greenland warming vs global warming
skepticalscience.com
The only liars being paid are YOUR people.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Zone1 Are atheists more likely to become psychopaths?
- Started by Midnight FM
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
