So if the globe isn't warming..why are you calling it global warming?

There has been occasional references to tree stumps on Ellsmere Island, and referring to this as proof that there have been other times in recent history that this area has been warm. But that is not the case at all. Those stumps are at least 2 million years old.

Mummified Forest Found on Treeless Arctic Island

An ancient mummified forest, complete with well-preserved logs, leaves, and seedpods, has been discovered deep in the Canadian Arctic, scientists say.


The dry, frigid site is now surrounded by glaciers and is completely treeless, except for a few bonsai-size dwarf trees. (See Arctic aerial pictures.)

The forest was discovered recently by a research team who'd heard a surprising story from rangers in Quttinirpaaq National Park. The park is located on Ellesmere Island (see map), one of the world's northernmost landmasses.

The rangers had come across wood scattered on the ground from much larger trees than the few dwarfs currently in the area, including logs that were several feet long.

"Walking through the area, they're everywhere," said Joel Barker, an environmental scientist at Ohio State University who's leading a study of the mummified forest. "You'd have trouble not tripping over them."

(See "Tree 'Mummies' Found, Traced Back to Viking Era.")

The park rangers "had no idea what they were," but Barker suspected they must be millions of years old.

When Barker and colleagues found where the scattered logs were coming from—a slope that had been eroded by a river—they dug in and found many more logs, as well as leaves and seedpods.

"When we started pulling leaves out of the soil, that was surreal, to know that it's millions of years old and that you can hold it in your hand," Barker said at an annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco earlier this week.

Ecosystem on the Edge?

The mummified trees were likely preserved so long because they were buried quickly by landslides and thus protected from air and water, which hastens decomposition.

By studying features of the logs, leaves, and seedpods, the team identified some tree species, including pine, birch, and spruce. (See pictures of interesting tree patterns.)

The mummified forest seems to resemble modern forests growing hundreds of miles to the south, suggesting the forest must have grown during a time when the Arctic was much warmer, Barker said.

Based on the tree species, the scientists think the forest lived between ten and two million years ago.
 
When, in fact, this thread serves no purpose other than to spread the latest denialist scam, which reads: "I've found someone who asserts he found a spot that, at some time or other, wasn't warming, and therefore 'the globe' isn't warming." .

Actually, O glassy eyed chanter...those papers were all published in 2017...and show that if one looks at various places across the globe, the claim of global warming simply doesn't stack up...the only place global warming is happening is in the highly manipulated global record...and if you look at the global temperature data, only a true glassy eyed chanter could fail to notice that the warmest places on earth are those with the least instrumental coverage... pick any year and you will see invariably, the warmest places on earth are where climate pseudoscience does the most infilling...only a dolt could fail to notice this...and only a glassy eyed chanter would accept it as science.
10_17_16_Brian_2016GlobalAdjustedMap_720_492_s_c1_c_c.jpg


5_18_16_Andrea_2016GlobalAdjusted_Map_Jan-Apr_720_492_s_c1_c_c.png
 
When, in fact, this thread serves no purpose other than to spread the latest denialist scam, which reads: "I've found someone who asserts he found a spot that, at some time or other, wasn't warming, and therefore 'the globe' isn't warming." .

Actually, O glassy eyed chanter...those papers were all published in 2017...and show that if one looks at various places across the globe, the claim of global warming simply doesn't stack up...the only place global warming is happening is in the highly manipulated global record...and if you look at the global temperature data, only a true glassy eyed chanter could fail to notice that the warmest places on earth are those with the least instrumental coverage... pick any year and you will see invariably, the warmest places on earth are where climate pseudoscience does the most infilling...only a dolt could fail to notice this...and only a glassy eyed chanter would accept it as science.
10_17_16_Brian_2016GlobalAdjustedMap_720_492_s_c1_c_c.jpg


5_18_16_Andrea_2016GlobalAdjusted_Map_Jan-Apr_720_492_s_c1_c_c.png
And ol' SSoooDDumb spews more meaningless and very delusional denier cult gobbledegook. "So sad"

The strongest El Niño on record and the the poor retard thinks that the Pacicic Ocean couldn't be measured and recorded as hotter than normal. LOLOLOL.
 
And a good afternoon to you too.
Maybe you can explain today why the digital fingerprints of the SSN 691 pictures are all .png screenshots and the ones with you on it are .jpeg.

The digital fingerprints? You mean the file type? I transferred them from one computer to another via email. I made them different types for no reason at all.

The sailors` wet suits are without a doubt Navy issue and not the same as your`s.

No one in any of those pictures is wearing a wet suit. They are wearing one piece works suits generically known as "poopy-suits". I am wearing my own clothing, including the Helly Hansen rain jacket.

My son in law is not in the Navy and he bought the same one you have in a store.

Good, that's where I bought mine. It's just a fucking rain jacket. It's hanging on a hook ten feet from where I'm sitting. The main point I thought I was getting across was that I was in a place where you don't typically see civilians, dressed as a civilian.

If you want a picture of it he says he`ll snap one for me.

If you want to see a picture of something similar (doubt they make that one anymore) just go to Helly Hansen's website and look at their rainwear.

Your tag, I can make out your ID and how you brushed over it when you dithered the image and it`s clearly not the kind of ID tag the Navy would get you to wear on any of their premises or vessels.

It's a badge and I did not brush anything. It is covered with scraps of masking tape that we used to hold network cables up out of the way. When I take them down, I stick them to my badge because they can be reused from there.

The other problem is which you could easily clarify without revealing your personal ID, when were you supposedly on an environment assignment on that sub ?

I rode that sub and many other submarines, ships, helicopters and aircraft to test stuff on board. I don't know what you mean by an "environment assignment".

It`s been decommissioned right around the time when the Obama exec order went to the Navy to assist in that kind of research.
That sub sits since then in the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery Maine under the name "ex-Memphis" where they defuel and scrap it.

So what?

Here is a seamless log of SSN 691 since it departed port the first time on June 22,1979 & ending 2012 when she was docked to be scrapped.
USS Memphis (SSN 691) history

No thanks

Ironic is that the USS Memphis gained fame for the rampant cheating in Navy training exams on that vessel.
Seeing examples like that all around us every day it should not surprise you why there are so many skeptics.

I guess I'm not surprised you'd take this out on the sailors.

Point is, I'm a fucking ocean engineer.
Alrighty then I can`t prove that you are not an ocean engineer, whatever that is, because you won`t or can`t say when you were on that sub. All the while you used these pictures as "proof" that you were on that sub out on the ocean as an "ocean engineer"
I`m not as intransigent as you, so I`m fine with letting you be what you say you are.
But I also know who gets to call himself an engineer these days, having dealt with that kind.
They waved their diploma in my face which requires no more than a 75% score on a multiple choice exam that just about anybody passes who can guess within 75% how many candies are in the jar.
I can guess too, and my guess is that an ocean "engineer" is more of a marine biologist than an engineer who has to know the hard sciences to build and design something that actually functions.
The difference is that an engineer can do the math to specify the pump size & motor hp requirement so that you won`t have to wait 2 hours before you can flush the toilet again on the top floor of a high rise. While a "dietary engineer" can only tell you how much fat (cals) you burn taking the stairs to the top floor. So maybe it`s better if you stick with your kind of "engineering" and quit making a fool of yourself trying to lecture us about the math & physics it takes to answer what it takes to get several kilotons of water thousands of meters a.g.l. while you would have a problem doing the math to refill the toilet flush tank on a building`s top floor in a timely manner.
I put that in response to a number of deniers here accusing me of lying. I have not waved my engineering degree in your face or anyone else's. I was asked about my education long ago and I answered.

I have waved the fact that I've passed two semesters of thermodynamics and one of heat transfer in Same Shit's face, but that's not quite the same thing.

Sent from my VS985 4G using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
 
And a good afternoon to you too.
Maybe you can explain today why the digital fingerprints of the SSN 691 pictures are all .png screenshots and the ones with you on it are .jpeg.

The digital fingerprints? You mean the file type? I transferred them from one computer to another via email. I made them different types for no reason at all.

The sailors` wet suits are without a doubt Navy issue and not the same as your`s.

No one in any of those pictures is wearing a wet suit. They are wearing one piece works suits generically known as "poopy-suits". I am wearing my own clothing, including the Helly Hansen rain jacket.

My son in law is not in the Navy and he bought the same one you have in a store.

Good, that's where I bought mine. It's just a fucking rain jacket. It's hanging on a hook ten feet from where I'm sitting. The main point I thought I was getting across was that I was in a place where you don't typically see civilians, dressed as a civilian.

If you want a picture of it he says he`ll snap one for me.

If you want to see a picture of something similar (doubt they make that one anymore) just go to Helly Hansen's website and look at their rainwear.

Your tag, I can make out your ID and how you brushed over it when you dithered the image and it`s clearly not the kind of ID tag the Navy would get you to wear on any of their premises or vessels.

It's a badge and I did not brush anything. It is covered with scraps of masking tape that we used to hold network cables up out of the way. When I take them down, I stick them to my badge because they can be reused from there.

The other problem is which you could easily clarify without revealing your personal ID, when were you supposedly on an environment assignment on that sub ?

I rode that sub and many other submarines, ships, helicopters and aircraft to test stuff on board. I don't know what you mean by an "environment assignment".

It`s been decommissioned right around the time when the Obama exec order went to the Navy to assist in that kind of research.
That sub sits since then in the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery Maine under the name "ex-Memphis" where they defuel and scrap it.

So what?

Here is a seamless log of SSN 691 since it departed port the first time on June 22,1979 & ending 2012 when she was docked to be scrapped.
USS Memphis (SSN 691) history

No thanks

Ironic is that the USS Memphis gained fame for the rampant cheating in Navy training exams on that vessel.
Seeing examples like that all around us every day it should not surprise you why there are so many skeptics.

I guess I'm not surprised you'd take this out on the sailors.

Point is, I'm a fucking ocean engineer.
Alrighty then I can`t prove that you are not an ocean engineer, whatever that is, because you won`t or can`t say when you were on that sub. All the while you used these pictures as "proof" that you were on that sub out on the ocean as an "ocean engineer"
I`m not as intransigent as you, so I`m fine with letting you be what you say you are.
But I also know who gets to call himself an engineer these days, having dealt with that kind.
They waved their diploma in my face which requires no more than a 75% score on a multiple choice exam that just about anybody passes who can guess within 75% how many candies are in the jar.
I can guess too, and my guess is that an ocean "engineer" is more of a marine biologist than an engineer who has to know the hard sciences to build and design something that actually functions.
The difference is that an engineer can do the math to specify the pump size & motor hp requirement so that you won`t have to wait 2 hours before you can flush the toilet again on the top floor of a high rise. While a "dietary engineer" can only tell you how much fat (cals) you burn taking the stairs to the top floor. So maybe it`s better if you stick with your kind of "engineering" and quit making a fool of yourself trying to lecture us about the math & physics it takes to answer what it takes to get several kilotons of water thousands of meters a.g.l. while you would have a problem doing the math to refill the toilet flush tank on a building`s top floor in a timely manner.
I put that in response to a number of deniers here accusing me of lying. I have not waved my engineering degree in your face or anyone else's. I was asked about my education long ago and I answered.

I have waved the fact that I've passed two semesters of thermodynamics and one of heat transfer in Same Shit's face, but that's not quite the same thing.

Sent from my VS985 4G using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Okay, sounds fine to me. Just tell me why would you need to take a couple of semesters in thermodynamics in your line of work?
Was that your idea or was it a grad- prerequisite?
It`s not as if something could blow up and kill people if an ocean engineer does not opt for it.
But in chemical engineering it`s a very real possibility if there is minor miscalculation even at the pilot plant stage and critical when upscaling to full scale.
I`m glad to be retired because I was all too aware that even the slightest thing like an instrument malfunction can spiral out of control quicker than you can say Oh sh..t.
So don`t take it too personal that my focus is on numbers and accuracy. In my line of work there better had not be any +/- "anomalies" or generous averaging to gloss over unknowns.
Alright then I`ll leave it at that, accepting your qualifications and the next time I argue with you, you know it`s more about the numbers & not necessarily about the theory.
I do it the same way with IanC and all those who you can`t really brand as "deniers" just because they have legitimate issues with the accuracy of the stuff that made it past the peer review which is clearly partisan.
 
Okay, sounds fine to me. Just tell me why would you need to take a couple of semesters in thermodynamics in your line of work?
Was that your idea or was it a grad- prerequisite?
It`s not as if something could blow up and kill people if an ocean engineer does not opt for it.
But in chemical engineering it`s a very real possibility if there is minor miscalculation even at the pilot plant stage and critical when upscaling to full scale.
I`m glad to be retired because I was all too aware that even the slightest thing like an instrument malfunction can spiral out of control quicker than you can say Oh sh..t.
So don`t take it too personal that my focus is on numbers and accuracy. In my line of work there better had not be any +/- "anomalies" or generous averaging to gloss over unknowns.
Alright then I`ll leave it at that, accepting your qualifications and the next time I argue with you, you know it`s more about the numbers & not necessarily about the theory.
I do it the same way with IanC and all those who you can`t really brand as "deniers" just because they have legitimate issues with the accuracy of the stuff that made it past the peer review which is clearly partisan.

Such crazy desperate nonsense that has nothing at all to do with the reality of human caused global warming.....and all so pointlesss and kind of demented.....some kind of wacko paranoid theory in your own head about Crick.....and you've continued on and on and on with this BS to the point of laughable absurdity.....VERY TROLLISH BEHAVIOR on your part, poopybrain. I'd suggest that you try to get a life. And pull your head out of that FauxNews-hole too, while you're at it.
 
Such crazy desperate nonsense that has nothing at all to do with the reality of human caused global warming.....and all so pointlesss and kind of demented.....some kind of wacko paranoid theory in your own head about Crick.....and you've continued on and on and on with this BS to the point of laughable absurdity.....VERY TROLLISH BEHAVIOR on your part, poopybrain. I'd suggest that you try to get a life. And pull your head out of that FauxNews-hole too, while you're at it.

You are going off the deep end there thunder...You talk as if you believe that people actually read more than the first sentence of your drivel...if it isn't cut and paste, it is grade school level name calling and really, who do you think is really interested in that?
 
Such crazy desperate nonsense that has nothing at all to do with the reality of human caused global warming.....
and all so pointlesss and kind of demented.....
some kind of wacko paranoid theory in your own head about Crick.....
and you've continued on and on and on with this BS to the point of laughable absurdity.....
VERY TROLLISH BEHAVIOR on your part, poopybrain.
I'd suggest that you try to get a life.
And pull your head out of that FauxNews-hole too, while you're at it.

You are going off the deep end there thunder...

That's pretty hilarious.....coming from an anti-science, reality-challenged denier cult troll/wacko who went "off the deep end" long before he ever started posting deranged bullshit on this forum.

Meanwhile, back on topic, this January was the third hottest January in the global temperature record, with record heat in many parts of the world.

The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for January 2017 was 0.88°C (1.58°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F). This was the third highest January temperature in the 1880–2017 record, behind 2016 (highest) and 2007 (second highest). Separately, the global land surface temperature was also third highest for the month of January at 1.54°C (2.77°F) above the 20th century average of 2.8°C (37.0°F). The first month of the year was characterized by warmer to much-warmer-than-average conditions across much of the world's land surface, with the largest positive temperature departures from average across the eastern half of the contiguous U.S., eastern Asia, and much of Canada where temperature departures were 3.0°C (5.4°F) or greater. Cooler-than-average conditions were observed across New Zealand, the western half of the contiguous U.S., central and western Australia, northern and southern parts of Africa, western and southern Asia, and much of Europe. The most notable below-average temperature departures from average were observed across the northwestern contiguous U.S. and central Europe (-3.0 °C [-5.4°F] or colder). According to NCEI's Regional analysis, three of the six continents had at least a top six warm January, with South America having its second warmest January since continental records began in 1910, behind 2016. Meanwhile, Europe had its coldest January since 2010.
(source - NOAA)
 
Last edited:
all fake all the time thunder...too bad you are so intimidated by authority that you can't bring yourself to question it.
 
When, in fact, this thread serves no purpose other than to spread the latest denialist scam, which reads: "I've found someone who asserts he found a spot that, at some time or other, wasn't warming, and therefore 'the globe' isn't warming." .

Actually, O glassy eyed chanter...those papers were all published in 2017...and show that if one looks at various places across the globe, the claim of global warming simply doesn't stack up...the only place global warming is happening is in the highly manipulated global record...and if you look at the global temperature data, only a true glassy eyed chanter could fail to notice that the warmest places on earth are those with the least instrumental coverage... pick any year and you will see invariably, the warmest places on earth are where climate pseudoscience does the most infilling...only a dolt could fail to notice this...and only a glassy eyed chanter would accept it as science.
10_17_16_Brian_2016GlobalAdjustedMap_720_492_s_c1_c_c.jpg


5_18_16_Andrea_2016GlobalAdjusted_Map_Jan-Apr_720_492_s_c1_c_c.png

Hey, how come the bulk of the "Warming" is in the oceans?
 
When, in fact, this thread serves no purpose other than to spread the latest denialist scam, which reads: "I've found someone who asserts he found a spot that, at some time or other, wasn't warming, and therefore 'the globe' isn't warming." .

Actually, O glassy eyed chanter...those papers were all published in 2017...and show that if one looks at various places across the globe, the claim of global warming simply doesn't stack up...the only place global warming is happening is in the highly manipulated global record...and if you look at the global temperature data, only a true glassy eyed chanter could fail to notice that the warmest places on earth are those with the least instrumental coverage... pick any year and you will see invariably, the warmest places on earth are where climate pseudoscience does the most infilling...only a dolt could fail to notice this...and only a glassy eyed chanter would accept it as science.
10_17_16_Brian_2016GlobalAdjustedMap_720_492_s_c1_c_c.jpg


5_18_16_Andrea_2016GlobalAdjusted_Map_Jan-Apr_720_492_s_c1_c_c.png

Hey, how come the bulk of the "Warming" is in the oceans?

Not so many lines that they have to stay within when they whip out those red crayons....
 
And a good afternoon to you too.
Maybe you can explain today why the digital fingerprints of the SSN 691 pictures are all .png screenshots and the ones with you on it are .jpeg.

The digital fingerprints? You mean the file type? I transferred them from one computer to another via email. I made them different types for no reason at all.

The sailors` wet suits are without a doubt Navy issue and not the same as your`s.

No one in any of those pictures is wearing a wet suit. They are wearing one piece works suits generically known as "poopy-suits". I am wearing my own clothing, including the Helly Hansen rain jacket.

My son in law is not in the Navy and he bought the same one you have in a store.

Good, that's where I bought mine. It's just a fucking rain jacket. It's hanging on a hook ten feet from where I'm sitting. The main point I thought I was getting across was that I was in a place where you don't typically see civilians, dressed as a civilian.

If you want a picture of it he says he`ll snap one for me.

If you want to see a picture of something similar (doubt they make that one anymore) just go to Helly Hansen's website and look at their rainwear.

Your tag, I can make out your ID and how you brushed over it when you dithered the image and it`s clearly not the kind of ID tag the Navy would get you to wear on any of their premises or vessels.

It's a badge and I did not brush anything. It is covered with scraps of masking tape that we used to hold network cables up out of the way. When I take them down, I stick them to my badge because they can be reused from there.

The other problem is which you could easily clarify without revealing your personal ID, when were you supposedly on an environment assignment on that sub ?

I rode that sub and many other submarines, ships, helicopters and aircraft to test stuff on board. I don't know what you mean by an "environment assignment".

It`s been decommissioned right around the time when the Obama exec order went to the Navy to assist in that kind of research.
That sub sits since then in the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery Maine under the name "ex-Memphis" where they defuel and scrap it.

So what?

Here is a seamless log of SSN 691 since it departed port the first time on June 22,1979 & ending 2012 when she was docked to be scrapped.
USS Memphis (SSN 691) history

No thanks

Ironic is that the USS Memphis gained fame for the rampant cheating in Navy training exams on that vessel.
Seeing examples like that all around us every day it should not surprise you why there are so many skeptics.

I guess I'm not surprised you'd take this out on the sailors.

Point is, I'm a fucking ocean engineer.
Alrighty then I can`t prove that you are not an ocean engineer, whatever that is, because you won`t or can`t say when you were on that sub. All the while you used these pictures as "proof" that you were on that sub out on the ocean as an "ocean engineer"
I`m not as intransigent as you, so I`m fine with letting you be what you say you are.
But I also know who gets to call himself an engineer these days, having dealt with that kind.
They waved their diploma in my face which requires no more than a 75% score on a multiple choice exam that just about anybody passes who can guess within 75% how many candies are in the jar.
I can guess too, and my guess is that an ocean "engineer" is more of a marine biologist than an engineer who has to know the hard sciences to build and design something that actually functions.
The difference is that an engineer can do the math to specify the pump size & motor hp requirement so that you won`t have to wait 2 hours before you can flush the toilet again on the top floor of a high rise. While a "dietary engineer" can only tell you how much fat (cals) you burn taking the stairs to the top floor. So maybe it`s better if you stick with your kind of "engineering" and quit making a fool of yourself trying to lecture us about the math & physics it takes to answer what it takes to get several kilotons of water thousands of meters a.g.l. while you would have a problem doing the math to refill the toilet flush tank on a building`s top floor in a timely manner.
I put that in response to a number of deniers here accusing me of lying. I have not waved my engineering degree in your face or anyone else's. I was asked about my education long ago and I answered.

I have waved the fact that I've passed two semesters of thermodynamics and one of heat transfer in Same Shit's face, but that's not quite the same thing.

Sent from my VS985 4G using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Okay, sounds fine to me. Just tell me why would you need to take a couple of semesters in thermodynamics in your line of work?
Was that your idea or was it a grad- prerequisite?
It`s not as if something could blow up and kill people if an ocean engineer does not opt for it.
But in chemical engineering it`s a very real possibility if there is minor miscalculation even at the pilot plant stage and critical when upscaling to full scale.
I`m glad to be retired because I was all too aware that even the slightest thing like an instrument malfunction can spiral out of control quicker than you can say Oh sh..t.
So don`t take it too personal that my focus is on numbers and accuracy. In my line of work there better had not be any +/- "anomalies" or generous averaging to gloss over unknowns.
Alright then I`ll leave it at that, accepting your qualifications and the next time I argue with you, you know it`s more about the numbers & not necessarily about the theory.
I do it the same way with IanC and all those who you can`t really brand as "deniers" just because they have legitimate issues with the accuracy of the stuff that made it past the peer review which is clearly partisan.
Ok

Sent from my VS985 4G using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
 
Such crazy desperate nonsense that has nothing at all to do with the reality of human caused global warming.....and all so pointlesss and kind of demented.....some kind of wacko paranoid theory in your own head about Crick.....and you've continued on and on and on with this BS to the point of laughable absurdity.....VERY TROLLISH BEHAVIOR on your part, poopybrain. I'd suggest that you try to get a life. And pull your head out of that FauxNews-hole too, while you're at it.

You are going off the deep end there thunder...You talk as if you believe that people actually read more than the first sentence of your drivel...if it isn't cut and paste, it is grade school level name calling and really, who do you think is really interested in that?
Wow... I hope you weren't thinking anyone was reading past the first line...

Sent from my VS985 4G using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
 
Such crazy desperate nonsense that has nothing at all to do with the reality of human caused global warming.....and all so pointlesss and kind of demented.....some kind of wacko paranoid theory in your own head about Crick.....and you've continued on and on and on with this BS to the point of laughable absurdity.....VERY TROLLISH BEHAVIOR on your part, poopybrain. I'd suggest that you try to get a life. And pull your head out of that FauxNews-hole too, while you're at it.

You are going off the deep end there thunder...You talk as if you believe that people actually read more than the first sentence of your drivel...if it isn't cut and paste, it is grade school level name calling and really, who do you think is really interested in that?
Wow... I hope you weren't thinking anyone was reading past the first line...

Sent from my VS985 4G using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Nah...just the idiot skid marks on the board....thanks for verifying your status.
 
all fake all the time thunder...too bad you are so intimidated by authority that you can't bring yourself to question it.
All wrong, all without proof, all without evidence, all contrary to all of mainstream science.

Sent from my VS985 4G using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


What you don't seem to grasp is that you are describing the state of mainstream climate science...I am still waiting on that first shred of observed, measured, quantified,empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis...and neither you, nor all of climate science can deliver.
 
When, in fact, this thread serves no purpose other than to spread the latest denialist scam, which reads: "I've found someone who asserts he found a spot that, at some time or other, wasn't warming, and therefore 'the globe' isn't warming." .

Actually, O glassy eyed chanter...those papers were all published in 2017...and show that if one looks at various places across the globe, the claim of global warming simply doesn't stack up...the only place global warming is happening is in the highly manipulated global record...and if you look at the global temperature data, only a true glassy eyed chanter could fail to notice that the warmest places on earth are those with the least instrumental coverage... pick any year and you will see invariably, the warmest places on earth are where climate pseudoscience does the most infilling...only a dolt could fail to notice this...and only a glassy eyed chanter would accept it as science.
10_17_16_Brian_2016GlobalAdjustedMap_720_492_s_c1_c_c.jpg


5_18_16_Andrea_2016GlobalAdjusted_Map_Jan-Apr_720_492_s_c1_c_c.png

Hey, how come the bulk of the "Warming" is in the oceans?
the ocean ate the excess remember?
 
What you don't seem to grasp is that you are describing the state of mainstream climate science...

LOLOLOLOLOL.......no, SSoooDDumb, the sane people can grasp that fact quite well......it is you delusional denier cult dumbasses who reject science and deny the science and evidence based conclusions of "mainstream climate science" because of your crackpot political and economic ideological obsessions that have nothing to do with science.







I am still waiting on that first shred of observed, measured, quantified,empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis...and neither you, nor all of climate science can deliver.

You're only "still waiting", you poor retarded stooge, because you've closed your eyes to the hundreds of times you've been shown the scientific evidence supporting the reality of AGW.....and you do that because you are a crackpot cultist in a astroturfed cult of reality denial, sponsored by the Koch brothers and EXXON, and the facts and evidence demolish your fraudulent cultic dogmas. Which you're too stupid to realize.
***

Meanwhile, the globe continues to rapidly warm up in response to the 46% increase (to date) in a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2,....and scientists and sane people continue to call it 'global warming', as scientists have been doing continuously since 1975.
 
Last edited:
What you don't seem to grasp is that you are describing the state of mainstream climate science...

LOLOLOLOLOL.......no, SSoooDDumb, the sane people can grasp that fact quite well......it is you delusional denier cult dumbasses who reject science and deny the science and evidence based conclusions of "mainstream climate science" because of your crackpot political and economic ideological obsessions that have nothing to do with science.







I am still waiting on that first shred of observed, measured, quantified,empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis...and neither you, nor all of climate science can deliver.

You're only "still waiting", you poor retarded stooge, because you've closed your eyes to the hundreds of times you've been shown the scientific evidence supporting the reality of AGW.....and you do that because you are a crackpot cultist in a astroturfed cult of reality denial, sponsored by the Koch brothers and EXXON, and the facts and evidence demolish your fraudulent cultic dogmas. Which you're too stupid to realize.
***

Meanwhile, the globe continues to rapidly warm up in response to the 46% increase (to date) in a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2,....and scientists and sane people continue to call it 'global warming', as scientists have been doing continuously since 1975.


s0n......the people decide who is the cult and who is not......NOT the scientists!! The EPA is getting its balls kicked in and all climate science research funding is getting its nut sack ripped off. The "sane" people know what that means = the alarmist view is losing.:2up::eusa_dance::eusa_dance:. And losing decisively I might add......no more bs big $$ expenditures on solar power by the taxpayers = more huge winning by people who laugh at the alarmists.:bye1:

Hey asshole.........post me up one single link showing us where your side is winning?:deal:


By the way s0n......were you raised by fairies because you sure as hell post like a woman..........you can even ask the other alarmists in here.( excluding Mamooth.....another feminine-type ). How many times did you get picked last for the team? :coffee:
 
Last edited:
Coming back to the unpleasant reality that all the conspiracy-addled deniers are trying so hard to avoid ...

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: February 2017 was second-warmest February on record

Golly. Only the second hottest February ever for February 2017 (+1.1C), only falling behind February 2016 (+1.3C).

And that was on the tail end of a weak La Nina in 2017, compared to being part of an El Nino in 2016.

That is, the strong global warming continues. And it will keep continuing for years, and the deniers here will keep looking more ridiculous.
 

Forum List

Back
Top