ReinyDays
Gold Member
The academic position is that "empirical" means:
Now your thinking that ice core data, for example, can so easily is be dismissed as "theory or pure logic" leads me to think that you're apt to fall for any old BS. Being for maximum fossil fuel consumption is clearly just being an asshole. What's really hilarious is witnessing how you idiots consistently deny the empirical evidence then turn around and attempt to (ab)use your purported enemy's charts against them, since you've so pathetically got nothing else (of actual substance) to show for yourselves.
The challenge clearly allows the ice core data ... go ahead and use that to calculate your averages ... I just want to see if you know how to do the actual math ... go read the OP again and come back with a discreet number of years we should be averaging over ... and tell us what those temperature averages are ...
Quite frankly, the ice core data far better illustrates my claims ... that's a saw-tooth wave ... like we studied in first-year physics ... energy is energy, magic need not be applied ... if you don't see that, then stick to NOAA's data ...