Boom!!! Exactly as the NASA article I shared, stated. And you claimed it was a “lie”. 100% of the information I have shared has been 100% fact.
The crazy stuff you say has no relation to anything I type, or to reality in general. Your butthurt over me has caused you to lose your last marble.
Oh, I enjoyed watching you soil yourself seven times, my sweet little bottom. I own your little cult brain, and I'm laughing hard about that, along with everyone else here. Maybe I can get your next poo-flinging tirade up to 8 posts, which would be a new record. You've certainly shown you've got enough crap inside of you.
Democrats claimed by the end of 2014, the polar ice cap would be gone.
See? You're not even pretending to be in touch with reality. The lead-poisoning, brainwashing and senility has really taken a toll on you.
Now, let's discuss and debunk both of your "smoking guns". So sad that you got scammed so easily.
The five most controversial emails leaked from UEA's Climatic Research Unit with expert commentary from Fred Pearce on what they do – and don't – reveal
www.theguardian.com
---
From: Phil Jones <
p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
...I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.
Cheers
Phil
This, according to Sarah Palin and US senator James Inhofe, is a smoking gun that shows Jones trying to "hide the decline in temperatures" since 1998. Not so. First, note the date of the email: 1999. It came at the end of a decade of exceptional warmth, in which 1998 was the warmest year on record. There was no decline to hide. And note the words about "adding in the real temperatures". Jones and Mike Mann had been adding real temperatures to the end longer graphs of temperature estimates based on tree rings. The only thing being "hidden" was tree ring data that did not match reality.
From: Phil Jones <
p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <
mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
Mike,
... I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
Jones is writing about two new papers. One, from two known sceptics Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels, claimed to show a correlation between the geographical patterns of warming and of industrialisation, suggesting that local urbanisation rather than the global influence of greenhouse gases were often key in warming on land.
Jones evidently wanted to use his position as a lead author to keep the paper out of the IPCC report. In the event, the paper was not mentioned in early chapter drafts, but was added to a final version, where its findings were dismissed as "not statistically significant". Critics say that by keeping it out of early drafts, Jones prevented reviewers scrutinising his conclusion.
---
Care to address the facts now? This should be amusing, given your inability to grasp the basics here. Your side took a quote screamingly out of context, knowingly. That's called "lying". And you always support such lying. Tsk, tsk.
Go on. Scream that context doesn't matter. Lie more. You're in this deep, don't stop now.
Anyways, did you have something specific you wanted to accomplish in your SafeSpace here, other than to air your butthurt? It wasn't me that necro'd a dead thread over butthurt, that was all you. All your arguments were debunked right here, many many times, well before 2014, which is the last time your cult updated any of their arguments. So why repeat your failures yet another time?
Remember, crying about how everyone pointed out how stupid you are won't cause people to stop pointing out how stupid you are. Your side has faceplanted at every single thing for over 40 years. That's why you're not taken seriously. Throwing tantrums won't change that. In order to be taken seriously, you have to succeed at your predictions, as AGW science has done. AGW science has global credibility because it's earned it through a stunning record of successful predictions.