The Everywhere Is Warming Faster Than Everywhere Thread

[BuckToothMoron]

So what's the correct temperature? Where on the thermometer should the planet be?

Ask the scientists.

The answer always seems to be "just a little bit cooler than we are right now, and world socialism is the only thing that can save us".

Not true. I didn't say "ask the RWNJs what they think the scientists would say".

Ask the scientists.

Ok, let’s ask these scientists- consensus my ass!

Those aren't climate scientists and you know it.

Sure, let’s believe Scientist Al Gore instead. After all he invented the Internet.

 

[Crepitus]

Ask the scientists.

The answer always seems to be "just a little bit cooler than we are right now, and world socialism is the only thing that can save us".

Not true. I didn't say "ask the RWNJs what they think the scientists would say".

Ask the scientists.

Ok, let’s ask these scientists- consensus my ass!

Those aren't climate scientists and you know it.

Sure, let’s believe Scientist Al Gore instead. After all he invented the Internet.

Here's some stuff from real scientists.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

[Weatherman2020]

Or the ‘Define Average’ thread, your call

So, another one of your trolling threads. I see the other trolls have jumped on it, and the circle jerk has begun. It's all you denier cultists here are capable of.

An honest person would have, say, posted the projected temperature rise, so we can see what the average is. Like this.

See? Some areas above average, some below.

So why did you fake a story about how everything is above average? Was is out stupidity, or deliberate dishonesty?

The point of no return was ten years ago.

Not my timeline, you chicken littles said it.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The answer always seems to be "just a little bit cooler than we are right now, and world socialism is the only thing that can save us".

Not true. I didn't say "ask the RWNJs what they think the scientists would say".

Ask the scientists.

Ok, let’s ask these scientists- consensus my ass!

Those aren't climate scientists and you know it.

Sure, let’s believe Scientist Al Gore instead. After all he invented the Internet.

Here's some stuff from real scientists.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

The “global warming” hoax: 30 years of failed predictions that never happened

 

[daveman]

So what's the correct temperature? Where on the thermometer should the planet be?

Ask the scientists.

The answer always seems to be "just a little bit cooler than we are right now, and world socialism is the only thing that can save us".

Not true. I didn't say "ask the RWNJs what they think the scientists would say".

Ask the scientists.

But according to the left, everyone on the left is an expert.

I'm asking you.

I don't know who you've been talking to but neither you nor I are experts on climate change. The scientists who are believe it's real and that's good enough for me.

And the definition of "global warming expert" is, of course, "a scientist who believes in global warming".

Circular logic is not logic at all.

Meanwhile, you don't know what the proper temperature of the planet is. You just know ITS WAY TO HIGH...because that's what you've been told.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Or the ‘Define Average’ thread, your call

So, another one of your trolling threads. I see the other trolls have jumped on it, and the circle jerk has begun. It's all you denier cultists here are capable of.

An honest person would have, say, posted the projected temperature rise, so we can see what the average is. Like this.

See? Some areas above average, some below.

So why did you fake a story about how everything is above average? Was is out stupidity, or deliberate dishonesty?

Pretty colors. One second while I shade them a pretty blue for you.

So are you for bombing coal plants in China and India to save the world? No? Build hundreds of nuclear power plants? No?

You’re full of shit and know it’s all bullshit.

 

[Crepitus]

Not true. I didn't say "ask the RWNJs what they think the scientists would say".

Ask the scientists.

Ok, let’s ask these scientists- consensus my ass!

Those aren't climate scientists and you know it.

Sure, let’s believe Scientist Al Gore instead. After all he invented the Internet.

Here's some stuff from real scientists.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

The “global warming” hoax: 30 years of failed predictions that never happened

Bullshit.
30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction | Dana Nuccitelli

 

[Crepitus]

Ask the scientists.

The answer always seems to be "just a little bit cooler than we are right now, and world socialism is the only thing that can save us".

Not true. I didn't say "ask the RWNJs what they think the scientists would say".

Ask the scientists.

But according to the left, everyone on the left is an expert.

I'm asking you.

I don't know who you've been talking to but neither you nor I are experts on climate change. The scientists who are believe it's real and that's good enough for me.

And the definition of "global warming expert" is, of course, "a scientist who believes in global warming".

Circular logic is not logic at all.

Meanwhile, you don't know what the proper temperature of the planet is. You just know ITS WAY TO HIGH...because that's what you've been told.

Yes, the scientists do know what the temperature is supposed to be.

 

[daveman]

Ok, let’s ask these scientists- consensus my ass!

Those aren't climate scientists and you know it.

Sure, let’s believe Scientist Al Gore instead. After all he invented the Internet.

Here's some stuff from real scientists.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

The “global warming” hoax: 30 years of failed predictions that never happened

Bullshit.
30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction | Dana Nuccitelli

Ok, let’s ask these scientists- consensus my ass!

Those aren't climate scientists and you know it.

Sure, let’s believe Scientist Al Gore instead. After all he invented the Internet.

Here's some stuff from real scientists.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

The “global warming” hoax: 30 years of failed predictions that never happened

Bullshit.
30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction | Dana Nuccitelli

The caption for the graph in your tabloid link:

Scenario B from Hansen’s 1988 paper, with the trend reduced by 27% to reflect the actual radiative forcing from 1984 to 2017, compared to global surface temperature data from Cowtan & Way.
​

LOL! They admit they're massaging the data.

And Cowtan & Way seem to start with their conclusion and work backwards.

Closing remarks

It very much looks that the trend break-point in the Cowtan and Way data is itself a result of a bias, and miserable failure, likely when trying to account for the positive polar amplification – the problem is that most likely in times when there is quite likely a negative one.

It very much looks there quite is no reason to believe there is a warming trend in the global surface temperatures at least since 2005 – and even much less because of a bias in the global surface temperature anomalies due to the allegedly insufficient coverage in the tropical and polar regions.

In fact the global sea-ice data supported by multiple other data-sets give quite a very compelling evidence to the contrary.

And data is what counts in the science, which has the method based on the falsification not a confirmation bias. If the data don’t agree with a hypothesis it is in the overwhelming majority of cases the hypothesis which is falsified, not the data.

In this case the extensive real data quite falsify a hypothesis literally based on no data (which are invented to make such hypothesis possible) moreover clearly postulated to significantly change the outcome of the real official data-set (whatever we maybe think about the Hadley Center, CRU and MetOffice at least it is based on real measurements and with still relatively conservative approach without infills when compared to other global data-sets as NCDC or GISTEMP LOTI*) and moreover for such purpose with quite clear intent to cast a doubt about the current at the very least flat if not a cooling global surface temperature anomaly trend.

Will we believe that while the ocean somewhere cools (-as Bob Tisdale shows for southern ocean – see the footnote – and there is virtually nothing else there than ocean between the Antarctica and the 60S) – which looks quite confirmed by the rising sea ice extent there and while the tropics cool too with quite impressive rate and moeover we do not find a rising temperature trend in Arctic in any of the two satellite datasets – will we really believe there is a warming trend? A warming somewhere (maybe in Antarctica and around, and most likely not) somehow able to change the whole most likely flat or descending global surface temperature anomaly trend into a warming one – moreover with a “hypothesis that warming has accelerated…four times as likely as the hypothesis that warming has stopped“? Or we will rather take it as for other reasons than a global warming overheated Cowtan and Way computers dream?

To put it differently: Besides the data, isn’t the pathetic effort to manufacture a global warming trend using HadCRUT4 dataset and cherrypicked satellite data perhaps to allow the CAGW meme persist a little bit more, deliberately or not, the best sign of cooling?​

 

[daveman]

The answer always seems to be "just a little bit cooler than we are right now, and world socialism is the only thing that can save us".

Not true. I didn't say "ask the RWNJs what they think the scientists would say".

Ask the scientists.

But according to the left, everyone on the left is an expert.

I'm asking you.

I don't know who you've been talking to but neither you nor I are experts on climate change. The scientists who are believe it's real and that's good enough for me.

And the definition of "global warming expert" is, of course, "a scientist who believes in global warming".

Circular logic is not logic at all.

Meanwhile, you don't know what the proper temperature of the planet is. You just know ITS WAY TO HIGH...because that's what you've been told.

Yes, the scientists do know what the temperature is supposed to be.

What is it, then?

 

[Crepitus]

Those aren't climate scientists and you know it.

Sure, let’s believe Scientist Al Gore instead. After all he invented the Internet.

Here's some stuff from real scientists.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

The “global warming” hoax: 30 years of failed predictions that never happened

Bullshit.
30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction | Dana Nuccitelli

Those aren't climate scientists and you know it.

Sure, let’s believe Scientist Al Gore instead. After all he invented the Internet.

Here's some stuff from real scientists.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

The “global warming” hoax: 30 years of failed predictions that never happened

Bullshit.
30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction | Dana Nuccitelli

The caption for the graph in your tabloid link:

Scenario B from Hansen’s 1988 paper, with the trend reduced by 27% to reflect the actual radiative forcing from 1984 to 2017, compared to global surface temperature data from Cowtan & Way.
​

LOL! They admit they're massaging the data.

And Cowtan & Way seem to start with their conclusion and work backwards.

Closing remarks

It very much looks that the trend break-point in the Cowtan and Way data is itself a result of a bias, and miserable failure, likely when trying to account for the positive polar amplification – the problem is that most likely in times when there is quite likely a negative one.

It very much looks there quite is no reason to believe there is a warming trend in the global surface temperatures at least since 2005 – and even much less because of a bias in the global surface temperature anomalies due to the allegedly insufficient coverage in the tropical and polar regions.

In fact the global sea-ice data supported by multiple other data-sets give quite a very compelling evidence to the contrary.

And data is what counts in the science, which has the method based on the falsification not a confirmation bias. If the data don’t agree with a hypothesis it is in the overwhelming majority of cases the hypothesis which is falsified, not the data.

In this case the extensive real data quite falsify a hypothesis literally based on no data (which are invented to make such hypothesis possible) moreover clearly postulated to significantly change the outcome of the real official data-set (whatever we maybe think about the Hadley Center, CRU and MetOffice at least it is based on real measurements and with still relatively conservative approach without infills when compared to other global data-sets as NCDC or GISTEMP LOTI*) and moreover for such purpose with quite clear intent to cast a doubt about the current at the very least flat if not a cooling global surface temperature anomaly trend.

Will we believe that while the ocean somewhere cools (-as Bob Tisdale shows for southern ocean – see the footnote – and there is virtually nothing else there than ocean between the Antarctica and the 60S) – which looks quite confirmed by the rising sea ice extent there and while the tropics cool too with quite impressive rate and moeover we do not find a rising temperature trend in Arctic in any of the two satellite datasets – will we really believe there is a warming trend? A warming somewhere (maybe in Antarctica and around, and most likely not) somehow able to change the whole most likely flat or descending global surface temperature anomaly trend into a warming one – moreover with a “hypothesis that warming has accelerated…four times as likely as the hypothesis that warming has stopped“? Or we will rather take it as for other reasons than a global warming overheated Cowtan and Way computers dream?

To put it differently: Besides the data, isn’t the pathetic effort to manufacture a global warming trend using HadCRUT4 dataset and cherrypicked satellite data perhaps to allow the CAGW meme persist a little bit more, deliberately or not, the best sign of cooling?​

He was looking 30 years into the future with limited data sets and still got within 30%?

Looks pretty amazing to me.

 

[daveman]

Sure, let’s believe Scientist Al Gore instead. After all he invented the Internet.

Here's some stuff from real scientists.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

The “global warming” hoax: 30 years of failed predictions that never happened

Bullshit.
30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction | Dana Nuccitelli

Sure, let’s believe Scientist Al Gore instead. After all he invented the Internet.

Here's some stuff from real scientists.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

The “global warming” hoax: 30 years of failed predictions that never happened

Bullshit.
30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction | Dana Nuccitelli

The caption for the graph in your tabloid link:

Scenario B from Hansen’s 1988 paper, with the trend reduced by 27% to reflect the actual radiative forcing from 1984 to 2017, compared to global surface temperature data from Cowtan & Way.
​

LOL! They admit they're massaging the data.

And Cowtan & Way seem to start with their conclusion and work backwards.

Closing remarks

It very much looks that the trend break-point in the Cowtan and Way data is itself a result of a bias, and miserable failure, likely when trying to account for the positive polar amplification – the problem is that most likely in times when there is quite likely a negative one.

It very much looks there quite is no reason to believe there is a warming trend in the global surface temperatures at least since 2005 – and even much less because of a bias in the global surface temperature anomalies due to the allegedly insufficient coverage in the tropical and polar regions.

In fact the global sea-ice data supported by multiple other data-sets give quite a very compelling evidence to the contrary.

And data is what counts in the science, which has the method based on the falsification not a confirmation bias. If the data don’t agree with a hypothesis it is in the overwhelming majority of cases the hypothesis which is falsified, not the data.

In this case the extensive real data quite falsify a hypothesis literally based on no data (which are invented to make such hypothesis possible) moreover clearly postulated to significantly change the outcome of the real official data-set (whatever we maybe think about the Hadley Center, CRU and MetOffice at least it is based on real measurements and with still relatively conservative approach without infills when compared to other global data-sets as NCDC or GISTEMP LOTI*) and moreover for such purpose with quite clear intent to cast a doubt about the current at the very least flat if not a cooling global surface temperature anomaly trend.

Will we believe that while the ocean somewhere cools (-as Bob Tisdale shows for southern ocean – see the footnote – and there is virtually nothing else there than ocean between the Antarctica and the 60S) – which looks quite confirmed by the rising sea ice extent there and while the tropics cool too with quite impressive rate and moeover we do not find a rising temperature trend in Arctic in any of the two satellite datasets – will we really believe there is a warming trend? A warming somewhere (maybe in Antarctica and around, and most likely not) somehow able to change the whole most likely flat or descending global surface temperature anomaly trend into a warming one – moreover with a “hypothesis that warming has accelerated…four times as likely as the hypothesis that warming has stopped“? Or we will rather take it as for other reasons than a global warming overheated Cowtan and Way computers dream?

To put it differently: Besides the data, isn’t the pathetic effort to manufacture a global warming trend using HadCRUT4 dataset and cherrypicked satellite data perhaps to allow the CAGW meme persist a little bit more, deliberately or not, the best sign of cooling?​

He was looking 30 years into the future with limited data sets and still got within 30%?

Looks pretty amazing to me.

Massaged and cherry-picked data says he got within 30%. Sucker.

 

[Crepitus]

Not true. I didn't say "ask the RWNJs what they think the scientists would say".

Ask the scientists.

But according to the left, everyone on the left is an expert.

I'm asking you.

I don't know who you've been talking to but neither you nor I are experts on climate change. The scientists who are believe it's real and that's good enough for me.

And the definition of "global warming expert" is, of course, "a scientist who believes in global warming".

Circular logic is not logic at all.

Meanwhile, you don't know what the proper temperature of the planet is. You just know ITS WAY TO HIGH...because that's what you've been told.

Yes, the scientists do know what the temperature is supposed to be.

What is it, then?

Ask them.

 

[Crepitus]

Here's some stuff from real scientists.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

The “global warming” hoax: 30 years of failed predictions that never happened

Bullshit.
30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction | Dana Nuccitelli

Here's some stuff from real scientists.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

The “global warming” hoax: 30 years of failed predictions that never happened

Bullshit.
30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction | Dana Nuccitelli

The caption for the graph in your tabloid link:

Scenario B from Hansen’s 1988 paper, with the trend reduced by 27% to reflect the actual radiative forcing from 1984 to 2017, compared to global surface temperature data from Cowtan & Way.
​

LOL! They admit they're massaging the data.

And Cowtan & Way seem to start with their conclusion and work backwards.

Closing remarks

It very much looks that the trend break-point in the Cowtan and Way data is itself a result of a bias, and miserable failure, likely when trying to account for the positive polar amplification – the problem is that most likely in times when there is quite likely a negative one.

It very much looks there quite is no reason to believe there is a warming trend in the global surface temperatures at least since 2005 – and even much less because of a bias in the global surface temperature anomalies due to the allegedly insufficient coverage in the tropical and polar regions.

In fact the global sea-ice data supported by multiple other data-sets give quite a very compelling evidence to the contrary.

And data is what counts in the science, which has the method based on the falsification not a confirmation bias. If the data don’t agree with a hypothesis it is in the overwhelming majority of cases the hypothesis which is falsified, not the data.

In this case the extensive real data quite falsify a hypothesis literally based on no data (which are invented to make such hypothesis possible) moreover clearly postulated to significantly change the outcome of the real official data-set (whatever we maybe think about the Hadley Center, CRU and MetOffice at least it is based on real measurements and with still relatively conservative approach without infills when compared to other global data-sets as NCDC or GISTEMP LOTI*) and moreover for such purpose with quite clear intent to cast a doubt about the current at the very least flat if not a cooling global surface temperature anomaly trend.

Will we believe that while the ocean somewhere cools (-as Bob Tisdale shows for southern ocean – see the footnote – and there is virtually nothing else there than ocean between the Antarctica and the 60S) – which looks quite confirmed by the rising sea ice extent there and while the tropics cool too with quite impressive rate and moeover we do not find a rising temperature trend in Arctic in any of the two satellite datasets – will we really believe there is a warming trend? A warming somewhere (maybe in Antarctica and around, and most likely not) somehow able to change the whole most likely flat or descending global surface temperature anomaly trend into a warming one – moreover with a “hypothesis that warming has accelerated…four times as likely as the hypothesis that warming has stopped“? Or we will rather take it as for other reasons than a global warming overheated Cowtan and Way computers dream?

To put it differently: Besides the data, isn’t the pathetic effort to manufacture a global warming trend using HadCRUT4 dataset and cherrypicked satellite data perhaps to allow the CAGW meme persist a little bit more, deliberately or not, the best sign of cooling?​

He was looking 30 years into the future with limited data sets and still got within 30%?

Looks pretty amazing to me.

Massaged and cherry-picked data says he got within 30%. Sucker.

you're hopeless son.

 

[daveman]

The “global warming” hoax: 30 years of failed predictions that never happened

Bullshit.
30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction | Dana Nuccitelli

The “global warming” hoax: 30 years of failed predictions that never happened

Bullshit.
30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction | Dana Nuccitelli

The caption for the graph in your tabloid link:

Scenario B from Hansen’s 1988 paper, with the trend reduced by 27% to reflect the actual radiative forcing from 1984 to 2017, compared to global surface temperature data from Cowtan & Way.
​

LOL! They admit they're massaging the data.

And Cowtan & Way seem to start with their conclusion and work backwards.

Closing remarks

It very much looks that the trend break-point in the Cowtan and Way data is itself a result of a bias, and miserable failure, likely when trying to account for the positive polar amplification – the problem is that most likely in times when there is quite likely a negative one.

It very much looks there quite is no reason to believe there is a warming trend in the global surface temperatures at least since 2005 – and even much less because of a bias in the global surface temperature anomalies due to the allegedly insufficient coverage in the tropical and polar regions.

In fact the global sea-ice data supported by multiple other data-sets give quite a very compelling evidence to the contrary.

And data is what counts in the science, which has the method based on the falsification not a confirmation bias. If the data don’t agree with a hypothesis it is in the overwhelming majority of cases the hypothesis which is falsified, not the data.

In this case the extensive real data quite falsify a hypothesis literally based on no data (which are invented to make such hypothesis possible) moreover clearly postulated to significantly change the outcome of the real official data-set (whatever we maybe think about the Hadley Center, CRU and MetOffice at least it is based on real measurements and with still relatively conservative approach without infills when compared to other global data-sets as NCDC or GISTEMP LOTI*) and moreover for such purpose with quite clear intent to cast a doubt about the current at the very least flat if not a cooling global surface temperature anomaly trend.

Will we believe that while the ocean somewhere cools (-as Bob Tisdale shows for southern ocean – see the footnote – and there is virtually nothing else there than ocean between the Antarctica and the 60S) – which looks quite confirmed by the rising sea ice extent there and while the tropics cool too with quite impressive rate and moeover we do not find a rising temperature trend in Arctic in any of the two satellite datasets – will we really believe there is a warming trend? A warming somewhere (maybe in Antarctica and around, and most likely not) somehow able to change the whole most likely flat or descending global surface temperature anomaly trend into a warming one – moreover with a “hypothesis that warming has accelerated…four times as likely as the hypothesis that warming has stopped“? Or we will rather take it as for other reasons than a global warming overheated Cowtan and Way computers dream?

To put it differently: Besides the data, isn’t the pathetic effort to manufacture a global warming trend using HadCRUT4 dataset and cherrypicked satellite data perhaps to allow the CAGW meme persist a little bit more, deliberately or not, the best sign of cooling?​

He was looking 30 years into the future with limited data sets and still got within 30%?

Looks pretty amazing to me.

Massaged and cherry-picked data says he got within 30%. Sucker.

you're hopeless son.

Coming from a cultist, that's absolutely meaningless.

 

[daveman]

But according to the left, everyone on the left is an expert.

I'm asking you.

I don't know who you've been talking to but neither you nor I are experts on climate change. The scientists who are believe it's real and that's good enough for me.

And the definition of "global warming expert" is, of course, "a scientist who believes in global warming".

Circular logic is not logic at all.

Meanwhile, you don't know what the proper temperature of the planet is. You just know ITS WAY TO HIGH...because that's what you've been told.

Yes, the scientists do know what the temperature is supposed to be.

What is it, then?

Ask them.

I was right. "Meanwhile, you don't know what the proper temperature of the planet is. You just know ITS WAY TO HIGH...because that's what you've been told."

 

[Crepitus]

Bullshit.
30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction | Dana Nuccitelli

Bullshit.
30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction | Dana Nuccitelli

The caption for the graph in your tabloid link:

Scenario B from Hansen’s 1988 paper, with the trend reduced by 27% to reflect the actual radiative forcing from 1984 to 2017, compared to global surface temperature data from Cowtan & Way.
​

LOL! They admit they're massaging the data.

And Cowtan & Way seem to start with their conclusion and work backwards.

Closing remarks

It very much looks that the trend break-point in the Cowtan and Way data is itself a result of a bias, and miserable failure, likely when trying to account for the positive polar amplification – the problem is that most likely in times when there is quite likely a negative one.

It very much looks there quite is no reason to believe there is a warming trend in the global surface temperatures at least since 2005 – and even much less because of a bias in the global surface temperature anomalies due to the allegedly insufficient coverage in the tropical and polar regions.

In fact the global sea-ice data supported by multiple other data-sets give quite a very compelling evidence to the contrary.

And data is what counts in the science, which has the method based on the falsification not a confirmation bias. If the data don’t agree with a hypothesis it is in the overwhelming majority of cases the hypothesis which is falsified, not the data.

In this case the extensive real data quite falsify a hypothesis literally based on no data (which are invented to make such hypothesis possible) moreover clearly postulated to significantly change the outcome of the real official data-set (whatever we maybe think about the Hadley Center, CRU and MetOffice at least it is based on real measurements and with still relatively conservative approach without infills when compared to other global data-sets as NCDC or GISTEMP LOTI*) and moreover for such purpose with quite clear intent to cast a doubt about the current at the very least flat if not a cooling global surface temperature anomaly trend.

Will we believe that while the ocean somewhere cools (-as Bob Tisdale shows for southern ocean – see the footnote – and there is virtually nothing else there than ocean between the Antarctica and the 60S) – which looks quite confirmed by the rising sea ice extent there and while the tropics cool too with quite impressive rate and moeover we do not find a rising temperature trend in Arctic in any of the two satellite datasets – will we really believe there is a warming trend? A warming somewhere (maybe in Antarctica and around, and most likely not) somehow able to change the whole most likely flat or descending global surface temperature anomaly trend into a warming one – moreover with a “hypothesis that warming has accelerated…four times as likely as the hypothesis that warming has stopped“? Or we will rather take it as for other reasons than a global warming overheated Cowtan and Way computers dream?

To put it differently: Besides the data, isn’t the pathetic effort to manufacture a global warming trend using HadCRUT4 dataset and cherrypicked satellite data perhaps to allow the CAGW meme persist a little bit more, deliberately or not, the best sign of cooling?​

He was looking 30 years into the future with limited data sets and still got within 30%?

Looks pretty amazing to me.

Massaged and cherry-picked data says he got within 30%. Sucker.

you're hopeless son.

Coming from a cultist, that's absolutely meaningless.

Yer damn right it is, but you are confused about who's in the cult, denier.

 

[daveman]

The caption for the graph in your tabloid link:

Scenario B from Hansen’s 1988 paper, with the trend reduced by 27% to reflect the actual radiative forcing from 1984 to 2017, compared to global surface temperature data from Cowtan & Way.
​

LOL! They admit they're massaging the data.

And Cowtan & Way seem to start with their conclusion and work backwards.

Closing remarks

It very much looks that the trend break-point in the Cowtan and Way data is itself a result of a bias, and miserable failure, likely when trying to account for the positive polar amplification – the problem is that most likely in times when there is quite likely a negative one.

It very much looks there quite is no reason to believe there is a warming trend in the global surface temperatures at least since 2005 – and even much less because of a bias in the global surface temperature anomalies due to the allegedly insufficient coverage in the tropical and polar regions.

In fact the global sea-ice data supported by multiple other data-sets give quite a very compelling evidence to the contrary.

And data is what counts in the science, which has the method based on the falsification not a confirmation bias. If the data don’t agree with a hypothesis it is in the overwhelming majority of cases the hypothesis which is falsified, not the data.

In this case the extensive real data quite falsify a hypothesis literally based on no data (which are invented to make such hypothesis possible) moreover clearly postulated to significantly change the outcome of the real official data-set (whatever we maybe think about the Hadley Center, CRU and MetOffice at least it is based on real measurements and with still relatively conservative approach without infills when compared to other global data-sets as NCDC or GISTEMP LOTI*) and moreover for such purpose with quite clear intent to cast a doubt about the current at the very least flat if not a cooling global surface temperature anomaly trend.

Will we believe that while the ocean somewhere cools (-as Bob Tisdale shows for southern ocean – see the footnote – and there is virtually nothing else there than ocean between the Antarctica and the 60S) – which looks quite confirmed by the rising sea ice extent there and while the tropics cool too with quite impressive rate and moeover we do not find a rising temperature trend in Arctic in any of the two satellite datasets – will we really believe there is a warming trend? A warming somewhere (maybe in Antarctica and around, and most likely not) somehow able to change the whole most likely flat or descending global surface temperature anomaly trend into a warming one – moreover with a “hypothesis that warming has accelerated…four times as likely as the hypothesis that warming has stopped“? Or we will rather take it as for other reasons than a global warming overheated Cowtan and Way computers dream?

To put it differently: Besides the data, isn’t the pathetic effort to manufacture a global warming trend using HadCRUT4 dataset and cherrypicked satellite data perhaps to allow the CAGW meme persist a little bit more, deliberately or not, the best sign of cooling?​

He was looking 30 years into the future with limited data sets and still got within 30%?

Looks pretty amazing to me.

Massaged and cherry-picked data says he got within 30%. Sucker.

you're hopeless son.

Coming from a cultist, that's absolutely meaningless.

Yer damn right it is, but you are confused about who's in the cult, denier.

You sure you wanna go with that?

Professor: Global Warming “Deniers” Should be Executed

All Hail the Planet! 'Immorality of climate-change denial': NYT's Krugman accuses Congressmen who voted against climate bill of 'treason against the planet!'

Intimidating the “Deniers” to Enforce the “Consensus”

‘Execute’ Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: ‘At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers’ — ‘Shouldn’t we start punishing them now?’

Chilling: Play titled 'Kill Climate Deniers' launches theatrical run

Climate change is a cult. There is no question. Your cultism is settled.

 

[whitehall]

You are freezing your Adirondack ass off in freaking April but a "study" shows that the Adirondack's are really warming and you believe it because you think pervert Al Gore was on to something.. No surprises in northern New York this year

 

[Crepitus]

He was looking 30 years into the future with limited data sets and still got within 30%?

Looks pretty amazing to me.

Massaged and cherry-picked data says he got within 30%. Sucker.

you're hopeless son.

Coming from a cultist, that's absolutely meaningless.

Yer damn right it is, but you are confused about who's in the cult, denier.

You sure you wanna go with that?

Professor: Global Warming “Deniers” Should be Executed

All Hail the Planet! 'Immorality of climate-change denial': NYT's Krugman accuses Congressmen who voted against climate bill of 'treason against the planet!'

Intimidating the “Deniers” to Enforce the “Consensus”

‘Execute’ Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: ‘At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers’ — ‘Shouldn’t we start punishing them now?’

Chilling: Play titled 'Kill Climate Deniers' launches theatrical run

Climate change is a cult. There is no question. Your cultism is settled.

If it's you kids or the planet I know which way I'm going.