The Hottest Day in History Just Occurred

[BackAgain]

The facts make it science.

Alleged facts which are fact might be a part of science.

The nonsense you spew is anything but.

You know, the facts that you're desperately trying to deflect from.

 

[fncceo]

so we don't end up looking lying delusional cult imbeciles.

I'm fairly well acquainted with The Scientific Method. But, I don't remember the part where you call anyone who disagrees with you a "lying, delusional, cult, imbecile". Perhaps that's a more advanced sort of Scientific Method?

 

[BackAgain]

Manboob will now share with the class why proxy data is deemed by him to be perfectly reliable.

 

[mamooth]

I'm fairly well acquainted with The Scientific Method.

No, you're clearly not. Science must be falsifiable, your beliefs are not falsfiable.

If you disagree, tell us what hard data could falsify your theory of denialism.

But, I don't remember the part where you call anyone who disagrees with you a "lying, delusional, cult, imbecile".

I don't refer to anyone who disagrees with me as such. I refer to delusional cult imbeciles as such, based on observing the data that they do fall into that category.

I follow the data. That's the scientific method.

Now, do you just want to whine at me, or are you going to discuss the topic?

 

[excalibur]

So, history began in 1979? Because that is when the chart at the OP's link begins.

 

[fncceo]

If you won't discuss the issue, get off the thread.

So far, you haven't discussed anything. You've pontificated your alleged "facts" and called anyone who questions your supposition an imbecile.

That is definitely NOT a discussion.

 

[mamooth]

Manboob will now share with the class why proxy data is deemed by him to be perfectly reliable.

This one, out of ideas and desperate, resorts to the tried and true "Just make some shit up" denier tactic.

 

[jotathought]

Climate Reanalyzer

Climate and weather data visualizations

climatereanalyzer.org

The hottest day in history just occurred. The global average temperature was 17.18C, the hottest in the historical record.

Discuss.

Does this mean global warming is very real, and the rational people have been spot-on correct for the past 40 years? Yes.

Does this mean the denier cultists have been laughably wrong for the past decade? Yes.

If you want to put forth a "DERP! DERP! ALL THE DATA IS FAKED! DEEEEERRRRRRP!" conspiracy as a way to run from the hard data, you have to back it up, with something more than a link to a kook conspiracy website. Explain it in your own words, then link to primary data sources. If you won't, that's an admission you're making it all up.

If you'd like to claim the warming is all-natural, provide evidence for that. Don't just claim it. Back it up.

Needless to say, trolls will be instantly reported. Mods, please don't reward trolls by moving a thread to the Rubber Room after trolls overwhelm it, as the trolls always attempt to do.

In the United States, the devices used by NOAA to record local temperature readings across the United States, didn't meet NOAA's own standards -- instead, they set a clear majority of them (95%+) in areas were heat is conducted, like parking lots, urban centers, stone / brick walls etc. Do these "record" temperatures take that into account from the United States perspective or is it the same-ol-same-ol?

 

[mamooth]

So far, you haven't discussed anything. You've pontificated your alleged "facts" and called anyone who questions your supposition an imbecile.

That is definitely NOT a discussion.

I have facts, the global temperature record. What do you have? Nothing but trolling and deflecting.

If you could back up your BS, you wouldn't have to do that. You've already admitted defeat by avoiding the topic.

 

[fncceo]

Manboob will now share with the class why proxy data is deemed by him to be perfectly reliable.

To be fair, proxy data is perfect if you want to confirm a bias. You can literally pick and choose from unverifiable sources of data that support your supposition.

It's the backbone of pseudo-science, shamanism, and alchemy.

 

[mamooth]

In the United States, the devices used by NOAA to record local temperature readings across the United States, didn't meet NOAA's own standards -- instead, they set a clear majority of them (95%+) in areas were heat is conducted, like parking lots, urban centers, stone / brick walls etc. Do these "record" temperatures take that into account from the United States perspective or is it the same-ol-same-ol?

Rural stations show more warming that urban stations.

If you remove all the "bad" stations ... the average doesn't change at all.

That absolutely annihilates your "It's the urban heat island effect!" conspiracy tale.

Got anything else? Remember, we've seen and debunked all the standard denier propaganda stories here, many times over. You can't fool us with the same old garbage.

 

[mamooth]

To be fair, proxy data is perfect if you want to confirm a bias. You can literally pick and choose from unverifiable sources of data that support your supposition.

It's the backbone of pseudo-science, shamanism, and alchemy.

And your evidence for that is?

You're just making stupid shit up. Yes, it is that obvious.

 

[mamooth]

So, history began in 1979? Because that is when the chart at the OP's link begins.

This one is going the "Hah! Look at my nitpicking!" route.

 

[fncceo]

I have facts, the global temperature record.

Yes, the fact of "proxy data" which you fail to explain how it is collected, how it is verified, and the margins of error. Tell us, in your own words, how precisely you know the exact global average temperature over the past 5,000 years when the ability to measure temperature accurately on a global scale has only existed for the past 50 years or so.

 

[excalibur]

This one is going the "Hah! Look at my nitpicking!" route.

Nitpicking? LOL

Claiming 'in history' when a chart only goes back to 1979 isn't nitpicking.

 

[jotathought]

Rural stations show more warming that urban stations.

If you remove all the "bad" stations ... the average doesn't change at all.

That absolutely annihilates your "It's the urban heat island effect!" conspiracy tale.

Got anything else? Remember, we've seen and debunked all the standard denier propaganda stories here, many times over. You can't fool us with the same old garbage.

So you're against the science that produced that study? We are talking 96% of the recorded data -- how do your statistics work where 4% of the data overwhelms 96% of it?

 

[mamooth]

Yes, the fact of "proxy data" which you fail to explain how it is collected, how it is verified, and the margins of error. Tell us, in your own words, how precisely you know the exact global average temperature over the past 5,000 years when the ability to measure temperature accurately on a global scale has only existed for the past 50 years or so.

As you didn't even look at my link about proxies, you clearly have no actual interest in that topic. You're trolling again, trying to deflect from the actual topic, which is the demonstrated current fast warming.

But hey, I'll humor you. I'll just say "hottest year since 1979". Does that change the discussion? No. The fast warming still exists.

What's causing the current fast warming? It's clearly not a natural cycle, since natural factors are trying to force cooling. The sun is declining in output, and the Milankovitch cycles want to put earth into an ice age.

So, what's causing the current fast warming?

 

[mamooth]

So you're against the science that produced that study? We are talking 96% of the recorded data -- how do your statistics work where 4% of the data overwhelms 96% of it?

You're not making any sense.

I'm pointing out that the 4% agrees spot on with the 96%, which makes claims that the 96% is wrong look cuckoo.

 

[justoffal]

Proxy data can determine such things.

Come on, educate yourself. Your ignorance of the facts does not make the facts go away.

He's telling you that it is at best a guess. He is correct.

 

[fncceo]

If your reaction to anyone questioning your scientific beliefs is ...

Then, it's safe to say, that it's not really about the science.