The March for Science....explained by Andrew Klavan....he nails it...

[2aguy]

Guys........you shouldn't question Man made global warming......what people believe as part of their religious system, as opposed to actual science, is a very personal thing.....

So if people believe that man is a sinner and is hurting the earth, and their priests say they have to do pennance for it...that is up to them....

 

[gipper]

Guys........you shouldn't question Man made global warming......what people believe as part of their religious system, as opposed to actual science, is a very personal thing.....

So if people believe that man is a sinner and is hurting the earth, and their priests say they have to do pennance for it...that is up to them....

The rather ironic thing about people who are ardent believers in AGW, they also are ardent atheists.

 

[SavannahMann]

And the name Gipper comes to mind. LOL

Did any of your assholes ever take in science in high school? Do any of you do anything more useful than flipping burgers? LOL

You have nothing in common with the political elites and the 1%. So, why do you allow them to dupe you repeatedly?

So I should reject truth because I don't have something in common with the 1%. By that theory I should reject everything from philosophy to civil behavioral standards. Why limit myself to rejecting science?

The problem is it is NOT Truth.

Clearly the man-made AGW movement is NOT science it is politics....but dummies can't see it.

Even if you reject man made Global Climate Change. Let's talk about the environment. As has been demonstrated there is a problem with pollution. The removal of lead from gasoline reduced the smog over Los Angeles and reduced acid rain. That was science. It was environmental science.

Reducing pollution is obviously good for us all. The clean water act was a result of the river in Ohio catching fire from pollution.

How a Burning River Helped Create the Clean Water Act

Now you are saying that all science isn't bad. Just global warming. Another response essentially claimed science that recognized transgender people was bad. That is the problem when you start to pick and choose what is good science and what is bad or junk science based upon personal beliefs.

I don't have anything in common with the 1% you said so why follow them on anything? They fly around the world. Am I to reject airplanes because they use them? I don't have anything in common with evangelical Christian types. Does that mean I should reject God?

I have my own issues with the political approach to Global Climate Change. One example I used in another message board was ship drive systems. I pointed out how each was taken over by a newer more reliable and cheaper system. Coal replaced wind and oars, oil replaced coal, diesel replaced oil. You didn't need to legislate coal out of use, it was replaced by a better system.

I'm even a big supporter of nuclear power.

But I never reject an argument because of who makes the argument or who wants me to reject it. I consider the information and make my own decisions based upon it. I have called myself a truth whore more than once. I will take truth from anyone.

 

[Old Rocks]

And the name Gipper comes to mind. LOL

Did any of your assholes ever take in science in high school? Do any of you do anything more useful than flipping burgers? LOL

You have nothing in common with the political elites and the 1%. So, why do you allow them to dupe you repeatedly?

So I should reject truth because I don't have something in common with the 1%. By that theory I should reject everything from philosophy to civil behavioral standards. Why limit myself to rejecting science?

The problem is it is NOT Truth.

Clearly the man-made AGW movement is NOT science, it is politics....but dummies can't see it.

Says you. And every Scientific Society in the world, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states otherwise. Oh, who to believe? An anonymous poster that has already demonstrated a vast ignorance of science, or virtually all the scientists in the world?

 

[westwall]

Yep, the March for Science is really Orwell having a party....

Yes , God created you and Noah really had a ark full of animals. Oh boy, one more science denier. Hey move to Mars, we can't trust there is no air there, just in case bring some 02 and a canteen. Science is for people that never took never took chemistry, microbiology, anatomy, physiology or algebra. They have read the Bible though, so they know everything they need to.
PS: Why is Oklahoma having so many earthquakes? Ask the nerd.

Oh penelope, you really don't know anything but what your masters tell you. I have taken all of the classes you listed, plus a whole bunch more. And the result of all of those classes is that science is never settled. OK is having earthquakes because of fracking. And its no big deal. Back in the 1970's and '80's we were theorizing about using fracking to reduce pressure on the major fault lines to reduce catastrophic earthquakes.

 

[Old Rocks]

Guys........you shouldn't question Man made global warming......what people believe as part of their religious system, as opposed to actual science, is a very personal thing.....

So if people believe that man is a sinner and is hurting the earth, and their priests say they have to do pennance for it...that is up to them....

The rather ironic thing about people who are ardent believers in AGW, they also are ardent atheists.

Really? LInk? Have you told the Pope yet? LOL

 

[westwall]

And the name Gipper comes to mind. LOL

Did any of your assholes ever take in science in high school? Do any of you do anything more useful than flipping burgers? LOL

You have nothing in common with the political elites and the 1%. So, why do you allow them to dupe you repeatedly?

So I should reject truth because I don't have something in common with the 1%. By that theory I should reject everything from philosophy to civil behavioral standards. Why limit myself to rejecting science?

The problem is it is NOT Truth.

Clearly the man-made AGW movement is NOT science, it is politics....but dummies can't see it.

Says you. And every Scientific Society in the world, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states otherwise. Oh, who to believe? An anonymous poster that has already demonstrated a vast ignorance of science, or virtually all the scientists in the world?

Which is an enormous logical fallacy because they all derive their funding from perpetuating the myth.

 

[gipper]

And the name Gipper comes to mind. LOL

Did any of your assholes ever take in science in high school? Do any of you do anything more useful than flipping burgers? LOL

You have nothing in common with the political elites and the 1%. So, why do you allow them to dupe you repeatedly?

So I should reject truth because I don't have something in common with the 1%. By that theory I should reject everything from philosophy to civil behavioral standards. Why limit myself to rejecting science?

The problem is it is NOT Truth.

Clearly the man-made AGW movement is NOT science it is politics....but dummies can't see it.

Even if you reject man made Global Climate Change. Let's talk about the environment. As has been demonstrated there is a problem with pollution. The removal of lead from gasoline reduced the smog over Los Angeles and reduced acid rain. That was science. It was environmental science.

Reducing pollution is obviously good for us all. The clean water act was a result of the river in Ohio catching fire from pollution.

View attachment 123540

How a Burning River Helped Create the Clean Water Act

Now you are saying that all science isn't bad. Just global warming. Another response essentially claimed science that recognized transgender people was bad. That is the problem when you start to pick and choose what is good science and what is bad or junk science based upon personal beliefs.

I don't have anything in common with the 1% you said so why follow them on anything? They fly around the world. Am I to reject airplanes because they use them? I don't have anything in common with evangelical Christian types. Does that mean I should reject God?

I have my own issues with the political approach to Global Climate Change. One example I used in another message board was ship drive systems. I pointed out how each was taken over by a newer more reliable and cheaper system. Coal replaced wind and oars, oil replaced coal, diesel replaced oil. You didn't need to legislate coal out of use, it was replaced by a better system.

I'm even a big supporter of nuclear power.

But I never reject an argument because of who makes the argument or who wants me to reject it. I consider the information and make my own decisions based upon it. I have called myself a truth whore more than once. I will take truth from anyone.

No one disputes that reducing pollution has been a good thing. NO ONE!!! No matter what the radicals on the left proclaim that right wingers want polluted water and air....if you believe that, you are a dunce.

I grew up in Detroit, when it might have been the most polluted city in the world. I remember seeing every color of the rainbow in the waters of the Detroit River. Numerous smoke stacks spewing black soot. All that is gone now and the air and water are much cleaner.

However, this has NOTHING to do with AGW. The AGW idiots are claiming man made CO2 is warming the planet. Nothing could be more wrong.

What is the solution offered by the Warmer Elite? Give us money and power. Hence...it is ALL political.

Al Gore’s New Group Demands $15 Trillion To Fight Global Warming

 

[Old Rocks]

Yep, the March for Science is really Orwell having a party....

Yes , God created you and Noah really had a ark full of animals. Oh boy, one more science denier. Hey move to Mars, we can't trust there is no air there, just in case bring some 02 and a canteen. Science is for people that never took never took chemistry, microbiology, anatomy, physiology or algebra. They have read the Bible though, so they know everything they need to.
PS: Why is Oklahoma having so many earthquakes? Ask the nerd.

Oh penelope, you really don't know anything but what your masters tell you. I have taken all of the classes you listed, plus a whole bunch more. And the result of all of those classes is that science is never settled. OK is having earthquakes because of fracking. And its no big deal. Back in the 1970's and '80's we were theorizing about using fracking to reduce pressure on the major fault lines to reduce catastrophic earthquakes.

If you were, then you were and are beyond stupid. The Richter scale has an increase in energy of 31 times for every step up the scale. So a 3 is 31 strong as a 2, and a 4 is over 900 times as strong as a 2. So you would have to create 900 2's to relieve the pressure that creates a 4, and over 2700 to relieve the pressure that creates a 5.

 

[Old Rocks]

And the name Gipper comes to mind. LOL

Did any of your assholes ever take in science in high school? Do any of you do anything more useful than flipping burgers? LOL

You have nothing in common with the political elites and the 1%. So, why do you allow them to dupe you repeatedly?

So I should reject truth because I don't have something in common with the 1%. By that theory I should reject everything from philosophy to civil behavioral standards. Why limit myself to rejecting science?

The problem is it is NOT Truth.

Clearly the man-made AGW movement is NOT science, it is politics....but dummies can't see it.

Says you. And every Scientific Society in the world, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states otherwise. Oh, who to believe? An anonymous poster that has already demonstrated a vast ignorance of science, or virtually all the scientists in the world?

Which is an enormous logical fallacy because they all derive their funding from perpetuating the myth.

Well, you claim to be a Phd Geologist. So, let us see what the two main Geological Societies in the US state about AGW.

American Geophyiscal Union;

Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action
Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.

Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long‐ understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.

https://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

 

[Old Rocks]

Geological Society of America

Climate Change
Adopted in October 2006; revised April 2010; March 2013; April 2015

Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been for many thousands of years. Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013). If the upward trend in greenhouse-gas concentrations continues, the projected global climate change by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. The tangible effects of climate change are already occurring. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

Purpose
This position statement (1) summarizes the scientific basis for the conclusion that human activities are the primary cause of recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the current and future impacts of anthropogenic warming.
GSA Position Statement - Climate Change

 

[Old Rocks]

COMMUNITY OF SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES APPLAUDS MARCH FOR SCIENCE, RECOMMITS TO FOSTER PUBLIC SUPPORT, ENGAGEMENT IN SCIENCE THROUGH THEIR GLOBAL MEMBERSHIPS

Joint Release

The undersigned scientific societies and associations applaud Saturday’s March for Science, which generated an unparalleled global voice to stand up for science, the role of evidence in policymaking, and the conditions science needs to thrive. In more than 600 locations worldwide, thousands of people marched for science as citizens and scientists, parents and children, technicians and teachers, workers and retirees, doctors and patients. They marched to say our collective future is more hopeful with science – and at risk without it. They affirmed that science is exciting, essential to human well-being and economic prosperity, and a foundation for sound policy.



American Association for the Advancement of Science

Academics for the Future of Science

Alliance for Science, Cornell University

American Astronomical Society

American Chemical Society

American Educational Research Association

American Geophysical Union

American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering American Medical Student Association

American Physical Society American Physiological Society American Psychological Association

American Society for Microbiology

American Society of Plant Biologists

American Sociological Association

Association for Psychological Sciences

Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology

Coalition for the Life Sciences

Consortium of Social Science Associations

Ecological Society of America

Endocrine Society

Entomological Society of America

Federation of Associations in Behavioral and Brain Sciences

National Council for Science and the Environment

Research!America

Sigma Xi

Society for Neuroscience

The American Society for Cell Biology

The New York Academy of Sciences

The Optical Society

United States Pharmacopeia

Community of Scientific Societies Applauds March for Science, Recommits to Foster Public Support, Engagement in Science through their Global Memberships - AGU Newsroom

 

[Old Rocks]

And the name Gipper comes to mind. LOL

Did any of your assholes ever take in science in high school? Do any of you do anything more useful than flipping burgers? LOL

You have nothing in common with the political elites and the 1%. So, why do you allow them to dupe you repeatedly?

So I should reject truth because I don't have something in common with the 1%. By that theory I should reject everything from philosophy to civil behavioral standards. Why limit myself to rejecting science?

The problem is it is NOT Truth.

Clearly the man-made AGW movement is NOT science it is politics....but dummies can't see it.

Even if you reject man made Global Climate Change. Let's talk about the environment. As has been demonstrated there is a problem with pollution. The removal of lead from gasoline reduced the smog over Los Angeles and reduced acid rain. That was science. It was environmental science.

Reducing pollution is obviously good for us all. The clean water act was a result of the river in Ohio catching fire from pollution.

View attachment 123540

How a Burning River Helped Create the Clean Water Act

Now you are saying that all science isn't bad. Just global warming. Another response essentially claimed science that recognized transgender people was bad. That is the problem when you start to pick and choose what is good science and what is bad or junk science based upon personal beliefs.

I don't have anything in common with the 1% you said so why follow them on anything? They fly around the world. Am I to reject airplanes because they use them? I don't have anything in common with evangelical Christian types. Does that mean I should reject God?

I have my own issues with the political approach to Global Climate Change. One example I used in another message board was ship drive systems. I pointed out how each was taken over by a newer more reliable and cheaper system. Coal replaced wind and oars, oil replaced coal, diesel replaced oil. You didn't need to legislate coal out of use, it was replaced by a better system.

I'm even a big supporter of nuclear power.

But I never reject an argument because of who makes the argument or who wants me to reject it. I consider the information and make my own decisions based upon it. I have called myself a truth whore more than once. I will take truth from anyone.

No one disputes that reducing pollution has been a good thing. NO ONE!!! No matter what the radicals on the left proclaim that right wingers want polluted water and air....if you believe that, you are a dunce.

I grew up in Detroit, when it might have been the most polluted city in the world. I remember seeing every color of the rainbow in the waters of the Detroit River. Numerous smoke stacks spewing black soot. All that is gone now and the air and water are much cleaner.

However, this has NOTHING to do with AGW. The AGW idiots are claiming man made CO2 is warming the planet. Nothing could be more wrong.

What is the solution offered by the Warmer Elite? Give us money and power. Hence...it is ALL political.

Al Gore’s New Group Demands $15 Trillion To Fight Global Warming

First of all, you are a liar. You support the orange clown, and he has cut the regulations controlling the poisoning of water sheds from mountaintop mining, as well as what comes out of the smoke stacks of the coal fired generators.

This is from the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society in the world. And it gives the history of the proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[2aguy]

And the name Gipper comes to mind. LOL

Did any of your assholes ever take in science in high school? Do any of you do anything more useful than flipping burgers? LOL

You have nothing in common with the political elites and the 1%. So, why do you allow them to dupe you repeatedly?

So I should reject truth because I don't have something in common with the 1%. By that theory I should reject everything from philosophy to civil behavioral standards. Why limit myself to rejecting science?

The problem is it is NOT Truth.

Clearly the man-made AGW movement is NOT science it is politics....but dummies can't see it.

Even if you reject man made Global Climate Change. Let's talk about the environment. As has been demonstrated there is a problem with pollution. The removal of lead from gasoline reduced the smog over Los Angeles and reduced acid rain. That was science. It was environmental science.

Reducing pollution is obviously good for us all. The clean water act was a result of the river in Ohio catching fire from pollution.

View attachment 123540

How a Burning River Helped Create the Clean Water Act

Now you are saying that all science isn't bad. Just global warming. Another response essentially claimed science that recognized transgender people was bad. That is the problem when you start to pick and choose what is good science and what is bad or junk science based upon personal beliefs.

I don't have anything in common with the 1% you said so why follow them on anything? They fly around the world. Am I to reject airplanes because they use them? I don't have anything in common with evangelical Christian types. Does that mean I should reject God?

I have my own issues with the political approach to Global Climate Change. One example I used in another message board was ship drive systems. I pointed out how each was taken over by a newer more reliable and cheaper system. Coal replaced wind and oars, oil replaced coal, diesel replaced oil. You didn't need to legislate coal out of use, it was replaced by a better system.

I'm even a big supporter of nuclear power.

But I never reject an argument because of who makes the argument or who wants me to reject it. I consider the information and make my own decisions based upon it. I have called myself a truth whore more than once. I will take truth from anyone.

Yeah....thank capitalism.........people had money....they like nice things.....they want clean water, air and an environment.....so they used their money to get these things....

The more capitalism we have, the more likely we are to find better energy sources as someone discovers them....

 

[2aguy]

COMMUNITY OF SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES APPLAUDS MARCH FOR SCIENCE, RECOMMITS TO FOSTER PUBLIC SUPPORT, ENGAGEMENT IN SCIENCE THROUGH THEIR GLOBAL MEMBERSHIPS

Joint Release

The undersigned scientific societies and associations applaud Saturday’s March for Science, which generated an unparalleled global voice to stand up for science, the role of evidence in policymaking, and the conditions science needs to thrive. In more than 600 locations worldwide, thousands of people marched for science as citizens and scientists, parents and children, technicians and teachers, workers and retirees, doctors and patients. They marched to say our collective future is more hopeful with science – and at risk without it. They affirmed that science is exciting, essential to human well-being and economic prosperity, and a foundation for sound policy.



American Association for the Advancement of Science

Academics for the Future of Science

Alliance for Science, Cornell University

American Astronomical Society

American Chemical Society

American Educational Research Association

American Geophysical Union

American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering American Medical Student Association

American Physical Society American Physiological Society American Psychological Association

American Society for Microbiology

American Society of Plant Biologists

American Sociological Association

Association for Psychological Sciences

Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology

Coalition for the Life Sciences

Consortium of Social Science Associations

Ecological Society of America

Endocrine Society

Entomological Society of America

Federation of Associations in Behavioral and Brain Sciences

National Council for Science and the Environment

Research!America

Sigma Xi

Society for Neuroscience

The American Society for Cell Biology

The New York Academy of Sciences

The Optical Society

United States Pharmacopeia

Community of Scientific Societies Applauds March for Science, Recommits to Foster Public Support, Engagement in Science through their Global Memberships - AGU Newsroom

Yes.........we want grant money from the federal government........can you say Amen.....

 

[2aguy]

You have nothing in common with the political elites and the 1%. So, why do you allow them to dupe you repeatedly?

So I should reject truth because I don't have something in common with the 1%. By that theory I should reject everything from philosophy to civil behavioral standards. Why limit myself to rejecting science?

The problem is it is NOT Truth.

Clearly the man-made AGW movement is NOT science, it is politics....but dummies can't see it.

Says you. And every Scientific Society in the world, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states otherwise. Oh, who to believe? An anonymous poster that has already demonstrated a vast ignorance of science, or virtually all the scientists in the world?

Which is an enormous logical fallacy because they all derive their funding from perpetuating the myth.

Well, you claim to be a Phd Geologist. So, let us see what the two main Geological Societies in the US state about AGW.

American Geophyiscal Union;

Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action
Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.

Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long‐ understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.

https://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

and they are wrong........18 year pause, computer models that can't predict what they say they would predict.......

Go to your "science church" and pray for government grant money....

 

[Old Rocks]

Shit, you are one dumb ass. Pause? What the fuck are you talking about. 2014 was the hottest year on record, until 2015. 2015 was the hottest year on record until 2016. Three years in a row of increasingly hot years.


Global mean surface temperature change from 1880 to 2016, relative to the 1951–1980 mean. The black line is the global annual mean and the red line is the five-year lowess smooth. The blue uncertainty bars show a 95% confidence limit. Source: NASA GISS

16 of the 17 warmest years have occurred since 2000.
Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia

 

[westwall]

Yep, the March for Science is really Orwell having a party....

Yes , God created you and Noah really had a ark full of animals. Oh boy, one more science denier. Hey move to Mars, we can't trust there is no air there, just in case bring some 02 and a canteen. Science is for people that never took never took chemistry, microbiology, anatomy, physiology or algebra. They have read the Bible though, so they know everything they need to.
PS: Why is Oklahoma having so many earthquakes? Ask the nerd.

Oh penelope, you really don't know anything but what your masters tell you. I have taken all of the classes you listed, plus a whole bunch more. And the result of all of those classes is that science is never settled. OK is having earthquakes because of fracking. And its no big deal. Back in the 1970's and '80's we were theorizing about using fracking to reduce pressure on the major fault lines to reduce catastrophic earthquakes.

If you were, then you were and are beyond stupid. The Richter scale has an increase in energy of 31 times for every step up the scale. So a 3 is 31 strong as a 2, and a 4 is over 900 times as strong as a 2. So you would have to create 900 2's to relieve the pressure that creates a 4, and over 2700 to relieve the pressure that creates a 5.

Look up "induced seismicity" sometime. We had noticed a correlation between artificial dams and increased seismic activity near those dams. The question was why? Was it water percolating down and lubricating the fault planes, or was it the weight of water causing the breaks. And no dear child, we aren't talking about a few hundred induced quakes, we were postulating tens of thousands of them.

For a person claiming to take geology classes for so long you are remarkably ignorant of geology.

 

[miketx]

Shit, you are one dumb ass. Pause? What the fuck are you talking about. 2014 was the hottest year on record, until 2015. 2015 was the hottest year on record until 2016. Three years in a row of increasingly hot years.


Global mean surface temperature change from 1880 to 2016, relative to the 1951–1980 mean. The black line is the global annual mean and the red line is the five-year lowess smooth. The blue uncertainty bars show a 95% confidence limit. Source: NASA GISS

16 of the 17 warmest years have occurred since 2000.
Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia

Enough with the pretty little pictures that prove nothing.

 

[westwall]

Shit, you are one dumb ass. Pause? What the fuck are you talking about. 2014 was the hottest year on record, until 2015. 2015 was the hottest year on record until 2016. Three years in a row of increasingly hot years.


Global mean surface temperature change from 1880 to 2016, relative to the 1951–1980 mean. The black line is the global annual mean and the red line is the five-year lowess smooth. The blue uncertainty bars show a 95% confidence limit. Source: NASA GISS

16 of the 17 warmest years have occurred since 2000.
Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia

Yes. THE PAUSE. Claiming a .04 degree rise as a "record" when the instrumentation is not capable of anything more precise than .1 degree readings is a lie. You know it and we know it.