Well now.....A 45 second lecture destroying the global warming argument.

When you've got good science, the first thing you do is stop skeptics from getting published.
The second thing you do is hide the decline.
When you've got good science, you get it published. Then other good scientists cite it and knowledge keeps growing.

Please explain why you are unhappy at what was done on that plot. Why do you think it significant to this debate?
 
When you've got good science, you get it published. Then other good scientists cite it and knowledge keeps growing.

Please explain why you are unhappy at what was done on that plot. Why do you think it significant to this debate?
Why only material from grant money? Never, I mean fking never material opposing. Why?
 
When you've got good science, you get it published. Then other good scientists cite it and knowledge keeps growing.

Please explain why you are unhappy at what was done on that plot. Why do you think it significant to this debate?

When you've got good science, you get it published.

Unless Michael Mann and his buddies decide to try to block you.
Then maybe you don't get published.

Please explain why you are unhappy at what was done on that plot.

Hiding the decline is dishonest. The dendrochronologists knew about the divergence, the
climate experts knew about the divergence, so why would they hide it? To fool the public?

Don't be a piece of shit. Don't hide the decline.

Show the decline, explain the decline, defend the decline.
 
When you've got good science, you get it published.

Unless Michael Mann and his buddies decide to try to block you.
Then maybe you don't get published.

Please explain why you are unhappy at what was done on that plot.

Hiding the decline is dishonest. The dendrochronologists knew about the divergence, the
climate experts knew about the divergence, so why would they hide it? To fool the public?

Don't be a piece of shit. Don't hide the decline.

Show the decline, explain the decline, defend the decline.
The decline was a decline in the growth rate of a population of trees at high latitudes but I sense that you don't believe that.
 
Last edited:
The decline was a decline in the growth rate of a population of trees at high latitudes but I sense that you don't believe that.

The decline was a decline in the growth rate of a population of trees at high latitudes

Sure was.

I'm glad they hid it. Not shady at all.
 
Why only material from grant money? Never, I mean fking never material opposing. Why?
"Material from grant money"? What is that supposed to mean? Papers from all points of view get published but you have to keep in mind that no one is doing studies as to whether or not there is global warming. That'd be like a study on flat earth or round earth. Or what is the boiling point of water. Go look at the contents of Nature Climate. People are WA-A-A-A-Y down in the weeds from where anyone in this forum is looking. The Effect of Methane Hydrolysis on the Slimosyphilosian Amoeba or Even-Year Breeding Cycles of Albino Mule Deer in Foster County, Delaware. the problem, of course, is that it has to be good science. And as I think you all should have realized when Berkely Earth came to its conclusions that the practice of good science invariably leads one to the conclusion that AGW is a valid theory. If AGW is a fact, that will ALWAYS be the case.
 
"Material from grant money"? What is that supposed to mean?
It means that data material you treat as gold is all a result of grant money being spent to obtain that data. Now, when has grant money been used to propose another probability? I know of no such spending.
 
It means that data material you treat as gold is all a result of grant money being spent to obtain that data. Now, when has grant money been used to propose another probability? I know of no such spending.
In terms of quality, objectivity, bias and the appearance of possible bias, I would put the set of all papers I have posted or to which I have linked against the posts of any denier here. How many articles from WUWT, the Heartland Insitute, or other blatantly denier, Koch or oil funded "institute" have you posted here?
 
In terms of quality, objectivity, bias and the appearance of possible bias, I would put the set of all papers I have posted or to which I have linked against the posts of any denier here. How many articles from WUWT, the Heartland Insitute, or other blatantly denier, Koch or oil funded "institute" have you posted here?
They’re irrelevant. I’ve asked you repeatedly, ad nausea in fact, for where the climate changed in your life? We are still in an ice age. And, you never stated what the issue even is. All you do is post some misinformation nonsense repeatedly. So boring
 
They’re irrelevant. I’ve asked you repeatedly, ad nausea in fact, for where the climate changed in your life? We are still in an ice age. And, you never stated what the issue even is. All you do is post some misinformation nonsense repeatedly. So boring
I have posted no misinformation. You have though.

Average temperatures, record high temperatures, number of new record high temperatures have all increased where I live. Rising sea level is causing tidal flooding along the coast where I live. Crops that I eat have been affected by rising temperature and timing changes and have affected price and availability (as have other factors). My children and my grandchildren will face far more and more intense issues. There is one world. Things that affect any part of the world, any part of humanity, affect you and me as well.
 
Average temperatures, record high temperatures, number of new record high temperatures have all increased where I live. Rising sea level is causing tidal flooding along the coast where I live. Crops that I eat have been affected by rising temperature and timing changes and have affected price and availability (as have other factors). My children and my grandchildren will face far more and more intense issues.
so what? What's wrong with that? prove the flooding. let's see the records.

 
so what? What's wrong with that? prove the flooding. let's see the records.

Is trolling the only thing you know how to do or is it your constant last resort? I have posted photographs of flooding on more then one occasion and you could look it up yourself. But just to be straightforward here.






Is that enough? I'd hate to have Billy Boy accuse me of posting a wall of shit. I didn't bother with the photos this time since they're not proof by themselves, but there are plenty at these links. And when you've finished looking at these, I'd appreciate it if you posted a note stating that you accept that Dade County, Florida is suffering adversely from rising sea levels. Just so we have your acknowledgement on the record.
 
Is trolling the only thing you know how to do or is it your constant last resort? I have posted photographs of flooding on more then one occasion and you could look it up yourself. But just to be straightforward here.






Is that enough? I'd hate to have Billy Boy accuse me of posting a wall of shit. I didn't bother with the photos this time since they're not proof by themselves, but there are plenty at these links. And when you've finished looking at these, I'd appreciate it if you posted a note stating that you accept that Dade County, Florida is suffering adversely from rising sea levels. Just so we have your acknowledgement on the record.
All of your Miami links are what happens in storms. It is not the everyday ocean level. How can it be higher than Plymouth Rock? It's still there with the date on the rock. It's not under water. Does Miami have magic water? The fact is your links are all storm water and nothing more. Proven out each time you ever presented them. What would you accept as a counter link? Tell me what you'd accept.

Let's go with this one fact, Louisiana is under sea level and isn't underwater. How can Miami be?
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top