Climate Change: You can deny, but you can't hide.

Ha ha
That’s it. Instead of consensus of the educated, you prefer to take the word of the uneducated minority. There must be at least seven of you left.

 

Should we wait to respond or will you edit it again after you put your two left feet in your mouth.

 

Welp, there's not much point in discussing AGW with you, so I'm going to hang up now.

Ta and ta.

 

There’s not much point in you discussion AGW with anyone.
Burp.

 

Got it. You're saying the sleazy and cowardly "Disprove my links or I win" tactic is valid. Fine by me, as I have vastly more links. Let's start here.

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Now, get busy debunking all 100+ topics there, or admit I win. And as you said that was the standard, you can't complain. Sucks to be hoisted on your own petard, eh?

Oh, after that we'll work on the IPCC report, with its thousands of links. You're going to be busy. It problem would have been much simpler for you to admit you shouldn't have used that sleazy tactic.

And there you go, faceplanting into a cow patty. You actually thought your propaganda was true. Hilarious.

https://skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline-advanced.htm

I do thank you. My ongoing point is that you push fraud on behalf of your cult, and you responded by proving my point. Thank you for your help.

Which is why they're corrected.

And then your side screams that all corrections are wrong and immoral.

And then everyone laughs hard, because you can't stay consistent, making it clear you're taking whatever position is most convenient at any given instant.

If someone told you radiosonde's don't show warming, they lied to you.

Here's the RATPAC data, the gold standard of radiosonde data, compared to UAH. RATPAC It shows very strong warming, much stronger than UAH, and consistent with RSS.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/11/27/which-satellite-data/

Nope, slight warming trend. Plus, the USA is a small fraction of the earth's surface, so it's clueless to imply that USA temp data shows a lack of global warming. It makes it look like you don't know what "global" means.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/

Flat-earthers and antivaxxers tell me that as well. It's typical conspiracy cultist reaction to the cognitive dissonance they feel when their sacred cows get gored.

Heat, kitchen. Given how free you are with the insults, you shouldn't complain about getting back a little of what you dish out. I insult people, but the difference is I don't blubber about getting it back.

You've been cranking out some doozies, I have to say.

The mind reels from the anti-logic there. I hope for your sake that a Nigerian prince never emails you. After all, the story is so weird, it has to be true.

That was all a test of what you're made of. You ran to defend the fraud. We now know what you're made of.

And the nice people at GISS thanked him for his help.

So, speaking of logic, how did you leap from "He found a very small mistake" to "He can't ever lie"?

But you're not a skeptic. Skeptics look at all data. You willfully remain ignorant of any data that disagrees with your preconceived notions, which is all the data. You're the opposite of a skeptic.

Look at me, linking to primary sources.

Look at you, linking to conspiracy opinion pieces.

You can't link to primary sources, because the primary data all contradicts your sacred scripture.

Sure I did, and I recognized them as not relevant. When a nation withdraws from the climate treaty to reduce emissions, and then declares reducing emissions isn't even necessary because global warming is all a hoax, that's the exact opposite of leading the way. At least that's what our mere Earth logic says.

I've been inflicting butthurt on conspiracy cultists for many years. You're reaching meltdown stage right on schedule.

In order to pull off the condescending act, you can't just say you're smart. You have to _demonstrate_ it. That's why I can do it so well. You can't. You just come across as shrill.

I do understand the lure of your conspiracy cult. All you have to do is cut-and-paste some propaganda, and you get to believe that you're one of the elite few, a great thinker and courageous patriot. That kind of rush of emotional warm fuzzies is irresistible to the lazy and weak-willed.

 

Never been there, but I can see how they may live more modestly.

 

Modestly is probably a better word. No one bests many Americans in extravagance.

 

Good post...
This is a pet trick of deniers. They get a selected interval and use that to make assumptions about general trends. The main interval in question is that which begins with the modern industrial era, and compare the rate of change to previous times man inhabited the earth. They’re also into copying scale differences and outright fabrications.

 

There is a problem no matter what data set you use. If you try to go back thousands of years, you are forced into using derived data such as tree rings and ice cores of questionable accuracy. They try to compare that data to modern temperature measurements which are accurate, but not necessarily representative.. Keeping all that in mind, it appears that recent temperature increases are very similar to temperature increases thousands of years ago and we know that the climate of earth has been changing since the big bang.

 

Your ideological hysteria aside, I came across what is a simple and clear primer on climate change.

Incorrigible, hardcore deniers will persist in being impervious if not vehemently hostile to accepted science, of course, but a few not too far out there on the fringe may be amenable to reason.

There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that goes something like "You can watch waters rise around a horse's arse, but you can't make him admit that the water is rising."

​

Nevertheless, I offer the above in the hope that some might benefit.

 

Man produces CO2. Most other living organisms such as trees and plants convert that CO2 back to carbon and oxygen. Nature tends to reach equilibrium when two such factors are working counter to each other unless one of them is changing due to other forces. i.e. The trees and plants will grow faster and convert more CO2 back to carbon and oxygen. Since the US, a primary producer of CO2 is reducing our CO2 production, the logical outcome is for manmade global warming to slow or stop.

 

But you do not know that it isn’t caused by man. And anyone who really thinks that man hasn’t impacted the climate is to put it simply an idiot.

 

Lol

https://www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.amp

 

I have never said man has no effect. In fact, I have repeatedly said man does have an effect and it is most likely warming. My issues are how much, how much we can do about it and our ability to forecast the climate years in advance.

Man has had an effect, but clearly outside forces have also had an effect because the temperature rises and falls are similar to what has occurred in the past before man came on the scene.

 

Agree totally. My personal opinion is man will do nothing much and climate change will not be slowed or stopped.

 

Exact

I agree that what we are doing may be too little to late. But, technology will change the way we travel for the better. Very big changes are on the horizon, as even now, the solar energy employment is greater then in the oil industry. So, much has been done. Will it be enough ?

Imo, I don’t see any change that will reverse climate threats in our life time. But, the longer we go without, the worse it will get.

 

So again, no evidence for your claim.

 

Other than the evidence I just gave you, which you didn’t read. Lol

 

Thanks for proving me right.

 

I read it. It didn't support your claim. If you think it did, quote it.

 

It looks NOTHING like a random artifact, and is robustly confirmed by statistical analysis. But climate is so complex, and is influenced by so many factors with varying degrees of periodicity that it will take SAI to untangle it all (AI has been prevented from doing so to date by the wholesale falsification of temperature data).

But typically much weaker ones.

Of which I did neither, as you are well aware.

No. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to stop falsely and disingenuously claiming that any non-CO2 climate mechanism invokes magic. Kepler correctly described the elliptical orbits of the planets while offering no mechanism to explain them.

I made my prediction 20 years ago, and it has come true: CO2 has continued to rise almost exponentially, but temperature has stalled.

Yep: the climate did not keep warming, as the cyclical return of arctic sea ice proves.

 

Ah, no.

I don't know why I bother.

 

Of course you would, because you have to find some way to evade the fact that it is merely COINCIDENCE that the Industrial Revolution began at the end of the coldest 600y period in the last 10,000y, and consequently COINCIDES with a warming trend.

Claim without support.

But microscopic compared to the increased adaptability the Industrial Revolution has conferred on the human species.

Why would I want to waste my time on something completely irrelevant to the topic?

 

That is self-refuting garbage. You are just formally discarding all contrary evidence in advance.

Again, that is just clearly false. It was faster at the end of the last Ice Age, and comparably fast several times since then during natural warming and cooling episodes.

 

I have seen NO legitimate contrary evidence to these charts. None, nada, nix. Show your last ice age chart. Let’s see it.