Global Warming

Another unsubstantiated opinion. Of course anyone is allowed an opinion but without any proof or evidence you chances of convincing anyone other than yourself are minimal.

 

If you knew what you were talking about, you would know it is quite substantiated. Out of the hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers, name one that stood the test of time. There are only a few.

 

Lame attempt to shift the burden of proof.

 

In other words, you cannot name even one.

 

MBH98 is the very obvious example of a peer-reviewed paper that has withstood the test of time in stellar fashion.

I bring up that one because the deniers focused everything they had at that one single paper, and ended up doing a faceplant into a cow patty. The attacks on that paper were the apex of the denier science-hate campaign, yet all it accomplished for them was destruction of denier credibility.

And that was the best deniers could do. By pointing out how badly the most famous denier sleaze campaign failed, their whole conspiracy theory is laughed out of the room.

 

naw, it hasn't.

The IPCC AR5 mentions the pause. Pushes your document to the trash.

 

A pause is not end of global warming - in fact the warming continues and this year is set to be a record breaker

 

LOL, yep, following the cartoonist's website will get you going.

 

so tell me when the globe wasn't warming after the ice age. That's sort of an oxymoron statement.

 

Based on only one highly manipulated dataset and that is based on one paper, Karl et. al. that decided the sensors used for climate science were not good enough so adjusted them up to match very problematic ship intake temperatures. This dataset has been changed yearly and each year it makes the present warmer and the past cooler and it does not match any other dataset. The COP-21 conference is coming up and the only real thing that is accelerating is the hype.

 

Holy shyte. You think Michael Mann's hockey stick has stood the test of time? Bwahahaha. Making the past warming disappear has not stood the test of yesterday.

 

Much of this is based on imaginary numbers. For instance, the models are not reality but guesses based on a cherry picked starting point. If we had started this in the 40's, in 20 years we would have been predicting global cooling based on another imaginary number, the average global temperature.

A single global temperature is based on averages of averages of estimated and adjusted numbers. Some of the temperatures are actually raw data, most, over 60% are not. This is based on the new 'pause buster' data from the NOAA where they magically made the hiatus disappear and now the faithful say it never existed though it is now 18 year 8 months long according to the better satellite data. Predicting the future based on this includes assumptions that in a non-linear chaotic system with many influences that one influence is the only influence on the change of global temperature, CO2. If wrong, then the error is larger the further you predict which is now happening with the observed temperatures deviate from the imaginary model number.

 

The USGS puts the kibosh on the alarmist claim that the SC "1000 year' flood is caused by climate change.

USGS Flood Information

 

Bedtime stories for warmists.