Jan 2014 Was 4th Warmest on Record & 347 consecutive month above 20th C avg

And yet, still no proof. Zip, nada, zero evidence. All links to someone's pipe dream.

 

All you have to do is search the internet to find plenty of peer-reviewed scientific papers and sites questioning the "decided science". Obviously, like so many climate parasites, you are not willing to exert that simple effort and have blinded yourself. Until you decide to remove the blinders, nothing presented here will have any impact on you.

 

The only thing "still zippo" is your ability to comprehend the evidence you're being shown rather than denying it out of hand without reading it.

"Yet again", lots and lots of evidence that you refuse to look at because it would blow your denier cult myths away.

The very fact that you demand "proof" is a clear indication that you are scientifically illiterate and very ignorant. There are no proofs in science, just a preponderance of evidence supporting the best explanation of the evidence.

 

Climate parasite...BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAA. That's classic, Battle3. Maybe he'll be sucked into the great climate CO2 vocano. And pay to get back out with his carbon credits he purchased from Al Gore.

 

Then you can't substantiate your opinions/theories/maybes/could happens. Meteorologists are usually right on with their weather forecasts. Scientists seldom are. BWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. Especially about global....wait a minute, they actually dropped that global warming BS in favor of good ole mother nature's CLIMATE CHANGE...didn't they, genius?

Go buy yourself some more of Gore's carbon credits.

 

There are no "proofs" in science, but you're too ignorant about science to understand that.

There's mountains of evidence that you either refuse to look at or can't understand if you did.

Those statements on global warming and climate change from the world's foremost meteorological organizations are based on the overwhelming evidence for AGW that science has discovered. Evidence strong enough to convince virtually the entire world scientific community about the reality and dangers of AGW/CC. But you're too ignorant and brainwashed to be able to distinguish the real science coming from the actual climate scientists, from the pseudo-science and BS that gets spooned into your heads by the rightwingnut media echo chamber and the fraudulent denier cult blogs.

You denier cultists have nothing, no science or evidence, to support your denial of AGW. You've been filled with misinformation, pseudo-science, propaganda and lies by your rightwingnut puppet-masters stooging for the fossil fuel industry's profits. Your conceit that you know more about this subject than the actual professional experts in these fields of science is both hilarious and extremely pathetic.

 

By the way livefree (sounds a lot like livery), that large bold print font you're using makes your posts even easier to ignore. NOT more desirable to attract attention by forcing your OPINIONS with SIZE.

 

I'm sorry but I stoled this from current events...but this obviously is a better fit here. THIS IS UNFREAKING BELIEVABLE. But a typical maniacal liberal, I might add. Just another liberal educator. Boy, would I have failed what this guy is espousing. HA.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/17/u-s-college-professor-demands-imprisonment-for-climate-change-deniers/

US college professor demands imprisonment for climate-change deniers




Wow! Just Wow...

Hey livefree, is this one of your teachers?

 

LOLOLOL......sooooo typical.....post accurate scientific information that blows away the denier cult myths......and they respond with complaints about the font.....LOLOLOLOLOL....denial-ism is hilarious....and so retarded....

 

Did you realize you are grasping at straws trying to defend global warming?...and sooooo retarded.

 

Your fantasies are really, really funny, dude. I'm citing the scientific conclusions about anthropogenic global warming, and it's consequent climate changes, that are affirmed by pretty near the entire world scientific community, and you're so brainwashed and confused that you imagine that a strong world scientific consensus is somehow "grasping at straws". LOLOL. The really hilarious thing about it though is that it is you and your crackpot cult of reality denial that are always really grasping at straws trying to defend your little reality-denying 'flat-Earther' cult, as the evidence of global climate changes becomes increasingly obvious to people all around the world and the scientific understanding gets deeper. Your cult of AGW denial is really sliding down the ol' poopchute into the septic tank of history but you cultists are much too brainwashed to see what's actually happening.

 

What do you mean? I have historical data that doesn't support your premise at all. You all keep throwing up those graphs with misrepresented data. That's how you think you can live with yourselves. The world now knows differently. CO2 went up, but temperatures did not. Period. Now you prove that in your silly little world that CO2 is related to temperature increases. Just one piece of evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

Huh? what straws exactly? The fact that the data supports us? Those straws? your inaccurate data?
When one has to manipulate the data that sounds more like grasping action to me.

 

Which have been happening for years and years and centuries and ages throughout the life of this planet. So those "scientific conclusions" are nothing but regurgitation of known facts. Welcome to the cult of Gore. Bought any carbon credits lately?

I'm thinking about taking my "fantasies" on the road since you are so entertained by them. BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

 

it's verified science that font size absolutely disproves climate change...how did you not know that?...

 

No, actually you don't. You have historical data that you've been duped into believing means something totally different from what it actually means. Your assumption that you somehow understand all of this better than the professional scientists who've studied it for decades just because you read some non-scientist's pseudo-scientific drivel on some denier cult blog is just ludicrous as well as incredibly retarded.

False. Surface air temperatures went up, ocean temperatures went up, and the world's ice continued to melt. We know that the surface air temperatures went up because:
2010 is tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record going back to the 1800s.
The last decade was the hottest decade on record.
All of the hottest years on record have occurred since 1998.
The coldest years since 1998 are still hotter than all of the hottest years before 1998.
This last November 2013, was the hottest November on record globally.
2013 was the fourth hottest year on record.
The Arctic ice cap is still rapidly melting away.
Large areas northern permafrost are still rapidly melting.
Greenland and Antarctica are still losing ice mass at increasing rates.
The large majority of mountain glaciers are still rapidly melting and disappearing.
Sea levels are still rising at an accelerating rate.

 

You still don't see the temperature didn't go up when CO2 supposedly did. you sir are blind. I'm sorry for you that you are so blind you can't see that the graph shows a decline in temperatures. Hmm... perhaps you should learn how to read graphs.

 

Since you don't know how to read a graph, I'll point it out to you the cooling periods off of your, your graph, look at the years from 1940 to 1980 now you tell me is that a pattern that is going up or down, I'm just curious again how naive and blind you really are? And then the haitus from 1998 to 200x since there isn't a date on your graph to show most likely 2007.

Oh, BTW, will you go against scientist who have already conceded the lack of warming from 1998?

 

Ok so looking at your graph. looking at 1940 to present day.. We are looking at a .5 deg increase.. and it only took the highest CO2 levels in 10,000 years.. Not really seeing the problem here..

So hypothetically if I look at my current temp of 25deg.. if I could magically revert the CO2 back to 1940 levels.. my temp would be 24.5.. again non issue.

 

LOLOLOL.....you poor confused dupe....

Anti-global heating claims – a reasonably thorough debunking
Scholars&Rogues

DENIAL MYTH #10: There was a significant period of global cooling between the 1940s and the 1970s. This cooling period existed as anthropogenic CO2 levels were rising significantly. If anthropogenic CO2 is more important than natural drivers, then this cooling period would not exist, yet it does.

DEBUNKING: That this cooling period existed and was global in scope is not disputable as the scope of the MWP is – scientists were directly monitoring temperatures globally by this point, and these three decades were cooler than the decades preceding them and dramatically cooler than recent decades. So what caused the cooling?

First, there is a correlation between sunspots and solar irradiance (output) on the Earth. During this period, sunspots were less common and there was less solar energy reaching the Earth, allowing it to cool slightly. Second, there were several volcanic eruptions that released massive amounts of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. Sulfur dioxide is an aerosol that forms droplets of sulphuric acid in the high atmosphere and reflects solar energy back into space, so these two volcanic eruptions had some short- to medium-term effects. In addition, prior to the 1970s there were limited pollution controls, allowing pollutant aerosols to act as coolants via reflection of solar radiation. Ultimately, though, it is believed that sometime after 1970 the concentration of CO2 rose to the point that solar forcing was no longer the dominant climate factor, anthropogenic CO2 was.

 

You still don't get it. Again,if CO2 is the cause, your words not mine, of temperature increases, than any cooling period I don't care what years they are, spoil your scientists theory. To attempt to explain it by inclusion of any other source is ludicrusous to your argument. See, that is trying to get it both ways to always seem to be correct, which, obviously is incorrect. So, to explain a cooling period as due to some other source when CO2 is increasing, proves your point invalid. So you then agree there are other influences to weather or climate. Start over and add all of that to the models and let's see what happens, then let's talk.

Lastly, how do you explain the last fifteen years, this ought to be a good one too?

BTW, I don't like the word correlation, instead, causal is the word I'd like to see. Correlation doesn't mean cause, it is merely an observation without a connection.

 

you're posting excellent information but what do you hope to accomplish? Win a scientific debate someone who can't comprehend a grade school level graph? He's not even aware that he's incompetent.

I showed the graph to my 8th grader and asked him to explain what the data, he stared at the graph then at me reluctant to answer, he thought it was a trick question because it was so simple....finally he volunteered an answer still apprehensive that I was trying to fool him "an upward trend in temperature, it's getting warmer"...

 

don't roll on the floor you might go downhill like your graph! It isn't fun going down hard. Especially like they did 1940 to 1980, and again 1998 to 2013. You ran out of rope to hold onto ole C02 going up!

 

It all belongs in the garbage since it doesn't correspond to his point. So give me something that corresponds to the point. I know you can't. Can you say bull?

 

This all happens when you're still coming out of an ice age.

Oh, and don't forget your score cards.... did you know that 150 years before each ice age, is a warming trend?

Anyway... gotta go outside.. into the coldest, snowiest winter in over 130 years here in the Midwest.

And excellent job on your complete copy-an-paste job without one word of elaboration.

Do you ever think for yourself ?

Who cares about rule 11 anyway...

- - - Updated - - -

As if anything else needed to be said.

 

yeah it was a "omg!" moment for me too! ...where do you even begin an intelligent discussion with people who don't have the basic science education to comprehend the topic and lack the cognitive ability to learn..

at the very most the knowledge required to understand the science involved should've been acquired with the completion of a comprehensive high school school science program...physicists, climatologists, chemists, oceanographers can delve into the detailed nuances of their fields but that level of knowledge is far more than is required for a lay-man to comprehend what's going on...