Why I no longer even care about climate change deniers.

Flat-earthers claim the same thing. We laugh at them, because all the data says they're totally wrong. We laugh at you for the same reasons. Playing the victim is a standard cult tactic.

Good thing then that nobody is claiming runaway warming will occur, eh?

If you disagree, please give examples of the scientists who are claiming runaway warming will occur. If you can't, you should explain why you tried to push such a wild story.

 

It does? According to whom? If you cite the UN, I'd simply assert that the UN is trying hard to ensure it has a development funding mechanism for all of those favors they've facilitated over the years that carbon taxes are supposed to pay for. I'd call that global socialism. When you argue that, you're the denialist. right? How about this. you understand that I don't "deny" climate changes, right? And you understand that I understand, and review the data out there, right? That clearly leaves me in the "non denial" group, right?

So here's the thing. Whine about the politics all you want, it still doesn't remove the credibility problem that the AGW narrative evokes. You know who the denialists are? The AGW folks. Why? Because they insist that they have a voice in how climate changes, or doesn't. If you don't understand this, you're not paying attention.

 

Like I said, every denier is a member of the right-wing-extremist conspiracy cult, seeing a secretglobalsocialist plot behind everything. Thanks for the confirmation.

 

It's like you insist denying the world around you.

 

See my #20 points in the other thread.

 

No, that's just you makin' $#!+ up again.

BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!! Just every time you point to news stories about record temperatures...

Baldly false.

Nope. All the BS about record heat is weather, not climate.

I've done it repeatedly.

Which warming climate would that be? Oh, wait a minute, that's right: the warming climate that shows up in graphs when you adjust earlier temperatures downward.

I am looking at a climate that people in their nineties say is cooler than the 1930s. The data have been adjusted retroactively to remove that fact. Arctic sea ice has increased since 2012, which was the cyclical low that matched the low of the 1930s, but was called "unprecedented." You don't have to be a genius to know something fishy is going on.

 

Again, claiming fraud is different from offering evidence for it.

Fact-checked and confirmed.

The open fraud is on the anti-fossil-fuel side.

 

https://realclimatescience.com/all-temperature-adjustments-monotonically-increase/
https://realclimatescience.com/visualizing-noaanasa-us-data-tampering/

 

Yes. We know temperature matches solar activity; we don't know why; but TSI doesn't seem to vary enough to be the effective factor. Which of these facts have you decided not to know because it does not match your belief system?

 

Record yearly _global_ temperature averages. Again, you seem utterly incapable of differentiating climate from weather.

Just like flat-earthers and scientologists, you consider all debunkings of your fraud to be further proof of a conspiracy against you. Classic cultist behavior.

So, you can't even understand noise on a decreasing mean. This is simple stuff, and you fail at it. Like I said, your knowledge level is below that of an average grade-schooler. You have no business bothering the grownups with your childish conspiracy yammering.

If you didn't just try to peddle some fraud on us, show us the Arctic sea ice records from the 1930s that prove that. If you did just get busted for fraud again, cut and run now, tossing some insults and conspiracy theories to cover your retreat.

Me, I can show the ice records from the 1930s, which is how I know you're peddling fraud. I just want to see first if you'll dig in deeper with your big lie.

 

NOAA manipulated "warming hiatus" data...

https://science.house.gov/news/pres...nfirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

 

It did, until around 1970. Then it started diverging sharply. Why do you think that is?

The rational people have a good explanation for that, one that explains all of the observed data. You have nothing. The observed data contradicts your conspiracy theory, so you have to wave your hands around wildly and deflect.

 

A fine example of open fraud by denier Roy Spencer. That graph flat-out fudges the baseline, which is open fraud. It uses unsourced balloon data, data that doesn't match the RATPAC data set, which is considered the gold standard of radiosonde (balloon) data, so that also appears fraudulent. And it uses satellite data that everyone agrees is bogus. It uses the old RSS data set that Dr. Mears, the author of the RSS data, says is wrong, and it uses Spencer's own UAH data that pretty much everyone agrees is laughable.

You won't care that it's fraudulent, of course. That's how cults roll. You'll see the debunking as further proof of a plot against your cult.

 

And more open fraud by deniers, this time by congressman Lamar Smith. He neglected to mention this.

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630
---
Bates accused former colleagues of rushing their research to publication, in defiance of agency protocol. He specified that he did not believe that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way.
---

 

Most everyone in the scientific community knows that AGW is a fraud; but the reality is, without that fraud the money would dry up.

So from a financial standpoint, they have much to gain by going along with the fraud, and everything to lose if they tell the truth.

Money is a powerful motivator.

 

Arctic sea-ice is regional, as distinct from a global phenomenon and its loss cannot be taken scientifically as an index of global warming. Sorry, but that one is a non-sequiteur.

Below is a graph of global sea-ice and there has been little change over the last 30 years.

 

Good science presents data clearly. Like this NASA chart showing the short term trend down.



Or like this, from Kinnard 2011, showing the long term trend.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10581



What your graph did was attempt to make things less clear, through bad use of scaling, and by combined Arctic and Antarctic and limiting the time scale.

 

Once again, Arctic sea-ice ≠ global. As for your gripes with the graph I posted (which is global sea-ice) I haven't got the foggiest idea what it is that you think is wrong with it. "Bad scaling". Say what?

 

That chat is misleading at best and outright fraud at worst. It's published by a well known climate misinformer. Here is how the CMIP5 models really did.

This ended up being "fake news" at best and more outright fraud at worst. The claimant was Bates who issued a full retraction. Furthermore, this claim had nothing to do with Karl anyway as the context of the fake claim was focused on the ERSST dataset which Karl has no control over. And the ERSSTv4 dataset was published to address known problems. Also, I want you see for yourself what the net effect was from all of Karl's "manipulations". Notice that the adjustments made by NOAA actually work to reduce the amount of warming. So you tell me...we should keep these "manipulations" or not?



Oh, and one last thing. What possible motivation would Bates have to wrongly accuse Karl of fraud? Well it turns out that Karl had to discipline Bates for...wait for it...professional dishonestly prior to Bates' unsubstantiated accusations.

But you know what the most embarrassing part of all of this is? Congress was notified in advance that Bates lied and they still published that press release!

 

mamooth posted the combined Arctic and Antarctic graph. The difference you are seeing is because you're graph is 10 years old.

The fact is that the combined polar sea ice extents are at or near record lows and have been for years now.

It's also interesting that the north pole is warming faster than the south pole. This has been a prediction for a long time. In fact, even the observation that both poles would warm faster than mid-latitude or equatorial regions is doubly interesting because Arrhenius' predicted that the very thing in...1896!

 

First, this is like the pot calling the kettle black. Second, history has shown that private enterprise is not immune from paying for a specific result from science (think smoking and cancer, CFCs and ozone depletion, sulfur dioxide and acid rain, etc.) Open science on the other hand is driven more getting the right result as opposed to a desired result.

 

Lol... you just believe everything they tell you. So there's no use trying to discuss falsification or the obvious frauds committed by the warmists.

Or is it that you are a member of some leftwing cell, and "climate change" is your assignment??

 

You don't care, yet oddly, you made a thread about not caring.

 

I'm not in a leftwing cell. Nor am I liberal or a Democrat. The difference between you and I is that I acknowledge the abundance of evidence that has been gathered for over 120 years and spanning many scientific disciplines while you blindly follow lone bloggers that have a history of misinformation.