World leaders duped manipulates global warming data
- Thread starter Addict2sex
- Start date
Let's review two indisputable facts:
1. The climate is warming, and
2. Human CO2 emissions are warming it
All this talk about other issues, smearing one scientist or another, is an attempt to create an illusion of debate while ignoring those two indisputably proven facts.
Proven by the Nature article and in the data linked above.
1. The climate is warming, and
2. Human CO2 emissions are warming it
All this talk about other issues, smearing one scientist or another, is an attempt to create an illusion of debate while ignoring those two indisputably proven facts.
Proven by the Nature article and in the data linked above.
Your 'physicist' is available to write you 'research' stating that CO2 is lovely for only $250/hr.Princeton physicist: There’s a ‘cult’ building around climate scientists
https://youtu.be/vro-yn59uso
https://www.desmogblog.com/william-happer
I did ... specifically the part about sticking to the graph that shows a 0.68C anomaly for 2014. You're the guy that insists on adding the 0.15C bet to the Karl-adjusted anomaly of 0.74C.Read the terms of the bet you set above....
No wonder you can't convince anyone. You don't even believe your own calculations. You certainly can't expect anyone else to believe them.
The article that you've never read and still don't understand. :biggrin1:Proven by the Nature article.....
Today is a day to celebrate. The U.S. Senate has confirmed Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/320103-senate-confirms-pruitt-to-lead-epa
Obama's climate agenda is quickly being killed. Good riddance.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/320103-senate-confirms-pruitt-to-lead-epa
Obama's climate agenda is quickly being killed. Good riddance.
You need to stop lying.The article that you've never read and still don't understand. :biggrin1:
Then click on the graph we agreed to, read the numbers for 2015 and tell me if its higher or lower then the 0.83ºC you bet on.I did ... specifically the part about sticking to the graph .
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
Cheering on the man who fought tooth and nail for the right for coal companies to pollute with mercury as much as they like?Today is a day to celebrate. The U.S. Senate has confirmed Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/320103-senate-confirms-pruitt-to-lead-epa
Obama's climate agenda is quickly being killed. Good riddance.
The man who fought again and again against the EPA now is running the EPA?
Worst appointment by Trump so far, including Flynn.
Hopefully Trump doesn't last the year and same with Pruitt.
How about we start with 2014 and you tell me whether the number is higher or lower than the 2014 anomaly we both agreed to use. Then, try adding the 0.15 C increase that we bet on and see what number you came up with.Then click on the graph we agreed to, read the numbers for 2015 and tell me if its higher or lower then the 0.83ºC you bet on.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
Oh, never mind. Kenneth Lay's accounting was more honest than yours.
You continue to post the blatantly false statement that the Nature paper supports the AGW hypothesis.You need to stop lying.
I suppose I could conclude that you're lying. However, based on your previous posts, the far more likely explanation is that you still don't understand the paper.
I could try explaining it to you again but my hunch is you have no real interest in trying to learn what the paper was actually saying. In fact, its fairly minor conclusions aren't disputed by many people. More importantly, though, they tell us virtually nothing about the merits of the AGW hypothesis.
Pruitt's appointment marks a significant step forward in the efforts to kill the Paris Accord. You gotta love it. :thumb:Cheering on the man who fought tooth and nail for the right for coal companies to pollute with mercury as much as they like?
The man who fought again and again against the EPA now is running the EPA?
Worst appointment by Trump so far, including Flynn.
Hopefully Trump doesn't last the year and same with Pruitt.
Why don't you stick to the terms we agreed on?How about we start with 2014 ...
We bet on whether 2015 would hit 0.83ºC as reported by NASA.
The only thing you need to do to see who won is to click on the link you picked and read the number reported for 2015.http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.
You need to stop lying about that paper.You continue to post the blatantly false statement that the Nature paper supports the AGW hypothesis.
Michael Mann, one of the authors of the Fyfe paper:
https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/1040204106035791Our study does NOT support the notion of a "pause" in global warming, only a *temporary slowdown*, which was due to natural factors, and has now ended.
Our recent work (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19831), which you fail to cite, indicates that the record warmth we are now experiencing can only be explained by human-caused global warming.
I don't dispute those facts. What I do dispute is that a) the warming is unusual or damaging and b) that humans are the primary cause of the warming.Let's review two indisputable facts:
1. The climate is warming, and
2. Human CO2 emissions are warming it
All this talk about other issues, smearing one scientist or another, is an attempt to create an illusion of debate while ignoring those two indisputably proven facts.
Proven by the Nature article and in the data linked above.
Mann is an intellectual fraud and a pseudo scientist.You need to stop lying about that paper.
Michael Mann, one of the authors of the Fyfe paper:
https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/1040204106035791
His appointment has the climate change crowd's knickers in a knot. Of course the usual suspects are claiming this is the beginning phases of dirty air and dirty water blah blah blah.Pruitt's appointment marks a significant step forward in the efforts to kill the Paris Accord. You gotta love it. :thumb:
So you think that Moviefan's claims are based on fraud?Mann is an intellectual fraud and a pseudo scientist.
Who cares, he's not a scientist whose work policymakers are relying upon.So you think that Moviefan's claims are based on fraud?
