Is global climate policy actually about global income redistribution ?
- Thread starter Big Sleazy
- Start date
- Status
Bullshit, start the graph a few years before 1994. There's a lot of variability year over year. Picking an unusually high year from the 90s and pretending that is a baseline is dishonest.
Compare the 10 year average in 1994 to the 10 year average in any later year and get back to me.
Its important to note that graph does show an upward trend.
How accurate their data is however, is another question
Another fool whose confirmation bias pushes him to only used cherry picked data.
From the same source, without your cherry picked dates:
That chart is not legit.
Here's one from NOAA that is, including this statement from the same page:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
It's cherry picking years. It starts with an unusually high spike and uses that as a baseline to compare to subsequent years. By that dishonest trick you can claim there were many periods of 20 or more years where there was no warming, because it took awhile for the gradual rising average to exceed the highest variable spike.
Which is why what you want to do is look at rolling averages, which smooth out the variability.
The climate is in constant flux , measurable even over a one hundred year period. The statistics have inherent error in them and can be used incorrectly to support many different arguments. Observations such as polar ice caps shrinking do not need statistics to back them up. Ice ages and heat waves come and go on this planet. The effect to which climate change is effected by man will be always debatable but not refutable. Harper like suppression of climate change research is regrettable but understandable from an economic point of view since Alberta oil is a key driver of the Canadian economy. Watch what Trudeau will do if the world price for a barrel of crude goes way up again, probably nothing to hurt the Tar Sands Operation, likely lip service to the environmentalists.
"Excuses"?
You might want to rethink that. I'm seeing in the news that La Nina is on its way. :thumb:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-weather-lanina-braun-idUSKCN0X215F
The issue is that it would appear you never completed Grade 3 and it remains unresolved whether you are capable of putting the numbers together correctly.
Let's review the facts, once again.
Fact: You said you "needed" a "record year over year increase" in 2015 to win the bet: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5499392#post5499392
Fact: You calculated that the year-over-year increase that was "needed" for you to win the bet was 0.15ºC: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5445145#post5445145 (that wouldn't actually be a "record," but no matter.)
Fact: You have insisted that we use this graph, which shows the temperature anomaly in 2014 was 0.74ºC: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
Fact: You keep concluding that the numbers add up to a bet of 0.83ºC in 2015: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...distribution&p=5516415&viewfull=1#post5516415
Your numbers:
- 2014 temperature anomaly: 0.74ºC
- Year-over-year increase that was "needed" to win the bet: 0.15ºC
- Your calculation of the total: 0.83ºC
Whether you're able to do the math or not, the reality is that you have calculated that 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.83.
And you are wrong.
Indeed. In the 21st century, the Earth's temperature has been stagnant -- confirming that the predictions have been consistently and spectacularly wrong.
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncli...KCaDcruk2QI=&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com
Nope, you are lying again.
I would never and have never made any such statement.
You have failed repeatedly to find any quote where I made such a statement, you have been caught out lying.
You continue to lie over and over again.
See post below.
The Fyfe paper where you got that chart says the total opposite of what you claim, as has been pointed out to you over and over again.Indeed. In the 21st century, the Earth's temperature has been stagnant -- confirming that the predictions have been consistently and spectacularly wrong.
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncli...KCaDcruk2QI=&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com
Michael Mann, one of the authors of the Fyfe paper:
https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/1040204106035791
Why do you continue to lie about this study?
And why do you continue to lie about the bet?
You lost, and you refuse to admit you lost.
You lost, and you refuse to admit you lost.
I didn't say that calculation came from a direct quote. I said it was your calculation, using your numbers. And I have produced attributions for every one of your numbers.
Furthermore, you're just bullshitting when you falsely suggest I agree with your calculations. The "0.83" quotes you cited from me refer to an entirely different graph with completely different numbers. And you know it.
Let's review the facts again.
These are your numbers:
- 2014 temperature anomaly: 0.74ºC
- Year-over-year increase that was "needed" to win the bet: 0.15ºC
- Your calculation of the total: 0.83ºC
As I said, I have produced direct quotes to confirm each one of those numbers in your calculation.
But if you say one of those numbers isn't the number you're using, tell us which one. Otherwise, your calculation continues to be that 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.83.
And you continue to be wrong.
Bullshit, this is what you said:
Nowhere have I made a calculation using those numbers, that is an out and out lie.
And that lie is based on you breaking your word to honour the bet on the original terms of 0.83ºC for 2015.
You promised to honour the bet using the 0.83ºC we bet on, and here you are still trying to break your word and claim the bet should be changed.
You are a lying weasel.
- Status
