quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Man are you stupid.
That liar is using US data not global data. If you even glanced at his graphs you could see that.

Wow, both the "stupid" gambit and the "liar" gambit in one post. You must be nervous. Fraud is fraud, bozo. It's not just happening in the U.S. (see here and here). Odd how con men are the easiest to con. Have a cookie.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The fact is there is overwhelming evidence the Earth is warming and no other cause exists but human activity. You can search all the reputable science journals till you're blue in the face but you're not going to find any research that is supportive of negative position. The facts are no longer subtle. Glaciers have receded drastically, plants and animals have moved pole ward, climate patterns are shifting, the seas are rising due to them being warmer and the ice caps are melting. If that isn't enough to convince people I really don't know what it will take.

No other causes exist but human activity? So the active volcanoes are not affecting it at all? And what about the oceans, don't they play a part in the environment as well. Or what about the animals who run around farting. I have heard from some wacko vegetarians that all we need to do is outlaw eating meat and kill all those flatulent animals (and you thought meat eaters were blood thirsty) but I suppose this explains why there wasn't any global changes before man was around. But wait, there was. So what was causing it back then? So maybe this explains why you have such trouble convincing people that you know what you are talking about. Now on your planet people might pay more attention to you if you lie first, but I have never noticed that that works well. In fact the more you lie, the less likely I am to believe anything that might follow. So if you want to convince people that you are telling the truth, you shouldn't start by posting bullshit like this.

Volcanoes erupt all the time. If they always caused the globe to warm we would be Venus. Is it presently 700 degrees? Do you even think?

Raising animals for human consumption is human activity. Look for the bolded words in my first post. then get someone to explain them to you.

I did read them. That's why I implied you were a dumbass.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Or you could have actually looked into this subject and found out what was going on before making more dumbass claims you can't support.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/
(note that Curry is an AGW denier)

Except that the problem isn't legitimate adjustments, as the very first link on the page I cited would have made clear to anyone with half a brain (see here). But since you mention Curry, did you notice this?

curryja | July 7, 2014 at 12:04 pm |
Unfortunately I am in and out of airports today so I can’t catch everything. ‘liar’ is one of the forbidden words (triggers moderation) looks like I need to add lying also.

In addition to Curry being an AGW "denier," it seems that she's also a decent human being who therefore (predictably) disagrees with you on more than just the realities of climate science.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

did you think animal husbandry didn't involve human activity?

That would be foolish. Everybody knows that there wouldn't be any animals if those damn climate-destroying humans would stop raising them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The fact is there is overwhelming evidence the Earth is warming and no other cause exists but human activity. You can search all the reputable science journals till you're blue in the face but you're not going to find any research that is supportive of negative position. The facts are no longer subtle. Glaciers have receded drastically, plants and animals have moved pole ward, climate patterns are shifting, the seas are rising due to them being warmer and the ice caps are melting. If that isn't enough to convince people I really don't know what it will take.

No other causes exist but human activity? So the active volcanoes are not affecting it at all? And what about the oceans, don't they play a part in the environment as well. Or what about the animals who run around farting. I have heard from some wacko vegetarians that all we need to do is outlaw eating meat and kill all those flatulent animals (and you thought meat eaters were blood thirsty) but I suppose this explains why there wasn't any global changes before man was around. But wait, there was. So what was causing it back then? So maybe this explains why you have such trouble convincing people that you know what you are talking about. Now on your planet people might pay more attention to you if you lie first, but I have never noticed that that works well. In fact the more you lie, the less likely I am to believe anything that might follow. So if you want to convince people that you are telling the truth, you shouldn't start by posting bullshit like this.

Volcanoes erupt all the time. If they always caused the globe to warm we would be Venus. Is it presently 700 degrees? Do you even think?

Raising animals for human consumption is human activity. Look for the bolded words in my first post. then get someone to explain them to you.

I did read them. That's why I implied you were a dumbass.

Too bad you're too fucking stupid to understand written English then since you made a claim that was subsumed by my statement. Or did you think animal husbandry didn't involve human activity?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
You don't think animals were around before humans?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
www.climatedepot.com/2014/03/04/update-global-temperature-no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months-for-210-months

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
www.climatedepot.com/2014/03/04/update-global-temperature-no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months-for-210-months

We can't view your links so why don't you just tell us which scientists Exxon's butt boy climatedepot is misrepresenting this time?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
www.climatedepot.com/2014/03/04/update-global-temperature-no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months-for-210-months

We can't view your links so why don't you just tell us which scientists Exxon's butt boy climatedepot is misrepresenting this time?

Better yet, why don't you try googling: no change in global temperatures climate depot? There you'll find the same RSS satellite data that the IPCC uses along with a breakdown of the technical data. You'll also find explanations by Dr. Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
www.climatedepot.com/2014/03/04/update-global-temperature-no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months-for-210-months

We can't view your links so why don't you just tell us which scientists Exxon's butt boy climatedepot is misrepresenting this time?

Better yet, why don't you try googling: no change in global temperatures climate depot? There you'll find the same RSS satellite data that the IPCC uses along with a breakdown of the technical data. You'll also find explanations by Dr. Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne.

Everything I found was by Monckton who isn't a scientist and is a liar of epic proportion.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
www.climatedepot.com/2014/03/04/update-global-temperature-no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months-for-210-months

We can't view your links so why don't you just tell us which scientists Exxon's butt boy climatedepot is misrepresenting this time?

Better yet, why don't you try googling: no change in global temperatures climate depot? There you'll find the same RSS satellite data that the IPCC uses along with a breakdown of the technical data. You'll also find explanations by Dr. Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne.

Everything I found was by Monckton who isn't a scientist and is a liar of epic proportion.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

You might want to try reading the article, Ken and the opinion of the scientist I mentioned as well as the interpretation of the data...that's by the scientist...not Monckton.

And by liar, you mean that he disagrees with you...right?

quote:


Monckton asserts that the House of Lords Act 1999, that deprived him of a hereditary seat, is flawed and unconstitutional. In 2006 he referred to himself as "a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature" in a letter to US Senators,[48] and has also claimed to be "a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote."[49] The House of Lords authorities have said Monckton is not and never has been a member and that there is no such thing as a non-voting or honorary member of the House.[6][34]
In July 2011 the House of Lords took the "unprecedented step" of publishing online a cease and desist letter to Monckton from the Clerk of the Parliaments, which concluded, "I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not."[25][26]

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
And by liar, you mean that he disagrees with you...right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
And by liar, you mean that he disagrees with you...right?

There's a reason reality deniers are focusing on that particular 16 year period and as has been explained to you by a couple different sources it's all about the cherry picking.

First of all weather is chaotic, one needs to look at long periods of time to see the trend through all the noise. So to deny reality it's essential to cherry pick too short a period of time so that the noise gets in the way.

Second it really helps to hunt for the noise, by picking a year that was quite hot one can make the trend look less obvious over too short a period.

Three even though the temp is still rising over the 16 years you've now data mined enough noise that it's statistically not possible to be sure we're seeing the global warming trend and not just noise so ignore the temperature rise and instead call it flat and
TADA! You've managed to hide what you didn't want to find.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Great! You've explained away those of us who don't believe in YOUR reality but...

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
I'd be hard -pressed to see the co-founder of Greenpeace as being someone with disparate views from yours.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
How do you explain his stance on this? What he said to the U. S. Senate,?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
And by liar, you mean that he disagrees with you...right?

There's a reason reality deniers are focusing on that particular 16 year period and as has been explained to you by a couple different sources it's all about the cherry picking.

First of all weather is chaotic, one needs to look at long periods of time to see the trend through all the noise. So to deny reality it's essential to cherry pick too short a period of time so that the noise gets in the way.

Second it really helps to hunt for the noise, by picking a year that was quite hot one can make the trend look less obvious over too short a period.

Three even though the temp is still rising over the 16 years you've now data mined enough noise that it's statistically not possible to be sure we're seeing the global warming trend and not just noise so ignore the temperature rise and instead call it flat and
TADA! You've managed to hide what you didn't want to find.

Great! You've explained away those of us who don't believe in YOUR reality but...

I'd be hard -pressed to see the co-founder of Greenpeace as being someone with disparate views from yours. How do you explain his stance on this? What he said to the U. S. Senate,?