Climate Change Deniers Debunked

[Liminal]

JC, you have just placed that criticism against yourself and your fellow deniers. You might want to reread that post while you can still edit it.

What that we ignore you all?

Who's we? Do you belong to a club of unremarkable and dull people?

I don't belong to your club, you got something for the OP? Otherwise you're violating the rules

Oh I see, so now you're the moderator too. Who's going to teach you about the rules?

 

[edthecynic]

And yet only the adjusted data sets show warming... If you take the raw data and analyze it we have been cooling since the mid 1970's

Whom to believe.. Data manipulators and activists or the raw unaltered data....???

Again there has been no warming for over 18 years 6 months..

And the satellite Data confirms it.

View attachment 41608

A perfect example of how the deniers LIE!
They lie that we have been cooling since the 1970s and then compound that lie by lying that the satellite data "confirms" it, but only post cherry picked data starting 2001, not the mid 1970s because they know they are lying. Deniers are premeditated liars!

There is not one single satellite data set, raw or otherwise, starting in the 1970s that shows cooling!

The reality is there has been no statistically significant global cooling for 115 years and 5 months.

AND as expected the adulterated data and manipulated crap is spewed as truth..

As expected, when confronted with the WHOLE truth, the deniers just lie and deny some more.
It's the SAME RSS and UAH RAW data YOU posted in your attachment, only the full 47 years starting in the 1970s when satellite data started. YOU did say that the satellite data CONFIRMED your lie that we've been cooling since the 1970s but posted the data from 2001 to the present only. I just posted the full data from the 1970s using your EXACT SAME SOURCES.

 

[edthecynic]

And yet only the adjusted data sets show warming... If you take the raw data and analyze it we have been cooling since the mid 1970's

Whom to believe.. Data manipulators and activists or the raw unaltered data....???

Again there has been no warming for over 18 years 6 months..

And the satellite Data confirms it.

View attachment 41608

A perfect example of how the deniers LIE!
They lie that we have been cooling since the 1970s and then compound that lie by lying that the satellite data "confirms" it, but only post cherry picked data starting 2001, not the mid 1970s because they know they are lying. Deniers are premeditated liars!

There is not one single satellite data set, raw or otherwise, starting in the 1970s that shows cooling!

The reality is there has been no statistically significant global cooling for 115 years and 5 months.

AND as expected the adulterated data and manipulated crap is spewed as truth..

So they think!! Ahhhhhh we know better don't we. Billy never give up the fight the truth will prevail I will fight hard to see it so

It's the exact same raw data from the exact same sources, only including the part from 1978 to 2001 that the liar omitted.

 

[Liminal]

Some Republican leaders think we should just defer to God on this issue. As if God created man without brains.

This Democrat knucklehead thinks too many people on one side of Guam can make it flip over

If you like that one, you should really appreciate this.

 

[IanC]

the US appears to be cooling here. is it cherrypicking? the CRN only started in 2005. are the results significant? absolutely not. any time you have a trend that includes zero in its range that means it is not significant. store that away in your memory for future reference.

 

[jc456]

update today for point 8 in the OP:

Hmmm, seems the Antarctic is actually growing ice:

Thanks to National Snow and Ice Data Center:

 

[IanC]

Antartica sea ice has a bigger effect on albedo and such because it is at a more moderate incline to incoming sunshine. Arctic ice is mostly at a very high latitude where sunlight is at a steeper angle of incidence.

 

[Liminal]

And yet only the adjusted data sets show warming... If you take the raw data and analyze it we have been cooling since the mid 1970's

Whom to believe.. Data manipulators and activists or the raw unaltered data....???

Again there has been no warming for over 18 years 6 months..

And the satellite Data confirms it.

View attachment 41608

A perfect example of how the deniers LIE!
They lie that we have been cooling since the 1970s and then compound that lie by lying that the satellite data "confirms" it, but only post cherry picked data starting 2001, not the mid 1970s because they know they are lying. Deniers are premeditated liars!

There is not one single satellite data set, raw or otherwise, starting in the 1970s that shows cooling!

The reality is there has been no statistically significant global cooling for 115 years and 5 months.

AND as expected the adulterated data and manipulated crap is spewed as truth..

Nothing to worry about then, everything is just fine.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And yet only the adjusted data sets show warming... If you take the raw data and analyze it we have been cooling since the mid 1970's

Whom to believe.. Data manipulators and activists or the raw unaltered data....???

Again there has been no warming for over 18 years 6 months..

And the satellite Data confirms it.

View attachment 41608

A perfect example of how the deniers LIE!
They lie that we have been cooling since the 1970s and then compound that lie by lying that the satellite data "confirms" it, but only post cherry picked data starting 2001, not the mid 1970s because they know they are lying. Deniers are premeditated liars!

There is not one single satellite data set, raw or otherwise, starting in the 1970s that shows cooling!

The reality is there has been no statistically significant global cooling for 115 years and 5 months.

AND as expected the adulterated data and manipulated crap is spewed as truth..

Nothing to worry about then, everything is just fine.

 

[Liminal]

Here's one for people with short attention spans.

 

[IanC]

I wonder if anyone else but me finds it odd that SLR incresed dramatically at the exact time that satellites started measuring it. and increased again when they started 'correcting' the figures. just sayin'

 

[mamooth]

If Ian doesn't don't like some data -- which would be nearly all the data now, being nearly all the data contradicts him -- he simply declares it's part of the conspiracy. He devolution to conspiracy cultist is complete.

As far as satellite temperature data goes, Carl Mears, the lead scientist for the RSS data set (the one so beloved by deniers), says that the surface data sets are more accurate,

The Recent Slowing in the Rise of Global Temperatures Remote Sensing Systems

---
A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!).
---

and that satellite data sets shouldn't be used to discuss climate.

Upper Air Temperature Remote Sensing Systems
---
All microwave sounding instruments were developed for day to day operational use in weather forecasting and thus are typically not calibrated to the precision needed for climate studies.
---

The surface data is better. It measures surface temperature directly instead of upper troposphere temperature, and it's far less twiddled and adjusted than satellite data. If you see someone using satellite data instead of surface data, you know you're looking at a fraud. Naturally, every denier relies solely on the satellite data.

 

[jc456]

If Ian doesn't don't like some data -- which would be nearly all the data now, being nearly all the data contradicts him -- he simply declares it's part of the conspiracy. He devolution to conspiracy cultist is complete.

As far as satellite temperature data goes, Carl Mears, the lead scientist for the RSS data set (the one so beloved by deniers), says that the surface data sets are more accurate,

The Recent Slowing in the Rise of Global Temperatures Remote Sensing Systems

---
A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!).
---

and that satellite data sets shouldn't be used to discuss climate.

Upper Air Temperature Remote Sensing Systems
---
All microwave sounding instruments were developed for day to day operational use in weather forecasting and thus are typically not calibrated to the precision needed for climate studies.
---

The surface data is better. It measures surface temperature directly instead of upper troposphere temperature, and it's far less twiddled and adjusted than satellite data. If you see someone using satellite data instead of surface data, you know you're looking at a fraud. Naturally, every denier relies solely on the satellite data.

so let's say that's true, then why the need to adjust their records? Surface data that is.

 

[IanC]

I read the first link and it seemed reasonable. The general attitude was evident in the papers he cited but overall it was OK.

Your quotes seemed a bit out of context. The piece seemed to be promoting a lot if natural causes for the hiatus.

All in all, one of your more sane postings even if it had the obligatory rant about conspiracies at the beginning.

 

[mamooth]

so let's say that's true, then why the need to adjust their records? Surface data that is.

Because if you don't correct for the errors, the output will be wrong. Anyone demanding raw data be used is essentially demanding that data be faked, and thus nobody should ever trust such a fraud.

And remember, the adjustments make the warming look _smaller_. If the adjustments are removed, that will make the warming look bigger. Kind of kills the whole denier conspiracy theory there, as that conspiracy proposes that scientists are deliberately committing fraud by making the warming look ... smaller. The deniers aren't willing to explain why they cling to such a senseless conspiracy, so they ramp up their denial to the next stage and deny that the adjustments make the warming look smaller.

 

[IanC]

so let's say that's true, then why the need to adjust their records? Surface data that is.

Because if you don't correct for the errors, the output will be wrong. Anyone demanding raw data be used is essentially demanding that data be faked, and thus nobody should ever trust such a fraud.

And remember, the adjustments make the warming look _smaller_. If the adjustments are removed, that will make the warming look bigger. Kind of kills the whole denier conspiracy theory there, as that conspiracy proposes that scientists are deliberately committing fraud by making the warming look ... smaller. The deniers aren't willing to explain why they cling to such a senseless conspiracy, so they ramp up their denial to the next stage and deny that the adjustments make the warming look smaller.

Land only temps are massively adjusted to increase the trend. Lowering past readings may not seem like adding to the increase but it does. Worse yet is when they add to the present and subtract from the past and then claim that the adjustments are neutral even though the trend has skyrocketed.

More to the point in your recent postings- your claim that sea surface temps have been adjusted up is a none starter. We have practically no information on ocean temps in the past, especially far past. Replacing one guess for another doesn't mean much.

 

[jc456]

so let's say that's true, then why the need to adjust their records? Surface data that is.

Because if you don't correct for the errors, the output will be wrong. Anyone demanding raw data be used is essentially demanding that data be faked, and thus nobody should ever trust such a fraud.

And remember, the adjustments make the warming look _smaller_. If the adjustments are removed, that will make the warming look bigger. Kind of kills the whole denier conspiracy theory there, as that conspiracy proposes that scientists are deliberately committing fraud by making the warming look ... smaller. The deniers aren't willing to explain why they cling to such a senseless conspiracy, so they ramp up their denial to the next stage and deny that the adjustments make the warming look smaller.

hmmm, so why not let us see the actual temperatures?

 

[Liminal]

Nope, nothing to worry about, everything is just fine.

 

[jc456]

Nope, nothing to worry about, everything is just fine.

too funny, dude really, that really makes me laugh. hahhahahahahahahhaa just in case your naive brain didn't capture the jest of you making up floods and Antarctic shelf and all.

BTW, when did that flood occur this year?

 

[Liminal]

Nope, nothing to worry about, everything is just fine.

too funny, dude really, that really makes me laugh. hahhahahahahahahhaa just in case your naive brain didn't capture the jest of you making up floods and Antarctic shelf and all.

BTW, when did that flood occur this year?

Limited mentalities are often easily amused.