Global Warming: the Relentless Trend

[Toddsterpatriot]

Just imagine, an entire hockey stick derived from a single scrawny tree

Shameless lie.

Here is how the "hockey stick" was derived and repeatedly affirmed:
What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

Correct! Michael Mann didn't win his Nobel Prize for nothing!!!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just imagine, an entire hockey stick derived from a single scrawny tree

Shameless lie.

Here is how the "hockey stick" was derived and repeatedly affirmed:
What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

Lol ..... Yup you drunk the Kool aid ..

And proud of it, like I said. I'm on the right side of science and history, so your impotent little swipes reflect more on you than they do on me.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Let us know where "consensus" is described in the Scientific Method. Thanks...

Inappropriate response. I wasnt presenting the consensus as evidence of anything. I was describing the "kool aid" I am supposedly drinking, which is the scientifoc consensus and the mountains of mutually supportive evidence which produced that consensus. Exactly as I stated. Kinda fell on your face, there.

What mountains of evidence???? The glaciers have been melting since the last ice age??

 

[Wyatt earp]

Just imagine, an entire hockey stick derived from a single scrawny tree

Shameless lie.

Here is how the "hockey stick" was derived and repeatedly affirmed:
What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

Lol ..... Yup you drunk the Kool aid ..

And proud of it, like I said. I'm on the right side of science and history, so your impotent little swipes reflect more on you than they do on me.

You will be long dead for it to be proven either way.


We don't have enough real data , anything before the 1990s is junk data and guestimate's

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let us know where "consensus" is described in the Scientific Method. Thanks...

Inappropriate response. I wasnt presenting the consensus as evidence of anything. I was describing the "kool aid" I am supposedly drinking, which is the scientifoc consensus and the mountains of mutually supportive evidence which produced that consensus. Exactly as I stated. Kinda fell on your face, there.

I was describing the "kool aid" I am supposedly drinking, which is the scientifoc consensus

If 75/77 isn't enough proof to justify wasting.....err...investing trillions in "green energy", what is?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You will be long dead for it to be proven either way.

It's already more than proven.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Let us know where "consensus" is described in the Scientific Method. Thanks...

Inappropriate response. I wasnt presenting the consensus as evidence of anything. I was describing the "kool aid" I am supposedly drinking, which is the scientifoc consensus and the mountains of mutually supportive evidence which produced that consensus. Exactly as I stated. Kinda fell on your face, there.

I was describing the "kool aid" I am supposedly drinking, which is the scientifoc consensus

If 75/77 isn't enough proof to justify wasting.....err...investing trillions in "green energy", what is?

Changing the subject again, Toddster? Fell on your face on the science...time to switch to policy....

 

[Wyatt earp]

You will be long dead for it to be proven either way.

It's already more than proven.

No it hasn't we still don't know how much man causes it and how much is natural varience .

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What mountains of evidence???? The glaciers have been melting since the last ice age?

Wow!!!!

Have you passed this information along to the scientists who discovered that? Because they must have forgotten!!!!

You need to think about how absurd your suggestion is. You are embarrassing yourself.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

we still don't know how much man causes it and how much is natural varience .

True, but we do know that the contribution by man is not zero. And the evidence all points to it being the main driver of the current warming trend. Yes, ALL the evidence.

 

[Billy_Bob]

What a Goddamned liar you are Silly Billy. Says right on the map, 07 APR 16. Here is the real present situation;

And we are in a La Nina.

Ever notice how the hottest places on earth seem to invariably be the places with the least instrumental coverage? Those super hot areas are infill...not actual temperatures.

Look at where there is little or no instrumentation and where climate science claims that it is the hottest evah...odd...don't you think? Clearly you don't think much at all..

Everything in red on Old Frauds graphing is manufactured bull shit. He is a useful idiot and one that will push any lie to get his left wing control agenda.. He will say and do anything to further it.

Exactly! Because gravity deflects photons.........

If your implying that an electromagnetic field can not do this you are seriously mistaken..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let us know where "consensus" is described in the Scientific Method. Thanks...

Inappropriate response. I wasnt presenting the consensus as evidence of anything. I was describing the "kool aid" I am supposedly drinking, which is the scientifoc consensus and the mountains of mutually supportive evidence which produced that consensus. Exactly as I stated. Kinda fell on your face, there.

I was describing the "kool aid" I am supposedly drinking, which is the scientifoc consensus

If 75/77 isn't enough proof to justify wasting.....err...investing trillions in "green energy", what is?

Changing the subject again, Toddster? Fell on your face on the science...time to switch to policy....

The subject was your claim of "consensus".

If 75/77 isn't consensus, I don't know what is.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What a Goddamned liar you are Silly Billy. Says right on the map, 07 APR 16. Here is the real present situation;

And we are in a La Nina.

Ever notice how the hottest places on earth seem to invariably be the places with the least instrumental coverage? Those super hot areas are infill...not actual temperatures.

Look at where there is little or no instrumentation and where climate science claims that it is the hottest evah...odd...don't you think? Clearly you don't think much at all..

Everything in red on Old Frauds graphing is manufactured bull shit. He is a useful idiot and one that will push any lie to get his left wing control agenda.. He will say and do anything to further it.

Exactly! Because gravity deflects photons.........

If your implying that an electromagnetic field can not do this you are seriously mistaken..

I await your proof that electromagnetic fields prevent photons emitted by cooler matter from hitting warmer matter. Seriously.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Let us know where "consensus" is described in the Scientific Method. Thanks...

Inappropriate response. I wasnt presenting the consensus as evidence of anything. I was describing the "kool aid" I am supposedly drinking, which is the scientifoc consensus and the mountains of mutually supportive evidence which produced that consensus. Exactly as I stated. Kinda fell on your face, there.

I was describing the "kool aid" I am supposedly drinking, which is the scientifoc consensus

If 75/77 isn't enough proof to justify wasting.....err...investing trillions in "green energy", what is?

Changing the subject again, Toddster? Fell on your face on the science...time to switch to policy....

The subject was your claim of "consensus".

If 75/77 isn't consensus, I don't know what is.

Sorry Toddster, no idea what you are babbling about.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let us know where "consensus" is described in the Scientific Method. Thanks...

Inappropriate response. I wasnt presenting the consensus as evidence of anything. I was describing the "kool aid" I am supposedly drinking, which is the scientifoc consensus and the mountains of mutually supportive evidence which produced that consensus. Exactly as I stated. Kinda fell on your face, there.

I was describing the "kool aid" I am supposedly drinking, which is the scientifoc consensus

If 75/77 isn't enough proof to justify wasting.....err...investing trillions in "green energy", what is?

Changing the subject again, Toddster? Fell on your face on the science...time to switch to policy....

The subject was your claim of "consensus".

If 75/77 isn't consensus, I don't know what is.

Sorry Toddster, no idea what you are babbling about.

I'll add that to the already huge list of things you have no idea about.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Inappropriate response. I wasnt presenting the consensus as evidence of anything. I was describing the "kool aid" I am supposedly drinking, which is the scientifoc consensus and the mountains of mutually supportive evidence which produced that consensus. Exactly as I stated. Kinda fell on your face, there.

I was describing the "kool aid" I am supposedly drinking, which is the scientifoc consensus

If 75/77 isn't enough proof to justify wasting.....err...investing trillions in "green energy", what is?

Changing the subject again, Toddster? Fell on your face on the science...time to switch to policy....

The subject was your claim of "consensus".

If 75/77 isn't consensus, I don't know what is.

Sorry Toddster, no idea what you are babbling about.

I'll add that to the already huge list of things you have no idea about.

That's deep, Toddster.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I was describing the "kool aid" I am supposedly drinking, which is the scientifoc consensus

If 75/77 isn't enough proof to justify wasting.....err...investing trillions in "green energy", what is?

Changing the subject again, Toddster? Fell on your face on the science...time to switch to policy....

The subject was your claim of "consensus".

If 75/77 isn't consensus, I don't know what is.

Sorry Toddster, no idea what you are babbling about.

I'll add that to the already huge list of things you have no idea about.

That's deep, Toddster.

Yes, so was the proof of 97% consensus, using only 77 scientists.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Changing the subject again, Toddster? Fell on your face on the science...time to switch to policy....

The subject was your claim of "consensus".

If 75/77 isn't consensus, I don't know what is.

Sorry Toddster, no idea what you are babbling about.

I'll add that to the already huge list of things you have no idea about.

That's deep, Toddster.

Yes, so was the proof of 97% consensus, using only 77 scientists.

Red herring. There have been many studies using different methods, and all arrive at the fact that there is an overwhelming consensus.

But carry on....it will keep you busy and out of the way....

 

[IanC]

What a Goddamned liar you are Silly Billy. Says right on the map, 07 APR 16. Here is the real present situation;

And we are in a La Nina.

Ever notice how the hottest places on earth seem to invariably be the places with the least instrumental coverage? Those super hot areas are infill...not actual temperatures.

Look at where there is little or no instrumentation and where climate science claims that it is the hottest evah...odd...don't you think? Clearly you don't think much at all..

Everything in red on Old Frauds graphing is manufactured bull shit. He is a useful idiot and one that will push any lie to get his left wing control agenda.. He will say and do anything to further it.

Exactly! Because gravity deflects photons.........

If your implying that an electromagnetic field can not do this you are seriously mistaken..

You are seriously retarded.

 

[Old Rocks]

Just imagine, an entire hockey stick derived from a single scrawny tree

Shameless lie.

Here is how the "hockey stick" was derived and repeatedly affirmed:
What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

Lol ..... Yup you drunk the Kool aid ..

And proud of it, like I said. I'm on the right side of science and history, so your impotent little swipes reflect more on you than they do on me.

You will be long dead for it to be proven either way.


We don't have enough real data , anything before the 1990s is junk data and guestimate's

Fucking bullshit. We have the absorption spectra of the GHGs, we have the fact that we have been in a gradual cooling for the last 8000 years, as per the Milankovic Cycles, and the fact that overall during that period, the glaciers have been advancing. Until the start of the industrial revolution. For all that are scientifically literate, it is already beyond a reasonable doubt that we are creating some real problems for our children and grandchildren, in fact, for our descendants for a few thousand years.

 

[Old Rocks]

Changing the subject again, Toddster? Fell on your face on the science...time to switch to policy....

The subject was your claim of "consensus".

If 75/77 isn't consensus, I don't know what is.

Sorry Toddster, no idea what you are babbling about.

I'll add that to the already huge list of things you have no idea about.

That's deep, Toddster.

Yes, so was the proof of 97% consensus, using only 77 scientists.

All the Scientific Societies, all the Academies of Science, all the major Universities in the world have policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. That is a damned powerful scientific consensus. Against that, we have a couple of scientists stating that is not the case. The same scientists that said in front of Congress that tobacco is harmless, after the tobacco companies enlarged their bank accounts. Against that consensus of Scientists, we have such vast powerhouses of scientific knowledge as the obese junkie on the AM radio, and a fake British Lord. LOL