Let's see the evidence

[jc456]

Crick still not explaining away the 800,000 year data set

why would he, he has everything to lose? ah-hum....although he's already lost. LOL!!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crick lame excuses:

1. The 800,000 year data set is local and never once reflected global conditions, not once
2. The 800,000 year data set is in error because Shankun used proxies accurate only to within 100,000 years to clearly demonstrate how CO2 drove the climate that was improperly reflected in the immediate and side by side temperature/CO2 readings from the Ice cores
3. DENIER!!! JUST FUCKING DIE!!!!

 

[mamooth]

Frank just showed us the #3 reason why the world laughs at deniers. Most deniers are squealing sissyboys, always whining about what victims they are. Normal people see deniers act like that and throw up in their mouths a little.

The #2 reason the world scorns deniers is because deniers are usually patholgically dishonest.

And the #1 reason is that their science is just so freakin' stupid.

Look at Frank here. He keeps using his "Forest fires were natural in the past, so forest fires can't be human-caused now!" logic, and he can't see why it's so damn stupid. An average second grader would understand Frank's failure, but it's beyond Frank. He's an imbecile.

Frank, it's okay to be an imbecile, as long as you understand your limits. After all, I'm sure you're a nice boy. It's just not okay to be belligerent with your imbecility

 

[jc456]

Frank just showed us the #3 reason why the world laughs at deniers. Most deniers are squealing sissyboys, always whining about what victims they are. Normal people see deniers act like that and throw up in their mouths a little.

The #2 reason the world scorns deniers is because deniers are usually patholgically dishonest.

And the #1 reason is that their science is just so freakin' stupid.

Look at Frank here. He keeps using his "Forest fires were natural in the past, so forest fires can't be human-caused now!" logic, and he can't see why it's so damn stupid. An average second grader would understand Frank's failure, but it's beyond Frank. He's an imbecile.

Frank, it's okay to be an imbecile, as long as you understand your limits. After all, I'm sure you're a nice boy. It's just not okay to be belligerent with your imbecility

did you say something? Nope!!!!

Oh BTW, I think you have a little snot you might want to wipe off your lip.

 

[jc456]

Crick lame excuses:

1. The 800,000 year data set is local and never once reflected global conditions, not once
2. The 800,000 year data set is in error because Shankun used proxies accurate only to within 100,000 years to clearly demonstrate how CO2 drove the climate that was improperly reflected in the immediate and side by side temperature/CO2 readings from the Ice cores
3. DENIER!!! JUST FUCKING DIE!!!!

Great post Frank, I bet that cat mantooth doesn't understand it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

`q

 

[Crick]

Crick lame excuses:

1. The 800,000 year data set is local and never once reflected global conditions, not once
2. The 800,000 year data set is in error because Shankun used proxies accurate only to within 100,000 years to clearly demonstrate how CO2 drove the climate that was improperly reflected in the immediate and side by side temperature/CO2 readings from the Ice cores
3. DENIER!!! JUST FUCKING DIE!!!!

No Frank, that was not the fact to which I was referring, though #1 is correct.

The point is there were no humans burning fossil fuel prior to about 1750. So how CO2 in the atmosphere behaved and related to temperatures prior to that point has no bearing on how CO2, being released by the human combustion of fossil fuels, at a rate that hasn't been seen on this planet for 20 million years, will behave. It's the same point Mamooth was just trying to make with "Frank believes humans can't cause forest fires".

 

[IanC]

Crick lame excuses:

1. The 800,000 year data set is local and never once reflected global conditions, not once
2. The 800,000 year data set is in error because Shankun used proxies accurate only to within 100,000 years to clearly demonstrate how CO2 drove the climate that was improperly reflected in the immediate and side by side temperature/CO2 readings from the Ice cores
3. DENIER!!! JUST FUCKING DIE!!!!

No Frank, that was not the fact to which I was referring, though #1 is correct.

The point is there were no humans burning fossil fuel prior to about 1750. So how CO2 in the atmosphere behaved and related to temperatures prior to that point has no bearing on how CO2, being released by the human combustion of fossil fuels, at a rate that hasn't been seen on this planet for 20 million years, will behave. It's the same point Mamooth was just trying to make with "Frank believes humans can't cause forest fires".

I agree that human addition of CO2 has created a situation where past correlations of temp to CO2 are no longer completely valid.

Shakun on the other hand tried to hide the fact that for the last 5000 years temps were going down while CO2 was going up.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crick lame excuses:

1. The 800,000 year data set is local and never once reflected global conditions, not once
2. The 800,000 year data set is in error because Shankun used proxies accurate only to within 100,000 years to clearly demonstrate how CO2 drove the climate that was improperly reflected in the immediate and side by side temperature/CO2 readings from the Ice cores
3. DENIER!!! JUST FUCKING DIE!!!!

No Frank, that was not the fact to which I was referring, though #1 is correct.

The point is there were no humans burning fossil fuel prior to about 1750. So how CO2 in the atmosphere behaved and related to temperatures prior to that point has no bearing on how CO2, being released by the human combustion of fossil fuels, at a rate that hasn't been seen on this planet for 20 million years, will behave. It's the same point Mamooth was just trying to make with "Frank believes humans can't cause forest fires".

800,000 years and it was always exclusively local and never once reflected global temperatures

You are truly insane

 

[skookerasbil]

Frank just showed us the #3 reason why the world laughs at deniers. Most deniers are squealing sissyboys, always whining about what victims they are. Normal people see deniers act like that and throw up in their mouths a little.

The #2 reason the world scorns deniers is because deniers are usually patholgically dishonest.

And the #1 reason is that their science is just so freakin' stupid.

Look at Frank here. He keeps using his "Forest fires were natural in the past, so forest fires can't be human-caused now!" logic, and he can't see why it's so damn stupid. An average second grader would understand Frank's failure, but it's beyond Frank. He's an imbecile.

Frank, it's okay to be an imbecile, as long as you understand your limits. After all, I'm sure you're a nice boy. It's just not okay to be belligerent with your imbecility

nobody cares about philosophy and conjecture sweets............and the world hardly scorns deniers..........

Show us where all the true believers are having an impact on public policy honey

The imbeciles are evidently winning!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank just showed us the #3 reason why the world laughs at deniers. Most deniers are squealing sissyboys, always whining about what victims they are. Normal people see deniers act like that and throw up in their mouths a little.

The #2 reason the world scorns deniers is because deniers are usually patholgically dishonest.

And the #1 reason is that their science is just so freakin' stupid.

Look at Frank here. He keeps using his "Forest fires were natural in the past, so forest fires can't be human-caused now!" logic, and he can't see why it's so damn stupid. An average second grader would understand Frank's failure, but it's beyond Frank. He's an imbecile.

Frank, it's okay to be an imbecile, as long as you understand your limits. After all, I'm sure you're a nice boy. It's just not okay to be belligerent with your imbecility

Denier is a cult word.

Nothing in your rant addressed my post but you did introduce a new sexual fetish: sissies.

So now it's sissies....sissies and pee pee, you must lead a fascinating life

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Frank just showed us the #3 reason why the world laughs at deniers. Most deniers are squealing sissyboys, always whining about what victims they are. Normal people see deniers act like that and throw up in their mouths a little.

The #2 reason the world scorns deniers is because deniers are usually patholgically dishonest.

And the #1 reason is that their science is just so freakin' stupid.

Look at Frank here. He keeps using his "Forest fires were natural in the past, so forest fires can't be human-caused now!" logic, and he can't see why it's so damn stupid. An average second grader would understand Frank's failure, but it's beyond Frank. He's an imbecile.

Frank, it's okay to be an imbecile, as long as you understand your limits. After all, I'm sure you're a nice boy. It's just not okay to be belligerent with your imbecility

The #2 reason the world scorns deniers is because deniers are usually patholgically dishonest.

Perverting the peer review process, stopping the other side from publishing, Mike's nature trick, hide the decline.....damn dishonest deniers!!!

 

[jc456]

Frank just showed us the #3 reason why the world laughs at deniers. Most deniers are squealing sissyboys, always whining about what victims they are. Normal people see deniers act like that and throw up in their mouths a little.

The #2 reason the world scorns deniers is because deniers are usually patholgically dishonest.

And the #1 reason is that their science is just so freakin' stupid.

Look at Frank here. He keeps using his "Forest fires were natural in the past, so forest fires can't be human-caused now!" logic, and he can't see why it's so damn stupid. An average second grader would understand Frank's failure, but it's beyond Frank. He's an imbecile.

Frank, it's okay to be an imbecile, as long as you understand your limits. After all, I'm sure you're a nice boy. It's just not okay to be belligerent with your imbecility

hey tooth, just what is a sissyboy?

 

[Crick]

Shakun on the other hand tried to hide the fact that for the last 5000 years temps were going down while CO2 was going up.

In what way did he try to hide that information?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Crick explains how the 800,000 year data set showing CO2 never forcing or driving climate but religiously following temperature on both increased and decrease is incorrect:

I read a very interesting article the other day about ice cores and how CO2 spikes well above 800ppm but only last 20-50 years as cooling sets in are not reflected. They hypothesize that the top 30-50 years of snow looses much of the levels of CO2 and do not reflect the spikes as the snow and ice are compacted into glaciers. Simply put the ice core records loose much of their specifics during the time they are compacting before becoming glacial ice.

An Engineer’s Ice-Core Thought Experiment #2 – the Follow-Up

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/04/an-engineers-ice-core-thought-experiment-2-the-follow-up-2/

Now the question becomes: Why is it that we don’t see these temperature inflection induced spikes in the ice-core record when a myriad of such temperature inflections have occurred throughout the Holocene.

And the answer is: These high-frequency (short duration) spikes are generally not recordable in the ice-cores due to insufficient duration. Why?… Let’s move on to the ice-core recordation process and examine ideal vs. realistic portrayals for an answer.

Interesting that we could have very easily seen CO2 rises and falls similar or greater than todays rates and they would not be reflected in the Ice Core samples..

 

[orogenicman]

Lord Monckton, Willie Soon, David Legates, and Matt Biggs? Bwhahahahahahahaha!

 

[westwall]

Lord Monckton, Willie Soon, David Legates, and Matt Biggs? Bwhahahahahahahaha!

Mann, Trenberth, Cook the comic book editor, who else did I leave out? bwahahahahahahaha!

 

[Crick]

Crick lame excuses:

1. The 800,000 year data set is local and never once reflected global conditions, not once
2. The 800,000 year data set is in error because Shankun used proxies accurate only to within 100,000 years to clearly demonstrate how CO2 drove the climate that was improperly reflected in the immediate and side by side temperature/CO2 readings from the Ice cores
3. DENIER!!! JUST FUCKING DIE!!!!

No Frank, that was not the fact to which I was referring, though #1 is correct.

The point is there were no humans burning fossil fuel prior to about 1750. So how CO2 in the atmosphere behaved and related to temperatures prior to that point has no bearing on how CO2, being released by the human combustion of fossil fuels, at a rate that hasn't been seen on this planet for 20 million years, will behave. It's the same point Mamooth was just trying to make with "Frank believes humans can't cause forest fires".

800,000 years and it was always exclusively local and never once reflected global temperatures

You are truly insane

Can you not read?

 

[Crick]

Crick explains how the 800,000 year data set showing CO2 never forcing or driving climate but religiously following temperature on both increased and decrease is incorrect:

I read a very interesting article the other day about ice cores and how CO2 spikes well above 800ppm but only last 20-50 years as cooling sets in are not reflected. They hypothesize that the top 30-50 years of snow looses much of the levels of CO2 and do not reflect the spikes as the snow and ice are compacted into glaciers. Simply put the ice core records loose much of their specifics during the time they are compacting before becoming glacial ice.

An Engineer’s Ice-Core Thought Experiment #2 – the Follow-Up

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/04/an-engineers-ice-core-thought-experiment-2-the-follow-up-2/

Now the question becomes: Why is it that we don’t see these temperature inflection induced spikes in the ice-core record when a myriad of such temperature inflections have occurred throughout the Holocene.

And the answer is: These high-frequency (short duration) spikes are generally not recordable in the ice-cores due to insufficient duration. Why?… Let’s move on to the ice-core recordation process and examine ideal vs. realistic portrayals for an answer.

Interesting that we could have very easily seen CO2 rises and falls similar or greater than todays rates and they would not be reflected in the Ice Core samples..

So, let me guess: you're going to assume they did.

 

[IanC]

Shakun on the other hand tried to hide the fact that for the last 5000 years temps were going down while CO2 was going up.

In what way did he try to hide that information?

We have been through this before abraham3.