No 'pause' in global warming confirmed

[RollingThunder]

What was the weather like in the 3,999,999,863 years before that?

Tell us something MikeTx: how much affect to you think the weather of four billion years ago has had on the Earth's present climate? I mean, there isn't even much of the Earth's surface from back then still sitting in the sunlight. It would be nearly two billion years before the Earth's atmosphere contained significant amounts of oxygen.

Nice deflection. Indeed! My point is that seeing how you DO NOT KNOW what the climate was like past 100 or so years, let alone 4 BILLION, you lying snake oil salesmen do not know if todays weather is a normal occurrence or not!

A fine variation on the "argument from ignorance" fallacy, that, with a totally retarded lack of imagination, idiotically assumes that just because you are very ignorant and don't know much at all and understand even less, then everybody else in the world must be as ignorant and stupid as you are.

Argument from ignorance
Wikipedia
....Another form that this fallacy can take is the form of an argument from incredulity (also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction) which is that one's personal incredulity or credulity towards a premise is a logical reason for acceptance or rejection. This incredulity can stem from ignorance (defined as a lack of knowledge and experience) or from willful ignorance (defined as a flat out refusal to gain the knowledge).

Almost all the claims from the anti-science movement revolve around some form of personal incredulity or argument from ignorance. Proponents of the anti-science movement will usually pick some aspect of a currently accepted scientific theory and argue that it must be wrong because they do not believe it explains some aspect of the natural world. Common examples of this are such claims as "you can't prove global warming is caused by humans".

"Ignorance is ignorance; no right to believe anything can be derived from it. In other matters no sensible person will behave so irresponsibly or rest content with such feeble grounds for his opinions and for the line he takes."
—Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion[2]

 

[miketx]

Yes, yes! Attack the source when they have you backed in a corner. Good liberal.


Libtard ROE


1. Demand a link or an explanation of the truth you are objecting to.

2. Promptly reject all explanations as right wing lies.

3. Ignore any facts presented.

4. Ridicule spelling and typos.

5. Attack the person as being juvenile, ie: "are you 12 years old", question their education, intelligence.

6. Employ misdirection, smear people, attack religion

7. Lie, make false assumptions

8. Play race/gender card

9. Play gay/lesbian card

10. Play the Nazi card

11. Make up stuff

12. Deny constantly

13. Reword and repeat

14. Pretending not to understand when they have been posting about it for the last 2 days.


I'm waiting for you to call me a racist.

 

[Crick]

Mike, you are rapidly qualifying yourself as a waste of time to engage. Why don't you put your thinking cap on and consider a few things:

1) There are mountains of evidence concerning the climate prior to the invention of the thermometer.
2) The current climate did not require 4 billion years to develop
3) What the climate did before human culture arose is actually irrelevant to the current problem.
4) An enormous amount of evidence indicates that the rate of warming over the last 150 years is unprecedented in human history
5) An enormous amount of evidence indicates that the primary cause for that warming is human GHG emissions and deforestation

 

[miketx]

1) There are mountains of evidence concerning the climate prior to the invention of the thermometer.

Indeed. Mostly all educated guess work

2) The current climate did not require 4 billion years to develop

When will you stop your deflecting? I never said it did liar.

3) What the climate did before human culture arose is actually irrelevant to the current problem.

False. What the climate did before can show what is normal for the Earth.

4) An enormous amount of evidence indicates that the rate of warming over the last 150 years is unprecedented in human history

It's only unprecedented because you have no data before that so you just ignore that fact that you don't know what your talking about.

5) An enormous amount of evidence indicates that the primary cause for that warming is human GHG emissions and deforestation

Basing that conclusion on barely 150 years of data on a planet that is 4 billion years old is the height on liberal arrogance. You lie.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Translation: Obama didn't like the data so he had it altered

Do you have the slightest shred of evidence to support that charge Frank?

They changed the data to account for the imaginary "excess heat" retrained by the deep ocean

Then where is the evidence Frank? Do you have any evidence? Does anyone have any evidence? Or is this simply your knee jerk reaction to any of the mountains of evidence that support AGW's validity?

Crick, next time read the OP. It says right in there that they altered the data

 

[Crick]

1) There are mountains of evidence concerning the climate prior to the invention of the thermometer.

Indeed. Mostly all educated guess work

Thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies by people with PhDs does not create "educated guess work"

2) The current climate did not require 4 billion years to develop

When will you stop your deflecting? I never said it did liar.

You have insisted that such knowledge is necessary to have an adequate understanding of what is happening now. I'm not the one lying Mike.

3) What the climate did before human culture arose is actually irrelevant to the current problem.

False. What the climate did before can show what is normal for the Earth.

Normal? There's no such thing. The Earth's climate has constantly changed depending on a number of factors.

4) An enormous amount of evidence indicates that the rate of warming over the last 150 years is unprecedented in human history

It's only unprecedented because you have no data before that so you just ignore that fact that you don't know what your talking about.

Science has a great deal of data about historical and paleo climate. You've repeated this claim over and over again. Why do you think there is no data?

5) An enormous amount of evidence indicates that the primary cause for that warming is human GHG emissions and deforestation

Basing that conclusion on barely 150 years of data on a planet that is 4 billion years old is the height on liberal arrogance. You lie.

No Mike, I do not lie. And liberalism has absolutely nothing to do with it. It is based on evidence and the scientific method.

 

[Crick]

Translation: Obama didn't like the data so he had it altered

Do you have the slightest shred of evidence to support that charge Frank?

They changed the data to account for the imaginary "excess heat" retrained by the deep ocean

Then where is the evidence Frank? Do you have any evidence? Does anyone have any evidence? Or is this simply your knee jerk reaction to any of the mountains of evidence that support AGW's validity?

Crick, next time read the OP. It says right in there that they altered the data

It does NOT say that it was altered because "Obama didn't like" it.

Where is your evidence for THAT charge Frank?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Well, kookie, since you have always and only been in these debates for your crackpot, neo-fascist, purely political and ideological reasons

Well there goes any reasoning to respond to you. You just described yourself and your closed minded facisim..

 

[Crick]

Do you have something in the way of a technical criticism of Karl et al, Mr Physicist?

 

[miketx]

1) There are mountains of evidence concerning the climate prior to the invention of the thermometer.

Indeed. Mostly all educated guess work

Thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies by people with PhDs does not create "educated guess work"

2) The current climate did not require 4 billion years to develop

When will you stop your deflecting? I never said it did liar.

You have insisted that such knowledge is necessary to have an adequate understanding of what is happening now. I'm not the one lying Mike.

3) What the climate did before human culture arose is actually irrelevant to the current problem.

False. What the climate did before can show what is normal for the Earth.

Normal? There's no such thing. The Earth's climate has constantly changed depending on a number of factors.

4) An enormous amount of evidence indicates that the rate of warming over the last 150 years is unprecedented in human history

It's only unprecedented because you have no data before that so you just ignore that fact that you don't know what your talking about.

Science has a great deal of data about historical and paleo climate. You've repeated this claim over and over again. Why do you think there is no data?

5) An enormous amount of evidence indicates that the primary cause for that warming is human GHG emissions and deforestation

Basing that conclusion on barely 150 years of data on a planet that is 4 billion years old is the height on liberal arrogance. You lie.

No Mike, I do not lie. And liberalism has absolutely nothing to do with it. It is based on evidence and the scientific method.

Then your stupid and gullible.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Translation: Obama didn't like the data so he had it altered

Do you have the slightest shred of evidence to support that charge Frank?

They changed the data to account for the imaginary "excess heat" retrained by the deep ocean

Then where is the evidence Frank? Do you have any evidence? Does anyone have any evidence? Or is this simply your knee jerk reaction to any of the mountains of evidence that support AGW's validity?

Crick, next time read the OP. It says right in there that they altered the data

It does NOT say that it was altered because "Obama didn't like" it.

Where is your evidence for THAT charge Frank?

Follow the money...

 

[mamooth]

Follow the money...

And it's all flowing to deniers.

Frank, why do you kiss the behinds of corrupt people who are taking payouts? We're not doing that. The people we listen to sacrifice money to do honest science. They could double their salaries by lying for the deniers, but they don't. The money flows away from them, which give them more credibility.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Follow the money...

And it's all flowing to deniers.

Frank, why do you kiss the behinds of corrupt people who are taking payouts? We're not doing that. The people we listen to sacrifice money to do honest science. They could double their salaries by lying for the deniers, but they don't. The money flows away from them, which give them more credibility.

G5000, it says right in the OP that the data was altered. Maybe you and Crick can take turns reading to each other

 

[Crick]

YOU, Frank, have claimed that it was altered to satisfy President Obama's desires and not for valid reasons. THAT is what I am waiting for you to demonstrate.

 

[miketx]

There has been a confirmation of the no pause in global warming lying as well.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

YOU, Frank, have claimed that it was altered to satisfy President Obama's desires and not for valid reasons. THAT is what I am waiting for you to demonstrate.

It's prima facia obvious, Crick. Immediately after the numbers were altered Obama went on his "It's the hotteerestest Year EVAH!!!" Tour

 

[Crick]

It's spelled "prima facie" and it is not. You have no evidence to support your contention because your contention is completely false.

 

[SSDD]

It's spelled "prima facie" and it is not. You have no evidence to support your contention because your contention is completely false.

He also didn't put a comma in after altered in the second sentence...if you are going to be the spelling police, you may as well be the punctuation police as well...or did you just run it through spell check and don't have a punctuation check so have no idea where and what punctuation should be placed?

 

[Crick]

Do you have evidence to support his contention (that the numbers were altered solely to satisfy President Obama)?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do you have evidence to support his contention (that the numbers were altered solely to satisfy President Obama)?

Sure, Obama wanted it to be "the hottest Year EVER!!!!" so the data was altered accordingly