Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

[SSDD]

And that is fakery as well...you don't attach instrumental readings to proxy reconstructions...it is fraud and there is no other word for it...and do tell me, what do you think it proves anyway other than that as the earth has warmed, the processes by which the earth produces CO2 have become more efficient?

Show your "evidence" that the graph is factually wrong.

It is fine up to the point where they tack on an instrumental record to a proxy record...sorry that you are so ignorant of the scientific method that you don't realize that is a no no...the record prior to that is on a scale where each inch (on a computer screen) represents 100,000 years...the end, from 1950 is putting 70 years worth of data in a space that represents about 1000 years on the rest of the graph...fraud is the word that describes it...or scientific malfeasance if you like.

The only fraud here is you.

Are we at 412+ PPM of CO2 or not?

Yes...we are...but what do you think that proves? When the ice age that the earth is presently coming out of began, CO2 was at about 1000ppm. Imagine that...an ice age starting with CO2 at 1000ppm, And if you go further back in history you will see ice ages beginning with CO2 levels higher than that. What does that say about your greenhouse hypothesis,.

It means that variations in the amount of energy received from the sun due to the wobble of the earth's orbit are large enough to trigger or end ice ages. You think that's what started happening in 1970? Prove it.

How about you prove your contention first...got any hard evidence, or just an unprovable hypothesis? You guys are funny....sad, but funny...

 

[SSDD]

Glad to provide you with some...it isn't as if were hard to find....

Here is a fine example...the temperature was adjusted down from the raw data in order to give the appearance of more warming than has actually happened and it completely eliminates the hot period of the 1930's (the dust bowl years) which were warmer than the present and makes them appear much cooler than the present.

Here is another fine example of the "adjustment" happening at NASA.. Want more? There's plenty out there.

So they changed the scale on the graph. Diabolical.

It is far more than changing the scale...it is outright fraud...

You are like an abused animal that still licks its master's hand....they lie to you...make you look like a fool, and you apologize for them....how pathetic is that?

You're like a confused fool who knows nothing. Clamping on to every global warming deniers goofed up theories while adamantly denying valid science. You clearly don't even know how the greenhouse effect even works.

Thus far, you haven't provided any valid science to support your line of bullshit...I have provided published paper after published paper, and work from NASA, NOAA, IPCC...etc etc etc to support my claims...all you have done is just make it up as you go...You also are like an abused dog who still licks his masters hand...They lie to you, make you look like a fool, and take advantage of your ignorance and what do you do? You apologize for them...how pathetic is that?

Now about your GISP2 "gold standard" when it is put thru a fact check.

Fact-check: What Greenland Ice Cores Say About Past and Present Climate Change


So, the "gold standard" cited by YOU is wrong. From one of the scientists that used the data set.

“So, what do we get from GISP2? Alone, not an immense amount. With the other Greenland ice cores… and compared to additional records from elsewhere, an immense amount… Using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible.”

So which are you?

guess you didn't look at any of his other graphs...they also showed that the present is cooler than most of the past 10,000 years...you guys are funny....sad and pathetic to..but funny.

 

[Cosmos]

So they changed the scale on the graph. Diabolical.

It is far more than changing the scale...it is outright fraud...

You are like an abused animal that still licks its master's hand....they lie to you...make you look like a fool, and you apologize for them....how pathetic is that?

You're like a confused fool who knows nothing. Clamping on to every global warming deniers goofed up theories while adamantly denying valid science. You clearly don't even know how the greenhouse effect even works.

Thus far, you haven't provided any valid science to support your line of bullshit...I have provided published paper after published paper, and work from NASA, NOAA, IPCC...etc etc etc to support my claims...all you have done is just make it up as you go...You also are like an abused dog who still licks his masters hand...They lie to you, make you look like a fool, and take advantage of your ignorance and what do you do? You apologize for them...how pathetic is that?

Organizations whose information you consistently deny and claim to be falsified. You can't have it both ways. You've denied even the possibility of the existence greenhouse effect. You're just an idiot.

There is decent information to be had in the material they publish in the literature which has been through the peer review process...unfortunately, people like you don't visit the actual scientific literature...you read the material from the propaganda arm of the organization and believe you are reading actual science...ignorance on parade.

You mean the place where they taught you that sea level rise always occurs at 3mm/year and never changes? Even after you called the GISP2 graph the "gold standard"? You're really stupid.

 

[SSDD]

And that is fakery as well...you don't attach instrumental readings to proxy reconstructions...it is fraud and there is no other word for it...and do tell me, what do you think it proves anyway other than that as the earth has warmed, the processes by which the earth produces CO2 have become more efficient?

Show your "evidence" that the graph is factually wrong.

It is fine up to the point where they tack on an instrumental record to a proxy record...sorry that you are so ignorant of the scientific method that you don't realize that is a no no...the record prior to that is on a scale where each inch (on a computer screen) represents 100,000 years...the end, from 1950 is putting 70 years worth of data in a space that represents about 1000 years on the rest of the graph...fraud is the word that describes it...or scientific malfeasance if you like.

The only fraud here is you.

Are we at 412+ PPM of CO2 or not?

Yes...we are...but what do you think that proves? When the ice age that the earth is presently coming out of began, CO2 was at about 1000ppm. Imagine that...an ice age starting with CO2 at 1000ppm, And if you go further back in history you will see ice ages beginning with CO2 levels higher than that. What does that say about your greenhouse hypothesis,.

We came out of the last ice age about 11,000 years ago, so where on the graph is 1000ppm of CO2?

Guess you don't understand the whole CO2 follows warming thing...The ice cores tell us that CO2 follows warming by about 800 years...It takes a while for the oceans to warm up enough to start out gassing significant quantities of CO2...

 

[SSDD]

What is so dramatic about the warming of the 20th century...I already provided you with a gold standard temperature reconstruction derived from the GISP2 ice cores from greenland which showed temperature changes far greater than any we have seen in a shorter period of time than we have seen...what exactly is dramatic about 20th century warming when compared to the past 10,000 years?

The alarming part is the increase in the last 50 years which is about double what it was for the last 100 years. I attribute that to China and India.

And that is alarming how? As you can see from the temperature reconstruction derived from the GISP2 ice core, the change we have seen in the past 50 years is insignificant compared to some of the changes that have happened over the past 10,000 years...both warmer and cooler...what we have seen is in no way unusual, and actually very small compared to some of the changes over the past 10,000 years.

So you're ok with having the same climatic conditions as the Roman Warming? How about the Jurassic? What would be the impact on our economy with a 20 ft sea level rise?

20 feet? Let see....20 feet that is about 6,096 mm. Sea level has been rising at a rate of about 3mm per year...at that rate, we will have 20 feet of sea level rise by about the year 4050...hysterical, handwaving, hyperventilating alarmist much?

Did you get that from your bullshit climate model?

I don't have a climate model...We know that sea level is increasing at a rate of about 3mm per year...in order to get 20 feet of sea level at 3mm per year, it is going to take a couple of thousand years....are you not able to even do the most simple sort of math...hell that was easier than balancing a check book...let me guess, your mom balances your check book for you...or maybe you don't even have a checking account...

 

[otto105]

So they changed the scale on the graph. Diabolical.

It is far more than changing the scale...it is outright fraud...

You are like an abused animal that still licks its master's hand....they lie to you...make you look like a fool, and you apologize for them....how pathetic is that?

You're like a confused fool who knows nothing. Clamping on to every global warming deniers goofed up theories while adamantly denying valid science. You clearly don't even know how the greenhouse effect even works.

Thus far, you haven't provided any valid science to support your line of bullshit...I have provided published paper after published paper, and work from NASA, NOAA, IPCC...etc etc etc to support my claims...all you have done is just make it up as you go...You also are like an abused dog who still licks his masters hand...They lie to you, make you look like a fool, and take advantage of your ignorance and what do you do? You apologize for them...how pathetic is that?

Organizations whose information you consistently deny and claim to be falsified. You can't have it both ways. You've denied even the possibility of the existence greenhouse effect. You're just an idiot.

There is decent information to be had in the material they publish in the literature which has been through the peer review process...unfortunately, people like you don't visit the actual scientific literature...you read the material from the propaganda arm of the organization and believe you are reading actual science...ignorance on parade.

Well then, post the organizations which have that "decent information" because so far today your 0 for 2.

 

[SSDD]

It is far more than changing the scale...it is outright fraud...

You are like an abused animal that still licks its master's hand....they lie to you...make you look like a fool, and you apologize for them....how pathetic is that?

You're like a confused fool who knows nothing. Clamping on to every global warming deniers goofed up theories while adamantly denying valid science. You clearly don't even know how the greenhouse effect even works.

Thus far, you haven't provided any valid science to support your line of bullshit...I have provided published paper after published paper, and work from NASA, NOAA, IPCC...etc etc etc to support my claims...all you have done is just make it up as you go...You also are like an abused dog who still licks his masters hand...They lie to you, make you look like a fool, and take advantage of your ignorance and what do you do? You apologize for them...how pathetic is that?

Organizations whose information you consistently deny and claim to be falsified. You can't have it both ways. You've denied even the possibility of the existence greenhouse effect. You're just an idiot.

There is decent information to be had in the material they publish in the literature which has been through the peer review process...unfortunately, people like you don't visit the actual scientific literature...you read the material from the propaganda arm of the organization and believe you are reading actual science...ignorance on parade.

You mean the place where they taught you that sea level rise always occurs at 3mm/year and never changes? Even after you called the GISP2 graph the "gold standard"? You're really stupid.

Sea level has been increasing at about 3mm per year for about a good long while now with no real indication that it is accelerating...the big sea level increases happened some while back... As you can see, at about 14,000 years ago sea level really started going and increased by about 300 feet...that much ice melted at the end of the glacial...Chicago was under 2 miles of ice at the time...and about 600 years ago it sort of leveled off and hasn't changed much since...it may vary by 1 mm a year or so, but not much beyond that... Anyone who claims otherwise is an alarmist with no evidence to support his claims.

 

[otto105]

So they changed the scale on the graph. Diabolical.

It is far more than changing the scale...it is outright fraud...

You are like an abused animal that still licks its master's hand....they lie to you...make you look like a fool, and you apologize for them....how pathetic is that?

You're like a confused fool who knows nothing. Clamping on to every global warming deniers goofed up theories while adamantly denying valid science. You clearly don't even know how the greenhouse effect even works.

Thus far, you haven't provided any valid science to support your line of bullshit...I have provided published paper after published paper, and work from NASA, NOAA, IPCC...etc etc etc to support my claims...all you have done is just make it up as you go...You also are like an abused dog who still licks his masters hand...They lie to you, make you look like a fool, and take advantage of your ignorance and what do you do? You apologize for them...how pathetic is that?

Now about your GISP2 "gold standard" when it is put thru a fact check.

Fact-check: What Greenland Ice Cores Say About Past and Present Climate Change


So, the "gold standard" cited by YOU is wrong. From one of the scientists that used the data set.

“So, what do we get from GISP2? Alone, not an immense amount. With the other Greenland ice cores… and compared to additional records from elsewhere, an immense amount… Using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible.”

So which are you?

guess you didn't look at any of his other graphs...they also showed that the present is cooler than most of the past 10,000 years...you guys are funny....sad and pathetic to..but funny.

You have made up information. The scientists who work with your "gold standard" state that Greenland is warmer now than any point over the last 2,000 years.

 

[SSDD]

It is far more than changing the scale...it is outright fraud...

You are like an abused animal that still licks its master's hand....they lie to you...make you look like a fool, and you apologize for them....how pathetic is that?

You're like a confused fool who knows nothing. Clamping on to every global warming deniers goofed up theories while adamantly denying valid science. You clearly don't even know how the greenhouse effect even works.

Thus far, you haven't provided any valid science to support your line of bullshit...I have provided published paper after published paper, and work from NASA, NOAA, IPCC...etc etc etc to support my claims...all you have done is just make it up as you go...You also are like an abused dog who still licks his masters hand...They lie to you, make you look like a fool, and take advantage of your ignorance and what do you do? You apologize for them...how pathetic is that?

Organizations whose information you consistently deny and claim to be falsified. You can't have it both ways. You've denied even the possibility of the existence greenhouse effect. You're just an idiot.

There is decent information to be had in the material they publish in the literature which has been through the peer review process...unfortunately, people like you don't visit the actual scientific literature...you read the material from the propaganda arm of the organization and believe you are reading actual science...ignorance on parade.

Well then, post the organizations which have that "decent information" because so far today your 0 for 2.

Sorry bulwinkle...feel free to look back through this conversation...one of us has supported every claim he has made with peer reviewed, published science...one of us hasn't provided jack that could actually support anything he has said...you have spent the past posts just making crap up and having it shot down with actual peer reviewed, published scientific literature...you have lost point after point after point and are just to stupid to stop digging a hole for yourself.

 

[Cosmos]

Show your "evidence" that the graph is factually wrong.

It is fine up to the point where they tack on an instrumental record to a proxy record...sorry that you are so ignorant of the scientific method that you don't realize that is a no no...the record prior to that is on a scale where each inch (on a computer screen) represents 100,000 years...the end, from 1950 is putting 70 years worth of data in a space that represents about 1000 years on the rest of the graph...fraud is the word that describes it...or scientific malfeasance if you like.

The only fraud here is you.

Are we at 412+ PPM of CO2 or not?

Yes...we are...but what do you think that proves? When the ice age that the earth is presently coming out of began, CO2 was at about 1000ppm. Imagine that...an ice age starting with CO2 at 1000ppm, And if you go further back in history you will see ice ages beginning with CO2 levels higher than that. What does that say about your greenhouse hypothesis,.

We came out of the last ice age about 11,000 years ago, so where on the graph is 1000ppm of CO2?

Guess you don't understand the whole CO2 follows warming thing...The ice cores tell us that CO2 follows warming by about 800 years...It takes a while for the oceans to warm up enough to start out gassing significant quantities of CO2...

Now they're saying it's more like 200 years. This would not be good. It's a dangerous cycle. When the oceans warm enough to begin releasing CO2 the global warming accelerates. Positive feedback.

 

[Cosmos]

The alarming part is the increase in the last 50 years which is about double what it was for the last 100 years. I attribute that to China and India.

And that is alarming how? As you can see from the temperature reconstruction derived from the GISP2 ice core, the change we have seen in the past 50 years is insignificant compared to some of the changes that have happened over the past 10,000 years...both warmer and cooler...what we have seen is in no way unusual, and actually very small compared to some of the changes over the past 10,000 years.

So you're ok with having the same climatic conditions as the Roman Warming? How about the Jurassic? What would be the impact on our economy with a 20 ft sea level rise?

20 feet? Let see....20 feet that is about 6,096 mm. Sea level has been rising at a rate of about 3mm per year...at that rate, we will have 20 feet of sea level rise by about the year 4050...hysterical, handwaving, hyperventilating alarmist much?

Did you get that from your bullshit climate model?

I don't have a climate model...We know that sea level is increasing at a rate of about 3mm per year...in order to get 20 feet of sea level at 3mm per year, it is going to take a couple of thousand years....are you not able to even do the most simple sort of math...hell that was easier than balancing a check book...let me guess, your mom balances your check book for you...or maybe you don't even have a checking account...

Based on your nitwit linear extrapolation. No reason to believe that is true.

 

[otto105]

You're like a confused fool who knows nothing. Clamping on to every global warming deniers goofed up theories while adamantly denying valid science. You clearly don't even know how the greenhouse effect even works.

Thus far, you haven't provided any valid science to support your line of bullshit...I have provided published paper after published paper, and work from NASA, NOAA, IPCC...etc etc etc to support my claims...all you have done is just make it up as you go...You also are like an abused dog who still licks his masters hand...They lie to you, make you look like a fool, and take advantage of your ignorance and what do you do? You apologize for them...how pathetic is that?

Organizations whose information you consistently deny and claim to be falsified. You can't have it both ways. You've denied even the possibility of the existence greenhouse effect. You're just an idiot.

There is decent information to be had in the material they publish in the literature which has been through the peer review process...unfortunately, people like you don't visit the actual scientific literature...you read the material from the propaganda arm of the organization and believe you are reading actual science...ignorance on parade.

You mean the place where they taught you that sea level rise always occurs at 3mm/year and never changes? Even after you called the GISP2 graph the "gold standard"? You're really stupid.

Sea level has been increasing at about 3mm per year for about a good long while now with no real indication that it is accelerating...the big sea level increases happened some while back... As you can see, at about 14,000 years ago sea level really started going and increased by about 300 feet...that much ice melted at the end of the glacial...Chicago was under 2 miles of ice at the time...and about 600 years ago it sort of leveled off and hasn't changed much since...it may vary by 1 mm a year or so, but not much beyond that... Anyone who claims otherwise is an alarmist with no evidence to support his claims.

Misleading or wrong again.

From NASA.
"Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century and is accelerating slightly every year."

Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era


Refute that.

 

[Cosmos]

You're like a confused fool who knows nothing. Clamping on to every global warming deniers goofed up theories while adamantly denying valid science. You clearly don't even know how the greenhouse effect even works.

Thus far, you haven't provided any valid science to support your line of bullshit...I have provided published paper after published paper, and work from NASA, NOAA, IPCC...etc etc etc to support my claims...all you have done is just make it up as you go...You also are like an abused dog who still licks his masters hand...They lie to you, make you look like a fool, and take advantage of your ignorance and what do you do? You apologize for them...how pathetic is that?

Organizations whose information you consistently deny and claim to be falsified. You can't have it both ways. You've denied even the possibility of the existence greenhouse effect. You're just an idiot.

There is decent information to be had in the material they publish in the literature which has been through the peer review process...unfortunately, people like you don't visit the actual scientific literature...you read the material from the propaganda arm of the organization and believe you are reading actual science...ignorance on parade.

Well then, post the organizations which have that "decent information" because so far today your 0 for 2.

Sorry bulwinkle...feel free to look back through this conversation...one of us has supported every claim he has made with peer reviewed, published science...one of us hasn't provided jack that could actually support anything he has said...you have spent the past posts just making crap up and having it shot down with actual peer reviewed, published scientific literature...you have lost point after point after point and are just to stupid to stop digging a hole for yourself.

You don't have the first clue about climate science. All you know about any of those papers is that google listed them under "dumbass global warming deniers central".

 

[SSDD]

It is far more than changing the scale...it is outright fraud...

You are like an abused animal that still licks its master's hand....they lie to you...make you look like a fool, and you apologize for them....how pathetic is that?

You're like a confused fool who knows nothing. Clamping on to every global warming deniers goofed up theories while adamantly denying valid science. You clearly don't even know how the greenhouse effect even works.

Thus far, you haven't provided any valid science to support your line of bullshit...I have provided published paper after published paper, and work from NASA, NOAA, IPCC...etc etc etc to support my claims...all you have done is just make it up as you go...You also are like an abused dog who still licks his masters hand...They lie to you, make you look like a fool, and take advantage of your ignorance and what do you do? You apologize for them...how pathetic is that?

Now about your GISP2 "gold standard" when it is put thru a fact check.

Fact-check: What Greenland Ice Cores Say About Past and Present Climate Change


So, the "gold standard" cited by YOU is wrong. From one of the scientists that used the data set.

“So, what do we get from GISP2? Alone, not an immense amount. With the other Greenland ice cores… and compared to additional records from elsewhere, an immense amount… Using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible.”

So which are you?

guess you didn't look at any of his other graphs...they also showed that the present is cooler than most of the past 10,000 years...you guys are funny....sad and pathetic to..but funny.

You have made up information. The scientists who work with your "gold standard" state that Greenland is warmer now than any point over the last 2,000 years.

And when you look

It is far more than changing the scale...it is outright fraud...

You are like an abused animal that still licks its master's hand....they lie to you...make you look like a fool, and you apologize for them....how pathetic is that?

You're like a confused fool who knows nothing. Clamping on to every global warming deniers goofed up theories while adamantly denying valid science. You clearly don't even know how the greenhouse effect even works.

Thus far, you haven't provided any valid science to support your line of bullshit...I have provided published paper after published paper, and work from NASA, NOAA, IPCC...etc etc etc to support my claims...all you have done is just make it up as you go...You also are like an abused dog who still licks his masters hand...They lie to you, make you look like a fool, and take advantage of your ignorance and what do you do? You apologize for them...how pathetic is that?

Now about your GISP2 "gold standard" when it is put thru a fact check.

Fact-check: What Greenland Ice Cores Say About Past and Present Climate Change


So, the "gold standard" cited by YOU is wrong. From one of the scientists that used the data set.

“So, what do we get from GISP2? Alone, not an immense amount. With the other Greenland ice cores… and compared to additional records from elsewhere, an immense amount… Using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible.”

So which are you?

guess you didn't look at any of his other graphs...they also showed that the present is cooler than most of the past 10,000 years...you guys are funny....sad and pathetic to..but funny.

You have made up information. The scientists who work with your "gold standard" state that Greenland is warmer now than any point over the last 2,000 years.

You are really a goob aren't you? First off, Desmog is just a blog...it isn't scientific literature..it is just a blog...What i have provided is peer reviewed, published science.. you can't even recognize the difference between a f'ing blog and real science...pack it in, at this point, you are just making yourself look stupid... Here is an amalgamation of all the greenland ice cores...slightly different from the ones I provided, but then it is composed of multiple ice cores..

 

[denmark]

With your “anyone with even basic knowledge could tear that paper down” comment, why don’t you vindicate yourself and submit your superior rebuttal to a scientific journal? They would love good scientific arguments!
Let us know what happens, if you dare ...

No need...the work has already been done...I suppose whoever gives you your opinion never mentioned that literally thousands of papers have been published in recent years that are skeptical of the "consensus" view promoted by alarmist scientists, environmentalist activists, and politicians...There is little that I could say that hasn't already been published... The consensus is coming apart before your very eyes if you bother to look at the published literature....you clearly don't...you get your opinions spoon fed to you by someone with a political agenda who doesn't bother to tell you about the sheer volume of papers being published, using empirical evidence as opposed to models which don't jibe with the consensus...

So, with your (or your political group’s) expertise on this subject, why don’t you further your denials with a rebuttal to the journal’s author mentioned here by Forkup who wrote
“I will document these compelling observa- tional evidence for the link between chemical pollution, increase in green- house gases and global surface warming.These empirical data lead us to conclude that the observed increase in the greenhouse gases is sufficient to ultimately warm the planet by more than 2°C during this century.”

I don’t pretend to be an expert in this field, but if you are, go ahead & prove it not only in this non-technical forum, but a real scientific one!
Let us know how you do ... LOL

Turned out that he had no evidence other than that he was easily fooled by instrumentation and perfectly willing to hang great big assumptions on observed data...there was nothing there...but like I said...is always interesting to see what passes for evidence in the minds of hand waving hysterics.

Was that your rebuttal to that journal?
No wonder you have nothing published in a scientific journal.

Logical fallacy all you have? I already responded to that "paper" published by the vatican...feel free to review my response....it is back there somewhere.

I already said that I’m not an expert in this field, but I’m interested in what published experts would say to your rebuttal comments. If you are confident your rebuttal would survive expert scrutiny, then prove it. Submit your comments to that vatican journal, or any journal that publishes climate science research ... or rebuttals.
Let us know the results. However, I doubt you will submit your rebuttals to experts.

 

[SSDD]

Thus far, you haven't provided any valid science to support your line of bullshit...I have provided published paper after published paper, and work from NASA, NOAA, IPCC...etc etc etc to support my claims...all you have done is just make it up as you go...You also are like an abused dog who still licks his masters hand...They lie to you, make you look like a fool, and take advantage of your ignorance and what do you do? You apologize for them...how pathetic is that?

Organizations whose information you consistently deny and claim to be falsified. You can't have it both ways. You've denied even the possibility of the existence greenhouse effect. You're just an idiot.

There is decent information to be had in the material they publish in the literature which has been through the peer review process...unfortunately, people like you don't visit the actual scientific literature...you read the material from the propaganda arm of the organization and believe you are reading actual science...ignorance on parade.

You mean the place where they taught you that sea level rise always occurs at 3mm/year and never changes? Even after you called the GISP2 graph the "gold standard"? You're really stupid.

Sea level has been increasing at about 3mm per year for about a good long while now with no real indication that it is accelerating...the big sea level increases happened some while back... As you can see, at about 14,000 years ago sea level really started going and increased by about 300 feet...that much ice melted at the end of the glacial...Chicago was under 2 miles of ice at the time...and about 600 years ago it sort of leveled off and hasn't changed much since...it may vary by 1 mm a year or so, but not much beyond that... Anyone who claims otherwise is an alarmist with no evidence to support his claims.

Misleading or wrong again.

From NASA.
"Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century and is accelerating slightly every year."

Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era


Refute that.

Sorry...its bullshit...they adjusted a hundred years worth of sea level when they went to satellites and the oldest tide gages in the world...several hundred years worth of records don't agree with the adjustments...

 

[Cosmos]

You're like a confused fool who knows nothing. Clamping on to every global warming deniers goofed up theories while adamantly denying valid science. You clearly don't even know how the greenhouse effect even works.

Thus far, you haven't provided any valid science to support your line of bullshit...I have provided published paper after published paper, and work from NASA, NOAA, IPCC...etc etc etc to support my claims...all you have done is just make it up as you go...You also are like an abused dog who still licks his masters hand...They lie to you, make you look like a fool, and take advantage of your ignorance and what do you do? You apologize for them...how pathetic is that?

Now about your GISP2 "gold standard" when it is put thru a fact check.

Fact-check: What Greenland Ice Cores Say About Past and Present Climate Change


So, the "gold standard" cited by YOU is wrong. From one of the scientists that used the data set.

“So, what do we get from GISP2? Alone, not an immense amount. With the other Greenland ice cores… and compared to additional records from elsewhere, an immense amount… Using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible.”

So which are you?

guess you didn't look at any of his other graphs...they also showed that the present is cooler than most of the past 10,000 years...you guys are funny....sad and pathetic to..but funny.

You have made up information. The scientists who work with your "gold standard" state that Greenland is warmer now than any point over the last 2,000 years.

And when you look

You're like a confused fool who knows nothing. Clamping on to every global warming deniers goofed up theories while adamantly denying valid science. You clearly don't even know how the greenhouse effect even works.

Thus far, you haven't provided any valid science to support your line of bullshit...I have provided published paper after published paper, and work from NASA, NOAA, IPCC...etc etc etc to support my claims...all you have done is just make it up as you go...You also are like an abused dog who still licks his masters hand...They lie to you, make you look like a fool, and take advantage of your ignorance and what do you do? You apologize for them...how pathetic is that?

Now about your GISP2 "gold standard" when it is put thru a fact check.

Fact-check: What Greenland Ice Cores Say About Past and Present Climate Change


So, the "gold standard" cited by YOU is wrong. From one of the scientists that used the data set.

“So, what do we get from GISP2? Alone, not an immense amount. With the other Greenland ice cores… and compared to additional records from elsewhere, an immense amount… Using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible.”

So which are you?

guess you didn't look at any of his other graphs...they also showed that the present is cooler than most of the past 10,000 years...you guys are funny....sad and pathetic to..but funny.

You have made up information. The scientists who work with your "gold standard" state that Greenland is warmer now than any point over the last 2,000 years.

You are really a goob aren't you? First off, Desmog is just a blog...it isn't scientific literature..it is just a blog...What i have provided is peer reviewed, published science.. you can't even recognize the difference between a f'ing blog and real science...pack it in, at this point, you are just making yourself look stupid... Here is an amalgamation of all the greenland ice cores...slightly different from the ones I provided, but then it is composed of multiple ice cores..

You dumbass. It isn't the current temperature that matters. It's the rate of change, which is unprecedented.

 

[SSDD]

Thus far, you haven't provided any valid science to support your line of bullshit...I have provided published paper after published paper, and work from NASA, NOAA, IPCC...etc etc etc to support my claims...all you have done is just make it up as you go...You also are like an abused dog who still licks his masters hand...They lie to you, make you look like a fool, and take advantage of your ignorance and what do you do? You apologize for them...how pathetic is that?

Organizations whose information you consistently deny and claim to be falsified. You can't have it both ways. You've denied even the possibility of the existence greenhouse effect. You're just an idiot.

There is decent information to be had in the material they publish in the literature which has been through the peer review process...unfortunately, people like you don't visit the actual scientific literature...you read the material from the propaganda arm of the organization and believe you are reading actual science...ignorance on parade.

Well then, post the organizations which have that "decent information" because so far today your 0 for 2.

Sorry bulwinkle...feel free to look back through this conversation...one of us has supported every claim he has made with peer reviewed, published science...one of us hasn't provided jack that could actually support anything he has said...you have spent the past posts just making crap up and having it shot down with actual peer reviewed, published scientific literature...you have lost point after point after point and are just to stupid to stop digging a hole for yourself.

You don't have the first clue about climate science. All you know about any of those papers is that google listed them under "dumbass global warming deniers central".

Sorry guy...thus far, you have just been making it up as you go...which is why I have been able to provide peer reviewed published science to call bullshit on everything you have said...alas, it is you who is clueless and it doesn't look like you are getting any smarter as time goes by..

 

[otto105]

Organizations whose information you consistently deny and claim to be falsified. You can't have it both ways. You've denied even the possibility of the existence greenhouse effect. You're just an idiot.

There is decent information to be had in the material they publish in the literature which has been through the peer review process...unfortunately, people like you don't visit the actual scientific literature...you read the material from the propaganda arm of the organization and believe you are reading actual science...ignorance on parade.

You mean the place where they taught you that sea level rise always occurs at 3mm/year and never changes? Even after you called the GISP2 graph the "gold standard"? You're really stupid.

Sea level has been increasing at about 3mm per year for about a good long while now with no real indication that it is accelerating...the big sea level increases happened some while back... As you can see, at about 14,000 years ago sea level really started going and increased by about 300 feet...that much ice melted at the end of the glacial...Chicago was under 2 miles of ice at the time...and about 600 years ago it sort of leveled off and hasn't changed much since...it may vary by 1 mm a year or so, but not much beyond that... Anyone who claims otherwise is an alarmist with no evidence to support his claims.

Misleading or wrong again.

From NASA.
"Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century and is accelerating slightly every year."

Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era


Refute that.

Sorry...its bullshit...they adjusted a hundred years worth of sea level when they went to satellites and the oldest tide gages in the world...several hundred years worth of records don't agree with the adjustments...

What adjustments are ranting about exactly.

 

[SSDD]

Thus far, you haven't provided any valid science to support your line of bullshit...I have provided published paper after published paper, and work from NASA, NOAA, IPCC...etc etc etc to support my claims...all you have done is just make it up as you go...You also are like an abused dog who still licks his masters hand...They lie to you, make you look like a fool, and take advantage of your ignorance and what do you do? You apologize for them...how pathetic is that?

Now about your GISP2 "gold standard" when it is put thru a fact check.

Fact-check: What Greenland Ice Cores Say About Past and Present Climate Change


So, the "gold standard" cited by YOU is wrong. From one of the scientists that used the data set.

“So, what do we get from GISP2? Alone, not an immense amount. With the other Greenland ice cores… and compared to additional records from elsewhere, an immense amount… Using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible.”

So which are you?

guess you didn't look at any of his other graphs...they also showed that the present is cooler than most of the past 10,000 years...you guys are funny....sad and pathetic to..but funny.

You have made up information. The scientists who work with your "gold standard" state that Greenland is warmer now than any point over the last 2,000 years.

And when you look

Thus far, you haven't provided any valid science to support your line of bullshit...I have provided published paper after published paper, and work from NASA, NOAA, IPCC...etc etc etc to support my claims...all you have done is just make it up as you go...You also are like an abused dog who still licks his masters hand...They lie to you, make you look like a fool, and take advantage of your ignorance and what do you do? You apologize for them...how pathetic is that?

Now about your GISP2 "gold standard" when it is put thru a fact check.

Fact-check: What Greenland Ice Cores Say About Past and Present Climate Change


So, the "gold standard" cited by YOU is wrong. From one of the scientists that used the data set.

“So, what do we get from GISP2? Alone, not an immense amount. With the other Greenland ice cores… and compared to additional records from elsewhere, an immense amount… Using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible.”

So which are you?

guess you didn't look at any of his other graphs...they also showed that the present is cooler than most of the past 10,000 years...you guys are funny....sad and pathetic to..but funny.

You have made up information. The scientists who work with your "gold standard" state that Greenland is warmer now than any point over the last 2,000 years.

You are really a goob aren't you? First off, Desmog is just a blog...it isn't scientific literature..it is just a blog...What i have provided is peer reviewed, published science.. you can't even recognize the difference between a f'ing blog and real science...pack it in, at this point, you are just making yourself look stupid... Here is an amalgamation of all the greenland ice cores...slightly different from the ones I provided, but then it is composed of multiple ice cores..

You dumbass. It isn't the current temperature that matters. It's the rate of change, which is unprecedented.

Sorry but it isn't....what's the matter...can't read a graph? If you could, you would see that the amount of change, and the rate of change have been far greater than anything we have seen multiple times over the past 10,000 years....what's the matter? Aren't you smart enough to even read a simple graph?