So if the globe isn't warming..why are you calling it global warming?

[SSDD]

Coming back to the unpleasant reality that all the conspiracy-addled deniers are trying so hard to avoid ...

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: February 2017 was second-warmest February on record

Golly. Only the second hottest February ever for February 2017 (+1.1C), only falling behind February 2016 (+1.3C).

And that was on the tail end of a weak La Nina in 2017, compared to being part of an El Nino in 2016.

That is, the strong global warming continues. And it will keep continuing for years, and the deniers here will keep looking more ridiculous.

Only if you look at the heavily manipulated global record which is made up largely of infilling...look at individual regions across the globe and you don't find such warming...that's because the warmest "EVAH" claims are just more fake science produced to make fake news.

 

[mamooth]

Only if you look at the heavily manipulated global record which is made up largely of infilling...

No, "infilling" is a crap buzzword that the most desperate and dishonest cultists toss out to deflect from the fact that all the data says they're lying.

What, you thought it wasn't obvious?

We get it. The point of your lies isn't to convince anyone, because even you know better than that. The point of it is to show how loyal to the cult you are. If you're humiliated for it, so much the better, as that demonstrates how you're willing to suffer for the cult, earning you major cult brownie points. And being that your cult is composed of mentally unstable people and violent people, you do need to keep on the good side of your fellow cultists.

 

[SSDD]

Nah...infilling is the means of having the hottest year evah year after year even if it is only by hundredths of a degree... Its all fake all the time with you glassy eyed chanting cultists..

 

[mamooth]

Nah...infilling is the means of having the hottest year evah year after year even if it is only by hundredths of a degree...

Yes, that's your conspiracy. You've never backed it up, and never will.

No, your propaganda images are not actual evidence. You have no actual evidence, and never will, because it's just a loopy conspiracy theory your cult created.

 

[SSDD]

Nah...infilling is the means of having the hottest year evah year after year even if it is only by hundredths of a degree...

Yes, that's your conspiracy. You've never backed it up, and never will.

No, your propaganda images are not actual evidence. You have no actual evidence, and never will, because it's just a loopy conspiracy theory your cult created.

Of course I did...you are just to damned stupid to recognize the truth when you see it...bitterness and lies are all you revere.

 

[Crick]

Throwing up a picture of land data only (clearly labeled as such) is probably not the best way to pull off the lie that neither the 3,980 ARGO buoys currently deployed

nor the several satellites currently gathering data

aren't.

Over and over again you show yourself to be a blatant liar.

 

[jc456]

What you don't seem to grasp is that you are describing the state of mainstream climate science...

LOLOLOLOLOL.......no, SSoooDDumb, the sane people can grasp that fact quite well......it is you delusional denier cult dumbasses who reject science and deny the science and evidence based conclusions of "mainstream climate science" because of your crackpot political and economic ideological obsessions that have nothing to do with science.

I am still waiting on that first shred of observed, measured, quantified,empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis...and neither you, nor all of climate science can deliver.

You're only "still waiting", you poor retarded stooge, because you've closed your eyes to the hundreds of times you've been shown the scientific evidence supporting the reality of AGW.....and you do that because you are a crackpot cultist in a astroturfed cult of reality denial, sponsored by the Koch brothers and EXXON, and the facts and evidence demolish your fraudulent cultic dogmas. Which you're too stupid to realize.
***

Meanwhile, the globe continues to rapidly warm up in response to the 46% increase (to date) in a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2,....and scientists and sane people continue to call it 'global warming', as scientists have been doing continuously since 1975.

says the guy who uses words like consensus as science words.

 

[jc456]

Only if you look at the heavily manipulated global record which is made up largely of infilling...

No, "infilling" is a crap buzzword that the most desperate and dishonest cultists toss out to deflect from the fact that all the data says they're lying.

What, you thought it wasn't obvious?

We get it. The point of your lies isn't to convince anyone, because even you know better than that. The point of it is to show how loyal to the cult you are. If you're humiliated for it, so much the better, as that demonstrates how you're willing to suffer for the cult, earning you major cult brownie points. And being that your cult is composed of mentally unstable people and violent people, you do need to keep on the good side of your fellow cultists.

no, infilling is exactly what is done and was confirmed by the NOAA:

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records
" Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas): “I thank Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion. In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference."

 

[Rambunctious]

 

[RollingThunder]

What you don't seem to grasp is that you are describing the state of mainstream climate science...

LOLOLOLOLOL.......no, SSoooDDumb, the sane people can grasp that fact quite well......it is you delusional denier cult dumbasses who reject science and deny the science and evidence based conclusions of "mainstream climate science" because of your crackpot political and economic ideological obsessions that have nothing to do with science.

I am still waiting on that first shred of observed, measured, quantified,empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis...and neither you, nor all of climate science can deliver.

You're only "still waiting", you poor retarded stooge, because you've closed your eyes to the hundreds of times you've been shown the scientific evidence supporting the reality of AGW.....and you do that because you are a crackpot cultist in a astroturfed cult of reality denial, sponsored by the Koch brothers and EXXON, and the facts and evidence demolish your fraudulent cultic dogmas. Which you're too stupid to realize.
***

Meanwhile, the globe continues to rapidly warm up in response to the 46% increase (to date) in a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2,....and scientists and sane people continue to call it 'global warming', as scientists have been doing continuously since 1975.

says the guy who uses words like consensus as science words.

Well, yeah, dumbass, because 'consensus' is, in fact, a word commonly used in science. It is only your loony cult of reality denial that has demonized the word for you cult members.....simply because the worldwide scientific consensus on human caused global warming is, almost unanimously, that it is very real and poses enormous dangers to our human civilizations and our planet's ecology and biosphere. Too bad you are too stupid and brainwashed to be able to recognize that fact, SSoooDDumb.

In the real world......

Scientific consensus
Wikipedia
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2] On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.

Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution[3][4] or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.[2]

Politicization of science
Main article: Politicization of science

In public policy debates, the assertion that there exists a consensus of scientists in a particular field is often used as an argument for the validity of a theory and as support for a course of action by those who stand to gain from a policy based on that consensus. Similarly arguments for a lack of scientific consensus are often encouraged by sides who stand to gain from a more ambiguous policy.

For example, the scientific consensus on the causes of global warming is that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[8][9][10] The historian of science Naomi Oreskes published an article in Science reporting that a survey of the abstracts of 928 science articles published between 1993 and 2003 showed none which disagreed explicitly with the notion of anthropogenic global warming.[11] In an editorial published in the Washington Post, Oreskes stated that those who opposed these scientific findings are amplifying the normal range of scientific uncertainty about any facts into an appearance that there is a great scientific disagreement, or a lack of scientific consensus.[12] Oreskes's findings were replicated by other methods that require no interpretation.[2]

The theory of evolution through natural selection is also supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus; it is one of the most reliable and empirically tested theories in science.[13][14] Opponents of evolution claim that there is significant dissent on evolution within the scientific community.[15] The wedge strategy, a plan to promote intelligent design, depended greatly on seeding and building on public perceptions of absence of consensus on evolution.[16]

The inherent uncertainty in science, where theories are never proven but can only be disproven (see falsifiability), poses a problem for politicians, policymakers, lawyers, and business professionals. Where scientific or philosophical questions can often languish in uncertainty for decades within their disciplinary settings, policymakers are faced with the problems of making sound decisions based on the currently available data, even if it is likely not a final form of the "truth". The tricky part is discerning what is close enough to "final truth". For example, social action against smoking probably came too long after science was 'pretty consensual'.[2]

Certain domains, such as the approval of certain technologies for public consumption, can have vast and far-reaching political, economic, and human effects should things run awry of the predictions of scientists. However, insofar as there is an expectation that policy in a given field reflect knowable and pertinent data and well-accepted models of the relationships between observable phenomena, there is little good alternative for policy makers than to rely on so much of what may fairly be called 'the scientific consensus' in guiding policy design and implementation, at least in circumstances where the need for policy intervention is compelling. While science cannot supply 'absolute truth' (or even its complement 'absolute error') its utility is bound up with the capacity to guide policy in the direction of increased public good and away from public harm. Seen in this way, the demand that policy rely only on what is proven to be "scientific truth" would be a prescription for policy paralysis and amount in practice to advocacy of acceptance of all of the quantified and unquantified costs and risks associated with policy inaction.[2]

No part of policy formation on the basis of the ostensible scientific consensus precludes persistent review either of the relevant scientific consensus or the tangible results of policy. Indeed, the same reasons that drove reliance upon the consensus drives the continued evaluation of this reliance over time – and adjusting policy as needed.

 

[SSDD]

Funny thunder..you post that bullshit as if you actually believe it...hell, maybe you do...although if you do, I wouldn't admit it if I were you..

 

[miketx]

I can't think of any facts with which I've ever been aquatinted. But you are getting better at lying. You know it, I know it and everyone who read your last piece knows it.

Goodness! Another liberal pretending to speak for everyone.

 

[RollingThunder]

Funny thunder..you post that bullshit as if you actually believe it...hell, maybe you do...although if you do, I wouldn't admit it if I were you..

You continue to moronically deny science like an utter retard, SSoooDDumb, just for the sake of your crackpot far-rightwingnut political and economic ideologies. You are such a deluded ludicrous fool.

And BTW, the "globe" IS warming.....

Anomaly of global mean March surface temperature from 1891 through 2016, relative to a 1981-2010 base period average, shown by gray line and dots. The blue line denotes a five-year running mean while the red line indicates the long-term March temperature trend. (Japan Meteorological Agency)

 

[miketx]

Personal attacks when cornered and cartoon drawings are all you can come up with?

 

[RollingThunder]

Personal attacks when cornered and cartoon drawings are all you can come up with?

Idiotic anti-science denier cult drivel is all you can come up with? "Sad".

 

[SSDD]

Sorry thunder...some places are warming slightly...others are cooling...some are static..the "globe" is only warming in computer models and tortured global data sets.

 

[RollingThunder]

Sorry thunder...some places are warming slightly...others are cooling...some are static..the "globe" is only warming in computer models and tortured global data sets.

That's your denier cult insanity.....like flat-earthers insisting that humans never landed on the moon.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry thunder...some places are warming slightly...others are cooling...some are static..the "globe" is only warming in computer models and tortured global data sets.

That's your denier cult insanity.....like flat-earthers insisting that humans never landed on the moon.

That's all you have thunder?....made up arguments...when did I ever say humans never landed on the moon? The fact is that the "globe" isn't warming...when you look at regional records, you see a few places warming...a few cooling, but mostly the temps are static..the only place the whole globe is warming is in computer models and the highly manipulated global record...

Again...

Not warming in Antarctica

Not warming in the North Pacifiic

Not warming in Iceland

Not warming in France

Not warming in Turkey

Not warming in Scotland

Not warming in the North Atlantic

Ocean heat content is decreasing

So tell me thunder...where is it warming?

 

[mamooth]

So tell me thunder...where is it warming?

Everywhere that you didn't cherrypick from.

Do you really think your dishonest cherrypicking fools anyone?

 

[SSDD]

So tell me thunder...where is it warming?

Everywhere that you didn't cherrypick from.

Do you really think your dishonest cherrypicking fools anyone?

Really?

It isn't warming in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

It isn't warming in Tanzania

It isn't warming in Uganda

Doesn't seem to be warming in New Zealand

And it could go on and on....look at regional records and you see some warming, some cooling, and some static...the idea of "global warming" is just fake news.