No it doesn't. You are someone who knowingly (I believe it is knowingly which btw is what makes you despicable in my book), gets information from right wing sites, most if not all funded by entities like the oil industry. And you throw up 15 different hack claims hoping to bigfoot people away. It's a diversion tactic.
ROFLMAO... you post from SALON and THINK PROGRESS... I posted from the NOAA. Thanks for again proving what a complete hack you are, not to mention what a complete fool you are.
Your claims about hurricanes has been completely debunked. So you resort to the standard parroting of 'uz only uzing right wing sites funded by big oil'...
Seriously... cannot stop laughing at your complete stupidity.
So let's take one of your nonsense claims. Let's start with your nonsense claim that the earth has not warmed in 10 years "proving' that global climate change is not happening.
Dearest Darla... I stated quite clearly that there is no statistically significant warming for at least ten years.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Again... the actual DATA to prove you wrong. Note 1998, note 2011 (the last complete year)
A lot of this shit gets birthed over in Tom's part of the world - England where it is vomitted up in the Daily Male. That is what happened here. A hack climate denier claimed that a UK Met office report "proved" that global warming stopped. The UK Met office came out and debunked him, but his bs spread anyway. Here is what the deniers like SF do in order to spread bad information about this; as the UK Met office explained, it is "absurd" to look at a cherry picked period that includes an exceptionally strong double dip El Nino.
LMAO... it is quite funny how nature's effect is highlighted when the models get all fucked up to the down side, but if there is an increase it must be due to man. So lets get the fear mongering story correct, temps go down... nature did it... temps go up... man did it.
Is that the gist of your argument Darla?
They further explained that choosing any starting or end point on hand-picked scales is very misleading, and climate change can only be detected from multiple-decade time scales.
Please explain to us how a period of 150 years or so (which is the data set the fear mongers always use) needs multiple DECADES for 'man made climate change to be detected'.
The fact that you don't understand statistics shows why that ignorant line of crap works on you. But if you can, again, show us the mathematical rationale for your claim above.
I will not be holding my breath.
This is one of the biggest lies the denier filth spread. You can debunk it 100 million time, I have seen others on this very board debunk it to SF...doesn't matter. The filth keep spreading it. They know it's wrong.
Wrong again Darla. They have not debunked it. Not in the least. That is yet more of your imaginary bullshit. Better look out your window again, I think the climate is changing as we speak.
My goodnes even a Koch-funded shocker report (certainly shocked the shit out of the kochs!) finding that climate change is real, and man made, didn't stop the filth.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/
So lets see... if Koch brothers post something you like, it is acceptable, if not then you shout 'big oil is da evilz'???
Can't help but notice that study is referring to 'land temps', not global temps. Two thirds of the planet is covered in what?
Funny how that works. Can't believe you harp on big oil produced studies being evil and then use a big oil produced study you think proves your case, yet doesn't.
Again dearest Darla... take a look at the study you cited... note that for the past decade plus... the temps stagnate? It is right there in the very study you thought proved your case. Seriously, do you actually read anything to educate yourself or do you just chirp away the latest from Salon and ThinkProgress?
I suppose you missed where he stated.... " It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed.
Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous. "
How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does.
But still the human filth deniers kept right on trucking. I mean, it is really disgusting. We are talking about death and destruction the scale of which most of us can't imagine. THe young uns posting here - some of you will die from this. You will.
Again... simply more FEAR MONGERING from you. You are basing this on nothing but the fear your masters have instilled in you. You are a shill, nothing more. It is quite sad. Not one honest bone in your body.
