Pinheads conned.....
- Thread starter NOVA
- Start date
That's ridiculous, SF. You're taking an outlier and saying it establishes the trend when the real trend is abundantly clear -- increasing global temperatures.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
1) The contention is that MAN is causing global warming via CO2 increases. CO2 has continued to rise, yet temps have not. This blows up the fear mongers models.
2) You are comical. You select a chart that shows from 1961 to present. Why not look back at 400,000 years? Why is your selection somehow valid, yet looking at the past decade plus is not? It has clearly flatlined the past 14 years. Yet according to the fear mongers, this should not have happened. Look back at the charts on the link I provided. Tell us what you see Dung.
I'm not interested in arguing this point with you. I'd rather eat a bowl of fingernail clippings with a side of hair.
Looking at the past ten years, in the context of global temperature is simply too narrow a window to get a sense of the trend. The trend is a gradual increase in global temperatures and it's unmistakable. I'm open to people arguing that temperature increases are not the result of human activity because there is opinion involved, but the argument that temperatures are not increasing is nonsense. It's just not true.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I understand. It can't be pleasant for you to be stuck on the losing side of a debate, yet still clinging to your position like a fat person on a cracker at fat camp.
ROFLMAO... yet 100 years is a wide look? Like I stated, look at the past 400k years and tell us what you see.
1) No one is arguing that there haven't been temp increases in the last 50 years. There have been.
2) What we ARE arguing is the fear mongers contention that MAN is causing it due primarily to increased levels of CO2. THAT has been blown out of the water. Their models are trashed, yet they continue to shout consensus and propagate the false information.
3) The 'trend' according to YOUR cherry picked time frame is a gradual increase. Which is why I mocked you. YOU whine about my looking at the past 14 years and discussing the trend over that time frame. When at the same time you are taking a very small time frame relative to the whole and pretending that is the be all end all.
FARGLE BARGLE.
I actually think the relevant window is the time that current population centers were first established. The past 400k years is far too long. Human habitation was quite limited. The issue is whether current human population and development can exist in a world that is hotter than it has been in the recent history of the human race.
The chart I used was merely to illustrate the hilarity of the chart the Daily Mail put together. I wasn't offering it as a general defense of AGW. I'm sorry if you viewed it that way.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
The smartest thing you have said all day.
No, that is not the question when discussing AGW.
Yet again you showed a similarly short period of time with your chart, just because it was a longer period of time than their chart does not add validity to yours nor does it detract from theirs. The trend over the past decade has been flat. Over the past 60 years it has been rising. Over the past 400,000 flat. The trend is going to depend entirely on the amount of time used as you know. Showing a shorter trend doesn't make it invalid. I look at charts daily for the markets. We constantly look at the short, intermediate and long term trends. They each can tell different stories. It is knowing what each is telling you that matters.
Thank you.
Well, good. I'm not discussing AGW.
The trend over the past decade is consistently higher temperatures than last decade, which was consistently higher than the preceding decade, which was consistently higher than the preceding decade.
As for that stuff about different charts telling different stories, if you took my post as a criticism of short term charts in general, well, you're a fucking idiot. For the particular question at issue, "has the trend of increasing global temperature ended," a chart that starts at 1997 isn't a good one.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Just out of curiosity, why don't you want to discuss AGW? Is it because of all of the bs propaganda that is out?
It's just one of those issues where the two sides are firmly entrenched and nothing of value is gained in discussing it with a denialist. It's just no fun. You could have God magically appear in the form of a reincarnated Ronald Reagan and inform the world that AGW is real and SF and others like him will say that the warmers put him up to it. No thanks.
I waded into this thread because the fact of warming has long been established and I think it's funny when people try to pretend it isn't. There's no opinion involved here. Its a basic fact. The people who claim otherwise should be laughed at. AGW has a degree of opinion involved and I'm not prepared to say that the naysayers should laughed at, although I think they're 100% wrong.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
You make sense, I am reading a lot about climate change right now but I always think kind of the same thing; do I really want to get involved online in this? You're right, everyone online is entrenched. I think out in the real world it is different though, generally speaking.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
ROFLMAO... Well then that magically reincarnated RR would then be shown the actual DATA that shows him to be wrong. That is the point, it isn't as if both sides have a point. One side has the ACTUAL data, the other side has a mythological belief. The fear mongering warmers have had their models destroyed by the ACTUAL data. You can pretend you are above the fray and all that, but it doesn't change the reality of the data.
Except that really wasn't his intent. He was referring to the mythological man made warming. You take his words too literally. Most when arguing this will use the two interchangeably.
You think naysayers are wrong despite the FACT that the data shows the reverse to be true? LMAO.
See what I mean?
Oh, right. I forgot. Superfreak the omniscient again.
I'm thinking of a number between one and eleventy billion . . .
Again, see what I mean?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I think you may have nuts on both sides that are entrenched, but 4-5 years ago, we were saying that the consensus crowd was trying to silence critics (which NO REAL scientist would do). We were saying that even the experts on global warming were saying the debate wasn't over as much was still to be learned. yet the consensus crowd (especially Mutt and Cypress) continued to ignore that and kept on shouting consensus.
If we get data that shows man is the primary cause of warming, I will listen to that data. But to date that data does not exist. The models the fear mongers used have blown up due to the fact that CO2 keeps rising, yet for over a decade now temps have remained stagnant (high relative to the past 60 years, but stagnant all the same).
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
There is no arguing with the data presently available. You only have a myth on your side. period. you try and pretend this is not the case all you want... it won't change the data.
Take a look up the thread moron... Oncelor pointed out the same thing. You just love to pick fights... unless it is with a liberal like poet, then you just sit back and let him demean women until someone else calls him out on it.
LMAO... this is your response to that which you cannot argue. Attack me. Not the data. Why is that Dung? Obviously since you think naysayers are 100% wrong, surely you have SOMETHING that backs up that position. Do you not?
yes, you mean you have nothing so you continue posting nonsense like the above.
Actually, Oncelor said that no one argues that global temperatures are not rising, yet here you are . . .
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
My you truly are a fucking retard. I do not dispute the fact that temperatures rose in the mid century to late 90's time frame. Period. Nor has anyone that I have seen on this board. We argue whether MAN was the cause.
No if you are referring to the past 14 years, then yes, I will state for a FACT that temperatures have neither risen nor declined by any statistical significant amount.
Again you attempt to build straw men and pretend you can't understand what people are talking about because you are a douche bag who seems to thrive off make believe gotcha moments.
I don't think I got anyone. You said Oncelor said something that he didn't say. Yes, the "debate" is AGW. But there is a contingent of people (you included) that dispute that there is even any warming to speak of in the first instance, let alone the cause of it. I find it fascinating.
We (the Royal "we," not you and I) can debate causation until the Messiah arives, but the basic underlying fact of warming is not arguable.
We (the Royal "we," not you and I) can debate causation until the Messiah arives, but the basic underlying fact of warming is not arguable.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
that was not clear at all. "never" means never, you did not specify that you only referred to my graph.
i was going to give you a wider range, but SF already provided a larger range. you just want to cherry pick data. and what was that you said about making points and insults?
We all know about warming and cooling shitpile......we call it "weather"......
Like the data shows......2000 to 2003, warming......2003 to 2008, cooling.....2008 to 2010, warming.....2010 to the present, cooling.......whats you point ?