The US is cooling, but political agendas require heatwaves.
So NOAA solves the problem by adjusting US maximum temperatures upwards at a rate of four degrees per century.
The raw data shows cooling, so they reverse that into a sharp warming trend. Enron accountants would blush at seeing what NOAA does to the US temperature data.
 | gelcarrion0t on “New computer modeling… |
 | Morgan Wright on Climate Destroying Shrimp |
 | Christopher Simpson on 1896 : Japan Hit By Earthquake… |
 | energywise on What’s At Stake? |
 | Robert Cherba on Too Hot To Live |
| gelcarrion0t on Too Hot To Live |
 | Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
| Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
| Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
 | Colin Barton on “world is on edge of cli… |
Eventually we will be freezing to death in record heat waves.
“Enron accountants would blush at seeing what NOAA does to the US temperature data.”
No they would not.
The only reason a corporation or a gazillionaire for that matter, doesn’t use “Creative Accounting’ is because they ALREADY had all their loopholes written into the tax codes by their tame politicians.
re: Gail Combs June 17, 2014 at 3:22 pm
“Enron accountants would blush at seeing what NOAA does to the US temperature data.”
No they would not.
– – – –
I think you’re mixing together apples and oranges; even Enron had the good sense to ‘bury’ bad financial transactions off the main company books and onto Off-Balance Sheet ‘entities’:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/analyst/022002.asp
“How Cooking the Books Works”
http://money.howstuffworks.com/cooking-books4.htm
_jim they still would not “Blush.”
Crooks is Crooks.
The smartest Crooks get the government to give them a license to steal. Curlyque light bulbs, health care, r R-22 Refrigerant Replacement…. The list is endless and it is all part of the Broken Window Fallacy Economic Model. Destruction of wealth so someone with connections can profit from replacing that which has been destroyed.
For the well connected it is a net gain in wealth. For the rest of us it is a net loss. For society as a whole it is also a net loss because the labor and resources that would have been used to build something new are instead used to replace that which was destroyed before the end of its useful life.
The Broken Window Fallacy Economic Model type of thinking can be seen in these quotes from the article.
CAGW is a HUGE broken window.
Enron still had the ‘good sense’ (/sarc) to bury debt in Off-Balance Sheet ‘entities’; NASA does it out in the open. Maybe that point did not come across.
You also seem to be tossing in elements of ‘crony capitalism’; can we try and limit the subject we cover in any one post to one?
S. McIntyre used to call this “coat-racking” I think it was, taking debate in another direction and trying to point out or cure all the world’s ills in one post.
.
If the talking heads and economists really, really, believed what they say about the Broken Window, they would advocate a nuclear first strike on the US by our own military. “Gosh! Think how prosperous we will be now that we have to rebuild New York, Boston, Washington DC, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Atlanta, St Louis, Miami, and Kansas City! Yippee! Happy days are here!”
They know they are talking trash. They know they are liars. But they get a nice check for it…
There is a sad joke… “What is a common thief?” Answer: “A common thief is a sort of criminal who did not have enough capital to form a corporation.”
Yeees…all of these heatwaves the Earth is experiencing is just because scientists are altering data. Or perhaps we’re experiencing them because they’re actually happening. The complete lack of the ability to discern information, and the amazing talent in coming up with completely illogical conclusions is what I love about conspiracy theorists.
The Earth has always had heatwaves. Most of Earth’s history averaged 10-12C warmer than the present.
Your lack of knowledge on the subject has led you to a place of spectacular stupidity.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_figures/high-low-temps-figure1-2014.png
You won moron of the day award
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/moron-of-the-day-award-goes-out-early-today/
Yeees…always had heatwaves, but now heatwaves are getting more severe and are lasting longer. It’s true that the globe has been warmer in the past, but not while we’ve been around.
Your lack of context on the subject has led you to a place of spectacular absurdity.
Do you have difficulty understanding this graph from the EPA? Heatwaves were much more severe during the 1930s.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_figures/high-low-temps-figure1-2014.png
Your belief system is based on hearsay and rumors, which makes you unable to discuss the topic intelligently.
yes while we have been around (if you are referring to Man). The Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm periods that we absolutely know about.
Live your life like a scared little rodent cowering from every imagined bogey man. The rest of us will enjoy the gifts that god (or nature) gave us – i.e. intelligence as a way to modify our habitat to live an easier and longer life.
re: Jayden Smith June 19, 2014 at 11:35 am
Yeees…all of these heatwaves the Earth is experiencing is just because scientists are altering data. Or perhaps we’re experiencing them because they’re actually happening. The complete lack of the ability to discern information, and the amazing talent in coming up with completely illogical conclusions is what I love about conspiracy theorists.
I choked on this: “The complete lack of the ability to discern information, ” What the heck does that mean? I’ll tell you what it is, it’s what is known as a “word salad” where the poster throws in some juicy looking words he/she thinks will act as ‘garnish’ in his (or her) post …
Fail.
.
I’m sorry, I didn’t realise I needed to comment for a Year Three comprehension level.
Continued fail; comment of no value.
Try moving up to a Year 3 level.
I’m sorry, I didn’t realise I needed to criticise you at a Year Three level too.
You have a smelly poo bum. Is that better? Does that make this interaction a more comfortable/relatable experience?
I like it when someone makes an irrelevant comment to tell someone else that they’ve made an irrelevant comment. The hypocrisy is amusing.
More infantile rantings from the resident child.
Here’s a clue Jayden – you are not Peter Pan. here is clue #2 – You are not cute.
Actually, my understanding is based on science. Not just looking at a graph and seeing that there have been heatwaves in the past and then use that as an excuse to put my head in the sand and ignore that the EPA also says this:
“Heatwaves and other extreme weather events (e.g., floods, droughts, and windstorms) directly affect millions of people and cause billions of dollars of damage annually. There is a growing consensus that the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events will likely increase over coming decades as a consequence of climate change.”
It’s nice getting to just pick and choose which bits of science you listen to. If it doesn’t fit your conspiracy theory, just ignore that part of science.
There is no such consensus, and no indication that it is happening. That is an opinion by an author. The graph is actual temperature data. and shows no correlation between CO2 and heatwaves.
You are incapable of discerning between propaganda and science.
Says the guy who studied Geology (http://reallysciency.blogspot.com.au/p/who-is-steven-goddard.html). I’m no climatologist, but I’ve at least studied university subjects on the topic. I’d say that almost every climatologist, university and legitimate scientific organisation constitutes as a consensus.
You are incapable of discerning between your conspiracy theorist fantasies and reality.
Wow … ‘jump to confusions’ much?
……, but I’ve at least studied university subjects on the topic.
Then you know how wrong they are……
You are incapable of understanding that your beliefs are based entirely on your imagination. You imagine that scientists agree with you, but have no evidence to back that up other than hearsay.
Science is not done by superstition or Democratic Party hearsay.
There are three major reasons why climate change believers have no credibility in my eyes:
1) Rent seeking.Too many paychecks depend on it.
2) Control freakism. They know the right way (other) people should live.
3) The rule of experts. They dismiss anyone who isn’t a member of the club for not having the right degrees.
You’ve just deployed #3. The simple fact is that anyone who has intelligence as opposed to being schooled or trained, can take the skills he learned in one field and easily apply them to another. The entire climate change topic is at its heart about data and how said data is analyzed. This means that anyone from any science or engineering background has the skills necessary to make their own analysis from the data. Even people in the heavy math market analysis side of finance and actuarial fields could do it if they wanted to.
But here’s the problem, engineers, geologists, etc don’t have a paycheck depending on seeing warming. They don’t have a career in that field to protect. In every field of modern so-called science it’s the intruders from other fields that expose the frauds, expose the political weight of the status quo sending things in the wrong direction.
Of course 99% of climate scientists agree on what keeps them employed. It’s not shocking. Without “climate change” the world wide market for climate scientists would be tiny, we might need what, a dozen of them plus professors? And they would be poorly paid because there would be far more supply from the universities than demand.
Rule by expert is something that comes out of the early 20th century robber baron ideas of how society should be structured. But it’s not rule by experts to improve humanity. It’s rule by experts as a power structure. In this system there is no such thing as independent funding. The funding is controlled by the government, the foundations, and corporations. All of which are intertwined. In this system those who don’t play along can be easily eliminated from the field and their careers destroyed.
This way there is a compliant group of state intellectuals which justify what ever the political power structure wants. The curve ball of course is field crossing independent self funded/unfunded intellectual activity. That’s where the public must be convinced that an electrical engineer can’t graph temperature data. And since the general public is ignorant the con usually works. However those doing what it takes for their careers know exactly what a threat people from other fields peering in are, hence doing everything possible to prevent it and discredit it.
next time pay attention in class.
[Filed under appeal to authority]
While you’re busy with university classes, can you take one that covers argumentation and logical fallacy?
FTFY
Well, yes, such a collection may well constitute a consensus; but:
1. No such “consensus” exists. The actual 97% represents an extremely small sample of a population of white papers, and includes some papers for which the conclusion was over-stated, assumed, or even mis-stated.
2. Even if the “consensus” were legitimate, it would be irrelevant. Science is not a discipline of consensus. In every way, the Religion of Climate Change proves that it has nothing to do with scientific endeavor.
Just keep living in your own fantasy world Steven. Scientific analysis demostrates that it’s true. The problem is that no matter what ‘evidence’ I provide you with, you’ll find some ridiculous non-sensical conspiracy theory reason to reject that evidence. I’ve argued with enough climate deniers to know that their beliefs are nothing more than ideology.
The barbie string pull – you proved you have no clue about science. You refuse to produce any facts, data or evidence. You have demonstrated a gross ignorance of the scientific method.
In short, you accusing anyone of not knowing science is a compliment. You have proven you do not.
[Filed under projection]
re: Jayden Smith June 19, 2014 at 12:06 pm
Actually, my understanding is based on science. Not just looking at a graph and seeing that there have been heatwaves in the past and …
Oh brother … graphs are a form of presentation of (often) otherwise abstract data. Simply looking at tabular data may not instant;y indicate trends, and if there is a tremendous amount of data fine details or sub even ‘trends’ can be seen when the data is shown in a graphical presentation.
In short, YOU are coming up ‘short’ in the claim to be basing your understanding on so-called ‘science’ when you can’t separate out the use of various ‘presentation’ forms for showing data to interested others from any other ‘phase’ of the research activity …
.
Oh, you want data visualisation Jim?
http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/co2Graph11-cropped.jpg
http://climate.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/22_g-globalTemp-5yr-l.jpg
http://climate.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/9_c365-2-l.jpg
No, that’s no the subject of the discussion at present.
Jayden – “Oh look – a squirrel!”
Jayden – “Oh look – a shiny thing!”
Focus Jayden. Come down to earth …
So you’re asking for data visualisation for events that haven’t happened yet? Well, I’m not sure if you realise this, but there’s a difference between what has happened, and what will happen. I forget I need to bring things down to a Year Three level.
Here’s a graph to explain how the temperature will shift as the globe warms:
http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/figures/temperature-shift
No, just bring your level up. Apparently all you know is year 2 as your petty insults demonstrate.
When do you predict the warming will start?
Latitude, we’ve already had almost a degree of warming.
Actually, we have had a lot more than that. And we have also had “degrees” of cooling. Your ignorance of climate is now complete.
Hey, nice graphs! Do you know the “average temperature” of ANY year in even one of those graphs? You know, the “average temperature” that was used to calculate the “anomaly” it shows? Do you? Because your “anomaly” graph shows an abstraction, not actual “data”. So…you aren’t visualizing “data”, you are visualizing an abstraction created from some unknown underlying “average temperature”. What is it? Any clue? Any idea? Do you know what it was last year? 2011? 2007? 2001? 1999? Because dude, those pesky temperatures from the past are hard to pin down, they keep changing! So riddle me this: what was the “average temperature” in 1936 from your second graph? What was the “average temperature” in 1936 in 1998? Were they the same? I suspect they weren’t. Only in the world of “Climastrology” does the past weather keep changing!
We’ve already had almost a degree of adjustments…
Hey Dougmanxxx, nice comment! Do you know the “point” you’re trying to make of ANY of the sentences in any of that long paragraph? Why don’t you try to make that same comment to the climatologists at NASA and see how they respond? I think they’d laugh at you.
Hey Jayden – still talking to yourself? Don’t you know how to respond to someone else?
I think you are failing your year 2.
as long as we’re all having a good laugh…..
The claim is CO2 levels have gone up almost 50%….
…and they’ve only been able to adjust less than 1 degree rise in temps
and everyone knows that CO2 levels and temps are not coupled…
…so the higher CO2 levels get, the less effect it has on temps
And CO2 levels have been rising at about the same rate…
…and temps stopped rising at all
Ah. I see you can’t answer my simple question. I’ll ask it again in small words: what is the “average temperature” used to calculate ANY of the graphs you link to? If everything is so simple, you’ll know that simple little piece of information, right?
Dougmanxxx, your argument is nothing more than: “Haha, you don’t have the information I’m asking you for! You’re an idiot for believing in the conclusions of the information that other people have! How can you believe in information that you haven’t personally witnessed and worked out yourself?”
…I don’t need to have the information to know that qualified scientists are using that data to determine reality. Do you know how many transistors are on your mother board? No, but thankfully someone who is qualified does know, otherwise you wouldn’t have your functioning computer to ask me stupid questions.
yes, you DO need to have the information. How did you arrive at an intelligent decision without it? Even morons seek information.
If you have no information, then how do you know what you say is correct? You have shown a propensity to lie, do you think you are the only one who does that? Desmog always does. As does real climate and SS.
You are a mass of contradictions and talking points. And absolutely NO facts or information. Such a child.
See the plateau at the end? Even NASA recognizes the pause. Everyone but jayden does,
And you say you know science? How to spell it? That is all you have indicated.
“http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/co2Graph11-cropped.jpg
http://climate.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/22_g-globalTemp-5yr-l.jpg
http://climate.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/9_c365-2-l.jpg”
Think about it Jayden.
You are saying that 1ºF above an arbitrary normal is bad news.
Do you think that the 1ºF below the arbitrary normal was good ?
Were those famines and Black Plague and wars over land and food, good things ?
And that is accepting the arbitrary normal and the 1º rise, neither of which are that certain.
And the CO2 graph.
Most of that time was spent Glaciered over. Is that what you think would be good ?
How refreshing! You actually admit that you have no need or desire to think for yourself, or to use any form of critical analysis – opting instead to be spoon-fed information.
You truly are a microcosm of the Religion of Climate Science faithful.
Holy crap. SG posts DATA and you respond with OPINIONS ABOUT FUTURE EVENTS, as if the latter are facts and the former don’t exist. Holy crap.
Holy crap. I didn’t realise opinions that are based on mis-interpreting data has more weight than scientific modelling and analysis! Wow, you’ve really showed me Lane Core Jr.
Name one prediction….based on scientific modelling and analysis….that has come true
If you have to ask that question, you’re too stupid for me to bother answering it.
lame and childish. If you cannot answer the question, you are the stupid one. Even stupid questions have answers.
Such a little liar.
If you did not think that, why are you practicing it? Another own goal score for the little girl.
Based on science???
“likely” “growing” “in the future”?
Unless your science is fortune telling, all you have done is prove you have no clue about science.
That’s cute how you think that science and growing consensus belong in the same argument.
Any 100-level engineering class worth its salt will teach the principle that data cannot be extrapolated.
Jayden Smith says:
June 19, 2014 at 12:06 pm
“Actually, my understanding is based on science. Not just looking at a graph and seeing that there have been heatwaves in the past and then use that as an excuse to put my head in the sand and ignore that the EPA also says this”
No, your ‘mis’-understanding is based upon government propaganda. You have no idea what the actual science says.
See: ‘Useful Idiot’.
Last time I checked, science has very little to do with the government. And I actually do have an idea of what the science says, since it seems I’m the only person here commenting that has studied the subject.
I was a geology student during the ice age scare, and a climatology student right before the great global warming swindle. There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current global climate, or how we got here. Natural variability can explain everything we are seeing. You are an idiot.
Yeees…and there’s so many scientists who agree with you. Wait, I mean pretty close to none.
More ignorance. You are supposed to LEARN in school Jayden. Apparently you still do not know that.
Pointless.
Just, you know, go away. I’m sure you’ve been shooed away before, by friends, family, faculty staff etc … you know the drill then.
.
Thanks Jim, I will go away. I’ll go away with comfort in the knowledge that the entire scientific community is on my side, and that you guys are just a bunch of “interesting people” with “interesting views” wearing tin-foil hats.
Delusions of significance. A shrink would have a field day with you.
That’s rich, coming from a dyed-in-the-wool Religion of Climate Change adherent who believes, against the entire body of observed data, that CO2 has any meaningful impact on climate, and that human contributions to CO2 will have immediate and dangerous impact on climate.
It takes some pretty interesting people to come up withinteresting views such as that global heat is hiding at the bottom of the ocean, and that record ice on the Great Lakes is indicative of a near-record warm winter.
Check again. Where do you think the grant money comes from?
You get what you pay for.
You mean how the Koch Brothers funded a climate skeptic to discredit global warming, but after thorough research, not only renounced his skepticism, but took a position that anthropogenic climate change is worse than most predict?
What a baboon! No, I am talking about the billion dollars a day that Alarmists get from governments! You get what you pay for! The Kochs killed Christ, destroyed Rome and burned paris. But they do not care about Global warming, so they are not paying anyone to destroy the world.
I realize you have admitted that you lack the desire for critical thinking, but: just who do you think NOAA, NASA, and IPCC are?
One at this point might be prone to ask this so-called ‘Jayden’ person if he has worked through Steve McIntyre’s decomposition and analysis of the techniques used by Michael Mann to create his hockey stick … but I’m thinking this Jayden bloke is only 10 years old and incapable of anything more than ‘cut and paste’ and ‘hit and run’ techniques.
Maybe when he grows up he will come back and we can have an adult conversation.
.
No, I generally get my science from scientists, not from mathematicians who work for the mining industry.
… or like patent clerks working at the Patent Office even? (Albert Einstein.)
You’re a real winner.
Come back when you have grown up and are able to address anything of substance. So far, you haven’t, because you probably can’t. Your competition is stiff in the category too, up against such greats as Steven Mosher and Zeke of BEST.
.Run along now back to Climate Etc or wherever …
Oh look, I can find an example of someone who became a scientist from humble beginnings. I don’t see Steve McIntyre receiving any accolades. Especially not from anyone who has any idea about climatology. Often referred to as a “persistent amateur” in the climate science community.
http://www.desmogblog.com/steve-mcintyre
You do not see it because you are not looking. And linking Desmog is the final straw. You have no facts. Just your sheep instructions from the pigs.
Congratulations, you are proof of Orwell’s Animal Farm – but that is probably insulting to the sheep.
Here’s a scientist who did his homework.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mwolbxthg9I&w=640&h=390%5D
mathematicians are scientists Jayden. And you do not get any information apparently. You get indoctrination. Or you would not make such stupid statements.
Jayden Smith says:
June 19, 2014 at 1:03 pm
“Yeees…and there’s so many scientists who agree with you. Wait, I mean pretty close to none.”
Exactly what an idiot would say.
Please provide even ONE peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes. This should be easy, considering the science is settled! Right? 😆
They don’t need to refute it, because it’s well understood that natural variability isn’t the cause. I don’t argue with your mum and tell her that she shouldn’t make you think about things when it clearly isn’t happening in the first place.
Nuh-uh is not scientific. You are an idiot. NV has never been disproven.
Please provide even ONE peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
Failure to provide refutation of NV is a massive fail.
You get an F, just like your flunkie zealot climate priests of doom.
Perhaps you didn’t understand the logic behind my mocking of you.
You asked for a paper which discredits natural variability as a cause of global warming. But it doesn’t need to be discredited, because all climate scientists accept that natural variability is a contributor (obviously), but not the cause of the anthropogenic climate change we’re experiencing now. So your request doesn’t make any freaking sense to someone who isn’t brain damaged.
All climate scientists do not accept that. You are a liar. And yes, even if 100% did “believe” it, that does not change science. Science 101 – the null hypothesis must be disproven first. Even Trenberth admits that.
Did you ever have a brain?
Perhaps you don’t understand that the alarmists don’t have a clue about NV. Perhaps you are unaware that they have ignored NV, as the IPCC was charged with finding man as the ultimate cause of climate change. Perhaps you do not understand that we still do not know all of the contributing forcings and their participation rates. Perhaps you did not read ‘2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing’, from AR4. Perhaps you do not understand that when it comes to understanding climate drivers, 13 out of 16 forcings are listed as ‘low’ to ‘very low’ in AR4.
I can claim to make the Sun rise and set. I can claim I have ruled out the Earth’s rotation. Wouldn’t you want to see my work?
You are an idiot.
You’re living in some alternate dimension gator69. I don’t even know how we’re communicating. Am I Haley Joel Osment from The Sixth Sense?
Delusional now.
Are you reincarnate of Cleopatra too?
As I had determined already, you have not read any of the actual science. You are an idiot.
No: clearly you don’t have even the first clue how science works.
You’re just a good little propagandist acolyte in the Religion of Climate Change.
Yes they do. Science 101 (for the babies). The null hypothesis must be disproven before any alternate hypothesis can be advanced.
Still waiting for you to provide the proof that the null has been disproven.
Do you have even the first clue how science works?
Jayden Smith says: @ June 19, 2014 at 1:15 pm
Thanks Jim, I will go away. I’ll go away with comfort in the knowledge that the entire scientific community is on my side, and that you guys are just a bunch of “interesting people” with “interesting views” wearing tin-foil hats.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now there is the type of person who makes me wish he is very young (less than 25) and Ma Nature whacks him upside the head with a nice Ice Age to wake him up. Nothing like a glacier sitting on Chicago, Boston and NYC to get a point across.
You see Jayden, Ma Nature could care less if you have the “entire Climastrologist community” on your side.
The Quaternary Science community, who is in no ones pocket, says we are over due for glaciation and the drop is not gradual as was previously thought. The last paper suggesting the Holocene would go long (aka “double precession-cycle”) was a modeling paper – Loutre and Berger, 2003.
That paper was soundly trounced by the landmark paper by Lisiecki and Raymo – “A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic D18O records”Paleoceanography, Vol. 20, PA1003, doi:10.1029/2004PA001071, 2005)
In the decade since then no paper has refuted this paper.
So it really does not matter what the activist scientists like Mikey Mann and Jimmy Hansen say. A 9% decrease in solar energy since the Holocene Optimum, 30.6 W/m–2, trumps the puny Anthropogenic CO2 forcing between 1850 and 1990 which was only 1.5 W/m 2 [Reid, 1997].
But the people who want to tax the air you breath aren’t about to tell you that. Nor are the Climastrologists with tax payer funded ‘Politically Correct’ jobs and generous pay checks. It is a very rare person indeed who is willing to get blackballed and permanently lose a career over a question of honesty. As a Lab manager I found a heck of a lot more will cheerfully lie if it makes their lives easier and makes those paychecks and promotions keep coming.
….
So how fast is the drop?
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution several years ago put it this way:
Another paper talking of the ending of the last interglacial says “…The onset of the LEAP occurred within less than two decades, demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold…” – [Sirocko and Seelos]
What that threshold value is has not yet been determined but it seems to be somewhere ~ 500 W m−2 (MIS 13) or less for the June 21 insolation minimum at 65N.
So your only hope for an equitable climate is the Ruddiman hypothesis which says “early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….” Even Joe Romm agreed with the Ruddiman hypothesis that mankind’s releas of CO2 back into the environment is keeping the earth out of glaciation and so does this paper:
Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception (2007)
But carry on Jayden, I am sure the elite will remember you and your children kindly as you freeze or starve to death supporting their agenda of reducing the Earth’s population by crippling Western Civilization. After all their goal is to see to it their children live in luxury not yours.
If all of this warming we’re experiencing somehow magically changes to a sudden dramatic shift towards rapid cooling. I’ll build a giant igloo mansion for you Gail.
You said “the predictions are coming true”….
Which predictions are coming true?
If you have to ask that question, you’re too stupid for me to bother answering it.
childish ad hominem.
“the predictions are coming true”
He doesn’t know; that phrase comes up every fourth or fifth string pull, like the Barbie doll who says “Math is tough” … “Want to go shopping?”
.
What’s the point in answering the question when you’re just going to find some right-wing op-ed article that says the opposite of what my peer-reviewed science-based article will say? In the end we’re going to believe the same as what we do now. Me forming my opinion on the latest science, and you informing your opinion on a mathematician who works for the mining industry (no conflict of interest there?) and Steven Goddard, some fringe no-body who makes stuff up and posts it on his internets blog.
The point is the difference between facts and opinions. So far, no one has produced any opinion except you. But several have produced facts and peer reviewed papers (you have not).
And the point is to demonstrate you know what you are talking about. You are proving you do not.
Squawk – “the predictions are coming true”
Squawk – “the predictions are coming true”
Squawk – “the predictions are coming true”
Broken record syndrome; sign of a broken mind. Literally, “stuck on stupid.”
.
This is sad.
Are you an adolescent, or do you just play one on the internet, due to a lack of skill in logical argumentation?
What warming little girl?
And Gail gave you what you wanted – peer reviewed papers proving you are full of the brown stuff.
Jayden, is this a school-assigned project?
As in, when his teacher said off-handedly out of exasperation “Go bother somebody else”?
Note to Jadee: this was not meant in the literal sense.
.
Heh2.