Lefty, your climate change religion is a farce.

[Nostra]

What scientific evidence, specifically?

Nature.

 

[EatTheRich]

Nature.

That is the opposite of specific. It is as general as it comes. What observations lead you to believe that the amateur paper is right and the peer-reviewed professional literature is wrong?

 

[Nostra]

That is the opposite of specific. It is as general as it comes. What observations lead you to believe that the amateur paper is right and the peer-reviewed professional literature is wrong?

Observations of all the time ps your Cult has been busted manipulating data, and all the times their predictions have been colossally wrong.

Next?

 

[EatTheRich]

Observations of all the time ps your Cult has been busted manipulating data, and all the times their predictions have been colossally wrong.

Next?

I’m not in a cult. But if you are talking about mainstream science, that would be

1) not once
2) not once

 

[Nostra]

I’m not in a cult. But if you are talking about mainstream science, that would be

1) not once
2) not once

Cultists refuse to accept the reality of the Cult getting busted time after time manipulating data, destroying data, and not getting a single prediction correct.

Why do you think the Cult has had to resort to blaming any and all weather events on MMGW?

 

[redtide]

Cultists refuse to accept the reality of the Cult getting busted time after time manipulating data, destroying data, and not getting a single prediction correct.

Why do you think the Cult has had to resort to blaming any and all weather events on MMGW?

it is the same with any religion/cult (not sure there is a difference between the two) and oddly enough the climatists are using the exact same techniques to push their agenda and to gain power that the Catholic Church used during the dark ages.

 

[EatTheRich]

Cultists refuse to accept the reality of the Cult getting busted time after time manipulating data, destroying data, and not getting a single prediction correct.

Why do you think the Cult has had to resort to blaming any and all weather events on MMGW?

They have not gotten busted ONCE manipulating data or destroying data. Your side has been busted again and again fabricating claims to that effect which fall apart under scrutiny. The track record of predictions based on AGW theory compares VERY favorably with the track record of climate forecasts that ignore anthropogenic amplification of the greenhouse effect. The scientific mainstream does not purport to conclude that AGW is happening due to this or that weather event. But the evidence shows clearly that the warming is occurring and is overwhelmingly attributable to human agency ... so obviously every weather event we experience (including the increasingly frequent unusual weather events) is consistent with AGW.

 

[EatTheRich]

it is the same with any religion/cult (not sure there is a difference between the two) and oddly enough the climatists are using the exact same techniques to push their agenda and to gain power that the Catholic Church used during the dark ages.

Providing unimpeachable evidence? I think your history needs a little review.

 

[Nostra]

They have not gotten busted ONCE manipulating data or destroying data. Your side has been busted again and again fabricating claims to that effect which fall apart under scrutiny. The track record of predictions based on AGW theory compares VERY favorably with the track record of climate forecasts that ignore anthropogenic amplification of the greenhouse effect. The scientific mainstream does not purport to conclude that AGW is happening due to this or that weather event. But the evidence shows clearly that the warming is occurring and is overwhelmingly attributable to human agency ... so obviously every weather event we experience (including the increasingly frequent unusual weather events) is consistent with AGW.

Data destroyed.


https://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/

Once you admit you just lied a out that I will expose your lie about not getting caught manipulating data.

 

[EatTheRich]

Data destroyed.


https://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/

Once you admit you just lied a out that I will expose your lie about not getting caught manipulating data.

The description doesn’t match the content of the article. CRU relying on reported data and not having access to nonexistent raw data does not mean data was destroyed.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Release_the_data

 

[Nostra]

The description doesn’t match the content of the article. CRU relying on reported data and not having access to nonexistent raw data does not mean data was destroyed.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Release_the_data

My link exposed your lie. Report this one too....

 

[Raoul_Luke]

They have not gotten busted ONCE manipulating data or destroying data. Your side has been busted again and again fabricating claims to that effect which fall apart under scrutiny. The track record of predictions based on AGW theory compares VERY favorably with the track record of climate forecasts that ignore anthropogenic amplification of the greenhouse effect. The scientific mainstream does not purport to conclude that AGW is happening due to this or that weather event. But the evidence shows clearly that the warming is occurring and is overwhelmingly attributable to human agency ... so obviously every weather event we experience (including the increasingly frequent unusual weather events) is consistent with AGW.

LOL! So the NOAA measures temperatures in ever square inch of the earth and every cubic centimeter of the lakes and oceans? I don't think so. By the very nature of their "research" they are forced to "manipulate" the data.

Track record? You call this:

climate change predictions wrong

A track record?

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

They have not gotten busted ONCE manipulating data or destroying data.....

you are willfully ignorant of facts.

What do we mean by fraudulent? How about this: NOAA has made repeated "adjustments" to its data, for the presumed scientific reason of making the data sets more accurate.


Nothing wrong with that. Except, all their changes point to one thing — lowering previously measured temperatures to show cooler weather in the past, and raising more recent temperatures to show warming in the recent present.


This creates a data illusion of ever-rising temperatures to match the increase in CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere since the mid-1800s, which global warming advocates say is a cause-and-effect relationship. The more CO2, the more warming.

 

[EatTheRich]

LOL! So the NOAA measures temperatures in ever square inch of the earth and every cubic centimeter of the lakes and oceans? I don't think so. By the very nature of their "research" they are forced to "manipulate" the data.

Track record? You call this:

climate change predictions wrong

A track record?

No, I call that a Google search for “what I want to hear.”

 

[EatTheRich]

you are willfully ignorant of facts.

What do we mean by fraudulent? How about this: NOAA has made repeated "adjustments" to its data, for the presumed scientific reason of making the data sets more accurate.


Nothing wrong with that. Except, all their changes point to one thing — lowering previously measured temperatures to show cooler weather in the past, and raising more recent temperatures to show warming in the recent present.


This creates a data illusion of ever-rising temperatures to match the increase in CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere since the mid-1800s, which global warming advocates say is a cause-and-effect relationship. The more CO2, the more warming.

But that isn’t true. The net effect of the adjustments is to raise the measured warming only slightly. The unadjusted (less accurate) data still show a clear, statistically significant warming trend.

 

[Nostra]

But that isn’t true. The net effect of the adjustments is to raise the measured warming only slightly. The unadjusted (less accurate) data still show a clear, statistically significant warming trend.

So the Cult thinks the actual readings are not as accurate as the made up numbers.

There you have it folks, yet another example of the Cult manipulating data and the Cultists trying to spin it away.

 

[EatTheRich]

So the Cult thinks the actual readings are not as accurate as the made up numbers.

There you have it folks, yet another example of the Cult manipulating data and the Cultists trying to spin it away.

No, the actual readings are adjusted to take into account known biases. For example, recorded temperatures from modern times are often adjusted downward to compensate for the urban heat island effect.