You still ignore that the article is nothing close to what the reality of the actual report says. That's the epitome of fake news.
You really have to be one of the dumbest people alive. You say something stupid like that and then post a chart that uses the exact data that the article says is shit to "prove" your point.
Only HondoFS could post something so stupid...
It's one thing to deny how much or if humans have caused the warming. It's another to deny that the Earth isn't warmer than 100 years ago. That's some kind of special stupid. Politicians and journalists know more about the climate than people who study the climate for a living in your world.
First, Way to ignore your original idiocy.
Second, the entire point of their article is that the historical data yet again changes to try and prove what is turning out to be political and not scientific points. If GW is so obvious, why again do they keep changing the historical data to try and prove it?
You can not like what they say, but don't say completely idiotic things like "You still ignore that the article is nothing close to what the reality of the actual report says. That's the epitome of fake news." Their entire point was that the data sets are not independent, and that the historical data sets have been continuously altered to try and support global warming and contradict a lot of historical subjective data.
This is the same thing the fraud Mann did to try and prove his version of "Global Warming"...change history. And morons like HondoFS fall for it hook, line, and sinker...
If you need historical temperature data to support global warming, you are a special kind of stupid. It's almost like there's other metrics to use.
That being said, it would be wise to understand why temperature data is corrected. Grab some popcorn and do some reading from people who study the shit for a living. You seem to like to research shit, you should really educate yourself on this and not succumb to Breitbart type bullshit.
Just when you thought HondoFS couldn't get anymore retarded .... there it is.
Wow. Just Wow.
Right. Clearly there is no other way to determine if the Earth has warmed other than air temperature data.
Exactly. And you just got done saying no data required.
You still ignore that the article is nothing close to what the reality of the actual report says. That's the epitome of fake news.
You really have to be one of the dumbest people alive. You say something stupid like that and then post a chart that uses the exact data that the article says is shit to "prove" your point.
Only HondoFS could post something so stupid...
It's one thing to deny how much or if humans have caused the warming. It's another to deny that the Earth isn't warmer than 100 years ago. That's some kind of special stupid. Politicians and journalists know more about the climate than people who study the climate for a living in your world.
First, Way to ignore your original idiocy.
Second, the entire point of their article is that the historical data yet again changes to try and prove what is turning out to be political and not scientific points. If GW is so obvious, why again do they keep changing the historical data to try and prove it?
You can not like what they say, but don't say completely idiotic things like "You still ignore that the article is nothing close to what the reality of the actual report says. That's the epitome of fake news." Their entire point was that the data sets are not independent, and that the historical data sets have been continuously altered to try and support global warming and contradict a lot of historical subjective data.
This is the same thing the fraud Mann did to try and prove his version of "Global Warming"...change history. And morons like HondoFS fall for it hook, line, and sinker...
If you need historical temperature data to support global warming, you are a special kind of stupid. It's almost like there's other metrics to use.
That being said, it would be wise to understand why temperature data is corrected. Grab some popcorn and do some reading from people who study the shit for a living. You seem to like to research shit, you should really educate yourself on this and not succumb to Breitbart type bullshit.
Just when you thought HondoFS couldn't get anymore retarded .... there it is.
Wow. Just Wow.
You are always safe 81% of the time taking the over on thinking HondoFS couldn't get any more retarded.
Disagree.
I'm taking the over every time that HondoFS will prove himself even more retarded.
You still ignore that the article is nothing close to what the reality of the actual report says. That's the epitome of fake news.
You really have to be one of the dumbest people alive. You say something stupid like that and then post a chart that uses the exact data that the article says is shit to "prove" your point.
Only HondoFS could post something so stupid...
It's one thing to deny how much or if humans have caused the warming. It's another to deny that the Earth isn't warmer than 100 years ago. That's some kind of special stupid. Politicians and journalists know more about the climate than people who study the climate for a living in your world.
First, Way to ignore your original idiocy.
Second, the entire point of their article is that the historical data yet again changes to try and prove what is turning out to be political and not scientific points. If GW is so obvious, why again do they keep changing the historical data to try and prove it?
You can not like what they say, but don't say completely idiotic things like "You still ignore that the article is nothing close to what the reality of the actual report says. That's the epitome of fake news." Their entire point was that the data sets are not independent, and that the historical data sets have been continuously altered to try and support global warming and contradict a lot of historical subjective data.
This is the same thing the fraud Mann did to try and prove his version of "Global Warming"...change history. And morons like HondoFS fall for it hook, line, and sinker...
If you need historical temperature data to support global warming, you are a special kind of stupid. It's almost like there's other metrics to use.
That being said, it would be wise to understand why temperature data is corrected. Grab some popcorn and do some reading from people who study the shit for a living. You seem to like to research shit, you should really educate yourself on this and not succumb to Breitbart type bullshit.
Just when you thought HondoFS couldn't get anymore retarded .... there it is.
Wow. Just Wow.
Right. Clearly there is no other way to determine if the Earth has warmed other than air temperature data.
Exactly. And you just got done saying no data required.
You still ignore that the article is nothing close to what the reality of the actual report says. That's the epitome of fake news.
You really have to be one of the dumbest people alive. You say something stupid like that and then post a chart that uses the exact data that the article says is shit to "prove" your point.
Only HondoFS could post something so stupid...
It's one thing to deny how much or if humans have caused the warming. It's another to deny that the Earth isn't warmer than 100 years ago. That's some kind of special stupid. Politicians and journalists know more about the climate than people who study the climate for a living in your world.
First, Way to ignore your original idiocy.
Second, the entire point of their article is that the historical data yet again changes to try and prove what is turning out to be political and not scientific points. If GW is so obvious, why again do they keep changing the historical data to try and prove it?
You can not like what they say, but don't say completely idiotic things like "You still ignore that the article is nothing close to what the reality of the actual report says. That's the epitome of fake news." Their entire point was that the data sets are not independent, and that the historical data sets have been continuously altered to try and support global warming and contradict a lot of historical subjective data.
This is the same thing the fraud Mann did to try and prove his version of "Global Warming"...change history. And morons like HondoFS fall for it hook, line, and sinker...
If you need historical temperature data to support global warming, you are a special kind of stupid.
HondoFS quote of ALL TIME.
CLASSIC.
God you are an effin moron...
And yes, I've read up on this way more than you have, and the more you dig into it the more you find shittier and shittier science...
So you are saying the Earth isn't warmer then?
Are you using the term "warmer" as a comparative adjective? If so that is apparently a "special kind of stupid" because a brilliant rocket-science type person around here said you don't need data to compare against.
God you are a moron.
Focus..... Quit changing the subjectpointing out my stupidity. You are saying that they have manipulated the temperature data. I'm asking you if you think that means the Earth has not warmed the last 100 years.
Before GW was a religion and pine cone rings became the new bellwether of historical temperature data this was the accepted historical estimate of temperature: Do I think it is 100% correct? Of course not. But it is a hell of a lot more correct than the shite "scientists" like Mann have been putting together once their paycheck became dependent upon it.
I don't have time to research this fully to argue your skeptical science BS. But I do chuckle when your sources point out volcanos for reasons why global temps changed, then refuse to admit that human caused emissions could change the temperature.
You still ignore that the article is nothing close to what the reality of the actual report says. That's the epitome of fake news.
You really have to be one of the dumbest people alive. You say something stupid like that and then post a chart that uses the exact data that the article says is shit to "prove" your point.
Only HondoFS could post something so stupid...
It's one thing to deny how much or if humans have caused the warming. It's another to deny that the Earth isn't warmer than 100 years ago. That's some kind of special stupid. Politicians and journalists know more about the climate than people who study the climate for a living in your world.
First, Way to ignore your original idiocy.
Second, the entire point of their article is that the historical data yet again changes to try and prove what is turning out to be political and not scientific points. If GW is so obvious, why again do they keep changing the historical data to try and prove it?
You can not like what they say, but don't say completely idiotic things like "You still ignore that the article is nothing close to what the reality of the actual report says. That's the epitome of fake news." Their entire point was that the data sets are not independent, and that the historical data sets have been continuously altered to try and support global warming and contradict a lot of historical subjective data.
This is the same thing the fraud Mann did to try and prove his version of "Global Warming"...change history. And morons like HondoFS fall for it hook, line, and sinker...
If you need historical temperature data to support global warming, you are a special kind of stupid.
HondoFS quote of ALL TIME.
CLASSIC.
God you are an effin moron...
And yes, I've read up on this way more than you have, and the more you dig into it the more you find shittier and shittier science...
So you are saying the Earth isn't warmer then?
Are you using the term "warmer" as a comparative adjective? If so that is apparently a "special kind of stupid" because a brilliant rocket-science type person around here said you don't need data to compare against.
God you are a moron.
Focus..... Quit changing the subjectpointing out my stupidity. You are saying that they have manipulated the temperature data. I'm asking you if you think that means the Earth has not warmed the last 100 years.
Before GW was a religion and pine cone rings became the new bellwether of historical temperature data this was the accepted historical estimate of temperature: Do I think it is 100% correct? Of course not. But it is a hell of a lot more correct than the shite "scientists" like Mann have been putting together once their paycheck became dependent upon it.
I don't have time to research this fully to argue your skeptical science BS. But I do chuckle when your sources point out volcanos for reasons why global temps changed, then refuse to admit that human caused emissions could change the temperature.
You still ignore that the article is nothing close to what the reality of the actual report says. That's the epitome of fake news.
You really have to be one of the dumbest people alive. You say something stupid like that and then post a chart that uses the exact data that the article says is shit to "prove" your point.
Only HondoFS could post something so stupid...
It's one thing to deny how much or if humans have caused the warming. It's another to deny that the Earth isn't warmer than 100 years ago. That's some kind of special stupid. Politicians and journalists know more about the climate than people who study the climate for a living in your world.
First, Way to ignore your original idiocy.
Second, the entire point of their article is that the historical data yet again changes to try and prove what is turning out to be political and not scientific points. If GW is so obvious, why again do they keep changing the historical data to try and prove it?
You can not like what they say, but don't say completely idiotic things like "You still ignore that the article is nothing close to what the reality of the actual report says. That's the epitome of fake news." Their entire point was that the data sets are not independent, and that the historical data sets have been continuously altered to try and support global warming and contradict a lot of historical subjective data.
This is the same thing the fraud Mann did to try and prove his version of "Global Warming"...change history. And morons like HondoFS fall for it hook, line, and sinker...
If you need historical temperature data to support global warming, you are a special kind of stupid.
HondoFS quote of ALL TIME.
CLASSIC.
God you are an effin moron...
And yes, I've read up on this way more than you have, and the more you dig into it the more you find shittier and shittier science...
So you are saying the Earth isn't warmer then?
Are you using the term "warmer" as a comparative adjective? If so that is apparently a "special kind of stupid" because a brilliant rocket-science type person around here said you don't need data to compare against.
God you are a moron.
Focus..... Quit changing the subjectpointing out my stupidity. You are saying that they have manipulated the temperature data. I'm asking you if you think that means the Earth has not warmed the last 100 years.
Before GW was a religion and pine cone rings became the new bellwether of historical temperature data this was the accepted historical estimate of temperature: Do I think it is 100% correct? Of course not. But it is a hell of a lot more correct than the shite "scientists" like Mann have been putting together once their paycheck became dependent upon it.
I don't have time to research this fully to argue your skeptical science BS. But I do chuckle when your sources point out volcanos for reasons why global temps changed, then refuse to admit that human caused emissions could change the temperature.
You still ignore that the article is nothing close to what the reality of the actual report says. That's the epitome of fake news.
You really have to be one of the dumbest people alive. You say something stupid like that and then post a chart that uses the exact data that the article says is shit to "prove" your point.
Only HondoFS could post something so stupid...
It's one thing to deny how much or if humans have caused the warming. It's another to deny that the Earth isn't warmer than 100 years ago. That's some kind of special stupid. Politicians and journalists know more about the climate than people who study the climate for a living in your world.
First, Way to ignore your original idiocy.
Second, the entire point of their article is that the historical data yet again changes to try and prove what is turning out to be political and not scientific points. If GW is so obvious, why again do they keep changing the historical data to try and prove it?
You can not like what they say, but don't say completely idiotic things like "You still ignore that the article is nothing close to what the reality of the actual report says. That's the epitome of fake news." Their entire point was that the data sets are not independent, and that the historical data sets have been continuously altered to try and support global warming and contradict a lot of historical subjective data.
This is the same thing the fraud Mann did to try and prove his version of "Global Warming"...change history. And morons like HondoFS fall for it hook, line, and sinker...
If you need historical temperature data to support global warming, you are a special kind of stupid.
HondoFS quote of ALL TIME.
CLASSIC.
God you are an effin moron...
And yes, I've read up on this way more than you have, and the more you dig into it the more you find shittier and shittier science...
So you are saying the Earth isn't warmer then?
Are you using the term "warmer" as a comparative adjective? If so that is apparently a "special kind of stupid" because a brilliant rocket-science type person around here said you don't need data to compare against.
God you are a moron.
Focus..... Quit changing the subjectpointing out my stupidity. You are saying that they have manipulated the temperature data. I'm asking you if you think that means the Earth has not warmed the last 100 years.
Before GW was a religion and pine cone rings became the new bellwether of historical temperature data this was the accepted historical estimate of temperature: Do I think it is 100% correct? Of course not. But it is a hell of a lot more correct than the shite "scientists" like Mann have been putting together once their paycheck became dependent upon it.
I don't have time to research this fully to argue your skeptical science BS. But I do chuckle when your sources point out volcanos for reasons why global temps changed, then refuse to admit that human caused emissions could change the temperature.
You still ignore that the article is nothing close to what the reality of the actual report says. That's the epitome of fake news.
You really have to be one of the dumbest people alive. You say something stupid like that and then post a chart that uses the exact data that the article says is shit to "prove" your point.
Only HondoFS could post something so stupid...
It's one thing to deny how much or if humans have caused the warming. It's another to deny that the Earth isn't warmer than 100 years ago. That's some kind of special stupid. Politicians and journalists know more about the climate than people who study the climate for a living in your world.
First, Way to ignore your original idiocy.
Second, the entire point of their article is that the historical data yet again changes to try and prove what is turning out to be political and not scientific points. If GW is so obvious, why again do they keep changing the historical data to try and prove it?
You can not like what they say, but don't say completely idiotic things like "You still ignore that the article is nothing close to what the reality of the actual report says. That's the epitome of fake news." Their entire point was that the data sets are not independent, and that the historical data sets have been continuously altered to try and support global warming and contradict a lot of historical subjective data.
This is the same thing the fraud Mann did to try and prove his version of "Global Warming"...change history. And morons like HondoFS fall for it hook, line, and sinker...
If you need historical temperature data to support global warming, you are a special kind of stupid.
HondoFS quote of ALL TIME.
CLASSIC.
God you are an effin moron...
And yes, I've read up on this way more than you have, and the more you dig into it the more you find shittier and shittier science...
So you are saying the Earth isn't warmer then?
Are you using the term "warmer" as a comparative adjective? If so that is apparently a "special kind of stupid" because a brilliant rocket-science type person around here said you don't need data to compare against.
God you are a moron.
Focus..... Quit changing the subjectpointing out my stupidity. You are saying that they have manipulated the temperature data. I'm asking you if you think that means the Earth has not warmed the last 100 years.
Before GW was a religion and pine cone rings became the new bellwether of historical temperature data this was the accepted historical estimate of temperature: Do I think it is 100% correct? Of course not. But it is a hell of a lot more correct than the shite "scientists" like Mann have been putting together once their paycheck became dependent upon it.
I don't have time to research this fully to argue your skeptical science BS. But I do chuckle when your sources point out volcanos for reasons why global temps changed, then refuse to admit that human caused emissions could change the temperature.
Comments
Why are you still here?
I'm taking the over every time that HondoFS will prove himself even more retarded.
I don't have time to research this fully to argue your skeptical science BS. But I do chuckle when your sources point out volcanos for reasons why global temps changed, then refuse to admit that human caused emissions could change the temperature.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
p202.
God you are a moron.