Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Figures never lie but liars figure.
Comments
-
HondoFS quote of ALL TIME.2001400ex said:
If you need historical temperature data to support global warming, you are a special kind of stupid.HoustonHusky said:
First,2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:HoustonHusky said:
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.
Only HondoFS could post something so stupid...
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...
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?HoustonHusky said:
HondoFS quote of ALL TIME.2001400ex said:
If you need historical temperature data to support global warming, you are a special kind of stupid.HoustonHusky said:
First,2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:HoustonHusky said:
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.
Only HondoFS could post something so stupid...
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...
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... -
Then or now?2001400ex said:
So you are saying the Earth isn't warmer then?HoustonHusky said:
HondoFS quote of ALL TIME.2001400ex said:
If you need historical temperature data to support global warming, you are a special kind of stupid.HoustonHusky said:
First,2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:HoustonHusky said:
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.
Only HondoFS could post something so stupid...
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...
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...
Either way it will be interesting.
-
Yes.PurpleThrobber said:
Then or now?2001400ex said:
So you are saying the Earth isn't warmer then?HoustonHusky said:
HondoFS quote of ALL TIME.2001400ex said:
If you need historical temperature data to support global warming, you are a special kind of stupid.HoustonHusky said:
First,2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:HoustonHusky said:
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.
Only HondoFS could post something so stupid...
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...
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...
Either way it will be interesting. -
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.2001400ex said:
So you are saying the Earth isn't warmer then?HoustonHusky said:
HondoFS quote of ALL TIME.2001400ex said:
If you need historical temperature data to support global warming, you are a special kind of stupid.HoustonHusky said:
First,2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:HoustonHusky said:
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.
Only HondoFS could post something so stupid...
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...
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...
God you are a moron. -
Focus..... Quit changing the subject. 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.HoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:
So you are saying the Earth isn't warmer then?HoustonHusky said:
HondoFS quote of ALL TIME.2001400ex said:
If you need historical temperature data to support global warming, you are a special kind of stupid.HoustonHusky said:
First,2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:HoustonHusky said:
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.
Only HondoFS could post something so stupid...
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...
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...
God you are a moron. -
2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
First,2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:HoustonHusky said:
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.
Only HondoFS could post something so stupid...
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...
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.pawz said:2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
First,2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:HoustonHusky said:
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.
Only HondoFS could post something so stupid...
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...
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.pawz said:2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
First,2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:HoustonHusky said:
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.
Only HondoFS could post something so stupid...
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...
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.
-
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:2001400ex said:
Focus..... QuitHoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:
So you are saying the Earth isn't warmer then?HoustonHusky said:
HondoFS quote of ALL TIME.2001400ex said:
If you need historical temperature data to support global warming, you are a special kind of stupid.HoustonHusky said:
First,2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:HoustonHusky said:
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.
Only HondoFS could post something so stupid...
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...
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...
God you are a moron.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.
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.
-
Exactly. And you just got done saying no data required.2001400ex said:
Right. Clearly there is no other way to determine if the Earth has warmed other thanpawz said:2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
First,2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:HoustonHusky said:
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.
Only HondoFS could post something so stupid...
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...
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.air temperaturedata.
Why are you still here? -
Disagree.PurpleThrobber said:
You are always safe 81% of the time taking the over on thinking HondoFS couldn't get any more retarded.pawz said:2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
First,2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:HoustonHusky said:
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.
Only HondoFS could post something so stupid...
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...
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.
I'm taking the over every time that HondoFS will prove himself even more retarded. -
No. I didn't. Read for comprehension.pawz said:
Exactly. And you just got done saying no data required.2001400ex said:
Right. Clearly there is no other way to determine if the Earth has warmed other thanpawz said:2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
First,2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:HoustonHusky said:
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.
Only HondoFS could post something so stupid...
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...
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.air temperaturedata.
Why are you still here? -
This thread is fucking terrible.
-
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what’s-hottest-earth-has-been-“lately”HoustonHusky said:
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:2001400ex said:
Focus..... QuitHoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:
So you are saying the Earth isn't warmer then?HoustonHusky said:
HondoFS quote of ALL TIME.2001400ex said:
If you need historical temperature data to support global warming, you are a special kind of stupid.HoustonHusky said:
First,2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:HoustonHusky said:
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.
Only HondoFS could post something so stupid...
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...
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...
God you are a moron.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.
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. -
-
Keep rambling stupid nonsense. That chart is from the 1990 IPCC Report on Climate Change.2001400ex said:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what’s-hottest-earth-has-been-“lately”HoustonHusky said:
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:2001400ex said:
Focus..... QuitHoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:
So you are saying the Earth isn't warmer then?HoustonHusky said:
HondoFS quote of ALL TIME.2001400ex said:
If you need historical temperature data to support global warming, you are a special kind of stupid.HoustonHusky said:
First,2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:HoustonHusky said:
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.
Only HondoFS could post something so stupid...
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...
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...
God you are a moron.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.
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.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
p202.
God you are a moron.
-
Can you point to a few points in the 414 page document?HoustonHusky said:
Keep rambling stupid nonsense. That chart is from the 1990 IPCC Report on Climate Change.2001400ex said:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what’s-hottest-earth-has-been-“lately”HoustonHusky said:
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:2001400ex said:
Focus..... QuitHoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:
So you are saying the Earth isn't warmer then?HoustonHusky said:
HondoFS quote of ALL TIME.2001400ex said:
If you need historical temperature data to support global warming, you are a special kind of stupid.HoustonHusky said:
First,2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:HoustonHusky said:
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.
Only HondoFS could post something so stupid...
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...
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...
God you are a moron.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.
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.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
p202.
God you are a moron. -
science is skeptical2001400ex said:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what’s-hottest-earth-has-been-“lately”HoustonHusky said:
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:2001400ex said:
Focus..... QuitHoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:
So you are saying the Earth isn't warmer then?HoustonHusky said:
HondoFS quote of ALL TIME.2001400ex said:
If you need historical temperature data to support global warming, you are a special kind of stupid.HoustonHusky said:
First,2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:HoustonHusky said:
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.
Only HondoFS could post something so stupid...
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...
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...
God you are a moron.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.
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. -
Agreed. But the website is shit.GrundleStiltzkin said:
science is skeptical2001400ex said:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what’s-hottest-earth-has-been-“lately”HoustonHusky said:
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:2001400ex said:
Focus..... QuitHoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:
So you are saying the Earth isn't warmer then?HoustonHusky said:
HondoFS quote of ALL TIME.2001400ex said:
If you need historical temperature data to support global warming, you are a special kind of stupid.HoustonHusky said:
First,2001400ex said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:HoustonHusky said:
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.
Only HondoFS could post something so stupid...
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...
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...
God you are a moron.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.
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.
