cancel2 2022
Canceled
Gunga Din is at it again .
He's desperately trawling for climatic anomalies while folks are having a life.
Haw, haw...............................................haw.
Yeh don't you just hate facts, they're so inconvenient.
Gunga Din is at it again .
He's desperately trawling for climatic anomalies while folks are having a life.
Haw, haw...............................................haw.
Gunga Din is at it again .
He's desperately trawling for climatic anomalies while folks are having a life.
Haw, haw...............................................haw.
Yeh, who would have thought Pendleton, Oregon could reach a temperature of 119F in 1898 on the 10th August to be precise. But Prineville did it first, on July 29, in that same year. What’s up with 1898?
Yeh don't you just hate facts, they're so inconvenient.
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/
Just wanted to share this with everyone![]()
It honestly feels like one of those rapture cults which gather together every few years because they are convinced the rapture is going to happen right then and there.
Anomalies are facts, maggot, indubitably. How's your anomaly search doing ?
Haw, haw............................haw.
Anomalies are facts, maggot, indubitably. How's your anomaly search doing ?
Haw, haw............................haw.
Do you have insurance?
Define 'climate change'. Buzzword fallacy.The climate change predictions are coming true.
You have to define it first.There is lots of evidence showing it is correct.
Cut your brush back. California used to do this. Now it just burns. Did you know that most wildfire is caused by arsonists or careless people?The forest fires
So you think Noah's ark happened, do you? It is not possible to measure the global sea level.and rising water are simply facts.
It is not possible to measure 'storm power'. There is no such thing as a quantity.The increases in storm power were also predicted.
Me. It's happened before, and will happen again. Meh.Who thought Oregon would get a string of 100 plus temperatures.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.The globe temperature is rising.
They are mass. RQAA.So tell us how you can define the earth and its atmosphere as a black body,
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. No, the temperature of Earth (whatever it is) does not violate SB.apply Stefan-Boltzmann and claim changes of temperature at the earth's surface violate Stefan-Boltzmann.
WRONG. You are trying to eliminate the emissivity constant.Watts per square meter can only occur on the surface of a black body.
Doesn't have to.It tells us nothing of the temperature within the black body.
False equivalence fallacy. You cannot compare two systems as if they were the same system.The minute you split the Earth up into its component parts then Stefan-Boltzmann only applies the the parts.
The minute you combine the parts, Stefan-Boltzmann only applies to the whole and no longer to the parts.
You are arguing the temperature AT THE SURFACE, dumbass.It only applies to the surface of any mass since it is 'R' is radiance in watts per square area
Statistical math isn't a course. It is a branch of mathematics.ROFLMAO. I want to see where any statistics course requires you only use published data to make a calculation.
Mockery.Next you'll be telling us that algebra can only use numbers published in Pravda.
They aren't predicting. YOU are.I am curious what you think Hadcrut or GISTEMP is 'predicting' when they statistically calculate the current and past daily temperature of the earth.
Biased and insufficient data.The datasets are published and available.
Biased and insufficient data.Your refusal to look for them does not make them disappear.
The method is. The method shows the data is biased. The margin of error is not part of data. It is a calculated value. Math error: failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. You are probably confusing tolerance with margin of error. This is common among the illiterate.The methods uses and margin of error are also published.
I have looked at them. The data is insufficient and biased.Your refusal to look for them does not make them disappear.
Never made any such argument. Pay attention.I find this one rather ironic after you have spent all this time arguing you can't normalize the data.
Inversion fallacy.It seems you don't even understand what you write.
You must collect each sample at an exact time for something like the temperature of Earth. Storms move. Air moves. Earth spins and is lit by the Sun on only one side at a time. The Moon moves.So let me get this straight. You are claiming that in order to do any time series with data, one must collect all the data at the exact time?
Base rate fallacy. You cannot measure a 'change' without measuring at least two absolute measurements. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.Do you not know how time works? Could you be any more idiotic?
Base rate fallacy.Basically you are saying if I want to see the temperature changes over 24 hours, I would have to take the temperature every hour at exactly noon? That would be the only way to take the readings simultaneously. You do like to prove you are an idiot.
Base rate fallacy.Or if I want to find the daily high temperature in Phoenix and Tokyo on Oct 12, 2021, the only way I could do that is take the reading at 3PM Phoenix Time and 7AM in Tokyo so I am taking them at the exact same time? You do like to prove you are a complete and total idiot, don't you.
I did. It is biased and insufficient.It seems you didn't bother to actually look at the data.
Fallacy fallacy. Random numbers are not data.Not only that, you don't know how to read the data since you don't understand what the data includes but instead have made a straw man argument against what you want to pretend the data is.
ok? so your saying that whatever bullshit science you throw at me now can change. Which is fine. But it can change so much that it would miss an ice age. or it would miss islands sinking but are still here?
Lets say I need to choose a number between 1 and a 100. If science could narrow my choices to the range of 40 -50 or 60-70 then that would be useful as the range i now need to pick from is only 10 numerals.
If however science is going to say "well the number can be anything from 1-100" then whats the fucking use of it? I might as well just get a fortune teller.
Im not saying science has to be 100% correct. But at least can you make sure you are at least in the right century when you predict an ice age?
Well, if the range of possible numbers was from -1,000,000 to + 1,000,000 in the issue at hand then 1 - 100 is a pretty good starting point...
Are they now??The climate change predictions are coming true.
You have yet to even define what "climate change" IS... You can't evidence a buzzword; it is meaningless.There is lots of evidence showing it is correct.
Forest fires and rising water happens all the time. You also seem to ignore all the forests which AREN'T on fire and all of the FALLING water levels. The creek by my house was down to a mere piss trickle, the lowest that I remember ever seeing it during my lifetime, until we finally got some storms to bring in some rain.The forest fires and rising water are simply facts.
WTF do you mean by "increases in storm power"?? Compared to WHAT?? Why is one point in time more significant than another point in time? ---- It's just weather dude. It happens.The increases in storm power were also predicted.
Oregon experiences such temperatures from time to time. So?? It's happened here in Wisconsin before too.Who thought Oregon would get a string of 100 plus temperatures.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to any useful accuracy. We don't have enough thermometers, nor can we feasibly space them out evenly (since they need to be serviced and we need road access to them to service them).The globe temperature is rising.
if it was sure but in my hypothetical it was 1-100.
My main point is these predicitons are so bad that if the range of the problem is -1000000 to + 1000000 like you said Science would still present me a choice between -1000000 and + 1000000 which makes it useless.
It is not possible to measure the global sea level. There is no valid reference point. I live near Oregon. The glaciers are still there. Go in the winter, when you can see them.Second, the islands are not sinking, just as Miami is not sinking,. The water is rising as more glaciers melt thus causing flooding. Here in Oregon we have lost over half of our glaciers.
All animals die. Get a clue.Third, perhaps you really need to look at what is happening globally. Floods, and fires, along with diseases, and then there is the loss of animal life.
Science cannot do it all, and has never claimed it could. Some people do learn, others just follow.
...deleted Holy Link...
Anomalies are facts, maggot, indubitably. How's your anomaly search doing ?
Haw, haw............................haw.



anomalies are cherry picking.
Fallacy fallacy. Primavera was showing an exception to the theory that high temperature have never been seen before, such as the high temperatures experienced across the West near the summer solstice.
Showing such an exception is a perfectly valid argument.
I don't think you get where im coming from.