Ode to the Climate Science-Denier

[Cypress]

Again... SEE post #102

This is your standard bullshit cypress... pretending that you cannot see the BBC link. Pretending that the head of the CRU doesn't disagree with your unimpeachable NAS.

This has been addressed ad naseum. This will be the last time, please don't beg me to keep responding to something that has been debunked before.

Obviously, you don't understand what Dr. Jones said. The scientifically informed reader does.

Dr. Jones was asked a very specific question: If global warming between 1995 and 2008 was statistically significant at the 95% confidence significance level. Which is just a random, confidence level that is mostly used by convention. There's nothing magical about it. First problem: cherry picking the year 1995 is rather dubious. If you cherry picked 1991 or 1992 you'd get a different answer.

Second, Dr. Jones did not say there was no warming from 1995 to 2009. There was. 0.12 degrees C per decade. Scientists indeed observed warming. But, he was asked a highly technical question, on a cherry picked year.

The savvy, and scientifically-informed reader could understand what Dr. Jones said. He said there WAS warming - 0.12 degree C per decade - and that there was about a 5% chance (a very low chance) that the upward trend was due to mere chance. Note that he said "The positive trend is quite close to the significance level.

Bottom line, there was warming, 0.12C, and there was about close to a 5% change this warming trend was due to mere chance.

If you understood what he said, and if you understood what statistical significance is at the 95% confidence level, this would have been clear to you.

Were done.

Get back to me when you have a link to a reputable scientific organization with expertise in climate science that supports your conjectures and cherry picks.

Dr. Phil Jones:

I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

Edit:
********************************

-Superfreak's position: There has been no warming since the mid 1990s! Climate Gate! Scientists are lying!


The position of expert climate scientists:

-Dr. Jones (translated to normal english): There WAS a 0.12 degree C/decade rise in temperature between 1995-2009. The chance that this upward trend was due to mere chance is very low - only about 5%. Choosing the year 1995 is rather dubious, because statistical significance at the 95% confidence interval is typically only achievable with larger data sets, of longer temporal variation.

-NASA, 2010: "We conclude that global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the past decade" and "that there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.20°C/decade that began in the late 1970s."

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Really, he is just going to make superfreak have to do damage control as he tries to get the GW side to ignore Dixie's pathetic (straw man) arguments and focus on his.

Don't worry too much superfreak. No one actually expects Ditzy will have the best counter arguments.

I don't need a counter argument for something stupid and without scientific basis for belief. If you and SF want to entertain Prissy and the Warmers, be my guest! I think you two are ENABLING the stupidity rather than combating it, but that's my opinion. The best thing you two could do, would be to ignore these idiots completely, or do as I do, and mock and ridicule them for the fools they are. Trying to have a meaningful dialogue with them on this subject, is like trying to have a meaningful dialogue with Chicken Little about the possibility the sky is really falling. Would it make any sense in the world to do that? I don't see any! I don't understand why you two want to continue debating this with them, as if they have some credible point to make or scientific evidence to support their assertions. It just goes beyond stupid into sublime... but that is you and SF... SUBLIME!

 

[Taichiliberal]

I guess we need to get Sesame Street to do a documentary for you guys... THE EARTH GETS WARM --- THE EARTH GETS COOL --- LALALALALALALALALALALAAA!

I think that may be the only way to reach some of you! This cycle of cooling AND WARMING has been taking place for billions of years on this planet! No one has ever denied that this happens! Yet, you keep pulling out these asinine studies that show "the earth is warming---gasp!" Like it's some alarming news that means something! It's been happening for billions of years... that's BEFORE man was emitting CO2 into the atmosphere!

READ the article, you braying jackass! NASA isn't just whistl'in Dixie (pun intended). Then try to understand as I repeat this for God knows how many times for you willfully ignorant corporate lap dogs:

NO ONE IS CONTESTING THAT THE EARTH HAS NATURAL COOLING AND WARMING PERIODS....WHAT IS BEING POINTED OUT IS THAT IN ADDITION TO NATURAL PROGRESSION, YOU HAVE UNNATURAL ELEMENTS BEING ADDED TO THE ECO-SYSTEM THAT IS ARTIFICIALLY ACCELERATING THE PROCESS. OVER A CENTURY OF GLOBAL URBANIZATION, DEFORESTATION, INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION OF THE AIR AND LAND (smoke stacks, airliner exhausts, car exhausts) IS TAKING IT'S TOLL. Got that bunky?

Evidence of this from various reputable sources is undenial....but lord knows insipidly stubborn folk like you will swallow the bilge by corporate paid "researchers".

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

READ the article, you braying jackass! NASA isn't just whistl'in Dixie (pun intended). Then try to understand as I repeat this for God knows how many times for you willfully ignorant corporate lap dogs:

NO ONE IS CONTESTING THAT THE EARTH HAS NATURAL COOLING AND WARMING PERIODS....WHAT IS BEING POINTED OUT IS THAT IN ADDITION TO NATURAL PROGRESSION, YOU HAVE UNNATURAL ELEMENTS BEING ADDED TO THE ECO-SYSTEM THAT IS ARTIFICIALLY ACCELERATING THE PROCESS. OVER A CENTURY OF GLOBAL URBANIZATION, DEFORESTATION, INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION OF THE AIR AND LAND (smoke stacks, airliner exhausts, car exhausts) IS TAKING IT'S TOLL. Got that bunky?

Evidence of this from various reputable sources is undenial....but lord knows insipidly stubborn folk like you will swallow the bilge by corporate paid "researchers".

All I see from NASA is a study that says the Earth is getting warmer... We know that! We can all agree, the Earth is getting warmer! Sometimes, the Earth gets cooler, but for now, it is getting warmer! The Earth has NEVER maintained a static consistent temperature, in all of its history!

It is SPECULATION that something mankind is doing, is contributing to the natural warming cycle... we have NO EVIDENCE to prove that is the case! We have speculators, we have people making up theories and pontificating on various factors, but we do not have concrete evidence that man is doing one damn thing to contribute to the natural warming cycle which we all agree is happening.

I personally believe, even if man WANTED to change the climate and make the Earth warmer (or cooler) it would be inherently impossible to do. I just don't think we have that capability, even if that was our intent and objective. The old Earth is a resilient planet, it has dealt with warming and cooling cycles for years, and it is largely 'self-cleaning' and functional without a bit of assistance from Liberals! It's been that way for billions of years before Al Gore ever came along, and it will be that way for many years after Al Gore is gone!

When people of the future look back on this, they will laugh their asses off at you idiots! ....You mean they actually thought PEOPLE were causing the Earth to get too hot? LMAO! What? They wanted to restrict Carbon Dioxide? The same CO2 that plants need to survive? WTF??? Was it the DRUGS they were using? Were these people Meth Heads? THAT is how people of the future will talk about this nonsense.

 

[Onceler]

"When people of the future look back on this, they will laugh their asses off at you idiots! ....You mean they actually thought PEOPLE were causing the Earth to get too hot? LMAO! What? They wanted to restrict Carbon Dioxide? The same CO2 that plants need to survive? WTF??? Was it the DRUGS they were using? Were these people Meth Heads? THAT is how people of the future will talk about this nonsense. "

It's easy to ignore most of your nonsense, but this is just silly. It's doubtful that the people of the future will look at the state of their oceans, waterways & air, and say that we tried to do too much - in any capacity - to reduce pollutants & contaminants.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

"When people of the future look back on this, they will laugh their asses off at you idiots! ....You mean they actually thought PEOPLE were causing the Earth to get too hot? LMAO! What? They wanted to restrict Carbon Dioxide? The same CO2 that plants need to survive? WTF??? Was it the DRUGS they were using? Were these people Meth Heads? THAT is how people of the future will talk about this nonsense. "

It's easy to ignore most of your nonsense, but this is just silly. It's doubtful that the people of the future will look at the state of their oceans, waterways & air, and say that we tried to do too much - in any capacity - to reduce pollutants & contaminants.

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant or contaminate, MORON! It's a NATURAL ELEMENT found in great abundance all over the fucking universe! Without CO2, no life on Earth would exist!

 

[Onceler]

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant or contaminate, MORON! It's a NATURAL ELEMENT found in great abundance all over the fucking universe! Without CO2, no life on Earth would exist!

Ever hear of the concept that some things are good at certain levels, but poisonous at others?

Just to reiterate - you really should steer clear of these science threads. Really; you shouldn't even click on them.

 

[Timshel]

The environment is indestructible? lol

I mean to some degree, ditzy, you are correct. Some sort of environment is going to be here no matter what we do. The concern is whether it will be hospitable to man.

I don't think anyone has argued that we are going to destroy the earth (maybe a few nuts). But no one really cares about the earth's survival and it certainly does not care about ours. The concern is primarily whether we will destroy or harm human life.

 

[Timshel]

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant or contaminate, MORON! It's a NATURAL ELEMENT found in great abundance all over the fucking universe! Without CO2, no life on Earth would exist!

rofl, there he goes again with the ignorant "natural" element bs. Uranium is a natural element. Go suck on some.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The environment is indestructible? lol

I mean to some degree, ditzy, you are correct. Some sort of environment is going to be here no matter what we do. The concern is whether it will be hospitable to man.

I don't think anyone has argued that we are going to destroy the earth (maybe a few nuts). But no one really cares about the earth's survival and it certainly does not care about ours. The concern is primarily whether we will destroy or harm human life.

OSHA says for CO2 levels to be high enough to pose any health risk to people, it would need to be about 500 times greater than it currently is in our atmosphere. If we had CO2 factories devoted to constantly churning out CO2 as fast as they could, day and night, for the next 50,000 years, we wouldn't raise the CO2 levels in our atmosphere by that much.

The increase in parts per million, of CO2 in the atmosphere, is up from 260ppm to 320ppm in the past century. As I mentioned before, some scientists say this is actually beneficial to plant life, as it causes plants to retain more moisture, and thrive. Imagine a world where we can grow wheat and corn in the freaking desert? It could potentially solve the world food shortage, by having increased CO2 in our atmosphere!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
READ the article, you braying jackass! NASA isn't just whistl'in Dixie (pun intended). Then try to understand as I repeat this for God knows how many times for you willfully ignorant corporate lap dogs:

NO ONE IS CONTESTING THAT THE EARTH HAS NATURAL COOLING AND WARMING PERIODS....WHAT IS BEING POINTED OUT IS THAT IN ADDITION TO NATURAL PROGRESSION, YOU HAVE UNNATURAL ELEMENTS BEING ADDED TO THE ECO-SYSTEM THAT IS ARTIFICIALLY ACCELERATING THE PROCESS. OVER A CENTURY OF GLOBAL URBANIZATION, DEFORESTATION, INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION OF THE AIR AND LAND (smoke stacks, airliner exhausts, car exhausts) IS TAKING IT'S TOLL. Got that bunky?

Evidence of this from various reputable sources is undenial....but lord knows insipidly stubborn folk like you will swallow the bilge by corporate paid "researchers".

All I see from NASA is a study that says the Earth is getting warmer... We know that! We can all agree, the Earth is getting warmer! Sometimes, the Earth gets cooler, but for now, it is getting warmer! The Earth has NEVER maintained a static consistent temperature, in all of its history!

It is SPECULATION that something mankind is doing, is contributing to the natural warming cycle... we have NO EVIDENCE to prove that is the case! We have speculators, we have people making up theories and pontificating on various factors, but we do not have concrete evidence that man is doing one damn thing to contribute to the natural warming cycle which we all agree is happening.

I personally believe, even if man WANTED to change the climate and make the Earth warmer (or cooler) it would be inherently impossible to do. I just don't think we have that capability, even if that was our intent and objective. The old Earth is a resilient planet, it has dealt with warming and cooling cycles for years, and it is largely 'self-cleaning' and functional without a bit of assistance from Liberals! It's been that way for billions of years before Al Gore ever came along, and it will be that way for many years after Al Gore is gone!

When people of the future look back on this, they will laugh their asses off at you idiots! ....You mean they actually thought PEOPLE were causing the Earth to get too hot? LMAO! What? They wanted to restrict Carbon Dioxide? The same CO2 that plants need to survive? WTF??? Was it the DRUGS they were using? Were these people Meth Heads? THAT is how people of the future will talk about this nonsense.

Dixie, you have got to be one of the most self deluded braying jackasses I've ever seen! You're supposition and conjecture are NOT substitutes for FACTS and the logic derived from them. Here's a quote from the article that basically puts the kibosh on your BS:


The Antarctic Peninsula juts into the Southern Ocean, reaching farther north than any other part of the continent. The southernmost reach of global warming was believed to be limited to this narrow strip of land, while the rest of the continent was presumed to be cooling or stable.

Not so, according to a new analysis involving NASA data. In fact, the study has confirmed a trend suspected by some climate scientists.

"Everyone knows it has been warming on the Antarctic Peninsula, where there are lots of weather stations collecting data," said Eric Steig, a climate researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle, and lead author of the study. "Our analysis told us that it is also warming in West Antarctica."

The rest of the article goes into detail, fairly pointing out what is fact based evidence and what is still in question. So much for yet another one of your revisionist diatribes, Dixie old thing.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, you have got to be one of the most self deluded braying jackasses I've ever seen! You're supposition and conjecture are NOT substitutes for FACTS and the logic derived from them. Here's a quote from the article that basically puts the kibosh on your BS:


The Antarctic Peninsula juts into the Southern Ocean, reaching farther north than any other part of the continent. The southernmost reach of global warming was believed to be limited to this narrow strip of land, while the rest of the continent was presumed to be cooling or stable.

Not so, according to a new analysis involving NASA data. In fact, the study has confirmed a trend suspected by some climate scientists.

"Everyone knows it has been warming on the Antarctic Peninsula, where there are lots of weather stations collecting data," said Eric Steig, a climate researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle, and lead author of the study. "Our analysis told us that it is also warming in West Antarctica."

The rest of the article goes into detail, fairly pointing out what is fact based evidence and what is still in question. So much for yet another one of your revisionist diatribes, Dixie old thing.

And again (because you are stubborn).... Where does it conclude that MAN is causing this warming trend??????????????????????????????????????????????????

I'm not seeing that! I see where they say it is getting warmer in the West... so fucking what? We have already established that the Earth is in a warming cycle, it makes sense to me that it would be getting warmer in the West too! It's getting warmer in the East and the North and the South! All over the whole entire planet, the temperatures are getting warmer... that is what happens when the Earth is in a WARMING cycle! If we were in a COOLING cycle, the opposite would be happening... but then, you would all be in a panic over Global Cooling! It's the natural temperature cycles of our planet, and it has been happening like this for billions of years. The Medieval period was just as warm as today, if not warmer, and there was not a single factory emitting any CO2 into the atmosphere at that time!

 

[tinfoil]

Ever hear of the concept that some things are good at certain levels, but poisonous at others?

Just to reiterate - you really should steer clear of these science threads. Really; you shouldn't even click on them.

You should learn about statistics, warmer. You guys talk about science, but climatology, as practiced by the IPCC, is nothing but gathing other people's work and making wrong conclusions based on statistical misuse of the graphical representation of data sets with differing error margins.

Can you summon an once of intellect to respond to this?

do you even understand what I'm talking about?
Do you even understand that real temps are not the same as temps derived by averaging tree ring widths in sample trees?
Do you understand the the decline that needed to be hidden was the decline in tree ring widths? Those widths were supposed to verify the tree ring treemometer theory. Instead, your scientists lied to you and told you the real temps were part of the graph of temps and that were were suddenly getting hotter than ever! OMFG!!!

Nobody doubts that the record keeping, experiments that confirm CO2s radiative effects, and other area of science involved in climatology. We have a problem with the misuse of statistics as the basis of a theory and then using computer models with the bias built into them to verify the biased theory.

If fucking ridiculous. And idiots who talk about deniers as ignorant are sorely mistaken. I prove every thread that the climate science the IPCC is pushing is full of errors and lies.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

You should learn about statistics, warmer. You guys talk about science, but climatology, as practiced by the IPCC, is nothing but gathing other people's work and making wrong conclusions based on statistical misuse of the graphical representation of data sets with differing error margins.

Can you summon an once of intellect to respond to this?

do you even understand what I'm talking about?
Do you even understand that real temps are not the same as temps derived by averaging tree ring widths in sample trees?
Do you understand the the decline that needed to be hidden was the decline in tree ring widths? Those widths were supposed to verify the tree ring treemometer theory. Instead, your scientists lied to you and told you the real temps were part of the graph of temps and that were were suddenly getting hotter than ever! OMFG!!!

Nobody doubts that the record keeping, experiments that confirm CO2s radiative effects, and other area of science involved in climatology. We have a problem with the misuse of statistics as the basis of a theory and then using computer models with the bias built into them to verify the biased theory.

If fucking ridiculous. And idiots who talk about deniers as ignorant are sorely mistaken. I prove every thread that the climate science the IPCC is pushing is full of errors and lies.

This post should be made sticky for all times!

 

[Sammy Jankis]

rofl, there he goes again with the ignorant "natural" element bs. Uranium is a natural element. Go suck on some.

Stringfield. CO2 is a crucial life gas for all plant life. People eat plants. CO2 is not a pollutant. Climate Changer fearmongering science has been proven to be a lie.

 

[Onceler]

You should learn about statistics, warmer. You guys talk about science, but climatology, as practiced by the IPCC, is nothing but gathing other people's work and making wrong conclusions based on statistical misuse of the graphical representation of data sets with differing error margins.

Can you summon an once of intellect to respond to this?

do you even understand what I'm talking about?
Do you even understand that real temps are not the same as temps derived by averaging tree ring widths in sample trees?
Do you understand the the decline that needed to be hidden was the decline in tree ring widths? Those widths were supposed to verify the tree ring treemometer theory. Instead, your scientists lied to you and told you the real temps were part of the graph of temps and that were were suddenly getting hotter than ever! OMFG!!!

Nobody doubts that the record keeping, experiments that confirm CO2s radiative effects, and other area of science involved in climatology. We have a problem with the misuse of statistics as the basis of a theory and then using computer models with the bias built into them to verify the biased theory.

If fucking ridiculous. And idiots who talk about deniers as ignorant are sorely mistaken. I prove every thread that the climate science the IPCC is pushing is full of errors and lies.

You've become such an idiot, tinfoil. You don't even know what I'm saying, and you completely miss the idiocy Dixie is spewing because you got caught (somewhere along the line) in the right-wing spin machine. What a fool you are now.

I'm not a "warmer," in the sense of the word that you are using. Why don't you read through Dixie's thoughts on C02, see what I was actually responding to, and wake up a bit from your conservative stupor.

 

[Canceled.2016.1]

"When people of the future look back on this, they will laugh their asses off at you idiots! ....You mean they actually thought PEOPLE were causing the Earth to get too hot? LMAO! What? They wanted to restrict Carbon Dioxide? The same CO2 that plants need to survive? WTF??? Was it the DRUGS they were using? Were these people Meth Heads? THAT is how people of the future will talk about this nonsense. "

It's easy to ignore most of your nonsense, but this is just silly. It's doubtful that the people of the future will look at the state of their oceans, waterways & air, and say that we tried to do too much - in any capacity - to reduce pollutants & contaminants.

I think if we focus on restricting CO2, they will indeed laugh. They will laugh because of all the time, money and intellectual capacity we wasted on 'studying' and 'restricting' CO2, when that time, money and intellectual capacity SHOULD have been spent on reducing the pollution of our air, land and water.

 

[charver]

I think if we focus on restricting CO2, they will indeed laugh. They will laugh because of all the time, money and intellectual capacity we wasted on 'studying' and 'restricting' CO2, when that time, money and intellectual capacity SHOULD have been spent on reducing the pollution of our air, land and water.

Have you not considered the fact that you, essentially, sold us a flawed product?

As soon as we find the receipt you're going to be on the receiving end of a no nonsense missive from our lawyers.

Screw you, GOD. I'm shopping at Allah's convenience store from now on.

Good Day.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

This has been addressed ad naseum. This will be the last time, please don't beg me to keep responding to something that has been debunked before.

Obviously, you don't understand what Dr. Jones said. The scientifically informed reader does.

Dr. Jones was asked a very specific question: If global warming between 1995 and 2008 was statistically significant at the 95% confidence significance level. Which is just a random, confidence level that is mostly used by convention. There's nothing magical about it. First problem: cherry picking the year 1995 is rather dubious. If you cherry picked 1991 or 1992 you'd get a different answer.

1) go look at how often your 'scientists' cherry pick the data they use. Look at the time periods in some of the links you provide.

2) A 95% confidence interval is not random you twit.

3) Learn to READ... the time period questioned was 1995-2009.... which at the time was the prior FIFTEEN years. It is not cherry picked. Every time your 'scientists' choose random periods, you say nothing. When someone takes a standardly used time frame like 5, 10, 15, 20 years that isn't one of your masters, well then... they must be cherry picking the start date.

Second, Dr. Jones did not say there was no warming from 1995 to 2009. There was. 0.12 degrees C per decade. Scientists indeed observed warming. But, he was asked a highly technical question, on a cherry picked year.

Correct. Which is EXACTLY what I posted. Just as the 0.12 decline he was asked about in the next question shows SOME decline, but not a significant level. Just as Jones and I both stated.

The savvy, and scientifically-informed reader could understand what Dr. Jones said. He said there WAS warming - 0.12 degree C per decade - and that there was about a 5% chance (a very low chance) that the upward trend was due to mere chance. Note that he said "The positive trend is quite close to the significance level.

Yes and then in the next question with the decline, how did he respond? The point twit, is that he shows his bias in how he answers the two questions. That and the FACT that there has been no significant warming.

Bottom line, there was warming, 0.12C, and there was about close to a 5% change this warming trend was due to mere chance.

If you understood what he said, and if you understood what statistical significance is at the 95% confidence level, this would have been clear to you.

Obviously, it is you who fails to comprehend. I understand stats quite well. There was no significant warming. That means that while close... it failed over that time frame. He then tries to pretend that it is hard to get significance over a 15 year time frame. Which is bullshit given the amount of data they have (ooops, I mean HAD) available.

Were done.

Get back to me when you have a link to a reputable scientific organization with expertise in climate science that supports your conjectures and cherry picks.

LMAO... First moron... it was the BBC who selected the time frame, not me and they are hardly conservative. They have been championing for the fear mongers for decades. Second, your own beloved master is the one who provided the answers. One of your 'unimpeachable scientists' from the CRU.

Second moron... Why is it that you didn't address his quote on whether or not he believed this was 'FACT' as you stated?

Why not address that Cypress? Could it be because it again is a piece of evidence to suggest you and your 'unimpeachable' NAS are WRONG????

Let me know when YOU have a credible source. Because those who benefit from the continuation of this fear mongering campaign are not credible. In fact, they are a detriment to the fight to reduce global pollution and move towards cleaner and alt energy.

Edit:
********************************

-Superfreak's position: There has been no warming since the mid 1990s! Climate Gate! Scientists are lying!

Which is a flat out lie. Obviously this is the point where Cypress starts up the straw man factory. Typical of the coward. He cannot make a point and thus starts warping my position into one that he can knock down.

Dear Cypress... as I stated, there has been no STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT WARMING since 1995. Note... when you leave off the first two all cap words, that changes my position quite a bit.

The position of expert climate scientists:

-Dr. Jones (translated to normal english): There WAS a 0.12 degree C/decade rise in temperature between 1995-2009. The chance that this upward trend was due to mere chance is very low - only about 5%. Choosing the year 1995 is rather dubious, because statistical significance at the 95% confidence interval is typically only achievable with larger data sets, of longer temporal variation.

That is also complete bullshit. You and Jones are trying to assert that FIFTEEN YEARS worth of data isn't enough to achieve a 95% confidence interval? That simply shows you have no understanding of statistics.

-NASA, 2010: "We conclude that global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the past decade" and "that there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.20°C/decade that began in the late 1970s."

Except... global temperatures have NOT continued to rise. The evidence is in the CHARTS YOU PROVIDED. That is what you get for listening to Hansen instead of looking at the ACTUAL CHARTS.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Have you not considered the fact that you, essentially, sold us a flawed product?

As soon as we find the receipt you're going to be on the receiving end of a no nonsense missive from our lawyers.

Screw you, GOD. I'm shopping at Allah's convenience store from now on.

Good Day.

just an fyi charver....

the Christians, Jews and Muslims ALL believe in the God of Abraham. While they may call him by different names. He be the same dude in all three cases.