Pinheads conned.....

Dungheap said:
The chart would be the same whether actual temperature or temperature anomaly. It doesn't change the temperature observations, just the baseline against which the temperature observations are measured. So . . . yeah. Good point.
Click to expand...

What the Met Office is saying is that the average mean temperatures are back to 1997 levels. They explain it by saying that La Niña in the Pacific is depressing worldwide temperatures.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/30/met_office_temp_statement_for_durban/

Peter Stott is the Met Office's expert on attributing climate change to anthropogenic and natural causes, so no bias there then.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/our-scientists/climate-monitoring
 
Dungheap said:
I don't think I got anyone. You said Oncelor said something that he didn't say. Yes, the "debate" is AGW. But there is a contingent of people (you included) that dispute that there is even any warming to speak of in the first instance, let alone the cause of it. I find it fascinating.

We (the Royal "we," not you and I) can debate causation until the Messiah arives, but the basic underlying fact of warming is not arguable.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen many people on here denying that there was a warming trend in the '90s, as to the cause that is still open to debate. As indeed it should be, after all that is the scientific method which is ultimately based on objectivity and verifiable results not political posturing and pressure groups.
 
Dungheap said:
I don't think I got anyone. You said Oncelor said something that he didn't say. Yes, the "debate" is AGW. But there is a contingent of people (you included) that dispute that there is even any warming to speak of in the first instance, let alone the cause of it. I find it fascinating.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO... that is quite the straw man. I have stated IN THIS THREAD that there was warming from the 1950's-late 1990's. So are you retarded or just a liar?

I have stated my position on global warming quite clearly. I can see the data that shows the warming in that time period. But I do NOT believe that MAN is the primary driver. I also have pointed out the FACT that there has been no significant warming since 1997. A FACT that again the data shows just as clearly as it shows the warming from mid century to 1997. So what part of that is confusing to you? What part of that causes you to state that I don't think there has been ANY warming at all?

We (the Royal "we," not you and I) can debate causation until the Messiah arives, but the basic underlying fact of warming is not arguable.
Click to expand...

and again MORON... show us where you got confused. Show us which of my posts on this board make you think I am arguing that. My guess is you won't. You will give us another of your 'fargle bargles' and then you will run away. Won't you? Fucking LIAR.
 
Superfreak said:
ROFLMAO... that is quite the straw man. I have stated IN THIS THREAD that there was warming from the 1950's-late 1990's. So are you retarded or just a liar?

I have stated my position on global warming quite clearly. I can see the data that shows the warming in that time period. But I do NOT believe that MAN is the primary driver. I also have pointed out the FACT that there has been no significant warming since 1997. A FACT that again the data shows just as clearly as it shows the warming from mid century to 1997. So what part of that is confusing to you? What part of that causes you to state that I don't think there has been ANY warming at all?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that you said there has never been any warming at all. I said that you claim that global temperatures are not increasing, which you do.


Superfreak said:
and again MORON... show us where you got confused. Show us which of my posts on this board make you think I am arguing that. My guess is you won't. You will give us another of your 'fargle bargles' and then you will run away. Won't you? Fucking LIAR.
Click to expand...

You said it right in this post. You think warming stopped in 1998.
 
Dungheap said:
I don't think I got anyone. You said Oncelor said something that he didn't say. Yes, the "debate" is AGW. But there is a contingent of people (you included) that dispute that there is even any warming to speak of in the first instance, let alone the cause of it. I find it fascinating.

We (the Royal "we," not you and I) can debate causation until the Messiah arives, but the basic underlying fact of warming is not arguable.
Click to expand...


Why make such stupid accusations......do you think in your little brain that conservatives deny the ice ages of the past and warming periods ?

Of course there is climate change. No one ever denied that. Its history and to say we deny it is ridiculous......the crux of the issue is AGW and the lies put forth by your "scientists" that are nothing more than partisans with an agenda.......

and it seems you all are still in denial, trying to spin and tapdance and adjust the goalposts just enough for you to save face......just admit you were duped and move on.
 
bravo said:
Why make such stupid accusations......do you think in your little brain that conservatives deny the ice ages of the past and warming periods ?

Of course there is climate change. No one ever denied that. Its history and to say we deny it is ridiculous......the crux of the issue is AGW and the lies put forth by your "scientists" that are nothing more than partisans with an agenda.......

and it seems you all are still in denial, trying to spin and tapdance and adjust the goalposts just enough for you to save face......just admit you were duped and move on.
Click to expand...


So when you said "It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997" you didn't really mean that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997? You meant that the trend in rising world temperatures continues but AGW isn't the cause?

OK.
 
Dungheap said:
I didn't say that you said there has never been any warming at all. I said that you claim that global temperatures are not increasing, which you do.
Click to expand...

You truly are a fucking idiot. I stated quite clearly that global temperatures have not increased by any statistically significant amount from 1997-present. In that period. Where the DATA shows that is a FACT.

Are you going to pretend now that I didn't specify what time frame I was referring to? Are you arguing the FACTS of that specific time frame? Or are you going to pretend that I was somehow making that statement and including the warming period from mid century until 1997?

Do you think you might stop lying now? Or are you going to continue being a douche bag?

You said it right in this post. You think warming stopped in 1998.
Click to expand...

No moron. I stated that there has been no significant increase in global temperatures since 1997. I never said it stopped forever. I never suggested any such thing. You fucking hack.
 
Superfreak said:
You truly are a fucking idiot. I stated quite clearly that global temperatures have not increased by any statistically significant amount from 1997-present. In that period. Where the DATA shows that is a FACT.

Are you going to pretend now that I didn't specify what time frame I was referring to? Are you arguing the FACTS of that specific time frame? Or are you going to pretend that I was somehow making that statement and including the warming period from mid century until 1997?

Do you think you might stop lying now? Or are you going to continue being a douche bag?
Click to expand...


Why don't you show me your analysis for the period 1997-2011 and let me know what you find with respect to statistical significance. I think you will find that your claim is incorrect.


No moron. I stated that there has been no significant increase in global temperatures since 1997. I never said it stopped forever. I never suggested any such thing. You fucking hack.
Click to expand...

Right. You said it stopped in 1998. I never said that you said that it stopped forever.
 
dung is stupider than the pile in his picture. 10 years isn't long enough, but a cherry picked 50 is just right. SF 400,000 is too long?
fucking fence repair guys doing climate stuff, nahh not so much.
 
The Dude said:
dung is stupider than the pile in his picture. 10 years isn't long enough, but a cherry picked 50 is just right. SF 400,000 is too long?
fucking fence repair guys doing climate stuff, nahh not so much.
Click to expand...


10 years isn't long enough and I never said 50 is long enough for anything other than showing why 10 is too short (although I fail to see how looking that at the last 50 years is a "cherry picked 50"). You can take a period of say, 50 years with unquestioned statistically significant warming and pluck out numerous 10 year periods during that show statistically insignificant warming.
 
Dungheap said:
Why don't you show me your analysis for the period 1997-2011 and let me know what you find with respect to statistical significance. I think you will find that your claim is incorrect.




Right. You said it stopped in 1998. I never said that you said that it stopped forever.
Click to expand...

I think it's so funny how SF hurls all of these insults at you and you just totally ignore them and answer the post.
 
Dungheap said:
10 years isn't long enough and I never said 50 is long enough for anything other than showing why 10 is too short (although I fail to see how looking that at the last 50 years is a "cherry picked 50"). You can take a period of say, 50 years with unquestioned statistically significant warming and pluck out numerous 10 year periods during that show statistically insignificant warming.
Click to expand...

Well then I showed you 400,000 to show you that 50 is not long enough. you can take a period of 100,000 years with unquestioned statistically insignificant changes and pluck out numerous 50 year periods that show statistically significant warming.
 
Dungheap said:
Yeah, not sure where he gets that but whatever. I've changed my name a few times on here for giggles, but have only had one account and have used Dungheap since the days of politics.com.
Click to expand...

DH, Top retired to smoke pot all day. He could have gotten it anywhere and I expect a lot more where that came from!
 
Superfreak said:
Well then I showed you 400,000 to show you that 50 is not long enough. you can take a period of 100,000 years with unquestioned statistically insignificant changes and pluck out numerous 50 year periods that show statistically significant warming.
Click to expand...


Yes, you can. Good one, but I thought you weren't questioning whether warming occurred prior to 1998 so why would you?

Also, please get back to me on the statistical significance question. I'd like to see your analysis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top