Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science, claims leading meteorologist.

[Harrekin]

Buck, do you understand what Im saying when I say the mean of the two temperature observations?

 

[sheskunk]

So when does the bad stuff start happening?

 

[UncleBuck]

Did you even look at the fourth chart you posted?

of course i did, i used it becase none of the other three used GISS. it's called being fair.

for the record, that line kept going up, because temperatures are still rising somehow (despite this imaginary "17 year hiatus).

 

[Harrekin]

of course i did, i used it becase none of the other three used GISS. it's called being fair.

for the record, that line kept going up, because temperatures are still rising somehow (despite this imaginary "17 year hiatus).

Dude, you can't even read a chart.

You've once again got nothing but binders full of fail.

 

[UncleBuck]

Dude, you can't even read a chart.

You've once again got nothing but binders full of fail.

meanwhile, you and beenthere are trying to argue that human activities are not causing a rise in global temps because 25 years ago hansen came out with a projection that isn't currently 100% spot on, although it has been for the majority of its existence.

that's pretty weak and pathetic, especially the whole you siding with beenthere part.

 

[jahbrudda]

scenario B most closely matches CO2 emissions. do you not fucking get this while you go on posting this anyway?

that graph has also been falsified, as "reality" was added on with no reference.

post the website you got that exact image from.

Here's the same graph from "skeptical science" your favorite and most trusted alarmist website.
Now show us all where the graph was falsified.

The scenarios are predicting temperature you moron, not co2 emissions.
scenario C is still higher than actual observed temperature.
Do you not get tired of these embarrassing follies of yours?

Figure 2: Projected global surface air temperature changes in Scenarios A, B, and C (Hansen 1988)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-advanced.htm

 

[UncleBuck]

Here's the same graph from "skeptical science" your favorite and most trusted alarmist website.
Now show us all where the graph was falsified.

that would be the big red squiggly line your euro blog pal drew on there.

The scenarios are predicting temperature you moron, not co2 emissions.

each scenario's temps are predicated on suppositions about CO2 emissions.

scenario B most closely matches our current emissions.

scenario C is still higher than actual observed temperature.

that's because it supposes that CO2 emissions would grow faster than they did, numbnuts.

Do you not get tired of these embarrassing follies of yours?

says the guy who has posted three separate falsified graphs and does not even understand what the scenarios suppose.

that is, when he's not too busy posting articles from white supremacists and holocaust deniers.

just re-ban yourself for your own sake, beenthere.

 

[Harrekin]

meanwhile, you and beenthere are trying to argue that human activities are not causing a rise in global temps because 25 years ago hansen came out with a projection that isn't currently 100% spot on, although it has been for the majority of its existence.

that's pretty weak and pathetic, especially the whole you siding with beenthere part.

Yeah your chart is accurate until the late 90's/early 00's before the Scenarios diverge.

At that point they begin a trend of following scenario C, as you'd see if you applied a Simple Moving Average.

Yeah, cos I never use charts at all in my work.

 

[UncleBuck]

YAt that point they begin a trend of following scenario C

unless, of course, you consider that the earth has continued to warm.

 

[Harrekin]

unless, of course, you consider that the earth has continued to warm.

So you're saying your charts are irrelevant to the point you're trying to make.

Thanks for playing, Samantha.

 

[UncleBuck]

So you're saying your charts are irrelevant to the point you're trying to make.

Thanks for playing, Samantha.

is it still 2008? 2005?

 

[jahbrudda]

UncleBuck thinks the graph is prediction emissions. LOL

 

[UncleBuck]

UncleBuck thinks the graph is prediction emissions. LOL

prediction emissions?

tell me, beenthere, what are those scenarios based on? why have three different scenarios?

 

[Harrekin]

is it still 2008? 2005?

You're totally delusional.

You post charts "proving" your points, I demonstrate they don't actually support your point and then you claim the charts just don't have the data you require.

Cite your source and tell me why none of the models have been updated in over 6 years?

Surely more up to date data would be added immediately if it helped support the IPCC's and Hansen's assertions, no?

 

[UncleBuck]

You're totally delusional.

You post charts "proving" your points, I demonstrate they don't actually support your point and then you claim the charts just don't have the data you require.

so it is 2005?

 

[Harrekin]

so it is 2005?

Ok so you admit your charts as you posted don't support your point, thanks for getting that out of the way.

Where is the remaining data?

If you give it to me I'll plug it into that chart when I get a chance and post an updated version for you and we'll see who's correct.

 

[Red1966]

Working towards a BS in biology, thanks for playing though

What was your area of study again, potatoes? lol the irony..

You'll have to get a GED before even starting for a BS. I'm "working towards getting elected President". If you're going to dream, dream big!

 

[UncleBuck]

You'll have to get a GED before even starting for a BS. I'm "working towards getting elected President". If you're going to dream, dream big!

obligatory joke about two families instead of just one.

 

[Red1966]

Made 4 grand this week trading commodities.

Thanks for playing, sport.

Are you literally so retarded that you can't see the mean of the two observations almost exactly follows Scenario C?

You'd think a math grad would be able to read a chart.

That was a typo. He's actually a meth grad.

 

[Harrekin]

Wers mer derter, Buck?

Having trouble finding temp observations that fit your narrative?