If none of that stops your panic then maybe these two can do it with humour and facts
)
Sorry. I usually leave the beetles among the dead leaves in the lowest level of jungle for others to entertain themselves. But when I see this, I can't stop giggling.
It shows the same abrupt global warming as always.
This is the same figure placed on Mars ----> .
It shows the same abrupt global warming as always, but in this case the scale is selected in a way to hide that the author drank all the alcohol contained in those thermometers (because they are alcohol thermometers, don't forget! content is everything; calibration, not quite
That's what religion does to people: believing that rituals and how things are shown replace reality.
I leave you again playing with our funny and dear Haig who, in the race for the ridiculous, always finds a way to excel himself.
Simply exactly what they are, nothing else.Nice artsy macaroni-gluing posts, Haig, and nice too their Ned_Flanders_meets_Dale_Carnegie scripting
But, why don't you explain exactly all the variables in your concoction above, little copypasta grasshopper?
If you have the slightest idea, I mean.
So far a house-wife accidentally get here and though that you might be onto something, and she thought that for a whole minute.
Haig, we already know that you have the delusion that this conference poster is about AGW. Even if it is published, the paper will not say anything about AGW. This is Anthony Watts (with others) continued obsession with the trivial fact that it is possible to cherry pick US (not global!) weather station data to give the trends that the authors want. That is why competent climate scientists do not cherry pick stations
!Haig: Greenhouse effect denier - what more need be said ! Except that he has 56 posts of parroted ignorance, delusions and lies from climate change deniers with some of his ignorance, delusions and a lie or twoNo worries macdoc...alarmist rant and idiotic graph snipped...
Competent climate scientists know that AGW is not linear. They do not ignorantly extrapolate the past trend into the future as a linear trend because they know that the atmosphere is a complex, non-linear system. Competent climate scientists use the climate computer models to predict future trends.
!The farce is the idiocy of not knowing that small changes in temperature are significant, Haig. I would try to educate you about that yet again
if it were not for: ! The text is an denier rant, not science.The words say that you depend on ignorant fact less rants from climate change deniers on the internet, Haig which needs aSo aleCcowaN you want and explanation of that chart well these words say it all
!A part of being confident about a theory is that multiple lines of evidence lead to the same conclusion. On one hand we have at least 97% of papers supporting AGW with multiple lines of evidence. On the other hand we have less than 3% papers that support various theories (natural variation, the Sun, etc.) with a few lines of evidence for each different theory. This is bad - if there was a viable alternative to AGW then those papers would converge on that alternative.
So aleCcowaN you want and explanation of that chart well these words say it all
"The adjacent chart pretty much makes aturkeymockery of accelerating global warming fears. It's simply notflyinghappening.
While the climate science establishment continues its costly and misallocated efforts against "catastrophic" global warming, the empirical evidence indicates the worlds' elites are pursuing a laughably ludicrous Don Quixote quest against an imaginary climate-evil.
Like so many Thanksgivings of the past, those on the 'quest' have piously announced civilization's reaching its 'last chance' point of saving itself from climate doomsday. But all of theseTurkeynadoSharknado-like prophecies that the end-is-near have proven to be pure anti-science fiction.
At some point, we can hope some sanity returns to the climate science anti-CO2 Quixote brotherhood of warriors. But in the meantime, what does the actual climate science say?
Well, this chart is just brutally frank: the fast growth of atmospheric CO2 levels (the black dots) have not exactly been the robust evil foe the elite establishment has fixated on.
As the chart depicts, the CO2 impact on either short (red curve) or long-term (pink curve) rapid global temperature acceleration appears to be non-existent versus the "consensus" predictions. And the blue-dash curve reveals the rather turkey-like impact on the 36-month average of absolute global temperatures.
Indeed, global temperatures have increased since 1950. But the scientific reality is that the chart confirms a steady global warming that has been taking place since the end of the Little Ice Age (late 1700s) - well before the influx of the giant CO2 emissions from the industrial/consumer era. The chart clearly shows a long history of frequent periods of rapidly increasing temperatures, then to be always followed by a significant deceleration."
Understand now
The fact is that you are parroting a WUWT lie as usual, Haig.The thing is RC that consensus of 97% was a lie
Anthony Watts lie abut Cook et. al. starts with an Obama tweet
Consensus isn't Science .... something macdoc has difficulty with
Consensus Argument Proves Climate Science Is Political.
read lower comment first.
The Sun - Weather & Climate link Q & A
On 21 Dec 2015, Bob Weber wrote:
On 21 Dec 2015, Gerry wrote:
