UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you should feel so embarrassed that it wasn't the hottest year on record. you were off by a tiny miniscule fraction.
thus hiatus.
InB4 the Eco-Loons
- Thread starter MuyLocoNC
- Start date
thus hiatus.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
He isn't citing. He copy pastes one or two sentances and says it is from NASA, no link, no context and then declares victory.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
"135 years is too small of a time frame!", says the guy bleating about a 17 year hiatus.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Yeah but since he cited NASA making this claim, we can overlook the absurdity of it.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
"just look at what NASA says", says the guy bleating about how AGW is a hoax.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Yes, beg for citations instead of reading the actual report yourself.
Here, I'll humor you.
NASA.gov
Lol.
This is where you back peddle, cry foul, make excuses and cement my victory of exposing the alarmism. Any member reading this is smart enough to see you've been pinched.
Just say you fucked up, saw it on HuffPo, didn't check shit for yourself and couldn't wait for it to be true. Then peddled it like it was fact.
Or don't, everyone already knows that's EXACTLY what happened.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
don't have a meltdown. it'll be OK. there is no need to be so upset.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Actually,
THE
REASON
I
AM
ASKING
FOR
A
LINK
IS
SO
THAT
I
CAN
READ
THE
ACTUAL
REPORT
MY
SELF
YOU
FUCK
TARD
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I don't think he is going to be able to comprehend this, you wrote it normal, you have to go slow.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Oh, you mean like I did in post #45?
Would you need a link if you'd actually read the report? Is that an admission you get your climate info from dubious websites known for their UNBELIEVABLY obvious bias?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Check your link.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
I saw that, but I think you can handle typing in nasa.gov.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So you just made that snippet up from thin air.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
says the guy citing the very scientific findings of NASA.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Well, that's odd. You want a link to an article talking about the two reports, rather than reading the actual reports for yourself. Hmm, you guys usually lambaste folk for doing precisely that.
Read the fackin' reports. Not the press releases, the actual reports. I thought you fuckers claimed to be intellectuals? I've given more than I usually do, I'm done holding your hand. Do the work.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
link something
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
I'm gonna throw you a bone, because it covers two topics under debate in this thread.
38% chance AND when the "ghost hiatus" or "pause" will end. Hmmm, leading climate scientist, MMGW proponent, acknowledges your claims of so many hot years lately, but still admits to pause, why it's happening and when it will end. Weird, huh?
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/pause-over-within-10-years-says-nasas-schmidt.html
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Now we're getting somewhere. A news article which has the NASA and NOAA studies linked.
NASA link: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20150116/
1)Hiatus never mentioned.
2)No mention of excluding data prior to 135 years ago.
3)No mention of 38% chance of (see item 4)
4)2014 clearly confirmed as hottest year on record
You fail.
Stay tuned for explication of NOAA links.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
is that the same gavin schmidt who defended the "climategate" researchers who were eventually exonerated and whose work was found to be completely within scientific standards?
ya know, the climategate scandal that you cite as evidence in the AGW hoax/conspiracy?
i'm gonna start buttering my toast on both sides.