2014 was definitely the hottest year on record
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
How could 2015 be in the top 3 warmest years on record if there's been a "warming hiatus" since 1998?
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
It's already been verified, thank you. Did you mean post the data so YOU can verify it? Not necessary, we don't really care what the crackpot deniers think. It's SETTLED SCIENCE. End of debate.
Last edited:
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Then show me who verified it, who reported on it, etc. Even if what you're saying is accurate, you've been espousing the opinion this entire thread that there has been no warming since 1998, so if 2015 comes in the top three for hottest years on record, you're still wrong.
When I searched for verification earlier, not surprisingly the first few hits were from our good friend Roy Spencer and the totally unbiased site wattsupwiththat.com. So I'm fairly certain your information is inaccurate like it usually is since you hold the same political biases as Spencer and Watts. Consequently, the scientific consensus among the experts hasn't changed. The vast majority of the leading experts studying global climate are still in virtually unanimous agreement that anthropogenic climate change is a significant problem facing humanity.
I'd be happy to read a peer-reviewed study verifying your claims, but I think we both know you can't produce that either
So you have fun with that, don't hurt yourself now...
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
You should stop, you're just embarrassing yourself now.
I'm sorry you don't know how to find widely available information unless it's from one of your liberal cesspool sources.
Don't change the subject. We're discussing how 2014 and 2015 have now been proven not to be the two hottest years on record, despite NASA's claims. How many posts could I quote where you perpetrated that garbage? 50? 100?
Peer-reviewed, that's a hoot. Let's ask the conspirators to verify a study that exposes their scam. Lolz, keep asking like it means anything.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
So then you can't produce any scientific citation that verifies your claim, just like I said
Now you're supporting the global conspiracy theory position that any scientific organization that confirms 2015 to be the hottest year on record - the scientific consensus - they must be "in on it" too, effectively rendering your own belief unverifiable
That sure doesn't sound very scientific to me..
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Oh, make no mistake, I can. I'm just not compelled in the slightest to give it to you. You seem to think your acceptance of a fact is required for it to be fact. It's not. I'll bet if you spent 60 seconds, you could find it on the Gugleè.
I've ALWAYS called it a scam, a hoax, a money grab. Now, it's the religion of liberal Eco-Loons everywhere that were in desperate need of a new "cause".
Yeah, satellites are so unscientific compared to computer models fed suspect data to get the desired results or bombastic claims from lackey heads of government agencies.
Wow, just wow.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
You're not "giving me" anything, you're verifying your claim, any asshole with a mouth can say anything they like, that doesn't make it true
I told you I ran a search earlier and the results were the typical conspiracy theory narrative we've seen dozens of times before, nothing from any credible scientific organization, nothing peer-reviewed, nothing published in any scientific journals.. That's why I asked you to post your source. I'm certain it's coming from one of those sites and you don't want to post it because you know it will be scrutinized and won't stand up to reasoned arguments.
It's all the same to me anyway, make a claim > post a source > yep, it's bullshit, or make a claim > cry about conspiracy theories > don't post source > well what do ya know, exact same result, yep, it's bullshit
I told you I ran a search earlier and the results were the typical conspiracy theory narrative we've seen dozens of times before, nothing from any credible scientific organization, nothing peer-reviewed, nothing published in any scientific journals.. That's why I asked you to post your source. I'm certain it's coming from one of those sites and you don't want to post it because you know it will be scrutinized and won't stand up to reasoned arguments.
It's all the same to me anyway, make a claim > post a source > yep, it's bullshit, or make a claim > cry about conspiracy theories > don't post source > well what do ya know, exact same result, yep, it's bullshit
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
But sure it's too late for even that we've been told...
Rrog
Well-Known Member
Padawan, for gods sake you're arguing with one of the singularly dumbest people in this forum. Why?
There's only like three other nitwits that would even read his bullshit. Why bother even dignifying his utter stupidity with a response? I have him and the similarly ignorant on Ignore for a year now
I love ignoring these ass hats
There's only like three other nitwits that would even read his bullshit. Why bother even dignifying his utter stupidity with a response? I have him and the similarly ignorant on Ignore for a year now
I love ignoring these ass hats
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Warning, Warning, Warning,......Cold Fronts are now to be referred to as Polar Vortexes, when you see that cold air dipping down from Canadia, remember,...... it was once called a cold front because it was cold air pushing under warmer air. Now it was rediscovered and to keep the fear of Climate change real, the well known cold front has now earned a new name for sake, Polar vortexes, Polar Vortexes, Polar Vortexes, Polar Vortexes, Polar Vortexes Polar Vortexes
Polar Voretexs
Polar Vortexes
Polar Vortexes
Polar Vortexes Polar Vortexes
Polar Vortexes
Polar Vortexes
Polar Vortexes
Polar Vortexes
Polar Vortexes
Polar Vortexes Polar Vortexes Polar Vortexes Polar Vortexes Polar Vortexes
Polar
Vortex
Polar
Vortex............
Polar
Pola
pole.
Polar Voretexs
Polar Vortexes
Polar Vortexes
Polar Vortexes Polar Vortexes
Polar Vortexes
Polar Vortexes
Polar Vortexes
Polar Vortexes
Polar Vortexes
Polar Vortexes Polar Vortexes Polar Vortexes Polar Vortexes Polar Vortexes
Polar
Vortex
Polar
Vortex............
Polar
Pola
pole.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Slow day yesterday
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Do you know what that data says, though?
Bugeye
Well-Known Member
I don't know what the second graph is showing.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
So, now that we've established that 2014 was most definitely not the hottest year on record, nor even the hottest since 1979, can we put this one to bed?
The good news for our resident Eco-Loons is that it looks very possible that 2016 will be the hottest year since 1979. I look forward to it after the bitter cold we've been dealing with for the last few weeks. We're supposed to call that weather, as opposed to the brief cold snap we had in December...that's "climate change".
Is there even the slightest possibility these useful idiots don't see how ridiculous their position is to anyone with the slightest degree of skepticism?
It's totally not about the money, until ANY action/legislation is proposed. Oddly, it then becomes almost entirely about the money.
The good news for our resident Eco-Loons is that it looks very possible that 2016 will be the hottest year since 1979. I look forward to it after the bitter cold we've been dealing with for the last few weeks. We're supposed to call that weather, as opposed to the brief cold snap we had in December...that's "climate change".
Is there even the slightest possibility these useful idiots don't see how ridiculous their position is to anyone with the slightest degree of skepticism?
It's totally not about the money, until ANY action/legislation is proposed. Oddly, it then becomes almost entirely about the money.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
If you don't understand the second, you are probably misinterpreting the first.
The 2nd chart is showing how GISS has adjusted the temperature anomaly values for the two particular dates, between May 2008 and Nov 2015.
They make the past appear ever cooler, while making the present ever hotter, such that what was originally a (dubious) difference of 0.45 K now appears wider.
In other words, they are manipulating the data to suit their desires (in this case to show a warming trend with emphasis on the past decade being "the hottest on record"). Furthermore, they do not offer justification for those changes, at all.
For example, here's what Los Angeles looks like when adjustments are applied.
Blue is raw, and Red is adjusted. Do you see a problem? Would the adjusted chart lend itself to a particular political agenda, in your opinion?
However, this is not unique to the NCDC, GISS, and HADCrut.
RSS and UAH do it as well, but not with such overt distortion (and obviously shorter time frame).
This is partly why I have thrown away the idea of global average temperature. It is utter nonsense, both empirically and from the perspective of Stat Mech. People who believe this stuff deserve to have their money separated from their wallets (and given to me!!!)
