Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science, claims leading meteorologist.
- Thread starter jahbrudda
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
Dude, you can't even read a chart.
You've once again got nothing but binders full of fail.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
that would be the big red squiggly line your euro blog pal drew on there.
each scenario's temps are predicated on suppositions about CO2 emissions.
scenario B most closely matches our current emissions.
that's because it supposes that CO2 emissions would grow faster than they did, numbnuts.
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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
unless, of course, you consider that the earth has continued to warm.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
So you're saying your charts are irrelevant to the point you're trying to make.
Thanks for playing, Samantha.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
is it still 2008? 2005?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
prediction emissions?
tell me, beenthere, what are those scenarios based on? why have three different scenarios?
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
so it is 2005?
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
obligatory joke about two families instead of just one.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
That was a typo. He's actually a meth grad.