[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

So that graphs says the earth has been warming since 1979.

Actually it shows a warming trend that has been tracked since 1979.

It does not indicate if the warming commenced in 1979.

[PluggyRug]

It might also be asked what data was used to establish the zero degree baseline.

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

So that graphs says the earth has been warming since 1979.

Actually it shows a warming trend that has been tracked since 1979.

It does not indicate if the warming commenced in 1979.

True. Better way of phrasing it.

[N_Fiddledog]

Tricks Tricks:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

But step away for a minute will you kids. I'm going to try to have a serious discussion now.

Tricks Tricks:

Am I the only one seeing the upward trend on that graph that fiddle posted?

Which graph? You mean this one?



Are you talking about the little ticks upwards some months while the main line continues to plummet? We're coming out of a super-El Nino. If you look back to 1998 you'll see there was another one with a similar downwards trend, but not the breaks in the plummeting line. That's interesting, but I doubt it means much.

The other two graphs on Arctic ice will trend up or down depending on time of year. It's what the individual lines are doing in relation to the others that's interesting.

No, I mean if you were to draw a trend line across that graph, it would be a positive trend. So that graphs says the earth has been warming since 1979.

Oh yeah, of course. Everybody knows that. There was a warming trend from the early 70s to about 1998. Yes you can simply draw over the flat line from 98 to the present and show a longer warming trend over the complete satellite record. There was another warming trend in the 20s and 30s. You can even draw a line from about 1850 and show a gradual long term trend. Here's another one from when the land surface temperatures were still credible. Before NOAA rewrote the data to cover up the fact there has been no warming over the last 19 or so years.

This is what it looks like long term:



But what Booker is saying in The Telegraph article is since the end of the Super EL Nino in 2016 temps have been plummeting. That not even surprising. It's a thing that happens after strong El Ninos

[Tricks]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Before NOAA rewrote the data to cover up the fact there has been no warming over the last 19 or so years.

Who are you Ted cruz? He tried to float that to an actual climate scientist in a hearing and got verbally slapped for it.

$1:

But what Booker is saying in The Telegraph article is since the end of the Super EL Nino in 2016 temps have been plummeting. That not even surprising. It's a thing that happens after strong El Ninos

And? That doesn't suddenly disprove the trend of upward temperature across the globe.

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

But what Booker is saying in The Telegraph article is since the end of the Super EL Nino in 2016 temps have been plummeting. That not even surprising. It's a thing that happens after strong El Ninos

And? That doesn't suddenly disprove the trend of upward temperature across the globe.

No, but it does disprove the notion that man-made causes are of a greater influence than natural causes and naturally occurring cycles.

By the way, if the Thames freezes over then whatever year that happens in will be called 'THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD!!!' by at least someone who depends on grant money.

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

No, but it does disprove the notion that man-made causes are of a greater influence than natural causes and naturally occurring cycles.

Year to year? I don't think anyone would disagree. Over 30 years? Nope.

$1:

By the way, if the Thames freezes over then whatever year that happens in will be called 'THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD!!!' by at least someone who depends on grant money.

And the polar ice caps could entirely melt and there would still be some dumb fuck in texas blowing smoke out of his truck like a god damn moron.

[Thanos]

Tricks Tricks:

And the polar ice caps could entirely melt and there would still be some dumb fuck in texas blowing smoke out of his truck like a god damn moron.

FREEEEEEDUUUUUMMMMMMMBBBBBBBBB! GAHHHHHH!

[BeaverFever]

I'm still waiting for Fiddle and the rest of the deniers to explain what exactly they think is motivating these millions of scientists, academics, public servants, boards of directors, university trustees, philanthropists and business leaders to donate so much time and money in this highly orchestrated worldwide climate change conspiracy.

If they know climate change is a lie and their policies will destroy the worlds economies and make basic necessities unaffordable, then these people are destroying their own lives too right? For what gain? Plus in the meantime they're supposedly falsifying data and forging documents, putting their careers and freedom at stake for no real reason?

Bart once made a weak attempt to explain by saying these individuals are probably hoping that their plot will lead to an excuse for higher taxes. But that doesn't make sense. That's like claiming a McDonalds cashier is likely to assassinate the CEO of Burger King in hope that it will lead to higher McDonalds profits. Obviously that's not likely. Besides, governments don't need to engage in such elaborate machinations, they can just raise taxes.

It just makes no sense. Why would SO MANY INDIVIDUALS around the world go to such lengths and invest so much of their energy and money in a complicated plot that will cost them everything and provide them with no direct benefits?

The same goes for the so-called worldwide mainstream media conspiracy. Most of these outlets are for-profit businesses owned by large corporations. Until recently, NBC was owned by General Electric, a major manufacturer and defence contractor. Yet supposedly the media tampers with the news in order to promote left-wing ideas harmful to businesses and therefore harmful to themselves. Why? And yet when we do see provable deliberate inaccuracies in the media, it's usually for pro-business purposes such as appeasing sponsors, attracting viewers with sensational stories, and pandering to public misconceptions.

To believe the right-wing worldwide climate change/media conspiracies you have ro believe that millions of people all around the world and the organizations they belong to are knowingly investing their time and money in a massively complex and highly organized global conspiracy to destroy themselves and with the people they care about, for no other purpose than for shits and giggles. From NASA scientists to prominent benefactors and trustees of the worlds universities, to lowly laboratory technicians and student intern researchers ti boards if directors of Fortune 500 companies. All conspiring for no particular reason. It makes no sense and you have to be pretty far overall the cuckoos nest to think it does.

You what does make sense? Companies that pollute and stand to lose money from environmental regulations pay people to fight those regulations and spread disinformation about them. That's not a far fetched theory, it's demonstrated fact. That's how the world works and always has.

[Thanos]

Soros has got like $800 trillion in gold he stole from dead Jews during the Holocaust, which means he's got a lot of cash to spread around. Or so the boys on Breitbart and Daily Stormer like to claim. And at least two-thirds to three-quarters of them are completely serious when they say it.

[N_Fiddledog]

Tricks Tricks:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Before NOAA rewrote the data to cover up the fact there has been no warming over the last 19 or so years.

Who are you Ted cruz? He tried to float that to an actual climate scientist in a hearing and got verbally slapped for it.

Well I'm not sure what you're talking about as concerns Cruz. I remember one vaguely with I think it was a retired admiral meteorologist. He had a chart and Ted Cruz had a chart. Cruz's showed the pause. His didn't. He claimed his was the chart you had to consider because Cruz's satellite chart had been rewritten by the scientists Christy and Spencer four times and couldn't be trusted. What he neglected to mention was he appeared to be using the recently rewritten NOAA land surface chart and those measurements have been manipulated, massaged and outright rewritten over the years more time than anybody even knows. People who think the weather admiral won that one though, conveniently closed their ears to Cruz's final remark where he politely told the guy he'd been wasting his time smearing Christy and Spencer because it wasn't even their chart. It was RSS - which is a completely different satellite set. But in Progworld the ex admiral said something mean about somebody so that means he won.

The one I remember better...and I think it might even have been from the same committee hearing was this one:

[Tricks]

All he said was "Why are we looking at 1998?" And pulled out one that went back like a century. You and your ilk cherry pick where to start (1998 being the favourite) which is complete and utter nonsense.

Then, the part you miss, is that Cruz was claiming it has been entirely flat since 1998, followed by claiming that you could take out any part of it and it would remain flat. Which showed a fundamental lack of understanding of how averages and math works. if you take out the extreme outlier (1998), that same graph still showed a upward trend.

Cruz is a fucking idiot.

But you and Bart have long demonstrated you won't listen to anything related to Climate Change, I honestly don't know why I bothered, what an absolute waste of my time.

[N_Fiddledog]

Tricks Tricks:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

But what Booker is saying in The Telegraph article is since the end of the Super EL Nino in 2016 temps have been plummeting. That not even surprising. It's a thing that happens after strong El Ninos

And? That doesn't suddenly disprove the trend of upward temperature across the globe.

Who said it did? The writer of the OP article wasn't saying that. His claim was "Another Arctic ice panic over as world temperatures plummet"

As I've already shown you, nothing about that particular claim is false.

What you're talking about is an entirely different discussion.

[N_Fiddledog]

Tricks Tricks:

:lol: All he said was "Why are we looking at 1998?" And pulled out one that went back like a century. You and your ilk cherry pick where to start (1998 being the favourite) which is complete and utter nonsense.

Then, the part you miss, is that Cruz was claiming it has been entirely flat since 1998, followed by claiming that you could take out any part of it and it would remain flat. Which showed a fundamental lack of understanding of how averages and math works. if you take out the extreme outlier (1998), that same graph still showed a upward trend.

Cruz is a fucking idiot.

But you and Bart have long demonstrated you won't listen to anything related to Climate Change, I honestly don't know why I bothered, what an absolute waste of my time.

Oh it's time to get nasty is it? Is that admitting defeat? Oh well...if you must take your ball and go home then you must. I'm going to stay and explain further why you're wrong.

Concerning the cherry picking claim for instance, sure it is, but why does that mean it can't be considered?

If it can't then we can't pay a lot of attention to the cherry picked period the alarmist want to pee their pants over that begins at the end of the era known as the little ice age. About 1850. A cooling period was coming to an end. It did so naturally. CO2 increase wasn't really kicking in until about a hundred years later.

Now it's true the Industrial Revolution was also kicking in about that time, so me I say even though it's cherry picked let's consider it, but let's be aware of all factors, not just the convenient ones.

Concerning the 20 recent years of the warming pause for example, at present it appears on a credible graph as a leveling summit or plateau at the top of the warming trend. We don't know what's coming next. It's also interesting because record amounts of CO2 have been added during this period yet there has been no warming. Why isn't that interesting? I think it is. Thom Karl of NOAA thought it was so interesting he rewrote the climate data to make the warming pause disappear off the graph. Poof. Now you see it. Now you don't. That's how Thom Karl of NOAA deals with interesting things.

[N_Fiddledog]

But again none of that has anything to do with the article in the OP.