errr Global Warming?

[Rorschach]

Still avoiding eh SN...
Want me to repost yet again?
How long are you going to go on in denial and ignoring the facts?
Nothing I posted is incorrect... yet you post twaddle from Obama that has been proven wrong.
Nothing I've posted has anything to do with apathy... it just isn't lies from the Church of Global Warming Alarmism or the UN whose primary agenda is redistribution of world wealth and you claim is untrue.
Even mantra posted the truth of that agenda within months of the IPCC being formed.

[Rorschach]

10 reasons that show global warming is not man-made. Physics Prof explains his switch to skepticism.

Bit by bit, smart and influential thinkers are shifting. We’re seeing more and more of this type of exposition from people who are becoming skeptical. How much longer can the big bluff be maintained in the face of this kind of deep, considered and independent analysis?

Mike Van Biezen is a physics, maths and astronomy lecturer in the US. Until seven years ago, he accepted the premise that adding massive amounts of CO2 to the air would cause temperatures to rise. Then he noticed the slip in global temperatures from 1940-1980 and “could not ignore this subtle hint”. He did a lot of investigating over the ensuing years and has condensed that into ten very well written points. Like point 9: “It was so warm 4000 years ago that many of the glaciers around the world didn’t exist.” But things got so cold 150 years ago, people were afraid of glaciers and were asking “local bishops and even the Pope in Rome to come and pray in front of these glaciers in the hope of stopping their unrelenting advance.”

I also found point 7, and 10 particularly worth discussing. Point 10 is the one that he says captures the attention of his students.

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/12/10-rea ... kepticism/

Yet another post SN has ignored.

[Rorschach]

10. “Data adjustment” is used to continue the perception of global warming:

For the first several years of my research I relied on the climate data banks of NASA and GISS, two of the most prestigious scientific bodies of our country. After years of painstaking gathering of data, and relentless graphing of that data, I discovered that I was not looking at the originally gathered data, but data that had been “adjusted” for what was deemed “scientific reasons.” Unadjusted data is simply not available from these data banks. Fortunately I was able to find the original weather station data from over 7000 weather stations from around the world in the KNMI database. (Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute). There I was able to review both the adjusted and unadjusted data as well as the breakout of the daytime and nighttime data. The results were astounding. I found that data from many stations around the world had been systematically “adjusted” to make it seem that global warming was happening when, in fact, for many places around the world the opposite was true. Following will be a few of the myriad of examples of this data adjustment. When I present my material during presentations at local colleges, these are the charts that have some of the greatest impact in affecting the opinion of the students, especially when they realize that there is a concerted effort to misrepresent what is actually happening. Another amazing result was that when only graphing the daily highs from around the country, a very different picture arises from the historical temperature data.

[IQS.RLOW]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... ng-crisis/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A real peer reviewed consensus shows a majority of scientists disagree with CAGW.

Why are you still denying the science SN?

[Super Nova]

I read your article IQ.

Where are you at now?

Before you denied there was evidence of warming, do you accept the world is warming but deny the proposition that is primarily due to mans activity.

Where are you at now?

[Rorschach]

So SN when are you going to stop crapping on and address the real facts.

[IQS.RLOW]

I read your article IQ.

Where are you at now?

Before you denied there was evidence of warming, do you accept the world is warming but deny the proposition that is primarily due to mans activity.

Where are you at now?

Why are you making up lies now?
Do you think telling lies makes your argument stronger, or do you realise that it shows your argument is weak?

[Super Nova]

Why are you making up lies now?
Do you think telling lies makes your argument stronger, or do you realise that it shows your argument is weak?

I don't know what your argument is now. There are many areas of the argument. You refuse to address them one by one.

Do you agree now that the world is warming..... wasn't your position before
Is your position now there is no consensus in the scientific community as was previously claimed and therefore the warming is real but what is in doubt is if humanity is responsible?

[IQS.RLOW]

My argument has always been the same.
Warming has been minuscule and there is no "catastrophic" component like you piss your pants over.

Try and find otherwise.

[IQS.RLOW]

I see you've read this SN.

I can see why you are ignoring it until you can find some other article that supports your position but cannot refute the evidence.

Denier.