ITT: global warmers are nervous as about having data re-examined, tbh.
Why do you think?
Anti-warming is the extreme opposite that idiots use.
Those who follow the faith religiously, never understand the difference between facts and dogma.
You know it actually undermines whatever you say your argument is about climate, right?
In your mind.
I'm not anti-warming, and anyone, like you, who is incapable or arguing against a persons actual point, is a total joke. When you have to lie about someone else's stance. You already lost the debate.
What debate are we currently having, WC?
I'm sure the Global Warming Policy Foundation will issue a fair, thorough, and unbiased investigative report... BUWAHAHAHAHAHA....
Sorry, I just couldn't keep a straight face.
I know what you are saying.
You are saying I undermined the OP, because they mention satellites. Now if you hadn't been so stupid as to label people "anti-warming," I would have responded differently.
Just because I satellite measurements are not accurate, for you to jump in and ASSume, is crazy, because I never mentioned any error ranges of either.
You are so fast to argue against anything you can, you make a total jack-ass of yourself.
Now I don't know what the accuracy of the satellite measurements are assumed to be, but uncorrected physical temperature measurements are most accurate. NOAA admits to adjusting these, hence, they probably even less accurate than the satellites.
The bottom line is, the data has been "fiddled" with.
I understand. Claiming to be a cold ass honkie explains it all.
You hatin on my gator shoes?
I saw a broken keyboard... I bought a broken keyboard.
Land ice is melting at record rates all over the planet.
AGW deniers and their marginal, d science are hurting progress towards solutions.
You made a huge ASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSsumption there.
You lost the debate.
Yes, the ice affected by soot is.
No, the solutions, if needed, are hampered by the alarmists being seen for what they are. A joke. Too many predictions are seen as laughable, and their credibility is hurt. They did it all to themselves. The stupid need no help.
Now through all these years, if they stated with reasonable predictions, people might listen to them. As it is, anyone with half a brain, sees right through the BS.
Are you saying I assumed something I portrayed as fact?
How do you get anti-warming, from this:
Are you telling us that "exaggerated" means opposite, and in cooling instead of warming?Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming.
We don't disagree that the earth has warmed. We disagree with the extent of which corrected records say it has.
Consider, from NOAA:
Nope.
I'm not saying that at all.
Ruins the expensive "green" scam they have going, tbh.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
