http://i.huffpost.com/gen/842700/original.jpg


Quote:

Bloomberg Businessweek's cover story this week takes a direct approach to linking Hurricane Sandy and climate change. As the storm approached the East Coast on Monday, many considered the link between the hurricane and climate change vital to its coverage. While the connection was broached on social media sites like Twitter, the discussion did not get noticeable attention on cable new networks that were continuously covering the storm. Bloomberg Businessweek, however, made the connection loud and clear with its cover story. Above a photo of a flooded, powerless city street, the headline "IT'S GLOBAL WARMING, STUPID" appears in bold, underlined text. Bloomberg Businessweek editor Josh Tyrangiel tweeted, "Our cover story this week may generate controversy, but only among the stupid."

"Our cover story this week may generate controversy, but only among the stupid."

LOL come on down

Dsmithy70 wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:07am:

"Our cover story this week may generate controversy, but only among the stupid."

It appears that it has.... :D

lol weather is now climate. Less cyclones mean global warming.

It was cold where I am this morning, therefore global cooling.

AGW credibilty is fast going out the door.

Extremes at both ends of the scale

More frequent events

But hey progs, I'm sure nothing other than 600 50degree days in a row would make you wonder, even then I wouldn't be surprised to see you write that off as a "Once in a Generation Event"
Gee how often am I hearing that now days :-?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:33am:

Extremes at both ends of the scale More frequent events But hey progs, I'm sure nothing other than 600 50degree days in a row would make you wonder, even then I wouldn't be surprised to see you write that off as a "Once in a Generation Event" Gee how often am I hearing that now days :-?

More frequent. Yeh if you cut history out of the picture, sure.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:33am:

Extremes at both ends of the scale More frequent events But hey progs, I'm sure nothing other than 600 50degree days in a row would make you wonder, even then I wouldn't be surprised to see you write that off as a "Once in a Generation Event" Gee how often am I hearing that now days :-?

Not only once in a generation but gillards fault!

SOB

As I understand it smithy - and you'll correct mewith a reference if I'm wrong - the past 16 years have been a cooling period not warming.
How can they say then that this storm is due to global warming?
I also understand that the east coast of the US has suffered more severe storms as long ago as the 1930s.

hadrian_now wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:41am:

As I understand it smithy - and you'll correct mewith a reference if I'm wrong - the past 16 years have been a cooling period not warming. How can they say then that this storm is due to global warming? I also understand that the east coast of the US has suffered more severe storms as long ago as the 1930s.

Large storms have become less frequent than in the past. The only difference is the population has grown, so there is more possibility for loss of life and of damages cost.

Hurricane expert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. says:


The only accurate part of this Bloomberg BusinessWeek cover is “stupid”

This graph shows why AGW credibility is going out the door fast and why Abbott is best to steer clear of the AGW loons and makes Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. correct

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/screenhunter_142-aug-04-07-42.jpg

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 10:07am:

This graph shows why AGW credibility is going out the door fast and why Abbott is best to steer clear of the AGW loons and makes Dr Rojer Pilke correct http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/screenhunter_142-aug-04-07-42.jpg

So why has he committed 10 billion of TAXPAYERS MONEY to achieving the goal of carbon output reduction?

And isn't something paid for by taxpayer funds actually a tax?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 10:10am:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 10:07am: This graph shows why AGW credibility is going out the door fast and why Abbott is best to steer clear of the AGW loons and makes Dr Rojer Pilke correct http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/screenhunter_142-aug-04-07-42.jpg So why has he committed 10 billion of TAXPAYERS MONEY to achieving the goal of carbon output reduction? And isn't something paid for by taxpayer funds actually a tax?

Ask Abbott why. I am happy to be planting more trees and being that bit cleaner.

Read my lips 'no extra tax to be paid as it will come from the current tax take'

Are ppl still getting stupidly semantic about climate change? It was called global warming @ first because it was discovered that sea water temps were rising. Because so many stupid ppl didnt want to acknowledge it and kept saying "but its cold" the PC way of saying "climate change" was adopted since temperatures have all sorts of changes in all sorts of places.

SOB

hadrian_now wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:41am:

As I understand it smithy - and you'll correct mewith a reference if I'm wrong - the past 16 years have been a cooling period not warming. How can they say then that this storm is due to global warming? I also understand that the east coast of the US has suffered more severe storms as long ago as the 1930s.

Here you go

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/NE_Storm_Surges.png

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 10:13am:

Ask Abbott why. I am happy to be planting more trees and being that bit cleaner. Read my lips 'no extra tax to be paid as it will come from the current tax take'

So if no new monies coming in to fund this aspiration what is going to be cut?

And if something already funded is cut & those cuts cause the price to increase due to the governments contribution being decreased or withdrawn wouldn't that equal a TAX using Abbott's very own definition of Gillard's supposed tax?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 10:22am:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 10:13am: Ask Abbott why. I am happy to be planting more trees and being that bit cleaner. Read my lips 'no extra tax to be paid as it will come from the current tax take' So if no new monies coming in to fund this aspiration what is going to be cut? And if something already funded is cut & those cuts cause the price to increase due to the governments contribution being decreased or withdrawn wouldn't that equal a TAX using Abbott's very own definition of Gillard's supposed tax?

Well we would have to see the details at the next election

hadrian_now wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:41am:

As I understand it smithy - and you'll correct mewith a reference if I'm wrong - the past 16 years have been a cooling period not warming. How can they say then that this storm is due to global warming? I also understand that the east coast of the US has suffered more severe storms as long ago as the 1930s.

Can you link something up I've not heard this.

As for the storms, I'm sure they have, but have they experienced as many in such a short space of time?

The last decade
Katrina
Isaac
Sandy

I'm sure they get hurricanes every year as we get cyclones every year, however the size seems to be increasing as well as frequency of the category 4 to 5 types.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 10:32am:

hadrian_now wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:41am: As I understand it smithy - and you'll correct mewith a reference if I'm wrong - the past 16 years have been a cooling period not warming. How can they say then that this storm is due to global warming? I also understand that the east coast of the US has suffered more severe storms as long ago as the 1930s. Can you link something up I've not heard this. As for the storms, I'm sure they have, but have they experienced as many in such a short space of time? The last decade Katrina Isaac Sandy I'm sure they get hurricanes every year as we get cyclones every year, however the size seems to be increasing as well as frequency of the category 4 to 5 types.

Sandy was only cat 1, downgraded to tropical storm. The only problem with it is that there was another storm front with cool air to suck off and moon sea rise on hit.

Met Office Quietly Releases Missing Data

Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago
- Guest Column--Dr. Benny Peiser (Bio and Archives)  Monday, October 15, 2012


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week. The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported. This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.—David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 14 October 2012






Global warming stopped 15 years ago and the average temperature has not risen at all since 1997, the Met Office said last night. But critics said the Met Office had released the figures onto the internet without publicity – in contrast to the attention it gave to those released six months ago that reinforced the case for global warming. Those figures went up to 2010 – the hottest year on record – and showed a continuing warming trend. Dr Benny Peiser of Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation said: “It is quite scandalous that the Met Office is misleading the public. The latest data proves beyond any doubt that there has been no warming [trend] over the past 16 years.”—John Ingham, Daily Express, 15 October 2012






The data confirms the existence of a ‘pause’ in the warming. The impact of this pause within the climate dynamic community has been to focus increased attention on the impact of natural variability, particularly the impact of internal multi-decadal oscillations in the ocean.  The new climate model calculations for the AR5 have focused on trying to assess what it would take to accurately simulate these multi-decadal ocean oscillations and how predictable they might be.  These new observations and climate modeling results will hopefully impact the the IPCC AR5 deliberations so that we do not see the same overly confident consensus statements that we saw in the AR4. —Judith Curry, Georgia Tech University, 14 October 2012

The Met Office says that the world has warmed by 0.03 deg C per decade since 1997 based on their calculation of the gradient in the Hadcrut4 dataset. But what the Met Office doesn’t say is that this is statistically insignificant. There is no case to be made for a statistically significant increase in global temperatures as given in the Hadcrut4 dataset between 1997 and August 2012. The Met Office says the 15-year standstill is not unusual. This is true but again the Met Office is being economical with the truth.—David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 15 October 2012

Does it matter that campaigners and the media are actively peddling disinformation? For the most part, probably not, as the public is by now used to such nonsense on just about every subject from unemployment figures to Barack Obama’s birth certificate. But there is one group that should be very concerned about the spreading of rampant misinformation: the scientific community. It is, of course, thrilling to appear in the media and get caught up in highly politicized debates. But leading scientists and scientific organizations that contribute to a campaign of misinformation — even in pursuit of a worthy goal like responding effectively to climate change — may find that the credibility of science itself is put at risk by supporting scientifically unsupportable claims in pursuit of a political agenda.—Roger Pielke Jr, Denver Post, 12 October 2012

hadrian_now wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 11:02am:

Met Office Quietly Releases Missing Data Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago - Guest Column--Dr. Benny Peiser (Bio and Archives)  Monday, October 15, 2012 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week. The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported. This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.—David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 14 October 2012 Global warming stopped 15 years ago and the average temperature has not risen at all since 1997, the Met Office said last night. But critics said the Met Office had released the figures onto the internet without publicity – in contrast to the attention it gave to those released six months ago that reinforced the case for global warming. Those figures went up to 2010 – the hottest year on record – and showed a continuing warming trend. Dr Benny Peiser of Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation said: “It is quite scandalous that the Met Office is misleading the public. The latest data proves beyond any doubt that there has been no warming [trend] over the past 16 years.”—John Ingham, Daily Express, 15 October 2012 The data confirms the existence of a ‘pause’ in the warming. The impact of this pause within the climate dynamic community has been to focus increased attention on the impact of natural variability, particularly the impact of internal multi-decadal oscillations in the ocean.  The new climate model calculations for the AR5 have focused on trying to assess what it would take to accurately simulate these multi-decadal ocean oscillations and how predictable they might be.  These new observations and climate modeling results will hopefully impact the the IPCC AR5 deliberations so that we do not see the same overly confident consensus statements that we saw in the AR4. —Judith Curry, Georgia Tech University, 14 October 2012 The Met Office says that the world has warmed by 0.03 deg C per decade since 1997 based on their calculation of the gradient in the Hadcrut4 dataset. But what the Met Office doesn’t say is that this is statistically insignificant. There is no case to be made for a statistically significant increase in global temperatures as given in the Hadcrut4 dataset between 1997 and August 2012. The Met Office says the 15-year standstill is not unusual. This is true but again the Met Office is being economical with the truth.—David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 15 October 2012 Does it matter that campaigners and the media are actively peddling disinformation? For the most part, probably not, as the public is by now used to such nonsense on just about every subject from unemployment figures to Barack Obama’s birth certificate. But there is one group that should be very concerned about the spreading of rampant misinformation: the scientific community. It is, of course, thrilling to appear in the media and get caught up in highly politicized debates. But leading scientists and scientific organizations that contribute to a campaign of misinformation — even in pursuit of a worthy goal like responding effectively to climate change — may find that the credibility of science itself is put at risk by supporting scientifically unsupportable claims in pursuit of a political agenda.—Roger Pielke Jr, Denver Post, 12 October 2012

Thanks, interesting and actually up to date.

NOAA Confirms Hurricane Sandy Was Not A Result Of Ocean Global Warming

CO2 levels for 15-year period ending Sept 2012: Increased by 30 ppm

Ocean linear temperature trend equates to: +0.007 degree increase by year 2100

Polynomial trend and 3-year average indicate a cooling is in process

CO2 levels for the 15-year period ending Sept 1997: Increased by 22 ppm

Ocean linear temperature trend equates to: +1.10 degree increase by year 2100

Polynomial trend and 3-year average confirmed a warming trend during this previous 15-year period



Conclusions: The growing increases of atmospheric CO2 levels have not caused a global warming of the oceans over the last 15 years. Global warming was not the cause of Hurricane Sandy, which was essentially a typical weather hurricane that naturally occurs.


http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/11/noaa-confirms-hurricane-sandy-was-not-a-result-of-ocean-global-warming-nor-co2.html

hadrian_now wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:41am:

As I understand it smithy - and you'll correct mewith a reference if I'm wrong - the past 16 years have been a cooling period not warming. How can they say then that this storm is due to global warming? I also understand that the east coast of the US has suffered more severe storms as long ago as the 1930s.

Wrong and wrong, so you ever get anything right?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 11:13am:

hadrian_now wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 11:02am: Met Office Quietly Releases Missing Data Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago - Guest Column--Dr. Benny Peiser (Bio and Archives)  Monday, October 15, 2012 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week. The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported. This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.—David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 14 October 2012 Global warming stopped 15 years ago and the average temperature has not risen at all since 1997, the Met Office said last night. But critics said the Met Office had released the figures onto the internet without publicity – in contrast to the attention it gave to those released six months ago that reinforced the case for global warming. Those figures went up to 2010 – the hottest year on record – and showed a continuing warming trend. Dr Benny Peiser of Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation said: “It is quite scandalous that the Met Office is misleading the public. The latest data proves beyond any doubt that there has been no warming [trend] over the past 16 years.”—John Ingham, Daily Express, 15 October 2012 The data confirms the existence of a ‘pause’ in the warming. The impact of this pause within the climate dynamic community has been to focus increased attention on the impact of natural variability, particularly the impact of internal multi-decadal oscillations in the ocean.  The new climate model calculations for the AR5 have focused on trying to assess what it would take to accurately simulate these multi-decadal ocean oscillations and how predictable they might be.  These new observations and climate modeling results will hopefully impact the the IPCC AR5 deliberations so that we do not see the same overly confident consensus statements that we saw in the AR4. —Judith Curry, Georgia Tech University, 14 October 2012 The Met Office says that the world has warmed by 0.03 deg C per decade since 1997 based on their calculation of the gradient in the Hadcrut4 dataset. But what the Met Office doesn’t say is that this is statistically insignificant. There is no case to be made for a statistically significant increase in global temperatures as given in the Hadcrut4 dataset between 1997 and August 2012. The Met Office says the 15-year standstill is not unusual. This is true but again the Met Office is being economical with the truth.—David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 15 October 2012 Does it matter that campaigners and the media are actively peddling disinformation? For the most part, probably not, as the public is by now used to such nonsense on just about every subject from unemployment figures to Barack Obama’s birth certificate. But there is one group that should be very concerned about the spreading of rampant misinformation: the scientific community. It is, of course, thrilling to appear in the media and get caught up in highly politicized debates. But leading scientists and scientific organizations that contribute to a campaign of misinformation — even in pursuit of a worthy goal like responding effectively to climate change — may find that the credibility of science itself is put at risk by supporting scientifically unsupportable claims in pursuit of a political agenda.—Roger Pielke Jr, Denver Post, 12 October 2012 Thanks, interesting and actually up to date.

Don't get sucked in by lies and manipulation,smithy, the tards make sh it up to back up their stupidity, this is the sort of shi t Piers Ackerman runs.its just to appeal to the stupid, and as you can see he's done a good job.

The failure to address Global Warming is the shame of a generation.
For 25 years we have known we needed to reduce carbon emissions, and so far done little, shamefully little.

Every time we have weather and I mean every time and that is every day, the same d1ckhead repeats the same crap...its global warming...

therefore, I have the right to tax you, exclude you, blame you for changing the weather...what a moron...

Embrace that which unites in world peace, harmony and justice...reject that which divides marginalizes and excludes as false prophecy and testimony...
>:( >:(

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:44am:

hadrian_now wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:41am: As I understand it smithy - and you'll correct mewith a reference if I'm wrong - the past 16 years have been a cooling period not warming. How can they say then that this storm is due to global warming? I also understand that the east coast of the US has suffered more severe storms as long ago as the 1930s. Large storms have become less frequent than in the past. The only difference is the population has grown, so there is more possibility for loss of life and of damages cost.

That's not how they measure it, progs.

Remember how nobody wanted to stop using aerosols either. In fact they still arent banned!

SOB

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 9:15am:

NOAA Confirms Hurricane Sandy Was Not A Result Of Ocean Global Warming CO2 levels for 15-year period ending Sept 2012: Increased by 30 ppm Ocean linear temperature trend equates to: +0.007 degree increase by year 2100 Polynomial trend and 3-year average indicate a cooling is in process CO2 levels for the 15-year period ending Sept 1997: Increased by 22 ppm Ocean linear temperature trend equates to: +1.10 degree increase by year 2100 Polynomial trend and 3-year average confirmed a warming trend during this previous 15-year period Conclusions: The growing increases of atmospheric CO2 levels have not caused a global warming of the oceans over the last 15 years. Global warming was not the cause of Hurricane Sandy, which was essentially a typical weather hurricane that naturally occurs. http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/11/noaa-confirms-hurricane-sandy-was-not-a-result-of-ocean-global-warming-nor-co2.html

And for something different, direct quotes from a climate scientist that works for NOAA.


Quote:

We’ll be interviewing various experts about the impact of Hurricane Sandy and what lies ahead. For the big picture about hurricanes, we spoke to Jim Kossin, atmospheric research scientist in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center. Could Hurricane Sandy be the result of climate change? It’s not fair to say it’s associated with climate change. It’s very difficult to attribute an event like Hurricane Sandy to a change in climate because it’s challenging to connect the immediateness of a single event to the time scales that we talk about for climate change. But conveying this to the public is really hard. Are more hurricanes likely? The number of very strong land-falling hurricanes has decreased over the last number of years in places like Australia. But they have become more common in the Atlantic—there is no question about it. Why is the Atlantic region seeing a rise in hurricanes? One thing we know is that the climate of the Atlantic has changed since the mid-1980s, becoming warmer and more conducive to hurricanes. Where disagreement lies is what causes it. Some think it has nothing to do with climate change, and a growing body of evidence suggests that it has to do with aerosol pollution—basically small particles of a sulfate, a salt of sulfuric acid. There is this idea that after the Clean Air Act of 1970, pollution decreased and then the sun hit and warmed the water. If that were the case, by decreasing pollution, we would have increased hurricane activity—but that’s a tricky thing to say publicly.

And here's a couple from climate scientists that work on the other side of the Atlantic.


Quote:

The agency also warns that science right now cannot tease out how much of the change should be attributed to natural climate variability, and how much to man-made warming. As for the future, experts give conflicting or sketchy predictions of what could happen this century, when surface temperatures are predicted to warm 2 to 3°C. "There is some evidence to suggest that with climate change we might see stronger wind speeds but that the overall number of tropical cyclones (will show) no change or maybe even go down a little bit," says Tom Mitchell, head of climate change at Britain's Overseas Development Institute. Serge Planton, head of climate research at French weather forecasting service Meteo France, explains why the picture is so fuzzy. "It's a very complex phenomenon," he says. "A cyclone depends not only on the sea surface temperature, but also on the structure of the winds at every layer of the atmosphere. This means it does not respond in a simple, linear fashion to climate change." Surges more certain When it comes to storm surge, there seems to be more scientific consensus that climate change's impact is clear. Sandy's swells were entirely consistent with scenarios sketched by the UN's Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in a report on extreme weather events, published in March, contends Mitchell. "What the IPCC said there is with sea level rising a little bit already and with the potential for stronger storms, we are likelier to see surges increasing." Mitchell was a coordinating lead author in the report. "At some level, we can point to the climate change signal in that," he says. "The examples that we are seeing in New York today of very considerable storm surges are directly in line with the predictions of the IPCC."

Dsmithy70 wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 11:13am:

hadrian_now wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 11:02am: Met Office Quietly Releases Missing Data Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago - Guest Column--Dr. Benny Peiser (Bio and Archives)  Monday, October 15, 2012 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week. The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported. This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.—David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 14 October 2012 Global warming stopped 15 years ago and the average temperature has not risen at all since 1997, the Met Office said last night. But critics said the Met Office had released the figures onto the internet without publicity – in contrast to the attention it gave to those released six months ago that reinforced the case for global warming. Those figures went up to 2010 – the hottest year on record – and showed a continuing warming trend. Dr Benny Peiser of Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation said: “It is quite scandalous that the Met Office is misleading the public. The latest data proves beyond any doubt that there has been no warming [trend] over the past 16 years.”—John Ingham, Daily Express, 15 October 2012 The data confirms the existence of a ‘pause’ in the warming. The impact of this pause within the climate dynamic community has been to focus increased attention on the impact of natural variability, particularly the impact of internal multi-decadal oscillations in the ocean.  The new climate model calculations for the AR5 have focused on trying to assess what it would take to accurately simulate these multi-decadal ocean oscillations and how predictable they might be.  These new observations and climate modeling results will hopefully impact the the IPCC AR5 deliberations so that we do not see the same overly confident consensus statements that we saw in the AR4. —Judith Curry, Georgia Tech University, 14 October 2012 The Met Office says that the world has warmed by 0.03 deg C per decade since 1997 based on their calculation of the gradient in the Hadcrut4 dataset. But what the Met Office doesn’t say is that this is statistically insignificant. There is no case to be made for a statistically significant increase in global temperatures as given in the Hadcrut4 dataset between 1997 and August 2012. The Met Office says the 15-year standstill is not unusual. This is true but again the Met Office is being economical with the truth.—David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 15 October 2012 Does it matter that campaigners and the media are actively peddling disinformation? For the most part, probably not, as the public is by now used to such nonsense on just about every subject from unemployment figures to Barack Obama’s birth certificate. But there is one group that should be very concerned about the spreading of rampant misinformation: the scientific community. It is, of course, thrilling to appear in the media and get caught up in highly politicized debates. But leading scientists and scientific organizations that contribute to a campaign of misinformation — even in pursuit of a worthy goal like responding effectively to climate change — may find that the credibility of science itself is put at risk by supporting scientifically unsupportable claims in pursuit of a political agenda.—Roger Pielke Jr, Denver Post, 12 October 2012 Thanks, interesting and actually up to date.

Quote:

Six articles explain why different aspects of Rose's article are unfounded: Number 1. On the same day that The Mail on Sunday published Rose's article, The Met Office released a public statement on its blog, correcting claims in Rose's article about what the Hadcrut4 dataset does or doesn't show about climate change. The post included the Met Office's full response to Rose's direct - and in some cases leading - questions, exposing Rose's misrepresentation of the science. http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/ Number 2. Rose picked part of a graph that appeared to support his argument, so ThinkProgress published an article on Monday with ten charts that clearly show that global warming didn't stop 16 years ago, including how much global warming is going into other components of the climate system, notably the oceans. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/12/08/207156/daily-mail-david-rose-destroys-his-credibility-error-riddled-climate-science-reporting/ Number 3. On Tuesday, the Guardian re-published a deconstruction of Rose's argument by Dana Nuccitelli, an environmental scientist and contributor to Australian fact checking website Skeptical Science. Nuccetelli published a scientific paper with colleagues a few days before the Mail on Sunday's article, which pre-bunked Rose's claims. The Guardian article also criticises Rose's other interviewee, Professor Judith Curry, for her interpretation of the role of natural climate variability and her attack on climate models. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong?newsfeed=true Number 4. Also on Tuesday this week, Media Matters, a not-for-profit organisation which corrects misinformation in the US media, issued a no-holds-barred criticism of Fox Nation for accepting Rose's story uncritically, after the Met Office had already branded it misleading. http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/15/fox-falls-for-tabloid-science/190630 Number 5. An article yesterday by Bob Ward, Policy and Communications Director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, dug deeper into the Met Office's Hadcrut4 dataset and suggests Rose manipulated it to create a false graph. The article also describes Rose's track record for producing similar pieces for the Mail on Sunday. http://www2.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/Media/Commentary/2012/october/myth-that-global-warming-stopped-in-mid-1990s.aspx Number 6. Earlier today, Potholer, a Youtube channel which reports on scientific research and fact checks mainstream media coverage of science, released a video highlighting how quickly media outlets around the world accepted Rose's story without checking the source. http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=plcp&v=Qbn1rCZz1ow

The one from the met office has this great visual.

http://metofficenews.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/ranked_combined.png

I must admit I find it rather amusing that people like progs who uncritically swallow this stuff in the tabloids, want to call themselves skeptics. The irony is palpable.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/average-temps.gif

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qbn1rCZz1ow&sns=em

hadrian_now wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:41am:

As I understand it smithy - and you'll correct mewith a reference if I'm wrong - the past 16 years have been a cooling period not warming.

You understand incorrectly.

The past 16 years have been very clearly and unambiguously warming:

Averaged over the three temperature records, the value in 2010 is 0.01 °C above the value in 2005, and 0.02 °C above 1998 (WMO, 2011). It is remarkable that the warmest year occurred during a La Nina event, which normally leads to relatively cool temperatures.
http://www.csiro.au/~/Media/CSIROau/Images/Maps%20%20Graphs/Global-average-temp-anomalies_Ind/Main.ashx
http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Climate/Has-Global-Warming-Stopped/In-detail.aspx

Not only have surface temperatures continued to warm, but more importantly - ocean temperatures have also warmed:
http://www.csiro.au/~/Media/CSIROau/Divisions/CSIRO%20Sustainable%20Ecosystems/OceanHeatContent_CSE_set/Main.ashx
http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Climate/Has-Global-Warming-Stopped/In-detail.aspx

and obviously, as ocean temperatures warm, thermal expansion means that sea level rise will also increase:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/alt_gmsl_seas_not_rem.jpg
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html


Further indications that the earth is indeed warming - especially over the past 16 years can also been seen in the measured decrease in global glacial mass balance:
http://glacierchange.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/cumulative-mass-balance.jpg?w=480&h=270
http://glacierchange.wordpress.com/tag/glaciers-climate/

and the rapid decrease in Arctic sea ice:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2012/10/Figure2-350x280.png
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/


hadrian_now wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:41am:

How can they say then that this storm is due to global warming?

It is a fairly trivial fact that adding more energy to a system will cause that system to be more energetic.  Adding heat to the atmosphere leads to more moisture in the atmosphere and greater pressure differentials.  That means bigger storms.


hadrian_now wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:41am:

I also understand that the east coast of the US has suffered more severe storms as long ago as the 1930s.

Yes.  It probably has.

But this is no reason for us to ignore the very simple fact that a warming atmosphere will lead to more severe storms.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 10:14am:

Are ppl still getting stupidly semantic about climate change? It was called global warming @ first because it was discovered that sea water temps were rising. Because so many stupid ppl didnt want to acknowledge it and kept saying "but its cold" the PC way of saying "climate change" was adopted since temperatures have all sorts of changes in all sorts of places. SOB

errrr...no - not really.

"Climate change" and "Global warming" refer to two different things.  Essentially, climate change is an impact caused by global warming.

Both terms have been in usage for many decades and both terms are still in current usage.  One did not "replace" the other.

mozzaok wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 10:47am:

The failure to address Global Warming is the shame of a generation. For 25 years we have known we needed to reduce carbon emissions, and so far done little, shamefully little.

Are there more idiots in your family who believe carbon dioxide is causing global warming (when there has been 16 years of cooling) or, are you the only one?

If you are the only one then there's still hope for families.

Real scientists have said over and over again that the world's population emit 3% of carbon DIOXIDE  which doesn't cause warming.

Stop listening to snake oil scientists like Tim Flannery.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 9:15am:

NOAA Confirms Hurricane Sandy Was Not A Result Of Ocean Global Warming CO2 levels for 15-year period ending Sept 2012: Increased by 30 ppm Ocean linear temperature trend equates to: +0.007 degree increase by year 2100 Polynomial trend and 3-year average indicate a cooling is in process CO2 levels for the 15-year period ending Sept 1997: Increased by 22 ppm Ocean linear temperature trend equates to: +1.10 degree increase by year 2100 Polynomial trend and 3-year average confirmed a warming trend during this previous 15-year period Conclusions: The growing increases of atmospheric CO2 levels have not caused a global warming of the oceans over the last 15 years. Global warming was not the cause of Hurricane Sandy, which was essentially a typical weather hurricane that naturally occurs. http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/11/noaa-confirms-hurricane-sandy-was-not-a-result-of-ocean-global-warming-nor-co2.html

How exactly do you conclude that "growing increases of atmospheric CO2 levels have not caused a global warming of the oceans over the last 15 years."  when the NCDC NOAA data that your link refers to shows very clearly that the ocean temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive every single year since 1977?!?!?

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

Could you explain that for us please?

olde.sault wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 2:19pm:

Are there more idiots in your family who believe carbon dioxide is causing global warming .

Sorry - but I think you will find most people now understand AGW is occurring.  Your dwindling band of Jones and Bolt fans are sounding sillier every day



olde.sault wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 2:19pm:

(when there has been 16 years of cooling) or, are you the only one?

No - there has not been 16 years of cooling.  That is simply nonsense.  If it wasn't - you would show us some actual data that demonstrates this.  But you can't.  There isn't any.


olde.sault wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 2:19pm:

Real scientists have said over and over again that the world's population emit 3% of carbon DIOXIDE  which doesn't cause warming.

Yes - real Real scientists have said over and over again that the world's population emit 3% of carbon DIOXIDE.

I have never heard a real scientist say that this will not increase the amount of longwave radiation absorbed and re-emitted back to the earth's surface.

If you know of any - please show us a link to some of their published research which demonstrates this amazing result!




olde.sault wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 2:19pm:

Stop listening to snake oil scientists like Tim Flannery.

Could you provide a link for us to any paper published by Flannery which demonstrates him to be a  "snake oil scientist"?

Does anyone besides progs think that this isn't going to have an impact on storm surges.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NYSLR.jpg

MOTR wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 3:17pm:

Does anyone besides progs think that this isn't going to have an impact on storm surges. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NYSLR.jpg

maybe they should dredge out some of the sand that has built up in the bay

That is not the sea

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 3:34pm:

MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:17pm: Does anyone besides progs think that this isn't going to have an impact on storm surges. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NYSLR.jpg maybe they should dredge out some of the sand that has built up in the bay That is not the sea

What's that progs, individual sea level readings can't be used to make generalisations. How very interesting.

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg

But the oceans aren't expanding, are they, progs?

Oldsock must be related to prog, they both seem to carry the stupid and a liar gene.

MOTR wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 3:54pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:34pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:17pm: Does anyone besides progs think that this isn't going to have an impact on storm surges. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NYSLR.jpg maybe they should dredge out some of the sand that has built up in the bay That is not the sea What's that progs, individual sea level readings can't be used to make generalisations. How very interesting. http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg But the oceans aren't expanding, are they, progs?

How very interesting to use a bay as your marker. Shame you cant use the actual ocean to speak of the ocean.

Deception is the name of the game in AGW land after all.

Let me see if I can find a graph. BRB

Got it. Sure you are interested in this so you can explain the interaction of co2 with this graph as well as the one you provided.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

This is all Government spin and bullsh1t...the greatest threat to the planet and all life on it is Aggression, violence, war, competition and Greed - especially that perpetrated by Government, Military and corporations.  Government aggression and investment in hate and war make a nuclear Armageddon inevitable.

If we do not lay down the sword and embrace world peace, harmony & justice and live for the common good we are doomed.  The Gillard Government is leading us on the path to doom, not progress.... :) :)

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 4:38pm:

Got it. Sure you are interested in this so you can explain the interaction of co2 with this graph as well as the one you provided. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

How much variation does that time scale hide, progs. There are short term trends within larger trends, progs. What exactly is the point you are trying to make. That there is only one influence acting at a time. BTW, where does your graph come from, progs?

Do you really the graph you provided is telling us AGW warming will not have it's own influence.


Quote:

NASA Brief Climate warming is expected to result in rising sea level. Should this occur, coastal cities, ports, and wetlands would be threatened with more frequent flooding, increased beach erosion, and saltwater encroachment into coastal streams and aquifers.Global sea level has fluctuated widely in the recent geologic past. It stood 4-6 meters above the present during the last interglacial period, 125,000 years ago, but was 120 m lower at the peak of the last ice age, around 20,000 years ago. A study of past sea level fluctuations provides a longer-term geologic context, which can help us better anticipate future trends.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/slr.jpg

Even with possible future accelerated discharge from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, it highly unlikely that annual rates of sea level rise would exceed those of the major post-glacial meltwater pulses. However, it is reckless to argue sea level rises linked to AGW won't be significant and won't come with tremendous costs.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 4:34pm:

MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:54pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:34pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:17pm: Does anyone besides progs think that this isn't going to have an impact on storm surges. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NYSLR.jpg maybe they should dredge out some of the sand that has built up in the bay That is not the sea What's that progs, individual sea level readings can't be used to make generalisations. How very interesting. http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg But the oceans aren't expanding, are they, progs? How very interesting to use a bay as your marker. Shame you cant use the actual ocean to speak of the ocean. Deception is the name of the game in AGW land after all. Let me see if I can find a graph. BRB

I think I've made my point clear enough, progs. I'm sorry you want to pretend you missed it. By the way, progs, how about you check out the data set used by Church and White 2011.

ftp://ftp.marine.csiro.au/pub/white/church_white_grl_gmsl.zip

All of the warmonger spin in the world cannot hide the fact that the threat of nuclear Armageddon is the greatest challenge to survivability on the planet today...the world must pull back from competition, war, greed, aggression and embrace the common good and world peace...produce as many meaningless tables as you like, but violence, aggression, war, inequality competition and greed is killing life on this planet...The only issue humanity should be focused on is world peace and harmony and being guided by those principles... :) :)

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 4:34pm:

MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:54pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:34pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:17pm: Does anyone besides progs think that this isn't going to have an impact on storm surges. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NYSLR.jpg maybe they should dredge out some of the sand that has built up in the bay That is not the sea What's that progs, individual sea level readings can't be used to make generalisations. How very interesting. http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg But the oceans aren't expanding, are they, progs? How very interesting to use a bay as your marker. Shame you cant use the actual ocean to speak of the ocean. Deception is the name of the game in AGW land after all. Let me see if I can find a graph. BRB

It appears that sheer ignorance is the name of your game.

MOTR posted a graph showing combined TOPEX/Poseiden and Jason-1, Jason-2 data - satellite data that has been mapping global ocean topography since 1992.

Global.  Not in one bay.  Global.

You told a lie.

Again.

When are you going to explain to us why sea levels are rising if it isn't die to global warming?
What is the cause?

Why do you continually claim that the earth has not warmed for 16 years, then run away like a little girl whenever you are asked to explain this ridiculous statement?

Why is sea level rising if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years?
Why is global glacial mass balance decreasing if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years?
Why is the arctic ice cap decreasing if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years?
How is it possible that the earth has not warmed for 16 years, when surface temperature measurements over the past 16 years have shown a positive temperature anomaly with respect to the long term average, for every single one of those 16 years?

Don't you think you should address some of these lies you have been caught telling?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 5:57pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 4:34pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:54pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:34pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:17pm: Does anyone besides progs think that this isn't going to have an impact on storm surges. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NYSLR.jpg maybe they should dredge out some of the sand that has built up in the bay That is not the sea What's that progs, individual sea level readings can't be used to make generalisations. How very interesting. http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg But the oceans aren't expanding, are they, progs? How very interesting to use a bay as your marker. Shame you cant use the actual ocean to speak of the ocean. Deception is the name of the game in AGW land after all. Let me see if I can find a graph. BRB It appears that sheer ignorance is the name of your game. MOTR posted a graph showing combined TOPEX/Poseiden and Jason-1, Jason-2 data - satellite data that has been mapping global ocean topography since 1992. Global.  Not in one bay.  Global. You told a lie. Again. When are you going to explain to us why sea levels are rising if it isn't die to global warming? What is the cause? Why do you continually claim that the earth has not warmed for 16 years, then run away like a little girl whenever you are asked to explain this ridiculous statement? Why is sea level rising if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? Why is global glacial mass balance decreasing if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? Why is the arctic ice cap decreasing if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? How is it possible that the earth has not warmed for 16 years, when surface temperature measurements over the past 16 years have shown a positive temperature anomaly with respect to the long term average, for every single one of those 16 years? Don't you think you should address some of these lies you have been caught telling?

I like that. Not one mention of co2.

What do you think has been causing the warming, progs? Please stay focused.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 5:57pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 4:34pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:54pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:34pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:17pm: Does anyone besides progs think that this isn't going to have an impact on storm surges. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NYSLR.jpg maybe they should dredge out some of the sand that has built up in the bay That is not the sea What's that progs, individual sea level readings can't be used to make generalisations. How very interesting. http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg But the oceans aren't expanding, are they, progs? How very interesting to use a bay as your marker. Shame you cant use the actual ocean to speak of the ocean. Deception is the name of the game in AGW land after all. Let me see if I can find a graph. BRB It appears that sheer ignorance is the name of your game. MOTR posted a graph showing combined TOPEX/Poseiden and Jason-1, Jason-2 data - satellite data that has been mapping global ocean topography since 1992. Global.  Not in one bay.  Global. You told a lie. Again. When are you going to explain to us why sea levels are rising if it isn't die to global warming? What is the cause? Why do you continually claim that the earth has not warmed for 16 years, then run away like a little girl whenever you are asked to explain this ridiculous statement? Why is sea level rising if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? Why is global glacial mass balance decreasing if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? Why is the arctic ice cap decreasing if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? How is it possible that the earth has not warmed for 16 years, when surface temperature measurements over the past 16 years have shown a positive temperature anomaly with respect to the long term average, for every single one of those 16 years? Don't you think you should address some of these lies you have been caught telling? I like that. Not one mention of co2.

We are still waiting for you to explain why you think the earth has not warmed in 16 years.

Don't run away.

Answer the question

Why is sea level rising, global glacial mass balance decreasing and arctic sea ice decreasing if the earth is not warming - and how can the earth not be warming when each of the past 16 years have shown a positive surface temperature anomaly over the long term average.

Why do you continually repeat David Rose's nonsense about no warming in 16 years?

Why do you repeat this nonsense then run away like a little girl when asked to explain it?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 6:04pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 5:57pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 4:34pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:54pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:34pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:17pm: Does anyone besides progs think that this isn't going to have an impact on storm surges. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NYSLR.jpg maybe they should dredge out some of the sand that has built up in the bay That is not the sea What's that progs, individual sea level readings can't be used to make generalisations. How very interesting. http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg But the oceans aren't expanding, are they, progs? How very interesting to use a bay as your marker. Shame you cant use the actual ocean to speak of the ocean. Deception is the name of the game in AGW land after all. Let me see if I can find a graph. BRB It appears that sheer ignorance is the name of your game. MOTR posted a graph showing combined TOPEX/Poseiden and Jason-1, Jason-2 data - satellite data that has been mapping global ocean topography since 1992. Global.  Not in one bay.  Global. You told a lie. Again. When are you going to explain to us why sea levels are rising if it isn't die to global warming? What is the cause? Why do you continually claim that the earth has not warmed for 16 years, then run away like a little girl whenever you are asked to explain this ridiculous statement? Why is sea level rising if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? Why is global glacial mass balance decreasing if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? Why is the arctic ice cap decreasing if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? How is it possible that the earth has not warmed for 16 years, when surface temperature measurements over the past 16 years have shown a positive temperature anomaly with respect to the long term average, for every single one of those 16 years? Don't you think you should address some of these lies you have been caught telling? I like that. Not one mention of co2. We are still waiting for you to explain why you think the earth has not warmed in 16 years. Don't run away. Answer the question Why is sea level rising, global glacial mass balance decreasing and arctic sea ice decreasing if the earth is not warming - and how can the earth not be warming when each of the past 16 years have shown a positive surface temperature anomaly over the long term average. Why do you continually repeat David Rose's nonsense about no warming in 16 years? Why do you repeat this nonsense then run away like a little girl when asked to explain it?

I dont think it. I know it from empirical data.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 6:06pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 6:04pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 5:57pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 4:34pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:54pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:34pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:17pm: Does anyone besides progs think that this isn't going to have an impact on storm surges. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NYSLR.jpg maybe they should dredge out some of the sand that has built up in the bay That is not the sea What's that progs, individual sea level readings can't be used to make generalisations. How very interesting. http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg But the oceans aren't expanding, are they, progs? How very interesting to use a bay as your marker. Shame you cant use the actual ocean to speak of the ocean. Deception is the name of the game in AGW land after all. Let me see if I can find a graph. BRB It appears that sheer ignorance is the name of your game. MOTR posted a graph showing combined TOPEX/Poseiden and Jason-1, Jason-2 data - satellite data that has been mapping global ocean topography since 1992. Global.  Not in one bay.  Global. You told a lie. Again. When are you going to explain to us why sea levels are rising if it isn't die to global warming? What is the cause? Why do you continually claim that the earth has not warmed for 16 years, then run away like a little girl whenever you are asked to explain this ridiculous statement? Why is sea level rising if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? Why is global glacial mass balance decreasing if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? Why is the arctic ice cap decreasing if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? How is it possible that the earth has not warmed for 16 years, when surface temperature measurements over the past 16 years have shown a positive temperature anomaly with respect to the long term average, for every single one of those 16 years? Don't you think you should address some of these lies you have been caught telling? I like that. Not one mention of co2. We are still waiting for you to explain why you think the earth has not warmed in 16 years. Don't run away. Answer the question Why is sea level rising, global glacial mass balance decreasing and arctic sea ice decreasing if the earth is not warming - and how can the earth not be warming when each of the past 16 years have shown a positive surface temperature anomaly over the long term average. Why do you continually repeat David Rose's nonsense about no warming in 16 years? Why do you repeat this nonsense then run away like a little girl when asked to explain it? I dont think it. I know it from empirical data.

No you don't it from empirical data.  Because there is no empirical data indicating that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years.

You read a David Rose article on some retarded blog and you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

The empirical data such as surface temperature, ocean temperature, sea level, glacial mass balance, arctic sea ice etc all indicate very clearly and unabiguously that the earth has most definitely been warming, especially in the past 16 years.

Stop telling lies little man.
Show us this "empirical data" that has led you to make a fool of yourself publically like this.

Is this the empirical data of which you speak.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/average-temps.gif

Progs is a liar, he hates our kids and doesn't want them to have a future.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 7:08pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 6:06pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 6:04pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 5:57pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 4:34pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:54pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:34pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:17pm: Does anyone besides progs think that this isn't going to have an impact on storm surges. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NYSLR.jpg maybe they should dredge out some of the sand that has built up in the bay That is not the sea What's that progs, individual sea level readings can't be used to make generalisations. How very interesting. http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg But the oceans aren't expanding, are they, progs? How very interesting to use a bay as your marker. Shame you cant use the actual ocean to speak of the ocean. Deception is the name of the game in AGW land after all. Let me see if I can find a graph. BRB It appears that sheer ignorance is the name of your game. MOTR posted a graph showing combined TOPEX/Poseiden and Jason-1, Jason-2 data - satellite data that has been mapping global ocean topography since 1992. Global.  Not in one bay.  Global. You told a lie. Again. When are you going to explain to us why sea levels are rising if it isn't die to global warming? What is the cause? Why do you continually claim that the earth has not warmed for 16 years, then run away like a little girl whenever you are asked to explain this ridiculous statement? Why is sea level rising if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? Why is global glacial mass balance decreasing if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? Why is the arctic ice cap decreasing if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? How is it possible that the earth has not warmed for 16 years, when surface temperature measurements over the past 16 years have shown a positive temperature anomaly with respect to the long term average, for every single one of those 16 years? Don't you think you should address some of these lies you have been caught telling? I like that. Not one mention of co2. We are still waiting for you to explain why you think the earth has not warmed in 16 years. Don't run away. Answer the question Why is sea level rising, global glacial mass balance decreasing and arctic sea ice decreasing if the earth is not warming - and how can the earth not be warming when each of the past 16 years have shown a positive surface temperature anomaly over the long term average. Why do you continually repeat David Rose's nonsense about no warming in 16 years? Why do you repeat this nonsense then run away like a little girl when asked to explain it? I dont think it. I know it from empirical data. No you don't it from empirical data.  Because there is no empirical data indicating that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years. You read a David Rose article on some retarded blog and you fell for it hook, line and sinker. The empirical data such as surface temperature, ocean temperature, sea level, glacial mass balance, arctic sea ice etc all indicate very clearly and unabiguously that the earth has most definitely been warming, especially in the past 16 years. Stop telling lies little man. Show us this "empirical data" that has led you to make a fool of yourself publically like this.

Earth has not warmed for 16 years. Get over it. I cant help it you dont like the information the MET office gives out.

MOTR wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 7:09pm:

Is this the empirical data of which you speak. http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/average-temps.gif

This is the information the met gives out.

This is also the information th meet gives out.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/MetOffice.gif

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 7:18pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 7:08pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 6:06pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 6:04pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 5:57pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 4:34pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:54pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:34pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:17pm: Does anyone besides progs think that this isn't going to have an impact on storm surges. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NYSLR.jpg maybe they should dredge out some of the sand that has built up in the bay That is not the sea What's that progs, individual sea level readings can't be used to make generalisations. How very interesting. http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg But the oceans aren't expanding, are they, progs? How very interesting to use a bay as your marker. Shame you cant use the actual ocean to speak of the ocean. Deception is the name of the game in AGW land after all. Let me see if I can find a graph. BRB It appears that sheer ignorance is the name of your game. MOTR posted a graph showing combined TOPEX/Poseiden and Jason-1, Jason-2 data - satellite data that has been mapping global ocean topography since 1992. Global.  Not in one bay.  Global. You told a lie. Again. When are you going to explain to us why sea levels are rising if it isn't die to global warming? What is the cause? Why do you continually claim that the earth has not warmed for 16 years, then run away like a little girl whenever you are asked to explain this ridiculous statement? Why is sea level rising if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? Why is global glacial mass balance decreasing if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? Why is the arctic ice cap decreasing if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? How is it possible that the earth has not warmed for 16 years, when surface temperature measurements over the past 16 years have shown a positive temperature anomaly with respect to the long term average, for every single one of those 16 years? Don't you think you should address some of these lies you have been caught telling? I like that. Not one mention of co2. We are still waiting for you to explain why you think the earth has not warmed in 16 years. Don't run away. Answer the question Why is sea level rising, global glacial mass balance decreasing and arctic sea ice decreasing if the earth is not warming - and how can the earth not be warming when each of the past 16 years have shown a positive surface temperature anomaly over the long term average. Why do you continually repeat David Rose's nonsense about no warming in 16 years? Why do you repeat this nonsense then run away like a little girl when asked to explain it? I dont think it. I know it from empirical data. No you don't it from empirical data.  Because there is no empirical data indicating that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years. You read a David Rose article on some retarded blog and you fell for it hook, line and sinker. The empirical data such as surface temperature, ocean temperature, sea level, glacial mass balance, arctic sea ice etc all indicate very clearly and unabiguously that the earth has most definitely been warming, especially in the past 16 years. Stop telling lies little man. Show us this "empirical data" that has led you to make a fool of yourself publically like this. Earth has not warmed for 16 years. Get over it. I cant help it you dont like the information the MET office gives out.

Can anyone else smell burning pants?

But you disappoint me Progs.  It is usually here you come out with your classic liar resonses like:


progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 11:52am:

If you dont know how to research, then I am not about to give you the answer.

or



progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 5:21pm:

what. lol. How about you research.

You have been caught lying again - give us some of that classic spineless evasion you are famous for

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 7:39pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 7:18pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 7:08pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 6:06pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 6:04pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 5:57pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 4:34pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:54pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:34pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:17pm: Does anyone besides progs think that this isn't going to have an impact on storm surges. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NYSLR.jpg maybe they should dredge out some of the sand that has built up in the bay That is not the sea What's that progs, individual sea level readings can't be used to make generalisations. How very interesting. http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg But the oceans aren't expanding, are they, progs? How very interesting to use a bay as your marker. Shame you cant use the actual ocean to speak of the ocean. Deception is the name of the game in AGW land after all. Let me see if I can find a graph. BRB It appears that sheer ignorance is the name of your game. MOTR posted a graph showing combined TOPEX/Poseiden and Jason-1, Jason-2 data - satellite data that has been mapping global ocean topography since 1992. Global.  Not in one bay.  Global. You told a lie. Again. When are you going to explain to us why sea levels are rising if it isn't die to global warming? What is the cause? Why do you continually claim that the earth has not warmed for 16 years, then run away like a little girl whenever you are asked to explain this ridiculous statement? Why is sea level rising if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? Why is global glacial mass balance decreasing if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? Why is the arctic ice cap decreasing if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? How is it possible that the earth has not warmed for 16 years, when surface temperature measurements over the past 16 years have shown a positive temperature anomaly with respect to the long term average, for every single one of those 16 years? Don't you think you should address some of these lies you have been caught telling? I like that. Not one mention of co2. We are still waiting for you to explain why you think the earth has not warmed in 16 years. Don't run away. Answer the question Why is sea level rising, global glacial mass balance decreasing and arctic sea ice decreasing if the earth is not warming - and how can the earth not be warming when each of the past 16 years have shown a positive surface temperature anomaly over the long term average. Why do you continually repeat David Rose's nonsense about no warming in 16 years? Why do you repeat this nonsense then run away like a little girl when asked to explain it? I dont think it. I know it from empirical data. No you don't it from empirical data.  Because there is no empirical data indicating that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years. You read a David Rose article on some retarded blog and you fell for it hook, line and sinker. The empirical data such as surface temperature, ocean temperature, sea level, glacial mass balance, arctic sea ice etc all indicate very clearly and unabiguously that the earth has most definitely been warming, especially in the past 16 years. Stop telling lies little man. Show us this "empirical data" that has led you to make a fool of yourself publically like this. Earth has not warmed for 16 years. Get over it. I cant help it you dont like the information the MET office gives out. Can anyone else smell burning pants? But you disappoint me Progs.  It is usually here you come out with your classic liar resonses like: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:52am: If you dont know how to research, then I am not about to give you the answer. or progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 5:21pm: what. lol. How about you research. You have been caught lying again - give us some of that classic spineless evasion you are famous for

I have already given you the MET empirical data. I dont need to give it to you again becuase your brain functions different to everyone else.

MOTR wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 7:28pm:

MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 7:09pm: Is this the empirical data of which you speak. http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/average-temps.gif This is the information the met gives out.

This data, progs.

They also had this to say


Quote:

———– The below graph which shows years ranked in order of global temperature was not included in the response to Mr Rose, but is useful in this context as it illustrates the point made above that eight of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past decade.

But you're not really interested in what the met had to say.

MOTR wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 7:51pm:

MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 7:28pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 7:09pm: Is this the empirical data of which you speak. http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/average-temps.gif This is the information the met gives out. This data, progs. They also had this to say Quote: ———– The below graph which shows years ranked in order of global temperature was not included in the response to Mr Rose, but is useful in this context as it illustrates the point made above that eight of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past decade. But you're not really interested in what the met had to say.

I am interested that the earth has not warmed since 1997-98

You are a fool, progs.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/FR11_All.gif

We can all see that there was a spike in temperatures caused by a massive El Niño event. We all know that the next El Niño will deliver another spike. Do you think people can't see the underlying trend for themselves.

The likes of progs are a danger to society, I bet he wears checks with prints too.

I have to admit I don't understand a lot of the science behind the global warming issue, but, as with everything else I don't understand, I am happy to take the advice of the experts ... I was having a chat a few weeks ago with a scientist, and asked him why, if they say the science is beyond a doubt, are there so many sceptics ?.... his response was that the science is beyond a doubt, the sceptics just pick and choose small sections of the science and use that to try and discredit the science rather than looking at all the evidence as a whole.

I suspect that exactly what progs is doing ... ignoring the evidence he doesn't like and only seeing what he wants to see ..... my parents, when they were growing up back in their old country, had a name for people like progs ... he would have been referred to as the village idiot

John Smith wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 9:22pm:

I have to admit I don't understand a lot of the science behind the global warming issue, but, as with everything else I don't understand, I am happy to take the advice of the experts ... I was having a chat a few weeks ago with a scientist, and asked him why, if they say the science is beyond a doubt, are there so many sceptics ?.... his response was that the science is beyond a doubt, the sceptics just pick and choose small sections of the science and use that to try and discredit the science rather than looking at all the evidence as a whole. I suspect that exactly what progs is doing ... ignoring the evidence he doesn't like and only seeing what he wants to see ..... my parents, when they were growing up back in their old country, had a name for people like progs ... he would have been referred to as the village idiot

back at band camp?

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 9:25pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:22pm: I have to admit I don't understand a lot of the science behind the global warming issue, but, as with everything else I don't understand, I am happy to take the advice of the experts ... I was having a chat a few weeks ago with a scientist, and asked him why, if they say the science is beyond a doubt, are there so many sceptics ?.... his response was that the science is beyond a doubt, the sceptics just pick and choose small sections of the science and use that to try and discredit the science rather than looking at all the evidence as a whole. I suspect that exactly what progs is doing ... ignoring the evidence he doesn't like and only seeing what he wants to see ..... my parents, when they were growing up back in their old country, had a name for people like progs ... he would have been referred to as the village idiot back at band camp?

progs has no credibility on any subject matter. He doesn't even know what a rolling average is.  Don't bother debating with him - he just gets confused and it isn't good for his health :(

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 9:26pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:25pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:22pm: I have to admit I don't understand a lot of the science behind the global warming issue, but, as with everything else I don't understand, I am happy to take the advice of the experts ... I was having a chat a few weeks ago with a scientist, and asked him why, if they say the science is beyond a doubt, are there so many sceptics ?.... his response was that the science is beyond a doubt, the sceptics just pick and choose small sections of the science and use that to try and discredit the science rather than looking at all the evidence as a whole. I suspect that exactly what progs is doing ... ignoring the evidence he doesn't like and only seeing what he wants to see ..... my parents, when they were growing up back in their old country, had a name for people like progs ... he would have been referred to as the village idiot back at band camp? progs has no credibility on any subject matter. He doesn't even know what a rolling average is.  Don't bother debating with him - he just gets confused and it isn't good for his health :(

who's debating???? he is merely a toy .....

John Smith wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 9:27pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:26pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:25pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:22pm: I have to admit I don't understand a lot of the science behind the global warming issue, but, as with everything else I don't understand, I am happy to take the advice of the experts ... I was having a chat a few weeks ago with a scientist, and asked him why, if they say the science is beyond a doubt, are there so many sceptics ?.... his response was that the science is beyond a doubt, the sceptics just pick and choose small sections of the science and use that to try and discredit the science rather than looking at all the evidence as a whole. I suspect that exactly what progs is doing ... ignoring the evidence he doesn't like and only seeing what he wants to see ..... my parents, when they were growing up back in their old country, had a name for people like progs ... he would have been referred to as the village idiot back at band camp? progs has no credibility on any subject matter. He doesn't even know what a rolling average is.  Don't bother debating with him - he just gets confused and it isn't good for his health :( who's debating???? he is merely a toy .....

I'm concerned for him though john :(  With all the lying he has to constantly do I think he is getting his brain into a knot. And it will be very hard for him to unravel it :(

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 9:29pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:27pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:26pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:25pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:22pm: I have to admit I don't understand a lot of the science behind the global warming issue, but, as with everything else I don't understand, I am happy to take the advice of the experts ... I was having a chat a few weeks ago with a scientist, and asked him why, if they say the science is beyond a doubt, are there so many sceptics ?.... his response was that the science is beyond a doubt, the sceptics just pick and choose small sections of the science and use that to try and discredit the science rather than looking at all the evidence as a whole. I suspect that exactly what progs is doing ... ignoring the evidence he doesn't like and only seeing what he wants to see ..... my parents, when they were growing up back in their old country, had a name for people like progs ... he would have been referred to as the village idiot back at band camp? progs has no credibility on any subject matter. He doesn't even know what a rolling average is.  Don't bother debating with him - he just gets confused and it isn't good for his health :( who's debating???? he is merely a toy ..... I'm concerned for him though john :(  With all the lying he has to constantly do I think he is getting his brain into a knot. And it will be very hard for him to unravel it :(

i think it's already gotten beyond that ....  there is no hope for him

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 9:26pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:25pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:22pm: I have to admit I don't understand a lot of the science behind the global warming issue, but, as with everything else I don't understand, I am happy to take the advice of the experts ... I was having a chat a few weeks ago with a scientist, and asked him why, if they say the science is beyond a doubt, are there so many sceptics ?.... his response was that the science is beyond a doubt, the sceptics just pick and choose small sections of the science and use that to try and discredit the science rather than looking at all the evidence as a whole. I suspect that exactly what progs is doing ... ignoring the evidence he doesn't like and only seeing what he wants to see ..... my parents, when they were growing up back in their old country, had a name for people like progs ... he would have been referred to as the village idiot back at band camp? progs has no credibility on any subject matter. He doesn't even know what a rolling average is.  Don't bother debating with him - he just gets confused and it isn't good for his health :(

lol you just cant help yourself.

Go on, try not to debate me and see how far you get.

Ill give the lastwordwarrior a day.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 7:48pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 7:39pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 7:18pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 7:08pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 6:06pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 6:04pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 5:57pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 4:34pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:54pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:34pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:17pm: Does anyone besides progs think that this isn't going to have an impact on storm surges. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NYSLR.jpg maybe they should dredge out some of the sand that has built up in the bay That is not the sea What's that progs, individual sea level readings can't be used to make generalisations. How very interesting. http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg But the oceans aren't expanding, are they, progs? How very interesting to use a bay as your marker. Shame you cant use the actual ocean to speak of the ocean. Deception is the name of the game in AGW land after all. Let me see if I can find a graph. BRB It appears that sheer ignorance is the name of your game. MOTR posted a graph showing combined TOPEX/Poseiden and Jason-1, Jason-2 data - satellite data that has been mapping global ocean topography since 1992. Global.  Not in one bay.  Global. You told a lie. Again. When are you going to explain to us why sea levels are rising if it isn't die to global warming? What is the cause? Why do you continually claim that the earth has not warmed for 16 years, then run away like a little girl whenever you are asked to explain this ridiculous statement? Why is sea level rising if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? Why is global glacial mass balance decreasing if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? Why is the arctic ice cap decreasing if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? How is it possible that the earth has not warmed for 16 years, when surface temperature measurements over the past 16 years have shown a positive temperature anomaly with respect to the long term average, for every single one of those 16 years? Don't you think you should address some of these lies you have been caught telling? I like that. Not one mention of co2. We are still waiting for you to explain why you think the earth has not warmed in 16 years. Don't run away. Answer the question Why is sea level rising, global glacial mass balance decreasing and arctic sea ice decreasing if the earth is not warming - and how can the earth not be warming when each of the past 16 years have shown a positive surface temperature anomaly over the long term average. Why do you continually repeat David Rose's nonsense about no warming in 16 years? Why do you repeat this nonsense then run away like a little girl when asked to explain it? I dont think it. I know it from empirical data. No you don't it from empirical data.  Because there is no empirical data indicating that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years. You read a David Rose article on some retarded blog and you fell for it hook, line and sinker. The empirical data such as surface temperature, ocean temperature, sea level, glacial mass balance, arctic sea ice etc all indicate very clearly and unabiguously that the earth has most definitely been warming, especially in the past 16 years. Stop telling lies little man. Show us this "empirical data" that has led you to make a fool of yourself publically like this. Earth has not warmed for 16 years. Get over it. I cant help it you dont like the information the MET office gives out. Can anyone else smell burning pants? But you disappoint me Progs.  It is usually here you come out with your classic liar resonses like: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:52am: If you dont know how to research, then I am not about to give you the answer. or progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 5:21pm: what. lol. How about you research. You have been caught lying again - give us some of that classic spineless evasion you are famous for I have already given you the MET empirical data. I dont need to give it to you again becuase your brain functions different to everyone else.

LIAR

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/average-temps.gif

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 9:31pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 7:48pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 7:39pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 7:18pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 7:08pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 6:06pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 6:04pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 5:57pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 4:34pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:54pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:34pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:17pm: Does anyone besides progs think that this isn't going to have an impact on storm surges. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NYSLR.jpg maybe they should dredge out some of the sand that has built up in the bay That is not the sea What's that progs, individual sea level readings can't be used to make generalisations. How very interesting. http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg But the oceans aren't expanding, are they, progs? How very interesting to use a bay as your marker. Shame you cant use the actual ocean to speak of the ocean. Deception is the name of the game in AGW land after all. Let me see if I can find a graph. BRB It appears that sheer ignorance is the name of your game. MOTR posted a graph showing combined TOPEX/Poseiden and Jason-1, Jason-2 data - satellite data that has been mapping global ocean topography since 1992. Global.  Not in one bay.  Global. You told a lie. Again. When are you going to explain to us why sea levels are rising if it isn't die to global warming? What is the cause? Why do you continually claim that the earth has not warmed for 16 years, then run away like a little girl whenever you are asked to explain this ridiculous statement? Why is sea level rising if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? Why is global glacial mass balance decreasing if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? Why is the arctic ice cap decreasing if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? How is it possible that the earth has not warmed for 16 years, when surface temperature measurements over the past 16 years have shown a positive temperature anomaly with respect to the long term average, for every single one of those 16 years? Don't you think you should address some of these lies you have been caught telling? I like that. Not one mention of co2. We are still waiting for you to explain why you think the earth has not warmed in 16 years. Don't run away. Answer the question Why is sea level rising, global glacial mass balance decreasing and arctic sea ice decreasing if the earth is not warming - and how can the earth not be warming when each of the past 16 years have shown a positive surface temperature anomaly over the long term average. Why do you continually repeat David Rose's nonsense about no warming in 16 years? Why do you repeat this nonsense then run away like a little girl when asked to explain it? I dont think it. I know it from empirical data. No you don't it from empirical data.  Because there is no empirical data indicating that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years. You read a David Rose article on some retarded blog and you fell for it hook, line and sinker. The empirical data such as surface temperature, ocean temperature, sea level, glacial mass balance, arctic sea ice etc all indicate very clearly and unabiguously that the earth has most definitely been warming, especially in the past 16 years. Stop telling lies little man. Show us this "empirical data" that has led you to make a fool of yourself publically like this. Earth has not warmed for 16 years. Get over it. I cant help it you dont like the information the MET office gives out. Can anyone else smell burning pants? But you disappoint me Progs.  It is usually here you come out with your classic liar resonses like: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:52am: If you dont know how to research, then I am not about to give you the answer. or progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 5:21pm: what. lol. How about you research. You have been caught lying again - give us some of that classic spineless evasion you are famous for I have already given you the MET empirical data. I dont need to give it to you again becuase your brain functions different to everyone else. LIAR http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/average-temps.gif

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 9:32pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:31pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 7:48pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 7:39pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 7:18pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 7:08pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 6:06pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 6:04pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 5:57pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 4:34pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:54pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:34pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:17pm: Does anyone besides progs think that this isn't going to have an impact on storm surges. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NYSLR.jpg maybe they should dredge out some of the sand that has built up in the bay That is not the sea What's that progs, individual sea level readings can't be used to make generalisations. How very interesting. http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg But the oceans aren't expanding, are they, progs? How very interesting to use a bay as your marker. Shame you cant use the actual ocean to speak of the ocean. Deception is the name of the game in AGW land after all. Let me see if I can find a graph. BRB It appears that sheer ignorance is the name of your game. MOTR posted a graph showing combined TOPEX/Poseiden and Jason-1, Jason-2 data - satellite data that has been mapping global ocean topography since 1992. Global.  Not in one bay.  Global. You told a lie. Again. When are you going to explain to us why sea levels are rising if it isn't die to global warming? What is the cause? Why do you continually claim that the earth has not warmed for 16 years, then run away like a little girl whenever you are asked to explain this ridiculous statement? Why is sea level rising if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? Why is global glacial mass balance decreasing if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? Why is the arctic ice cap decreasing if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? How is it possible that the earth has not warmed for 16 years, when surface temperature measurements over the past 16 years have shown a positive temperature anomaly with respect to the long term average, for every single one of those 16 years? Don't you think you should address some of these lies you have been caught telling? I like that. Not one mention of co2. We are still waiting for you to explain why you think the earth has not warmed in 16 years. Don't run away. Answer the question Why is sea level rising, global glacial mass balance decreasing and arctic sea ice decreasing if the earth is not warming - and how can the earth not be warming when each of the past 16 years have shown a positive surface temperature anomaly over the long term average. Why do you continually repeat David Rose's nonsense about no warming in 16 years? Why do you repeat this nonsense then run away like a little girl when asked to explain it? I dont think it. I know it from empirical data. No you don't it from empirical data.  Because there is no empirical data indicating that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years. You read a David Rose article on some retarded blog and you fell for it hook, line and sinker. The empirical data such as surface temperature, ocean temperature, sea level, glacial mass balance, arctic sea ice etc all indicate very clearly and unabiguously that the earth has most definitely been warming, especially in the past 16 years. Stop telling lies little man. Show us this "empirical data" that has led you to make a fool of yourself publically like this. Earth has not warmed for 16 years. Get over it. I cant help it you dont like the information the MET office gives out. Can anyone else smell burning pants? But you disappoint me Progs.  It is usually here you come out with your classic liar resonses like: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:52am: If you dont know how to research, then I am not about to give you the answer. or progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 5:21pm: what. lol. How about you research. You have been caught lying again - give us some of that classic spineless evasion you are famous for I have already given you the MET empirical data. I dont need to give it to you again becuase your brain functions different to everyone else. LIAR http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/average-temps.gif zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

You said you have already given us the MET empirical data.

The MET empirical data shows you are a liar.

Pants on fire

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 9:31pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:26pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:25pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:22pm: I have to admit I don't understand a lot of the science behind the global warming issue, but, as with everything else I don't understand, I am happy to take the advice of the experts ... I was having a chat a few weeks ago with a scientist, and asked him why, if they say the science is beyond a doubt, are there so many sceptics ?.... his response was that the science is beyond a doubt, the sceptics just pick and choose small sections of the science and use that to try and discredit the science rather than looking at all the evidence as a whole. I suspect that exactly what progs is doing ... ignoring the evidence he doesn't like and only seeing what he wants to see ..... my parents, when they were growing up back in their old country, had a name for people like progs ... he would have been referred to as the village idiot back at band camp? progs has no credibility on any subject matter. He doesn't even know what a rolling average is.  Don't bother debating with him - he just gets confused and it isn't good for his health :( lol you just cant help yourself. Go on, try not to debate me and see how far you get. Ill give the lastwordwarrior a day.

explain what rolling average is.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 9:34pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:32pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:31pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 7:48pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 7:39pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 7:18pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 7:08pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 6:06pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 6:04pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 5:57pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 4:34pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:54pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:34pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:17pm: Does anyone besides progs think that this isn't going to have an impact on storm surges. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NYSLR.jpg maybe they should dredge out some of the sand that has built up in the bay That is not the sea What's that progs, individual sea level readings can't be used to make generalisations. How very interesting. http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg But the oceans aren't expanding, are they, progs? How very interesting to use a bay as your marker. Shame you cant use the actual ocean to speak of the ocean. Deception is the name of the game in AGW land after all. Let me see if I can find a graph. BRB It appears that sheer ignorance is the name of your game. MOTR posted a graph showing combined TOPEX/Poseiden and Jason-1, Jason-2 data - satellite data that has been mapping global ocean topography since 1992. Global.  Not in one bay.  Global. You told a lie. Again. When are you going to explain to us why sea levels are rising if it isn't die to global warming? What is the cause? Why do you continually claim that the earth has not warmed for 16 years, then run away like a little girl whenever you are asked to explain this ridiculous statement? Why is sea level rising if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? Why is global glacial mass balance decreasing if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? Why is the arctic ice cap decreasing if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? How is it possible that the earth has not warmed for 16 years, when surface temperature measurements over the past 16 years have shown a positive temperature anomaly with respect to the long term average, for every single one of those 16 years? Don't you think you should address some of these lies you have been caught telling? I like that. Not one mention of co2. We are still waiting for you to explain why you think the earth has not warmed in 16 years. Don't run away. Answer the question Why is sea level rising, global glacial mass balance decreasing and arctic sea ice decreasing if the earth is not warming - and how can the earth not be warming when each of the past 16 years have shown a positive surface temperature anomaly over the long term average. Why do you continually repeat David Rose's nonsense about no warming in 16 years? Why do you repeat this nonsense then run away like a little girl when asked to explain it? I dont think it. I know it from empirical data. No you don't it from empirical data.  Because there is no empirical data indicating that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years. You read a David Rose article on some retarded blog and you fell for it hook, line and sinker. The empirical data such as surface temperature, ocean temperature, sea level, glacial mass balance, arctic sea ice etc all indicate very clearly and unabiguously that the earth has most definitely been warming, especially in the past 16 years. Stop telling lies little man. Show us this "empirical data" that has led you to make a fool of yourself publically like this. Earth has not warmed for 16 years. Get over it. I cant help it you dont like the information the MET office gives out. Can anyone else smell burning pants? But you disappoint me Progs.  It is usually here you come out with your classic liar resonses like: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:52am: If you dont know how to research, then I am not about to give you the answer. or progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 5:21pm: what. lol. How about you research. You have been caught lying again - give us some of that classic spineless evasion you are famous for I have already given you the MET empirical data. I dont need to give it to you again becuase your brain functions different to everyone else. LIAR http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/average-temps.gif zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz You said you have already given us the MET empirical data. The MET empirical data shows you are a liar. Pants on fire

Pants on fire... what the fffffrig lol

MET's empirical data that shows the earth has not warmed for 16 years.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 9:36pm:

MET's empirical data that shows the earth has not warmed for 16 years.

like I said ... village IDIOT

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 9:34pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:31pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:26pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:25pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:22pm: I have to admit I don't understand a lot of the science behind the global warming issue, but, as with everything else I don't understand, I am happy to take the advice of the experts ... I was having a chat a few weeks ago with a scientist, and asked him why, if they say the science is beyond a doubt, are there so many sceptics ?.... his response was that the science is beyond a doubt, the sceptics just pick and choose small sections of the science and use that to try and discredit the science rather than looking at all the evidence as a whole. I suspect that exactly what progs is doing ... ignoring the evidence he doesn't like and only seeing what he wants to see ..... my parents, when they were growing up back in their old country, had a name for people like progs ... he would have been referred to as the village idiot back at band camp? progs has no credibility on any subject matter. He doesn't even know what a rolling average is.  Don't bother debating with him - he just gets confused and it isn't good for his health :( lol you just cant help yourself. Go on, try not to debate me and see how far you get. Ill give the lastwordwarrior a day. explain what rolling average is.

Progs would surely agree that asylum seeker deaths at sea have decreased since the Howard era.

There were 104 asylum seeker deaths at sea  in 2012
There were 353 asylum seeker deaths at sea  in  2001

So the Gillard government has reduced deaths at sea of asylum seekers.
Do you agree Progs?
It is using your maths.

If you don't agree - please explain to us the problem.
I understand what the problem is - do you?

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 9:36pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:34pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:32pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:31pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 7:48pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 7:39pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 7:18pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 7:08pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 6:06pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 6:04pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 5:57pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 4:34pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:54pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:34pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:17pm: Does anyone besides progs think that this isn't going to have an impact on storm surges. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NYSLR.jpg maybe they should dredge out some of the sand that has built up in the bay That is not the sea What's that progs, individual sea level readings can't be used to make generalisations. How very interesting. http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg But the oceans aren't expanding, are they, progs? How very interesting to use a bay as your marker. Shame you cant use the actual ocean to speak of the ocean. Deception is the name of the game in AGW land after all. Let me see if I can find a graph. BRB It appears that sheer ignorance is the name of your game. MOTR posted a graph showing combined TOPEX/Poseiden and Jason-1, Jason-2 data - satellite data that has been mapping global ocean topography since 1992. Global.  Not in one bay.  Global. You told a lie. Again. When are you going to explain to us why sea levels are rising if it isn't die to global warming? What is the cause? Why do you continually claim that the earth has not warmed for 16 years, then run away like a little girl whenever you are asked to explain this ridiculous statement? Why is sea level rising if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? Why is global glacial mass balance decreasing if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? Why is the arctic ice cap decreasing if the the earth has not warmed for 16 years? How is it possible that the earth has not warmed for 16 years, when surface temperature measurements over the past 16 years have shown a positive temperature anomaly with respect to the long term average, for every single one of those 16 years? Don't you think you should address some of these lies you have been caught telling? I like that. Not one mention of co2. We are still waiting for you to explain why you think the earth has not warmed in 16 years. Don't run away. Answer the question Why is sea level rising, global glacial mass balance decreasing and arctic sea ice decreasing if the earth is not warming - and how can the earth not be warming when each of the past 16 years have shown a positive surface temperature anomaly over the long term average. Why do you continually repeat David Rose's nonsense about no warming in 16 years? Why do you repeat this nonsense then run away like a little girl when asked to explain it? I dont think it. I know it from empirical data. No you don't it from empirical data.  Because there is no empirical data indicating that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years. You read a David Rose article on some retarded blog and you fell for it hook, line and sinker. The empirical data such as surface temperature, ocean temperature, sea level, glacial mass balance, arctic sea ice etc all indicate very clearly and unabiguously that the earth has most definitely been warming, especially in the past 16 years. Stop telling lies little man. Show us this "empirical data" that has led you to make a fool of yourself publically like this. Earth has not warmed for 16 years. Get over it. I cant help it you dont like the information the MET office gives out. Can anyone else smell burning pants? But you disappoint me Progs.  It is usually here you come out with your classic liar resonses like: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:52am: If you dont know how to research, then I am not about to give you the answer. or progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 5:21pm: what. lol. How about you research. You have been caught lying again - give us some of that classic spineless evasion you are famous for I have already given you the MET empirical data. I dont need to give it to you again becuase your brain functions different to everyone else. LIAR http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/average-temps.gif zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz You said you have already given us the MET empirical data. The MET empirical data shows you are a liar. Pants on fire Pants on fire... what the fffffrig lol MET's empirical data that shows the earth has not warmed for 16 years.

Which empirical data is this progs?

the graph posted shows you are a big fat hairy liar.

Tell us why we should not just write you off as a big fat hairy liar. (NB - a photo demonstrating that you are neither big, fat nor hairy only answers half the question).

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 9:45pm:

Which empirical data is this progs? the graph posted shows you are a big fat hairy liar. Tell us why we should not just write you off as a big fat hairy liar. (NB - a photo demonstrating that you are neither big, fat nor hairy only answers half the question).

Hmmm how do I respond..... maybe an" I dont give a shiz" would be enough.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 9:51pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:45pm: Which empirical data is this progs? the graph posted shows you are a big fat hairy liar. Tell us why we should not just write you off as a big fat hairy liar. (NB - a photo demonstrating that you are neither big, fat nor hairy only answers half the question). Hmmm how do I respond..... maybe an" I dont give a shiz" would be enough.

Yes.

That is what we expect.

When you get caught telling lies - you run away like a weak little girl.

You have done it before.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 9:59pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:51pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:45pm: Which empirical data is this progs? the graph posted shows you are a big fat hairy liar. Tell us why we should not just write you off as a big fat hairy liar. (NB - a photo demonstrating that you are neither big, fat nor hairy only answers half the question). Hmmm how do I respond..... maybe an" I dont give a shiz" would be enough. Yes. That is what we expect. When you get caught telling lies - you run away like a weak little girl. You have done it before.

Not running. Just cant argue with stupid.

I gave you the MET empirical data of the earth not warming for 16 years. If you did not like it, that does not concern me.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 10:05pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:59pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:51pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:45pm: Which empirical data is this progs? the graph posted shows you are a big fat hairy liar. Tell us why we should not just write you off as a big fat hairy liar. (NB - a photo demonstrating that you are neither big, fat nor hairy only answers half the question). Hmmm how do I respond..... maybe an" I dont give a shiz" would be enough. Yes. That is what we expect. When you get caught telling lies - you run away like a weak little girl. You have done it before. Not running. Just cant argue with stupid. I gave you the MET empirical data of the earth not warming for 16 years. If you did not like it, that does not concern me.

What you are doing is creating a sense of doubt where there is none. The met understands the earth is unambiguously warming, you don't want others to know that. One wonders how you live with yourself.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/average-temps.gif

MOTR wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 11:07pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 10:05pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:59pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:51pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:45pm: Which empirical data is this progs? the graph posted shows you are a big fat hairy liar. Tell us why we should not just write you off as a big fat hairy liar. (NB - a photo demonstrating that you are neither big, fat nor hairy only answers half the question). Hmmm how do I respond..... maybe an" I dont give a shiz" would be enough. Yes. That is what we expect. When you get caught telling lies - you run away like a weak little girl. You have done it before. Not running. Just cant argue with stupid. I gave you the MET empirical data of the earth not warming for 16 years. If you did not like it, that does not concern me. What you are doing is creating a sense of doubt where there is none. The met understands the earth is unambiguously warming, you don't want others to know that. One wonders how you live with yourself.

Yes because somehow, no-one is listening to you. If you believe in the information you provide, then what has that got to do with me and your invisibility.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 11:11pm:

MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 11:07pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 10:05pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:59pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:51pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:45pm: Which empirical data is this progs? the graph posted shows you are a big fat hairy liar. Tell us why we should not just write you off as a big fat hairy liar. (NB - a photo demonstrating that you are neither big, fat nor hairy only answers half the question). Hmmm how do I respond..... maybe an" I dont give a shiz" would be enough. Yes. That is what we expect. When you get caught telling lies - you run away like a weak little girl. You have done it before. Not running. Just cant argue with stupid. I gave you the MET empirical data of the earth not warming for 16 years. If you did not like it, that does not concern me. What you are doing is creating a sense of doubt where there is none. The met understands the earth is unambiguously warming, you don't want others to know that. One wonders how you live with yourself. Yes because somehow, no-one is listening to you. If you believe in the information you provide, then what has that got to do with me and your invisibility.

You told a lie:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 10:05pm:

I gave you the MET empirical data of the earth not warming for 16 years.

You have been asked to explain why you told that lie.

Please explain.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 11:14pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 11:11pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 11:07pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 10:05pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:59pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:51pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:45pm: Which empirical data is this progs? the graph posted shows you are a big fat hairy liar. Tell us why we should not just write you off as a big fat hairy liar. (NB - a photo demonstrating that you are neither big, fat nor hairy only answers half the question). Hmmm how do I respond..... maybe an" I dont give a shiz" would be enough. Yes. That is what we expect. When you get caught telling lies - you run away like a weak little girl. You have done it before. Not running. Just cant argue with stupid. I gave you the MET empirical data of the earth not warming for 16 years. If you did not like it, that does not concern me. What you are doing is creating a sense of doubt where there is none. The met understands the earth is unambiguously warming, you don't want others to know that. One wonders how you live with yourself. Yes because somehow, no-one is listening to you. If you believe in the information you provide, then what has that got to do with me and your invisibility. You told a lie: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 10:05pm: I gave you the MET empirical data of the earth not warming for 16 years. You have been asked to explain why you told that lie. Please explain.

I have given up arguing with stupid today. You didnt like the empirical information. Too bad. I am not going through why you dont think 0.5 and 0.5 equal 0.5 after 16 years. 0.5 is still 0.5 after 1 million years, but that might be too big a number for you.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 11:20pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 11:14pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 11:11pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 11:07pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 10:05pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:59pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:51pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:45pm: Which empirical data is this progs? the graph posted shows you are a big fat hairy liar. Tell us why we should not just write you off as a big fat hairy liar. (NB - a photo demonstrating that you are neither big, fat nor hairy only answers half the question). Hmmm how do I respond..... maybe an" I dont give a shiz" would be enough. Yes. That is what we expect. When you get caught telling lies - you run away like a weak little girl. You have done it before. Not running. Just cant argue with stupid. I gave you the MET empirical data of the earth not warming for 16 years. If you did not like it, that does not concern me. What you are doing is creating a sense of doubt where there is none. The met understands the earth is unambiguously warming, you don't want others to know that. One wonders how you live with yourself. Yes because somehow, no-one is listening to you. If you believe in the information you provide, then what has that got to do with me and your invisibility. You told a lie: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 10:05pm: I gave you the MET empirical data of the earth not warming for 16 years. You have been asked to explain why you told that lie. Please explain. I have given up arguing with stupid today. You didnt like the empirical information. Too bad. I am not going through why you dont hink 0.5 and 0.5 equal 0.5 after 16 years. 0.5 is still 0.5 after 1 million years, but that might be too big a number for you.

You have not given us any empirical information..  You are a liar.

You have been shown the data from the UK Met.  It confirms you are a liar.

Do you really think anyone takes you seriously?  You have been exposed as a liar.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 11:11pm:

MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 11:07pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 10:05pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:59pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:51pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:45pm: Which empirical data is this progs? the graph posted shows you are a big fat hairy liar. Tell us why we should not just write you off as a big fat hairy liar. (NB - a photo demonstrating that you are neither big, fat nor hairy only answers half the question). Hmmm how do I respond..... maybe an" I dont give a shiz" would be enough. Yes. That is what we expect. When you get caught telling lies - you run away like a weak little girl. You have done it before. Not running. Just cant argue with stupid. I gave you the MET empirical data of the earth not warming for 16 years. If you did not like it, that does not concern me. What you are doing is creating a sense of doubt where there is none. The met understands the earth is unambiguously warming, you don't want others to know that. One wonders how you live with yourself. Yes because somehow, no-one is listening to you. If you believe in the information you provide, then what has that got to do with me and your invisibility.

That's where you are wrong, progs.


Quote:

Nearly 80% of Democrats believe in global warming, while Republicans are almost evenly split with 47% seeing evidence of increasing global temperatures.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 11:23pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 11:20pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 11:14pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 11:11pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 11:07pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 10:05pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:59pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:51pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:45pm: Which empirical data is this progs? the graph posted shows you are a big fat hairy liar. Tell us why we should not just write you off as a big fat hairy liar. (NB - a photo demonstrating that you are neither big, fat nor hairy only answers half the question). Hmmm how do I respond..... maybe an" I dont give a shiz" would be enough. Yes. That is what we expect. When you get caught telling lies - you run away like a weak little girl. You have done it before. Not running. Just cant argue with stupid. I gave you the MET empirical data of the earth not warming for 16 years. If you did not like it, that does not concern me. What you are doing is creating a sense of doubt where there is none. The met understands the earth is unambiguously warming, you don't want others to know that. One wonders how you live with yourself. Yes because somehow, no-one is listening to you. If you believe in the information you provide, then what has that got to do with me and your invisibility. You told a lie: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 10:05pm: I gave you the MET empirical data of the earth not warming for 16 years. You have been asked to explain why you told that lie. Please explain. I have given up arguing with stupid today. You didnt like the empirical information. Too bad. I am not going through why you dont hink 0.5 and 0.5 equal 0.5 after 16 years. 0.5 is still 0.5 after 1 million years, but that might be too big a number for you. You have not given us any empirical information..  You are a liar. You have been shown the data from the UK Met.  It confirms you are a liar. Do you really think anyone takes you seriously?  You have been exposed as a liar.

Go away dummy. It was you that was shown the information last time and argued that 0.5 does not equal 0.5 after 16 years.

Progs, you belong to a diminishing minority. There is some chance we might act before it is too late.

MOTR wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 11:26pm:

You belong to a diminishing minority. There is some chance we might act before it is too late.

Cant be too diminishing if you are still hoping for a chance. lol. Hoping is the operative word.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 11:28pm:

MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 11:26pm: You belong to a diminishing minority. There is some chance we might act before it is too late. Cant be too diminishing if you are still hoping for a chance. lol

When our temperatures spike with the next El Niño, progs, are you going to argue we have entered another cooling period in the years that follow. Only a fool would take advantage of the fact that the trend is not monotonic, to argue against action.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 11:25pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 11:23pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 11:20pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 11:14pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 11:11pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 11:07pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 10:05pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:59pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:51pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:45pm: Which empirical data is this progs? the graph posted shows you are a big fat hairy liar. Tell us why we should not just write you off as a big fat hairy liar. (NB - a photo demonstrating that you are neither big, fat nor hairy only answers half the question). Hmmm how do I respond..... maybe an" I dont give a shiz" would be enough. Yes. That is what we expect. When you get caught telling lies - you run away like a weak little girl. You have done it before. Not running. Just cant argue with stupid. I gave you the MET empirical data of the earth not warming for 16 years. If you did not like it, that does not concern me. What you are doing is creating a sense of doubt where there is none. The met understands the earth is unambiguously warming, you don't want others to know that. One wonders how you live with yourself. Yes because somehow, no-one is listening to you. If you believe in the information you provide, then what has that got to do with me and your invisibility. You told a lie: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 10:05pm: I gave you the MET empirical data of the earth not warming for 16 years. You have been asked to explain why you told that lie. Please explain. I have given up arguing with stupid today. You didnt like the empirical information. Too bad. I am not going through why you dont hink 0.5 and 0.5 equal 0.5 after 16 years. 0.5 is still 0.5 after 1 million years, but that might be too big a number for you. You have not given us any empirical information..  You are a liar. You have been shown the data from the UK Met.  It confirms you are a liar. Do you really think anyone takes you seriously?  You have been exposed as a liar. Go away dummy. It was you that was shown the information last time and argued that 0.5 does not equal 0.5 after 16 years.

Liar.

You claim that the planet has not warmed for 16 years.

Show us the evidence Liar.

Show us the reason that sea level has risen if the earth is not warming, Liar
Show us the reason that global glacial mass balance has decreased if the earth is not warming, Liar
Show us the reason that the arctic sea ice has decreased if the earth is not warming, Liar
Show us the reason land surface temperatures are increasing if the earth is not warming, Liar
Show us the reason ocean temperatures are increasing if the earth is not warming, Liar

You have been caught lying.

Caught red-handed.

Do you really think you are convincing anyone?

Conservative talk radio in the US. The Americans are getting it. Time for some leadership.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQDfvHliHYI&sns=em

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 11:31pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 11:25pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 11:23pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 11:20pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 11:14pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 11:11pm: MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 11:07pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 10:05pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:59pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:51pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:45pm: Which empirical data is this progs? the graph posted shows you are a big fat hairy liar. Tell us why we should not just write you off as a big fat hairy liar. (NB - a photo demonstrating that you are neither big, fat nor hairy only answers half the question). Hmmm how do I respond..... maybe an" I dont give a shiz" would be enough. Yes. That is what we expect. When you get caught telling lies - you run away like a weak little girl. You have done it before. Not running. Just cant argue with stupid. I gave you the MET empirical data of the earth not warming for 16 years. If you did not like it, that does not concern me. What you are doing is creating a sense of doubt where there is none. The met understands the earth is unambiguously warming, you don't want others to know that. One wonders how you live with yourself. Yes because somehow, no-one is listening to you. If you believe in the information you provide, then what has that got to do with me and your invisibility. You told a lie: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 10:05pm: I gave you the MET empirical data of the earth not warming for 16 years. You have been asked to explain why you told that lie. Please explain. I have given up arguing with stupid today. You didnt like the empirical information. Too bad. I am not going through why you dont hink 0.5 and 0.5 equal 0.5 after 16 years. 0.5 is still 0.5 after 1 million years, but that might be too big a number for you. You have not given us any empirical information..  You are a liar. You have been shown the data from the UK Met.  It confirms you are a liar. Do you really think anyone takes you seriously?  You have been exposed as a liar. Go away dummy. It was you that was shown the information last time and argued that 0.5 does not equal 0.5 after 16 years. Liar. You claim that the planet has not warmed for 16 years. Show us the evidence Liar. Show us the reason that sea level has risen if the earth is not warming, Liar Show us the reason that global glacial mass balance has decreased if the earth is not warming, Liar Show us the reason that the arctic sea ice has decreased if the earth is not warming, Liar Show us the reason land surface temperatures are increasing if the earth is not warming, Liar Show us the reason ocean temperatures are increasing if the earth is not warming, Liar You have been caught lying. Caught red-handed. Do you really think you are convincing anyone?

I am pretty confident that most people over the age of 7, know that 0.5 is the same value as 0.5 in any timescale you wish to put on it.

Therefore, I dont need to convince anyone. There is no need to teach kids less than 7 the above.

Show us the reason that sea level has risen if the earth is not warming, progs.
Show us the reason that global glacial mass balance has decreased if the earth is not warming, progs.
Show us the reason that the arctic sea ice has decreased if the earth is not warming, progs.
Show us the reason land surface temperatures are increasing if the earth is not warming, progs.
Show us the reason ocean temperatures are increasing if the earth is not warming, progs.

It doesn't add up, progs. Where is you're skepticism now, progs?

MOTR wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 6:28am:

Show us the reason that sea level has risen if the earth is not warming, progs. Show us the reason that global glacial mass balance has decreased if the earth is not warming, progs. Show us the reason that the arctic sea ice has decreased if the earth is not warming, progs. Show us the reason land surface temperatures are increasing if the earth is not warming, progs. Show us the reason ocean temperatures are increasing if the earth is not warming, progs. It doesn't add up, progs. Where is you're skepticism now, progs?

Why should I follow your demands.

Just because you dont like the MET offices empirical data of the earth not warming further for 16 years.

Not a good enough reason.

You want to provide that information to your own questions, go ahead. you will not see me crying about it like you and rabbit. You are free to do so.

There is no scientific evidence for a carbon tax or for excessive energy prices on Pensioners... :) :)

Time to reach for the red crash helmet again.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:07am:

"Our cover story this week may generate controversy, but only among the stupid." LOL come on down

aRE YOU TELLING ME THAT'S A DIRECT QUOTE????

MOTR wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 6:28am:

Show us the reason that sea level has risen if the earth is not warming, progs. Show us the reason that global glacial mass balance has decreased if the earth is not warming, progs. Show us the reason that the arctic sea ice has decreased if the earth is not warming, progs. Show us the reason land surface temperatures are increasing if the earth is not warming, progs. Show us the reason ocean temperatures are increasing if the earth is not warming, progs. It doesn't add up, progs. Where is you're skepticism now, progs?

He has none: he is simply antisocial!!

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 11:31pm:

Liar. You claim that the planet has not warmed for 16 years. Show us the evidence Liar. Show us the reason that sea level has risen if the earth is not warming, Liar Show us the reason that global glacial mass balance has decreased if the earth is not warming, Liar Show us the reason that the arctic sea ice has decreased if the earth is not warming, Liar Show us the reason land surface temperatures are increasing if the earth is not warming, Liar Show us the reason ocean temperatures are increasing if the earth is not warming, Liar You have been caught lying. Caught red-handed. Do you really think you are convincing anyone?

It's called obfuscation!

Validity of argument means nothing....

MOTR wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 11:26pm:

Progs, you belong to a diminishing minority. There is some chance we might act before it is too late.

But what is the 'chance' that acting will do anything but stuff the world economy, throw millions out of work, completely cock up all of the worlds technology/medicine and life style and make things a lot worse than they are now????

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 5:42pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 11:31pm: Liar. You claim that the planet has not warmed for 16 years. Show us the evidence Liar. Show us the reason that sea level has risen if the earth is not warming, Liar Show us the reason that global glacial mass balance has decreased if the earth is not warming, Liar Show us the reason that the arctic sea ice has decreased if the earth is not warming, Liar Show us the reason land surface temperatures are increasing if the earth is not warming, Liar Show us the reason ocean temperatures are increasing if the earth is not warming, Liar You have been caught lying. Caught red-handed. Do you really think you are convincing anyone? It's called obfuscation! Validity of argument means nothing....

Well you guys would know...you are the kings of obfuscation..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 5:58pm:

MOTR wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 11:26pm: Progs, you belong to a diminishing minority. There is some chance we might act before it is too late. But what is the 'chance' that acting will do anything but stuff the world economy, throw millions out of work, completely cock up all of the worlds technology/medicine and life style and make things a lot worse than they are now????

Zero, since markets are meant to be robust!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 5:59pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 5:42pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 11:31pm: Liar. You claim that the planet has not warmed for 16 years. Show us the evidence Liar. Show us the reason that sea level has risen if the earth is not warming, Liar Show us the reason that global glacial mass balance has decreased if the earth is not warming, Liar Show us the reason that the arctic sea ice has decreased if the earth is not warming, Liar Show us the reason land surface temperatures are increasing if the earth is not warming, Liar Show us the reason ocean temperatures are increasing if the earth is not warming, Liar You have been caught lying. Caught red-handed. Do you really think you are convincing anyone? It's called obfuscation! Validity of argument means nothing.... Well you guys would know...you are the kings of obfuscation..

Is that right buddy!??!  :o :o