Exclusive - U.S. envoys told to be coy on re-engaging in Paris climate deal: cable

[KunMatt]

52 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

First off, I don't agree that no data was collected for the area in June. But yours seems a reasonable surmise. So let's say that there was no data collected there. I counted those grids. It looks to me like 11. Then I did a rough estimate of all the grids. It seem that there are over 3000 in the area for which there is mostly consistent data (the area excluding the polar regions. So what are you are contending is that on the basis of about 1/3 of 1 percent of the grid, that the whole grid is fiction?

And by the way here is your original question: "Why does NOAA take this data; Combine it with this data; Then remove nearly all of the Blue coloured parts, and change it into this which is released to the public?"

And the answer is NOAA doesn't do that at all. What you are contending is absolutely false... The first 2 maps you pictured were deviation from the average temperature over 30 years. The final map was for data ranging in age from 80 to 133 years old. It was not derived from the first 2 maps. So your question was based on false premises.

And now since I've answered your questions, for a wild change of pace, why don't you start answering some of mine?

For instance how do you justify this statement of yours?

"Most of Africa appears to have no recorded data and it is modelled to be all above average temperatures dispute there being a couple of actual recording devices in Algeria and Nigeria which both read well below average temperatures."

Really? No recorded data for most of Africa? Where did you come up with that notion? I showed you the image from NOAA which shows the age of their data and most of Africa has it going back at least 80 years.

I said that most or Africa appears to have no data recorded because this graphic from NOAA shows that there is no recorded data for about 70% of the continent for June;

 

 

We've already agreed that grey means no measurement, right?  Am I lying or is most of Africa grey in this graphic?

 

So most of Africa had no recorded data for the month if June, which means that all if the data was simulated by the model, correct?

 

Actually there are 3 regions of blue in West Africa.  There is a station in Algeria, at least 2 stations in/around Nigeria and a station in Mauritania which all recorded temperatures less than average.  All of this data is manipulated away into red by this model.

 

 

If you look at the original recorded temperatures for this across this latitude you can see that there is a pattern of blue across India, SE Asia and Japan.

 

Again, if there were actual recording devices placed throughout Africa do you think the actual recorded temperatures would be the same as what this model has derived here.

 

And again do you see how all the actual recorded data all the way from Africa to Japan has been turned Red by the model.  You see nothing wrong with that?

 

And before you try to attack the source again, all of these links are directly from the NOAA website.

 

 

Edited August 12, 2017 by KunMatt
Formatting

[ilostmypassword]

12 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

I said that most or Africa appears to have no data recorded because this graphic from NOAA shows that there is no recorded data for about 70% of the continent for June;

 

 

We've already agreed that grey means no measurement, right?  Am I lying or is most of Africa grey in this graphic?

 

So most of Africa had no recorded data for the month if June, which means that all if the data was simulated by the model, correct?

 

Actually there are 3 regions of blue in West Africa.  There is a station in Algeria, at least 2 stations in/around Nigeria and a station in Mauritania which all recorded temperatures less than average.  All of this data is manipulated away into red by this model.

 

 

If you look at the original recorded temperatures for this across this latitude you can see that there is a pattern of blue across India, SE Asia and Japan.

 

Again, if there were actual recording devices placed throughout Africa do you think the actual recorded temperatures would be the same as what this model has derived here?

 

And again do you see how all the ue recorded data all the way from Africa to Japan has been turned Red by the model.  You see nothing wrong with that?

 

And before you try to attack the source again, all of these links are directly from the NOAA website.

 

 

Until I can find out how their methodology works,  I can't comment on the land only temperature departure map.

But you still haven't acknowledged the falsehood inherent in your original question when  you when you claimed that the land only etc. map was combined with the land and ocean etc. map to create the percentile map. That is false.The first 2 are drawn from a 30 year comparison dating from 1981 to 2010 while the percentile map is drawn from data going as far back as 130 something years depending on the region. It is not the only map show to the public as you claim. It is show side by side with the the land and ocean temp. etc. map. I repeat that that was your original question and it was based on a false premise.

[KunMatt]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Until I can find out how their methodology works,  I can't comment on the land only temperature departure map.

But you still haven't acknowledged the falsehood inherent in your original question when  you when you claimed that the land only etc. map was combined with the land and ocean etc. map to create the percentile map. That is false.The first 2 are drawn from a 30 year comparison dating from 1981 to 2010 while the percentile map is drawn from data going as far back as 130 something years depending on the region. It is not the only map show to the public as you claim. It is show side by side with the the land and ocean temp. etc. map. I repeat that that was your original question and it was based on a false premise.

 

My bad.  I used the word "combined" when I should have said "derived".

 

So do you agree with me that all of the grey data for Africa and everywhere else that ended up with data in the final graphic, all of this data is simulated and not actual data?

 

It's based on a model and not real data, right?

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, KunMatt said:

 

My bad.  I used the word "combined" when I should have said "derived".

 

So do you agree with me that all of the grey data for Africa and everywhere else that ended up with data in the final graphic, all of this data is simulated and not actual data?

 

It's based on a model and not real data, right?

What do you mean you used the word combined instead of derived. The fact is that the percentile map comes from a different database than does the temperature anomaly map. Your original question quite clearly said the percentile map was somehow the result of the merger of the 2 other maps. That is absolutely false.

 

As I said, I have to look up the methodology used to derive of the land temperature only map.. So far, I haven't been able to track it down. 

[KunMatt]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

What do you mean you used the word combined instead of derived. The fact is that the percentile map comes from a different database than does the temperature anomaly map. Your original question quite clearly said the percentile map was somehow the result of the merger of the 2 other maps. That is absolutely false.

 

As I said, I have to look up the methodology used to derive of the land temperature only map.. So far, I haven't been able to track it down. 

You and I both know why you are avoiding my very simple direct question, don't you?  It's because it doesn't fit in with your prejudice.

 

You've already agreed with me in this thread that grey data means no recorded data.  

 

So do you agree with me that all of the grey data for Africa and everywhere else that ended up with data in the final graphic, all of this data is simulated and not actual data?

 

It's based on a model and not real data, right?

 

Really easy yes or no quesrions.  No semantics, no dodges and deflections, is a lot of the data for Africa for June simulated data from a model?

 

[KunMatt]

I'll take your silence at this point as admission you cannot argue my point.

So you went from calling me a liar, to saying I was faking the data, then calling me a conspiracy theorist until you eventually realised what I was saying is correct and now you just ignore the subject.

This is why people doubt your side. You shout and scream and "the data" and "the science" on every climate change thread but here we've actually looked at the data and the science you admit you don't know anything about it which is why you cannot explain why all of Finland has had its extreme cold temperature modified into an above average temperature, and even more conclusive is how Africa has no recorded data for about 70% of the continent but there are about 5 areas modified to have the hottest temperature on record from the grey area.

This is the data and the science that you are always referring to. And the way you attack people for asking questions is why I suspect you are on the wrong side of this.

[ilostmypassword]

4 hours ago, KunMatt said:

I'll take your silence at this point as admission you cannot argue my point.

So you went from calling me a liar, to saying I was faking the data, then calling me a conspiracy theorist until you eventually realised what I was saying is correct and now you just ignore the subject.

This is why people doubt your side. You shout and scream and "the data" and "the science" on every climate change thread but here we've actually looked at the data and the science you admit you don't know anything about it which is why you cannot explain why all of Finland has had its extreme cold temperature modified into an above average temperature, and even more conclusive is how Africa has no recorded data for about 70% of the continent but there are about 5 areas modified to have the hottest temperature on record from the grey area.

This is the data and the science that you are always referring to. And the way you attack people for asking questions is why I suspect you are on the wrong side of this.

First off, you have yet to acknowledge that your original question was based on a false premise which led to a false conclusion.

In fact, not only have you yet to acknowledge it, to judge from the 2 maps you cited above, you have yet to understand it. You are comparing the land only temperature departure map with the land and ocean temperature percentiles map. The former draws from a data base spanning the years 1981-2010, the latter from a data base going back  from the present to anywhere from 80 years to 133 years depending on the locale. So your objections to the results for Finland are based on your misunderstanding.

As for the nonsense about Africa having no recorded data...your point is based on one set of maps - the land only temperature anomaly maps.. There is plenty of data elsewhere out there about temperatures in Africa.  Just look it up on the internet.  Here's one such site which links to 3000 meteorological stations in Africa. http://fr.allmetsat.com/climat/afrique.php

Presumably, NOAA is getting its data from there and other sources. I haven't been able to track down those exact data sources. (The NOAA website isn't user friendly - at least not to this user)  That doesn't mean, as you infer, in accordance with your biases, that there are none. 

In addition there are the  Land and Ocean Temperature Grid Point Period of Record maps which I've cited in an earlier post, that show that most of Africa has records going back at least 80 years.

 

[impulse]

On 8/9/2017 at 2:27 PM, ardsong said:

As the States claims (well that I.... at the top at least) that proper environmental behavior cost money, I propose that all other countries that do engage in the Paris climate accord put an import tax on all American imports to the percentage amount of their national percentage spend on environmental improvement.

 

Just for a change of pace, I propose that the countries that sign these agreements actually do what they promised instead of signing something they had no intention of fulfilling, just to give them a competitive advantage over the countries that they expected to honor their word.

 

Perhaps it would be more fruitful to put those import duties on those countries that constantly cheat on their agreements? And I'm not just talking about Asian countries.

 

[KunMatt]

First off, you have yet to acknowledge that your original question was based on a false premise which led to a false conclusion.
In fact, not only have you yet to acknowledge it, to judge from the 2 maps you cited above, you have yet to understand it. You are comparing the land only temperature departure map with the land and ocean temperature percentiles map. The former draws from a data base spanning the years 1981-2010, the latter from a data base going back  from the present to anywhere from 80 years to 133 years depending on the locale. So your objections to the results for Finland are based on your misunderstanding.
As for the nonsense about Africa having no recorded data...your point is based on one set of maps - the land only temperature anomaly maps.. There is plenty of data elsewhere out there about temperatures in Africa.  Just look it up on the internet.  Here's one such site which links to 3000 meteorological stations in Africa. http://fr.allmetsat.com/climat/afrique.php
Presumably, NOAA is getting its data from there and other sources. I haven't been able to track down those exact data sources. (The NOAA website isn't user friendly - at least not to this user)  That doesn't mean, as you infer, in accordance with your biases, that there are none. 
In addition there are the  Land and Ocean Temperature Grid Point Period of Record maps which I've cited in an earlier post, that show that most of Africa has records going back at least 80 years.
 

But that is not what I am asking.

I'm asking if there is no data, for example for June for the grey parts of Africa, where did the processed data that shows Africa has several zones with the hottest recorded temperature come from?

I'd say it comes from a computer modelling software which is processkng and filling in the missing data.

And yes, it would be nice to see the complete raw data but it's not avaialable. What is usually released to the public are these graphics from NOAA which are mostly based on a computer model and simulation.

It's not as cut and dry as everyone thinks, is it? There is definitely room for error and manipulation from the way the data is acquired and processed. The data acquisition of the global sea temperatures and the way it is processed so that it makes all of the temperature data look and seem much higher than it actually is.

Do you at least agree that it's likely this processed data is not 100% correct?

[hawker9000]

On ‎8‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 11:27 PM, ardsong said:

As the States claims (well that I.... at the top at least) that proper environmental behavior cost money, I propose that all other countries that do engage in the Paris climate accord put an import tax on all American imports to the percentage amount of their national percentage spend on environmental improvement.

 

It seems nowadays, the only thing that counts in the States is money, so hit them where it hurts the  most!

... and the U.S. will do the same on THEIR imports, and I GUARANTEE you'll find out where it "hurts the most" and wish you'd kept quiet ...

 

The states have ALREADY been lowering their emissions for over a decade.  Time to quit the BS and have China and India start reducing THEIR emissions NOW instead of hiding behind this for-the-halfwits/we'll-do-it-later "developing nation" status hooey! 

 

[ilostmypassword]

18 minutes ago, hawker9000 said:

... and the U.S. will do the same on THEIR imports, and I GUARANTEE you'll find out where it "hurts the most" and wish you'd kept quiet ...

 

The states have ALREADY been lowering their emissions for over a decade.  Time to quit the BS and have China and India start reducing THEIR emissions NOW instead of hiding behind this for-the-halfwits/we'll-do-it-later "developing nation" status hooey! 

 

In fact, China and India are already way ahead of the goals they set for themselves. China has in absolute terms reduced the CO2 production from burning fuels. China has canceled the building of hundreds of coal fired plants. Because it is still a developing country and has been engaged in a massive building program it still has lots of emissions from making cement.  But since they've been overbuilding economics will take care of that. They are they world's leader in producing solar power panels and are coming up quickly in making wind turbines. They are now engaged in creating an electric car industry.

India is also way ahead of schedule in production and use of solar power. Recently they have canceled coal burning plants. Solar power is actually becomng cheaper there than burning coal. As is increasingly the case all over the world.

[maewang99]

it is disappointing... 

no matter who we elect we either get We Share Your Responsible Feelings and will sign some executive orders...  and make some movies about fires burning in Indonesia... and ice slowly melting in Greenland.... and We Can Do It.... but not nearly enough....

or this.

none of these care a wit about the "general population".  only what they focus on, and whatever it is it ain't something good. 



 

Edited August 14, 2017 by maewang99

[boomerangutang]

Today's article in NPR.org talks about how people in the Nile delta region are suffering from the effects of global warming.  Yes, I still use the older term.  I think it's more pertinent than 'climate change'.  Climate is always changing, always has.  It's the warming that's most chilling.  ....which also brings larger storms, etc.

 

npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/08/13/542645647/in-egypt-a-rising-sea-and-growing-worries-about-climate-changes-effects

 

Who are those guys in the OP photo?  Are they the cream of the crop of anti-science Trump fans?

 

Edited August 14, 2017 by boomerangutang

[KunMatt]

Today's article in NPR.org talks about how people in the Nile delta region are suffering from the effects of global warming.  Yes, I still use the older term.  I think it's more pertinent than 'climate change'.  Climate is always changing, always has.  It's the warming that's most chilling.  ....which also brings larger storms, etc.
 
npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/08/13/542645647/in-egypt-a-rising-sea-and-growing-worries-about-climate-changes-effects
 
Who are those guys in the OP photo?  Are they the cream of the crop of anti-science Trump fans?
 

If we are going to undo, or even stop, how we are polluting the planet we would need to cull the entire global population to about 1 billion people max.

I've yet to see how throwing trillions of dollars at climate change is going to have any significant effect. To make money you need to use and burn carbon so it's a false economy. At best they claim we can "maybe" pause climate change by the end of this century. Seeing as none of their models have been correct up until now so bet that they are wrong about this too.

At the end of the century the global population is estimated to be about 11 billion people.

It's over population which is really the problem.

Would love to hear your genuine solution to all of this.

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, KunMatt said:

 

If we are going to undo, or even stop, how we are polluting the planet we would need to cull the entire global population to about 1 billion people max.

I've yet to see how throwing trillions of dollars at climate change is going to have any significant effect. To make money you need to use and burn carbon so it's a false economy. At best they claim we can "maybe" pause climate change by the end of this century. Seeing as none of their models have been correct up until now so bet that they are wrong about this too.

At the end of the century the global population is estimated to be about 11 billion people.

It's over population which is really the problem.

Would love to hear your genuine solution to all of this.

 

"To make money you need to use and burn carbon so it's a false economy"

False, already solar power is cheaper than coal in many parts of the world.  And it is beginning to compete with methane. And this has happened much faster than predicted.  And this is without considering the cost of carbon based fuel's externalities.

[KunMatt]

"To make money you need to use and burn carbon so it's a false economy"
False, already solar power is cheaper than coal in many parts of the world.  And it is beginning to compete with methane. And this has happened much faster than predicted.  And this is without considering the cost of carbon based fuel's externalities.

Completely missed my point as usual. I'm pretty sure you're doing that deliberately.

So when you pay for carbon offsetting does that money not have a carbon footprint of how you earned it? Didn't you have to work, travel, eat and create waste while you were earning that money? And then you use it to pay for carbon offsetting, does that make any logical sense?

How about the rest of my post? How do you intend to deal with 11 billion people all polluting and creating carbon on the planet? More special light bulbs and bags for life for everyone?

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, KunMatt said:

 

Completely missed my point as usual. I'm pretty sure you're doing that deliberately.

So when you pay for carbon offsetting does that money not have a carbon footprint of how you earned it? Didn't you have to work, travel, eat and create waste while you were earning that money? And then you use it to pay for carbon offsetting, does that make any logical sense?

How about the rest of my post? How do you intend to deal with 11 billion people all polluting and creating carbon on the planet? More special light bulbs and bags for life for everyone?

 

More deflection.

[KunMatt]

More deflection.

 

Why butt in when I post a reply to another member if you don't want to have a proper discussion?

 

Again, this is why I know you are on the wrong side of the argument. You pick and twist what you want to answer and then you just attack me for asking questions.

 

And you had the nerve to say I was disingenuous!

 

If you don't want to be a part of the discussing then just don't bother with your childish conspiracy theory tactics. If you want to have a discussion about this then act like it.

 

[KunMatt]

So this new study claims that the climate would be pretty much the same as it is now without human activities;

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214242817300426#!

 

So if it is indeed natural then why are we giving trillions of dollars to foundations and schemes that claim they can "pause the climate"?

 

Rhetorical question. :)

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, KunMatt said:

So this new study claims that the climate would be pretty much the same as it is now without human activities;

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214242817300426#!

 

So if it is indeed natural then why are we giving trillions of dollars to foundations and schemes that claim they can "pause the climate"?

 

Rhetorical question. :)

 

 

A dishonest rhetorical question.

And the "researchers in question" are a dubious pair.

https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/the-climate-wars-ipa-inordinately-outgunned-by-royal-society,7254

And on the basis of this very dubious study you are impeaching the overwhelming majority of climage research. Nice try.

 

 

[KunMatt]

A dishonest rhetorical question.

And the "researchers in question" are a dubious pair.

https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/the-climate-wars-ipa-inordinately-outgunned-by-royal-society,7254

And on the basis of this very dubious study you are impeaching the overwhelming majority of climage research. Nice try.

 

 

 

They conclude and agree with the change in climate, in fact the model they used is in agreement with the actual real-world result of today.

 

So are you saying that the their study which they claim proves climate change is wrong?

 

Are you denying climate change?

 

[ilostmypassword]

5 hours ago, KunMatt said:

 

They conclude and agree with the change in climate, in fact the model they used is in agreement with the actual real-world result of today.

So are you saying that the their result which they claim prove climate change are wrong?

Are you denying climate change?

 

Another person who confuses semantics with science.  You think this childish ruse is going to trick me?  It's clear that the case has overwhelmingly been made for

climate change. But not just any kind of climate change but anthropogenic climate change.

[KunMatt]

Another person who confuses semantics with science.  You think this childish ruse is going to trick me?  It's clear that the case has overwhelmingly been made for 

climate change. But not just any kind of climate change but anthropogenic climate change.

 

Of course nobody denies climate change. The climate has never ever stayed the same throughout any period of history. Nobody is silly enough to say otherwise.

 

This study is saying that climate change is natural though.

 

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

 

Of course nobody denies climate change. The climate has never ever stayed the same throughout any period of history. Nobody is silly enough to say otherwise.

 

This study is saying that climate change is natural though.

 

If it's "of course nobody denies climate change" then why ask the question at all? The only reason that question gets asked is to do precisely what you committed here: sophomoric semantics. Just a childish ploy.

Edited August 24, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[KunMatt]

If it's "of course nobody denies climate change" then why ask the question at all. The only reason that question gets asked is to do precisely what you committed here: sophomoric semantics. Just a childish ploy.

 

Because, as I've stated a few times, giving foundations belonging to Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio and so on, hundreds of millions of dollars to somehow stop natural climate change is a scam, isn't it?

 

Buying carbon offsets with money you had to burn carbon to earn is useless, isn't it? You cannot offset carbon unless you can live and work completely carbon neutral, which none of us are. So it's a scam. You're just giving money to this companies for nothing but their profits.

 

The problem is whenever anyone points out that climate change is being use to scam money then they are accused of being a climate change denier.

 

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

 

Because, as I've stated a few times, giving foundations belonging to Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio and so on, hundreds of millions of dollars to somehow stop natural climate change is a scam, isn't it?

 

Buying carbon offsets with money you had to burn carbon to earn is useless, isn't it? You cannot offset carbon unless you can live and work completely carbon neutral, which none of us are. So it's a scam. You're just giving money to this companies for nothing but their profits.

 

The problem is whenever anyone points out that climate change is being use to scam money then they are accused of being a climate change denier.

 

I asked you why you asked a question that has an answer that nobody disputes. You still haven't answered that one. Keep in mind that a question is not a statement so it doesn't justify anything. And even if you had made such a statement disputing anthropogenic anthropogenic climate change, your asserting that climate change is a natural phenomenon against the vast majority of scientific opinion doesn't make it so. No, it was just the silly trick use of semantics that ACG deniers use.

 

And as for the nonsense that "buying carbon offsets with money you had to burn carbon to earn is useless", this assertion is so mathematically inept that unless you're still under 15 years old, there's no excuse for not seeing how tendentioius a statement it is. By the same kind of reasoning it would be useless to create solar panels using energy from carbon derived energy sources.

 

The problem is that your assertion that climate change is being used to scam money means  that somehow virtually all the world's climate scientist are in on this scam. This is ludicrously improbable and the stuff of fever dreams emanating from the far right media.

 

[KunMatt]

I asked you why you asked a question that has an answer that nobody disputes. You still haven't answered that one. Keep in mind that a question is not a statement so it doesn't justify anything. And even if you had made such a statement disputing anthropogenic anthropogenic climate change, your asserting that climate change is a natural phenomenon against the vast majority of scientific opinion doesn't make it so. No, it was just the silly trick use of semantics that ACG deniers use.

 

And as for the nonsense that "buying carbon offsets with money you had to burn carbon to earn is useless", this assertion is so mathematically inept that unless you're still under 15 years old, there's no excuse for not seeing how tendentioius a statement it is. By the same kind of reasoning it would be useless to create solar panels using energy from carbon derived energy sources.

 

The problem is that your assertion that climate change is being used to scam money means  that somehow virtually all the world's climate scientist are in on this scam. This is ludicrously improbable and the stuff of fever dreams emanating from the far right media.

 

 

Except for several studies which all conclude that climate change is natural, including this new study I just gave you the link for.

 

You ever notice that each and every post of yours attacks the poster and not the post, and you constantly make false accusations because you don't like the content?

 

[ilostmypassword]

7 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

 

Except for several studies which all conclude that climate is natural, including this new study I just gave you the link for.

You ever notice that each and every post of yours attacks the poster and not the post, and you constantly make false accusations because you don't like the content?

 

Several studies from dubious sources.

I pointed out that a question is not an assertion and not a justification. That 's personal? you didn't answer

I pointed out that your argument about burning carbon is mathematically inept. I did throw in a swipe characterizing the intellectual incompetence of the observation, but you haven't addressed  substance of the criticism. 

I said your notion that ACG is a scam would mean that most of the world's climate scientists are in on a massive conspiracy. You didn't address that.

What i've noticed is that you never address comments that expose the hollowness of your assertions. Instead, you resort to the obviously false assertion that I attack the poster and not the post.

So how about answering the substantive rebuttals I've made of your post?

 

Edited August 24, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[KunMatt]

Several studies from dubious sources.
I pointed out that a question is not an assertion and not a justification. That 's personal? you didn't answer
I pointed out that your argument about burning carbon is mathematically inept. I did throw in a swipe characterizing the intellectual incompetence of the observation, but you haven't addressed  substance of the criticism. 
I said your notion that ACG is a scam would mean that most of the world's climate scientists are in on a massive conspiracy. You didn't address that.
What i've noticed is that you never address comments that expose the hollowness of your assertions. Instead, you resort to the obviously false assertion that I attack the poster and not the post.
So how about answering the substantive rebuttals I've made of your post?
 

So to sum up, all of your arguments are basically "anyone I don't agree with is a liar, and a troll and a far-right conspiracy theorist".

You posted no evidence or source of any of your claims and every time I do post a link you tell me that it's fake, including when I posted links directly from NOAA and you told me that I "must have got it from some ACG denial site". And when I proved to you that they are real links from NOAA did you ever say anything about you making a false allegation? No, of course not, but everyone else is lying according to you.

You are basically exactly what you say you are against. You use conspiracy theorist tactics to argue a questionable subject. You hate anyone even asking questions about this because we all know it's not really settled and there is a legitimate debate about it.

Not one model or alarmist claim from the last 50 years has be correct or come true, is it? Al Gore has had to make a sequel to his previous climate scare film because the first one was all wrong and now we have another set of climate scare predictions.

What would he possibly have to gain by lying?

(Spoiler: Fame, $300m, 3 mansions and a private jet is the answer).

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

 

So to sum up, all of your arguments are basically "anyone I don't agree with is a liar, and a troll and a far-right conspiracy theorist".

You posted no evidence or source of any of your claims and every time I do post a link you tell me that it's fake, including when I posted links directly from NOAA and you told me that I "must have got it from some ACG denial site". And when I proved to you that they are real links from NOAA did you ever say anything about you making a false allegation? No, of course not, but everyone else is lying according to you.

You are basically exactly what you say you are against. You use conspiracy theorist tactics to argue a questionable subject. You hate anyone even asking questions about this because we all know it's not really settled and there is a legitimate debate about it.

Not one model or alarmist claim from the last 50 years has be correct or come true, is it? Al Gore has had to make a sequel to his previous climate scare film because the first one was all wrong and now we have another set of climate scare predictions.

What would he possibly have to gain by lying?

(Spoiler: Fame, $300m, 3 mansions and a private jet is the answer).

 

Really, is that the sum of what I said? Clearly you are the one trying to make it personal.

I did imply that you are mathematically inept. But anybody with even a rudimentary grasp of high school math could see how your carbon burning argument is faulty. I even gave you an example to show why it's obviously  faulty. I don't need to cite a source for that. You made an assertion about carbon burning but provided no proof. Show me how that is wrong. Show me how it is valid that burning carbon to reduce carbon burning makes no sense. You've got nothing.