And your sources are? And have you checked mine - especially “MIke’ Nature Trick”. They had to admit it - it’s in the emails. See: I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
“Hide the decline” refers to the tree ring data showing a declining temperature, while all along they’s been telling us it had been increasing.
That, to me, is rank deception bordering on fraud.
But lastly (and sadly) it doesn’t take long does it? Personal insults are the inevitable results of weak arguments.
You my friend are what’s known as a believer; I don’t have a problem with that - I just think you’d be better off with a good religion. Science is not for you.
Hey, showing others your depths of ignorance is not my problem.
So there is more evidence of why you are a liar, NOAA and other organizations involved have not disowned it, far from it, recent experiments that used the reconstruction data have come out pointing that the warming that is coming is likely to on the low end of the IPCC projections, not as bad as the high end predictions, so we may have some time.
Of course, deniers are constantly attempting to make the recently found paleoclimate data to be unreliable, unfortunately deniers are still stupid and do not realize the big contradiction, increasing the uncertainty of the paleoclimate data means that the higher temperatures should be considered to be likely again for the near future. So what should it be?
Trust Mann and the paleoclimate evidence and go for low levels of increase in temperature (still bad but manageable if we do something) already within the IPCC predictions, or dismiss Mann and the paleo data and make policy makers revert back to higher estimates and plan accordingly?
Are you really, really saying that AWG is a certainty?
If so, I think you’re on your own.
They don’t tell you - but their technical papers are all about uncertainty. When the time comes they’ll blame you - “you misunderstood” is what their get-out clause will be.
Let me ask this - do you think the Climate Systems are more complex than the Stock Exchange price fluctuations?
Well if you do, come back and tell me about the Climate System when you’re rich.
Otherwise, just admit (as the IPCC once did) that the Climate is a non-linear, linked chaotic system where forecasting is limited to about 4 days on a local level.
Everything else in mathematically chaotic - that means not that we don’t know enough, it means that it is impossible to know.
Nope, you are also an ignorant on that, there were already many that reheated old baloney like you before, so there is already a past history that you are condemned to repeat it seems.
Funny religion that convinces scientists with evidence after 60 years of experiments.
Since climate is not weather you need a fat cite showing the IPCC admitting what you say there, chances are you are just regurgitating denialist claptrap.
Non sequitur in both cases there I’m afraid.
Unless you make some kind of basic sense, I cannot even guess what you mean.
I really do think you should go and find a useful religion that will not confuse you as much as this does. Turning government propaganda into a religion is not a good idea.
It’s not a religion for GIGO; I have no idea why he’s refusing to prove you wrong – a single sentence from him could do it – but I’ll mention that he’s offered an entirely falsifiable prediction about global warming: that we’ll see at least a tenth of a degree rise in temperature from '07 to '17, and another in the decade to follow.
How many religions put testable claims on the line like that?