Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Avoid, dodge, deny: the real story
17 views
Skip to first unread message
1/3 of land cooling
May 26, 2012, 8:25:08 PM5/26/12
to
Avoid, dodge, deny: the real story...................
This months post is all about Dawlish. (Isn't it always about Dawlish?)
Dawlish is repeatedly claiming that I haven't answered his question.
I have, in fact, posted my answer twice. On the same thread that he using to make his claims. He has repeated his claims a number of times, after I posted the answer twice.
What could this mean?
- has Dawlish lost his reading glasses?
- has Dawlish lost his marbles?
- Does Dawlish dislike my answer so much (because it is the truth), that he is going to DENY that I have answered the question? This will let him DODGE the truth, and AVOID having to admit the he (and the other Alarmists) are wrong.
Here is his question, and my answer, so that Dawlish can make himself look even more foolish with his claims (if that is possible).
--------------------------
Dawlish's question:
What does the BEST study finding, that 1/3 of the land surface of the earth has cooled over the last 70 years, MEAN?
--------------------------
My answer (cut and pasted from my original answer):
It is YOU who is unbelievable Dawlish.
Do I have to spell it out for you, in words of one syllable.
I have clearly laid out my case over several threads.
AGW theory can NOT explain why 1/3 of the land has cooled over the last 70 years.
The scientific findings are NOT consistent with AGW theory. If Alarmists can not find a reasonable explanation for why/how 1/3 of the land has cooled over that last 70 years, then AGW theory is rejected (that is how science works, ask a scientist).
You have put all of your faith into a theory (AGW) which can only explain warming. Sceptics could accept if there was a little bit of cooling (due to measurement error, changing local conditions, a short term cooling trend, etc). But we have a MASSIVE 33.3% of the land cooling, OVER A VERY LONG 70 YEAR PERIOD. While CO2 has gone up by 80 ppm (about 25.8%). What effect has the CO2 had?
Anybody with a brain can see what that means Dawlish.
It is time for you to stop lying, and abusing people.
This months post is all about Dawlish. (Isn't it always about Dawlish?)
Dawlish is repeatedly claiming that I haven't answered his question.
I have, in fact, posted my answer twice. On the same thread that he using to make his claims. He has repeated his claims a number of times, after I posted the answer twice.
What could this mean?
- has Dawlish lost his reading glasses?
- has Dawlish lost his marbles?
- Does Dawlish dislike my answer so much (because it is the truth), that he is going to DENY that I have answered the question? This will let him DODGE the truth, and AVOID having to admit the he (and the other Alarmists) are wrong.
Here is his question, and my answer, so that Dawlish can make himself look even more foolish with his claims (if that is possible).
--------------------------
Dawlish's question:
What does the BEST study finding, that 1/3 of the land surface of the earth has cooled over the last 70 years, MEAN?
--------------------------
My answer (cut and pasted from my original answer):
It is YOU who is unbelievable Dawlish.
Do I have to spell it out for you, in words of one syllable.
I have clearly laid out my case over several threads.
AGW theory can NOT explain why 1/3 of the land has cooled over the last 70 years.
The scientific findings are NOT consistent with AGW theory. If Alarmists can not find a reasonable explanation for why/how 1/3 of the land has cooled over that last 70 years, then AGW theory is rejected (that is how science works, ask a scientist).
You have put all of your faith into a theory (AGW) which can only explain warming. Sceptics could accept if there was a little bit of cooling (due to measurement error, changing local conditions, a short term cooling trend, etc). But we have a MASSIVE 33.3% of the land cooling, OVER A VERY LONG 70 YEAR PERIOD. While CO2 has gone up by 80 ppm (about 25.8%). What effect has the CO2 had?
Anybody with a brain can see what that means Dawlish.
It is time for you to stop lying, and abusing people.
kym horsell
May 26, 2012, 8:47:36 PM5/26/12
to
On Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:25:08 AM UTC+10, 1/3 of land cooling wrote:
> Avoid, dodge, deny: the real story...................
>
> This months post is all about Dawlish. (Isn't it always about Dawlish?)
>
> Dawlish is repeatedly claiming that I haven't answered his question.
...
> Avoid, dodge, deny: the real story...................
>
> This months post is all about Dawlish. (Isn't it always about Dawlish?)
>
> Dawlish is repeatedly claiming that I haven't answered his question.
What question was that?
--
[From the Land of the Long Flat River:]
AGW theory can NOT explain why 1/3 of the land has cooled over the
last 70 years.
The scientific findings are NOT consistent with AGW theory. If
Alarmists can not find a reasonable explanation for why/how 1/3 of the
land has cooled over that last 70 years, then AGW theory is rejected
(that is how science works, ask a scientist).
-- 2/3 of land not cooling@Auckland, 25 May 2012
last 70 years.
The scientific findings are NOT consistent with AGW theory. If
Alarmists can not find a reasonable explanation for why/how 1/3 of the
land has cooled over that last 70 years, then AGW theory is rejected
(that is how science works, ask a scientist).
Tyndall predicted [in 1861] that greenhouse warming should cause nights to
warm faster than days. [...]
Tyndall anticipated winters warming faster than summers. [...]
With heat being trapped, we expect to see the lower atmosphere to warm.
But with less heat escaping to space and more carbon dioxide in
the stratosphere, we also expect to see the upper atmosphere cool. [...]
With the lower atmosphere [...] warming and the upper atmosphere [...]
cooling, the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, otherwise
known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of
greenhouse warming. [...]
Current global warming shows all the distinctive signatures of
greenhouse warming. To be skeptical that humans are causing global
warming, you must believe two things. Something unknown is causing
warming that happens to mirror the greenhouse effect. And something
unknown is somehow suppressing the well understood (and well observed)
greenhouse effect. So we can accept what we know to be true
(greenhouse warming) or we accept two unknowns.
-- http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=586
1/3 of land cooling
May 26, 2012, 9:19:50 PM5/26/12
to
Do you understand the words that you posted?
"Tyndall predicted [in 1861] that greenhouse warming should cause nights to
warm faster than days. [...]"
"Tyndall anticipated winters warming faster than summers. [...]"
"With heat being trapped, we expect to see the lower atmosphere to warm.
But with less heat escaping to space and more carbon dioxide in
the stratosphere, we also expect to see the upper atmosphere cool. [...]"
"Current global warming shows all the distinctive signatures of
greenhouse warming. To be skeptical that humans are causing global
warming, you must believe two things. Something unknown is causing
warming that happens to mirror the greenhouse effect. And something
unknown is somehow suppressing the well understood (and well observed)
greenhouse effect. So we can accept what we know to be true
(greenhouse warming) or we accept two unknowns."
- The greenhouse effect is so weak, that an increase of 80 ppm (25.8%) of CO2 over 70 years, has allowed 1/3 to the land to ACTUALLY COOL down.
kym horsell
May 26, 2012, 9:36:22 PM5/26/12
to
You're a bit of a question-waster, aren't you?
--
Dawlish
May 27, 2012, 6:05:18 AM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 1:25 am, "1/3 of land cooling" <skeptic....@gmail.com>
wrote:
I know you've said this and I rightly ignored it. Do you honestly
think that anyone would accept that is what you really think? The 5
other threads you've opened have *nothing* to do with this. They are
puching for something else, pony, aren't they? "Global warming theory"
doesn't exist and every model prediction produced since Hanson's in
1980 shows unequal warming, with some areas cooling for a time.
Scientists know the warming will be unequal and some areas will show
cooling for a time. They really do. That's why BEST has been
universally understood and accepted, except by a handful of very
stupid climate deniers who try to read things into the fact that are
simply not there.
You *know* that this fact shows something very different to that, as
do your compadres. Scientists undestand something very different to
you. What do your really think that 1/3 of the land cooling means
pony? Why is it so "SIGNIFICANT" and "MAJOR".
wrote:
think that anyone would accept that is what you really think? The 5
other threads you've opened have *nothing* to do with this. They are
puching for something else, pony, aren't they? "Global warming theory"
doesn't exist and every model prediction produced since Hanson's in
1980 shows unequal warming, with some areas cooling for a time.
Scientists know the warming will be unequal and some areas will show
cooling for a time. They really do. That's why BEST has been
universally understood and accepted, except by a handful of very
stupid climate deniers who try to read things into the fact that are
simply not there.
You *know* that this fact shows something very different to that, as
do your compadres. Scientists undestand something very different to
you. What do your really think that 1/3 of the land cooling means
pony? Why is it so "SIGNIFICANT" and "MAJOR".
1/3 of land cooling
May 27, 2012, 6:48:37 AM5/27/12
to
The BEST scientists and I got together, and decided to try and make you look like a fool. The BEST scientists fabricated the entire BEST study, and I had the job of setting you up, to make you start to doubt yourself. But you were too strong. I tried every trick that I could think of. Tried to get at you from every angle.
How did you manage to stay so strong in your convictions about global warming, when the data in the BEST report had been deliberately fabricated to show cooling? I guess that we picked the wrong Alarmist to mess with.
The BEST scientists and I are feeling pretty silly now. You are a better scientist than any of us.
Or was it just that you didn't read the BEST study?
Uncle Ben
May 27, 2012, 7:34:08 AM5/27/12
to
Explain why you think ponies have tracks. Or is that a steam-driven
robot pony with iron wheels?
robot pony with iron wheels?
Dawlish
May 27, 2012, 7:57:14 AM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 11:48 am, "1/3 of land cooling" <skeptic....@gmail.com>
> Or was it just that you didn't read the BEST study?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You don't fool anyone, pony - and if you've read anything I've
written, I'm certainly not (yet) convinced about the cause of GW. I
just know what you can't admit; it very probably is CO2. I tend to
believe good sceince and good research and the BEST study is the best
that has been performed on the temperature data.
But you question it and you think you have found something that
appears to invalidate some of it, for you. Why is that and don't you
find it odd that scientists with an IQ on a level of qualifications
that you will never aspire to, do accept it?
>
> - Show quoted text -
You don't fool anyone, pony - and if you've read anything I've
written, I'm certainly not (yet) convinced about the cause of GW. I
just know what you can't admit; it very probably is CO2. I tend to
believe good sceince and good research and the BEST study is the best
that has been performed on the temperature data.
But you question it and you think you have found something that
appears to invalidate some of it, for you. Why is that and don't you
find it odd that scientists with an IQ on a level of qualifications
that you will never aspire to, do accept it?
Dawlish
May 27, 2012, 7:57:51 AM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 12:34 pm, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> Explain why you think ponies have tracks. Or is that a steam-driven
> robot pony with iron wheels?
Explain how bison were around at the Permian-Triassic extinction bison-
> Explain why you think ponies have tracks. Or is that a steam-driven
> robot pony with iron wheels?
benny. Go on. Give us another laugh.
Dawlish
May 27, 2012, 8:17:35 AM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 12:34 pm, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> Explain why you think ponies have tracks. Or is that a steam-driven
> robot pony with iron wheels?
Oh sorry; I answer questions, unlike stupid deniers.
> robot pony with iron wheels?
This particular denialist nutter has talked almost exclusively about
1/3 of the world cooling, even to the point of making the phrase his
usenet name; hence his nickname. You are too stupid to realise that.
Your nickname is benny-bison. Why would that be? (Bet you leave that
one alone <laughing>)
Uncle Ben
May 27, 2012, 8:56:15 AM5/27/12
to
tracks.
Freddy, my bison, says he has no idea how old his species is. If he
ever remembers, I'll let you know.
benny-bison
Dawlish
May 27, 2012, 11:42:50 AM5/27/12
to
continue to seek anacknowledgement of your views.
No-one is responsible but yourself.
PS Ponies follow tracks, benny-bison. This discussion groups' pony
follows a single track. He's far too stupid to make tracks himself,
but again, you were too stupid to realise that. Isn't it just horrible
when someone exposes you benny-bison?
AGWFacts
May 28, 2012, 5:09:04 PM5/28/12
to
If you look at the temperature stations in the United States you
wll see about one-third of them show cooling, and two-thirds show
warming. The interesting part is that most of the cooling has
happened in the south-east, but all across the USA there are
stations showing warming and cooling mixed together.
--
"A 'crank' is defined as a man who cannot be turned." --- _Nature_, 8 Nov 1906
kym horsell
May 28, 2012, 5:24:42 PM5/28/12
to AGWF...@1800reality.com
On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 7:09:04 AM UTC+10, AGWFacts wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2012 05:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
>
> On Sun, 27 May 2012 05:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
>
> wrote:
>
> > On May 27, 12:34 pm, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> > > Explain why you think ponies have tracks. Or is that a steam-driven
> > > robot pony with iron wheels?
>
> > Oh sorry; I answer questions, unlike stupid deniers.
> >
> > This particular denialist nutter has talked almost exclusively about
> > 1/3 of the world cooling, even to the point of making the phrase his
> > usenet name; hence his nickname. You are too stupid to realise that.
> > Your nickname is benny-bison. Why would that be? (Bet you leave that
> > one alone <laughing>)
>
> Roughly one-third of the land, of course: not the world.
>
> If you look at the temperature stations in the United States you
> wll see about one-third of them show cooling, and two-thirds show
> warming. The interesting part is that most of the cooling has
> happened in the south-east, but all across the USA there are
> stations showing warming and cooling mixed together.
...
>
> > On May 27, 12:34 pm, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> > > Explain why you think ponies have tracks. Or is that a steam-driven
> > > robot pony with iron wheels?
>
> > Oh sorry; I answer questions, unlike stupid deniers.
> >
> > This particular denialist nutter has talked almost exclusively about
> > 1/3 of the world cooling, even to the point of making the phrase his
> > usenet name; hence his nickname. You are too stupid to realise that.
> > Your nickname is benny-bison. Why would that be? (Bet you leave that
> > one alone <laughing>)
>
> Roughly one-third of the land, of course: not the world.
>
> If you look at the temperature stations in the United States you
> wll see about one-third of them show cooling, and two-thirds show
> warming. The interesting part is that most of the cooling has
> happened in the south-east, but all across the USA there are
> stations showing warming and cooling mixed together.
I suspect the "cooling locations" don't form a coherent pattern. If you look for "cooling stations" over various time periods you will find them in much the same way as finding bunny wabbits in the clouds. You can find a stationary bunny wabbit for any given length of time, but it won't necessarily be in the same place as the clouds swirl and change shape.
--
As the maps show, global warming doesn't mean temperatures rose
everywhere at every time by one degree. Temperatures in a given year
or decade might rise 5 degrees in one region and drop 2 degrees in
another. Exceptionally cold winters in one region might be followed by
exceptionally warm summers. Or a cold winter in one area might be
balanced by an extremely warm winter in another part of the globe.
-- http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php
[For a world map of trends 1900-2012 see:
<http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2012&month_last=
4&sat=4&sst=1&type=trends&mean_gen=0112&year1=1900&year2=2000&base1=1951&base2=1
980&radius=250&pol=reg> ].
1/3 of land cooling
May 28, 2012, 5:24:30 PM5/28/12
to AGWF...@1800reality.com
On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 9:09:04 AM UTC+12, AGWFacts wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2012 05:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
>
> On Sun, 27 May 2012 05:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
>
> wrote:
>
> > On May 27, 12:34 pm, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> > > Explain why you think ponies have tracks. Or is that a steam-driven
> > > robot pony with iron wheels?
>
> > Oh sorry; I answer questions, unlike stupid deniers.
> >
> > This particular denialist nutter has talked almost exclusively about
> > 1/3 of the world cooling, even to the point of making the phrase his
> > usenet name; hence his nickname. You are too stupid to realise that.
> > Your nickname is benny-bison. Why would that be? (Bet you leave that
> > one alone <laughing>)
==========>
>
> > On May 27, 12:34 pm, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> > > Explain why you think ponies have tracks. Or is that a steam-driven
> > > robot pony with iron wheels?
>
> > Oh sorry; I answer questions, unlike stupid deniers.
> >
> > This particular denialist nutter has talked almost exclusively about
> > 1/3 of the world cooling, even to the point of making the phrase his
> > usenet name; hence his nickname. You are too stupid to realise that.
> > Your nickname is benny-bison. Why would that be? (Bet you leave that
> > one alone <laughing>)
=> Roughly one-third of the land, of course: not the world.
Note that it is Dawlish who is incorrectly claiming that I said that 1/3 of the world has cooled.
I claim that 1/3 of the LAND has cooled. So do the BEST scientists.
Tom P
May 29, 2012, 4:02:04 AM5/29/12
to
again, why not read and understand what the authors of the BEST study wrote?
1/3 of land cooling
May 29, 2012, 4:42:36 AM5/29/12
to
=> Instead of asking the same abusive rhetorical questions over and over
=> again, why not read and understand what the authors of the BEST study wrote?
Why do you think that my question is abusive?
---------------------------------------------
I am asking Alarmists how AGW theory can explain why 1/3 of the land has cooled over the last 70 years.
If you find that abusive, then you must be an Alarmist with no explanation, who doesn't like having their religious faith questioned.
Why do you think that my question is rhetorical?
------------------------------------------------
I have been asking for somebody to give me an answer to this question for about 7 months. Please, would somebody give me an answer?
Alarmists have made the question rhetorical by refusing to answer it. Why do you think that is?
Why not read and understand what the authors of the BEST study wrote?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You accuse me of being abusive, for asking a simple science question, and then insult me by implying that I have not read and understood what the authors of the BEST study wrote.
You are no better than Dawlish and erschroedinger. (Believe me, I have just insulted you greatly).
Come back when you have a reasonable answer to my question. You HAVE read and understood what the authors of the BEST study wrote, haven't you. Perhaps you could explain it to me.
Dawlish
May 29, 2012, 5:34:06 AM5/29/12
to
On May 28, 10:24 pm, "1/3 of land cooling" <skeptic....@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I claim that 1/3 of the LAND has cooled. So do the BEST scientists.- Hide quoted text -
You'll see it at the next update. I'm always fair and I want it to be
an accurate record of your craziness.
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I changed your entry on "Avoid, Dodge Deny" as a result of your post.
> - Show quoted text -
You'll see it at the next update. I'm always fair and I want it to be
an accurate record of your craziness.
Falcon
May 29, 2012, 5:48:19 AM5/29/12
to
On Tue, 29 May 2012 10:02:04 +0200
Tom P wrote...
[..]
> Instead of asking the same abusive rhetorical questions over and over
> again, why not read and understand what the authors of the BEST study wrote?
I simply cannot understand anyone defending the most abusive individual
> again, why not read and understand what the authors of the BEST study wrote?
ever to post in this forum, especially when it's achieved by accusing
someone else of being abusive towards a chronic abuser. The irony is
simply staggering. Do you think that the perpetually abused should
always refrain from responding in kind? Is it a simply a case of 'the
enemy of my enemy is my friend'? Or is there another reason alarmists
constantly leap to the defence the indefensible?
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Dawlish
May 29, 2012, 5:54:14 AM5/29/12
to
On May 29, 10:48 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2012 10:02:04 +0200Tom P wrote...
Glad I've got to you. To you, this is abuse. To non-deniers, these are
questions you refuse to answer:
All spinner’s…………
When March 2012 was the 16th warmest on record (out of 132 years'
data) spinner thinks that this means it was "relatively cool". Why
would you think that, spinner?
Spinner; why do you feel that homophobia is a tactic that can be use
legitimately to escape answering the many questions that hang over
you, unanswered?
Spinner thinks a blogger who doesn’t even go by his own name “Stephen
Goddard” should be believed over the NSIDC. Why do you think that,
spinner, when “Goddard” was entirely wrong about the NSIDC “tampering
with data”? You lied to attempt to denigrate good scientists, didn’t
you?
Spinner can’t explain why March 2012 was cooler than every other March
since 2000, but warmer than 98/100 Marches during the last century.
Every scientist knows why, but somehow, spinner can’t find it in him
to explain it. If he did, or another denier did, their edifice would
crumble.
Spinner simply can’t see the “f****** warming”……..well just keep your
eyes open during the next El Nino spinner and you are sure to see it.
spinner thinks that Christopher Booker, a “Daily Telegraph” hack with
no scientific qualifications whatsoever, but who has written articles
criticising both climate scientists and evolution, is expert enough to
be believable when he criticises the BBC for its science. Why would
you think that, spinner?
Deniers have posted almost 500 posts saying that local, temporary cold
means that the global climate is changing. Not a single denier has
ever criticised them for doing so. (including you) Why is that?
"The earth has been cooling since 1998" (A. Nutcase, Feb 27th 2012).
That’s exactly what every denier in this newsgroup knows is happening.
Why do you all know that when Scientists think so differently
spinner tries to cast doubt on the extremely strong relationship
between CO2 increases and temperature increases in the GISS (or NOAA,
or Hadley, or the two satellite) temperature series, but can’t do the
calculations himself. Why can’t you do them spinner? Are you afraid of
the result?
giga, spinner and others deniers think CAGW is a real term, used in
the climate debate. Why then can they not point to a single published
paper that refers to this. You made it up, didn’t you?
spinner-cut-and-paste thinks that papers published in Chinese
journals, that quote Lindzen and Choi 2009 (that Lindzen himself
accepted was a flawed paper) has something to say about climate
science. Why do you think that, spinner?
spinner posts an unsourced graph, showing CO2 increases and
temperature increases on different vertical scales, over a cherry-
picked time period of 40 years, with no accompanying statistical
analysis and says that it shows that GW isn’t happening. Why did you
do that, spinner?
spinner and dancer think the strongest El Nino of modern times should
be used as a baseline from which to judge warming over 13 years. Why
would that be?
spinner and dancer think that 13 years is now considered a long enough
period after which to judge that a new climate trend has been
established, especially when you pick 1998, one of the warmest years
in a 200-year temperature sequence, as the baseline for that trend.
Why do you think that?
spinner, tundy, brucie and most recently, mad petey and a whole load
of others think that there are “real scientists” out there that agree
with them. Brucie thinks some work at the IPCC and agree with him that
deforestation is causing more GW than is CO2.
spinner thinks the Hadley temperature series started in 1979 and uses
that Hadley baseline date to show there is apparently no relationship
between temperatures and CO2 increases. Why, when the Hadley temp
series started in 1860?
spinner and every other denier thinks that climate models are wrong.
Point to a single one that has wrongly predicted a rise in global
temperatures based upon a linear increase in CO2 to date. Just
*one*.
Spinner thinks that 7 years of data concerning ocean heat content is
enough to show a trend. No statistician, or scientist would agree. He
also thinks that a 5-years of data in a clear 160-year warming trend
is enough to show a reversal of a trend. Again, no statistician, or
decent scientist would agree. Why do you think these are long
enough, spinner
spinner thought that GW was measured by global SSTs and had to be
dragged kicking and screaming to admit that this was not true. Explain
why you did that and didn’t just accept your obvious mistake straight
away.
spinner, mad petey and others have been trying to tell us that the
oceans have not warmed. Source data from NOAA shows there has been
significant warming from 1955. Why do you continue to believe there
has been no warming?
spinner thinks that ships, temporarily stuck in the Gulf of Finland
last spring, were evidence that ice melt was slow in the Arctic. Why
would you think that the Gulf of Finland is in the Arctic?
spinner thinks that when there are gales in a small area of the UK,
every windmill in the UK has to shut down. Why would that be so?
spinner thinks that global heat content has not increased recently and
has desperately tried to say it hasn’t. The data shows otherwise. Why
do you think you are right.
spinner thought that GW was measured by global SSTs and had to be
dragged kicking and screaming to admit that this was not true. Explain
why you did that and didn’t just accept your obvious mistake straight
away.
spinner, mad petey and others have been trying to tell us that the
oceans have not warmed. Source data from NOAA shows there has been
significant warming from 1955. Why do you continue to believe there
has been no warming?
Oh Spinner; what have you been saying..........<laughing>
Why on earth do you see these questions as "abuse". You said *all*
these things and you've tried to run away from them all, pretending
you never said them. You just detest someone logging your idiocy. If
it wasn't for me, you could claim some credibility and you used to
when you started posting here. Remember trying to claim you were a
sceptic with a balanced view? Now you can't, so you feel you've been
"abused".
Amazing.
> On Tue, 29 May 2012 10:02:04 +0200Tom P wrote...
questions you refuse to answer:
All spinner’s…………
When March 2012 was the 16th warmest on record (out of 132 years'
data) spinner thinks that this means it was "relatively cool". Why
would you think that, spinner?
Spinner; why do you feel that homophobia is a tactic that can be use
legitimately to escape answering the many questions that hang over
you, unanswered?
Spinner thinks a blogger who doesn’t even go by his own name “Stephen
Goddard” should be believed over the NSIDC. Why do you think that,
spinner, when “Goddard” was entirely wrong about the NSIDC “tampering
with data”? You lied to attempt to denigrate good scientists, didn’t
you?
Spinner can’t explain why March 2012 was cooler than every other March
since 2000, but warmer than 98/100 Marches during the last century.
Every scientist knows why, but somehow, spinner can’t find it in him
to explain it. If he did, or another denier did, their edifice would
crumble.
Spinner simply can’t see the “f****** warming”……..well just keep your
eyes open during the next El Nino spinner and you are sure to see it.
spinner thinks that Christopher Booker, a “Daily Telegraph” hack with
no scientific qualifications whatsoever, but who has written articles
criticising both climate scientists and evolution, is expert enough to
be believable when he criticises the BBC for its science. Why would
you think that, spinner?
Deniers have posted almost 500 posts saying that local, temporary cold
means that the global climate is changing. Not a single denier has
ever criticised them for doing so. (including you) Why is that?
"The earth has been cooling since 1998" (A. Nutcase, Feb 27th 2012).
That’s exactly what every denier in this newsgroup knows is happening.
Why do you all know that when Scientists think so differently
spinner tries to cast doubt on the extremely strong relationship
between CO2 increases and temperature increases in the GISS (or NOAA,
or Hadley, or the two satellite) temperature series, but can’t do the
calculations himself. Why can’t you do them spinner? Are you afraid of
the result?
giga, spinner and others deniers think CAGW is a real term, used in
the climate debate. Why then can they not point to a single published
paper that refers to this. You made it up, didn’t you?
spinner-cut-and-paste thinks that papers published in Chinese
journals, that quote Lindzen and Choi 2009 (that Lindzen himself
accepted was a flawed paper) has something to say about climate
science. Why do you think that, spinner?
spinner posts an unsourced graph, showing CO2 increases and
temperature increases on different vertical scales, over a cherry-
picked time period of 40 years, with no accompanying statistical
analysis and says that it shows that GW isn’t happening. Why did you
do that, spinner?
spinner and dancer think the strongest El Nino of modern times should
be used as a baseline from which to judge warming over 13 years. Why
would that be?
spinner and dancer think that 13 years is now considered a long enough
period after which to judge that a new climate trend has been
established, especially when you pick 1998, one of the warmest years
in a 200-year temperature sequence, as the baseline for that trend.
Why do you think that?
spinner, tundy, brucie and most recently, mad petey and a whole load
of others think that there are “real scientists” out there that agree
with them. Brucie thinks some work at the IPCC and agree with him that
deforestation is causing more GW than is CO2.
spinner thinks the Hadley temperature series started in 1979 and uses
that Hadley baseline date to show there is apparently no relationship
between temperatures and CO2 increases. Why, when the Hadley temp
series started in 1860?
spinner and every other denier thinks that climate models are wrong.
Point to a single one that has wrongly predicted a rise in global
temperatures based upon a linear increase in CO2 to date. Just
*one*.
Spinner thinks that 7 years of data concerning ocean heat content is
enough to show a trend. No statistician, or scientist would agree. He
also thinks that a 5-years of data in a clear 160-year warming trend
is enough to show a reversal of a trend. Again, no statistician, or
decent scientist would agree. Why do you think these are long
enough, spinner
spinner thought that GW was measured by global SSTs and had to be
dragged kicking and screaming to admit that this was not true. Explain
why you did that and didn’t just accept your obvious mistake straight
away.
spinner, mad petey and others have been trying to tell us that the
oceans have not warmed. Source data from NOAA shows there has been
significant warming from 1955. Why do you continue to believe there
has been no warming?
spinner thinks that ships, temporarily stuck in the Gulf of Finland
last spring, were evidence that ice melt was slow in the Arctic. Why
would you think that the Gulf of Finland is in the Arctic?
spinner thinks that when there are gales in a small area of the UK,
every windmill in the UK has to shut down. Why would that be so?
spinner thinks that global heat content has not increased recently and
has desperately tried to say it hasn’t. The data shows otherwise. Why
do you think you are right.
spinner thought that GW was measured by global SSTs and had to be
dragged kicking and screaming to admit that this was not true. Explain
why you did that and didn’t just accept your obvious mistake straight
away.
spinner, mad petey and others have been trying to tell us that the
oceans have not warmed. Source data from NOAA shows there has been
significant warming from 1955. Why do you continue to believe there
has been no warming?
Oh Spinner; what have you been saying..........<laughing>
Why on earth do you see these questions as "abuse". You said *all*
these things and you've tried to run away from them all, pretending
you never said them. You just detest someone logging your idiocy. If
it wasn't for me, you could claim some credibility and you used to
when you started posting here. Remember trying to claim you were a
sceptic with a balanced view? Now you can't, so you feel you've been
"abused".
Amazing.
Falcon
May 29, 2012, 6:06:18 AM5/29/12
to
On Tue, 29 May 2012 02:54:14 -0700 (PDT)
Dawlish wrote...
>
The stench of environmentalists' dishonesty.
1/3 of land cooling
May 29, 2012, 6:26:36 AM5/29/12
to
On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 9:34:06 PM UTC+12, Dawlish wrote:
> On May 28, 10:24 pm, "1/3 of land cooling" <skeptic....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 9:09:04 AM UTC+12, AGWFacts wrote:
> > > On Sun, 27 May 2012 05:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
> >
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > On May 27, 12:34 pm, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > > Explain why you think ponies have tracks. Or is that a steam-driven
> > > > > robot pony with iron wheels?
> >
> > > > Oh sorry; I answer questions, unlike stupid deniers.
> >
> > > > This particular denialist nutter has talked almost exclusively about
> > > > 1/3 of the world cooling, even to the point of making the phrase his
> > > > usenet name; hence his nickname. You are too stupid to realise that.
> > > > Your nickname is benny-bison. Why would that be? (Bet you leave that
> > > > one alone <laughing>)
> >
> > ==========>
> > => Roughly one-third of the land, of course: not the world.
> >
> > Note that it is Dawlish who is incorrectly claiming that I said that 1/3 of the world has cooled.
> >
> > I claim that 1/3 of the LAND has cooled. So do the BEST scientists.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
==========>
> On May 28, 10:24 pm, "1/3 of land cooling" <skeptic....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 9:09:04 AM UTC+12, AGWFacts wrote:
> > > On Sun, 27 May 2012 05:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
> >
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > On May 27, 12:34 pm, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > > Explain why you think ponies have tracks. Or is that a steam-driven
> > > > > robot pony with iron wheels?
> >
> > > > Oh sorry; I answer questions, unlike stupid deniers.
> >
> > > > This particular denialist nutter has talked almost exclusively about
> > > > 1/3 of the world cooling, even to the point of making the phrase his
> > > > usenet name; hence his nickname. You are too stupid to realise that.
> > > > Your nickname is benny-bison. Why would that be? (Bet you leave that
> > > > one alone <laughing>)
> >
> > ==========>
> > => Roughly one-third of the land, of course: not the world.
> >
> > Note that it is Dawlish who is incorrectly claiming that I said that 1/3 of the world has cooled.
> >
> > I claim that 1/3 of the LAND has cooled. So do the BEST scientists.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
=> I changed your entry on "Avoid, Dodge Deny" as a result of your post.
=> You'll see it at the next update. I'm always fair and I want it to be
=> an accurate record of your craziness.
Dawlish,
I regard being listed in your "Avoid, Dodge Deny" scandal-sheet as a "badge of honour".
A skeptic is not a "true skeptic", until they have said something that upsets YOU.
Please list me as many times as you like.
<laughing>
Dawlish
May 29, 2012, 6:41:50 AM5/29/12
to
On May 29, 11:26 am, "1/3 of land cooling" <skeptic....@gmail.com>
> <laughing>- Hide quoted text -
are a *one*-track-pony........................and a nutcase.
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't need to. You only ever talk about one thing. That's why you
> - Show quoted text -
are a *one*-track-pony........................and a nutcase.
AGWFacts
May 29, 2012, 2:08:24 PM5/29/12
to
On Mon, 28 May 2012 14:24:30 -0700 (PDT), "1/3 of land cooling"
<skept...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2012 15:09:04 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 27 May 2012 05:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
> > <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On May 27, 12:34 pm, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > Explain why you think ponies have tracks. Or is that a steam-driven
> > > > robot pony with iron wheels?
> >
> > > Oh sorry; I answer questions, unlike stupid deniers.
> > >
> > > This particular denialist nutter has talked almost exclusively about
> > > 1/3 of the world cooling, even to the point of making the phrase his
> > > usenet name; hence his nickname. You are too stupid to realise that.
> > > Your nickname is benny-bison. Why would that be? (Bet you leave that
> > > one alone <laughing>)
> >
> I claim that 1/3 of the LAND has cooled. So do the BEST scientists.
Yes: everyone knows this also.
Scientists know why; you and your cult insiss the scientists are
wrong. Got any evidence to support your belief?
<skept...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2012 15:09:04 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 27 May 2012 05:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
> > <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On May 27, 12:34 pm, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > Explain why you think ponies have tracks. Or is that a steam-driven
> > > > robot pony with iron wheels?
> >
> > > Oh sorry; I answer questions, unlike stupid deniers.
> > >
> > > This particular denialist nutter has talked almost exclusively about
> > > 1/3 of the world cooling, even to the point of making the phrase his
> > > usenet name; hence his nickname. You are too stupid to realise that.
> > > Your nickname is benny-bison. Why would that be? (Bet you leave that
> > > one alone <laughing>)
> >
> > Roughly one-third of the land, of course: not the world.
> >
> >
> > If you look at the temperature stations in the United States you
> > wll see about one-third of them show cooling, and two-thirds show
> > warming. The interesting part is that most of the cooling has
> > happened in the south-east, but all across the USA there are
> > stations showing warming and cooling mixed together.
> > wll see about one-third of them show cooling, and two-thirds show
> > warming. The interesting part is that most of the cooling has
> > happened in the south-east, but all across the USA there are
> > stations showing warming and cooling mixed together.
> Note that it is Dawlish who is incorrectly claiming that I said that
> 1/3 of the world has cooled.
Yes, I noted that: I corrected him.
> 1/3 of the world has cooled.
> I claim that 1/3 of the LAND has cooled. So do the BEST scientists.
Scientists know why; you and your cult insiss the scientists are
wrong. Got any evidence to support your belief?
AGWFacts
May 29, 2012, 2:20:41 PM5/29/12
to
On Mon, 28 May 2012 14:24:42 -0700 (PDT), kym horsell
<kymho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 7:09:04 AM UTC+10, AGWFacts wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 May 2012 05:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On May 27, 12:34 pm, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > Explain why you think ponies have tracks. Or is that a steam-driven
> > > > robot pony with iron wheels?
> >
> > > Oh sorry; I answer questions, unlike stupid deniers.
> > >
> > > This particular denialist nutter has talked almost exclusively about
> > > 1/3 of the world cooling, even to the point of making the phrase his
> > > usenet name; hence his nickname. You are too stupid to realise that.
> > > Your nickname is benny-bison. Why would that be? (Bet you leave that
> > > one alone <laughing>)
> >
> > Roughly one-third of the land, of course: not the world.
> >
> > If you look at the temperature stations in the United States you
> > wll see about one-third of them show cooling, and two-thirds show
> > warming. The interesting part is that most of the cooling has
> > happened in the south-east, but all across the USA there are
> > stations showing warming and cooling mixed together.
> ...
>
> I suspect the "cooling locations" don't form a coherent pattern.
In the USA, there does appear (to me, anyhow) to be a pattern: the
<kymho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 7:09:04 AM UTC+10, AGWFacts wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 May 2012 05:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On May 27, 12:34 pm, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > Explain why you think ponies have tracks. Or is that a steam-driven
> > > > robot pony with iron wheels?
> >
> > > Oh sorry; I answer questions, unlike stupid deniers.
> > >
> > > This particular denialist nutter has talked almost exclusively about
> > > 1/3 of the world cooling, even to the point of making the phrase his
> > > usenet name; hence his nickname. You are too stupid to realise that.
> > > Your nickname is benny-bison. Why would that be? (Bet you leave that
> > > one alone <laughing>)
> >
> > Roughly one-third of the land, of course: not the world.
> >
> > If you look at the temperature stations in the United States you
> > wll see about one-third of them show cooling, and two-thirds show
> > warming. The interesting part is that most of the cooling has
> > happened in the south-east, but all across the USA there are
> > stations showing warming and cooling mixed together.
> ...
>
> I suspect the "cooling locations" don't form a coherent pattern.
most populated / urban areas in the USA appear to be the most
cooling areas. This is opposite what was expected, and BEST noted
the fact:
http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-uhi.pdf
Specifically Figure Four.
But the explanation is probably geographical, and not population.
> If you look for "cooling stations" over various time periods you
> will find them in much the same way as finding bunny wabbits in
> the clouds. You can find a stationary bunny wabbit for any given
> length of time, but it won't necessarily be in the same place as
> the clouds swirl and change shape.
it sure does look like the USA Southeast has a hell of a lot more
cooling stations in it than warming ones. The North Atlantic wind
patterns, and geology, probably explain the cooling pattern.
0 new messages