NASA tells us this May was second hottest on record

originally posted by: D8Tee
Sorry I didn't know that. I don't think anyone on here cares who you are, and I have no idea how a peer reviewed paper could give away your identity. Oh well to each their own, carry on.

I care who I am. Like I said, the only papers that I could discuss in any detail, with confidence, when combined with google and the stuff I've said already, would identify me. I've said this already.

Are you reading and comprehending the replies in your own thread? The repetition and lack of awareness would suggest not.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: eightfold

You fundamentally disagree with not purposefully misleading readers. That's why you're a scumbag. Don't try to twist it into something else. It's absolutely not like the examples you gave. Those examples are common sense. The stuff we're talking about here is not common sense, it's science... It's dishonest and detestable. Keep spinning.

What? Seriously? I'm not twisting anything. You know you've won an argument when people start with the name calling. ;-)

Their page template and the way they're referencing and discussing the project results *is exactly the same* as how, say, New Scientist would publish it, or Popular Mechanics. Are they are scumbags too?

Sadly, the examples I gave *aren't* common sense, which is why McDonalds and co put 'this is hot' stickers on their coffee. Like I said, it's a race to the intellectual bottom. At what point do you stop catering for people's lack of awareness and knowledge about a given system, project, or subject?

It's a slippery, depressing slope that's designed to carry people that can't keep up.

And yeah, more recently.... Powell...

a reply to: eightfold
I will disagree with you on the validity of Powells paper. The ridiculous claims of 97 percent consensus have been long ago debunked for the junk science that they are.
97 articles debunking the 97 percent consensus

originally posted by: D8Tee
I will disagree with you on the validity of Powells paper. The ridiculous claims of 97 percent consensus have been long ago debunked for the junk science that they are.
97 articles debunking the 97 percent consensus

Except the article you've post is from 2014, which is two years *before* Powell published his paper. Powell's paper is actually in response to 'debunking' articles like the one you linked.

In any case, the percentage of consensus doesn't really matter in this context (for what it's worth, I would also query the "97%... 99%... of scientists agree with AGW" arguments). I only posted it to demonstrate that you saying there is *no* science supporting AGW is a bit ridiculous.

There are piles of papers supporting AGW. Literally piles of them. They're not hard to find either. So... maybe, maybe, you could stop asking me to post 'em? That'd be ace. 👍

a reply to: eightfold

Kinda hard to answer no to a question such as 'do humans play a role in global warming'.
The real question is how much of a role do we play.
Climate changes, it always has.
Climate change is far from well understood, and it's shown by Cooks own data, if you actually read the paper.
Someone prepared a simple pie chart from Cooks data, it is more informative than a simple headline.

Like I said, percentages of endorsement aren't really relevant in this context. I agree with you, the 97% thing is at best an exaggeration. I've said this already, and yes, I've read both Cook's and Powell's papers. What's your point?

As per my comment earlier (seriously, do you actually read the posts before you knee jerk a reply?), I linked it to demonstrate there's a whole load of evidence and research of the A in AGW. You're previously said there was no evidence, now you're accepting that there is, but questioning the level of our influence?

I love the irony in you being so inconsistent, while expecting NASA's articles to consistently explain project backgrounds and methodologies.

a reply to: eightfold

I've not dismissed climate change. There's no evidence to say man is the primary driver.

The so-called GCM models are fakes designed to present personal opinions with complex math which appears to be real science to laymen.

“modelling quantum physics with one box of Lego”

a reply to: eightfold

You know damn well they're common sense and you know damn well you were twisting with that awful analogy. They're not even remotely similar. You know it's a dishonest tactic the way those articles are written too, thats' why it's so egregious. It's not a mistake, and it's not an oversight. It doesn't matter who does it. Anyone that presents information in such a manner and doesn't make clear that it's an educated guess at best and instead presents it so that it reads as gospel to the layman is a propaganda pushing hack. They knowingly mislead the public and you approve of that. Me calling you mean names for that has nothing to do with who's winning, it has to do with the fact only a person of very ill character would be ok with purposefully misleading the public.

a reply to: D8Tee

Here in the south, is just starting to get warm and is June already, I wonder where these people get their numbers. A week ago it was still snowing in the north.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: D8Tee

Here in the south, is just starting to get warm and is June already, I wonder where these people get their numbers. A week ago it was still snowing in the north.

Summere Solstice here and we have to keep a fire going, it's abnormally cold. Hay crops are weeks behind.