Quote from: tvbcof on September 30, 2016, 07:06:48 PM

Quote from: dwma on September 30, 2016, 05:38:11 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on September 30, 2016, 04:19:05 AM

Quote from: dwma on September 29, 2016, 11:44:03 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on September 29, 2016, 10:59:48 PM

Yet another attempt to lay a foundation to attack real science in the court system since doing so in the lab or on the chalkboard is becoming increasingly impossible as the years drift by and the fraudulent model world vanished over the horizon.

Bah. No. It is trying to show how there are people that hold out against what is common sense. It is this bias caused by anti-government crap. Every time I've encountered anyone who has a bachelors or high and they are very against the idea of global warming, there is also some additional component. ALWAYS. It is NEVER pure science. Last guy I got into it with was some buffoon who went to Columbia and started ranting about Marxists.

Common sense applied to the chart says that your theories about the dangers of evil fossil fuel use are all a load of horse shit.

The chart spaghetti are the model predictions and the solid line is observed reality. The endless cronyism and wealth generated in the 'sustainability' movement is a direct result of the now discredited 'science' which produced the flawed models. My 'conspiracy theory' is that this was no accident. Other charts show that reality is now outside the error bar on the spaghetti.

Until a few years ago, the defense against 'common sense' was to 'hide the decline' and try to explain it away, assure the mouth-breathing public that disaster was still right around the corner, and propose that the fact that reality was not playing ball only meant in some nebulous that the danger was even worse than previously predicted. The new strategy seems to be to simply deny the existence of the problem with the theory and hope that Joe Sixpack is to fuckin' stupid to notice. Sadly that has turned out to be a surprisingly effective strategy.

Maybe not effective enough though, in which case the fallback which is being set up is to simply criminalize 'denial' be it science based or not. This is why I consider you guys 'regressive'. Regressing right back to the dark ages when the priests of the Catholic church defined reality and the earth was flat. The analog between the church and it's priest class vs. the IIPC and it's 'scientismist' class is startling.

edits: minor

Your chart has C growing at .25 C when everywhere else says .75-.85 ? If it went back to the beginning of 1900s then we could figure out if your chart is valid. Why?

Your complaints matter not. Why? The goal of the chart is to demonstrate that the climate models, and thus the 'science' upon which they are based, are shit. The computer models don't go back to 'the beginning of the 1900's because the bogus science was not constructed at that time, and because the defective sims were not run on Hollerith machines (though they may as well be for the results they produce.)

Seems that the only 'legal' data is that which is diddled by the scientpriests. Since it is more challenging to diddle the present readings upward without being caught, the usual technique these days is to 'homogenize' the historic readings downward. As Orwell famously stated, 'Those who control the present...'

Just so you know, I personally don't doubt that we are in a warming trend here on Earth at the present time, and I don't know of anyone who does. It's been going on in fits and starts since the earth was colder than it is now, and nobody doubts that at many times it was. My complaint is that it is ever more obvious to me that humans burning fossil fuels have very close to zero impact on the trend. We humans cause enough needless problems that we don't need to invent non-existent ones to attack. Unless, of course, there are other reasons to do so and 'the ends justify the means' so to speak.

It is not "my complaint". I am saying that your data seems to be at odds with what most of the scientific community says. Again, you people never address shit. You just try and find a way around addressing it to maintain your cognitive security.

I suppose asking for a graph that goes back further is not the best request, but it would show a truer amount of warming.

We humans do have enough needless problems, but ignoring the biggest one we've yet to confront because it doesn't fit your politics is not the best way forward.

As much as I despise the pseudo-intellectual buffoon known as Spendulus, at least you are fairly coherent in your arguments.