Why 'Climate Change' Alarmists Will NEVER Debate Skeptics

Do you realize that what you are talking about is REGIONAL temps? I doubt you understand what "average" means

 

On the contrary, I have long argued that average is not the proper term to use. But where we know there is no planetary warming, such as Death Valley, Ca why even say planetary warming? There is more ice now at Antarctica than in recorded history.

Will you please, for hopefully the last time, end making it personal.

 

Do not be shocked. I do not believe this mythical planet temperature you cite matters, even were it true.

 

No one cares.

Get back to us when you have a degree in a relevant field

 

Hardly necessary, as I said all that needed saying, thanks anyway.

 

Dr. Richard Lindzen cared and agrees with me.

 

I thought, per reading you, that you knew everything. Glad to find you still are learning.

 

The range for the anthroprogenic contribution is 50-100%. With skeptics being closer to 50% while the scientific consensus is closer to 100%.

Actually, the anthroprogenic contribution when considered against all climate forcing mechanisms is believed to be > 100% as the natural components have a net cooling influence right now.

 

Antarctic ice is near or making record lows at this very moment.

 

Maybe you are speaking of sea ice. But things look fine to me at the Antarctic. I am pleased with the Arctic as well.

 

Dude, it took me less than twenty seconds to find this:

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddar...l-sea-ice-diminishing-despite-antarctic-gains

And I had previously stated Death Valley is a helluva microcosm.

 

Thanks for your site. It has the following information.

"“Even though Antarctic sea ice reached a new record maximum this past September,"

Which is what I said.

It should be expected that you get hot in deserts given they are natural hot spots.

But we do not find this at Death Valley.

 

Erm You do know NASA agrees with an anthropogenic greenhouse effect i.e. burning of fossil fuels...

And what's this fixation with Death Valley? It appears so irrelevant that I shouldn't have to argue how irrelevant it is.

 

Actually, I'd like to ask a question to deniers (or what ever): if Trump started calling NASA fake science would you believe it?

 

Which was nothing. We all get it..you're a troll. Great job!

 

Trust me, I'm absolutely tickled to death to be considered as such by those of your...caliber.

 

Of course, it never hurts to throw in a very large amount of "estimated" data that isn't real to get there, right?

 

So, first, NASA is an organization, not "science". As such, it couldn't be "fake" in relation to it's actual existence, right? Now, if you were to suggest, perhaps, that the nice folks who work for the organization NASA were fudging data, it would reflect on those doing so, but also lower public credulity of NASA. Perhaps this is what you were going for? Hard to say, but who knows, perhaps you simply think the monolithic NASA could be faked...

 

Don't be dumb.

If Trump said NASA is fake science, it would be taken as gospel.

 

Trump cleaned NASA up by moving climate change science to NOAA.

 

This is what I find so funny sometimes. I shouldn't be "dumb", but you think NASA is fake science. It just can't get any better...

 

Uh...
Perhaps read the entire thread and notice my links for reference, cause your post makes no sense.

 

Trump cleaned things up by just opening his mouth, I trust.

 

So if you don't think any of the data is real then what do YOU think the global mean temperature is doing?

 

Honestly? I couldn't care less. I consumed more on heating this winter (even accounting for the price increases) in absolute terms that I ever have. That means, yes, it was colder that what I have experienced in the past. I consumed less cooling last year that I have in the average. And while is wasn't the least, it was close. So, in my little corner of the world, where it matters to me, I'm wondering, is this a fluke? Should I be worried? My native dogwoods got obliterated this year and will have the worst flowing display I can ever recall. My Fescue went dormant this year. First time. The deer were almost black in their winter coats.....

Today is almost 15 F cooler than what is average.

But see, here's the thing. Life is a resplendent scale of potentials. All equally as likely as the next. The statistical overlay is simply a super rudimentary effort to rationalize this. Clearly, it doesn't mean anything more than creating a mathematical construct that "describes" how different any given data point or set of them might be. They don't dictate to, or direct nature to any conformity of what either the mean or the averages might indicate. They don't indicate, or otherwise define an expectation of what will happen in the future, nor are they guaranteed to do so.

As for, is the data real, ask, why, you seem perfectly willing to accept data that is interpolated as opposed to actually collected. The interpolation data is simply a "guess" at what the actual temps were/are, are they not? So, absent an actual thermometer, and the approved data collection methodology, the "guessed at" data is still simply that, guessed at. As an example, the several models that my local weather folk use to "guess" what temps at point in time parts of the day "might be" is, well pretty wrong today. And as an exercise, looking at what those models predicted for my day, today, even a few days back is now pretty significantly different. So, the observation is that the prognosticating ability of said models actually isn't very accurate. So, why would the "guessed at" temp data be any better?