Pages:
Author

Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 79. (Read 636455 times)

legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
Get your skeptics started young!  Just drink beer, smoke cigarettes while pregnant and definitely don't vaccinate your kids under any circumstance!
It appears it is you that has been brainwashed! 

Dude, being skeptical and not just believing what you're told without question is the antithesis of the brainwashed mind.
member
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
Get your skeptics started young!  Just drink beer, smoke cigarettes while pregnant and definitely don't vaccinate your kids under any circumstance!
It appears it is you that has been brainwashed! 
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
Get the kids involved with global warming; it's never too early to get them started with "science" and down the path to untold riches in taxpayer dollars.

legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
The satellite temperatures show no statistically significant warming the last 19 years.  Are we in agreement on that fact?

As for arguing "graphs," I don't post graphs.  I post links.   So really not sure what you may be referring to.  But I'm comfortable arguing the unscientific and useless concept of "global temperature" (from ground based measurements) from an engineering perspective just from theory.  Already have five or six times in this thread, lol...
So what is your favourite satellite data set?
I think there's more than one.

I have to agree that ground based measurements have room for improvements.
Look at the white spots here:


Yes, that's rather odd.  Have to check the Met website and see for what reasons they don't put data in segments.  I can think of several reasons one should do so, but don't know their reasons.

You know, it occurs to me that although I've mentioned the unscientific nature of a "global temperature," a very interesting graph would be a world view such as what you have presented, but with temperature anomalies figured say every point compared to the average of 100 km radius around it, with NO DATA PRESENTED were there were significant multiphase problems.  Such as ice and land, or land and water.

I don't have a clue what such a data set would show.
hero member
Activity: 675
Merit: 514
The satellite temperatures show no statistically significant warming the last 19 years.  Are we in agreement on that fact?

As for arguing "graphs," I don't post graphs.  I post links.   So really not sure what you may be referring to.  But I'm comfortable arguing the unscientific and useless concept of "global temperature" (from ground based measurements) from an engineering perspective just from theory.  Already have five or six times in this thread, lol...
So what is your favourite satellite data set?
I think there's more than one.

I have to agree that ground based measurements have room for improvements.
Look at the white spots here:
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
Just... Why are you answering me if you're not reading what I'm posting?

I never went on reddit so can't say anythig about it...

Never talked about a tyrant imposing everything, just saying that if more than half of the population (like in Europe) takes climate change as a serious problem, things should be done about it...

You ask for scientific contents, i give you official European reports you don't even bother to read. I gave you the official record of satellit temperatures and THEY MATCH.

What you gave me was just a crappy graph I don't even know where you found it.


Well, I would disagree that if half the population takes climate change as a serious problem, things should be done about it.  The reasons are that largely they have been told what to thing, but scientificly, their opinion is worthless.  If, for example, I argue that science is not the product of consensus, but of careful and rigorous analysis, and that is within the scientific community, then certainly you can see that we can't take the "opinions" of the public into consideration in establishing what is real, and what is not.

The satellite temperatures show no statistically significant warming the last 19 years.  Are we in agreement on that fact?

As for arguing "graphs," I don't post graphs.  I post links.   So really not sure what you may be referring to.  But I'm comfortable arguing the unscientific and useless concept of "global temperature" (from ground based measurements) from an engineering perspective just from theory.  Already have five or six times in this thread, lol...
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
I think I'll stop coming here. You don't even bother read or answer what I say or post.

And for the third thermonamic law... Are you kidding me? Not saying you're wrong but it's nothing near simple! And it doesn't matter, look for the official NASA reports of temperatures measures, they do match with the one on ground. The graph you were showing is something without any source, I don't know where the guy found it maybe he even did it himself. The one I gave you show ground and satellites temperatures measures match, and it's the official NASA one...

You never answered about one of the reports I gave you, neither did you answer my question about the fact that your "article" is nothing near scientific and has no source at all.

Does it seem normal to you to hold a blog article without source as a "proof"?


You are free to stay or leave, comment as long as you want, and believe everything I tell you is made up or made by my very skilled artistic vision. I post more about the believers of the faith of global warming than I do about the deniers of that fraudulent scheme. This is an old thread, go back in time. I am sure you'll find what you seek from me already. The bitcointalk search engine is pretty cool.

I did read your links but as you already know I am not civilized enough to understand why a survey by artificially scared people counts as proof... Polar bears are not in any danger and polar ice are as thick and beautiful as ever. CO2 is not a pollutant, no matter how hard you want to believe it. None of your links can be used as proof of any kind.

I am glad I pointed out to you your lack of participation with links, etc in the past. You did an amazing effort to rectify this and, thanks to you, this thread is getting richer with counter arguments, none of which will be silenced, ever.



Let me show something funny, something you believing in:


Comedy gold

 Smiley


full member
Activity: 756
Merit: 100
I think I'll stop coming here. You don't even bother read or answer what I say or post.

And for the third thermonamic law... Are you kidding me? Not saying you're wrong but it's nothing near simple! And it doesn't matter, look for the official NASA reports of temperatures measures, they do match with the one on ground. The graph you were showing is something without any source, I don't know where the guy found it maybe he even did it himself. The one I gave you show ground and satellites temperatures measures match, and it's the official NASA one...

You never answered about one of the reports I gave you, neither did you answer my question about the fact that your "article" is nothing near scientific and has no source at all.

Does it seem normal to you to hold a blog article without source as a "proof"?
full member
Activity: 756
Merit: 100
Just... Why are you answering me if you're not reading what I'm posting?

I never went on reddit so can't say anythig about it...

Never talked about a tyrant imposing everything, just saying that if more than half of the population (like in Europe) takes climate change as a serious problem, things should be done about it...

You ask for scientific contents, i give you official European reports you don't even bother to read. I gave you the official record of satellit temperatures and THEY MATCH.

What you gave me was just a crappy graph I don't even know where you found it.

legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
I believe you're a bit sarcastic about my use of scientific "facts and links" as you say

The fact is that believe it or not, but in most civilized countries (except USA which is not really civilized)


                                                    - Sent from my Android, iPhone smartphone, while checking my Made In USA Facebook account...





CO2 is the same as your recyclable garbage? No wonder you've helped Levy's sell so many 501s in Europe...
Your opinion is always welcome here. That is the difference between a binary mindset like yours, and not seeing the world in black or white. Sucking up to all those nuclear power plants that help you recharge all those American gadgets you use in your everyday life.

Life is so beautiful. Let's give peace a chance and save a polar bear or two... We can agree on that I hope?


The real question is:
Are satellites and balloons' data a lie?

Of course we can agree on that. But the fact is that if we can't agree on how to do it, and if our two way of seeing things are too different, we might have to choose one.

I see that you also ignore the totality of the articles you required from me and prefer to focus only on your rather strange debate. Please stop bringing on the table the bullshit of non scientists.

"Climate alarmists" as you say, aren't saying that satellite are lying. They adopt a critical perspective over the idea of measuring temperature thanks to satellite and balloon as it needs to define an "average temperature".....

I seem to recall you were in engineering.  Then you know that I certainly can refute all arguments on the non-satellite means of determining "average temperatures."

This is easy since ground based measurements are multiphase systems.  Apply the 3 laws of thermodynamics.

Any thing else to discuss about "average temperatures?"
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon


I will do as I please as this is my thread. I guess you've missed the gigantic graph pointing to the differences between the computer model and both data from the balloons and the satellites' output.

We choose between propaganda and reality. There is a belief system in place. You are free to have your religion and I am free to not believe in your false gods...

There are no such things as "huge trends", if not all based on the same fraudulent computer models you keep fine tuning.

"Official reports include probablilities of being wrong/right already"

The opposite of reality. You forget: "Science is settled. No need for more debates"... Why do you think the title of this thread is what it is?

You say your position is set in stone. Must be due to billion of years of global warming and layers upon layers of moon dust...

I say you are welcome to participate. Always.

 Cool



It's a free forum so you can do as you please! But don't try to sound more legitimate than you are Smiley

You have a beautiful graph that's totally right! But where does it come from? Howcan you be sure it's legit? I found very different numbers in the official "registre des températures" (sorry, Frenchsource, but it's graph so everyone understands ^^) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registre_de_temp%C3%A9rature#/media/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

You're saying
Quote
You forget: "Science is settled. No need for more debates"
No, I find some debates interesting! Like the one about possible new ice age! But please use right articles, real informations. Your article was just a post in a blog, there was not even one scientific source! Maybe it's legit but there is no way to check... And in we can't be really sure of anything. The European reports I posted talk about probabilities, most of the time they also try to figure what are the chances of them being wrong.

And again you ignored my propositions and the official reports and published articles I posted :/

Thanks for your last sentence, it seems I had some misplaced anger and maybe misunderstood some of your intonations.

But it doesn't change anything about the fact that I'm trying to confront you, but you keep ignoring my attacks, even though they're on a very solid scientific basis  Smiley


When you say you will never agree with any of the positions pushed forward in this thread, that it is a good thing a tyrant should be in charge to define and impose his will upon the global warming deniers, it is not an attack, but a statement.

I believe you think this is reddit and you will get some reddit gold. This is not the Battle of Marengo and I am not pretending to be some austrian general not seeing a surprised attack coming...

My position and my reaction toward your "very solid scientific basis" should reinforce your very solid scientific based opinion that the USA is not a civilized country. As a proud participant of this vibrant construct, The United State of America, it would then be very obvious to you by now why I do not believe crème brulée is the result of global warming...


full member
Activity: 756
Merit: 100


I will do as I please as this is my thread. I guess you've missed the gigantic graph pointing to the differences between the computer model and both data from the balloons and the satellites' output.

We choose between propaganda and reality. There is a belief system in place. You are free to have your religion and I am free to not believe in your false gods...

There are no such things as "huge trends", if not all based on the same fraudulent computer models you keep fine tuning.

"Official reports include probablilities of being wrong/right already"

The opposite of reality. You forget: "Science is settled. No need for more debates"... Why do you think the title of this thread is what it is?

You say your position is set in stone. Must be due to billion of years of global warming and layers upon layers of moon dust...

I say you are welcome to participate. Always.

 Cool



It's a free forum so you can do as you please! But don't try to sound more legitimate than you are Smiley

You have a beautiful graph that's totally right! But where does it come from? Howcan you be sure it's legit? I found very different numbers in the official "registre des températures" (sorry, Frenchsource, but it's graph so everyone understands ^^) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registre_de_temp%C3%A9rature#/media/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

You're saying
Quote
You forget: "Science is settled. No need for more debates"
No, I find some debates interesting! Like the one about possible new ice age! But please use right articles, real informations. Your article was just a post in a blog, there was not even one scientific source! Maybe it's legit but there is no way to check... And in we can't be really sure of anything. The European reports I posted talk about probabilities, most of the time they also try to figure what are the chances of them being wrong.

And again you ignored my propositions and the official reports and published articles I posted :/

Thanks for your last sentence, it seems I had some misplaced anger and maybe misunderstood some of your intonations.

But it doesn't change anything about the fact that I'm trying to confront you, but you keep ignoring my attacks, even though they're on a very solid scientific basis  Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
I believe you're a bit sarcastic about my use of scientific "facts and links" as you say

The fact is that believe it or not, but in most civilized countries (except USA which is not really civilized)


                                                    - Sent from my Android, iPhone smartphone, while checking my Made In USA Facebook account...





CO2 is the same as your recyclable garbage? No wonder you've helped Levy's sell so many 501s in Europe...
Your opinion is always welcome here. That is the difference between a binary mindset like yours, and not seeing the world in black or white. Sucking up to all those nuclear power plants that help you recharge all those American gadgets you use in your everyday life.

Life is so beautiful. Let's give peace a chance and save a polar bear or two... We can agree on that I hope?


The real question is:
Are satellites and balloons' data a lie?

Of course we can agree on that. But the fact is that if we can't agree on how to do it, and if our two way of seeing things are too different, we might have to choose one.

I see that you also ignore the totality of the articles you required from me and prefer to focus only on your rather strange debate. Please stop bringing on the table the bullshit of non scientists.

"Climate alarmists" as you say, aren't saying that satellite are lying. They adopt a critical perspective over the idea of measuring temperature thanks to satellite and balloon as it needs to define an "average temperature".

They're not denying the existence of satellite measure, they just add all the temperature records way and try to find the truth out of it. You can't just threw away the temperatures recorded "on the ground" in the same way that you can't threw the satellite or balloon ones. You have to find the middle.

I give you the links of governmental studies, European rapport, you send me a shady blog without any source, any figure, any proof

You want to prove climate alarmists might be wrong? No need, they might. Official reports include probablilities of being wrong/right already. If you try often enough you'll find counter examples. It's not a very precise science, it's more a question of huge trends.

Please, don't try to argue with a strange article which doesn't even give its sources...

I will do as I please as this is my thread. I guess you've missed the gigantic graph pointing to the differences between the computer model and both data from the balloons and the satellites' output.

We choose between propaganda and reality. There is a belief system in place. You are free to have your religion and I am free to not believe in your false gods...

There are no such things as "huge trends", if not all based on the same fraudulent computer models you keep fine tuning.

"Official reports include probablilities of being wrong/right already"

The opposite of reality. You forget: "Science is settled. No need for more debates"... Why do you think the title of this thread is what it is?

You say your position is set in stone. Must be due to billion of years of global warming and layers upon layers of moon dust...

I say you are welcome to participate. Always.

 Cool

full member
Activity: 756
Merit: 100
And about the USA part, I'm spitting on the USA for ideological reasons. It doesn't mean I'm not aware of the fact that USA have some incredible scientists and sometimes do things really awesome. But just sometimes, most of the time it's just crappy useless shit I'd be better without. Facebook and Apple being just one of them.
full member
Activity: 756
Merit: 100
I believe you're a bit sarcastic about my use of scientific "facts and links" as you say

The fact is that believe it or not, but in most civilized countries (except USA which is not really civilized)


                                                    - Sent from my Android, iPhone smartphone, while checking my Made In USA Facebook account...





CO2 is the same as your recyclable garbage? No wonder you've helped Levy's sell so many 501s in Europe...
Your opinion is always welcome here. That is the difference between a binary mindset like yours, and not seeing the world in black or white. Sucking up to all those nuclear power plants that help you recharge all those American gadgets you use in your everyday life.

Life is so beautiful. Let's give peace a chance and save a polar bear or two... We can agree on that I hope?


The real question is:
Are satellites and balloons' data a lie?

Of course we can agree on that. But the fact is that if we can't agree on how to do it, and if our two way of seeing things are too different, we might have to choose one.

I see that you also ignore the totality of the articles you required from me and prefer to focus only on your rather strange debate. Please stop bringing on the table the bullshit of non scientists.

"Climate alarmists" as you say, aren't saying that satellite are lying. They adopt a critical perspective over the idea of measuring temperature thanks to satellite and balloon as it needs to define an "average temperature".

They're not denying the existence of satellite measure, they just add all the temperature records way and try to find the truth out of it. You can't just threw away the temperatures recorded "on the ground" in the same way that you can't threw the satellite or balloon ones. You have to find the middle.

I give you the links of governmental studies, European rapport, you send me a shady blog without any source, any figure, any proof

You want to prove climate alarmists might be wrong? No need, they might. Official reports include probablilities of being wrong/right already. If you try often enough you'll find counter examples. It's not a very precise science, it's more a question of huge trends.

Please, don't try to argue with a strange article which doesn't even give its sources...
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
A centralized system to force humans to do something, anything, instead of doing nothing I agree with... That is why I love bitcoin...

 Roll Eyes


You can't have anything decentralized about climate. Because if we disagree (as it seems we do) our points of view are not compatible. You believe that we don't have to worry about CO2, I believe we do. We can discuss about it as civil people, but if you can't convince me and I can't convince you, we'll have a problem. Cause I believe that if you pollute it will impact me.

So either we agree on something, either we fight and one of use imposes his point of view to the other. Cause we're not compatible. So a centralized system is mandatory here!


Who do you know believes CO2 is a pollutant, beside yourself? All the plants and trees in the world disagree with you.

A centralized system imposes its will, point of view by force. If you agree with the tyrant then this force is good, if not, then you are meat.

You have a very 1 or 0 position: So either we agree on something, either we fight. This is far from being my position. As proof, you are totally free to use scientific facts and links, as you have been known to do all this time in this thread...





I do have a very 0 or 1 position on this, because I believe your pollution also impacts me. And in fact I didn't know anyone who don't believe CO2 pollutes before coming on this thread. This is the first time I meet people thinking it's not a big deal to produce CO.

I believe you're a bit sarcastic about my use of scientific "facts and links" as you say. The fact is that believe it or not, but in most civilized countries (except USA which is not really civilized), this official poll of EU should be enough of a proof: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1162_en.htm

So as you're a minority in my point of view, it seems logical for you to bring me data/proofs/article and for me to criticize them. You don't want to be convinced about climate change otherwise you wouldn't search ONLY studies AGAINST climate change.

But if you feel in need of proofs of my point of view here we go:

First a very small recap of facts that explain why we should worry a bit: http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/fcons/fcons4.asp
A short but rather complete study explaining the link between CO2 and sea level: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/4/1209.short
And a European report about the link between CO2 and natural disasters: http://www.ecologic.eu/sites/files/project/2013/Brief_CC_and_natural_disasters_scientific_evidence_of_relation_Jan_2006_EP_version.pdf

Satisfied?



I believe you're a bit sarcastic about my use of scientific "facts and links" as you say

The fact is that believe it or not, but in most civilized countries (except USA which is not really civilized)


                                                    - Sent from my Android, iPhone smartphone, while checking my Made In USA Facebook account...





CO2 is the same as your recyclable garbage? No wonder you've helped Levy's sell so many 501s in Europe...
Your opinion is always welcome here. That is the difference between a binary mindset like yours, and not seeing the world in black or white. Sucking up to all those nuclear power plants that help you recharge all those American gadgets you use in your everyday life.

Life is so beautiful. Let's give peace a chance and save a polar bear or two... We can agree on that I hope?


The real question is:
Are satellites and balloons' data a lie?



legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
Satellites lying? They're a straight up hoax!
full member
Activity: 756
Merit: 100
A centralized system to force humans to do something, anything, instead of doing nothing I agree with... That is why I love bitcoin...

 Roll Eyes


You can't have anything decentralized about climate. Because if we disagree (as it seems we do) our points of view are not compatible. You believe that we don't have to worry about CO2, I believe we do. We can discuss about it as civil people, but if you can't convince me and I can't convince you, we'll have a problem. Cause I believe that if you pollute it will impact me.

So either we agree on something, either we fight and one of use imposes his point of view to the other. Cause we're not compatible. So a centralized system is mandatory here!


Who do you know believes CO2 is a pollutant, beside yourself? All the plants and trees in the world disagree with you.

A centralized system imposes its will, point of view by force. If you agree with the tyrant then this force is good, if not, then you are meat.

You have a very 1 or 0 position: So either we agree on something, either we fight. This is far from being my position. As proof, you are totally free to use scientific facts and links, as you have been known to do all this time in this thread...





I do have a very 0 or 1 position on this, because I believe your pollution also impacts me. And in fact I didn't know anyone who don't believe CO2 pollutes before coming on this thread. This is the first time I meet people thinking it's not a big deal to produce CO.

I believe you're a bit sarcastic about my use of scientific "facts and links" as you say. The fact is that believe it or not, but in most civilized countries (except USA which is not really civilized), this official poll of EU should be enough of a proof: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1162_en.htm

So as you're a minority in my point of view, it seems logical for you to bring me data/proofs/article and for me to criticize them. You don't want to be convinced about climate change otherwise you wouldn't search ONLY studies AGAINST climate change.

But if you feel in need of proofs of my point of view here we go:

First a very small recap of facts that explain why we should worry a bit: http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/fcons/fcons4.asp
A short but rather complete study explaining the link between CO2 and sea level: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/4/1209.short
And a European report about the link between CO2 and natural disasters: http://www.ecologic.eu/sites/files/project/2013/Brief_CC_and_natural_disasters_scientific_evidence_of_relation_Jan_2006_EP_version.pdf

Satisfied?
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon



Climate Alarmists Invent New Excuse: The Satellites Are Lying







The climate alarmists have come up with a brilliant new excuse to explain why there has been no “global warming” for nearly 19 years.


Turns out the satellite data is lying.




And to prove it they’ve come up with a glossy new video starring such entirely trustworthy and not at all biased climate experts as Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann , Kevin “Travesty” Trenberth and Ben Santer. (All of these paragons of scientific rectitude feature heavily in the Climategate emails)

The video is well produced and cleverly constructed – designed to look measured and reasonable rather than yet another shoddy hit job in the ongoing climate wars.

Sundry “experts”, adopting a tone of “more in sorrow than anger” gently express their reservations about the reliability of the satellite data which, right up until the release of this video, has generally been accepted as the most accurate gauge of global temperatures.

This accuracy was acknowledged 25 years ago by NASA, which said that “satellite analysis of the upper atmosphere is more accurate, and should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temperature change.”

More recently, though, climate alarmists have grown increasingly resentful of the satellite temperature record because of its pesky refusal to show the warming trend they’d like it to show. Instead of warming, the RSS and UAH satellite data shows that the earth’s temperatures have remained flat for over 18 years – the so-called “Pause.”

Hence the alarmists’ preference for the land- and sea-based temperature datasets which do show a warming trend – especially after the raw data has been adjusted in the right direction. Climate realists, however, counter that these records have all the integrity of Enron’s accounting system or of Hillary’s word on what really happened in Benghazi.

Given the embarrassment the satellite data has been causing alarmists in recent years – most recently at the Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
97%
“Data or Dogma” hearing last December – it was almost inevitable that sooner or later they would try to discredit it.

In the video, the line taken by the alarmists is that the satellite records too have been subject to dishonest adjustments and that the satellites have given a misleading impression of global temperature because of the way their orbital position changes over time.

These sound plausible criticisms till you look at this graph provided by one of the scientists criticized in the video, John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville.






What it shows is how closely the satellite data corresponds with measurements taken using a completely independent system – balloons. If the satellites are lying then so are the balloons.

Christy told Breitbart:

    There are too many problems with the video on which to comment, but here are a few.

    First, the satellite problems mentioned here were dealt with 10 to 20 years ago. Second, the main product we use now for greenhouse model validation is the temperature of the Mid-Troposphere (TMT) which was not erroneously impacted by these problems.

    The vertical “fall” and east-west “drift” of the spacecraft are two aspects of the same phenomenon – orbital decay.

    The real confirmation bias brought up by these folks to smear us is held by them.  They are the ones ignoring information to suit their world view.  Do they ever say that, unlike the surface data, the satellite datasets can be checked by a completely independent system – balloons? Do they ever say that one of the main corrections for time-of-day (east-west) drift is to remove spurious WARMING after 2000?  Do they ever say that the important adjustment to address the variations caused by solar-shadowing effects on the spacecraft is to remove a spurious WARMING?  Do they ever say that the adjustments were within the margin of error?

He adds:

    I’m impressed someone went to so much trouble and expense.  The “satellite data” must be a real problem for someone. Do we know who financed this video?

Yes, we do. It was made by the Yale Climate Connection and part funded by the Grantham Foundation. The Grantham Foundation is the creation of a UK born US based hedge funder called Jeremy Grantham (and his wife Hannelore) and has since 1997 been at the forefront of promoting climate alarmism.

Among the beneficiaries of Grantham’s green largesse are Lord Stern — author of the heavily discredited Stern Report, now with a cosy sinecure at the Grantham Institute — and Bob Ward, a failed paleopiezometrist and crop-headed pit bull impersonator who is lavishly funded to write angry letters to newspapers and other institutions explaining in boring detail why climate change sceptics are evil and wrong.

As for the motivation behind this well-funded smear video – it’s actually explained at the website which is promoting it.

    In coming days, we will hear announcements from NASA, NOAA and others that 2015 was the hottest year in the modern instrumental record.

    There will be pushback from the likes of climate denier Ted Cruz, who uses a misreading of satellite temperature data to claim, as he did on Seth Meyer’s show – “no warming in 18  years”

    This is the story of how that distortion came to be.

In other words it’s yet another case of the increasingly desperate climate alarmists playing their usual game:

If the facts don’t suit your discredited theory, change the facts.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/15/climate-alarmists-invent-new-excuse-the-satellites-are-lying/



-------------------------------------------------
"Yo balloon! Don't be a fool, Stop Snitchin'! Don't play dat satellite game yo! Computer model FYI yo! Come on bro!"




Pages:
Jump to: