[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Again, the erosion is not because of climate change, it is exacerbated by claimate change.

I have hemorrhoids. They're not caused by climate change, they're exacerbated by climate change.





See how that works? We can do this all day long and not have even a scintilla of proof to back up this shit.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Again, the erosion is not because of climate change, it is exacerbated by claimate change.

I have hemorrhoids. They're not caused by climate change, they're exacerbated by climate change.





See how that works? We can do this all day long and not have even a scintilla of proof to back up this shit.

Not a scintilla of proof? Well, I guess it's time again for the graphh all the deniers hate:

[PluggyRug]

All that graph shows is the sea temp has risen 0.7C over 130 years. No cataclysmic event here.

[N_Fiddledog]

I don't hate that graph. It is deceptive of course. But it's a good way to show the uninitiated how they are being deceived.

The horizontal x axis is shortened to stress the up and down of the Y axis.

It's also worth remembering that degrees must be cut into tenths to show any movement at all. If you were graphing full degrees you'd be looking at a straight line.

That's a GISS graph. If you look at a HadCrut graph of the same time period it looks more like this.



Either way, it's like Pluggy says. If you consider the actual measurement of what's being shown it's a big fat so what?

Myself I don't trust GISS or HadCrut. I think we only have about 36 or so years of reliable global temperature measurements. Those are from satellites, and they look like this.

[DrCaleb]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

All that graph shows is the sea temp has risen 0.7C over 130 years. No cataclysmic event here.

The last time the sea temperatures rose that fast, sea levels rose 2m and there was a mass extinction because the phytoplankton couldn't adapt to the new conditions. Everything that ate the phytoplankton died, as well as everything that ate them.

Nothing to see here. Move along, move along.

[N_Fiddledog]

In fact, let's look at the GISS graph again.

I want to show you something.



Check out that sudden rise from about 1979 to 1998.

OK, now imagine that wasn't there.

Could Al Gore have still whipped up the frothing masses to make himself rich and allow others to pollute (using the new improved progressive definition where "pollute" means anything I want it to) the environment with ugly bird and bat slicers, or add heavier burdens to the world's poor, if you did not have that 20 year spike in the graph to incite the uninformed with?

This warmist hysteria instigating chicken littles to run around in circles fearing a proposed Warmageddon is really based on nothing more than a 20 year spike of nice weather.

[Zipperfish]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

All that graph shows is the sea temp has risen 0.7C over 130 years. No cataclysmic event here.

And, of course, in comes the old denier duck and weave. The graph is indicated to counter Bart;s suggestion that there is not a "scintilla of evidence" for warming.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The last time the sea temperatures rose that fast, sea levels rose 2m and there was a mass extinction because the phytoplankton couldn't adapt to the new conditions. Everything that ate the phytoplankton died, as well as everything that ate them.

That's what I call "butthole science", where you ignore the preponderance of contrary evidence and stress what might be true if you reach into the butthole of the vague and undiscovered.

Perhaps "conspiracy theory" science might be a better term.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

All that graph shows is the sea temp has risen 0.7C over 130 years. No cataclysmic event here.

And, of course, in comes the old denier duck and weave. The graph is indicated to counter Bart;s suggestion that there is not a "scintilla of evidence" for warming.

Speaking of old trick's aren't you using one there yourself?

That wasn't what Bart was arguing. You created a new argument so you could argue with that, then called it Bart's.

Isn't there a name for that?

Something to do with strawmen, or something.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Either way, it's like Pluggy says. If you consider the actual measurement of what's being shown it's a big fat so what?

It shows that it is getting warmer.

$1:

Myself I don't trust GISS or HadCrut. I think we only have about 36 or so years of reliable global temperature measurements. Those are from satellites, and they look like this.

UAH is the coolest of all temperature series, but still shows warming.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

In fact, let's look at the GISS graph again.

I want to show you something.


Check out that sudden rise from about 1979 to 1998.

OK, now imagine that wasn't there.

$1:

Yes, if you selectively choose to ignore data, it certainly changes the complexion of things.

$1:

Could Al Gore have still whipped up the frothing masses to make himself rich and allow others to pollute

Denier Tactic #37: Invoke Al Gore.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Speaking of old trick's aren't you using one there yourself?

That wasn't what Bart was arguing. You created a new argument so you could argue with that, then called it Bart's.

Isn't there a name for that?

Something to do with strawmen, or something.

What was Bart arguing then?

[PluggyRug]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

All that graph shows is the sea temp has risen 0.7C over 130 years. No cataclysmic event here.

The last time the sea temperatures rose that fast, sea levels rose 2m and there was a mass extinction because the phytoplankton couldn't adapt to the new conditions. Everything that ate the phytoplankton died, as well as everything that ate them.

Nothing to see here. Move along, move along.

No there is not, many other factors probably played a role.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Speaking of old trick's aren't you using one there yourself?

That wasn't what Bart was arguing. You created a new argument so you could argue with that, then called it Bart's.

Isn't there a name for that?

Something to do with strawmen, or something.

What was Bart arguing then?

Well you could just look up to the top of the page then tell me how your Hansen enhanced GISS temp graph proves climate change is responsible for "Bart's hemmoroids.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The last time the sea temperatures rose that fast, sea levels rose 2m and there was a mass extinction because the phytoplankton couldn't adapt to the new conditions. Everything that ate the phytoplankton died, as well as everything that ate them.

That's what I call "butthole science", where you ignore the preponderance of contrary evidence and stress what might be true if you reach into the butthole of the vague and undiscovered.

Perhaps "conspiracy theory" science might be a better term.

You mean like when deniers pick dates that coincide with other warming events, so the current one doesn't look so bad?

How about the last 2000 years, instead of 40?