Deer in the Headlights

[LP]

Now you're just making stuff up.

No more from me. Like every other alarmist, totally incapable of having a rational debate/discussion.

ps if you're playing the facile D-K card, projection looks a certainty.

A typical skeptic's reaction to any uncomfortable truth, you can try to walk away but you can't escape reality.

As I wrote earlier, there is no need to feel guilty or act defensively because Global Warming is not your fault!

Flyboy77,  you would be much better off if you put as much effort into understanding the facts as you do dredging up fakes! But I realise the fakes are the downhill path, the easier way out of understanding a sometimes difficult problem! Just deny, deny, deny and it will all be good!

Rational scientists do not lay blame for this, they just explain the data and the risks, then usually recommend some sensible actions like harm minimisation!

[flyboy77]

Rational scientists? I'll take Will Happer, Richard Lindzen, Peter Ridd and Freeman Dyson over your 'spin' any day of the week (noting again, you're the one failing to debate any of the issues).

And my knowledge of the facts - and understanding most of the relevant science - I'd suggest at least equals yours.

This sums up the scam nicely. Perhaps you're part of the game?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGe9JO58Uc8

You've been surprisingly lightweight.

[LP]

No physicist or another other person with rudimentary algebra skills will claim a GSM, whether it is a Minimum or Maximum event, has any significant impact on temperature, global warming, human induced global warming or cooling!

Firstly, given the term GSM describes sun spots and other solar activity like CME(Coronal Mass Ejection) primarily exposed by techniques from the field of Helioseismology.

Secondly, even if it had some detectable influence on changes in fluence(irradiation over time), the math shows it's effect would only be about 1/90th of the effect that the Earth experiences from the elliptical orbit it completes year after year!

The Earth temperature rising by 1°C on average is roughly a 6.7% change in temperature, because the average Earth temperature is about 15.0°C. You know stats, scales, ratios and averages which might be important given some parts of Earth are frozen and others are desert!

The total solar irradiance(TSI) level changing from the average due to a GSMaximum might be 1360W/m² to 1361W/m² which is only a 0.07% change!

But don't let facts like math get in the way of your imagination, just stick fat with the crazy ideas of "Scotty from Marketing" and "The Donald"! ;D

[flyboy77]

Perhaps you looked up 'projection' and decided moved onto obfuscation.

Again, you ignored all the issues raised (again) and hit the rhetoric button. Ho hum.

And I love your use of all these numbers to two decimal places. You've clearly been to the same 'learn to ride a bike' school that Al Gore went to back in his day.

By the by, did you look up the meaning of 'acidification'? Get a handle on what it actually means....?

Perhaps we should talk about polar bears now - they've long been the poster animal of your cult.

[LP]

Again, you ignored all the issues raised (again) and hit the rhetoric button. Ho hum.

I can't debate fake facts because they are fake, including the old Tony Heller "fake faked graphs routine!"

You may as well start your claims by writing something like "After Carlton won the 2018 premiership things got colder!" Because your weather theories and facts are just as inaccurate as the imagined AFL result!

Tony Heller you offer above was caught out altering the graphs! The very graphs he provides in his video as proof of NOAA and NASA altering graphs! The unaltered graphs are still available to this day on the NOAA and NASA websites, here are some unaltered officially published data sets;

[img width=450]https://climatefeedback.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/nasa_gistemp_versions.jpg[/img]
[img width=450]https://climatefeedback.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/figure1_1-1200_ed-1024x757.png[/img]
[img width=450]https://climatefeedback.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/dT_from_1880s-1024x597.png[/img]

Of course we won't worry about the fact that NOAA and other scientific organisations actually calibrate data by cross referencing multiple methods of measurement to improve it's accuracy, which actually reduced temperature rise from the last centuries raw data! They don't fake a graph like Heller then offer it in isolation as proof of anything!

Another uncomfortable truth for the sceptics to deal with, it's so easy to disprove the climate sceptics fraud that children can do it! ;D

[flyboy77]

Don't have time to look into your claim (now) but I get the feeling you're awfully smug (think certitude). Heller is a geo, an IT geek and an engineer. A very, very smart hombre with an impeccable CV. I've looked at enough of his core data to know he's on the up and up.

But again, you endeavour to attack the man rather than the information presented - says it ALL.

And again, you avoid the real issues - sea level rise (or lack thereof), ocean 'acidification' (or lack thereof), unprecedented temperature rise (or lack thereof), ice cap melting (or lack thereof).

I know a few folk who are religious - I gather when one buys in, its wholly (yes, pun intended). No questions asked.

That's where you appear to sit.

[LP]

But again, you endeavour to attack the man rather than the information presented - says it ALL.

So exposing someone's alleged fraudulent behaviour is an unsuitable topic of discussion and I'm smug, yet the accused fraud and the former Australian Senator that partly funds his activities are somehow nice blokes!

Isn't offering an alleged frauds fraudulent report as supporting evidence an issue? :o

I've already pointed out that scientists do not make claims of certainty, so you post assertions of certitude, obfuscation and avoidance. Publication tactics perfectly copied by climate sceptics from the Tobacco Lobby!

All the presented data represents trends and risks, and it will change over time with improvements in measurement and calibration techniques, it's people like Heller that try to assert that it's immutable and that any hint of change is conspiracy!

There is no subject you can drag into this debate to divert from the real facts, whether it's making false claims about peak science organisations, dragging various religions into the debate or implying that the presented basic math and charted data is merely obfuscation to avoid debating the issues!

Debunk the basic math if you feel it's wrong.

[flyboy77]

Again, you avoid discussion of the issues that support (lamely granted) your need to 'fix' the world...

That's ok, it's standard fare. Just spruik the 'trust the scientists' mantra (even if largely the bad, conflicted scientists' BS)

You want to talk about data manipulation do you?

BOM and their ACORN datasets - nothing more needs to be said.

Climategate never happened right? All innocent grade school banter?

New Zealand? https://truebluenz.com/new-zealand-clima...P243Ud4-qo

RIP. These old timers are the real deal. They don't hide behind the mega $$$ of GCMs and the like.

And you never did comment on the MWP or the RWP etc. Funny that.

Bit beyond your pay grade I guess.

ps I'll email Heller - see how he responds.

[LP]

ps I'll email Heller - see how he responds.

Ask him about the Sandy Hook Massacre conspiracy theories he has promoted, his other publishing pseudonym Stephen Goddard, and his connection with the Institute of Public Affairs and other conspiratorial organisations!

[LP]

BOM and their ACORN datasets - nothing more needs to be said.

Except there is, the assertion of some conspiracy was more fake news based around claims of the BoM changing data.

Data that is actually re-calibrated and standardised as the global organisations set new international standards for data homogenisation so that the world speaks the same units of measure relative to global standards. Like the NOAA graph a few posts ago! ;D

That BoM / ACORN conspiracy was debunked more than half a decade ago!