Questioning the Climate-Change Narrative

[Hafnium1979]

Every single graph that I've posted on these boards has been
derived from the actual data. I don't post crap from blogs or
right wing/left wing websites. Well OK, I'm sure I've posted
The Skeptical Science escalator but that's it.

Are you saying YOU process all the data yourself and generate the graphs? Like the ones HERE?

Or do you simply mean that you rely on primary resources not blogs?

You DO know that the way to determine the value of a science blog is to see if they give the PROPER REFERENCE which means you can go to the proper reference as well, right?

Perhaps you are worried about deniers who often scrape the bottom of the barrel of unsourced questionable data? I can see how that would be annoying. That is why it is always imperative to look for ACTUAL CITATIONS to the primary source material.

 

[Steve Case]

Are you saying YOU process all the data yourself and generate the graphs? Like the ones HERE?

Or do you simply mean that you rely on primary resources not blogs?

You DO know that the way to determine the value of a science blog is to see if they give the PROPER REFERENCE which means you can go to the proper reference as well, right?

Perhaps you are worried about deniers who often scrape the bottom of the barrel of unsourced questionable data? I can see how that would be annoying. That is why it is always imperative to look for ACTUAL CITATIONS to the primary source material.

Those graphs are directly from the five existing IPCC assessment reports.
Why those five graphs show an increasing negative slope over the space
of 14 years is a matter of opinion. That they do and that they finally omit
the earlier years is a matter of fact.

 

[watsup]

Those graphs are directly from the five existing IPCC assessment reports.
Why those five graphs show an increasing negative slope over the space
of 14 years is a matter of opinion. That they do and that they finally omit
the earlier years is a matter of fact

Recycled post.

 

[flogger]

This has nothing to do with moral behest, green guilt, or whether you are white and Western. It has to do with your inaccurate use of the term empirical evidence. Please show us the definition and/or description that you are using for the term.

What empirical evidence would that be then ?

 

[flogger]

Psychological projection.

I know you've cut and paste that response dozens of times now in order to dodge any actual and 'uncomfortable' debate when the going gets tough and you might actually have to account for your highly subjective and fundamentally non scientific assertions. Why are you here unless its only to wave your flag at those who disagree with your view and regurgitating the tedious 'denier denier pants on fire' ad hom when challenged on them ?

 

[watsup]

What empirical evidence would that be then ?

First you have to show that you actually understand empirical evidence as it relates to science. Please show what definition or description you are using to back up your statements. This is the second time I have asked you to do so. Why are you hesitating. Is it because you truly do not understand the term?

 

[watsup]

I know you've cut and paste that response dozens of times now in order to dodge any actual and 'uncomfortable' debate when the going gets tough and you might actually have to account for your highly subjective and fundamentally non scientific assertions. Why are you here unless its only to wave your flag at those who disagree with your view and regurgitating the tedious 'denier denier pants on fire' ad hom when challenged on them ?

It is you who uses the same cut-and-paste standard denier talking points. When anyone challenges you to explore the topic in greater depth, you deflect and just move back to repeating your talking points. Quite frankly, you just don’t seem to know what you are talking about beyond very surface observations.