Climate Change... its the sun... again.

[jem]

1. the moving average in your graph stu... stops short, very suspiciously. (it sure seems like it was about to start moving down.)


2. the source? the source may have included the data... but it does not look like your chart does.

my reference is the last big hump on your chart is 1998... there are not nearly as many up and downs after that as there should be... even after making the allowance for more compression.


so stop stop being a lying ass twit the chart is lacking detail about the year it stops and the moving averages stops instead of dipping down.

its misleading bullshit... like you.

here is a real chart of the recent temps for your comparison.

Look at the chart then. The 11 year Moving Average after 2000 is flat and the data source includes 2014 if you'd cared to check!
You're suggesting a 100 year period chart is only valid if it contains 2014 data (which it does anyway).
Really?

It's a long moving average over a long period of 100 years to date based on hard NASA data. You telling me you don't understand what moving average is?

Whereas your chart is a short period of 25 years using short 3 year periods overlay, with something being called a Low frequency index aSST3.4, and with that, there is still only an assertion being made that solar activity is a 'climate pacemaker'.

Comparing the two, it's quite evident what you've posted is the cherry picker.

It's the sun...
"The data suggests solar activity is influencing the global climate causing the world to get warmer."

"Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. However global temperatures have been increasing. Since the sun and climate are going in opposite directions scientists conclude the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.

The only way to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures is by cherry picking the data. This is done by showing only past periods when sun and climate move together and ignoring the last few decades when the two are moving in opposite directions."

 

[futurecurrents]

Ya, they're stupid dangerous fucks. And the whole scheme is working. Carbon taxes and emission controls and banning wood-burning stoves/fireplaces....it's all going full-steam ahead. And the carbon taxes aren't just a fire-and-forget thing. They will keep going up, like every other tax. We're being taxed to death. That's part of the strategy of this all. Check out UN Agenda 21. Most large US metros and counties are signatories to that treaty. Basically, shutdown industry, tax human activity, pack us all into giant mega-cities, restrict travel, make everyone dependent on Government.

So why do think CO2 is not a GHG?

 

[futurecurrents]

But GWB says the world is not warming! How could this be happening?

 

[futurecurrents]

1. the moving average in your graph stu... stops short, very suspiciously. (it sure seems like it was about to start moving down.)


2. the source? the source may have included the data... but it does not look like your chart does.

my reference is the last big hump on your chart is 1998... there are not nearly as many up and downs after that as there should be... even after making the allowance for more compression.


so stop stop being a lying ass twit the chart is lacking detail about the year it stops and the moving averages stops instead of dipping down.

its misleading bullshit... like you.

here is a real chart of the recent temps for your comparison.

Only a right wing idiot would think such a short term chart is at all relevant.


THIS is the relevant chart.

 

[futurecurrents]

Here's another relevant chart.

If one can look at this and still say AGW is a hoax or not true....they must be a right wing retard. Or just a retard.

 

[Ricter]

But GWB says the world is not warming! How could this be happening?

The argument will retreat to "natural variability". Of course, the world would then be "naturally" warming. But don't lose sight of the final argument, "ok, the world is warming. Ok, it's CO2 doing it. Ok, Man is partially or largely responsible for that CO2. But it will simply be more food for plants!"

 

[dbphoenix]

The argument will retreat to "natural variability". Of course, the world would then be "naturally" warming. But don't lose sight of the final argument, "ok, the world is warming. Ok, it's CO2 doing it. Ok, Man is partially or largely responsible for that CO2. But it will simply be more food for plants!"

And so will we

 

[futurecurrents]

The argument will retreat to "natural variability". Of course, the world would then be "naturally" warming. But don't lose sight of the final argument, "ok, the world is warming. Ok, it's CO2 doing it. Ok, Man is partially or largely responsible for that CO2. But it will simply be more food for plants!"

It's interesting. It shows how well propaganda works on the righty brain. One reason is because the righty brain is so easily deluded. The ignorance and intellectual weakness makes them very good sheep.

 

[Ricter]

It's interesting. It shows how well propaganda works on the righty brain. One reason is because the righty brain is so easily deluded. The ignorance and intellectual weakness makes them very good sheep.

I'll be blunt, and apologies in advance, but I think half (at least) of the arguing over climate here is only about getting you going.

 

[dbphoenix]

I'll be blunt, and apologies in advance, but I think half (at least) of the arguing over climate here is only about getting you going.

If not FC, who?

If not now, when?