Global warming hoax fools millions

[Trader666]

Yes you are sorry. And if you think a desperate, lying troll like you can dismiss all those scientists with absolutely no basis, you're as wrong as the climate change hoaxers who arbitrarily dismissed tens of thousands of measurements that didn't fit their agenda.

Quote from bigdavediode:

I'm sorry, but if you think you can distract from your catastrophe by baffling people and throwing up a variety of discredited quotes and hoping that one will stick you obviously have a very low opinion of us.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Trader666:

Yes you are sorry. And if you think a desperate, lying troll like you can dismiss all those scientists with absolutely no basis, you're as wrong as the climate change hoaxers who arbitrarily dismissed tens of thousands of measurements that didn't fit their agenda.

Okay, so far you:

1) Have "thousands" of measurements from the 1800's that were taken in urban areas six feet off the ground, using ancient techniques with high error rates, and

2) You have "all these scientists" who are a combination of nutcases, the retired, physicists, MDs and others.

Apparently quantity of anything counts a lot with you.

 

[Petsamo]

The coldest winter in a 1,000 years is on its way.
http://rt.com/prime-time/2010-10-04/coldest-winter-emergency-measures.html
Well, 1,000 years may be a little exagerated ...

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Petsamo:

The coldest winter in a 1,000 years is on its way.
http://rt.com/prime-time/2010-10-04/coldest-winter-emergency-measures.html
Well, 1,000 years may be a little exagerated ...

I bet we see the same articles this winter about how it's cold therefore something something global warming.

 

[Trader666]

That's not what I have at all, littledaviedumbass, that's your lying troll mischaracterization of it.

You, OTOH, shill for global warming yet you didn't even recognize a chart of the Vostok data. Then you showed you couldn't read it and insisted warming didn't lead CO2 despite the chart showing it did and the fact that it's well documented in research. You also showed you don't understand how multiple plots on one graph work. Then you said a link I gave you didn't exist when it did, claiming instead I was quoting kooks who lie about their numbers when the numbers in fact came from NOAA as the link I gave you clearly showed. When I called you on it you gave your faulty reasoning which yet again proved wrong. Then you lied, claiming I wrote "'Ur a dumbas' on every post" when in fact I never wrote it. Elsewhere you've claimed you're "extremely fiscally conservative" yet you slandered taxpayers who pay for Medicaid by making up a lie that in Alabama "the public chooses to let [infants] die rather than supply easily available, extensive, thorough and subsidized prenatal care" which in effect advocates bigger and better welfare based on a lie. I could go on but you've been thoroughly discredited as a pathetic, lying troll.

Quote from bigdavediode:

Okay, so far you:

1) Have "thousands" of measurements from the 1800's that were taken in urban areas six feet off the ground, using ancient techniques with high error rates, and

2) You have "all these scientists" who are a combination of nutcases, the retired, physicists, MDs and others.

Apparently quantity of anything counts a lot with you.

 

[Trader666]

Tell us again about graphs and y-axis labels, littledaviedumbass

You don't know your ass from your elbow.

Quote from bigdavediode:

I need to ignore the fact that there are three lines and three different y-axis labels (which is a big no-no in statistics, as anyone familiar with statistics would recognize)

 

[Trader666]

And no doubt you'll try to lie/obfuscate it away like you unsuccessfully tried to do with this:

Quote from bigdavediode:

I bet we see the same articles this winter about how it's cold therefore something something global warming.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Trader666:

And no doubt you'll try to lie/obfuscate it away like you unsuccessfully tried to do with this:

If you can't see what's wrong with that graph -- well, there's an eight year old who's passing by who said "That graph must be for retards." Apparently he's taken "graphs" at school.

I'll give you a hint why:

18 years

1 year

7 years

8 years

15 years

You work on that.

 

[Trader666]

The only "retard" is you. Once again, the confusion is all yours. If you look at the title of the graph you'll see it's a comparison of the AO index during select winters. There's no rule that there must be an equal number of years between data points when they're labeled.

Speaking of labels, tell us again about graphs and y-axis labels, littledaviedumbass

Quote from bigdavediode:

If you can't see what's wrong with that graph -- well, there's an eight year old who's passing by who said "That graph must be for retards." Apparently he's taken "graphs" at school.

I'll give you a hint why:

18 years

1 year

7 years

8 years

15 years

You work on that.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Trader666:

The only "retard" is you. Once again, the confusion is all yours. If you look at the title of the graph you'll see it's a comparison of the AO index during select winters. There's no rule that there must be an equal number of years between data points when they're labeled.

LOL! So when you trade -- to get an idea of where the market in general stands do you use a single stock?

No? Then why would you use a single measure of arctic or antarctic warming to generalize about the entire planet?

And when you trade do you use constant 15 minute bars, or do you use a 3 minute, 8 minute, 15 minute, then seven minute, and a two minute bar, because "there's no rule" that you have to use a representative sample?

Look, I'm sorry you were insulted by an eight-year-old, but it is pretty sad when he can see right through your bullshit, and he's eight. Seriously. You can't even fool an eight-year-old.