What Do We Think About Climate Change

You are once again demonstrating how IDIOT you are Boston.

Yes, those graphs from Climate4you.com are well known to me since a long time ago as the site is run by Ole Humlum and I regulary check it and have posted here several of such graphs and commentaries from the author.

BUT THEY DO NOT CONTRADICT WHAT I'M SAYING, rather the contrary, tonto del haba! Don't you realize the polynomials in the long term graphs you have posted clearly show a descending trend at recent times?

"Exactly the same data"?....As you are totally unable to understand what you read and to check things by yourself you have not realized I posted temperatures for the period june 2001- june 2010 which show a descending trend and NOT the 2000-2010 ones in Humlum's graph which I know present a very slight warming trend. I have done my home work not like you, cretino! Run the numbers by yourself and do a little bit of thinking before posting, imbécil!

And now, as I see you are (at last!) visiting climate4you, which I quoted many, many times in the past, perhaps you have had time to read this from there:

"All five global temperature estimates (HadCRUT3, NCDC, GISS, UAH MSU, RSS MSU) presently show stagnation, at least since 2002. There has been no increase in global air temperature since 1998, which was affected by the oceanographic El Niño event."


P.S.
Friendly insults tentative translation :
"tonto del haba": beanminded silly?
"cretino": cretin
"imbécil": stupid idiot, *****

 

Did I say there is no long term trend to global warming? Show me where if you are so kind. The only heads rattling here are yours and Boston's, the scatterbrained duetto.

Off course there has been long term warming since the end of the LIA, of course there has been stagnation lately and of course sun has to do with all that, including the highly plausible next cooling, cretin!

 

I'm not a cretin. But you're an ill-mannered, ungentlemanly buffoon for calling me one. It reflects poorly on your upbringing, and does your parents no credit.

 

so you still insist on keeping a statistically anomalous years data even though it lies outside the ten year study period and even though it, along with the low should be removed as would be done in any serious study, assuming it did lie within the time frames that everyone else uses, which it does not.

I dont ever recall any decade starting with 08

your fudging data and not even remotely fooling anyone


but it is nice you can admit your wrong about the temp trend
every study I listed regardless of time frame right down to the five year study shows an increasing temp trend using the specific data you quoted

I did notice you failed to comment on your graph which clearly does not represent that data set you claimed it did

cheers
B

 

My goose is ill mannered too

 

I am perfectly entitled to call you a cretin, as you have said here I'm a *******, remember?

And now show me where I have said there's not a long term warming trend, please.

 

boys, can't we have a knock down drag out brawl without it getting personal?
come on fight nice

 

I'm not fooling you, Boston, because that is totally impossible.....

 

I'm afraid not wardd. I'm more than tired of the aggresive nonsensical posting of these two guys, who do not (or refuse to) understand what they read, do not take the minimum care to check things by themselves, just blindly follow RC's blog and the like without the less critic or checking, and who only come here to repeat ad nauseam the same information and graphs which they do not understand at all (well, this last Boston: Troy do not even try to do that) as well as scorn others work and continuously call them "deniers" and the like. I have been polite to them in the past and even ignored their posts for a while, but they continued on attacking mercessly my posts and my work. As it seems what they want is just play dirty games instead of engaging in a fruitful debate, and I perfectly know also how to play such dirty games, I'm doing it. Although I recognize this is not edifying, there is no problem on my side. Whenever they decide to debate rationally and respectfully, I'll gladly come back to a polite behaviour.

I'll see you again here in a week's time, as I'm leaving tomorrow in the early morning to attend the 4th Banjers Gathering (http://banjer37msclub.tripod.com/gather2010.htm).

Cheers.

 

I called you Spiffy so I suppose your entitled

and I'm glad you realize your not fooling anyone with this tripe about 1998 and foisting off data from an 11th year in a 10 year period

it actually does have some humor value to it cause its just impossible to take that kind of nonsense seriously

most of the time I'm laughing my *** off at some of the denier spin anyway so no worries


cheers
B

ps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICNgeiYMjOM

 

Guillermo you often complain about a meaningful conversation yet you so often bring meaningless denial to the table. Were you thinking we would play along or were you hoping we wouldn't discover the deception, cause so far your diatribe is far from rational

 

You can't really have a meaningful discussion with someone who is intent on the destruction of western capitalist civilization, who won't be content until all the long knives sleep with their fathers.

 

Nor can you have one with someone who believes that about anyone who dares disagree with him....

 

Troy, you seem to have a rational side or so I want to believe.

The IPCC wants us to believe that CO2 concentration increases due to human activity will produce "irreversible damage" to the planet.
I say that since CO2 has been 2000% higher before with no ill effect the scare stories are balloney. Why make it complicated?

 

Forget Global warming, Climate change, Rapid climate change, now it is "CLIMATE WEIRDING"
No I kid you not.