You're conflating two different things. Once more they're saying they are definitely sure about the cause but unsure about the scope.

This isn't a difficult concept.

We can know x without knowing y. You are insisting that if we don't know both we can not know either.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

You'll have to take it up with him. Yes he said the drought was definitely made worse by global warming. I can see where someone may have a problem with that, but to better understand him you should want to find out more, not, as Duffy said earlier "stop reading". He is not alone in saying that global warming is causing adverse weather patterns to worsen, whether they are storms or droughts.

But we've had worse droughts on the past.

If you look at historical rainfall totals and snowpack it's quite clear that our last drought was nothing special.

To say "well it wouldn't have been this dry but for AGW" is pure conjecture.

And now people are saying AGW will make it wetter.

Meanwhile the 150 year historical pattern of wet/dry hasn't really changed at all

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Where did I say to stop reading.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

When you predict or point out weather events to further the AGW religion it's science.

When you point out that the predictions didn't pan out you're conflating weather with climate and are a science denier.

When bad weather happens (drought or floods) its evidence of AGW. When good weather happens (drought is over and wild mustard flowers are blooming everywhere) it's just weather.

You're such an idiot.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Can you really not see that all your doing above is making blind statements (aka blather)? That's not having an intelligent discussion about global warming.

Post #46

"A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data."
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...al-warming-data.html

Nope, I'm looking at actual measurements of rainfall and snowpack.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I assuming you checked Snopes before you trusted a tabloid??


http://www.snopes.com/...climate-change-data/

Do you know that the NOAA findings from Karl et al has been independently verified?

https://www.carbonbrief.org/...bal-temperature-rise

Ha ha. Wow. You think that post was serious?

Do you really believe that I think the earth is only 6,000 years old?

Here's the post for those who didn't see it...

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

You're missing my point. Your statements may be correct (though I'm not sure about the scientific robustness of "hasn't really changed at all"), but they are not a discussion about global warming. You're just throwing stuff about.

Here is a more sensible discussion:

https://phys.org/...dy-oceans-years.html

The 2015 analysis showed that the modern buoys now used to measure ocean temperatures tend to report slightly cooler temperatures than older ship-based systems, even when measuring the same part of the ocean at the same time. As buoy measurements have replaced ship measurements, this had hidden some of the real-world warming.
After correcting for this "cold bias," researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded in the journal Science that the oceans have actually warmed 0.12 degrees Celsius (0.22 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since 2000, nearly twice as fast as earlier estimates of 0.07 degrees Celsius per decade. This brought the rate of ocean temperature rise in line with estimates for the previous 30 years, between 1970 and 1999.
This eliminated much of the global warming hiatus, an apparent slowdown in rising surface temperatures between 1998 and 2012. Many scientists, including the International Panel on Climate Change, acknowledged the puzzling hiatus, while those dubious about global warming pointed to it as evidence that climate change is a hoax.
Climate change skeptics attacked the NOAA researchers and a House of Representatives committee subpoenaed the scientists' emails. NOAA agreed to provide data and respond to any scientific questions but refused to comply with the subpoena, a decision supported by scientists who feared the "chilling effect" of political inquisitions.
The new study, which uses independent data from satellites and robotic floats as well as buoys, concludes that the NOAA results were correct. The paper will be published Jan. 4 in the online, open-access journal Science Advances.
"Our results mean that essentially NOAA got it right, that they were not cooking the books," said lead author Zeke Hausfather, a graduate student in UC Berkeley's Energy and Resources Group."

oh jeez... I guess I have to do this. ok then... Yes, I know you were being sarcastic when you wrote "The earth is only 6,000 years old" But you said you stopped reading when there was mention of cycles of glacial advance over the last 650,000 years, adding "so much BS here". In other words, you admitted that you chose to stop reading rather than better understand some scientific study.

Try reading this if you can get past all the BS:

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/...res/ice-core-basics/

"Ice core records allow us to generate continuous reconstructions of past climate, going back at least 800,000 years[2]."

Is there anything in my op (or any other post on this thread) that says anything about buoys and ships and ocean temps?

Is there anything in my op that is factually incorrect?

Really weird response.

It's like if I said, "your dog shit on my lawn", and you respond with "you're missing the point, my roof is made of tile".

For while here you were sounding pretty smart but maybe that's just because you're copying and pasting things written by smart people. Unfortunately for you, none of what you've copied and pasted contradicts anything in my original post.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

What does any of this have to do with what I wrote in the op?

You need to go back and read this thread from the beginning. Pay close attention to what I wrote in the op and also look at what slowman wrote, my responses to him and my hashtags.

You're completely fucking lost here.

Start over.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

ok good luck. already wasted too much time here.

Typical.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Ok last one (I've promised myself)... why are you referring back to your OP here? We're discussing the bit where you said you'd stopped reading. Why did you stop reading? Presumably b/c you think it's BS to discuss climate over the last 650,000 years. But the point is, it's not. So how have I lost it? You're just trolling and I'm clearly falling for it.

Ok. It's official. You're not very bright v

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I'm def not at your level.

To bad Bates had to put his neck out to get the scientist of the "Karl study" to follow protocol when it comes to archiving and making data available. Very sloppy when we are talking 100's of billions in economic impact.
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the AAAS and Science are trying to downplay the conflict. Bates says that Science violated its own policy for archiving and making data available when it published the Karl study. The policy states that “climate data should be archived in the NOAA climate repository or other public databases.” Bates maintains that there is an urgent need for a “systematic change . . . to scientific publishing.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/...al-warming-advocates

Well, you clearly seem hung up on a post that was obviously a joke. I even told you it was a joke and you insist on responding to it as if it were a serious post.

So let me help you. Slowman (sort of) equated "climate deniers" to young earthers and white supremacists.

When you brought up "650,000 years" I quipped that you were full of shit because the earth is 6,000 years old.

You see, because I'm a "climate denier" I must also be a religious fanatic young earth believer (I've also been told that I'm not a believer in evolution as well).

I was tweaking slowman. It was pretty obvious.

#whitepride

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Ive mentioned it a few times here. Search function sucks. That's the only one spot could find.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Not to you but I've asked a number of times for what the negative affects will be at some point in time but haven't got one answer, just referred to some web sites to do some research. If you are going to predict the sky is falling, it would be nice to know some sort of time frame. I think it's safe to say at some point the world will come to an end as far as humans being able to inhabit it. How long will it be before the earths core cools? What will those affects be?

---

************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter

"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012