Hell freezes over: Koch's scientists confirm that climate change is REAL!

[PLC1]

You don't have to go far to find that global average temperatures are rising. Here's a source:

Line plot of global mean land-ocean temperature index, 1880 to present, with the base period 1951-1980. The dotted black line is the annual mean and the solid red line is the five-year mean. The green bars show uncertainty estimates. [This is an update of Fig. 1A in

But, of course, that is NASA, which is populated by scientists, who are all either in on the great conspiracy or have been fooled by their own data, depending on which posts you read here on any given day.

and even the AGW skeptics will argue that the average temperature of the Earth is increasing, but that human activities are not a factor and CO2 is not even a greenhouse gas.

 

[palerider]

You don't have to go far to find that global average temperatures are rising. Here's a source:

But, of course, that is NASA, which is populated by scientists, who are all either in on the great conspiracy or have been fooled by their own data, depending on which posts you read here on any given day.

and even the AGW skeptics will argue that the average temperature of the Earth is increasing, but that human activities are not a factor and CO2 is not even a greenhouse gas.

This report, quite some time in the making has been submitted for publishing and will no doubt be accepted shows without doubt that at least half of the warming claimed from 1979 to the present is the spurious result of urban heat island effects and unwarranted data adjustments. The resulting increase falls so far within the bounds of natural variability that the claims of AGW should wither from sheer embarassment.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

By the way Pielkie Sr., one of the most respected scientists within the climate change community and a believer in AGW has commented on this paper and he calls it a game changer.

 

[PLC1]

This report, quite some time in the making has been submitted for publishing and will no doubt be accepted shows without doubt that at least half of the warming claimed from 1979 to the present is the spurious result of urban heat island effects and unwarranted data adjustments. The resulting increase falls so far within the bounds of natural variability that the claims of AGW should wither from sheer embarassment.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

By the way Pielkie Sr., one of the most respected scientists within the climate change community and a believer in AGW has commented on this paper and he calls it a game changer.

So, the Earth is not warming then? Rising temperatures are a result of faulty measurements and "unwarranted data adjustments."

 

[palerider]

So, the Earth is not warming then? Rising temperatures are a result of faulty measurements and "unwarranted data adjustments."

The warming claimed to be due to CO2 is the result of faulty measurements and unwaranted data adjusments. I gave you a link to the paper. I can only guess you didn't read it or don't care to understand what is being said. Sarcasm and a general lack of knowledge seems to be your forte'.

 

[PLC1]

The warming claimed to be due to CO2 is the result of faulty measurements and unwaranted data adjusments. I gave you a link to the paper. I can only guess you didn't read it or don't care to understand what is being said. Sarcasm and a general lack of knowledge seems to be your forte'.

If there is no warming, how can it be due to carbon dioxide?

Sarcasm? Sure, I'm pretty good at it, but there was no sarcasm in that post you quoted. I'll be sure to give you some in the future, just so long as you don't take it too seriously.

Either the Earth is warming, or it is not. If the instruments being used to measure it are not accurate enough to establish a warming trend or lack therof, then there is not point in debating what is causing the warming that is not taking place.

and the problem is not my "lack of knowledge," but your constantly shifting positions.

But, that's understandable. You are, after all, trying to set yourself up as an expert that knows more than NASA.

Hey, could you put man on the moon?

(That was sarcasm, yes, just a tiny bit.)

 

[palerider]

If there is no warming, how can it be due to carbon dioxide?

Whether there is or is not warming, it can't be due to CO2 because CO2 has no means by which to cause warming.

Either the Earth is warming, or it is not. If the instruments being used to measure it are not accurate enough to establish a warming trend or lack therof, then there is not point in debating what is causing the warming that is not taking place.

There is a necessity to talk about it so long as people are willing to do untold damage to the world economic system in order to address a non existent problem.

and the problem is not my "lack of knowledge," but your constantly shifting positions.

My position never shifts and I have proven it by providing you with quotes from me stating exactly what I am saying today that go back to my earliest days on this board. Any shift in my position is due to your own reading comprehension or honesty problems.

But, that's understandable. You are, after all, trying to set yourself up as an expert that knows more than NASA.

As I have said over and over, my position is based on science being done by hundreds of scientists who are not on the AGW bandwagon. This latest proof of faulty measurement and inappropriate adjustment to the surface record is the work of one. My position is based on a great deal of hard science done by some of the most eminent scientists on earth over the past 200 years.

Hey, could you put man on the moon?

I doubt it, but then that isn't my job. I stick to my job and am very good at it. NASA's job was space exploration and they should have stuck with it as well, they were very good at it. Clearly they aren't very good at climate pseudoscience.

(That was sarcasm, yes, just a tiny bit.)

Actually it was irony...inadvertedly pointing out that NASA has abandoned their actual mission, and one they excelled at, in favor of the big money to be had promoting the AGW hoax.

 

[Gipper]

The warming claimed to be due to CO2 is the result of faulty measurements and unwaranted data adjusments. I gave you a link to the paper. I can only guess you didn't read it or don't care to understand what is being said. Sarcasm and a general lack of knowledge seems to be your forte'.

After all the schooling you have given this poor chap, he still clings to his original position. What CAN you do with some people?