Is Inhofe correct?

Post Reply New Topic

"That's a rebuttal? Looks more like a pile of useless crap designed to deflect attention from the story instead of arguing points from the story. But there are clearly people who resort to such tactics."
eric 76
It is legitimate to question the honesty of a particular site. Especially when that site is known for grotesque dishonesty.
Breitbart has a history of lies.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/0 ... eit/168051

Or are you saying that any site is legitimate? I suppose that next you will be giving http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ as a source for your "information."
Anyway, Brietbart's/your's point is absurd. It is obvious that NASA endorses the fact of AGW.
http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/28/
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
And yes, 97% of climate scientists agree with AGW.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
But then again, that means nothing to you because you believe along with Breitbart that NASA is part of the global warming conspiracy along with EVERY scientific organization in the world.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06 ... -and-noaa/

You really should start reading legitimate sites.

What are you talking about? They are the same graphs if you select the same sites.

Or did you just look at the graphs at the top of the page about something else that do not even purport to be the same graphs?

For example, of the graphs I posted earlier, here is the link to the graph after adjustments for Puerto Casado.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=308860860000&dt=1&ds=14



I would strongly advise you to grow up. One of these days, you might call someone dishonest to their face and they might just teach you a physical lesson in being polite.

Last edited by eric76 on 05 Feb 2015, 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

UMMM

That graph shows an increase in global warming!
I think what confuses you is that you expect a straight line. Climate is not like that. It has been trending up. Similarly, as one approachs summer, the temperature increases. However, that does not mean that every day closer to summer has to be warmer than the day before.

Go back and read it more carefully. I clearly noted that the graph was of the temperatures after they had been adjusted. Of course they show an increase -- that's the entire purpose of the manipulation.

OK, I gave you more credit then you deserve. I thought you were giving actual data disproving AGW. You are trying to prove that NASA is falsifying data and part of a worldwide conspiracy!
PS; That graph does not show that NASA is falsifying data. Unfortunately, you and Breitbart have no understanding of graphs etc. NASA explained what it was doing and there was nothing devious about it. Similarly, it was proven that climategate only existed in the minds of conspiracy anti-AGW enthusiasts. To say that a neat trick was found is not admitting to deception. It was like saying, " I found a neat trick to solve this calculus problem quicker."

Last edited by wittgenstein on 05 Feb 2015, 1:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[quote="wittgenstein"I think what confuses you is that you expect a straight line. Climate is not like that. It has been trending up. Similarly, as one approachs summer, the temperature increases. However, that does not mean that every day closer to summer has to be warmer than the day before.[/quote]

You accuse others of dishonesty and then you dive into such absurd and dishonest arguments as that?

Grow up.

I gave facts. you gave nothing except silliness from brietbart a proven liar.
I will try to explain.
I was using a metaphor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor
I am not saying that you think that every day closer to summer must be hotter. I am saying that if you use the same "logic" that you applied to yearly temps, you must say that there is a straight line of temp increases, which is absurd.
Anyway, your position is that NASA is part of a worldwide conspiracy, along with EVERY scientific organization in the world. I think that is silly.
Enjoy your Breitbart! and the National Enquirer.

Compare it to the actual data. And the same for other stations in that area. I posted both graphs earlier.

The purpose of that link was to provide an example that the graphs I posted earlier did, in fact, come from NASA's site. That was, after all, your objection at the time instead of engaging in debate about the issues.

Last edited by eric76 on 05 Feb 2015, 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

In other words NASA is lying along with EVERY scientific organization in the world.

So I prove that you falsified data, graphs and your rebuttal is a threat to punch me in the face? Very mature!

Please come back when you have grown up. You remind me of the Cheez-It commercials.

You have proven nothing. You don't have the foggiest understanding how to prove anything.

Also, I did not threaten to punch you in the face. I told you that if you are like that in real life, someone else might just very well do that. There is very little chance that the two of us will ever come face to face.

Ludwig Wittgenstein wants his name back. You clearly aren't representing it very well at all.

First physical threats http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/inde ... l-to-force and now ad hominums http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem.
I give arguments and you give fallacies.
Anyway, arguing against a Breitbart troll is pointless.

I have made no physical threats to you.

Either you are unable to understand that or you are intentionally falsely portraying what I said for your own purposes.

I did warn you what someone else might do if you act in real life like you are here.