Hey Indyvidual, re "is indoctrination irreversible", maybe we should capture and store it, bottle it or tax it and limit it to 2 degrees this century!

Dear Mikko2,

What a piss-weak reply. A typical denier diatribe with the usual sloganeering and false bravado.

You could have at least acknowledged the fact that when CO2 levels where higher in the past they were inevitably accompanied with markedly higher sea levels and conditions over large swathes of the planet which would have been far less comfortable for human habitation.

But you dodged it completely.

Care to try again?

post-truth mhaze,

You are doing it too. Rather than addressing the fact that you are trying to claim the models are crap because the was one season on the West Antarctic Ice Shelf which has shown a statistically significant cooling for the 1999-2018 period, you completely ignore it to dredge up other material where you were shown to be torturing the statistics.

So what exactly do you think Zhang's paper shows?

It shows what Zhang says it shows. I've already covered it.

Decided to drop the issue of your previous embarrassments on this issue?...good idea.

Mhaze, I wouldn't lose any sleep over SR's typical woke left diatribe. Suffice to say that ancient ice cores have revealed that higher CO2 levels have always followed periods of warming - QED they are not driving it. But don't let inconvenient facts like that get in the way of a good scare campaign to frighten our kids and grandkids.

Dear Mikko2,

You really don't want to go there do you.

Higher CO2 levels in the past have seen pronounced increases in sea levels a hundred metres higher than current levels.

Zero comment on this fact from you. It is obvious why not, your house of cards comes tumbling down pretty quickly if you concede what is historical data doesn't it.

You really are a dodgy as hell.

Post-truth mhaze,

At your insistence I have gone back and look at the thread you linked to and it brought back some fond memories of me schooling you on what statistical significance was.

Quote

You are a funny guy.

Either that or you don't have much of an idea about statistics.

You do realise as you drop the time frame you will inevitably increase the error margin thus trends become no longer 'statistically significant' purely because a narrower time parameter was selected.

Try it for yourself on your climate sceptic mates UAH data set. From 1980 until now the trend is 0.142 with an error band of plus or minus 0.067 degrees centigrade per decade therefore statistically significant.

Now split it up taking 1980 to 1999 (Trend: 0.119 ±0.196 °C/decade) then 1998 to 2015 (Trend: 0.070 ±0.199 °C/decade). Would you look at that, the statistical significance has disappeared.

This is very basic stuff mate. Pretty hard to take you seriously if you can't grasp it.

End quote

That was back when you could at least present some form of coherent argument. Now it is all tinfoil stuff.

Tell yourself what you must SR. Selectively quote all you want SR. I know you are very anxious and willing to deceive yourself about your relative accuracy.


When SR doesn't provide a link, you can take it to the bank that he has something to hide. He quotes from one of his more inane posts from the period and doesn't provide a link because it would then be possible to see his argument decimated in my follow-up post. Or perhaps he doesn't know how to get such links....I'll give him a helping hand.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17749#314254