Well said, Hasbeen!

post-truth mhaze,

Why is it with RWNJs that your accusations are most often confessions.

You said: "Well it's nice to see you trolling trough my past posts to try to further your education on the subject. Keep trying."

But it was you who trolled through my posts and then linked the 2015 thread in this one.

If you scroll down in that thread you will see me quoting you from 2007:

"A quick trot back to your early posts on the subject in 2007 clearly reveals you were not a sceptic then but rather a full blown, self confessed, denier. You were not only rejecting 'C' but 'A' and 'GW' with such fervent conviction to get to where you are now admittedly takes some courage."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17749#314366

It really is constant hypocrisy from you isn't it.

And why are you saying I don't use start and end dates when that is exactly what I did in the reference earlier in this and the 2015 thread. I will post it yet again:

Quote

"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

But you certainly didn't here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17749#314034

Dear Mikko2,

So you think those calling out your bunkum are somehow paid Labor party operatives as asserted by the confused old bloke Hasbeen?

Bloody hell. Why on earth would they waste their time. it isn't as though your offerings wouldn't be dismissed by 95% of the country already.

You really do have an inflated opinion of yourself don't you.

Well SR, we all know your assumption that any dim-witted assertion you make automatically becomes fact, but (and please sit down for this) is ain't so.

Just because you say in 2015 that I'd held certain views in 2007 doesn't make it so. No, really it doesn't. You'll have to trust me on this. Indeed when you made your assertions in 2015 I pointed out then that you were wrong and pointed out that none of the quotes you dug up from 2007 supported your assertions. You then dropped it, suitably chastised. A shame you can't recall that.

"And why are you saying I don't use start and end dates..."

I was referring to this post from you... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17749#314263

Did you not find it in the links or were you so embarrassed by it that you tried to pretend it didn't exist? Anyway, this was the post that had trends but no dates which in turn demonstrated that you really had no understanding of how trends worked. If you scroll down from that post you'll see my post which ripped your assertions to shreds, whereupon you screamed "lol" and prompted fled the thread.... as usual.

I know you don't want to return to the main point here, but I'll mention it anyway. Back in 2015, I was pointing out that the so-called hiatus called the models into question, and the Zhang paper does likewise. This is significant because the whole stupid scare is based on model predictions. If I keep saying it you might absorb it.

post-truth mhaze,

In the very same thread you wrote:

Quote

Based on the Argo data for depths 0 - 2000 metres:
Trend for Pacific Ocean - +.009 degrees /decade.
Trend for North Atlantic Ocean - +.007 degrees /decade.
Trend for Indian OCean - +.067degrees / decade.

ie no statistically significant warming in any of those places.
This by the way is adjusted data. The raw data is even worse for your assertions. Sorry to confront you with real data but some of us think its rather important.

End quote

With nary a date in sight.

Lol.

As I asked earlier: "Why is it with RWNJs that your accusations are most often confessions."

Steely R could do us all a favour by just rusting away quietly in the salty air created by all those rapidly rising tides he is besotted about.

SR,

Re Argo. Context matters. Read the previous posts with 'ant' on this.

There was no need to post the Argo dates since we ('ant' and I) were using the full Argo data record, it being a then fairly new set of data.

Do try to keep up.

You, on the other hand, were cherry-picking start and end dates to achieve a preconceived outcome and, to try to hide that lie, refused to mention the actual start and end dates. And when called out, you scurried away with alacrity.