Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[cynic]

And Senator Cruz is your go to man for information on climate change ?????

Couldn't you even find a pretend scientist as a reference point ?

I normally prefer to leave that job (i.e. sourcing of pretend and pseudo scientists) in the hands of experts such as yourself.

Unlike the Sierra club president, senator Cruz was, at the very least, showing a willingness to respect objective satellite data!

You will note that the Sierra club president, did not dispute the existence of "the pause", nor did he deny the accuracy of the satellite data.

So in light of that, how is it that you can honestly claim to be oblivious to the existence of "the pause"?

Or did I use the incorrect term? Perhaps I should have referred to it as "the hiatus".
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/06/hiatus-controversy-show-me-the-data/

 

[Knobby22]

What Arctic?!

Years back, one of the acclaimed climate scientists assured us that it would be all gone by September 2016! And it has to be true because a "qualified climate scientist" said so!!!

You do remember that don't you!

One of (who was it by the way?) ....what about the official estimates? Anyway you have an out now. You have faith in a guy says it's always going to happen based on um, you tell me. A doctorate (even in aeronautical engineering) always looks good to fool the gullible.

 

[cynic]

One of (who was it by the way?) ....what about the official estimates? Anyway you have an out now.

You must have an incredibly short memory!
You have already been involved in at least two discussions,on the climate hysteria thread, about the prediction made in that particular news) article!
Do I need to, yet again, bump posts from those discussions?

You have faith in a guy says it's always going to happen based on um, you tell me. A doctorate (even in aeronautical engineering) always looks good to fool the gullible.

Says the one with faith in a political news blog website titled:"crooksandliars"!

When examining these information sources at their face value, which could be more reasonably deemed suitable for investigating into the integrity of scientific facts about matters such us solar irradiation?

The political news blog website? Or the man armed with a phd in aeronautical engineering alongside his decades of experience in scientific research?

 

[Knobby22]

You must have an incredibly short memory!
You have already been involved in at least two discussions,on the climate hysteria thread, about the prediction made in that particular news) article!
Do I need to, yet again, bump posts from those discussions?


Says the one with faith in a political news blog website titled:"crooksandliars"!

When examining these information sources at their face value, which could be more reasonably deemed suitable for investigating into the integrity of scientific facts about matters such us solar irradiation?

The political news blog website? Or the man armed with a phd in aeronautical engineering alongside his decades of experience in scientific research?

You've ignored everything I have written. I've already said that site was a joke but it was funny to see your prophet in it.

let's just agree to differ. You think he is a genius and what he says should be trusted without any evidence, just on faith alone, I think he is a hopelessly corrupt half assed scientist.

That is probably because I am a naturally cynical guy while you are credulous. That's Ok, we are all different.

 

[cynic]

You've ignored everything I have written. I've already said that site was a joke but it was funny to see your prophet in it.

let's just agree to differ. You think he is a genius and what he says should be trusted without any evidence, just on faith alone, I think he is a hopelessly corrupt half assed scientist.

That is probably because I am a naturally cynical guy while you are credulous. That's Ok, we are all different.

Firstly, as I was previously unaware of your delusion of being possessed of clairvoyant capabilities (does the Carbon BigFootprint bestow this quality on all acolytes, or just on an apostilic few?). Anyway, after seeing your failed attempts at discerning my unexpressed thoughts, the best advice I can offer is that you do not surrender your day job!

Secondly, unlike the Carbon Crusaders, I do not recall ever placing any expectation, on anyone, to place trust in any claims, without evidential backing!

Experiencing oneself as skeptical about the claims of qualified scientists when presented with findings that challenge one's chosen religion, is a trait more likely to be found in a person bigotted by zealotry, than it would in a "naturally cynical guy".

If there is objective evidence(outside of somewhat dubious, political motivated, web blogs), supportive of your claims to the corruption of any scientist, or their findings, why not post those instead of wasting my time and patience with your so called joke!

After witnessing your repeated failure to substantiate your reiterated claims against the integrity of Dr. Soon, I am left with little other option than concluding that YOU are the one expecting to "be trusted without any evidence"!

 

[luutzu]

Oh ye of climate faith:

Ah Teddy Cruzie... turning the heat on that hippie know-it-all, not up for debate egghead.

You're really scraping the bottom cynic. Whatever happen to some smart looking actor in a white coat?

 

[cynic]

Ah Teddy Cruzie... turning the heat on that hippie know-it-all, not up for debate egghead.

You're really scraping the bottom cynic. Whatever happen to some smart looking actor in a white coat?

Did you fail to recognise, how those questions, asked by senator Cruz, highlight a very important issue?

Did you not find the reluctance of the Sierra club to proffer answers to direct questions (pertinent to the scientific validity of claims to CAGW), disconcerting?

Do you claim that the questions posed by the senator were somehow inappropriate? If yes, how so?

And if not, would you be willing to answer those questions in defense of your catastrophic climate religion?

 

[luutzu]

Did you fail to recognise, how those questions, asked by senator Cruz, highlight a very important issue?

Did you not find the reluctance of the Sierra club to proffer answers to direct questions (pertinent to the scientific validity of claims to CAGW), disconcerting?

Do you claim that the questions posed by the senator were somehow inappropriate? If yes, how so?

And if not, would you be willing to answer those questions in defense of your catastrophic climate religion?

Cruz was playing with words. Fact that you don't recognise how he's playing it, and what an azz he is, speaks a fair bit about your biases.

So Teddy read the statement that says: The science behind climate change and its affect on minorities should not be up for debate.

Then he practically spent the entirety of that clip focusing on the Sierra Club's shutting down debate; what is "preponderance"; is it a habit for the SC to shut down debate and freedom like that; is it scientific. blah blah...

in other words, Cruz is saying that he's a man of science; himself being a lawyer; himself loves freedom and no such thing "not up for debate" because debating is awesome, it brought science and stuff to light.

What a douche.


The main focus on the SC's statement should have been: Its impact on minorities, you know, poor people.

How does CC affect the poor/minorities?

When your crop dies, you and your poor peasant family will starve;

When a cyclone or a heatwave or a hurricane or a flood passes outside your shed or your caravan, you will either lose everything, or die, or get sick, go homeless and die.

Only an idiot like Cruz would not recognise the impact of CC on the poor. Just imagine it; or watch the news. The poor cannot afford to run away into a hotel for a few days; The poor and the working class with one property that is their home will lose all their savings and life's work when "natural" disaster hit.

Pretty obvious. Or do we need to put it on a bell curve, debate its normal distribution and see what percentage of probability of random blah blah.


Now you got to ask yourself... why is a douche like Cruz get to become a US Senator. Through honesty, brilliant scientific and scholarly mind; through caring for the peasants... or he's one of those who will sell out his own mother if the price is right.

--------------

Repeating an old point here but being a Climate Sceptic bring with it a crap load of responsibilities.

To borrow Teddy's legal analogy, you sceptics better prove beyond reasonable doubt that CC is a hoax; that human does not cause it and cannot do anything to avoid it. That onus is on you and you better use science and such voodoos to prove your case.

Why?

Because if you're wrong and the world's climate goes to heck as just about every Climate Scientists says it will... millions and millions of people will die; species goes extinct.

i.e. you can't say "oppps".

The climate alarmists, however, can be wrong and the world will still be a better place.

 

[cynic]

Cruz was playing with words. Fact that you don't recognise how he's playing it, and what an azz he is, speaks a fair bit about your biases.

From what I observed, the majority of his questions were quite succinct, requiring only binary responses!
The questions themselves, when considered in totality, made the purpose, for which they were designed, quite apparent to the attentive listener.

In relation to your comments about bias, I make no claims to an absence of bias, on my own part, or on the part of any other individual.

Can you honestly claim to be free from bias in your discussions of this topic?

So Teddy read the statement that says: The science behind climate change and its affect on minorities should not be up for debate.

Then he practically spent the entirety of that clip focusing on the Sierra Club's shutting down debate; what is "preponderance"; is it a habit for the SC to shut down debate and freedom like that; is it scientific. blah blah...

By what right, can the Sierra Club, expect such exemptions when campaigning for reforms that will impact society?

in other words, Cruz is saying that he's a man of science; himself being a lawyer; himself loves freedom and no such thing "not up for debate" because debating is awesome, it brought science and stuff to light.

What a douche.

What?!!
Were we watching the same video clip?!!
Senator Cruz freely confessed to having a legal background!

The main focus on the SC's statement should have been: Its impact on minorities, you know, poor people.

How does CC affect the poor/minorities?

When your crop dies, you and your poor peasant family will starve;

When a cyclone or a heatwave or a hurricane or a flood passes outside your shed or your caravan, you will either lose everything, or die, or get sick, go homeless and die.

Only an idiot like Cruz would not recognise the impact of CC on the poor. Just imagine it; or watch the news. The poor cannot afford to run away into a hotel for a few days; The poor and the working class with one property that is their home will lose all their savings and life's work when "natural" disaster hit.

One's faith in sensationalised media headlines, renowned for failing when subjected to, even the most cursory, of fact checks, does not automatically entitle one to decry one's opponents as idiots!

I believe that it would be far safer, to be an idiotic media sceptic, than it would, to be an idiotic media devotee!

Pretty obvious. Or do we need to put it on a bell curve, debate its normal distribution and see what percentage of probability of random blah blah.


Now you got to ask yourself... why is a douche like Cruz get to become a US Senator. Through honesty, brilliant scientific and scholarly mind; through caring for the peasants... or he's one of those who will sell out his own mother if the price is right.

--------------

I do not claim to know the motivation/s behind Senator Cruz's aspiration to his current position. I am neither, here to condemn, nor defend him.

What I do claim to know, is that the questions raised by Senator Cruz, presented a credible challenge to CAGW subscription, by the Sierra Club. Furthermore, several of their dismissive non-responses, exposed the Sierra Club's lack of regard for objective scientific data.

Repeating an old point here but being a Climate Sceptic bring with it a crap load of responsibilities.

To borrow Teddy's legal analogy, you sceptics better prove beyond reasonable doubt that CC is a hoax; that human does not cause it and cannot do anything to avoid it. That onus is on you and you better use science and such voodoos to prove your case.

Why?

Because if you're wrong and the world's climate goes to heck as just about every Climate Scientists says it will... millions and millions of people will die; species goes extinct.

i.e. you can't say "oppps".

The climate alarmists, however, can be wrong and the world will still be a better place.

The sad thing about all this is, you seem to actually believe the things you are saying!

To highlight a very serious defect in your logic, I draw your attention to the fact that there exist, many, many, religions, complete with obligatory practices, for which the purportedly beneficial claims are, as yet, unproven.

Would it be reasonable and/or practicable, to be expected to accept obligations, imposed by respective religious authorities, for their associated practices, based solely upon one's inability to disprove the altruistic assertions?

I trust that the above parallel, highlights that the burden of proof truly belongs to those seeking to impose change on the general populace!!
(Otherwise, I see no reason, for you not to be, queuing for the confessional in the near future!!)

 

[wayneL]

Cruz was playing with words. Fact that you don't recognise how he's playing it, and what an azz he is, speaks a fair bit about your biases.

So Teddy read the statement that says: The science behind climate change and its affect on minorities should not be up for debate.

Then he practically spent the entirety of that clip focusing on the Sierra Club's shutting down debate; what is "preponderance"; is it a habit for the SC to shut down debate and freedom like that; is it scientific. blah blah...

in other words, Cruz is saying that he's a man of science; himself being a lawyer; himself loves freedom and no such thing "not up for debate" because debating is awesome, it brought science and stuff to light.

What a douche.


The main focus on the SC's statement should have been: Its impact on minorities, you know, poor people.

How does CC affect the poor/minorities?

When your crop dies, you and your poor peasant family will starve;

When a cyclone or a heatwave or a hurricane or a flood passes outside your shed or your caravan, you will either lose everything, or die, or get sick, go homeless and die.

Only an idiot like Cruz would not recognise the impact of CC on the poor. Just imagine it; or watch the news. The poor cannot afford to run away into a hotel for a few days; The poor and the working class with one property that is their home will lose all their savings and life's work when "natural" disaster hit.

Pretty obvious. Or do we need to put it on a bell curve, debate its normal distribution and see what percentage of probability of random blah blah.


Now you got to ask yourself... why is a douche like Cruz get to become a US Senator. Through honesty, brilliant scientific and scholarly mind; through caring for the peasants... or he's one of those who will sell out his own mother if the price is right.

--------------

Repeating an old point here but being a Climate Sceptic bring with it a crap load of responsibilities.

To borrow Teddy's legal analogy, you sceptics better prove beyond reasonable doubt that CC is a hoax; that human does not cause it and cannot do anything to avoid it. That onus is on you and you better use science and such voodoos to prove your case.

Why?

Because if you're wrong and the world's climate goes to heck as just about every Climate Scientists says it will... millions and millions of people will die; species goes extinct.

i.e. you can't say "oppps".

The climate alarmists, however, can be wrong and the world will still be a better place.

Tsk tsk, I can see at least three erroneous premises here....

But your logic is for you, to justify your emotions.

 

[wayneL]

Oh ye of climate faith:

Wow, how embarrassing, evasive, quoting debunked surveys, disregarding objective data.

and luutzu is defending that guy?

Good God man, I posit your ability to objectively analyse debate is seriously flawed.

 

[PZ99]

You guys should look to our polling for your answers... "ditto" dominates the front row!

 

[explod]

Reality PZ99,

One of the best posts in awhile.

 

[luutzu]

From what I observed, the majority of his questions were quite succinct, requiring only binary responses!
The questions themselves, when considered in totality, made the purpose, for which they were designed, quite apparent to the attentive listener.

In relation to your comments about bias, I make no claims to an absence of bias, on my own part, or on the part of any other individual.

Can you honestly claim to be free from bias in your discussions of this topic?


By what right, can the Sierra Club, expect such exemptions when campaigning for reforms that will impact society?

What?!!
Were we watching the same video clip?!!
Senator Cruz freely confessed to having a legal background!


One's faith in sensationalised media headlines, renowned for failing when subjected to, even the most cursory, of fact checks, does not automatically entitle one to decry one's opponents as idiots!

I believe that it would be far safer, to be an idiotic media sceptic, than it would, to be an idiotic media devotee!


I do not claim to know the motivation/s behind Senator Cruz's aspiration to his current position. I am neither, here to condemn, nor defend him.

What I do claim to know, is that the questions raised by Senator Cruz, presented a credible challenge to CAGW subscription, by the Sierra Club. Furthermore, several of their dismissive non-responses, exposed the Sierra Club's lack of regard for objective scientific data.


The sad thing about all this is, you seem to actually believe the things you are saying!

To highlight a very serious defect in your logic, I draw your attention to the fact that there exist, many, many, religions, complete with obligatory practices, for which the purportedly beneficial claims are, as yet, unproven.

Would it be reasonable and/or practicable, to be expected to accept obligations, imposed by respective religious authorities, for their associated practices, based solely upon one's inability to disprove the altruistic assertions?

I trust that the above parallel, highlights that the burden of proof truly belongs to those seeking to impose change on the general populace!!
(Otherwise, I see no reason, for you not to be, queuing for the confessional in the near future!!)

Imposing change, you say. Why that's not freedom and liberty. The world and its people should be free to... die, or suffocate.

Pffft.

It's call innovation man. You know, get dirty coal then you wash it just before you burn it up for energy.

That or you figured out a better solar panel where the energy is delivered by God to it everyday.

Mate, have you tried living without power, or running water, all while your house just had its roof blown off and everything around you are like a hurricane just gone through it?

That's how the Peurto Ricans might live for another 6 months.

But yes, let's debate the preponderance of the evidence. We can't be too careful and listen to experts, or use our own reason and judgement.

Imagine the horror of setting up new industries, hiring new people, creating tools and engineering to tap into a clean and renewable source of energy. Why would anyone want to risk that when mining and pumping an energy source literally hundreds or thousands of miles away, delivering it to a power plant, having it burnt and pollute all over the roads, the seas, the air... Try saying that out loud. See if those who buy into this scepticism aren't paid to do so.

-------------

As to Cruz.... he was lawyering it man. And does so in as stupid a way as any idiot could. That's not because he's an idiot, but because to get to the truth of the assertion he's going to get answers he don't want to hear.

 

[basilio]

Taking down serial Climate Denial liars.


The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
Right-wing media outlets like Breitbart, Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh echoed the Mail’s “significantly misleading” and now censured climate story

Shares
272

Comments
486
Dana Nuccitelli

Monday 25 September 2017 11.00 BST Last modified on Monday 25 September 2017 22.53 BST

Back in February, the conservative UK tabloid Mail on Sunday ran an error-riddled piece by David Rose attacking Noaa climate scientists, who had published data and a paper showing that there was never a global warming pause. The attack was based on an interview with former Noaa scientist John Bates, who subsequently admitted about his comments:

I knew people would misuse this. But you can’t control other people.

The UK press regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organization (Ipso) has now upheld a complaint submitted by Bob Ward of the London School of Economics. Ipso ruled that the Mail piece “failed to take care over the accuracy of the article” and “had then failed to correct these significantly misleading statements,” and the Mail was required to publish the Ipso adjudication.

The Mail’s manufactured controversy
Essentially, Bates had expressed displeasure in the way the data from a Noaa paper had been archived at the organization. Rose and the Mail blew this minor complaint into the sensationalist claim that “world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data.” It would be hard to find a better example of fake news than this one. The piece included a grossly misleading chart that Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies director Gavin Schmidt described as a “hilarious screw up”:

In fact, the Noaa data and paper in question had already been independently verified by other researchers, and are in close agreement with global temperature data from other scientific groups:

And of course the paper itself had undergone rigorous peer-review prior to its publication in one of the world’s most highly-regarded scientific journals, Science. All signs pointed to the Noaa data and paper being based on sound science that had been reproduced and verified. But that didn’t fit the preferred denialist narrative of Rose and the Mail on Sunday, so they weaved a conspiracy theory that then reverberated through the right-wing media echo chamber.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ch-media-outlets-are-biased-on-climate-change

 

[wayneL]

Imposing change, you say. Why that's not freedom and liberty. The world and its people should be free to... die, or suffocate.

Pffft.

It's call innovation man. You know, get dirty coal then you wash it just before you burn it up for energy.

That or you figured out a better solar panel where the energy is delivered by God to it everyday.

Mate, have you tried living without power, or running water, all while your house just had its roof blown off and everything around you are like a hurricane just gone through it?

That's how the Peurto Ricans might live for another 6 months.

But yes, let's debate the preponderance of the evidence. We can't be too careful and listen to experts, or use our own reason and judgement.

Imagine the horror of setting up new industries, hiring new people, creating tools and engineering to tap into a clean and renewable source of energy. Why would anyone want to risk that when mining and pumping an energy source literally hundreds or thousands of miles away, delivering it to a power plant, having it burnt and pollute all over the roads, the seas, the air... Try saying that out loud. See if those who buy into this scepticism aren't paid to do so.

-------------

As to Cruz.... he was lawyering it man. And does so in as stupid a way as any idiot could. That's not because he's an idiot, but because to get to the truth of the assertion he's going to get answers he don't want to hear.

OMG.

Nobody except the Grauniad and the worst alarmists are conflating the recent hurricanes with GW.

Cultural Marxism at it again, you being the useful idiot.

 

[cynic]

Imposing change, you say. Why that's not freedom and liberty. The world and its people should be free to... die, or suffocate.

Pffft.

It's call innovation man. You know, get dirty coal then you wash it just before you burn it up for energy.

That or you figured out a better solar panel where the energy is delivered by God to it everyday.

Mate, have you tried living without power, or running water, all while your house just had its roof blown off and everything around you are like a hurricane just gone through it?

That's how the Peurto Ricans might live for another 6 months.

But yes, let's debate the preponderance of the evidence. We can't be too careful and listen to experts, or use our own reason and judgement.

Imagine the horror of setting up new industries, hiring new people, creating tools and engineering to tap into a clean and renewable source of energy. Why would anyone want to risk that when mining and pumping an energy source literally hundreds or thousands of miles away, delivering it to a power plant, having it burnt and pollute all over the roads, the seas, the air... Try saying that out loud. See if those who buy into this scepticism aren't paid to do so.

-------------

As to Cruz.... he was lawyering it man. And does so in as stupid a way as any idiot could. That's not because he's an idiot, but because to get to the truth of the assertion he's going to get answers he don't want to hear.

Your post failed to answer a number of questions put to you!

So I guess this means I'll be seeing you in the queue at the confessional in the near future!

After all, confession is quite harmless, and so very good for the immortal soul!
So in the absence of disproof of the existence of the fallen angel, Lucifer, one wouldn't want to risk having one's immortal soul burn in a lake of sulphur for the rest of eternity! Confession is believed to be a very safe and convenient way of insuring against that eventuality!

 

[luutzu]

Your post failed to answer a number of questions put to you!

So I guess this means I'll be seeing you in the queue at the confessional in the near future!

After all, confession is quite harmless, and so very good for the immortal soul!
So in the absence of disproof of the existence of the fallen angel, Lucifer, one wouldn't want to risk having one's immortal soul burn in a lake of sulphur for the rest of eternity! Confession is believed to be a very safe and convenient way of insuring against that eventuality!

You seriously need proof of CC?

Since Climate Scientists and their research aren't enough; since 30% of Cat5 hurricane since record bagan some 100 years ago happens in the past 15 years aren't saying anything, to you...

Here's proof: Go into a crowded elevator and take a fart. See if human have any impact on their environment; Or imagine [don't do alright], imagine a running engine in a locked up garage. See if the air in there is as fresh as that fart in the lift.

Most life on earth are quite delicate. Try not watering your garden for a week, or a couple of days in summer. Try working outdoor, and having to be outdoor to earn that salt, when the temperature hit the 30s. Do I need to go on?

The impact of climate change is not imaginary to those affected by it. And if enough of those poor are affected, it become not just a humanitarian issue but also a national security issue.

Now back to what Cruz was saying, and you seem to agree with him...

It's like if a police officer tells that honuorable gentleman from Texas: Kids with guns will not end well. It's just beyond debate that we have to enforce laws mandating gun-owners to lock up their guns, keep it away from kids.

Woooahh, woah! Hang on a minute officer. Are you saying that debate is over? There is no need to debate? Is that kind of a police state common practice in your department? It certainly ain't so in our great democracy.

And officer, what do you mean kids and guns are bad, based on the preponderance of blah blah.

What if the kids was clever and never point the gun to their own head. What if the kid don't touch the trigger; what if we remove the bullets; what if they find the bullets, put that barrel to their eyes to see but it goes off and only damage the ceiling?

Pretty freaking stupid to go along that line of argument, but there it was... and it's so, so smart and clever. So scientific and sensible.

 

[cynic]

You seriously need proof of CC?

Since Climate Scientists and their research aren't enough; since 30% of Cat5 hurricane since record bagan some 100 years ago happens in the past 15 years aren't saying anything, to you...

Here's proof: Go into a crowded elevator and take a fart. See if human have any impact on their environment; Or imagine [don't do alright], imagine a running engine in a locked up garage. See if the air in there is as fresh as that fart in the lift.

Most life on earth are quite delicate. Try not watering your garden for a week, or a couple of days in summer. Try working outdoor, and having to be outdoor to earn that salt, when the temperature hit the 30s. Do I need to go on?

The impact of climate change is not imaginary to those affected by it. And if enough of those poor are affected, it become not just a humanitarian issue but also a national security issue.

Now back to what Cruz was saying, and you seem to agree with him...

It's like if a police officer tells that honuorable gentleman from Texas: Kids with guns will not end well. It's just beyond debate that we have to enforce laws mandating gun-owners to lock up their guns, keep it away from kids.

Woooahh, woah! Hang on a minute officer. Are you saying that debate is over? There is no need to debate? Is that kind of a police state common practice in your department? It certainly ain't so in our great democracy.

And officer, what do you mean kids and guns are bad, based on the preponderance of blah blah.

What if the kids was clever and never point the gun to their own head. What if the kid don't touch the trigger; what if we remove the bullets; what if they find the bullets, put that barrel to their eyes to see but it goes off and only damage the ceiling?

Pretty freaking stupid to go along that line of argument, but there it was... and it's so, so smart and clever. So scientific and sensible.

What relevance does elevator flatulence have to the discussion at hand?

Do you seriously agree with the Sierra Club's contemptuous disregard for the satellite data that showed a recent period (approximately 19 years) of slight cooling?

On the topic of cat 5 hurricanes, 94 (not 100 !) years of historical data has been captured,and dependent upon how one slices the time intervals, those recent 30% could be considered to have occurred inside a larger than 15 year interval!

Despite the limitations imposed by a scant 94 years of historical data, over which the cat 5's are sporadically distributed, (and irrespective of whether the recently chosen interval is viewed as 15 or more years) it is still possible to produce a probability estimate of the likelihood that these were in line with what could be expected from natural causation. The estimate's reliability and meaningfulness, is however, limited by the sparsity of the available data.

So did you calculate an estimate of the probability of whether or not this was naturally caused?

If so:
(i) what was the percentage likelihood of that period occuring inside of 94 years history? and knowing this,
(ii) how can you seriously continue to claim that those cat 5's are evidence of CAGW?

 

[Tisme]

See we are going to try for a new Sept temp record anywhere today.

Conspiracy by the weather Gods to take the heat out of the AFL granny! Heresy right there.