Met Office: Hottest February on Record

[jamesbrown]

If you'd bothered to read the paper you'd just posted you'd see it confirms it.
Figure 1, top of the page black line (the bit that generates the hockey stick) instrumental record.

Thx for that.

I'm sure you thought you had something relevant to say there but it's complete gibberish.

Both papers explicitly include comparisons (the first paper looks at seven different statistical model structures based on the same multi-proxy dataset). Both papers are from the same team of authors. Both papers completely contradict your childish, Trumpian, claims.

[jamesbrown]

Oil stocks doing well.

CO2 emissions are good for the bank account.

Yep, but not so much for your credibility, trumpkin.

[BlasterBates]

I'm sure you thought you had something relevant to say there but it's complete gibberish.

Both papers explicitly include comparisons (the first paper looks at seven different statistical model structures based on the same multi-proxy dataset). Both papers are from the same team of authors. Both papers completely contradict your childish, Trumpian, claims.

The proxies in the 20th century are roughly the same level as 2000 years ago. You seem to be unable to look beyond the spliced on instrumental record in the first graph.

It's not a hockey stick, far from it.

[jamesbrown]

The proxies in the 20th century are roughly the same level as 2000 years ago. You seem to be unable to look beyond the spliced on instrumental record in the first graph.

It's not a hockey stick, far from it.

You seem to be unable to read a scientific paper. Both of those papers conclude the opposite of what you're saying, yet you think your lay analysis of the same evidence reported in these papers points to a different conclusion. Fascinating.

[BlasterBates]

You seem to be unable to read a scientific paper. Both of those papers conclude the opposite of what you're saying, yet you think your lay analysis of the same evidence reported in these papers points to a different conclusion. Fascinating.

A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years | Science

Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history.

So not exactly unprecedented.

[jamesbrown]

So not exactly unprecedented.

Relative to the ~4.5bn year history of the Earth?

Again, not serious.

These are all bog-standard climate-denier talking points, typically associated with the trumpkin right.

[BlasterBates]

Relative to the ~4.5bn year history of the Earth?

Again, not serious.

These are all bog-standard climate-denier talking points, typically associated with the trumpkin right.

1,000,000,000 (one billion, short scale; one thousand million or milliard, yard,[1] long scale) is the natural number following 999,999,999 and preceding 1,000,000,001. One billion can also be written as b or bn.

11000 or eleven thousand is the natural number following 10999 and preceding 11001. In most English-speaking countries, it is often written with a comma separating the thousands unit: 11,000.

HTH

[d000hg]

These are all bog-standard climate-denier talking points, typically associated with the trumpkin right.

It's a nice approach to try and link a view with Trump to discredit but these arguments (such as they are) long-precede Trump's presidency.

Sorry, not nice. Lazy.

[jamesbrown]

It's a nice approach to try and link a view with Trump to discredit but these arguments (such as they are) long-precede Trump's presidency.

Sorry, not nice. Lazy.

You and your fellow climate cretins are the lazy ones. You're unwilling (and perhaps unable) to do the reading necessary to rectify your ignorance. It's clear from your rudimentary questions that you have a cursory understanding, at best, and yet you've seemingly made up your mind because, I assume, reading is too hard and the outcomes might not coincide with your world view. Sorry, not nice, lazy.

[d000hg]

You and your fellow climate cretins are the lazy ones. You're unwilling (and perhaps unable) to do the reading necessary to rectify your ignorance. It's clear from your rudimentary questions that you have a cursory understanding, at best, and yet you've seemingly made up your mind because, I assume, reading is too hard and the outcomes might not coincide with your world view. Sorry, not nice, lazy.

Anyone who uses personal insults in their argument has by definition, lost the argument. It's the laziest attack possible to diminish the person you're debating, not their argument.

It's a shame you haven't realised I'm not a "climate cretin". You're unwilling/unable to read my posts before responding to them, it seems.