May global temperatures third warmest on record

Jun 20, 2013
People cool off as they relax in a fountain in Bryant Park on May 30, 2013 in New York. Global temperatures last month tied with 1998 and 2005 as the third warmest for a month of May since record-keeping began in 1880, US scientists said Thursday.

Global temperatures last month tied with 1998 and 2005 as the third warmest for a month of May since record-keeping began in 1880, US scientists said Thursday.

Many areas of the world experienced higher-than-average warmth, including most of northern Siberia, western Russia, north and east Europe and central Australia, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration said.

With a combined average temperature over land and ocean surfaces of 59.79 (15.46 degrees Celsius), May 2013 also marked the 37th consecutive May and 339th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average of 58.6 F (14.8 C).

NOAA said the northern hemisphere snow cover for May was the third smallest on record at 6.21 million square miles (16.1 million square kilometers).

"Below-average snow cover was present for both Eurasia and North America. Eurasia had its smallest May snow cover extent on record, while North America had its 20th smallest," it said.

The average May extent was 5.06 million square miles, 2.17 percent below the 1981-2010 average, resulting in the 10th smallest monthly May extent on record.

The Antarctic sea ice extent, however, was 4.43 million square miles—the fifth largest May Antarctic on record at 6.33 percent above the 1981-2010 average.

The world's nations are negotiating an agreement that would, by 2020, bind all countries to measurable targets for curbing Earth-warming greenhouse-gas emissions.

The aim is to avoid the most calamitous warming-induced —worsening droughts, floods, storms and sea-level rise—by meeting a UN goal to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial levels.

Explore further: New water balance calculation for the Dead Sea

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

NOAA: Global temperature ties for warmest on record

Oct 18, 2010

The first nine months of 2010 tied with the same period in 1998 for the warmest combined land and ocean surface temperature on record. The global average land surface temperature for January-September was ...

Recommended for you

New water balance calculation for the Dead Sea

14 hours ago

The drinking water resources on the eastern, Jordanian side of the Dead Sea could decline severe as a result of climate change than those on the western, Israeli and Palestinian side. This is the conclusion ...

Studying wetlands as a producer of greenhouse gases

20 hours ago

(Phys.org) —Wetlands are well known for their beneficial role in the environment. But UConn Honors student Emily McInerney '15 (CAHNR) is studying a less widely known role of wetlands – as a major producer ...

User comments : 112

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Claudius
2 / 5 (27) Jun 20, 2013
When it's unusually warm in the summer, it's anthropogenic global warming.

When it's unusually cold in the winter, it's weather.
no fate
3.6 / 5 (20) Jun 20, 2013

When it's unusually warm in the summer, it's anthropogenic global warming.

When it's unusually cold in the winter, it's weather.


"339th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average of 58.6 F (14.8 C)."

You must have missed this.
VENDItardE
1.7 / 5 (28) Jun 20, 2013
NO......it wasn't
Neinsense99
3.4 / 5 (22) Jun 20, 2013

When it's unusually warm in the summer, it's anthropogenic global warming.

When it's unusually cold in the winter, it's weather.


"339th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average of 58.6 F (14.8 C)."

You must have missed this.

He missed it 'cause he dissed it.
Neinsense99
3.3 / 5 (21) Jun 20, 2013
NO......it wasn't

Well, thanks for that data.
Matthewwa25
2.2 / 5 (17) Jun 20, 2013
about time as most of the months this year have been around 8th-11th place. ;) The enso on the other hand is dropping so this may turn around soon.
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (20) Jun 20, 2013
When it's unusually warm in the summer, it's anthropogenic global warming.

When it's unusually cold in the winter, it's weather.


No dumdum, when it is unusually cold in a part of the world (like North America) it is weather. Same as when it is unusually warm in a part of the world (like Australia) it is also weather.

When there is a warming trend (or a cooling trend) over the whole of the planet (such as we've seen lo these past hundred years) it is climate.

When we see unusual extremes in temperature or weather (the day to day stuff, see above) there is usually a good reason. Like, say, the sun's output has jumped by .02%. Or a volcano has dumped millions of tons of stuff into the atmosphere.

Lately, that reason has been mostly the result of changing climate. The climate is changing because OVERALL the Earth is getting warmer. This results in a lot of change, manifested by extreme WEATHER.

See how that works? Or do I need to dumb it down even more for you?
Shootist
2 / 5 (27) Jun 20, 2013
I defy anyone to measure the global temperature to within one standard deviation. Cannot be done.

Anyone with general knowledge of statistics knows this to be true.


When it's unusually warm in the summer, it's anthropogenic global warming.

When it's unusually cold in the winter, it's weather.


"339th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average of 58.6 F (14.8 C)."

You must have missed this.


3 significant figures? I call bullshit. No one can be that accurate on a planetary scale. Not possible.

One of Freeman Dyson's biggest complaints about AGW and the "climate scientists" are their general lack of good statistical discipline.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (29) Jun 21, 2013
I defy anyone to measure the global temperature to within one standard deviation. Cannot be done.

Anyone with general knowledge of statistics knows this to be true.

Well, then since you're so bright and knowledgeable, you should have no trouble proving your assertion.
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (26) Jun 21, 2013
The cherry-picking and spin of a desperate AGW Alarmist cult.
Global average temperatures and the tropics continued a slow cooling drift in May

See what TRUE climate scientists are saying - http://reason.com...may-2013
runrig
3.7 / 5 (18) Jun 21, 2013
The cherry-picking and spin of a desperate AGW Alarmist cult.
Global average temperatures and the tropics continued a slow cooling drift in May

See what TRUE climate scientists are saying - http://reason.com...may-2013


Anti:
I continue to live in hope that you will eventually understand the concept of the word beginning with G in the acronym GW.

Clue - the Tropics are not the ........?
gmurphy
3.8 / 5 (21) Jun 21, 2013
How quickly the deniers forget about the climate study funded by the Koch brothers. This study showed conclusively, using an independent set of analytical tools that the earth is warming. The lead scientist for that study went to so far as to say that the data indicated to a high level of certainty that humans were responsible for this warming. Instead of acknowledging their mistakes, the deniers have closed ranks and really around scientific outcasts such as Roy Spencer (a creationist). It must sting really bad to realize that your deeply held beliefs are little more than fanciful fictions, hence, the repression of reality and the clinging to the fringe lunatics.
djr
4.1 / 5 (18) Jun 21, 2013
Anti: "See what TRUE climate scientists are saying - http://reason.com...may-2013"

I would encourage everyone to read the article referenced here by our resident science denier. There is an interesting graph half way down the page. Look carefully at the graph - and see if it indicates a trend (research the issue of noise if you want to understand why it is not a straight line).

An interesting quote from the article - "Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade"

Thanks for the reference Anti!!!
drhoo
3.5 / 5 (17) Jun 21, 2013
Are these climate 'skeptics' paid to spread this stuff. It is hard to believe they can really be this thick headed and dull.
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (20) Jun 21, 2013
Are these climate 'skeptics' paid to spread this stuff. It is hard to believe they can really be this thick headed and dull.


You seem to forget the role skepticism plays in science. Without which, science would not progress.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (19) Jun 21, 2013
You seem to forget the role skepticism plays in science. Without which, science would not progress.


No, you have confused skepticism with denial. Skepticism includes the ability to acknowledge when the science shows beyond a reasonable doubt that something is true. Denial has no such ability, and maintains a position that trades reasonable proof for belief.

You, sir, are firmly in the denial camp. You, like several other denialists on this site, can accept no argument which casts doubt on the position you have taken. You have decided. There is no proof that you will accept.
radek
2.1 / 5 (16) Jun 21, 2013
Temperature is rising and this is a fact. But the global ice area remains stable. I know theory why ice extent in Antarctic is growing but the same mechnism is even stronger in Arctic and doesn`t cause more ice sheet despite there is much more fresh water delivered by rivers. There is one BIG difference between both poles - most transatlantic jets flying over Northen poles spreading areosols. Southern Pole is airplane free. Does anyone know any research about this?
runrig
4.5 / 5 (15) Jun 21, 2013
............There is one BIG difference between both poles ..............


You mean the fact that Antarctica is a continent at an average height of 12,000ft and the Arctic is a sea?
radek
2.2 / 5 (18) Jun 21, 2013
............There is one BIG difference between both poles ..............


You mean the fact that Antarctica is a continent at an average height of 12,000ft and the Arctic is a sea?

this is not reason why sea ice area is growing for sure
djr
4.7 / 5 (14) Jun 21, 2013
"There is one BIG difference between both poles"

The number of planes flying over the poles is the one big difference - there could be no other big differences that might affect the ice balance at the poles - just ask radek - who got the information directly from ET.

Wait wait - I just found this on wikipedia - it took me months to unearth this gem.

"Temperatures at the South Pole are much lower than at the North Pole, primarily because the South Pole is located at altitude in the middle of a continental land mass, while the North Pole is at sea level in the middle of an ocean."

http://en.wikiped...uth_Pole
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (21) Jun 21, 2013
May global temperatures third warmest on record
LOL. I see the resident alarmists have already jumped all over this.

So one month of data is proof enough for the AGWites now? How desperate are they?

Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (19) Jun 21, 2013
LOL. I see the resident alarmists have already jumped all over this.

So one month of data is proof enough for the AGWites now? How desperate are they?


No dumdum, it is yet another month of the past few decades that show that there is extended and unprecedented warming over the whole of the Earth. You should really try to comprehend what you read before making stupid and asinine statements.

You see, dumdum, the difference between denialists like you and those of us who can comprehend what we are reading, is that we don't need any further proof and you won't accept any.

No one who matters cares what denialists think. They are a non-issue. And a sad joke.
radek
2.2 / 5 (16) Jun 21, 2013
"There is one BIG difference between both poles"

The number of planes flying over the poles is the one big difference - there could be no other big differences that might affect the ice balance at the poles - just ask radek - who got the information directly from ET.
"Temperatures at the South Pole are much lower than at the North Pole, primarily because the South Pole is located at altitude in the middle of a continental land mass, while the North Pole is at sea level in the middle of an ocean."


Antarctica was always continent and nothing has changed - explain pls why sea ice area around is well above avarages because of it. Of course there could be other reasons - I pointed to one which is obvious. Could You show other possible reasons? BTW I`m asking againg about known reaserch about it. I can`t believe that no one checked it before.

BTW - all AGW supporters should be satisfeid - it would be clear sample of human impact on the climate.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (20) Jun 21, 2013
it is yet another month of the past few decades that show that there is extended and unprecedented warming over the whole of the Earth.
What warming?

http://www.woodfo...01/trend

we don't need any further proof
As I've pointed out elsewhere, AGWites will believe only what they want to believe. Empirical evidence to the contrary, simply doesn't phase them.

runrig
4.5 / 5 (16) Jun 21, 2013
[.... why sea ice area around is well above avarages.....Of course there could be other reasons - I pointed to one which is obvious. Could You show other possible reasons? BTW I`m asking again about known reaserch about it. I can`t believe that no one checked it before.

They have - do a search on here.
"..... it's more likely due to increased heat in the summer leading to an increase in offshore ocean temperatures. That warmer water, they theorize, causes melting of the ice sheets from below. Then, because the water from the ice that melts has little salt in it, it tends to float, creating a layer of cold water sitting on top of the warmer saltier water below, which easily freezes when cold winter temperatures return. ......."

From:http://phys.org/n...-due.htm

Also:http://phys.org/n...ate.html
radek
2.1 / 5 (14) Jun 21, 2013
[.... why sea ice area around is well above avarages.....Of course there could be other reasons - I pointed to one which is obvious. Could You show other possible reasons? BTW I`m asking again about known reaserch about it. I can`t believe that no one checked it before.

They have - do a search on here.

From:http://phys.org/n...-due.htm


as I wrote before I know these theories. Salinity of Souther Ocean is higher then Arctic Sea. There is more melting in Arctic (Greenland expecially) and more rivers adding fresh water but effect is opposite.

They haven`t - this is not research about impact of jets flying over Arctic.
djr
4.7 / 5 (14) Jun 21, 2013
"as I wrote before I know these theories."

Then it makes no sense to me that you said "There is one big difference between both poles." If you know these theories - and you know that there are major differences between the two poles - most significantly that one is a land mass, and one is a big lump of ice (pretty major difference there). There is masses of information on the climates of both poles - you could not be bothered to fire up google.
djr
4.5 / 5 (16) Jun 21, 2013
UBA: "As I've pointed out elsewhere, AGWites will believe only what they want to believe."

And as has been told back to you a million times - pot meet kettle.

Did you check out Antigoracles article Uba? Yeah - an article from this sites biggest anti science troll - and it said "Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade" Even had a pretty picture showing the warming trend.

Did you check the ice sheet data?

Did you check the glacier data?

Did you check the sea level data?

Did you check the ocean temperature data?

It is very clear who only beleives what they want to believe.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (21) Jun 21, 2013
The cherry-picking and spin of a desperate AGW Alarmist cult.
Global average temperatures and the tropics continued a slow cooling drift in May

See what TRUE climate scientists are saying - http://reason.com...may-2013


Anti:
I continue to live in hope that you will eventually understand the concept of the word beginning with G in the acronym GW.

Clue - the Tropics are not the ........?

Runrig, I've given up hope that you and the cult would be able to read and comprehend, and not just be limited to what your AGW blinders restrict you to.
Would that G be for GLOBAL like the first word in my statement?
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (16) Jun 22, 2013
Maggnus said;
Skepticism includes the ability to acknowledge when the science shows beyond a reasonable doubt that something is true. Denial has no such ability...

Very true statement. Very very true.
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (16) Jun 22, 2013
May global temperatures third warmest on record


Yes, that is pretty much predictable. It's just another notice to the dim-bulbs out there, that Anthro-Global-Warming is occurring and is moving in very quickly.
Stop
3.7 / 5 (18) Jun 22, 2013
Are these climate 'skeptics' paid to spread this stuff. It is hard to believe they can really be this thick headed and dull.


Some of them , sure. Others don't understand what "peer review" means. Also, practically none of them are climatologist, or study science. It reminds me of that denier website, which lists "computer scientists" who signed his 'global warming/climate change is a hoax' petition. There are even MDs on it.

Plus, they get their information from political parties, and from websites which are backed by the industries who have most to lose, monetarily that is.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 22, 2013
And as has been told back to you a million times - pot meet kettle.
I'm open to whatever current science is available. What have you got?

Did you check out Antigoracles article Uba? Yeah - an article from this sites biggest anti science troll - and it said "Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade" Even had a pretty picture showing the warming trend.
I've never denied that we've had some warming. Earth's climate has varied continuously. Why should we expect it to stop now?

(paraphrased) Did you check the ice sheet, glacier, sea level, and ocean temperature data?
I regularly check these datasets. There's nothing particularly unusual going on. What is it you're afraid of?

It is very clear who only beleives what they want to believe.
Indeed. You believe in the climate boogeyman, I believe in reality. I still play at the same beaches, in the same snow, and on the same planet I've played on since I was little. It looks okay to me.

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (17) Jun 22, 2013
Maggnus said;
Skepticism includes the ability to acknowledge when the science shows beyond a reasonable doubt that something is true. Denial has no such ability...

Very true statement. Very very true.
You guys should know.

Sinister1811
3.4 / 5 (16) Jun 22, 2013
No dumdum, when it is unusually cold in a part of the world (like North America) it is weather. Same as when it is unusually warm in a part of the world (like Australia) it is also weather.

When there is a warming trend (or a cooling trend) over the whole of the planet (such as we've seen lo these past hundred years) it is climate.


It's hard to believe that Maggnus got any 1s for this comment. That's exactly where Claudius got it wrong. Weather = locally, and climate = collectively. The fact that he still got 1s for that doesn't make any sense.
http://www.skepti...ions.htm

Also, the link that antigoracle posted here runs counter to his arguments.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (18) Jun 22, 2013
No dumdum, when it is unusually cold in a part of the world (like North America) it is weather. Same as when it is unusually warm in a part of the world (like Australia) it is also weather.

When there is a warming trend (or a cooling trend) over the whole of the planet (such as we've seen lo these past hundred years) it is climate.
It's hard to believe that Maggnus got any 1s for this comment. That's exactly where Claudius got it wrong. Weather = locally, and climate = collectively. The fact that he still got 1s for that doesn't make any sense.
It does in light of the insulting language, alone. Additionally, Maggnus hypocritically is one of the greatest supporters of regional climate incidences proving global warming.

And you deserved a one for not recognizing either.

djr
4.6 / 5 (18) Jun 22, 2013
Uba: "I've never denied that we've had some warming."

Sorry Uba - total contradiction - these are your words- "What warming?"

That is clearly a denial of the current warming trend - that is clearly shown in Anti's article.

As I pointed out - you are the one who only believes what you want to believe - facts be damned.

uba: "You believe in the climate boogeyman" Nope - false - I believe in reality - as revealed to us through an evidentiary based system of exploration. I am not a climate catastrophist - but I do think we should listen to the scientists who are studying our climate system. I think that we can look for win/win solutions - that will protect our ecosystems, and also move us forward technologically. If you want to see evidence that should give us reason to be concerned - read this article. http://www.truthd...0130608/

Oh that's right - you looked out your window and saw no problem - therefore - no problem...
runrig
5 / 5 (13) Jun 22, 2013
The cherry-picking and spin of a desperate AGW Alarmist cult.
Global average temperatures and the tropics continued a slow cooling drift in May

See what TRUE climate scientists are saying - http://reason.com...may-2013


Anti:
I continue to live in hope that you will eventually understand the concept of the word beginning with G in the acronym GW.

Clue - the Tropics are not the ........?

Runrig, I've given up hope that you and the cult would be able to read and comprehend, and not just be limited to what your AGW blinders restrict you to.
Would that G be for GLOBAL like the first word in my statement?


OK, fair enough - missed the word "and".
The mention of Tropics though is of course irrelevant in a global context.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (18) Jun 22, 2013
Sorry Uba - total contradiction - these are your words- "What warming?"

That is clearly a denial of the current warming trend - that is clearly shown in Anti's article.

As I pointed out - you are the one who only believes what you want to believe - facts be damned.
Taking my comments out of context is only proof of your dishonesty. This is particularly egregious as you had agreed with me that warming has recently been on hiatus.

uba: "You believe in the climate boogeyman" Nope - false - I believe in reality - as revealed to us through an evidentiary based system of exploration.
Then why are you whining so much about the climate? How has it significantly impacted you?

Perhaps it's the doomsayer predictions which scare you (this is the climate boogeyman to which I referred)?

I am not a climate catastrophist
You surely had me fooled.

continued...
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (20) Jun 22, 2013
but I do think we should listen to the scientists who are studying our climate system.
Appeal to authority. You're essentially telling people to not bother researching and thinking and for themselves.

I think that we can look for win/win solutions - that will protect our ecosystems, and also move us forward technologically.
I'll generally agree with this, as this has long been the case in environmental protection. But I'm not convinced CO2 is a serious environmental protection concern, at this time.

If you want to see evidence that should give us reason to be concerned - read this article. http://www.truthd...0130608/
This has more to do with environmental contamination, than climate.

Oh that's right - you looked out your window and saw no problem - therefore - no problem.
Essentially, yes, various media, scientific, and technical sources being the window.

djr
4.3 / 5 (16) Jun 22, 2013
Uba "Taking my comments out of context is only proof of your dishonesty. This is particularly egregious as you had agreed with me that warming has recently been on hiatus."

Here is your entire quote. How did I in any way take this "out of context"? What a stupid thing to say!

it is yet another month of the past few decades that show that there is extended and unprecedented warming over the whole of the Earth.

What warming?

http://www.woodfo...01/trend

we don't need any further proof
As I've pointed out elsewhere, AGWites will believe only what they want to believe. Empirical evidence to the contrary, simply doesn't phase them.

There could only be one interpretation of your question "what warming?" - and that is that you are questioning the existence of warming - which is a direct contradiction to your later denial of ever having questioned warming existed - what a rube.

djr
4.4 / 5 (14) Jun 22, 2013
cont. What I have agreed to in the past is that 'surface temperatures' are on a plateau - which is not to say that 'warming' is not occurring.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 22, 2013
Anti: "See what TRUE climate scientists are saying - http://reason.com...may-2013"

I would encourage everyone to read the article referenced here by our resident science denier. There is an interesting graph half way down the page. Look carefully at the graph - and see if it indicates a trend (research the issue of noise if you want to understand why it is not a straight line).

An interesting quote from the article - "Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade"

Thanks for the reference Anti!!!

You're welcome. Now you have an unbiased source for the truth on climate and if you rid yourself of your AGW blinders you will soon see AGW for the lie it is.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (13) Jun 22, 2013
It does in light of the insulting language, alone.


Aww dumdum, and here I thought it such an appropriate pet name for you and your ilk. Certainly describes you.

Additionally, Maggnus hypocritically is one of the greatest supporters of regional climate incidences proving global warming.


A lie, how typical.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (18) Jun 22, 2013
Here is your entire quote. How did I in any way take this "out of context"? What a stupid thing to say!

it is yet another month of the past few decades that show that there is extended and unprecedented warming over the whole of the Earth.
What warming?
we don't need any further proof

There could only be one interpretation of your question "what warming?" - and that is that you are questioning the existence of warming - which is a direct contradiction to your later denial of ever having questioned warming existed - what a rube.
My response was clearly in context to a claim of May being an example of extended and unprecedented warming. There is no extended, or even unprecedented warming going on. Warming has been on hiatus for well more than a decade. And global temperatures have been much higher in the past. Ergo you took my response out of context.

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (17) Jun 22, 2013
cont. What I have agreed to in the past is that 'surface temperatures' are on a plateau - which is not to say that 'warming' is not occurring.
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." - William Shakespeare

VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 22, 2013
"See what TRUE climate scientists are saying" - Anti-Gore-Tard

The Anti-Gore-Tard links to an article that on the first page shows warming since 1979 has been constant in the long term trend and that global temperatures have increased by 0.5'C over that time period.

This is entirely consistent with MSU, NASA and all of the other temperature reconstructions.

The Anti-Gore-Tard is so stupid he can't even interpret a simple graph in his own reference.

Moron.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 22, 2013
"There is no extended, or even unprecedented warming going on. " - UbVonTard

Recent Warming Is Still Unprecedented In Speed, Scale And Cause: A Marcott Et Al. FAQ

http://thinkprogr...obile=nc

Unprecedented Warming in Antarctica Causes Worst Melting in 1,000 Years

https://www.commo.../04/14-1

20TH CENTURY GLOBAL WARMING UNPRECEDENTED, NOAA SCIENTIST REPORTS

http://www.public...-88.html

The rate of warming is 'unprecedented'
http://www.iol.co...JRzvVDFA

and on and on it goes...
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 22, 2013
Appeal to authority. You're essentially telling people to not bother researching and thinking and for themselves.

No its NOT!! Learn what a fallacy is before you try to claim their use by others. You, dumdum, are saying don't bother reading the research. Hypocrite!
But I'm not convinced CO2 is a serious environmental protection concern, at this time.

That's only because you don't understand it.
]Essentially, yes, various media, scientific, and technical sources being the window

A window you refuse to look through. You look through YOUR window and see nothing, you therefore decide there must be nothing. Dumb!
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (15) Jun 22, 2013
] My response was clearly in context to a claim of May being an example of extended and unprecedented warming. There is no extended, or even unprecedented warming going on. Warming has been on hiatus for well more than a decade. And global temperatures have been much higher in the past. Ergo you took my response out of context.

No, dumdum, your response was clearly taken IN context, and applied exactly as you set it out. Your current waffling is only an attempt by you to backtrack, realizing you have been caught. You are lying and have been caught in the act. Ergo you are a liar.
djr
4.7 / 5 (13) Jun 22, 2013
Anti" "You're welcome. Now you have an unbiased source for the truth on climate and if you rid yourself of your AGW blinders you will soon see AGW for the lie it is."

I guess Anti has a problem with reading comprehension - I will just repost the quote from the article that Anti referenced - and is now claiming that it demonstrates that AGW is a lie. There is no logic to Anti's nonsense - I will leave the quote to speak for itself.

"Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade"

djr
4.7 / 5 (13) Jun 22, 2013
Magnum: "No, dumdum, your response was clearly taken IN context, and applied exactly as you set it out. Your current waffling is only an attempt by you to backtrack, realizing you have been caught. You are lying and have been caught in the act. Ergo you are a liar."

Thanks Magnum - the thing that is bothersome is the accusation that it is the defenders of the science that have blinders on and 'believe only what we want to believe' - when we are simply asking to let the science stand for what it is. Reason seems lost on folks like Uba and Anti - it is probably not worth having protracted pissing matches - but taking a stand is important.

Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (13) Jun 22, 2013
Your welcome djr. Its really not worth getting into pissing matches with almost any of those who still pretend to deny the obvious. Mostly, their misunderstandings and misrepresentations are so obvious as to not even require a response, other than derisive laughter.

Every now and then one of them says something so egregious I just have to make my derision public.
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (18) Jun 22, 2013
Anti" "You're welcome. Now you have an unbiased source for the truth on climate and if you rid yourself of your AGW blinders you will soon see AGW for the lie it is."

I guess Anti has a problem with reading comprehension - I will just repost the quote from the article that Anti referenced - and is now claiming that it demonstrates that AGW is a lie. There is no logic to Anti's nonsense - I will leave the quote to speak for itself.

"Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade"


Yes, and that rate of warming is not different from what it was, coming out of the little ice-age, when human produced CO2 was insignificant to what it is today and we haven't even neared what it was during the MWP.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UgCIOE_QP0g/TBvxf-ZjCcI/AAAAAAAAAFE/mevK4_JsubI/s1600/Figure+3.png

VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (15) Jun 22, 2013
One wonders how the Anti-Gore-Tard can see a sentence like this...

"Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade"

And then see a graphic on page one of his own reference which displays exactly the same thing and then claim that it says the planet is cooling.

You only see that kind of spectacular idiocy among the mentally disabled, the mentally ill, and the spectacularly dishonest.

In other words, your typical GW Denialist.

antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (18) Jun 22, 2013
One wonders how the Anti-Gore-Tard can see a sentence like this...

"Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade"

And then see a graphic on page one of his own reference which displays exactly the same thing and then claim that it says the planet is cooling.

You only see that kind of spectacular idiocy among the mentally disabled, the mentally ill, and the spectacularly dishonest.

In other words, your typical GW Denialist.


I always flush turds, but this one always comes right back up to regurgitate the filth it feeds on at the bottom of its cesspool of ignorance. There is a difference between GW and AGW, but that's obviously lost on an ignorant turd like you.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 22, 2013
Anti-Gore-Tard then claims the following picture from an internet BLOG shows the rate of warming during the exit of the little ice age.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UgCIOE_QP0g/TBvxf-ZjCcI/AAAAAAAAAFE/mevK4_JsubI/s1600/Figure+3.png

Which doesn't show the little ice age, or the exit from the little ice age.

To do that you have to consider somewhat longer time scale...and this is what is seen.

https://docs.goog...=sharing

Once again Reality does not mesh with what the GW Denialist Retards claim to be true.

VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 22, 2013
"I always flush turds" - Anti-Gore-Tard

Isn't that Americans did to the TeaPublican movement during the last election cycle?

Poor Tardieboy. He deserves no respect.... He gets no respect...

VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 22, 2013
"You're essentially telling people to not bother researching and thinking and for themselves." - UbVonTard

Retards like yourself who don't know how to multiply or divide, simply don't have the mental ammunition to argue with mathematicians who do.

When a mathematician tells such a person that 5 * 6 = 30 , it is not rational for them to proclaim that they are free thinkers and entitled to their own opinions on what 5 * 6 really is.

They (you) done did dem researches and found on some TeaPublican Blog Dat sometimes 5*6 is 31 cause on Fridays the shape shifting aliens change the shape of the earth so that their UFO's can more easily reach their moon base at the center of the earth.

Moron -) UbVonTard -) Moron

VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 22, 2013
"Taking my comments out of context is only proof of your dishonesty. " - UbVonTard

But as been shown, your comment wasn't taken out of context. You were caught telling yet another lie.

How many now? The number into the hundreds.

Typical Denialist.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 22, 2013
Warming

"What Warming?" - UbVonTard

Several hours later...

"I've never denied that we've had some warming." - UbVonTard

Liar... Liar... Pants on Fire....
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (18) Jun 23, 2013
The cherry-picking and spin of a desperate AGW Alarmist cult.
Global average temperatures and the tropics continued a slow cooling drift in May

See what TRUE climate scientists are saying - http://reason.com...may-2013

AO is like an insane woodpecker looking for a grub in a block of concrete.
deepsand
3.5 / 5 (19) Jun 23, 2013
it is yet another month of the past few decades that show that there is extended and unprecedented warming over the whole of the Earth.
What warming?

http://www.woodfo...01/trend

we don't need any further proof
As I've pointed out elsewhere, AGWites will believe only what they want to believe. Empirical evidence to the contrary, simply doesn't phase them.

Anyone can play that silly little cherry-picking game.

HADCRUT4GL: 1999-present.

deepsand
3.4 / 5 (18) Jun 23, 2013
The cherry-picking and spin of a desperate AGW Alarmist cult.
Global average temperatures and the tropics continued a slow cooling drift in May

See what TRUE climate scientists are saying - http://reason.com...may-2013

Anti:
I continue to live in hope that you will eventually understand the concept of the word beginning with G in the acronym GW.

Clue - the Tropics are not the ........?

Runrig, I've given up hope that you and the cult would be able to read and comprehend, and not just be limited to what your AGW blinders restrict you to.
Would that G be for GLOBAL like the first word in my statement?

AO lacks the humour to be entertaining, the knowledge to be informative, and have all the charm and attraction of a deceased rat which suffered from leprosy and incontinence.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (17) Jun 23, 2013
Anti: "See what TRUE climate scientists are saying - http://reason.com...may-2013"

I would encourage everyone to read the article referenced here by our resident science denier. There is an interesting graph half way down the page. Look carefully at the graph - and see if it indicates a trend (research the issue of noise if you want to understand why it is not a straight line).

An interesting quote from the article - "Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade"

Thanks for the reference Anti!!!

You're welcome. Now you have an unbiased source for the truth on climate and if you rid yourself of your AGW blinders you will soon see AGW for the lie it is.

AO lacks the humour to be entertaining, the knowledge to be informative, and have all the charm and attraction of a deceased rat which suffered from leprosy and incontinence.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (18) Jun 23, 2013
Anti" "You're welcome. Now you have an unbiased source for the truth on climate and if you rid yourself of your AGW blinders you will soon see AGW for the lie it is."

I guess Anti has a problem with reading comprehension - I will just repost the quote from the article that Anti referenced - and is now claiming that it demonstrates that AGW is a lie. There is no logic to Anti's nonsense - I will leave the quote to speak for itself.

"Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade"

Yes, and that rate of warming is not different from what it was, coming out of the little ice-age, when human produced CO2 was insignificant to what it is today and we haven't even neared what it was during the MWP.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UgCIOE_QP0g/TBvxf-ZjCcI/AAAAAAAAAFE/mevK4_JsubI/s1600/Figure+3.png

Irrelevant BS from our resident anal orifice.
deepsand
3.5 / 5 (19) Jun 23, 2013
One wonders how the Anti-Gore-Tard can see a sentence like this...

"Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade"

And then see a graphic on page one of his own reference which displays exactly the same thing and then claim that it says the planet is cooling.

You only see that kind of spectacular idiocy among the mentally disabled, the mentally ill, and the spectacularly dishonest.

In other words, your typical GW Denialist.

I always flush turds, ... .

That explains what happened to AO's brain.

antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (17) Jun 23, 2013
"I always flush turds" - Anti-Gore-Tard

Isn't that Americans did to the TeaPublican movement during the last election cycle?

Poor Tardieboy. He deserves no respect.... He gets no respect...


I flushed the turd, but it is too ignorant to take the hint, and so it returns to spill it's filth.
djr
4.5 / 5 (15) Jun 23, 2013
"Anti: I flushed the turd, but it is too ignorant to take the hint, and so it returns to spill it's filth."

I just spent a wonderful day at the Freethought conference here in Oklahoma City. I left the day very encouraged. What I really enjoyed is seeing that on the playing field of ideas - reason, science, and atheism win hands down - it is a slam dunk - no competition. When faced with such reason, and science, - people like anti revert to comments like those above. To me - it is a sign that they know they are becoming irrelevant - and they are grasping at straws.

Mr Anderson
4.4 / 5 (14) Jun 23, 2013
I've just about had enough of you republican denier nut jobs. I just don't understand what your problem is. It's all very simple and perfectly logical. Since we get the earth radiating different wavelengths to those it receives it's perfectly reasonable to accept that if we stop these re-radiated wavelengths from escaping, we are going to get a warmer planet. What's so difficult about that? Since the surface of the earth is about 250 kelvin above the temperature of space, where it is venting its heat to. It really only takes a small change in the balance (say by trapping about 1% extra energy) to raise the temperature significantly. Now, are some of you denier idiots really stating that if we increase the trapping of energy, we will not increase the average temperature? Since our environment is at stake I believe these deniers should be held criminally responsible in the years to come. I hope names are being taken down. Especially in the Republican congress. Am I being too harsh?
Mr Anderson
4.7 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2013
When it's unusually warm in the summer, it's anthropogenic global warming.

When it's unusually cold in the winter, it's weather.


That is not a fair comment. In almost every weather event news article I've read it has pointed out that single extreme weather events shouldn't be linked to climate change even though it would seem reasonable to presume that a warming (energised) atmosphere has more potential to deliver extreme weather.
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (17) Jun 23, 2013
"There is no extended, or even unprecedented warming going on. " - Uba

Recent Warming Is Still Unprecedented In Speed, Scale And Cause: A Marcott Et Al. FAQ

Unprecedented Warming in Antarctica Causes Worst Melting in 1,000 Years
LOL. The Vendispambot thinks radical progressive blogs are valid references.

"ThinkProgress was voted "Best Liberal Blog" in the 2006" LOL.

20TH CENTURY GLOBAL WARMING UNPRECEDENTED, NOAA SCIENTIST REPORTS
LOL. And here it thinks an old press release from 1998 has relevance (from before the current warming hiatus was apparent)

The rate of warming is 'unprecedented'
And here it thinks a five year old news article is relevant. LOL

and on and on it goes...
Vedispambot don't know much about science.

No wonder AGWites are in such a tizzy. All they read is self-reinforcing fear-mongering. They do it to themselves!

As I've pointed out above, AGWites will believe only what they want to believe.

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (16) Jun 23, 2013
Appeal to authority.
No its NOT!!
Idiot.

https://yourlogic...uthority

Essentially, yes, various media, scientific, and technical sources being the window

A window you refuse to look through. You look through YOUR window and see nothing, you therefore decide there must be nothing.
So where's your science?

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (16) Jun 23, 2013
] My response was clearly in context to a claim of May being an example of extended and unprecedented warming. There is no extended, or even unprecedented warming going on. Warming has been on hiatus for well more than a decade. And global temperatures have been much higher in the past. Ergo you took my response out of context.
No, dumdum, your response was clearly taken IN context, and applied exactly as you set it out. Your current waffling is only an attempt by you to backtrack, realizing you have been caught. You are lying and have been caught in the act. Ergo you are a liar.
Idiot. My response was purely in context to your statement regarding the month of May. If I had broader aspirations for it, I would have clearly elaborated this intent. Ergo, you are the liar.

And as djr and I have had extensive conversation on my opinions about warming and the current hiatus, djr's lie is particularly deplorable.

Howhot
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2013
When it's unusually warm in the summer, it's anthropogenic global warming.

When it's unusually cold in the winter, it's weather.


This is the stupidest statement I've seen from a denier on a post titled
MAY GLOBAL TEMPERATURES THIRD WARMEST ON RECORD
. A globe doesn't have summer or winter! Just typical of denier wingnut logic.

So where's your science?
On should ask, where is your brain? Was it sucked out by aliens leaving just a brain stem?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (15) Jun 23, 2013
the thing that is bothersome is the accusation that it is the defenders of the science that have blinders on and 'believe only what we want to believe' - when we are simply asking to let the science stand for what it is.
Then why do you deny the validity of any science which doesn't fit in with you preconceived ideals?

As I've pointed out above, AGWites will believe only what they want to believe. Empirical evidence to the contrary, simply doesn't phase them.

Reason seems lost on folks like Uba and Anti - it is probably not worth having protracted pissing matches - but taking a stand is important.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." ― Socrates

Howhot
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 23, 2013
So where's your science?

One should ask, where is your brain?! Was it sucked out by aliens leaving just a brain stem?

"my opinions about warming and the current hiatus," You have opinions? Opinions about warming and the current *NON* hiatus? I didn't thank a brain stem was capable of an opinion much less be capable of serious discussion on science and the implications of it's findings on the future of mankind's plight.

Look it's ubbatuba a talking brain stem! Haha.

Howhot
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2013
In reply to the tea party deniers rank and file like ubbatubba and menions, I can only site an ancient master Woo Fung Pu who quoted famous scientist Albert Einstein,

"He who joyfurry marches to music in rank and file has arready earned my contempt. He has been given a rarge brain by mistake, since for him the spinar cord would suffice."

antigoracle
1 / 5 (15) Jun 23, 2013
"Anti: I flushed the turd, but it is too ignorant to take the hint, and so it returns to spill it's filth."

I just spent a wonderful day at the Freethought conference here in Oklahoma City. I left the day very encouraged. What I really enjoyed is seeing that on the playing field of ideas - reason, science, and atheism win hands down - it is a slam dunk - no competition. When faced with such reason, and science, - people like anti revert to comments like those above. To me - it is a sign that they know they are becoming irrelevant - and they are grasping at straws.


That conference was obviously wasted on you, as you do need to have a brain to have thought.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2013
Idiot. My response was purely in context to your statement regarding the month of May. If I had broader aspirations for it, I would have clearly elaborated this intent. Ergo, you are the liar.

And as djr and I have had extensive conversation on my opinions about warming and the current hiatus, djr's lie is particularly deplorable
¸

Moron. You can't even coherently explain what "context" means. As the days go on you just get stupider, you must have a form of dementia. My only statement regarding May is its inclusion in the several decades long list ever higher monthly temperatures. You know, the warming you can't seem to decide if you want to believe in or not.

Lying liar. I think I'll change your handle to l^l. l^l the dumdum.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2013

That conference was obviously wasted on you, as you do need to have a brain to have thought.


Says the dumdum that lives in his parent's basement. Suffers from head-up-his-ass-itice, which is why his words are so muffled all the time.
Neinsense99
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2013
"You're essentially telling people to not bother researching and thinking and for themselves." - UbVonTard

Retards like yourself who don't know how to multiply or divide, simply don't have the mental ammunition to argue with mathematicians who do.

When a mathematician tells such a person that 5 * 6 = 30 , it is not rational for them to proclaim that they are free thinkers and entitled to their own opinions on what 5 * 6 really is.

They (you) done did dem researches and found on some TeaPublican Blog Dat sometimes 5*6 is 31 cause on Fridays the shape shifting aliens change the shape of the earth so that their UFO's can more easily reach their moon base at the center of the earth.

Moron -) UbVonTard -) Moron


I've been to that alien base in the center of the Earth. Great parties there. Whoohoo! ;)
Neinsense99
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2013
"Anti: I flushed the turd, but it is too ignorant to take the hint, and so it returns to spill it's filth."

I just spent a wonderful day at the Freethought conference here in Oklahoma City. I left the day very encouraged. What I really enjoyed is seeing that on the playing field of ideas - reason, science, and atheism win hands down - it is a slam dunk - no competition. When faced with such reason, and science, - people like anti revert to comments like those above. To me - it is a sign that they know they are becoming irrelevant - and they are grasping at straws.


Those would be oddly-thick, brown, smelly straws.
VendicarE
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2013
"Since our environment is at stake I believe these deniers should be held criminally responsible in the years to come. I hope names are being taken down. Especially in the Republican congress. Am I being too harsh?" - Mr Anderson

Not harsh at all. The penalty for treason is death. I will supply all the rope that is needed.
djr
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2013
Uba - it is the 24th comment on this thread - I will cut and paste the exchange. There is no other context it could relate to - it is the entire exchange.

"it is yet another month of the past few decades that show that there is extended and unprecedented warming over the whole of the Earth."

What warming?

It seems that you read different language from the rest of us. Clearly the question 'What warming?' is placed immediately after the statement - "it is yet another month of the past few decades that show that there is extended and unprecedented warming over the whole of the Earth." The question is asking 'what warming' - refering to 'extended and unprecedented warming over the whole of the earth?' It is clear that you were questioning the existence of extended and uprecedented warming. Perhaps that is not what you meant - in which case you need to go back to English 101, and learn about sentences and stuff.
djr
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2013
Anti: "That conference was obviously wasted on you, as you do need to have a brain to have thought."

Resorting to infantile comments does not make you look very intelligent - I guess no different than calling people turds. The conference was very encouraging - and I came away realizing that in the grand scheme of things - reason and science will overwhelm the kind of childishness that is demonstrated in this kind of comment. Insult away Anti - if it makes you feel better at other's expense - the loss is yours.
djr
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2013
djr: "Reason seems lost on folks like Uba and Anti - it is probably not worth having protracted pissing matches - but taking a stand is important.

Uba: "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." ― Socrates

"slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed."

I don't see that I told an untruth that will harm your reputation Uba. To say that reason seems lost on you seems to me an opinion - a statement regarding my perception of your writing - not slanderous at all....
VendicarE
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 23, 2013
Like All Republican liars UbVonTard seems to think that calling a liar, a liar is slander.

I call it honesty in labeling.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2013
In reply to the tea party deniers rank and file like ubbatubba and menions, I can only site an ancient master Woo Fung Pu who quoted famous scientist Albert Einstein,

"He who joyfurry marches to music in rank and file has arready earned my contempt. He has been given a rarge brain by mistake, since for him the spinar cord would suffice."
Racist much?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2013
You can't even coherently explain what "context" means.
con·text /ˈkäntekst/ Noun

1.The circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

My only statement regarding May is its inclusion in the several decades long list ever higher monthly temperatures. You know, the warming you can't seem to decide if you want to believe in or not.
There you go again, lying about, "ever higher monthly temperatures" again. The temperatures aren't getting "ever higher." In fact, they've been generally trending lower (cooloing) for more than a dozen years.

http://www.woodfo....3/trend

Maggnus = liar

Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2013
WHAT a GOOD BOY! Found a dictionary did you? Doesn't change the fact, dumdum, that your statement was taken by djr in exactly the context you presented it. Now, go look up "comprehension".

There you go again, lying about, "ever higher monthly temperatures" again. The temperatures aren't getting "ever higher." In fact, they've been generally trending lower (cooloing) for more than a dozen years.
*snip*
Maggnus = liar

Same old zombie argument using the same old cherry-picked data set. Go look up "duplicity".

Yep, l^l fits you perfectly.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 23, 2013
It seems that you read different language from the rest of us. Clearly the question 'What warming?' is placed immediately after the statement - "it is yet another month of the past few decades that show that there is extended and unprecedented warming over the whole of the Earth." The question is asking 'what warming' - refering to 'extended and unprecedented warming over the whole of the earth?' It is clear that you were questioning the existence of extended and uprecedented warming. Perhaps that is not what you meant - in which case you need to go back to English 101, and learn about sentences and stuff.
Idiot. Even though you failed to retain the context concerning the month of May, you just supported my argument that my response was about the false claim of "extended and unprecedented warming" and not about warming in general.

djr = lying and stupid

VendicarE
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 23, 2013
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

http://en.wikiped...ell_Them
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (14) Jun 23, 2013
I don't see that I told an untruth that will harm your reputation Uba. To say that reason seems lost on you seems to me an opinion - a statement regarding my perception of your writing - not slanderous at all....
To state that reason is lost on me is slander. The only time you ever tried reason, you ended up agreeing with me that waming has been on hiatus for more than a decade. Since then, you avoid reason in favor of pronouncements. What is it you're afraid of?

VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 23, 2013
"Racist much?" - UbVonTard

http://www.youtub...rwXWTRjM
VendicarE
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 23, 2013
Sad little UbVonTard. He is a congenital liar.

Just like every other Republican I have ever encountered.

You are a well known liar. That truth isn't slander Tardie Boy. The truth never is.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (14) Jun 23, 2013
WHAT a GOOD BOY! Found a dictionary did you? Doesn't change the fact, dumdum, that your statement was taken by djr in exactly the context you presented it.
Idiot. Even djr is now admitting it was in direct context to your false claim of "extended and unprecedented warming" and not about warming in general.

There you go again, lying about, "ever higher monthly temperatures" again. The temperatures aren't getting "ever higher." In fact, they've been generally trending lower (cooloing) for more than a dozen years.
*snip*

Maggnus = liar
Same old zombie argument using the same old cherry-picked data set. How is it cherry-picked? It's just a graph of the last dozen years of available data. So what global temperature data set would you use for the last dozen years?

Go look up "duplicity".
du·plic·i·ty /d(y)o͞oˈplisitē/ Noun

Deceitfulness; double-dealing. See: Maggnus

It included a picture I can only assume is you, but I couldn't paste it here.

djr
4.6 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2013
Uba - I am done with an extended pissing match - not interested. We can disagree - others can look at the thread and decide - it is not important - yes I think that reason is wasted on you.

What is it you're afraid of?

I am afraid of ignorace - people who can look at science - and declare that they know better. I stand by statement - in the grand scheme of things - reason and science will overwhelm ignorance.

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (15) Jun 23, 2013
WHAT a GOOD BOY! Found a dictionary did you? Doesn't change the fact, dumdum, that your statement was taken by djr in exactly the context you presented it.
Idiot. Even djr is now admitting it was in direct context to your false claim of "extended and unprecedented warming" and not about warming in general.

There you go again, lying about, "ever higher monthly temperatures" again. The temperatures aren't getting "ever higher." In fact, they've been generally trending lower (cooloing) for more than a dozen years.
*snip*

Maggnus = liar
Same old zombie argument using the same old cherry-picked data set.
How is it cherry-picked? It's just a graph of the last dozen years of available data. So what global temperature data set would you use for the last dozen years?

Go look up "duplicity".
du·plic·i·ty /d(y)o͞oˈplisitē/ Noun

Deceitfulness; double-dealing. See: Maggnus

It included a picture I can only assume is you, but I couldn't paste it here.

VendicarE
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2013
The temperatures aren't getting "ever higher." In fact, they've been generally trending lower (cooloing) for more than a dozen years.

Then why are global temperatures up since 2,000?

Isn't that more than a dozen years ago?

http://www.woodfo...00/trend

Why dishonestly cherry pic when the full data is available?

http://www.woodfo...om/trend

VendicarE
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2013
UbVonTard - "Even djr is now admitting " that you are a chronic liar.

Djr is finished with you. He has concluded that you are dishonest and a moron.

We all agree with him. You are worthless.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (15) Jun 23, 2013
WHAT a GOOD BOY! Found a dictionary did you? Doesn't change the fact, dumdum, that your statement was taken by djr in exactly the context you presented it.
Idiot. Even djr is now admitting it was in direct context to your false claim of "extended and unprecedented warming" and not about warming in general.

There you go again, lying about, "ever higher monthly temperatures" again. The temperatures aren't getting "ever higher." In fact, they've been generally trending lower (cooloing) for more than a dozen years.
*snip*

Maggnus = liar
Same old zombie argument using the same old cherry-picked data set.
How is it cherry-picked? It's just a graph of the last dozen years of available data. So what global temperature data set would you use for the last dozen years?

Go look up "duplicity".
du·plic·i·ty /d(y)o͞oˈplisitē/ Noun

Deceitfulness; double-dealing. See: Maggnus

It included a picture I can only assume is you, but I couldn't paste it here.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (15) Jun 23, 2013
The temperatures aren't getting "ever higher." In fact, they've been generally trending lower (cooling) for more than a dozen years.

Then why are global temperatures up since 2,000?
Because that's not a dozen years (duh). And, that depends on the temperature data set you use. Here's the last 13 years of data from the data set which AGWites were perfectly happy with until it took a downturn:

http://www.woodfo....2/trend

Isn't that more than a dozen years ago?
Reductio ad absurdum

Or maybe you think it's logical to go back to the beginning of the cosmos then. Surely you don't think the temperatures are higher now than during the Big Bang, do you?

But no one should really expect a spambot, like Vendispambot, to have anything approaching common sense. LOL

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (17) Jun 23, 2013
Uba - I am done with an extended pissing match - not interested. We can disagree - others can look at the thread and decide - it is not important
You've said this before. I can only hope it's true this time (likely not, judging from experience).

yes I think that reason is wasted on you.
Only because your level of reasoning is relatively low.

What is it you're afraid of?
I am afraid of ignorace - people who can look at science - and declare that they know better.
Uh, does it occur to you that scientists have often been wrong, and in fact relish finding errors in the consensus? This is where new science begins.

I stand by statement - in the grand scheme of things - reason and science will overwhelm ignorance.
I hope so.

djr
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2013
Uh, does it occur to you that scientists have often been wrong, and in fact relish finding errors in the consensus? This is where new science begins.

I sat through a fantastic lecture yesterday by Dr. Lawrence Kraus - who said "almost everything I have ever written about science - turned out to be wrong" Yes Uba - I understand that scientists can be wrong. kraus also said that this does not give an individual the right to declare that they know more than science. He talked about the process of peer review, and how that is just a step on the process of knowledge becoming accepted into the body of science - at which time it is always up for re-evaluation.

Again - all of this does not give you or I the right to declare that we know better than science. Yes - I feel that reason is wasted on you - and we can disagree on who has the highest level of reasoning - it is totally not important.
VendicarE
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2013
Warming

"What Warming?" - UbVonTard

Several hours later...

"I've never denied that we've had some warming." - UbVonTard

Liar... Liar... Pants on Fire....

Neinsense99
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2013
"Since our environment is at stake I believe these deniers should be held criminally responsible in the years to come. I hope names are being taken down. Especially in the Republican congress. Am I being too harsh?" - Mr Anderson

Not harsh at all. The penalty for treason is death. I will supply all the rope that is needed.

Made from previously banned hemp, I suppose?
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (14) Jun 23, 2013
"I always flush turds" - Anti-Gore-Tard

Isn't that Americans did to the TeaPublican movement during the last election cycle?

Poor Tardieboy. He deserves no respect.... He gets no respect...


I flushed the turd, but it is too ignorant to take the hint, and so it returns to spill it's filth.

Time for you to get your mommy to change your diaper and wipe the feces from your mouth.
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (14) Jun 23, 2013
"Anti: I flushed the turd, but it is too ignorant to take the hint, and so it returns to spill it's filth."

I just spent a wonderful day at the Freethought conference here in Oklahoma City. I left the day very encouraged. What I really enjoyed is seeing that on the playing field of ideas - reason, science, and atheism win hands down - it is a slam dunk - no competition. When faced with such reason, and science, - people like anti revert to comments like those above. To me - it is a sign that they know they are becoming irrelevant - and they are grasping at straws.

That conference was obviously wasted on you, as you do need to have a brain to have thought.

You lack the humour to be entertaining, the knowledge to be informative, and have all the charm and attraction of a deceased rat which suffered from leprosy and incontinence.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2013
Look Uba Dumdum, another headline trying to scare you poor simple folk. Where are the physics here Dumdum? That explanation of yours coming soon, cause all these headlines are starting to convince me that maybe, just maybe, you don't have a bloody clue!

Well Dumdum, when is that explanation coming?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (13) Jul 03, 2013
Look Uba Dumdum, another headline trying to scare you poor simple folk. Where are the physics here Dumdum? That explanation of yours coming soon, cause all these headlines are starting to convince me that maybe, just maybe, you don't have a bloody clue!

Well Dumdum, when is that explanation coming?
LOL. So you admit you've fallen for the alarmist headlines.

Why don't you do a little research? You'd quickly realize that to say, "May global temperatures third warmest on record" simply means that it's cooler than before, and they've cherry picked one month, and tried to add false significance to it.

Seriously, if I picked one particularly cold month to point out, would you suddenly believe the world is cooling?

Maggnus = Dumdum.

deepsand
3.2 / 5 (13) Jul 03, 2013
UTuba lacks the humour to be entertaining, the knowledge to be informative, and has all the charm and attraction of a deceased rat which suffered from leprosy and incontinence.