I posted the latest global warming data released by the Met (the UK national weather service) with little commentary except for noting the fact that global temperatures over the last 130 years has increased 0.75 degrees Celsius.
The linked Daily Mail article accurately reported and covered that story, correctly making the observation that the latest global temperatures released by the Met, and which many thought would show a steady increase from the last 6 months, in fact showed a dramatic cooling, so much so that when global warming temperatures were averaged out over the last 16 years, it is factually correct to state that there has been no increase in global warming during that period.
Like Pavlov's dogs, dorbel and ah_clem reacted in a conditioned reflex to my post and the ringing of the "global warming" bell, mindlessly running around in a frenzy and salivating over food that was not there.
Neither I nor the Daily Mail have claimed global warming has stopped and I intentionally noted in my original post here it is a fact that in the last 130 years, the earth has warmed 0.75 degrees Celsius. So what part of this do not dorbel and ah_clem understand?
Being true scientists (sarcasm intended) dorbel and ah_clem have a hypothesis that global warming will increase at a certain point in the future and when it does not increase at that certain point as predicted, rather than develop a new hypothesis or question their "global warming is always increasing" they lie and smear anyone who challenges those assumptions by mischaracterizing them.
dorbel confidently barks in all directions:
Simplistic beyond belief, which broadly sums up Daily Mail reportage actually!To cherry-pick a 14 year segment to support the "global warming has stopped" argument is statistically nonsense.
And Ah_clem joins the Pavlovian yapping:
The oldest trick in the book for misrepresenting data is cherry-picking the endpoints. the late 90's had a historically high temperatures, so if you put your starting point there, you get no increase. Of course this is dishonest, but par for the course for "skeptics".
This following concluding quote from the Daily Mail article shows just how poor dorbel's and ah_clem's English reading comprehension ability actually is or perhaps like Pavlov's dogs they are salivating over food that is not there because their brains are so conditioned to do so when the bell rings:
"The most depressing feature of this debate is that anyone who questions the alarmist, doomsday scenario will automatically be labelled a climate change ‘denier’, and accused of jeopardising the future of humanity.
So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed – a conclusion with enormous policy implications."
This should suffice to show dorbel and ah_clem are not quite telling the truth and that they are greatly disappointed that the last reading of global temperatures did not show an alarming increase.
As dorbel and ah_clem are unhappy that the latest global warming data is so low and temperatures did not rise as many had predicted they have attempted to smear the Daily Mail by accusing them of dishonesty and in dorbel's grandiose and foolish words, label their reporting "simplistic beyond belief."
Remember, both dorbel and ah_clem have claimed the Daily Mail, as well as myself, have said that global warming has stopped and that we are, to use ah_clems slur, "dishonest skeptics", when in matter of fact I acknowledge global temperatures have risen 0.75 degrees Celsius in the last 130 years and the Daily Mail reporter actually goes a step further and states "global warming is real."
So dorbel and ah_clem are not telling the truth.
And they are not upset that for the last 16 years global warming has not increased, they are upset that the last set of numbers show no increase and so are desperately hoping the next global warming numbers show a dramatic increase. Of course this is probably not true, but the obvious question I have is how many billions in government funding will they lose for their pet projects if their is no increase in the coming years?
Both dorbel and ah_clem, in a typical Pavlovian conditioned response to the stimuli of "global warming", also salivated and ran barking around looking for the purported but not existent cherry picking of global warming data.
From dorbel this nonsensical gem:
. . . . To cherry-pick a 14 year segment to support the "global warming has stopped" argument is statistically nonsense.
And ah_clem opines:
The oldest trick in the book for misrepresenting data is cherry-picking the endpoints.
In this particular instance where for the past 16 years there has been no increase in global warming and these comprise the last 2 endpoints, the last endpoint being still open ended, it is impossible, by definition, to cherry pick anything because the last end point is still open.
If in the next 10 or 20 years there still has been no increase in global warming, dorbel and ah_clem will still be barking about cherry picking endpoints while praying every year for a record global heat wave so they can finally get lucky and claim there actually is an endpoint.
Global warming alarmist ah_clem, in a spectacular display of self-evisceration, is determined to throw himself upon his sword:
. . . the late 90's had a historically high temperatures, so if you put your starting point there, you get no increase. Of course this is dishonest, but par for the course for "skeptics".
ah_clem suffers from the same reading comprehension disorder that has affected dorbel and snidely tells us the Daily Mail article, and ostensibly myself as well, are being dishonest because of the high temperatures in the 90's which he thinks are not being mentioned, while all along the Daily Mail has been straightforward with the data, taking into account the high temperatures in the late 1990's, explaining precisely what has transpired:
"The new figures mean that the 'pause' in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996.
The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.
This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.
Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased."
Since ah_clem charges that being dishonest is par for the course for "skeptics", which presumably means anyone that is not a Pavlovian salivating global warming alarmist dog, it is only fitting that he now commit intellectual seppukku after issue a formal apology for besmirching the honor of the Daily Mail and myself.
What is baffling to me is how does a 1900 backgammon player suddenly start thinking like a 1300 novice.