goodbye

spot wrote:
You win I lose I have better things then interact with you idiots. If I want a serious disscussion I wont come here.

Also Wake and I have had a private discussion, he says I am making threats. I will post the full disscusion here so people know what really happened.

From Wake
Date 14. September 2017, 22:59
Subject Off for a Holiday
Tell you what - when you get into the Oakland you can call me at ***-***-**** and I'll come right over and take care of you.

What in the hell does Pho have to do with anything? Every other block around here they have Pho restaurants you ignorant moron.

I really do look forward to hearing from you. A Brit telling us all about how the US should run things will really go good in person.

To Wake
Date 15. September 2017, 16:42
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
Funny, I'm going to be honest with you, I don't like you, but before this joke gets out of hand let me just say as one human being to another. Thereatang people you don't know and arranging to meet like kids after school seems to be self destructive, I might bring a gun or anything. Seek help, for your kids sake, seriously.
From Wake
Date 15. September 2017, 17:07
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
By all means bring a gun. You don't seem to understand US laws and I sure wouldn't mind you spending the next ten years learning them the hard way. American federal prisons are not the prissy little things you seem to think they are.

I suggest you get some serious help since YOU are the one that said you were coming here.

And believe me - without a gun you would go to a hospital. And with a gun you'd either be shot by a cop friend or discover what happens when you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Or perhaps you don't remember me saying that my best friend is a retired NCIS agent and my cousin has just retired as a police chief. Do you suppose for one second that I would trust a maniac like you to act like anything other than you are?

You know nothing and pretend to know all about climate change. It really gets to you that anyone can see through your facade.

To Wake
Date 15. September 2017, 18:07
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
Do your kids know that you are making these posts?

I'm not going to hurt you I'm not even going to try and meet you, I'm just saying you don't seem healthy and I don't see how offering people out over a scientific controversy this would end well for you if someone took you up on this, even if you came of physically better in the hypothetical encounter.

It Might end up in the news for people to laugh about.

"70 year old in gunfight with Brit in Oakland over dispute about climate change." Have you any idea how ridiculous this is?


From Wake
Date 16. September 2017, 15:30
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
Too bad I've already shown your message to them. They are like me and think that you meet a challenge head on. That if you were to pull a gun that a by standing observer would blow you away.

So by all means give me a call. You have my phone number and I'm more than anxious to meet someone like you. After all, I'm just a poor helpless 73 year old. Come and get me.


To Wake
Date 16. September 2017, 09:42
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
If I was going to bring a gun to our meeting I wouldn't tell you. I'm just trying to point out how this sort of thing can go wrong.

Show your kids or cop friends what you are doing ask them if it's wise.

This joke is over goodbye.
Close

From Wake
Date 16. September 2017, 15:30
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
Too bad I've already shown your message to them. They are like me and think that you meet a challenge head on. That if you were to pull a gun that a by standing observer would blow you away.

So by all means give me a call. You have my phone number and I'm more than anxious to meet someone like you. After all, I'm just a poor helpless 73 year old. Come and get me.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed:....as the climate begins to show it's true colors - cyclic behavior....

spot wrote:
You win I lose I have better things then interact with you idiots. If I want a serious disscussion I wont come here.

Also Wake and I have had a private discussion, he says I am making threats. I will post the full disscusion here so people know what really happened.

From Wake
Date 14. September 2017, 22:59
Subject Off for a Holiday
Tell you what - when you get into the Oakland you can call me at ***-***-**** and I'll come right over and take care of you.

What in the hell does Pho have to do with anything? Every other block around here they have Pho restaurants you ignorant moron.

I really do look forward to hearing from you. A Brit telling us all about how the US should run things will really go good in person.

To Wake
Date 15. September 2017, 16:42
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
Funny, I'm going to be honest with you, I don't like you, but before this joke gets out of hand let me just say as one human being to another. Thereatang people you don't know and arranging to meet like kids after school seems to be self destructive, I might bring a gun or anything. Seek help, for your kids sake, seriously.
From Wake
Date 15. September 2017, 17:07
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
By all means bring a gun. You don't seem to understand US laws and I sure wouldn't mind you spending the next ten years learning them the hard way. American federal prisons are not the prissy little things you seem to think they are.

I suggest you get some serious help since YOU are the one that said you were coming here.

And believe me - without a gun you would go to a hospital. And with a gun you'd either be shot by a cop friend or discover what happens when you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Or perhaps you don't remember me saying that my best friend is a retired NCIS agent and my cousin has just retired as a police chief. Do you suppose for one second that I would trust a maniac like you to act like anything other than you are?

You know nothing and pretend to know all about climate change. It really gets to you that anyone can see through your facade.

To Wake
Date 15. September 2017, 18:07
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
Do your kids know that you are making these posts?

I'm not going to hurt you I'm not even going to try and meet you, I'm just saying you don't seem healthy and I don't see how offering people out over a scientific controversy this would end well for you if someone took you up on this, even if you came of physically better in the hypothetical encounter.

It Might end up in the news for people to laugh about.

"70 year old in gunfight with Brit in Oakland over dispute about climate change." Have you any idea how ridiculous this is?


From Wake
Date 16. September 2017, 15:30
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
Too bad I've already shown your message to them. They are like me and think that you meet a challenge head on. That if you were to pull a gun that a by standing observer would blow you away.

So by all means give me a call. You have my phone number and I'm more than anxious to meet someone like you. After all, I'm just a poor helpless 73 year old. Come and get me.


To Wake
Date 16. September 2017, 09:42
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
If I was going to bring a gun to our meeting I wouldn't tell you. I'm just trying to point out how this sort of thing can go wrong.

Show your kids or cop friends what you are doing ask them if it's wise.

This joke is over goodbye.
Close

From Wake
Date 16. September 2017, 15:30
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
Too bad I've already shown your message to them. They are like me and think that you meet a challenge head on. That if you were to pull a gun that a by standing observer would blow you away.

So by all means give me a call. You have my phone number and I'm more than anxious to meet someone like you. After all, I'm just a poor helpless 73 year old. Come and get me.

[b]spot wrote: ITN is just annoying and trollish but Wake is on another level, as you can see, and possibly dangerous, I chose not to associate with such people.

James_ wrote:
Spot,
I've had the same problems with Wake and ITN. It is frustrating when some people have trouble staying on topic. I think even with scientists that they have problems as well because climate change is a lot more than just saying rising co2 levels.

spot wrote:
The science is still an important and interesting issue but this forum makes it impossible to discuss.

ITN is just annoying and trollish but Wake is on another level, as you can see, and possibly dangerous, I chose not to associate with such people.

litesong wrote:

[b]spot wrote: ITN is just annoying and trollish but Wake is on another level, as you can see, and possibly dangerous, I chose not to associate with such people.

I agree with spot. Many years ago, I surprisingly discovered that many AGW denier liar whiners were also bestial, a large percentage being racists. A larger percentage than humanly hoped, of THAT percentage were egotistically driven with wayward reasons to threaten AGW advocates. On other AGW denier liar whiner webcysts (no misspelling), I've seen many AGW advocates leave such webcysts because of threats.
AGW denier liar whiners have no community. As indicated, many AGW denier liar whiners disavow their humanity. Unlike spot & many AGW advocates tho, instead of leaving such webcysts, I often advertise the racism within AGW denier liar whiners. On rare occasions I write the very threats of AGW denier liar whiners, pouring glaring abundant limelight, instead of darkness, on the deepest threatening, racist non-existent souls.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
Spot,
I've had the same problems with Wake and ITN. It is frustrating when some people have trouble staying on topic. I think even with scientists that they have problems as well because climate change is a lot more than just saying rising co2 levels.

Define 'climate change' or 'global warming' without using circular definitions.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Define 'climate change' or 'global warming' without using circular definitions.

Posting with you is circular in and of itself because your ego is like a black hole. This is because no intelligence can radiate from it. All it does is to suck all intelligent thought from this forum because your philosophy only allows for your flawed logic.

Into the Night wrote:

litesong wrote:

[b]spot wrote: ITN is just annoying and trollish but Wake is on another level, as you can see, and possibly dangerous, I chose not to associate with such people.

I agree with spot. Many years ago, I surprisingly discovered that many AGW denier liar whiners were also bestial, a large percentage being racists. A larger percentage than humanly hoped, of THAT percentage were egotistically driven with wayward reasons to threaten AGW advocates. On other AGW denier liar whiner webcysts (no misspelling), I've seen many AGW advocates leave such webcysts because of threats.
AGW denier liar whiners have no community. As indicated, many AGW denier liar whiners disavow their humanity. Unlike spot & many AGW advocates tho, instead of leaving such webcysts, I often advertise the racism within AGW denier liar whiners. On rare occasions I write the very threats of AGW denier liar whiners, pouring glaring abundant limelight, instead of darkness, on the deepest threatening, racist non-existent souls.

Another mutual pat each other on the back society.

Okay...so we've established that:

spot is ticked off because he can't have a serious discussion about global warming as a science without getting called out for it.

James is ticked off because he can't stay on topic and blames any Outsider that happens to be around for it.

Litebeer is ticked off because he is being racist and blaming any Outsider that happens to be around for it, describing them as 'hate filled <usual litebeer language> racists that are out to get him'.

Wake is ticked off because I keep correcting him on his attempts to change theories of science and for his bad math, and for his occasional logic errors.

NONE of you guys have left the forum, as you ALL have promised you would do.

ALL of you are liars.

ALL of you are religious nuts that confuse religion and science...yes, I'm including YOU in that one, Wake!).



All of you threaten to leave here and go play in the kiddie pool somewhere. All of you have found that in posting here, you might get splashed in the face. All of you whine and cry like little children when it happens, and you go back to threatening to leave and go back to a kiddie pool somewhere.

GAWD what a bunch of lying whiners.

[b]Wake wrote:The other day I had $20 in my pocket and a homeless guy told me that he wanted a hamburger. So I got change and gave him $10. You know that guy probably needed a fix. And perhaps that fix he got was laced with fentanyl and killed that guy. And now I only have $2 on me after a cup of coffee and a scone. But that isn't what charity is about is it?

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Define 'climate change' or 'global warming' without using circular definitions.

Posting with you is circular in and of itself because your ego is like a black hole. This is because no intelligence can radiate from it. All it does is to suck all intelligent thought from this forum because your philosophy only allows for your flawed logic.

Can't do it, eh?

You would rather insult (a fallacy) and describe flawed logic (a fallacy, known as a fallacy fallacy).

All I am asking for is a definition by some other means than using the phrase itself.

The best I got out of anyone here is defining 'climate change' as 'global warming'. They still couldn't define 'global warming'.

The Church of Global Warming is a religion.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

litesong wrote:

[b]spot wrote: ITN is just annoying and trollish but Wake is on another level, as you can see, and possibly dangerous, I chose not to associate with such people.

I agree with spot. Many years ago, I surprisingly discovered that many AGW denier liar whiners were also bestial, a large percentage being racists. A larger percentage than humanly hoped, of THAT percentage were egotistically driven with wayward reasons to threaten AGW advocates. On other AGW denier liar whiner webcysts (no misspelling), I've seen many AGW advocates leave such webcysts because of threats.
AGW denier liar whiners have no community. As indicated, many AGW denier liar whiners disavow their humanity. Unlike spot & many AGW advocates tho, instead of leaving such webcysts, I often advertise the racism within AGW denier liar whiners. On rare occasions I write the very threats of AGW denier liar whiners, pouring glaring abundant limelight, instead of darkness, on the deepest threatening, racist non-existent souls.

Another mutual pat each other on the back society.

Okay...so we've established that:

spot is ticked off because he can't have a serious discussion about global warming as a science without getting called out for it.

James is ticked off because he can't stay on topic and blames any Outsider that happens to be around for it.

Litebeer is ticked off because he is being racist and blaming any Outsider that happens to be around for it, describing them as 'hate filled <usual litebeer language> racists that are out to get him'.

Wake is ticked off because I keep correcting him on his attempts to change theories of science and for his bad math, and for his occasional logic errors.

NONE of you guys have left the forum, as you ALL have promised you would do.

ALL of you are liars.

ALL of you are religious nuts that confuse religion and science...yes, I'm including YOU in that one, Wake!).



All of you threaten to leave here and go play in the kiddie pool somewhere. All of you have found that in posting here, you might get splashed in the face. All of you whine and cry like little children when it happens, and you go back to threatening to leave and go back to a kiddie pool somewhere.

GAWD what a bunch of lying whiners.

Not really the problem is your 73 year old mate wants to beat me up while his cop friends look on with guns just in case I get the upper hand in the encounter, you are just boring but if you want to think it's because I can't deal with your superior intelect that's fine.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Define 'climate change' or 'global warming' without using circular definitions.

Posting with you is circular in and of itself because your ego is like a black hole. This is because no intelligence can radiate from it. All it does is to suck all intelligent thought from this forum because your philosophy only allows for your flawed logic.

Can't do it, eh?

You would rather insult (a fallacy) and describe flawed logic (a fallacy, known as a fallacy fallacy).

All I am asking for is a definition by some other means than using the phrase itself.

The best I got out of anyone here is defining 'climate change' as 'global warming'. They still couldn't define 'global warming'.

The Church of Global Warming is a religion.

You've already stated that only you know anything. Myself, I do not think you are a good teacher. Maybe you should start giving us the correct answers so we will know what the correct answer is ?

Into the Night wrote:

The correct answer is there is NO definition for 'global warming' or 'climate change' that make any kind of sense. They are void arguments. Science has no theories based on void arguments, since no theory of any kind can exist on one. The only way these phrases have a definition at all is through a circular one.

James_ wrote:
The Arctic and Antarctic have different climates than the equatorial region of our planet. This is why they have different flora and fauna.

GasGuzler wrote:

James_ wrote:
The Arctic and Antarctic have different climates than the equatorial region of our planet. This is why they have different flora and fauna.

Um, you just made the argument that there is no global climate.

However, I do disagree with ITN here. There IS a global climate, which is the average of all weather. What is that average? No one has a clue due to lack of good data and the extreme variables over short distances. Even though I love your graph showing the lack of warming in this peak we are in, it is also based on flawed data. It is certainly a general idea, but not possibly accurate enough to claim any kind of precision in which to change our lives for.

James wrote:
What I stated is that there are different types of climates within our global climate.

GasGuzler wrote:

James_ wrote:
The Arctic and Antarctic have different climates than the equatorial region of our planet. This is why they have different flora and fauna.

Um, you just made the argument that there is no global climate.

However, I do disagree with ITN here. There IS a global climate, which is the average of all weather. What is that average? No one has a clue due to lack of good data and the extreme variables over short distances. Even though I love your graph showing the lack of warming in this peak we are in, it is also based on flawed data. It is certainly a general idea, but not possibly accurate enough to claim any kind of precision in which to change our lives for.

It comes down to a question of degree of accuracy. How much "faith" are you going to put into the accuracy that is available to us? I used to think we at least had a good handle on basic global temps....and I found out we don't. I then started researching only United States temps. Turns how there is a high variability of info just in the US. I then researched small areas, 10 recording stations within 200 miles. Again, extreme variability over decades of data.

ITN is right. "There is no way to determine the global temperature with any useful degree of accuracy".

GasGuzler wrote:
Mt knowledge of these satellites is limited. However I do believe it's fair say say I could give them some weight IF.......
1) We had another 50-100 years of data
2) I trusted the dirty politician making the mathematical "adjustments" for the dirty orbit.

Wake wrote:
Since this is day to day we don't need 50-100 years of data. That would only be significant for calculating climate.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

The correct answer is there is NO definition for 'global warming' or 'climate change' that make any kind of sense. They are void arguments. Science has no theories based on void arguments, since no theory of any kind can exist on one. The only way these phrases have a definition at all is through a circular one.

This is because you believe that only your opinion matters.

James_ wrote:
This means that you nullify, cancel out ie., void all people who are not you.

Nope. It means you can't define 'climate change'. You are evading and trying to blame me for your inability to define the phrase you depend on for all your arguments.

James_ wrote:
This gives you the status of being God. Are you ? If not then the flaw in your logic is that you do not allow for yourself to be wrong.

HAHAHAHAHA! It doesn't take a God to point out that you can't define 'global warming' or 'climate change'!

James_ wrote:
To show how easy it is to show the flaw in your philosophy,

No philosophy here. I am asking for a definition. I say you can't give one.

James_ wrote:
a graph about temperature change.

So you want to turn to using a graph of random numbers showing 'global warming' to define 'global warming'???

James_ wrote:
In your flawed logic you do not allow for Ice Ages or the peak warming period that marks the change in direction from warming to cooling.

Not using logic here either. I am asking you for a definition.

James_ wrote:
And this changes the climate as well.

So 'climate change' is defined as 'climate change'??? Nope. Circular definition.

James_ wrote:
The Arctic and Antarctic have different climates than the equatorial region of our planet.

This is why they have different flora and fauna.

James_ wrote:
Myself, I have always maintained the position that more research is needed. This is because there is much we do not know or understand about climate change.

Into the Night wrote:

Not my mate, dude. He's threatened to beat me up as well. Guess that's his way to deal with people...beat them into submission.

GasGuzler wrote:

Wake wrote:
Since this is day to day we don't need 50-100 years of data. That would only be significant for calculating climate.

I would trust it for a general trend, up or down, with a lot more years of data.....that's all I'm saying. What the satellites measure is way to variable for short term info.

GasGuzler wrote:

James_ wrote:
The Arctic and Antarctic have different climates than the equatorial region of our planet. This is why they have different flora and fauna.

Um, you just made the argument that there is no global climate.

However, I do disagree with ITN here. There IS a global climate, which is the average of all weather.

GasGuzler wrote:
What is that average? No one has a clue due to lack of good data and the extreme variables over short distances.

GasGuzler wrote:
Even though I love your graph showing the lack of warming in this peak we are in, it is also based on flawed data. It is certainly a general idea, but not possibly accurate enough to claim any kind of precision in which to change our lives for.

GasGuzler wrote:
It comes down to a question of degree of accuracy. How much "faith" are you going to put into the accuracy that is available to us? I used to think we at least had a good handle on basic global temps....and I found out we don't. I then started researching only United States temps. Turns how there is a high variability of info just in the US. I then researched small areas, 10 recording stations within 200 miles. Again, extreme variability over decades of data.

ITN is right. "There is no way to determine the global temperature with any useful degree of accuracy".

ITN wrote:
Okay...let's consider this line of thought:

What are you averaging? Temperature? Precipitation? Type of prevalent air mass movement? Cloud cover? Temperature variation? The effect of seasons? Air pressure? Wind speed and direction? Surface visual range? Type and frequency of storms?

GasGuzler wrote:

ITN wrote:
Okay...let's consider this line of thought:

What are you averaging? Temperature? Precipitation? Type of prevalent air mass movement? Cloud cover? Temperature variation? The effect of seasons? Air pressure? Wind speed and direction? Surface visual range? Type and frequency of storms?

All of it....and to get those averages accurately there would have to be recording stations like every 20 ft across the globe....and it would STILL be a question of accuracy. Think about the "climate" in your own home, which is regulated by thermostat. I have a well insulated 2004 built home and it can vary 2-3 degrees depending on which part of the house I'm in. How many recording stations in Antarctica? And Greenland?

And as has been shown a lake can stop a tornado dead in it's tracks. The heat needed to fuel it is removed.

with depleted ground water then the surface ground temperature can increase as well.

So what is it you want to discuss ? With your house it does have an average temperature. Place a thermometer in each room and record the temperature every 12 hours.

James_ wrote:

GasGuzler wrote:

James_ wrote:
The Arctic and Antarctic have different climates than the equatorial region of our planet. This is why they have different flora and fauna.

Um, you just made the argument that there is no global climate.

However, I do disagree with ITN here. There IS a global climate, which is the average of all weather. What is that average? No one has a clue due to lack of good data and the extreme variables over short distances. Even though I love your graph showing the lack of warming in this peak we are in, it is also based on flawed data. It is certainly a general idea, but not possibly accurate enough to claim any kind of precision in which to change our lives for.

I accept that we have Ice Ages and then a warming period between them. How is that making an argument for no global climate ? I did show a graph that shows we have global warming and cooling.

James_ wrote:
What I stated is that there are different types of climates within our global climate. And what does ITN say ?
>> The correct answer is there is NO definition for 'global warming' or 'climate change' that make any kind of sense. They are void arguments. Science has no theories based on void arguments, since no theory of any kind can exist on one. The only way these phrases have a definition at all is through a circular one. <<
It seems his philosophy does not allow for any understanding of our environment or of science.

GasGuzler wrote:
Adding to what I just said......

A few years back the only measurements needed for the global warming discussion was temperature. Now they would like to blame hot, cold, wind, rain, snow, floods, droughts, storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, and all weather events on global warming. So for any meaningful argument sake, they must provide all these numbers accurately. It should not be up to me or anyone else who enjoys the great tool of energy for the purpose of living comfortably. Yet Spot, who has not really said goodbye, wants me to run a landscape business on battery power. "if I learn to adapt, it should have no effect on my bottom line". Ha! Idiot. I will miss him if he decides it's too dangerous to post here due to the possibility of some dude in California flying over to England to rough him up a little over an air temperature disagreement.

Wake wrote:

GasGuzler wrote:

James_ wrote:
The Arctic and Antarctic have different climates than the equatorial region of our planet. This is why they have different flora and fauna.

Um, you just made the argument that there is no global climate.

However, I do disagree with ITN here. There IS a global climate, which is the average of all weather. What is that average? No one has a clue due to lack of good data and the extreme variables over short distances. Even though I love your graph showing the lack of warming in this peak we are in, it is also based on flawed data. It is certainly a general idea, but not possibly accurate enough to claim any kind of precision in which to change our lives for.

It comes down to a question of degree of accuracy. How much "faith" are you going to put into the accuracy that is available to us? I used to think we at least had a good handle on basic global temps....and I found out we don't. I then started researching only United States temps. Turns how there is a high variability of info just in the US. I then researched small areas, 10 recording stations within 200 miles. Again, extreme variability over decades of data.

ITN is right. "There is no way to determine the global temperature with any useful degree of accuracy".

It is fairly easy though not highly accurate to use satellite data to measure the emissions from Earth.

Wake wrote:
I say not highly accurate because the orbits of the satellites and the rotation of the Earth cause errors in measurement.

Wake wrote:

GasGuzler wrote:
Adding to what I just said......

A few years back the only measurements needed for the global warming discussion was temperature. Now they would like to blame hot, cold, wind, rain, snow, floods, droughts, storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, and all weather events on global warming. So for any meaningful argument sake, they must provide all these numbers accurately. It should not be up to me or anyone else who enjoys the great tool of energy for the purpose of living comfortably. Yet Spot, who has not really said goodbye, wants me to run a landscape business on battery power. "if I learn to adapt, it should have no effect on my bottom line". Ha! Idiot. I will miss him if he decides it's too dangerous to post here due to the possibility of some dude in California flying over to England to rough him up a little over an air temperature disagreement.

Global warming is about one thing - Mean Global Temperature. Not rain fall, not snowfall in the mountains, not the thickness of ice packs or any of the rest of that. Those are separate variables that they have tried to convince you are somehow connected to MGT.

Wake wrote:

GasGuzler wrote:
Mt knowledge of these satellites is limited. However I do believe it's fair say say I could give them some weight IF.......
1) We had another 50-100 years of data
2) I trusted the dirty politician making the mathematical "adjustments" for the dirty orbit.

Remember I said that we could measure the temperature via satellite. Since this is day to day we don't need 50-100 years of data. That would only be significant for calculating climate.

And I didn't say that we could trust NASA and NOAA to report it accurately. From the rest of their information I would strongly doubt that NOAA or NASA could be trusted with a lead pencil.

GasGuzler wrote:

ITN wrote:
Okay...let's consider this line of thought:

What are you averaging? Temperature? Precipitation? Type of prevalent air mass movement? Cloud cover? Temperature variation? The effect of seasons? Air pressure? Wind speed and direction? Surface visual range? Type and frequency of storms?

All of it....and to get those averages accurately there would have to be recording stations like every 20 ft across the globe....and it would STILL be a question of accuracy. Think about the "climate" in your own home, which is regulated by thermostat. I have a well insulated 2004 built home and it can vary 2-3 degrees depending on which part of the house I'm in. How many recording stations in Antarctica? And Greenland?

GasGuzler wrote:

Wake wrote:

GasGuzler wrote:
Adding to what I just said......

A few years back the only measurements needed for the global warming discussion was temperature. Now they would like to blame hot, cold, wind, rain, snow, floods, droughts, storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, and all weather events on global warming. So for any meaningful argument sake, they must provide all these numbers accurately. It should not be up to me or anyone else who enjoys the great tool of energy for the purpose of living comfortably. Yet Spot, who has not really said goodbye, wants me to run a landscape business on battery power. "if I learn to adapt, it should have no effect on my bottom line". Ha! Idiot. I will miss him if he decides it's too dangerous to post here due to the possibility of some dude in California flying over to England to rough him up a little over an air temperature disagreement.

Global warming is about one thing - Mean Global Temperature. Not rain fall, not snowfall in the mountains, not the thickness of ice packs or any of the rest of that. Those are separate variables that they have tried to convince you are somehow connected to MGT.

Agreed. However, when they try to use these extra things to support their theory, it is easily seen as a pot of boiling hooey.