Accuracy in Media

Al Gore and Michael Mann were laughed off the stage – again – for claiming this winter’s cold and snowy weather, in fact, strengthens the case that global warming is a real and present danger. Shortly thereafter, a study was published that suggests the Earth will become a “DESERT” by 2050 if global warming isn’t stopped.”

A sentence early in a story from The Mirror draws the map for where its story was headed.

“Over 25 percent of Earth will start experiencing the effects of ‘aridification’ by the year 2050 if humans don’t meet the changes proposed by the Paris climate agreement,” it said. “The study claims that if the Earth’s average temperature goes up by 2 degrees Celsius over the next 32 years, the planet will start to become a desert.”

According to NOAA, temperatures are rising .097 degrees Fahrenheit per decade, meaning they will rise less than 1 degree Fahrenheit over the next century, barring any technological advance.

Even more fortunately, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which had predicted in 2007 that drought would increase water stress for up to 250 million people on Earth, came back six years later and acknowledged this was probably not going to happen.

Roy Spencer, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, brought up two huge problems with the theory. It’s not going that way now, he said, and it wouldn’t go that way even if the Earth did heat up 2 degrees Celsius in the next 32 years.

“And yet satellites have been measuring global greening over the last few decades, especially in semi-arid areas,” Spencer wrote. “Sheesh. The headline is also dishonest … it would be physically impossible. All of that evaporated water from the ocean … none of it will fall on land, huh?”

There’s also the matter of such apocalyptic predictions going wrong. In 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted emissions of greenhouse gases would drive up the temperature by 0.3 degrees per decade. Since then, the rate has been 0.12 degrees.

In 2010, a NOAA scientist predicted we would get more hurricanes and they would be more severe, with the worst storms doubling in frequency. In fact, 2017 marked the end of one of the longest droughts in strong hurricane U.S. landfalls in the last 200 years. Its predictions on increased thunderstorm and storm severity also have been reduced to “low confidence” status.

In 2001, we were warned to watch out for increased fires associated with global warming and the effects they could have on ecosystems. But the total burned each year declined by 24 percent from 1998 to 2015.

A variety of academics have predicted the end of ice in the Arctic Ocean. It was supposed to end by 2007, one said, 2008 said another and 2012 still another. September Arctic sea ice extent has not decreased since 2007.

Still others, led by former NASA scientist James Hansen, predicted global warming would lead to melting and dislodging ice covers in West Antarctica, which could lead to a worldwide rise in sea level of 15-20 feet. In fact, since 1993, sea level has risen a total of three inches.

The worst had to be the casualty predictions. John Holdren, who served as President Obama’s science adviser, predicted in 1987 that global-warming-caused famine could kill as many as a billion people. He doubled down on that in 2009, saying we still could reach that grisly goal by 2020.

But things are going the other way. There was a 42 percent reduction in the number of hungry and undernourished people from the early ‘90s till 2014. The world produces more than enough food to feed everyone, and fewer people as a percentage of the population go hungry than ever before.




Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Anytime somebody presents a crisis that is supranational in scope, requiring a world body to tax and regulate sovereign nations, the response ought to be “I am not that gullible.”

  • Clearlysane

    The best way to put honesty back into the climate change debate is to quit awarding government grants to study the effects of climate change. You can’t get a grant if your findings are contrary to the premise. The process is poisoned with a political agenda and human nature is responding with greed.

  • samo war
  • TED

    Reducing CO2 and other pollutants in the atmosphere and on the ground worldwide … and significantly punishing the polluters … makes sense to all reasonable and generally well-informed people. Period.

  • Desertphile

    The media told the truth about a demonstrable fact? Oh, how *DARE* they?!

  • Desertphile

    appears mental

  • AndRebecca

    Ah, you must be against the dictators at the U.N. controlling everything and using your money to do it.

  • The claim that temperatures are rising at 0.097 degrees F is a gross understatement,. Also it was posted by GWDenier Anthony Watts and not NOAA. For the last 47 years (Starting with 1970), the least squares global warming rate has been 0.32 degrees F per decade. For northern hemisphere land areas (where most of us live), the warming rate has been 0.57 degrees F per decade. (5.7 degrees F per century).

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    “Dictatorship can be established only by a victory of socialism in different countries or groups of countries,” after which there would be federal unions of the various groupings of these socialist countries, and the third stage would be an amalgamation of these regional federal unions into a world union of socialist nations. – Communist International

    European Union, South American Union, African Union, etc

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    I am not that gullible!

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Provided they choose the information that supports their narrative.

  • AndRebecca

    Oh, you don’t think the dictators at the U.N. are behind the climate change scare? They claim to be behind it.

  • AndRebecca

    And the North American Union.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    As always, AndRebecca, I am preaching to the choir.

  • Betty Capps

    A lot of people are so gullible. They will not question what someone tells them. The sources for global warming are becoming quite wealthy by providing facades of what they want you to believe. Take for instance: The ice packs breaking off due to the global warming. Hate to tell you this, but although that part is true; this has been happening for years in ONE section only, the other areas are maintaining or growing in size. The polar bears floating on ice chunks are shown to make you think they have to more place to live due to the global warming. In fact, this happens quite often and polar bears are good swimmers, and notice how close the photographers are to these ice chunks. The animals are NOT in danger. These are facades to trick your eye and knowledge. Global warming is the exact opposite of the Ice Age…it has been going on for millions of years.

  • Earl Decker

    BillD314-There is no way to measure a global temperature. All that has been measured is few temperature data locations compared to the entire earth . The temperatures measure have been adjusted, interpolated & finagled many times. All you have are estimates of global temperature & least squares means nothing with incomplete & faulty temperature data. I am not a scientists but I do extensive research in the work of real scientists & know just how these fake AGW ones come up with their spurious claims.

  • Earl Decker

    TED-Reducing pollutants in the environment (land, oceans , lakes , rivers & atmosphere ) makes common sense, but if you believe that CO2 is a pollutant you are not scientific literate. FYI-CO2 is a necessary substance for all life to exist. All life consists of C (Carbon) & O (oxygen). All plants utilize CO2 for growth & CO2 is a plant fertilizer that enhances photo-synthesis. More CO2 & more warmth enhances greater plant growth permitting more food source for all other life forms. Polluters are already punished by the EPA for their pollution .Did the EPA punish their self after releasing toxic chemicals into the Colorado river & polluted the waters & killed many fish & water life that the Indians fished & lived on?

  • Dano2

    CO2 is indeed a pollutant. The courts have ruled such.

    And CO2 is not fertilizer. You were duped.

  • Dano2
  • Dano2

    Almost every word here is false.

  • Earl Decker

    Dano2- The courts are not scientists & scientists & chemists are the ones that classify substances , compounds, elements , atoms , electrons, protons, elementary particles & quarks. Anything that enhances plant growth is a fertilizer. you are an idiot & scientific illiterate as are the courts.

  • Dano2

    1. The courts used science to determine plootint.

    2. You learn in second week BOT 101 what is a fertilizer. CO2 is not one.

    Educate yourself.

  • Earl Decker

    Dano2-Prove it liar.

  • Dano2

    Actually, these are your claims. They are your burden of proof. The rules haven’t changed in 2300 years.

  • Earl Decker

    Dano2- What is “plootint” silly? That must be a new name for pollutant. Ever use spell check.? That is taught in grade school grammar class. All life consists of carbon, oxygen , nitrogen , hydrogen & many other elements essential for life processes.> My definition of CO2 as a fertilizer is more accurate than your definition of CO2 as a pollutant.

  • Dano2

    CO2 is onea them thar plootints. You are wrong.

    CO2 is not a fertilizer. You are wrong.

    Sorry.

  • Who Me??

    ANYTIME that someone or some group has assigned a date to their agenda, the FACTS and DATA have historically proven them incorrect. Let them blather on, but as soon as they assign a date LAUGH THEM OFF THE STAGE. They might have better luck predicting the rapture! I’m still paying off my support of the global freeze from the 70’s. Bstards

  • NonPCconservative

    In science, anybody trying to falsify a claim is expected to provide evidence to support their assertion. Liberal rules of argument do not apply since what we are dealing with are facts, not opinions or feelings.

    Now provide the evidence or admit you are simply making baseless claims.

  • Dano2

    Exactly. I’m still waiting for Earl to back his claims. He never does.

  • Dano2

    Another comedian making us LOLz about the comin’ ice age!

    Hoot!

  • NonPCconservative

    I inject CO2 into my aquarium for use by plants. Many hothouses also use CO2 to benefit the plants. You could look it up but you would need to get the spelling close to get an actual result so I will provide a link which also deals with a subject dear to liberal hearts.

    http://www.ilovegrowingmarijuana.com/carbon-dioxide-generators-marijuana/

  • Dano2

    The earth doesn’t inject CO2 into the atmosphere to make plants grow better.

    Tiny problem with your…er…”logic” there.

  • NonPCconservative

    Actually it does. Man’s contribution to total CO2 is less than 4% of the overall CO2 emissions. Some of the natural CO2 comes from respiration but the vast majority of it comes from the decay of vegetation, which also releases more “traditional” fertilizers.

    Please get the facts before applying your “logic”.

  • NonPCconservative

    As you are the one trying to falsify the claims, the onus is on you, not Earl. Earl’s description was accurate, but did not go far enough.

  • Dano2

    I’m not trying to do anything, I pointed out the claims were false.

    If Earl wants to back his claims, he can. He never does.

  • Dano2

    Man’s contribution to total CO2 is less than 4% of the overall CO2 emissions.

    You were duped – likely because you never had a science class.

    The increase of CO2 from 280ppmv to 410 ppmv is all from man.

    That is 100%.

  • NonPCconservative

    Please read some real science before spreading your abject idiocy here.

    If anybody has been duped it is you. I have a master’s degree (with distinguished honors) in a scientific discipline. I think I understand science better than most so you can cut out your assumed superior attitude. How many science classes did you take?

  • NonPCconservative

    AKA trying to falsify his claims. You need help with reading comprehension so that you will be able to understand anything you read about science.

    Is English your second language?

  • Dano2

    I need no help with reading comprehension. You do. Maybe your cognitive abilities aren’t up to the task and you lack ability to think this through.

    Nonetheless, this is all you are getting, to show how easy it is to understand why poor hapless Earl is running away and not backing his claims – because his claims are false, here’s the very first ludicrous claim:

    There is no way to measure a global temperature

    Aside from the fact that temperatures are measured across the globe on land and in the atmosphere, derived from satellites, and thus the italicized is on its face laughable, Poor bumbling Earl apparently doesn’t know that the planet’s temperature is measured across the globe.

    HTH

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ff2c278c7897f1d5c24b3263e56b2a4fe61c14ea799ea65936b0f423848ad570.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dab8628ffa3be7a531be5d7f211a6f6217d6ae55e95faa0e71404d8eb3ed3ca3.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/687e9d34688a47f4f9a5a7b29e606d56321b7d46a247444f3e29eab4a64bd1ac.png

  • Dano2

    Thanks for the link to a non-science site amongst your hand-flapping.

    Your job is to refute the assertion that 100% of the increase in CO2 from 280 ppmv to 410 ppmv is from man.

    Linking to a disinformation blog that quotes the finding from a paper that shows terrestrial systems can absorb some of man’s emissions isn’t showing that natural systems have contributed to the increase in the carbon fraction of the atm.

    So. You want to link to a paper (not on LoWatts, but at a real science site) that shows that some, part, most, or all of the increase in the atm fraction is from natcheril causes, even though man emits Gt of C into the atm annually.

    Can you handle that?

    Do try.

  • Dano2

    BTW, poor bumbling NonPCconservative links to a disinformation site that cherry-picks data to dupe the reader:

    And… There’s no evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused any warming in the last decade…
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/952ac2013b2fb43b6b994d1fe2a80c73d2b3df4953a9992dd12663d65601683a.png
    That’s such a blatant cherry-pick that it gets a flag for personal foul, 15 yards!

  • NonPCconservative

    Gee thanks, Dumbo . . . er Dano. So in order to have any belief in the data it has to be published on a Global Warming Alarmist website. How cute.

    What is the answer to the pop quiz? Calculator not working?

    Now a very brief (and necessarily simple considering the audience) refutation of your alarmist BS. The alarmists tell us that by using fossil fuels we are adding enormous amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. Hint . . . FOSSIL fuel. This means that it was originally atmospheric, converted by plants and eaten or simply accumulated and covered over to be later dug up or drilled into. It is essentially naturally captured carbon.

    You need to understand that the carbon on Earth is all natural. We are not importing any from other planets. For their to be substantial beds of carbon based fossil fuels would have required an enormous amount of atmospheric CO2 to be available and scientists have found that atmospheric carbon was at least 1,000 ppm (which is exactly one thousandth, should give you a clue to find that pop quiz answer).

    The assertions made by the AGW alarmists are that the increase in CO2 so far have been drastic and that any further increase will be catastrophic. Since we know that at 1,000 ppm the world did not end we have nothing to worry about in the foreseeable future, unless you believe in the AGW alarmist’s computer models more than empirical evidence.

    Some unscrupulous people caused consternation simply to advance their political causes by claiming that man was causing catastrophic climate change. In this they were helped by the fact that the ability to reason has been replaced by the need to emote in many people today. Case in point: Dano2. Atmospheric CO2 is about 400 ppm. It is always quoted that way because if the average person was told that 0.04% of the atmosphere, of which man contributes 3%, they would switch off immediately. Even argon is 23 times more common than CO2 in the atmosphere.

  • disqus_Johntcat

    Will Climate Change mean the extinction of White People?

  • NonPCconservative

    Satellite data gets a makeover to show warming.

    https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22720-global-warming-satellite-data-gets-suspicious-makeover

    NOAA radiosondes show no warming for 58 years. Data now presented with big changes.
    https://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/noaa-radiosonde-data-shows-no-warming-for-58-years/

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/52de3787ca1c780ff0df660bbb0d451e3caef8592d3609a3676e20cb5a926a56.png

    2011 released data shows the ice age scare from the ’60s and ’70s

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13e84f88baa5d43b53a16d99654e9b0a9ce036410fbbdc6667ff6db857169576.png

    Newly released data (2016) shows a completely different picture, using the same base data to 2011. The red line shows the difference trend.

    Not simply cherry picking, this is flat out falsification.

  • NonPCconservative

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm

    “Discussions on global warming often refer to ‘global temperature.’ Yet
    the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an
    impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr
    Institute, University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in
    collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of
    Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada.”

    Aren’t you glad you are so much smarter than those idiots? Don’t be too glad, it’s all in you imagination.

  • Dano2

    Thanks.

    100% of the increase is from man.

  • NonPCconservative

    How about a single shred of evidence?

  • Dano2

    A non-science site and the site of The Stupidest Disinformer on the Planet, one that even LoWatts won’t touch.

    Aren’t you precious.

    No wonder you blather.

  • Dano2

    empirically determined that the increase in CO2 is from man, and that these emissions warm the earth:

    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf
    https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/drafts/fgd/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter10.pdf
    http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap18_FINAL.pdf

    The history of it all, in one place, with many links for verification and education:

    https://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

    Experiments confirming all this:

    Feldman, D.R. 2015. Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010. Nature 519 pp. 339–343.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

    Press release explaining results: http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

    Philipona et al 2004. Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the
    increasing greenhouse effect. Geophys Res Lett 31: L03202, 4 pp. doi:10.1029/2003GL018765

    Griggs and Harries 2004. Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present. Proc. SPIE 5543, Infrared Spaceborne Remote Sensing XII. doi: 10.1117/12.556803

    You have nothing to refute this fact. Nada. Nil. Null set. Nichts. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Jack. Bupkis. Squat. Diddly.

  • NonPCconservative

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/abs_temp.html

    “Q. If SATs cannot be measured, how are SAT maps created?

    A. This can only be done with the help of computer models, the same
    models that are used to create the daily weather forecasts. We may
    start out the model with the few observed data that are available
    and fill in the rest with guesses (also called extrapolations)
    and then let the model run long enough so that the initial
    guesses no longer matter, but not too long in order to avoid
    that the inaccuracies of the model become relevant. This may be
    done starting from conditions from many years, so that the
    average (called a ‘climatology’) hopefully represents a typical
    map for the particular month or day of the year.”

  • Dano2

    Send this ten-year-old article, by non-climate scientist and debunked ten years ago, to all the metro organizations on the planet. They are reporting a global average temperature (anomaly).

    They need your help correcting their errors. Only you can save the world!

  • Dano2

    Look at this ignoramus:

    a real science site = a Global Warming Alarmist website

    You’re a very special boy.

    Yes you are! You are special!

    *pat pat*

  • NonPCconservative

    Funny how they agree with NASA. I guess you are simply too smart to fall for their “debunked” claims. Of course the fact that McKitrick is famous for his debunking of AGW alarmist claims would make him an object of scorm from a kool-aid swiller like you. I guess you don’t want to touch the NASA part, it might upset one of your deities, James Hansen.

  • NonPCconservative

    So you simply claim that it is a “non-science site” and disregard any evidence presented unless it agrees with you. Nice argument. Shame it isn’t realistic and very far from real. Debunk it for me.

    You are not precious. The only thing precious about you is that you have precious little in the way of intelligence. I would consider blather a relief rather than the completely close-minded ignorance you seem to suffer from.

    Now go away and read your IPCC reports. Don’t read all the science, some of it may not be up to scratch. Just stick with the executive summaries. They are much more soothing for your fevered brain. Both your brain cells will be happier for it.

  • NonPCconservative

    Sure. And the hockey stick is real.

    The cold weather we are having is due to global warming. An extreme winter is just weather but any increase in temperature is climate.

    Thanks for coming. Don’t let the door hit you on your way out. Or do, I really don’t care.

  • Dano2

    Goddard/Heller’s website is a disinformation site. It is not worthy of being read by civil society.

    Don’t have a sads that civil society doesn’t waste its time on such sites.

  • NonPCconservative

    Except that the forcing of CO2 happened during the warming pause, you know, the one that “real” climate scientists discussed the need to hide.

    I see you have a lot of words for nothing. I guess that you learned them when people asked if you had any intelligent thoughts. You need to get it right though. The correct term for your last two words is “diddly squat”. often shortened to just “diddly” by the uneducated or lazy, never heard “squat” used to denote nothing though, maybe it is from your hillbilly background.

    I notice that you haven’t given your qualifications. Do you have any or do you just go to the Al Gore approved websites and cut and paste?

  • Dano2

    They don’t agree with NASA at all.

    That is: NOAA, NASA, GISS, UKMet, JMA disagree with them. And you.

    You’ll get over it.

  • NonPCconservative

    They do on whether or not it is possible to measure the global temperature. That was the first bunch of BS you cut and pasted from your thoroughly debunked sites.

  • NonPCconservative

    I doubt whether you would make it in anything resembling a society. You have too high an opinion of yourself to consider that you are totally and completely wrong.

    Two questions. When was the climate perfect, according to your narrative? What is the proper amount of atmospheric CO2?

  • Dano2

    Again, let us know what these agencies say when you tell them they are doing it wrong.

  • Dano2

    during the warming pause

    Warmin paws! Drink!

    There are a half-dozen papers that find – via different methods and data – that there was no pause:

    1.,
    2.,
    3.,
    4.,
    10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00106.1″ title=”What will they do to make the bad feels go away?”>5.,
    6.,

    and the modeling? Some projected very well during this period:

    7.,
    8.,

    You won’t hear this on Breitbart or LoWatts, though.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/abdcdb88c6701487548fbd85c1b8fd8dc16fc10cfde7237730e3c2e4819d0301.jpg
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/33f94a92d45dce51d18e84f05eda808b436f969928ed0bc668a0b9dce40c75f3.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ba795e448a61bd5af5dc6976757798f220e86660c5c4fc853dc3f3686f03754f.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/300f01fc6eca3e2c7fd6b553b1f501e9a7bc0f6fca3199c7ab144239126f4d0c.jpg

  • NonPCconservative
  • Dano2

    Really.

  • NonPCconservative

    It just took them a long time to work out how to massage the data which obstinately refused to show any increase. Thus their dilemma and their need to discuss how to make the pause go away.

    Every respectable scientist simply admitted to the pause and that they didn’t understand why it happened but the hard liners in your religion couldn’t let it go. Too much money and prestige at stake plus they would never have kept gullible rubes like you on the hook if they had gone the respectable way.

  • Dano2

    the data which obstinately refused to show any increase.

    Bushit.

    You’ve been refuted on this 12 ways from Sunday.

    Are you too slow to grasp your parroted argument’s been refuted, or are you dishonesting?

  • Dano2
  • NonPCconservative

    Have you ever been called a pretentious ignoramus. Of course you have but you probably deluded yourself into thinking that the person making that obvious statement was not educated enough or didn’t agree with you so wasn’t worthy of your time. That is exactly what you do here. If it doesn’t fit your narrative you try to impeach the source without any hard evidence other than massaged data sets put out by those trying desperately to cover up how badly wrong they got it.

    We are in an inter-glacial period. Temperatures will rise for a while then decline, naturally and inevitably, toward the next cyclical ice age. You know, the ice age that many of today’s leading warmists tried to panic us about back in the 70s? Of course you remember, though you will never admit it.

  • NonPCconservative
  • NonPCconservative

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/80f875ebf6ac4fd87f2f75221b3c2711ab0044df013094e28f95a201e841cbba.gif

    Strange that none of the graphs produced by the warmists from their fraudulent temperature record looks anything like the 1975 National Academy of Sciences graph. Wonder why?

    Perhaps a thinking person wouldn’t bother posting any more graphs originating from the climate druids.

  • NonPCconservative

    Don’t you find it surprising that the fraudulent data set used to produce these graphs shows a two degree divergence from the actual satellite data which is the most reliable data set?

  • Dano2

    Um, because the chart you just gave is only of the N Hemisphere?

    Is this a trick question?

  • Dano2

    This is another gif from The World’s Stupidest Denialist, isn’t it?

    Look at your clown chart with the differing axes. Even LoWatts doesn’t want anything to do with this clown. But here you are, pasting clown charts.

  • Dano2

    You’re a liar: other than massaged data sets put out by those trying desperately to cover up how badly wrong they got it.

    You can’t show this is true. All you have is parroted talking points to prop up your self-identity.

  • Dano2

    o the fraudulent data set

    Liar. You can’t show fraudulent.

    o a two degree divergence from the actual satellite data which is the most reliable data set?

    The satellite people state the surface dataset is the most reliable.

    You really s*ck at this.

  • NonPCconservative

    Three differently dated graphs based on the same data showing big differences in trends is pretty good evidence of fraudulent behavior.

  • NonPCconservative

    The warmists’ own graphs showing wildly different trends with none of them even similar to an unbiased third party graph is now a parroted talking point. Okay. You are either being deliberately disingenuous or you are an idiot.

  • NonPCconservative

    You keep using the term, “The World’s Stupidest Denialist”. Please let us know who you think that is so that you can’t keep using the same tired claim.

    Warmist’s own charts, they are responsible for the differing axes. Many warmists don’t feel the need to share their base data, unlike real scientists, so the person who made the gif simply used the original charts from the warmists. He didn’t change the axes, they did.

    If these are clown charts it is the people you blindly follow who are the clowns.

  • NonPCconservative

    What, again, is your relevant education? Oh, that’s right, you just love to claim that the other people are unqualified while hiding the fact that your only qualification is being gullible enough to be duped by such obvious lies as this global warming claptrap.

    Hint: it was obvious to any person involved in science that it was a scam when they started the 97% BS.

  • Dano2

    That’s not showing.

    You can’t show.

  • Dano2

    Goddard/Heller is The World’s Stupidest Denialist.

    Willard Tony won’t go near him any more, and that’s a low bar.

  • Dano2

    That’s not showing.

    You can’t show.

  • NonPCconservative

    You can’t red a graph then. Goodbye. Go in peace and God bless.