there you go again with your retarded, denier talking points.
The hiatus :
Look at that shit, there's been 5 hiatus' since the 1970s!The hiatus :
1) Form hypothesis that there is no global warming.
2) Group data so that it proves the hypothesis.
3) When warming occurs, group data again to show that the warming has stopped.
4) Go to step 1 and repeat.
Both are wrong. 4 years of data is missing from the end of the graph and warming is slowing or stopping near the top edge of that graph.
136 years of data "isn't enough evidence" to conclude the climate is warming, but 4 years is enough to conclude that the climate is cooling
that must be why we just had the hottest two years on record.
I am not allowed to point out the graph is not current? And the argument is that the climate has been cooling for the last 10-15 years so yes, the last 4 years might be an issue as it is up to 40% of the timeline discussed.
was your point that it still shows rapid warming?
I said it would 'FLATTEN' the line. Go back and look it up. Draw a line from the bottom of the graph at 1970 to 2000 and you are looking at something close to 45 degrees. Your line is 20-30 degrees. The point is that the typical graph to prove we all are going to die is drawn from the most advantageous point in 1970 to the present to make it as scary as possible. Do I need to cut and paste the graph with a line from 1970 to today to show you the incline or will you simply admit by looking at the graph that I am right?
Does that line look flat to you?
Buck and I just posted two separate graphs beginning at 1880 and the line clearly ascends confirming warming. Fogdog's graph was to highlight how deniers point to cherry picked sets of data and go "see, hiatus!", not to make the reality look more dire than it actually is
My point was that the graph is commonly drawn from the 1970 timeline because it creates the steepest angle and the fastest rise in temperature. Buck is on ignore so I dont see shit of what he posts. Not worth reading any of it anyway.
I see a step function where the last step is unexpectedly shorter in height and longer in duration than those preceding it at a time of peak modern day CO2 levels. Why wouldn't that be worth questioning?The hiatus :
1) Form hypothesis that there is no global warming.
2) Group data so that it proves the hypothesis.
3) When warming occurs, group data again to show that the warming has stopped.
4) Go to step 1 and repeat.
So your argument against my claim that there is no "hiatus" in warming if you observe the entire history of collected data is "well some people only show the rise in temperature from the 1970s to make it look worse than it is!"...
Why is ~15 years of data enough to conclude cooling, but 136 years of data not enough to conclude warming?
