[Truth To Power]

Utter BS. That argument, among actual scientists, ended over 20 years ago.

Only because dissenting views have been ruthlessly silenced.

No, the propaganda is pure Big Oil, esp. the Koch brothers. At least that's the way it is in the real world. What goes on in your hallucinations is a different matter.

No, your claims are just baldly false. In the real world, the corporate media give us all Greta all the time, and dissenting voices are silenced.

[late]

Only because dissenting views have been ruthlessly silenced.

There have been many "dissenting" papers. They don't survive peer review.

You are repeating statements that you have seen thoroughly debunked. Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation

[Truth To Power]

There have been many "dissenting" papers. They don't survive peer review.

By the little coterie of anti-CO2 hysteria propagandists who have been inserted into all the peer-reviewer slots...

You are repeating statements that you have seen thoroughly debunked. IOW, you're lying.

I have not seen them debunked. I have debunked the purported debunkings.

[Pants-of-dog]

The graph.

So you knowingly presented information that you knew was false as evidence?

Nope. Who is funding Michael Mann's uniformly unsuccessful lawsuits attempting to silence dissenting views? Who is paying for the massive anti-CO2 PR campaign and media attention to the non-event of climate? Who paid to get Greta Thunberg onto that UN podium that millions of other, more deserving voices would have given anything to have?

It's obviously not impossible. It's routine.

It is in the nature of conspirators to hide their activities.

....and you are still ignoring the argument about funding and instead are committing the logical fallacy called tu quoque.

Ah, actually, that is in line with the established average rate of sea level rise that dates from the end of the Little Ice Age 150 years ago, when CO2 was at the pre-industrial level. So the study actually confirms that CO2 is having no discernible effect on global climate or sea level increase.

No. You misunderstood.

That is the rise in sea level associated with the melting of the Greenland glacier. Not the total sea level rise.

[Truth To Power]

So you knowingly presented information that you knew was false as evidence?

Yes, to show that even the falsified data (so far) prove me right and you wrong.

....and you are still ignoring the argument about funding and instead are committing the logical fallacy called tu quoque.

No. I am pointing out that the funding is far greater on the anti-CO2 hysteria side.

That is the rise in sea level associated with the melting of the Greenland glacier. Not the total sea level rise.

That's not clear from the context. In any case, the data show no acceleration in sea level rise to match the claims in the study.

Still waiting for the evidence for your previous claims....

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, to show that even the falsified data (so far) prove me right and you wrong.

No, because your falsified data actually shows that Solanki is correct and that increased solar activity is not responsible for warming.

Your graph (that was supposed to show a trendless 60 year cycle) did not show a spike in temperature when the spike in sun activity happened.

So, not only did the graph not corroborate your claim about 60 year cycles, it showed you were wrong about solar activity being the cause.

No. I am pointing out that the funding is far greater on the anti-CO2 hysteria side.

That may be.

But it is irrelevant when discussing how the ebil shadow cabal are supposedly manipulating climatologists by controlling the funding.

That's not clear from the context.

It is to me and everyone else.

Perhaps your reading comprehension is not as good as you boast.

In any case, the data show no acceleration in sea level rise to match the claims in the study.

I doubt this. Provide evidence for this claim.

Still waiting for the evidence for your previous claims....

Which claim?

[Truth To Power]

No, because your falsified data actually shows that Solanki is correct and that increased solar activity is not responsible for warming.

No. Wrong again. That is not Solanki's claim, as I have explained to you, very clearly and patiently, on numerous occasions, and you repeatedly ignore.

Your graph (that was supposed to show a trendless 60 year cycle) did not show a spike in temperature when the spike in sun activity happened.

<sigh> Because I cited it to show the trendless 60-year cycle -- which it did -- not the underlying up-trend caused by increased solar activity, which that dataset was altered to conceal.

So, not only did the graph not corroborate your claim about 60 year cycles, it showed you were wrong about solar activity being the cause.

Wrong, as explained above.

But it is irrelevant when discussing how the ebil shadow cabal are supposedly manipulating climatologists by controlling the funding.

And the peer-reviewed journals and the global temperature data.

It is to me and everyone else.

Perhaps your reading comprehension is not as good as you boast.

Or maybe yours isn't.

I doubt this. Provide evidence for this claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level ... v-2018.jpg

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

I am going to ignore all your unsupported conspiracy theories.

Now, how does that new graph disprove the claims of the study?

[BeesKnee5]

'I doubt this. Provide evidence for this claim.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level ... v-2018.jpg

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

You are just so funny

You basically chose a graph without sufficient granularity to see the change and didn't even realise.

Taking your graph
Dec 2009 - Dec 2019. 42mm
Dec 2004 - Dec 2014. 38mm
Dec 1999 - Dec 2009. 31mm
Dec 1994 - Dec 2004. 28mm

Anyone see a trend?

[Truth To Power]

You basically chose a graph without sufficient granularity to see the change and didn't even realise.

Garbage.

Taking your graph
Dec 2009 - Dec 2019. 42mm
Dec 2004 - Dec 2014. 38mm
Dec 1999 - Dec 2009. 31mm
Dec 1994 - Dec 2004. 28mm

Anyone see a trend?

Yep: I see the continued trend of blatant cherry picking. The graph I posted showed clearly that sea level rise has slowed dramatically in the last four years compared to the previous decade. So you cherry-picked a MORE granular time interval to conceal that fact. Simple.

[BeesKnee5]

Garbage.

Yep: I see the continued trend of blatant cherry picking. The graph I posted showed clearly that sea level rise has slowed dramatically in the last four years compared to the previous decade. So you cherry-picked a MORE granular time interval to conceal that fact. Simple.

RIGHT.

What's the average over the whole 26 years of data? Answer 3.3mm

What was the sea level rise in the last twelve months?
Answer 8mm

How is that slowing again?

Or did you mean the last four years not including the last one as your cherry picked sample?

[Truth To Power]

RIGHT.

What's the average over the whole 26 years of data? Answer 3.3mm

What was the sea level rise in the last twelve months?
Answer 8mm

How is that slowing again?

Or did you mean the last four years not including the last one as your cherry picked sample?

All fraudulent and already debunked as such:

https://realclimatescience.com/accelera ... e-science/

[BeesKnee5]

All fraudulent and already debunked as such:

https://realclimatescience.com/accelera ... e-science/

Are you now trying to deny the very evidence you put forward.

You are so predictable.

[Truth To Power]

Are you now trying to deny the very evidence you put forward.

No, just showing how the fraudulent manipulation of official climate data is so pervasive that only verifiable, actual, physical events can be considered reliable evidence. As true believers cannot be persuaded with facts and logic, I am content to continue to be proved right by verifiable, actual, physical events such as the non-inundation of fixed port facilities built 100 years ago, the non-decrease in global agricultural productivity, the non-increase in heat-related deaths, etc. -- i.e., the total absence of anything that could objectively or honestly be described as a climate "crisis" or "emergency" caused by CO2 emissions from use of fossil fuels.

You are so predictable.

Hehe. Did you even read the link I gave you?

Thought not. How predictable.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, just showing how the fraudulent manipulation of official climate data is so pervasive that only verifiable, actual, physical events can be considered reliable evidence.

This is interesting.

Because all of the scientific evidence contradicts your claims (including the evidence that you have provided), you are now arguing that all the studies and data have been doctored and that only your direct perceptions can be considered trustworthy.

As true believers cannot be persuaded with facts and logic, I am content to continue to be proved right by verifiable, actual, physical events such as the non-inundation of fixed port facilities built 100 years ago, the non-decrease in global agricultural productivity, the non-increase in heat-related deaths, etc. -- i.e., the total absence of anything that could objectively or honestly be described as a climate "crisis" or "emergency" caused by CO2 emissions from use of fossil fuels.

This is a red herring.

Since you cannot support your claims, you instead attack a strawman: the false and vague claim that environmental activists are arguing that we are in a current climate crisis and you get to decide what they mean by “crisis”.

Hehe. Did you even read the link I gave you?

Thought not. How predictable.

Quote the relevant text, showing how sea level rise is not accelerating.

Also, you never explained how your wikipedia graph disproved the study about how Greenland glaciers are melting more rapidly than ever.

[BeesKnee5]

No, just showing how the fraudulent manipulation of official climate data is so pervasive that only verifiable, actual, physical events can be considered reliable evidence. As true believers cannot be persuaded with facts and logic, I am content to continue to be proved right by verifiable, actual, physical events such as the non-inundation of fixed port facilities built 100 years ago, the non-decrease in global agricultural productivity, the non-increase in heat-related deaths, etc. -- i.e., the total absence of anything that could objectively or honestly be described as a climate "crisis" or "emergency" caused by CO2 emissions from use of fossil fuels.

Hehe. Did you even read the link I gave you?

Thought not. How predictable.

So now you have destroyed the evidence you supplied to support your claim we are now waiting for you to supply genuine evidence to support your original claim, whilst wondering why you chose to share 'fake' data that doesn't support your claim in the first place.

[Truth To Power]

So now you have destroyed the evidence you supplied to support your claim we are now waiting for you to supply genuine evidence to support your original claim, whilst wondering why you chose to share 'fake' data that doesn't support your claim in the first place.

No.

[BeesKnee5]

No.

Because you can't and everyone reading this thread knows it.

[Truth To Power]

Because all of the scientific evidence contradicts your claims (including the evidence that you have provided),

Again, that is just baldly false.

you are now arguing that all the studies and data have been doctored

No, only the ones that have. Obviously, if all the data had been doctored, there would be no way to judge which data might be reliable.

and that only your direct perceptions can be considered trustworthy.

No, all readers'.

This is a red herring.

Self-referential but admirably accurate.

Since you cannot support your claims,

I have. As you know.

you instead attack a strawman: the false and vague claim that environmental activists are arguing that we are in a current climate crisis

That is neither vague nor false.

and you get to decide what they mean by “crisis”.

My point is precisely that they are using the word dishonestly.

Quote the relevant text, showing how sea level rise is not accelerating.

"Over the past five years, NASA has lowered 1930-2000 sea level rise rates, and then introduced a post-1993 hockey stick at the end. This makes it look like sea level is rising faster now."
"If sea level rise rates were accelerating, tide gauge graphs around the world would be non-linear with an upwards curvature. Water seeks a level surface, so any nonlinear “response” would be seen globally. There is no evidence this is occurring."

Also, you never explained how your wikipedia graph disproved the study about how Greenland glaciers are melting more rapidly than ever.

Strawman. Inevitably.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

Provide evidence that NASA has doctored the data.

Until then, you are merely providing support for my claims about how you dismiss the evidence when it contradicts you.