Nothing to see here....

One doesn’t because one event is only weather Climate is observation of the trend

 

Ooooh! Lookee another “Wattsupwiththat” contribution to climate science!

 

Roy Spencer Looking forward to honest postings one day. Imagine using satellite data to determine ocean temps. That is like taking a rectal temperature by tucking the thermometer into the bedside urinal!

 

Anecdotal reminiscences - so accurate!

 

Because that is happening in every country in the world!

 

You should ask yourself what it is about simple data that elicits such an emotional and hateful response.

 

No one said anything about ocean temps except you.

 

True, over a looooonnnnnnggggg period of time.

 

And yet you're bitching about something.

 

It's-a-con-spiracy

 

The picture is accurate. This is what skeptics do when they encounter data that doesn't support their oil-fueled fantasies...seen it time and time and time again. Right in this thread, as a matter of fact.

 

As has unfortunately happened too often, posts of data are met by thoughtless personal attacks. And, as usual, the word "conspiracy" is tossed around only by those attacking skeptics.

 

They only post data that they like. They're skeptical of the rest. Hence, 'skeptic'.

Conspiracy theory is what skeptics draw upon when they are cornered. When the data irrevocably refutes their position. They attack the organization and accuse it of a conspiracy.

It's the equivalent of playing a game of chess - when you're about to lose throwing the whole board in the air. 'I win'

This is why you won't get much debate with skeptics around here. Because they're not interested in debate.

 

False.

 

Bookmarked for when the next example comes along.

 

How much of that is natural and how much of it is man made? How much of it is carbon related and how much of it is methane related?

 

It is impossible to say how much is "man made", in a way the question doesn't even make any sense.

Imagine a barrel being filled by a hose. At the bottom of the barrell is a hole that is letting the water out just as fast as the hose is filling it. So whatever water level is in the barrell remains relatively constant. But if you add a second hose, even if that second hose is only adding 10% of the water of the first hose, the water level is going to rise.

Now, how much of that rise can be blamed on the first hose and how much on the second hose?

 

And yet, ironically, the vast majority of climatologist make use of satellite data in their studies. Primarily because ground station accuracy and availability is sometimes questionable and poor coverage.

 

If it is impossible to say how much of it is man made than it would be impossible to say whether or not changing human behavior can even make much difference, let alone which human behaviors would make much difference.

 

And why do you think it is valid to claim as justification alleged actions drawn from a large population in replying to an individual who does not engage in such actions?

 

Not a hoax, just alarmist tub-thumping.
Hottest Day Evah!
Guest Blogger
Do they think we are really so gullible? . . . .

 

I'm sorry, I don't know who you mean.

When I see another example of cherry-picking I'll let you know.

 

Lols! I don’t “hate” wattsupmybutt” I treat it as I treat all astroturf - with disdain and contempt

 

And yet your post explicitly attacked "readers" of WUWT.

 

Why would you attack someone because of posts by others?