edieraye wrote: 

 kurtster wrote: 
You could always try to come up with scientific evidence (that for instance prove natural cycles are causing the change, without a doubt), instead of being a cheerleader for those that can't do much more than accuse scientists of fraud and conspiracy.

Be glad you get to look forward to yet another year that will likely once again confirm and further refine the existing evidence (that you obviously still can't refute). Though I suspect it will make little to no difference in a year from now as you continue to enjoy the dank darkness of your own rectum.

And for shits and giggles look back (you will have to get out of your secure space for a bit) in some of the topics where similar grandiose claims were made by you and your fellow deniers, and then see whatever happened to those claims.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
We do have a disagreement that won't be resolved anytime soon.  If I'm a Denier, you're a Warmist.

I believe that we are at a defining moment in the debate and you believe that there is nothing to debate.  You primarily deconstruct the messenger rather than the message.

Neither of us will live long enough to see if you are right.  I do have a chance of living long enough to see the science behind your view refuted. 

 kurtster wrote: 
As correctly observed below, and pointed out in my first reply, the deniers are the ones going around in circles by rehashing nonsense that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

We're not talking about what which side wants to do about the problem (nice red herring), we're talking about a solid basis of an observed problem which is still being denied by your ilk.

It's no surprise that people like yourself act in the usual way, namely as obstructionists (like the party of no) that are unable to put forward any evidence for your views. This obviously includes the long debunked view that we're merely dealing with natural cycles. The data from numerous sources (see consilience) shows this to be an incorrect view, yet it is repeated endlessly as a mindless drone would (doing the same thing over and over again). Even if one data set could be proven to be incorrect (which of course it is not), you'd still have to prove that all the other scientists using various other data sets related to this phenomenon are liars too. One hell of a conspiracy, and no shortage of lies employed by deniers.

So yeah, you're going in circles alright, but it's the only thing you can do when you smash headlong into a wall while believing to have finally reached a gotcha moment.

Einstein, when he published his ground-breaking work in Annalen der Physik, was confronted with the same violent rhetoric from the then defenders of the status quo. Much like evolutionary biology had seen not too long before that from creationists (who obviously can't prove shit either), and what is now seen from climate change deniers. Old habits die hard and denial runs deeply.

 kurtster wrote: 
There's a chart somewhere. You can go look it up if you're really interested.

 kurtster wrote: 
I don't know about all the rest, but sadly this is probably an accurate assessment.

 islander wrote: 
You speak for everyone here or your side ?

A predictable response ...

 kurtster wrote: 
Talk about going in circles. Give it a rest dude, we're getting dizzy just watching you.  Can't you go back to connecting dots?

 RichardPrins wrote: 
You almost had me going in circles there, li'l buddy.

There is no new theory being put forth for review.  Just exposure of fraud of peer reviewed science.  Fraud being falsifying / alteration of fundamental data used to prove a theory.  We will only have to wait for your side to review our good accountant's findings.  I'm sure it won't take long.  But if it does take a while, the longer it takes, the worse it looks for your side.

Sadly, we must use the term "sides".  Its because your side wants to spend trillions of dollars that no ones has, alter whole economic and industrial order, inflict austerity and punish people and entities for the sins of their wages and ways that have caused this manmade global chaos your side claims is happening.  Your side allows for no other possibility that the source of climate change is not manmade.  Your side says that there are no natural causes underway and have heaped plenty of slurs and epithets on legitimate skeptics.  Y'all are trying to protect a closed system from investigation and defend it with the outrageous claim of 'settled science' which we all hear over and over again, endlessly.  

No one is arguing that climate change is not happening.  Its what is causing it and how we deal with it that is being argued.  Your side claims they can fix it.  That is indeed one of the most arrogant claims made in modern history and only a fool would believe that claim at this point in time.  It is just as likely as making time travel a reality ...

Oh, and let us not get confused or hung up with the term cred.  There is a difference between credentials and credibility.  They are not synonymous.  Can we both agree that generally speaking an accountant is very good with organizing numbers and working with them in meaningful ways ?  I mean, its pretty hard to pull one over on a good accountant.  I mean that it is their job to verify numbers between Exhibit A and Exhibit B so to speak, eh ?

 kurtster wrote: 
It's been blemished ever since they gave it to Kissinger. However, if that doesn't work for you and your ilk, give the "heroic" accountant a Presidential Medal of Freedom/Science.

Annalen der Physik

 RichardPrins wrote: 
The Nobel Prize has been a joke ever since they gave it to Obama ...

Oh and name one respectable peer reviewed scientific journal that will accept anything for review that challenges "settled science".

 kurtster wrote:
Almost everyone, including me, would welcome such good news.

Now if you don't mind, I'll wait until the accountant gets properly published in a respectable peer-reviewed scientific journal, which then undoubtedly must be followed by a well-deserved Nobel prize.

I'm not holding my breath though.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
Its there.  It is standing up to scrutiny.  

No one has addressed it point by point as y'all usually do.  

All you have done is trotted out the same old knee jerk boiler plate bullsh*t.

Look at the bright side !

The world won't end in a ball of man made flames and we won't drown from the rising oceans as all you warmists have been fear mongering us for so long now. 

 kurtster wrote: 
All still reporting on the blog of the same sa(i)d "heroic" retired account... As some say "keep digging."  

 RichardPrins wrote: 
Not this time friendo.  Its you who are the denier.  Its all coming undone.

 INSIDE THE GLOBAL WARMING SCANDAL

You better start doing some better digging.  The more I dig, the more cred for this report I find.  The author of the above link has major cred ...  These were the guys that got Dan Rather fired amongst some other little things.

Debunk away ...  

 kurtster wrote:
The now almost standard annual fare for deniers (after more bad news has come their way), who still seem to be too intellectually challenged to produce any science for a contrary case, but instead end up having to rely on some retired heroic accountant who claims to find a yet another "biggest ever scandal" besting thousands of scientists. GOTCHA WARMISTS!!!!

A case of rinse, and repeat.

Do we have to go through this every year?

(...) Doing so caused a bit of a flashback—to January 2013, specifically. That was the last time that the previous year had been declared the warmest on record, an event that apparently prompts some people to question whether we can trust the temperature records at all.

The culprit that time was Fox News, but the issue was the same: the raw data from temperature measurements around the world aren't just dumped into global temperature reconstructions as-is. Instead, they're processed first. To the more conspiracy minded, you can replace "processed" with "fraudulently manipulated to make it look warmer." (...)

The answer, much like with their fellow conspiracy-loving evolution-denying zombie-worshipping fundies, unfortunately appears to be yes...

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
about 1000 per hour ...

 kurtster wrote: 
22000 comments there  

Here's one I'm sure all you Global Warmists missed or ignored ...

.
 The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

 kurtster wrote: 
This weather babe agrees with him.