Quote:Your statement is so full of errors, that you should be embarrassed to post it.


Rather than just spout what you read on left-wing websites, you should actually look at the data, read from the original sources about how it was compiled, and make up your own mind.


The very term "climate deniers" is a lie. Climate skeptics are skeptical of catastrophic man-made warming, not that the planet has warmed. Skeptics even agree that CO2 should have some warming effect. The planet has been warming since the 1700s, long before we enriched the atmosphere with CO2. The warming claimed by the believers since 1900 is about 1 degree, but half of that occurred before 1950, i.e. before human-released CO2 became significant.


1. That's a typical leftist tactic to group people you disagree with with people everyone disagrees with. You should be ashamed. Climate skeptics have nothing in common with flat-earthers, who are probably mostly your leftists comrades. There are people on the Right who believe in conspiracies, but they are government/political conspiracies (and evolution which is a religious belief). The anti-science crowd is from the Left; they are the ones who question the moon landing; they are the anti-vaccine crazies.

2. NASA is not the source of any data. The NASA climate scientists take data compiled by NOAA and filter, interpolate, extrapolate, and adjust, and then publish the results. The data reduction process is necessary because the ground data sites have poor global coverage, with most of them in the US and Europe. The ocean data is from occasion measurements of ocean temperature by passing ships. These were sporadic in time, and mainly limited to shipping channels. Since 2003 we have pretty good global coverage of the oceans from ARGO. Anything before that should have huge error bars attached.


3. There is satellite data (not from NASA) since 1979 that actually covers the whole planet (minus small areas at the poles). The satellite data shows significantly less warming than the adjusted result from ground measurements. There are two groups compiling and reducing the satellite data, one headed by a skeptic (who agrees that it's warming and that CO2 has an effect) the other by a confirmed warmist. They both agree very closely. They show about 0.4 degrees of warming between 1979 and 2000, and none since then until the 2015 el Nino.


Check out Professor Judith Curry, she was once a believer who decided to actually investigate the truth. Now she's called a "Climate Heretic" which ironically exposes the religious nature of the Warmist community.


<a class="bbc_url" href='https://judithcurry.com/'>https://judithcurry.com/</a>

Like I said, don't just accept what the Warmist priests tell you, ... or what I have told you. Investigate it yourself.

While I appreciate the effort, I'm not going to relitigate this climate change debate.


There is a 100 page dumpster fire of a thread that that is proof the argument is unproductive.


For every argument you make there are 100's of arguments that shoot down your points.


And at the end of the day, the deniers fall back into the corner that the majority that have proven climate change are corrupted because they are beholden to funding from the nefarious industry that is hell bent on conquering the world by destroying the oil and gas companies.


I'm sorry, but that is the final argument of the climate denier, and it's the same tactic used by flat earthers...

---