The great global warming scam, worth a listen I think.

[dstudent]

From what I understand the constant sea level rise is from ice flow ( land ice ) and that's why it's a constant 6 inches over a long time, cos the earth hasn't heated up more than a degree either way.
Do you need the study, just go by all gores film for the 20 ft rise frightening everyone in the process.

Admit your video was irrelevant to the issue at hand please.
You want to educate people give real facts,
Again please provide reports. Secondly do not confuse calculations and projections and possible outcomes with certainity
So now u switching from sea ice water to land water? The video is not supporting your narrative, yet again, that happens when you cherry pick information to fit your agenda.
Either way your little video is irrelevant, last time I checked Earth is not inside a glass of tap water.
Basic science see.
@banjo this is your thread so if you purposly want to mislead readers go ahead, but I would advice everybody else who really wants to get an informed decision to check with IPCC reports to get some truths I posted some links in previous posts. Bye

 

[turbo]

Admit your video was irrelevant to the issue at hand please.
You want to educate people give real facts,
Again please provide reports. Secondly do not confuse calculations and projections and possible outcomes with certainity
So now u switching from sea ice water to land water? The video is not supporting your narrative, yet again, that happens when you cherry pick information to fit your agenda.
Either way your little video is irrelevant, last time I checked Earth is not inside a glass of tap water.
Basic science see.
@banjo this is your thread so if you purposly want to mislead readers go ahead, but I would advice everybody else who really wants to get an informed decision to check with IPCC reports to get some truths I posted some links in previous posts. Bye

Don't make me laugh ipcc are just as bad as the rest,just fallow the money and you will see that,he who pays the piper calls the tune

 

[dstudent]

,just fallow the money and you will see that,he who pays the piper calls the tune

It must be a miracle I actually agree with this statement.

If you however have ever taken the time to read the reports you ll find that they
1 do not make alarmist claims
2 their reports are very cautious, making clear that there are many uncertainities
2 they deal with probabilities and likelyhoods
3 they admit their limitations in data and knowledge especially in regards to the past
4 they do not make the data, this is given to them by thousands of bodies,agencies, research centers, edication institutions etc.
They just put it together and make sense of it.
5 If new more up to date data comes up giving more info they will add it to a new report. Example new studies and collected data demonstrated that previous claims about animal methane emissions increases were not more valid, the IPCC included this in the new reports, methane levels are stables.
6 TheIPCC is not against commerce or business.
7 the mesuraments are very small, contrary to what is bandiered about
8 all this alarm does not come from the IPCC.

 

[turbo]

It must be a miracle I actually agree with this statement.
If you however have ever taken the time to read the reports you ll find that they
1 do not make alarmist claims
2 their reports are very cautious, making clear that there are many uncertainities
2 they deal with probabilities and likelyhoods
3 they admit their limitations in data and knowledge especially in regards to the past
4 they do not make the data, this is given to them by thousands of bodies,agencies, research centers, edication institutions etc.
They just put it together and make sense of it.
5 If new more up to date data comes up giving more info they will add it to a new report. Example new studies and collected data demonstrated that previous claims about animal methane emissions increases were not more valid, the IPCC included this in the new reports, methane levels are stables.
6 TheIPCC is not against commerce or business.
7 the mesuraments are very small, contrary to what is bandiered about
8 all this alarm does not come from the IPCC.

At least we can agree on something

 

[marcusthehat]

Dammn!
Aw Cummon, why not continue to be unreasonable.
(or as my ould Da put it "never let facts get in the way of a good argument")
So
Ding! ding!
&
Seconds out

 

[Old McDonald]

Right you seem to be getting personal for some reason

You really are paranoid about people making personal attacks on you. You have mentioned it several times. It is what you have been posting that people are either agreeing or disagreeing with. The fact that it is you as an individual is incidental. Someone else posting exactly what you have would receive exactly the same support or otherwise. Has it occurred to you that the person who hás suffered most personal attacks is dstudent? If you have been diligently following your own thread, you will be aware that I castigated her for the language of her response to those attacks. She was justified in responding, but not in that manner.

banjo said: ↑
If mc Donald had any idea how much I've been researching this stuff over the last few months he wouldn't say what he has, but whatever

banjo said: ↑
Look at my last post the global data is there for you, not your old thermometer.

What are these, if not personal attacks. I quoted them back to you simply as a means of introducing my response. I did not complain that you were attacking me.

I've read your post, you were working for the green lobby ( it paid your bills and the huge grants the place got

Now this next bit will include some personal remarks. You may have read my post but you certainly did not understand what I had written. I gave an explanation of my motives for wanting to know whether or not temperatures were increasing. You appear to have missed that.

What possessed you to write such utter drivel as to accuse me of working for the green lobby? I do take it as an accusation. My impression of most of those in it is one of shapelessly dressed females, often in sandals, and men with beards, again often with a pony tail or excessive amounts of hair. Definitely not the sort of people with whom I would want to be associated. They are also usually vegan or at least vegetarian, and totally opposed to any form of farming other than year round outside for stock with no sprays or fertilisers to be used. Some of them want to cull at least 90% of all sheep and cattle. For the good of the environment of course. And you accuse me of actually having worked for them? I would like to know when it was because I cannot remember it.

You mention Greenpeace later and say I “must pray to (the founder) nightly”. That is possibly a worse insult than saying I worked for such people. As part of the organisation, its members have on many occasions, by their stupidity, put the lives of others in danger. I most certainly cannot condone that sort of behaviour. I pray to nobody or any thing – there is no power to which to pray.

the rest is a lie and misinformation. you lot should be ashamed of yourselfs for frightening people with non science.

So now I am a liar. Please elaborate on which parts of my post are lies. SCRI did not find increasing soil temperatures? My description of the lack of chilling? The Californian growers spraying their trees to increase chilling effects? My local temperatures increasing?

Not only that, I am accused of passing on misinformation and non-science and should be ashamed of myself. Well, banjo, I could have said that to you long ago, but I did not. Instead I tried to persuade you to post non YouTube evidence to support your claims. I said in an earlier post I might support you if you did. What misinformation and non-science? The real meaning of RH percentages or the link to the work of 19th Century researchers regarding CO2. I was merely assisting readers (I do not post specifically for your information, as you do not post for mine) to learn the truth – which is what you claimed you wanted at one time, maybe twice. I think those are the only two items of information I included.

That I consider the people in your vídeos in the same way you and they consider the people they are attacking? That is not misinformation it is a personal opinion, just the same as your opinion is that they are right and the rest of the world is wrong. Your opening post included one of the most discredited documentaries ever made. Your subsequent vídeos were, at least in parts, not much better. The one attacking McKibben about RH was an absolutely disgraceful statement of “non-science” as you put it.

your like Brian cox brainwashed by incorrect data.

You will need to elaborate about Brian Cox. All I know about him is that he is internationally famous and a regular on TV. I have never seen him on TV.

How have we both been brainwashed by incorrect data? I repeat, I have asked you on several occasions to provide data which refutes that which I am able to access, but you have consistently failed to do so. As I have previously pointed out, if you want readers to understand your point of view, you have to do some work yourself, and provide us with what you consider to be the correct data. I can only go on my own experience, 13 years of looking at “this stuff” on the internet and delving into records, tables and scientific papers (a considerable amount of which is from prior to your magical year of 1987) plus other info and links provided by other posters such as @Dave645 and @dstudent.

Other people have contributed to previous threads on other forums and this thread too of course, and I have read their posts and links with interest. All you do is refer us to usually very lengthy vídeos and say the rest hás all been altered so only your information (or rather that of the people in the vídeos) is valid.

In addition some of your vídeos are irrelevant as hás already been pointed out to you. The one embedded in your response to me is particularly so, but you saw fit to post it twice in less than an hour.

If you rely only on YouTube for your study of “this stuff” then I am not surprised that you are not properly informed and continue to post dubious links to the channel. Not good enough to convince anyone who currently thinks otherwise, especially those with some scientific background. Which reminds me, just as you had no idea about mine until I posted yesterday, you do not know that of other posters. I suspect some of them have been studying “this stuff” for a lot longer than you, and have a considerable scientific knowledge. I do not have a scientific background and as already posted, began studying “this stuff” to find out whether or not there was likely to be an effect on my future plans for my recently acquired land. I decided there was and is.

Have you checked out the temperature records Dave provided so that you can now confirm whether the 1930s was warmer than the past decade? So far I have not found one that agrees with your theory, but I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise.

 

[Bury the Trash]

will need to elaborate about Brian Cox. All I know about him is that he is internationally famous and a regular on TV. I have never seen him on TV.

Here he is


Coxy's on the keyboards

 

[banjo]

You really are paranoid about people making personal attacks on you. You have mentioned it several times. It is what you have been posting that people are either agreeing or disagreeing with. The fact that it is you as an individual is incidental. Someone else posting exactly what you have would receive exactly the same support or otherwise. Has it occurred to you that the person who hás suffered most personal attacks is dstudent? If you have been diligently following your own thread, you will be aware that I castigated her for the language of her response to those attacks. She was justified in responding, but not in that manner.

banjo said: ↑
If mc Donald had any idea how much I've been researching this stuff over the last few months he wouldn't say what he has, but whatever

banjo said: ↑
Look at my last post the global data is there for you, not your old thermometer.

What are these, if not personal attacks. I quoted them back to you simply as a means of introducing my response. I did not complain that you were attacking me.



Now this next bit will include some personal remarks. You may have read my post but you certainly did not understand what I had written. I gave an explanation of my motives for wanting to know whether or not temperatures were increasing. You appear to have missed that.

What possessed you to write such utter drivel as to accuse me of working for the green lobby? I do take it as an accusation. My impression of most of those in it is one of shapelessly dressed females, often in sandals, and men with beards, again often with a pony tail or excessive amounts of hair. Definitely not the sort of people with whom I would want to be associated. They are also usually vegan or at least vegetarian, and totally opposed to any form of farming other than year round outside for stock with no sprays or fertilisers to be used. Some of them want to cull at least 90% of all sheep and cattle. For the good of the environment of course. And you accuse me of actually having worked for them? I would like to know when it was because I cannot remember it.

You mention Greenpeace later and say I “must pray to (the founder) nightly”. That is possibly a worse insult than saying I worked for such people. As part of the organisation, its members have on many occasions, by their stupidity, put the lives of others in danger. I most certainly cannot condone that sort of behaviour. I pray to nobody or any thing – there is no power to which to pray.



So now I am a liar. Please elaborate on which parts of my post are lies. SCRI did not find increasing soil temperatures? My description of the lack of chilling? The Californian growers spraying their trees to increase chilling effects? My local temperatures increasing?

Not only that, I am accused of passing on misinformation and non-science and should be ashamed of myself. Well, banjo, I could have said that to you long ago, but I did not. Instead I tried to persuade you to post non YouTube evidence to support your claims. I said in an earlier post I might support you if you did. What misinformation and non-science? The real meaning of RH percentages or the link to the work of 19th Century researchers regarding CO2. I was merely assisting readers (I do not post specifically for your information, as you do not post for mine) to learn the truth – which is what you claimed you wanted at one time, maybe twice. I think those are the only two items of information I included.

That I consider the people in your vídeos in the same way you and they consider the people they are attacking? That is not misinformation it is a personal opinion, just the same as your opinion is that they are right and the rest of the world is wrong. Your opening post included one of the most discredited documentaries ever made. Your subsequent vídeos were, at least in parts, not much better. The one attacking McKibben about RH was an absolutely disgraceful statement of “non-science” as you put it.



You will need to elaborate about Brian Cox. All I know about him is that he is internationally famous and a regular on TV. I have never seen him on TV.

How have we both been brainwashed by incorrect data? I repeat, I have asked you on several occasions to provide data which refutes that which I am able to access, but you have consistently failed to do so. As I have previously pointed out, if you want readers to understand your point of view, you have to do some work yourself, and provide us with what you consider to be the correct data. I can only go on my own experience, 13 years of looking at “this stuff” on the internet and delving into records, tables and scientific papers (a considerable amount of which is from prior to your magical year of 1987) plus other info and links provided by other posters such as @Dave645 and @dstudent.

Other people have contributed to previous threads on other forums and this thread too of course, and I have read their posts and links with interest. All you do is refer us to usually very lengthy vídeos and say the rest hás all been altered so only your information (or rather that of the people in the vídeos) is valid.

In addition some of your vídeos are irrelevant as hás already been pointed out to you. The one embedded in your response to me is particularly so, but you saw fit to post it twice in less than an hour.

If you rely only on YouTube for your study of “this stuff” then I am not surprised that you are not properly informed and continue to post dubious links to the channel. Not good enough to convince anyone who currently thinks otherwise, especially those with some scientific background. Which reminds me, just as you had no idea about mine until I posted yesterday, you do not know that of other posters. I suspect some of them have been studying “this stuff” for a lot longer than you, and have a considerable scientific knowledge. I do not have a scientific background and as already posted, began studying “this stuff” to find out whether or not there was likely to be an effect on my future plans for my recently acquired land. I decided there was and is.

Have you checked out the temperature records Dave provided so that you can now confirm whether the 1930s was warmer than the past decade? So far I have not found one that agrees with your theory, but I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise.

Well videos are no good are they, if you go to a lecture when learning it's a waste of time is it? If a person who is top in his field, the very top, is talking about a subject it's not alowed to be listened to, why do they give lectures then?
I have listened to hour upon hour of lectures from brilliant scientists on u tube, it's a hell if a resource for learning. Many people would never get the chance to listen to people this intelligent only for u tube, I love it and think it's a great tool for learning any subject.
I have put many vids up on this thread and I hope if someone sees one or more and thinks twice about the propaganda were being fed and how bad co2 is, it's a good thing, co2 is life, not death, the more co2 the better the planet performs.
I will post another vid just to wind you up.
This man is one of the brainiest people ever to walk this earth, he sat with Einstein at the same table, he was present and knew the man that made the first climate model ( by the way he sais climate models can only predict the weather for 5 days, anything else is folly cos it ain't reliable enough )
He gives a fair interview and doesn't attack anyone, just facts from an incredible brain, I Love u tube for interviews like this, a man at the top if his game passing on knowledge to others.

 

[banjo]

Here he is


Coxy's on the keyboards

I like this one

 

[banjo]

Admit your video was irrelevant to the issue at hand please.
You want to educate people give real facts,
Again please provide reports. Secondly do not confuse calculations and projections and possible outcomes with certainity
So now u switching from sea ice water to land water? The video is not supporting your narrative, yet again, that happens when you cherry pick information to fit your agenda.
Either way your little video is irrelevant, last time I checked Earth is not inside a glass of tap water.
Basic science see.
@banjo this is your thread so if you purposly want to mislead readers go ahead, but I would advice everybody else who really wants to get an informed decision to check with IPCC reports to get some truths I posted some links in previous posts. Bye

Yep I put this up to give another side to an argument and to gather a lot of info into one place as a resource. Your not interested, nor mc Donald, you've made your mind up and even evidence given by the best brains that we've seen in our life time are treated as numb nuts.
I just hope others can see through the mist of government propaganda and make their own minds up.

 

[ollie989898]

Anyone who thinks releasing gigatonnes of GHGs into the atmosphere has no effect is either a muppet or disingenous to say the least.

In fact. I dont care if it is responsible for anthropogenic global warming or not, who said it was AOK for us to pollute the biosphere in the first place?

As I sakd elsewhere the CEO on BP was on record as stating that peak oil would never occur; peak demand would happen first. And he knows a bit about fossil fuels.

 

[Dave645]

I just hope others can see through the mist of government propaganda and make their own minds up.

First your latest video.
The latest video you posted is interesting, I am glad you posted it, is this a mellowing of your position, as he claimed that we are seeing man made climate change, the only hat he put into the scheptics ring was it's not clear by how much and it's maybe less than some people think.
On co2 he was clear, a lot of it's man doing the 40% rise that's talk about was uncontested that it's mans influence that's put it there, these are all at odds with some of your early posts.
He goes on to say co2 can be a good thing and it can help plant life, if other conditions are in balance, but seemed to skip over any possible negative aspects of co2, so for me his personal oppionion on co2 on all aspects other than its benafits to plant growth, is not fully clear.
Why he would not be clear on that, or avoided making an opinion, is to be only guessed at.

Ok now you quote, you have now come around to saying govermant propaganda, I am interested in why you think that?
For me the governments have taken the only sensible route we have, we have no irrefutable proof, but the body of evidence is more supportive than dismissive, of globle warming, they no the rise in co2 is mostly due to mans influences, and that it's 95% likely that it's causing an upward trend in globle tempratures which neither side deny that we are seeing rises, the only thing that's under any doubt is how long the trend will last and if the speed of the trend will increase because of the relatively quick way that co2 has built up in the last 140 years, most of which was covered in your last video. I for one would rather we try to reduce our effects on the planet, because if there was only a 10% chance it could lead to changes that end up being detrimental to humanities survival on the planet not just our wealth, then it's worth any short term pain.

It's estimated that the banking crash cost $15 trillion.
I for one do not think we have spent anywhere near that, on preventing global warming.
As I am no expert on the worlds finances, but I can see a lot of benafits from the long term goal of government policy's I will share the following link.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_global_warming

Make your own minds up look at the evidence, look at the pro cons of govermants policy's as a whole not in isolation this is a complex situation.
Long term saving have to be put against short term costs, my position is it's a no brainier, it's like a credit card you can start making payments as you go on our delay until later.
The only problem with this credit card is we don't know the interest rates we are paying, on one hand we are lead to believe by sceptics that interest rates will fall, so no need to pay now then we have the middle, ground which says we're not sure, so if you just cover the minimum payments at least we are not going to speed up any changes so make it worse but you do have to pay, or alarmist we should pay off the balance in full now, because even if we do it's maybe to late.
Now for me the govermants have pitched it around somewhere between the middle and alarmists that take the darkest look at globle warming.
Which in economic terms covers all bets, we aren't ignoring it, we understand some of the coming changes are our fault, so we start to change. But they don't except the dark prediction at face value they are sceptical of the worst predictions.
Which is where I am, evidence points in only one direction, but the end results are by no means being accurately proven.
If someone said to me I think they need you at the top of that hill, I could just sit at the bottom, and run up it when needed, rising getting there in time, or set of walking up that hill because taking my time takes a lot of the pain out of it, if it turns out they need me I haven't as far to go and I am more likely to get there in time, and if they by sum miracle don't need me, I have an easy walk down. So I know what I would do....

 

[bovrill]

http://www.sciencealert.com/complex...-least-once-before?perpetual=yes&limitstart=1
Not entirely related to the thread, but interesting, if you're interested in the subject.

 

[banjo]

Anyone who thinks releasing gigatonnes of GHGs into the atmosphere has no effect is either a muppet or disingenous to say the least.

In fact. I dont care if it is responsible for anthropogenic global warming or not, who said it was AOK for us to pollute the biosphere in the first place?

As I sakd elsewhere the CEO on BP was on record as stating that peak oil would never occur; peak demand would happen first. And he knows a bit about fossil fuels.

Yes I agree, but this is pollution.
We are talking about co2 efect on the earths climate and the earths temp, pollution is another matter.
In fact pollution is a thing we can do something about and I agree with that.

 

[banjo]

First your latest video.
The latest video you posted is interesting, I am glad you posted it, is this a mellowing of your position, as he claimed that we are seeing man made climate change, the only hat he put into the scheptics ring was it's not clear by how much and it's maybe less than some people think.
On co2 he was clear, a lot of it's man doing the 40% rise that's talk about was uncontested that it's mans influence that's put it there, these are all at odds with some of your early posts.
He goes on to say co2 can be a good thing and it can help plant life, if other conditions are in balance, but seemed to skip over any possible negative aspects of co2, so for me his personal oppionion on co2 on all aspects other than its benafits to plant growth, is not fully clear.
Why he would not be clear on that, or avoided making an opinion, is to be only guessed at.

Ok now you quote, you have now come around to saying govermant propaganda, I am interested in why you think that?
For me the governments have taken the only sensible route we have, we have no irrefutable proof, but the body of evidence is more supportive than dismissive, of globle warming, they no the rise in co2 is mostly due to mans influences, and that it's 95% likely that it's causing an upward trend in globle tempratures which neither side deny that we are seeing rises, the only thing that's under any doubt is how long the trend will last and if the speed of the trend will increase because of the relatively quick way that co2 has built up in the last 140 years, most of which was covered in your last video. I for one would rather we try to reduce our effects on the planet, because if there was only a 10% chance it could lead to changes that end up being detrimental to humanities survival on the planet not just our wealth, then it's worth any short term pain.

It's estimated that the banking crash cost $15 trillion.
I for one do not think we have spent anywhere near that, on preventing global warming.
As I am no expert on the worlds finances, but I can see a lot of benafits from the long term goal of government policy's I will share the following link.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_global_warming

Make your own minds up look at the evidence, look at the pro cons of govermants policy's as a whole not in isolation this is a complex situation.
Long term saving have to be put against short term costs, my position is it's a no brainier, it's like a credit card you can start making payments as you go on our delay until later.
The only problem with this credit card is we don't know the interest rates we are paying, on one hand we are lead to believe by sceptics that interest rates will fall, so no need to pay now then we have the middle, ground which says we're not sure, so if you just cover the minimum payments at least we are not going to speed up any changes so make it worse but you do have to pay, or alarmist we should pay off the balance in full now, because even if we do it's maybe to late.
Now for me the govermants have pitched it around somewhere between the middle and alarmists that take the darkest look at globle warming.
Which in economic terms covers all bets, we aren't ignoring it, we understand some of the coming changes are our fault, so we start to change. But they don't except the dark prediction at face value they are sceptical of the worst predictions.
Which is where I am, evidence points in only one direction, but the end results are by no means being accurately proven.
If someone said to me I think they need you at the top of that hill, I could just sit at the bottom, and run up it when needed, rising getting there in time, or set of walking up that hill because taking my time takes a lot of the pain out of it, if it turns out they need me I haven't as far to go and I am more likely to get there in time, and if they by sum miracle don't need me, I have an easy walk down. So I know what I would do....

I have always felt like this, he said 40% of co2 and 20% of that goes back into plants helping them to grow. I've always said we produce co2 but I don't think it does anything except good, so if it's going to drop in the future when the temp goes down there is no need for Mass hysteria.
We are spending 8 billion a year on this and there are people who are living in the dark ages around the world now because their country's hands are tied with this manufactured energy crisis, spend that money doing some good for living people now.
The trouble is everyone is thought of as a nutter if they don't agree with this false science, it is not proven and the debate should be open to all, not just a select few.
Here's another vid off a chap, it's long but very good. He's on the global warming side but he believes it's wrong because the billions invested are for such a small Percentage change over 100 years, it's hardly worth it.
He wants to spend on things that do work, medical, clean water and free trade, for every £1 spent these things make around £20 to £40 s worth of change,
For every £1 spent in climate change its in the pence!
They tried to finish his career and black ball him out of the climate discussion, he seems more realistic than everyone.

 

[Old McDonald]

Well videos are no good are they

That is not what I posted.

It is pointless attempting to debate this issue with you, because you refuse to do so. You have been requested on numerous occasions by several posters to expand upon or explain statements you have made, and asked many other direct questions. You refuse to participate in discussion.

I will continue to respond directly to you if you continue to make untrue remarks about me, and I will also continue to correct your errors, perhaps some of those in your videos too, but this will be for other posters and other people who are not actively posting. I am aware of some posters who are rarely posting, and some who are not posting at all, but are following the thread.

Your not interested, nor mc Donald, you've made your mind up and even evidence given by the best brains that we've seen in our life time are treated as numb nuts.

I am intensely interested, but you have failed to understand my reasons for that despite my posts.

The only thing I have my mind up about is that temperatures are continuing to rise, and whilst I may not be farming in 30 years time somebody else will, and if I have organised things so that my property is able to cope with increasing temperatures, then I will be happy. You on the other hand deny that temperatures are rising, despite being unable to show any evidence of that, so you are not even preparing for the immediate future.

I think that the majority of those to whom you have linked by videos are not "the best brains we have seen in our lifetime". Note I said majority. Got that, majority. Majority.

 

[banjo]

That is not what I posted.

It is pointless attempting to debate this issue with you, because you refuse to do so. You have been requested on numerous occasions by several posters to expand upon or explain statements you have made, and asked many other direct questions. You refuse to participate in discussion.

I will continue to respond directly to you if you continue to make untrue remarks about me, and I will also continue to correct your errors, perhaps some of those in your videos too, but this will be for other posters and other people who are not actively posting. I am aware of some posters who are rarely posting, and some who are not posting at all, but are following the thread.



I am intensely interested, but you have failed to understand my reasons for that despite my posts.

The only thing I have my mind up about is that temperatures are continuing to rise, and whilst I may not be farming in 30 years time somebody else will, and if I have organised things so that my property is able to cope with increasing temperatures, then I will be happy. You on the other hand deny that temperatures are rising, despite being unable to show any evidence of that, so you are not even preparing for the immediate future.

I think that the majority of those to whom you have linked by videos are not "the best brains we have seen in our lifetime". Note I said majority. Got that, majority. Majority.

He we are, Steve Goddard, he found the fraud and has all the real data on the website below, don't suppose that is good enough for you though.

https://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/hottest-year-ever-update-6/

 

[Old McDonald]

That is precisely your problem. You simply do not understand very much at all, do you?

First principle of determining temperature - assuming it is done on a daily basis, although some record much more frequently. The temperature for a day is not the maximum, or the minimum. It is the mean for the day, or hour, or week, or month or year.

1936 (a favourite year for you) which has already been discussed a few posts ago between Osca and myself is a prime example. It is the year responsible for your 120ºF quote. It is the year in which 121ºF was recorded in North Dakota. It is also the year in which a temperature of minus 60ºF was recorded in North Dakota.

The number of days over any particular temperature in any year does not prove anything about the mean for the year.

 

[Osca]

That is precisely your problem. You simply do not understand very much at all, do you?

First principle of determining temperature - assuming it is done on a daily basis, although some record much more frequently. The temperature for a day is not the maximum, or the minimum. It is the mean for the day, or hour, or week, or month or year.

1936 (a favourite year for you) which has already been discussed a few posts ago between Osca and myself is a prime example. It is the year responsible for your 120ºF quote. It is the year in which 121ºF was recorded in North Dakota. It is also the year in which a temperature of minus 60ºF was recorded in North Dakota.

The number of days over any particular temperature in any year does not prove anything about the mean for the year.

Actually I was wrong about the extremes of that year being averaged out. The graph showed highs, not annual averages - so the heatwave appears to have been removed, dumbed down or artificially dwarfed by modern temperatures, despite that year being a record breaker.

 

[Dave645]

He we are, Steve Goddard, he found the fraud and has all the real data on the website below, don't suppose that is good enough for you though.

https://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/hottest-year-ever-update-6/

Until you actually pull the original data then create a mean temprature yourself, all you are doing is taking someone else's word for it.
Now there are official data sources, and the data in your link.

When this data is presented in other graphs it's presented as a mean temp for the year, this is percentage of days over 95F (35c)
So it's not a mean temprature, all it says is there were more hot days, but it excludes cold night and cold days, it has zero to do with mean temperatures.
If it had 100 hotter than average days but had a 100 cooler than average, by similar margins in the same year they cancel each other out in the mean temprature readings it's the only way to track small changes in temperatures over time with any accuracy. An Individual days temperatures, is just noise until it's turned into a mean temperature.

If you want to prove that period had a hot mean temprature you need to find a graph showing it, that you think is untampered.
Or go pull the data yourself. Me I trust the official sources.