BeesKnee5 wrote:And that my friends is a cherry pick.
No, child, that is the period in question. You made $#!+ up about what about what the graph plainly showed, and I called you on your fabrication. Simple.
Take two years that are the extremes and claim they represent a typical average for the period.
I didn't claim they represented the typical average for the period. You just made that up, like you do a lot of your other claims. I stated, correctly, that temperature had plummeted in the years before the 1949 start of the dataset you cited.
I completely accept the temperature dataset and I'm glad you've come round to seeing the data as accurate.
Then why did you falsely claim that temperature had only declined by 0.15C in the years before the start of the dataset you cited, showing it was cherry-picked?
What I don't accept is your hypocrisy of using two cherry picked years .
Huh?? The SECOND of those years was the cherry-picked one YOU cited in YOUR claim! Hello?? And I cited the first one to show
why your claim was cherry-picked. Duh.
That sums up your claim pretty accurately.
<yawn> Every year that passes with CO2 continuing to rise more or less exponentially while global temperature increase is either derisory or self-evidently continuing not to cause any significant problem, let alone an "emergency" or "crisis," is an additional proof that I am right and all the anti-CO2 hysteria crowd are wrong. I will continue to be proved right by
actual physical events, no matter how many fabricated, manipulated, and fraudulent graphs, maps and numbers you or anyone else may post.