Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
Lolz. That's your debate. "Read this paper" Might as well say "Well if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you"
Anyway, how come that annual mean anomaly peak in the early 1930's was cut roughly in half by Hansen's later "adjustments" yet you stand here telling us they weren't significant adjustments.
Anyway, any answer yet? Where's the 15-year flat spot in James "Cooling the past, Warming the Future" Hansen's expert model?
Maybe the reason that was his response is because he's tired of arguing with people who clearly haven't done the reading and research and yet think their opinion is somehow just as valid or moreso than people who have.
Kind of like when we got into the argument over the authenticity standards of the bible where you claimed it was being held to a higher standard than actual historical documents in archeological and anthropological context. It was clear to me then that you never had done the academic research necessary to hold the discussion short of what you could find on google, so it was pointless talkin to you about it. He's probably hit the same wall.
It shouldn't be surprising that someone who comes from the party that repeatedly tries to delegitimatize higher education doesn't give way to people who have so obviously done more work on the subject than they have.