Two-Year Global Cooling Event?

[Mountain Man]

Unless we take preventative action then we and our planet are in big trouble.

Environmentalist wackos like you have been predicting climatic doom and gloom since I was in kindergarten. And here we are 40-years later, and you lot are still beating that worn out drum.

[oxmixmudd]

Haters? Really? So if there is clearly bad science in the quoted opinion, and someone notices it and points it out, they are haters??

Jim

[Terraceth]

I don't think seer is an ignoramous, but I think its pretty clear people here have made up their minds, and no actual discussion is taking place anymore.

Enh, I'm usually interested to see the debates on it here, especially when you're involved.

[oxmixmudd]

Environmentalist wackos like you have been predicting climatic doom and gloom since I was in kindergarten. And here we are 40-years later, and you lot are still beating that worn out drum.

And the world is more than 1.5 degrees F warmer. And the sea levels are about 3.6 inches higher, though that is a global average. In some oarts of florida, for instance, it is about 8 inches.


Jim

[Tassman]

Environmentalist wackos like you have been predicting climatic doom and gloom since I was in kindergarten. And here we are 40-years later, and you lot are still beating that worn out drum.

Well no. Not I but ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. I would have thought it behooves us to take the warnings seriously. Why take the risk?

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[Mountain Man]

And the world is more than 1.5 degrees F warmer. And the sea levels are about 3.6 inches higher, though that is a global average. In some oarts of florida, for instance, it is about 8 inches.

First of all, temperature variations have been a perfectly normal part of the Earth's climate ever since God said, "Let there be light." Throughout its long history, the Earth has been both much warmer and much cooler than it is now. It's nothing to be alarmed about. So with those "inconvenient truths" in mind, tell me: What is the Earth's "correct" temperature?

Secondly, your claim of 1.5 degrees warmer is based on fraudulently manipulated data as I showed in an earlier link.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...rature-record/

According to NASA's original data, the Earth was significantly warmer in the 1930s than it is today, and they said, "Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought." But that didn't fit the left's agenda, so the data was "adjusted" to change a clear cooling tend into a warning trend.

And that, of course, is not the only time government agencies have been caught red-handed corrupting temperature data.

• 100%Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering
• Stats Tampering Puts NOAA in Hot Water
• Aussie Weather Bureau Busted For Tampering With Climate Data
• Global Warming Satellite Data Gets Suspicious Makeover
• The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
• Thirteen years of NASA data tampering - in six seconds
  
  
  gissustampering1999-20132.gif
  
  "The animation above shows four versions of GISS 1930-1999 US temperatures - from 1999, 2001, 2012, and 2013. NASA has repeatedly tampered with the data to hide the decline in US temperatures since the 1930′s. Each successive alteration makes the past cooler and the present warmer."

And on and on it goes.

If someone tells you that the science is "settled", yet they keep having to "adjust" the facts to fit their hypothesis, then you know you're being conned.

Sleep soundly, Chicken Little, the sky isn't falling.

[Mountain Man]

...ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree...

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

"In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

[...]

"Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."

-Michael Crichton, "Aliens Cause Global Warming"

[Mountain Man]

Source: Experts on Climate Change Assessment: �Every Conclusion of This Latest Government Report Is False�

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-report-false/

© Copyright Original Source

[Sparko]

If temperatures support global warming they are data and considered 'climate trends,' if they don't they are flukes and just 'weather fluctuations'

[Mountain Man]

If temperatures support global warming they are data and considered 'climate trends,' if they don't they are flukes and just 'weather fluctuations'

It's the old mantra of "Weather is not climate!" Unless it seems to support global warming, and then they crow about it from the rooftops that their junk science has been validated.

[Starlight]

First of all, temperature variations have been a perfectly normal part of the Earth's climate ever since God said, "Let there be light." Throughout its long history,

Oh, how long is that history? You think it was 6000 years right?

Is there something specifically about he climate change issue that has triggered your conspiracy/anti-science tendencies, or do you just like to be anti-science/anti-facts across the board on all issues?

the Earth has been both much warmer and much cooler than it is now. It's nothing to be alarmed about.

Not during periods where humans have existed. We're facing both more rapid temperature change and more total temperature change than our species has ever survived previously.

So with those "inconvenient truths" in mind, tell me: What is the Earth's "correct" temperature?

The correct global temperatures so far as human civilization is concerned are current temperatures because our cities and farms and land have organized and developed with those in mind. Any significant temperature change will come at a huge economic and social cost as society will have to reorganize its food supply, infrastructure, etc to adapt to the new climate.

Secondly, your claim of 1.5 degrees warmer is based on fraudulently manipulated data as I showed in an earlier link.

Why do you read and believe and post such garbage? Do you want to link us to flat earthers claiming the spherical nature of the earth is fraudulent?

And that, of course, is not the only time government agencies have been caught red-handed corrupting temperature data.

They don't "corrupt" data. The original data is still available for all to see and use. Over time they've spotted and corrected a few minor calibration errors in the historical data caused when old weather stations were replaced or new ones added. So people can see the more accurate and carefully calibrated data or see the original data if they wish. It doesn't change anything relevant.

"The animation above shows four versions of GISS 1930-1999 US temperatures

Do you know why it's called GLOBAL warming? Because the temperature average across the entire earth is increasing. The US is less than 2% of the total earth's surface and subject to huge variations. US-only temperature data, being <2% of global temperature data isn't particularly interesting or relevant when considering the overall trends.

If someone tells you that the science is "settled", yet they keep having to "adjust" the facts to fit their hypothesis, then you know you're being conned.

I can't quite tell if you're uber-gullible or a con-artist. Or possibly both. I hope at least they're paying you decently in exchange for spreading their manure.

[Tassman]

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

"In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

[...]

"Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."

-Michael Crichton, "Aliens Cause Global Warming"

Well you'd better get the novelist Michael Crichton to inform the scientists at NASA that they've got it wrong. Silly NASA! "Consensus" was their word not mine:

"Scientific Consensus. Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position".

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Perhaps Michael should also word-up the compilers of the Trump administration's new federal report as well, seeing as he's an expert in the field. It finds that "climate change is affecting the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, and human health and welfare across the U.S. and its territories".

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1125113728.htm

[Mountain Man]

Oh, how long is that history? You think it was 6000 years right?

Is there something specifically about he climate change issue that has triggered your conspiracy/anti-science tendencies, or do you just like to be anti-science/anti-facts across the board on all issues?

Not during periods where humans have existed. We're facing both more rapid temperature change and more total temperature change than our species has ever survived previously.

The correct global temperatures so far as human civilization is concerned are current temperatures because our cities and farms and land have organized and developed with those in mind. Any significant temperature change will come at a huge economic and social cost as society will have to reorganize its food supply, infrastructure, etc to adapt to the new climate.

Why do you read and believe and post such garbage? Do you want to link us to flat earthers claiming the spherical nature of the earth is fraudulent?


They don't "corrupt" data. The original data is still available for all to see and use. Over time they've spotted and corrected a few minor calibration errors in the historical data caused when old weather stations were replaced or new ones added. So people can see the more accurate and carefully calibrated data or see the original data if they wish. It doesn't change anything relevant.

Do you know why it's called GLOBAL warming? Because the temperature average across the entire earth is increasing. The US is less than 2% of the total earth's surface and subject to huge variations. US-only temperature data, being <2% of global temperature data isn't particularly interesting or relevant when considering the overall trends.

I can't quite tell if you're uber-gullible or a con-artist. Or possibly both. I hope at least they're paying you decently in exchange for spreading their manure.

Typical environmentalist chicanery: dishing out insults and fear mongering while avoiding any interaction with the facts.

But since you say that the Earth's climate has not changed significantly in human history, then how do you explain the fact that archeologists have found evidence of human habitation, including farming settlements, in parts of the world that are now covered by ice?

Here are more "inconvenient truths" for you to ignore:

"Antarctica: NASA Images Reveal Traces of Ancient Human Settlement Underneath 2.3 km of Ice"
https://worldnewsdailyreport.com/ant...2-3-km-of-ice/

"Alpine melt reveals ancient [human] life"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7580294.stm

Viking farming settlement found in Greenland under receding glacier
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/...and-greenland/

[Mountain Man]

Well you'd better get the novelist Michael Crichton to inform the scientists at NASA that they've got it wrong. Silly NASA! "Consensus" was their word not mine:

"Scientific Consensus. Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position".

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Perhaps Michael should also word-up the compilers of the Trump administration's new federal report as well, seeing as he's an expert in the field. It finds that "climate change is affecting the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, and human health and welfare across the U.S. and its territories".

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1125113728.htm

Ah, so it's the genetic fallacy, is it? Doesn't matter who is invoking "consensus", telling people not to question a hypothesis is as unscientific as it gets. As the saying goes, "Don't show me the consensus, show me the facts!"

Besides, Michael Critchon was a medical doctor with as good an understanding of the scientific method as anybody.

As for the report you mention, look a few posts above. As usual, I'm two steps ahead of you.

At any rate, that the Earth's climate is constantly changing is really not a point of dispute. That's just a perfectly normal and natural phenomenon that has been happening since Creation. What we don't have evidence for is that the changes are catastrophic or influenced in any significant way by human activity. In fact, we have quite a lot of evidence to the contrary.

[Roy]

Typical environmentalist chicanery: dishing out insults and fear mongering while avoiding any interaction with the facts.

But since you say that the Earth's climate has not changed significantly in human history, then how do you explain the fact that archeologists have found evidence of human habitation, including farming settlements, in parts of the world that are now covered by ice?

Here are more "inconvenient truths" for you to ignore:

"Antarctica: NASA Images Reveal Traces of Ancient Human Settlement Underneath 2.3 km of Ice"
https://worldnewsdailyreport.com/ant...2-3-km-of-ice/

I can't speak for Starlight, but I explain this "inconvenient truth" by pointing out that it's a hoax, and the so-called satellite pictures of Antarctica are actually Egyptian pyramids shown in Google maps.