inconvienent facts

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude

I must be on to something. the cult of climatology won't allow any talk of the "c" word. (cold) Do you guys do audits and make people "clear" as well?

No. You can talk about cold weather all you wish. I had a few chilly nights earlier this year too. Actually fired up my fireplace. Not because I needed it, but for the ambiance.

It's when you present your cold weather as a counterpoint to global warming that it becomes problematic. And stupid. Global warming does not mean nowhere will ever be cold.

when you shoot off your mouth before you grasp the big picture, it can also be problematic and stupid. I tried to not make the mistake of denying climate change, or even suggesting that it's not a real thing. hell, I even went as far as issuing a #ing statement that should eliminate any and all chance of a misunderstanding of my position. I will make sure I check with you before I post anything related to my weather, so as to not upset the upper tier of the climate cult.

I sincerely apologize for making the statement that my local weather wasn't super hot.

originally posted by: Zoyd23
It seems the left changed its tune from global warming to 'climate change' once they were faced with cooling earth temps for the past 19 years...And yes, the climate is always changing, so that's a pretty safe bet. I blame the weirdness in weather on 2 things: geoengineering (chem trails are everywhere, everyday here in Southern Oregon), and the destruction of the vast majority of our planet's rain forests. If we were really serious about issues with climate and CO2, we'd start by replanting rain forests in Brazil and Africa, not by believing insane Al Gore and not by collecting carbon taxes.



Russia is 49 % forest, large area's of eastern Europe are Forrest, Alaska, Canada are forested, northern parts of south america are forested, large parts of Asia have forests, watching travel shows, geography shows, Parker Schable shows ! all give an idea of tree coverage.

a reply to: network dude

I tried to not make the mistake of denying climate change, or even suggesting that it's not a real thing.

Where'd you get the idea for the thread title?

a reply to: ScepticScot

The Little Ice Age was a period of regionally cold conditions between roughly AD 1300 and 1850. The term “Little Ice Age” is somewhat questionable, because there was no single, well-defined period of prolonged cold. There were two phases of the Little Ice Age, the first beginning around 1290 and continuing until the late 1400s. There was a slightly warmer period in the 1500s, after which the climate deteriorated substantially, with the coldest period  between 1645 and 1715 . During this coldest phase of the Little Ice Age there are indications that average winter temperatures in Europe and North America were as much as 2°C lower than at present.

The earth does not have some magical average natural temperature to which it always returns. If it warms, the earth must be receiving more heat or retaining more heat. If it cools, then it must be receiving less heat from the Sun or radiating more into space, or both.

www.eh-resources.org...

What did humans do then during these climatic changes to change the climate so dramatically? I find it difficult to believe that we are not simply going through another albeit uncomfortable but natural and universal cycle. One that we will go through no matter what we try to do.  

If humans are accelerating anything it seems to have been keeping another little ice age at bay but only temporarily.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude

I tried to not make the mistake of denying climate change, or even suggesting that it's not a real thing.

Where'd you get the idea for the thread title?

at least now I know what made you so triggered.

I'm in the mosquito killing business, and when it's cold, there just aren't many mosquitoes, so I don't get to kill like I want to. When climate change makes it's way to the patch of cold your previous post showed existed, and things warm up, I'll be happier knowing that I can kill indiscriminately.

Again, I am super sorry I mentioned the "c" word.

a reply to: UKTruth

I used to always start my seedlings for the garden around March, I haven't done that for a few years now since we always get a cold snap in late March/April. I've been caught out a few times now so I just leave it late.

It's a shame none of the data can be believed due to tampering and the politicization of the climate, so general observation will have to do.

It's definitely politicised... I guess some good has came from it with regards to the plans for transportation. It shouldn't be the people who suffer for climate change though, we're the consumers not the creators.

The science says we live in the age of ice, I don't think our actions will change that but we might upset the balance. It seems major climate change happens extremely fast too in a chain reaction.

Personally I think we should be preparing for the worst.

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: ScepticScot

The Little Ice Age was a period of regionally cold conditions between roughly AD 1300 and 1850. The term “Little Ice Age” is somewhat questionable, because there was no single, well-defined period of prolonged cold. There were two phases of the Little Ice Age, the first beginning around 1290 and continuing until the late 1400s. There was a slightly warmer period in the 1500s, after which the climate deteriorated substantially, with the coldest period  between 1645 and 1715 . During this coldest phase of the Little Ice Age there are indications that average winter temperatures in Europe and North America were as much as 2°C lower than at present.

The earth does not have some magical average natural temperature to which it always returns. If it warms, the earth must be receiving more heat or retaining more heat. If it cools, then it must be receiving less heat from the Sun or radiating more into space, or both.

www.eh-resources.org...

What did humans do then during these climatic changes to change the climate so dramatically? I find it difficult to believe that we are not simply going through another albeit uncomfortable but natural and universal cycle. One that we will go through no matter what we try to do.  

If humans are accelerating anything it seems to have been keeping another little ice age at bay but only temporarily.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, its just that in this case science says your opinion is wrong.

a reply to: CynConcepts

If humans are accelerating anything it seems to have been keeping another little ice age at bay but only temporarily.

Yeah, only about 5 to 10 thousand years.


Sorry, missed the "little" part about that. I though you were talking about the next glacial period.

Thing is, there seems to be a lot of hype about low solar activity bringing about something like the "little ice age." Thing is the correlation is questionable. There were other factors involved and the cooling began well before the Maunder minimum. Right not those factors are not present. But maybe we'll get lucky and there will be a large increase in volcanic activity.

While the MM occurred within the much longer LIA period, the timing of the features are not suggestive of causation and should not, in isolation, be used as evidence of significant solar forcing of climate. Climate model simulations suggest multiple factors, particularly volcanic activity, were crucial for causing the cooler temperatures in the northern hemisphere during the LIA. A reduction in total solar irradiance likely contributed to the LIA at a level comparable to changing land use.

www.research.ed.ac.uk...

a reply to: network dude

When climate change makes it's way to the patch of cold your previous post showed existed, and things warm up, I'll be happier knowing that I can kill indiscriminately.

What part of "not everywhere won't ever be cold" don't you understand? You will still have cold weather, along with warm weather.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude

When climate change makes it's way to the patch of cold your previous post showed existed, and things warm up, I'll be happier knowing that I can kill indiscriminately.

What part of "not everywhere won't ever be cold" don't you understand? You will still have cold weather, along with warm weather.

LOL, don't ever change. Your ability to argue against a point that doesn't' exist is priceless.

I'll leave the floor open to you for the obligatory last word.

Have a super day.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude

Remember, there is no mandate that you engage in a thread you just aren't that interested in.

Actually, I'm quite interested in attempts to distort and denigrate the science of climatology.

How do you get a degree in this science? Create a computer model that actually works?

Oh, no... that would be hard. You just learn from other people who haven't worked out all the variables either, and they reward you with a piece of paper and an official 'you're a climate denier' pointy finger.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude

I tried to not make the mistake of denying climate change, or even suggesting that it's not a real thing.

Where'd you get the idea for the thread title?

at least now I know what made you so triggered.

I'm in the mosquito killing business, and when it's cold, there just aren't many mosquitoes, so I don't get to kill like I want to. When climate change makes it's way to the patch of cold your previous post showed existed, and things warm up, I'll be happier knowing that I can kill indiscriminately.

Again, I am super sorry I mentioned the "c" word.

Some are going to hang on to the AGW scam to the bitter(ly cold) end.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude

When climate change makes it's way to the patch of cold your previous post showed existed, and things warm up, I'll be happier knowing that I can kill indiscriminately.

You will still have cold weather, along with warm weather.

Amazing insight.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude

I tried to not make the mistake of denying climate change, or even suggesting that it's not a real thing.

Where'd you get the idea for the thread title?

at least now I know what made you so triggered.

I'm in the mosquito killing business, and when it's cold, there just aren't many mosquitoes, so I don't get to kill like I want to. When climate change makes it's way to the patch of cold your previous post showed existed, and things warm up, I'll be happier knowing that I can kill indiscriminately.

Again, I am super sorry I mentioned the "c" word.

Some are going to hang on to the AGW scam to the bitter(ly cold) end.

But only because scientists are telling us it's real. I mean I have discussions and arguments and questions. But just like with evolution, vaccines, Gravity, the moon landing...I can't prove any of those, but I believe scientists.

Serious question, what do you say to that? Like counter my arguement...am I totally wrong to believe scientists? And am I wrong to through gravity, evolution and the moon landing in with global warming?

Consider the issue of how reproducible science actually is.

The biggest newsmakers in the crisis have involved psychology. Consider three findings: Striking a “power pose” can improve a person’s hormone balance and increase tolerance for risk. Invoking a negative stereotype, such as by telling black test-takers that an exam measures intelligence, can measurably degrade performance. Playing a sorting game that involves quickly pairing faces (black or white) with bad and good words (“happy” or “death”) can reveal “implicit bias” and predict discrimination.

All three of these results received massive media attention, but independent researchers haven’t been able to reproduce any of them properly. It seems as if there’s no end of “scientific truths” that just aren’t so. For a 2015 article in Science, independent researchers tried to replicate 100 prominent psychology studies and succeeded with only 39% of them.

I know this has been brought up on this forum before ... that a large proportion of studies are simply irreproducible even though they originally seemed to have yielded flashy and newsworthy results.

The problem isn't just limited to social sciences and psychology.

Further from the spotlight is a lot of equally flawed research that is often more consequential. In 2012 the biotechnology firm Amgen tried to reproduce 53 “landmark” studies in hematology and oncology. The company could only replicate six. Are doctors basing serious decisions about medical treatment on the rest? Consider the financial costs, too. A 2015 study estimated that American researchers spend $28 billion a year on irreproducible preclinical research.

So now we're talking about a harder scientific field that seems to have the same problem -- studies that can't be reproduced.

A deeper issue is that the irreproducibility crisis has remained largely invisible to the general public and policy makers. That’s a problem given how often the government relies on supposed scientific findings to inform its decisions. Every year the U.S. adds more laws and regulations that could be based on nothing more than statistical manipulations.

All government agencies should review the scientific justifications for their policies and regulations to ensure they meet strict reproducibility standards. The economics research that steers decisions at the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department needs to be rechecked. The social psychology that informs education policy could be entirely irreproducible. The whole discipline of climate science is a farrago of unreliable statistics, arbitrary research techniques and politicized groupthink.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude

I tried to not make the mistake of denying climate change, or even suggesting that it's not a real thing.

Where'd you get the idea for the thread title?

at least now I know what made you so triggered.

I'm in the mosquito killing business, and when it's cold, there just aren't many mosquitoes, so I don't get to kill like I want to. When climate change makes it's way to the patch of cold your previous post showed existed, and things warm up, I'll be happier knowing that I can kill indiscriminately.

Again, I am super sorry I mentioned the "c" word.

Some are going to hang on to the AGW scam to the bitter(ly cold) end.

But only because scientists are telling us it's real. I mean I have discussions and arguments and questions. But just like with evolution, vaccines, Gravity, the moon landing...I can't prove any of those, but I believe scientists.

Serious question, what do you say to that? Like counter my arguement...am I totally wrong to believe scientists? And am I wrong to through gravity, evolution and the moon landing in with global warming?

Point of order:

Climate is real.

Climate change happens.

What is up for debate and analysis is how much man is affecting the climate.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude

I tried to not make the mistake of denying climate change, or even suggesting that it's not a real thing.

Where'd you get the idea for the thread title?

at least now I know what made you so triggered.

I'm in the mosquito killing business, and when it's cold, there just aren't many mosquitoes, so I don't get to kill like I want to. When climate change makes it's way to the patch of cold your previous post showed existed, and things warm up, I'll be happier knowing that I can kill indiscriminately.

Again, I am super sorry I mentioned the "c" word.

Some are going to hang on to the AGW scam to the bitter(ly cold) end.

But only because scientists are telling us it's real. I mean I have discussions and arguments and questions. But just like with evolution, vaccines, Gravity, the moon landing...I can't prove any of those, but I believe scientists.

Serious question, what do you say to that? Like counter my arguement...am I totally wrong to believe scientists? And am I wrong to through gravity, evolution and the moon landing in with global warming?

Re-read your first sentence and I mean really read it. Study it.
You'll understand then, hopefully, that your entire point fell over right there.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude

I tried to not make the mistake of denying climate change, or even suggesting that it's not a real thing.

Where'd you get the idea for the thread title?

at least now I know what made you so triggered.

I'm in the mosquito killing business, and when it's cold, there just aren't many mosquitoes, so I don't get to kill like I want to. When climate change makes it's way to the patch of cold your previous post showed existed, and things warm up, I'll be happier knowing that I can kill indiscriminately.

Again, I am super sorry I mentioned the "c" word.

Some are going to hang on to the AGW scam to the bitter(ly cold) end.

But only because scientists are telling us it's real. I mean I have discussions and arguments and questions. But just like with evolution, vaccines, Gravity, the moon landing...I can't prove any of those, but I believe scientists.

Serious question, what do you say to that? Like counter my arguement...am I totally wrong to believe scientists? And am I wrong to through gravity, evolution and the moon landing in with global warming?

Re-read your first sentence and I mean really read it. Study it.
You'll understand then, hopefully, that your entire point fell over right there.

Then the same with Evolution? Serious question. Scientists are telling me that evolution is real.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude

I tried to not make the mistake of denying climate change, or even suggesting that it's not a real thing.

Where'd you get the idea for the thread title?

at least now I know what made you so triggered.

I'm in the mosquito killing business, and when it's cold, there just aren't many mosquitoes, so I don't get to kill like I want to. When climate change makes it's way to the patch of cold your previous post showed existed, and things warm up, I'll be happier knowing that I can kill indiscriminately.

Again, I am super sorry I mentioned the "c" word.

Some are going to hang on to the AGW scam to the bitter(ly cold) end.

But only because scientists are telling us it's real. I mean I have discussions and arguments and questions. But just like with evolution, vaccines, Gravity, the moon landing...I can't prove any of those, but I believe scientists.

Serious question, what do you say to that? Like counter my arguement...am I totally wrong to believe scientists? And am I wrong to through gravity, evolution and the moon landing in with global warming?

Point of order:

Climate is real.

Climate change happens.

What is up for debate and analysis is how much man is affecting the climate.

But that's where the scientists come in. They tell us that the globe is warming and that man's pollution is a huge part of it. So don't believe them?

a reply to: amazing

Why wasn't the original data on Mann's Hockey stick made available to other scientists so they could see the methodology and go out to attempt to reproduce the study on their own?

That data set was called proprietary and no one was allowed to see it.