Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Wilikon]

So banning should re enforced for the non believers then. Get it. Should we ban all of those who not only do not believe in bitcoin or all of those creating altcoins on bitcointalk?

No they shouldn't be banned, reddit should setup a tinfoil section for the anti-science brigade.

It's not anti-science. It's alternative science offering other hypothesise for the same observations.

Try to explain this to the believers of the Global warming Faith.

[anon_giraffe]

So banning should re enforced for the non believers then. Get it. Should we ban all of those who not only do not believe in bitcoin or all of those creating altcoins on bitcointalk?

No they shouldn't be banned, reddit should setup a tinfoil section for the anti-science brigade.

It's not anti-science. It's alternative science offering other hypothesise for the same observations.

Try to explain this to the believers of the Global warming Faith.

Try to explain to this to any one with a strong opinion. It's not an attribute only shared by one side of any large argument.

[Spendulus]

So banning should re enforced for the non believers then. Get it. Should we ban all of those who not only do not believe in bitcoin or all of those creating altcoins on bitcointalk?

No they shouldn't be banned, reddit should setup a tinfoil section for the anti-science brigade.

It's not anti-science. It's alternative science offering other hypothesise for the same observations.

Try to explain this to the believers of the Global warming Faith.

Try to explain to this to any one with a strong opinion. It's not an attribute only shared by one side of any large argument.

When even mainstream scientists discuss "the pause," "the hiatus," the fact that there has been no warming in 19 years, and posters to this forum deny that very fact, and refuse to look at the raw satellite data behind it, whatever you want to call it, it's a problem.

If it's a strong opinion, it's such by denying the facts.

Hence, I cannot do other than to conclude Warmers are Deniers.

[anon_giraffe]

When even mainstream scientists discuss "the pause," "the hiatus," the fact that there has been no warming in 19 years, and posters to this forum deny that very fact, and refuse to look at the raw satellite data behind it, whatever you want to call it, it's a problem.

If it's a strong opinion, it's such by denying the facts.

Hence, I cannot do other than to conclude Warmers are Deniers.

This does not seem congruent with the observed facts. This of course suggests that reliance on one set of data may be problematic when compared with other data that does not support it.
If satellite data and ground based data disagree, you cannot simply choose the one which supports your belief system. (see bottom link for new info regarding that particular satellite data)

Also simply looking at temperature records alone (and not considering such things as sea level/ice mass/CO2 levels) is myopic.

Any complex and large system is not going to behave in a totally predictable manner, nor constant. The mere idea of assuming that there should be a linear relationship between any two or three variables in such a system as the entire earth is absurd.



rise in sea level http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
"Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century."

global temperature as "relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures."  http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
"The 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. "


Revamped satellite data shows no pause in global warming.
http://phys.org/news/2016-03-revamped-satellite-global.html

"The Remote Sensing System temperature data, promoted by many who reject mainstream climate science and especially most recently by Sen. Ted Cruz, now shows a slight warming of about 0.18 degrees Fahrenheit since 1998. Ground temperature measurements, which many scientists call more accurate, all show warming in the past 18 years."

"The change resulted from an adjustment Mears made to fix a nagging discrepancy in the data from 15 satellites.
The satellites are in a polar orbit, so they are supposed to go over the same place at about the same time as they circle from north to south pole. Some of the satellites drift a bit, which changes their afternoon and evening measurements ever so slightly. Some satellites had drift that made temperatures warmer, others cooler. Three satellites had thrusters and they stayed in the proper orbit so they provided guidance for adjustments."

[Spendulus]

When even mainstream scientists discuss "the pause," "the hiatus," the fact that there has been no warming in 19 years, and posters to this forum deny that very fact, and refuse to look at the raw satellite data behind it, whatever you want to call it, it's a problem.

If it's a strong opinion, it's such by denying the facts.

Hence, I cannot do other than to conclude Warmers are Deniers.

This does not seem congruent with the observed facts. This of course suggests that reliance on one set of data may be problematic when compared with other data that does not support it.
If satellite data and ground based data disagree, you cannot simply choose the one which supports your belief system. (see bottom link for new info regarding that particular satellite data)

Also simply looking at temperature records alone (and not considering such things as sea level/ice mass/CO2 levels) is myopic.

Any complex and large system is not going to behave in a totally predictable manner, nor constant. The mere idea of assuming that there should be a linear relationship between any two or three variables in such a system as the entire earth is absurd.



rise in sea level http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
"Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century."

global temperature as "relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures."  http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
"The 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. "


Revamped satellite data shows no pause in global warming.
http://phys.org/news/2016-03-revamped-satellite-global.html

"The Remote Sensing System temperature data, promoted by many who reject mainstream climate science and especially most recently by Sen. Ted Cruz, now shows a slight warming of about 0.18 degrees Fahrenheit since 1998. Ground temperature measurements, which many scientists call more accurate, all show warming in the past 18 years."

"The change resulted from an adjustment Mears made to fix a nagging discrepancy in the data from 15 satellites.
The satellites are in a polar orbit, so they are supposed to go over the same place at about the same time as they circle from north to south pole. Some of the satellites drift a bit, which changes their afternoon and evening measurements ever so slightly. Some satellites had drift that made temperatures warmer, others cooler. Three satellites had thrusters and they stayed in the proper orbit so they provided guidance for adjustments."

Unfortunately for you, the argument that was made, by me, was precisely and accurately stated as to being referential to one data set.  The blind arrogance in ignoring that claim and it's statistical verification was ignored by the Warmers resident here whom then I can only call Deniers on the basis of their actions.

Frankly I don't know that 0.18F rise in 18 years rises to the point of statistical significance, but you are welcome to show that it does.

Your several other disjointed arguments thrown out are unrelated to the actual claim made.

Unless you would like to misrepresent the claim made and then proceed with a strawman argument?

lol...

[anon_giraffe]

Unfortunately for you, the argument that was made, by me, was precisely and accurately stated as to being referential to one data set.  The blind arrogance in ignoring that claim and it's statistical verification was ignored by the Warmers resident here whom then I can only call Deniers on the basis of their actions.

Frankly I don't know that 0.18F rise in 18 years rises to the point of statistical significance, but you are welcome to show that it does.

Your several other disjointed arguments thrown out are unrelated to the actual claim made.

Unless you would like to misrepresent the claim made and then proceed with a strawman argument?

lol...

Some people on this forum deny "the fact that there has been no warming in 19 years" , therefore "Warmers are Deniers"?

Claiming "warmers are deniers" is not a logical conclusion. Perhaps "some warmers are deniers" is a more useful statement.

I assume you accept the obvious truth of "all warming-deniers are deniers".





I have some questions about your "precisely and accurately stated" argument that was based on one data set

You claim a single data set as to be decisive proof?
Why do you think such a single data set to be decisive enough to be unequivocally accepted as proof of non-warming?

Now that particular data set has been shown to be incorrect and has been adjusted. Is your "precisely and accurately stated" argument still relevant?



Whether or not "0.18F rise in 18 years rises to the point of statistical significance" is important is probably less relevant than the justification for your argument is no longer useful.

No-one should claim global warming to be 100% predictable or linear. Meterologists often can't even predict tomorrow.

[tvbcof]

...
No-one should claim global warming to be 100% predictable or linear. Meterologists often can't even predict tomorrow.

The Salby presentation I've pointed to earlier demonstrate that the computer models show that the predicted temperatures so closely and so exactly mirror the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere that one does not even need a model even though the idea that CO2 is the only force impacting temperature is ludicrous.  In fact, even limiting to the considerations associated with greenhouse gasses, CO2 takes a back seat to water vapor.

What the climate change scammers are doing is throwing so much shit at the wall that their adversaries cannot keep up.  This is fine because when someone does the actual research and observation to cross-check and does find out that one of the 'dangers' is a load of BS, policy has already been made and that is never rolled back.

A good example is the 'ocean acidification' crap:

For one thing, the very word 'acidification' is bogus.  The ocean is alkali.  For it to move toward even becoming acidic at all it moves toward neutral (a pH of 7.0.)  Thus, the proper term would be 'ocean neutralization.'  The scammers, however, knew that the sheep had seen a James Bond movie where someone was thrown into a vat of acid and knew that 'ocean acidification' would scare the shit out of people.  And it does.  Especially scientifically illiterate greenies.

In my state there was a successful effort to tax people more for fuel so we could be more like Kalifornia.  The whole political/media machine was awash in stories of 'ocean acidification' which was the hot and happening thing in green-scam-land at the time (last year) and it worked.  Our DEQ is working on figuring out how to further fuck people as I tap this out.  Theory was that all of the shelled creatures were going to dissolve and mother Gaia would die.  After a year went by and there were more shelled creatures than ever, the 'scientists' are admitting their 'mistake.'  Are the taxes being backed out?  Of course not.

Our 'first lady' and her doddering old husband (Gov. Kitzhaber) were thrown out of office for massive green influence peddling and the scammery surrounding the gas tax (esp, what to do with the loot when it started to pour in out of Joe Sixpack's pocket) was a significant part of this malfeasance.  Even after THAT the gas tax thing remains on the fast-track.  Oregon is a one-party Democrat state and has been for long enough for these types of people to have become completely entrenched.  Like a bad case of tape worms.

[valta4065]

So banning should re enforced for the non believers then. Get it. Should we ban all of those who not only do not believe in bitcoin or all of those creating altcoins on bitcointalk?

I understand why you got banned. You sincerely lack of any kind of logic and only use poor arguments and logical fallacies. Meanwhile you totally and widely ignore any proof provided to you.

None of the numerous articles I've posted have been even commented. You don't give a fuck about discussing, you just want to post your opinions that's all.

[valta4065]

Unfortunately for you, the argument that was made, by me, was precisely and accurately stated as to being referential to one data set.  The blind arrogance in ignoring that claim and it's statistical verification was ignored by the Warmers resident here whom then I can only call Deniers on the basis of their actions.

Frankly I don't know that 0.18F rise in 18 years rises to the point of statistical significance, but you are welcome to show that it does.

Your several other disjointed arguments thrown out are unrelated to the actual claim made.

Unless you would like to misrepresent the claim made and then proceed with a strawman argument?

lol...

Yeah like the fact that you and your colleagues widely ignored every single logical argument made here.

I've posted something like 4 articles explaining the consequences and the origine of climate change.

You didn't even replied to it. You simply ignored them and post other false informations.

Your only sources are poor blogs that totally and willingly misinterpret the scientific reports.

[valta4065]

Information post

Here is a quote of myself as Spendulus and his followers seem to just ignored it.

Please feel free to not blindly trust me but follow the links. You'll see it appear they just made plain lies and can't admit it.

Unless you understand "the increase went from 0.17 to 0.11 which is not understood by our models and is interesting" as "there is no longer increase and a pause".

Spendulus and Wilikon gave this article out saying it proves the "pause they're all claiming". here is the article:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/mann-splaining-the-pause.php

Of course ti's not a scientific article or study just a blog. But no problem the article says there is a pause so it's interesting. It's using a very biased vocabulary but hey, who has no opinion? It's not a crime to be happy when your side wins!

Let's check the sources then. Not very diversified sourcing but well. Mainly Nature articles so let's check them.

First source:
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20160225&spMailingID=50779167&spUserID=MTc2NjY4OTI4MwS2&spJobID=863136582&spReportId=ODYzMTM2NTgyS0

Do they talk about a pause in temperature?
"The debate revolves in part around statistics on temperature trends. The study1 that questioned the existence of the slowdown corrected known biases in the surface temperature record maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), such as differences in temperature readings from ships and buoys. This effectively increased the warming recorded, and the researchers also extended the record to include 2014, which set a new record high for average temperatures.

That work, led by Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville, North Carolina, calculated the rate of global warming between 1950 and 1999 as being 0.113 °C per decade, similar to the 0.116 °C a decade calculated for 2000–14. This, Karl said, meant that an assessment done by the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 20133  showing that warming had slowed was no longer valid.

Fyfe and his colleagues argue2 that Karl’s approach was biased by a period of relatively flat temperatures that extended from the 1950s into the early 1970s. Greenhouse-gas emissions were lower then, and emissions of industrial pollutants such as sulphate aerosols were cooling the planet by reflecting sunlight back into space. Fyfe says that his calculations show that the planet warmed at 0.170 °C per decade from 1972 to 2001, which is significantly higher than the warming of 0.113 °C per decade he calculates for 2000–14."

Ok so they never talk about a pause here... They talk about a slow down...

Let's check the second source:
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-hiatus-disappears-with-new-data-1.17700

"All told, Karl's team finds that global temperatures increased at a rate of 0.116°C a decade in 2000–14, compared to a rate of 0.113°C in 1950–99. And Karl says that rate will probably go up once his team calculates the temperature increase for the entirety of the rapidly warming Arctic. Researchers found in 2013 that gaps in Arctic observations artificially cooled the Met Office temperature record2.

The latest study only resolved part of the question. Climate models used by the IPCC still project warming to continue, but scientists have documented various factors for which the models have not accounted, resulting in suppressed temperatures. These contributors include weak solar irradiation, volcanic aerosols that block sunlight and ocean circulation3.

“Once you take into account the slight forcing errors, the actual occurrence of El Niños, et cetera, there is very little left to explain,” says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City."

Damn no pause here either!


Could it be possible that they talk only about a slow down because it's all there is?

[Spendulus]

...
I have some questions about your "precisely and accurately stated" argument that was based on one data set

You claim a single data set as to be decisive proof?
Why do you think such a single data set to be decisive enough to be unequivocally accepted as proof of non-warming?

Now that particular data set has been shown to be incorrect and has been adjusted. Is your "precisely and accurately stated" argument still relevant?



Whether or not "0.18F rise in 18 years rises to the point of statistical significance" is important is probably less relevant than the justification for your argument is no longer useful....

Do you think that misrepresenting an argument made is a refutation?

If so, you may actually qualify to be a Warmer Scientist.

[SgtMoth]

Information post

Here is a quote of myself as Spendulus and his followers seem to just ignored it.

Please feel free to not blindly trust me but follow the links. You'll see it appear they just made plain lies and can't admit it.

Unless you understand "the increase went from 0.17 to 0.11 which is not understood by our models and is interesting" as "there is no longer increase and a pause".

Spendulus and Wilikon gave this article out saying it proves the "pause they're all claiming". here is the article:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/mann-splaining-the-pause.php

Of course ti's not a scientific article or study just a blog. But no problem the article says there is a pause so it's interesting. It's using a very biased vocabulary but hey, who has no opinion? It's not a crime to be happy when your side wins!

Let's check the sources then. Not very diversified sourcing but well. Mainly Nature articles so let's check them.

First source:
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20160225&spMailingID=50779167&spUserID=MTc2NjY4OTI4MwS2&spJobID=863136582&spReportId=ODYzMTM2NTgyS0

Do they talk about a pause in temperature?
"The debate revolves in part around statistics on temperature trends. The study1 that questioned the existence of the slowdown corrected known biases in the surface temperature record maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), such as differences in temperature readings from ships and buoys. This effectively increased the warming recorded, and the researchers also extended the record to include 2014, which set a new record high for average temperatures.

That work, led by Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville, North Carolina, calculated the rate of global warming between 1950 and 1999 as being 0.113 °C per decade, similar to the 0.116 °C a decade calculated for 2000–14. This, Karl said, meant that an assessment done by the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 20133  showing that warming had slowed was no longer valid.

Fyfe and his colleagues argue2 that Karl’s approach was biased by a period of relatively flat temperatures that extended from the 1950s into the early 1970s. Greenhouse-gas emissions were lower then, and emissions of industrial pollutants such as sulphate aerosols were cooling the planet by reflecting sunlight back into space. Fyfe says that his calculations show that the planet warmed at 0.170 °C per decade from 1972 to 2001, which is significantly higher than the warming of 0.113 °C per decade he calculates for 2000–14."

Ok so they never talk about a pause here... They talk about a slow down...

Let's check the second source:
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-hiatus-disappears-with-new-data-1.17700

"All told, Karl's team finds that global temperatures increased at a rate of 0.116°C a decade in 2000–14, compared to a rate of 0.113°C in 1950–99. And Karl says that rate will probably go up once his team calculates the temperature increase for the entirety of the rapidly warming Arctic. Researchers found in 2013 that gaps in Arctic observations artificially cooled the Met Office temperature record2.

The latest study only resolved part of the question. Climate models used by the IPCC still project warming to continue, but scientists have documented various factors for which the models have not accounted, resulting in suppressed temperatures. These contributors include weak solar irradiation, volcanic aerosols that block sunlight and ocean circulation3.

“Once you take into account the slight forcing errors, the actual occurrence of El Niños, et cetera, there is very little left to explain,” says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City."

Damn no pause here either!


Could it be possible that they talk only about a slow down because it's all there is?

I dont follow anybody.  I live on the northern edge of the prairie in Canada where we are sensitive to temperature.  I was raised on a farm and we grew crops for a living.  Its not getting warmer here.  Besides this winter, which to me has be close to the winters i grew up in, if anything its getting much much colder.  I work outside, I alway have and probably always will.  We plant around Mothers day and it usually snows here after Halloween except now snow usually comes before halloween.  The growing season is getting shorter up here if anything.  I dont need some asshole at nasa to tell me its getting warmer when its not getting warmer up here.  I dont trust ground temperature records for the last 10-15 years for one reason.  It used to be average people recording temperatures up here.  Now everything is automated and 9 times out of 10 temperatures are recorded by unmanned equipment at airports.  I had a family member that used to do it and she got replaced by automated equipment that no one watches.  When somebodys life depends on the weather your going to tell me something else then my own eyes are telling me?

[mainpmf]

I dont follow anybody.  I live on the northern edge of the prairie in Canada where we are sensitive to temperature.  I was raised on a farm and we grew crops for a living.  Its not getting warmer here.  Besides this winter, which to me has be close to the winters i grew up in, if anything its getting much much colder.  I work outside, I alway have and probably always will.  We plant around Mothers day and it usually snows here after Halloween except now snow usually comes before halloween.  The growing season is getting shorter up here if anything.  I dont need some asshole at nasa to tell me its getting warmer when its not getting warmer up here.  I dont trust ground temperature records for the last 10-15 years for one reason.  It used to be average people recording temperatures up here.  Now everything is automated and 9 times out of 10 temperatures are recorded by unmanned equipment at airports.  I had a family member that used to do it and she got replaced by automated equipment that no one watches.  When somebodys life depends on the weather your going to tell me something else then my own eyes are telling me?

The fact that average temperature around the glob is rising doesn't mean it can't get colder in some places.

Rather the opposite in fact. climate being something incredibly sensitive it's logical any kind of change can have huge and various impact all around the world.

The fact that your family member was replaced by an automatic machine has nothing to do with this. Yell at capitalism.

[SgtMoth]

I dont follow anybody.  I live on the northern edge of the prairie in Canada where we are sensitive to temperature.  I was raised on a farm and we grew crops for a living.  Its not getting warmer here.  Besides this winter, which to me has be close to the winters i grew up in, if anything its getting much much colder.  I work outside, I alway have and probably always will.  We plant around Mothers day and it usually snows here after Halloween except now snow usually comes before halloween.  The growing season is getting shorter up here if anything.  I dont need some asshole at nasa to tell me its getting warmer when its not getting warmer up here.  I dont trust ground temperature records for the last 10-15 years for one reason.  It used to be average people recording temperatures up here.  Now everything is automated and 9 times out of 10 temperatures are recorded by unmanned equipment at airports.  I had a family member that used to do it and she got replaced by automated equipment that no one watches.  When somebodys life depends on the weather your going to tell me something else then my own eyes are telling me?

The fact that average temperature around the glob is rising doesn't mean it can't get colder in some places.

Rather the opposite in fact. climate being something incredibly sensitive it's logical any kind of change can have huge and various impact all around the world.

The fact that your family member was replaced by an automatic machine has nothing to do with this. Yell at capitalism.

yup yup rising everywhere else but here really makes sense and I suppose the rise in major hurricanes help your argument too.  I suppose the arctic is ice free and polar bears are disappearing too.  Where do you live?

[mainpmf]

I dont follow anybody.  I live on the northern edge of the prairie in Canada where we are sensitive to temperature.  I was raised on a farm and we grew crops for a living.  Its not getting warmer here.  Besides this winter, which to me has be close to the winters i grew up in, if anything its getting much much colder.  I work outside, I alway have and probably always will.  We plant around Mothers day and it usually snows here after Halloween except now snow usually comes before halloween.  The growing season is getting shorter up here if anything.  I dont need some asshole at nasa to tell me its getting warmer when its not getting warmer up here.  I dont trust ground temperature records for the last 10-15 years for one reason.  It used to be average people recording temperatures up here.  Now everything is automated and 9 times out of 10 temperatures are recorded by unmanned equipment at airports.  I had a family member that used to do it and she got replaced by automated equipment that no one watches.  When somebodys life depends on the weather your going to tell me something else then my own eyes are telling me?

The fact that average temperature around the glob is rising doesn't mean it can't get colder in some places.

Rather the opposite in fact. climate being something incredibly sensitive it's logical any kind of change can have huge and various impact all around the world.

The fact that your family member was replaced by an automatic machine has nothing to do with this. Yell at capitalism.

yup yup rising everywhere else but here really makes sense and I suppose the rise in major hurricanes help your argument too.  I suppose the arctic is ice free and polar bears are disappearing too.  Where do you live?

Europe. And here it's getting more and more extreme. Temperatures records are broken every year so I see things differently from you I suppose.

Talking about hurricanes, compare the last 20years to last century:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html

And yes rising globally meaning it disturbs the air streams and hence disturbs distribution of warmth around the earth makes sense.

[SgtMoth]

I dont follow anybody.  I live on the northern edge of the prairie in Canada where we are sensitive to temperature.  I was raised on a farm and we grew crops for a living.  Its not getting warmer here.  Besides this winter, which to me has be close to the winters i grew up in, if anything its getting much much colder.  I work outside, I alway have and probably always will.  We plant around Mothers day and it usually snows here after Halloween except now snow usually comes before halloween.  The growing season is getting shorter up here if anything.  I dont need some asshole at nasa to tell me its getting warmer when its not getting warmer up here.  I dont trust ground temperature records for the last 10-15 years for one reason.  It used to be average people recording temperatures up here.  Now everything is automated and 9 times out of 10 temperatures are recorded by unmanned equipment at airports.  I had a family member that used to do it and she got replaced by automated equipment that no one watches.  When somebodys life depends on the weather your going to tell me something else then my own eyes are telling me?

The fact that average temperature around the glob is rising doesn't mean it can't get colder in some places.

Rather the opposite in fact. climate being something incredibly sensitive it's logical any kind of change can have huge and various impact all around the world.

The fact that your family member was replaced by an automatic machine has nothing to do with this. Yell at capitalism.

yup yup rising everywhere else but here really makes sense and I suppose the rise in major hurricanes help your argument too.  I suppose the arctic is ice free and polar bears are disappearing too.  Where do you live?

Europe. And here it's getting more and more extreme. Temperatures records are broken every year so I see things differently from you I suppose.

Talking about hurricanes, compare the last 20years to last century:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html

And yes rising globally meaning it disturbs the air streams and hence disturbs distribution of warmth around the earth makes sense.

Are you recording temperatures too or do you just believe everything you hear.  So the disturbed air streams arent melting the artic ice or are they?

[mainpmf]

I dont follow anybody.  I live on the northern edge of the prairie in Canada where we are sensitive to temperature.  I was raised on a farm and we grew crops for a living.  Its not getting warmer here.  Besides this winter, which to me has be close to the winters i grew up in, if anything its getting much much colder.  I work outside, I alway have and probably always will.  We plant around Mothers day and it usually snows here after Halloween except now snow usually comes before halloween.  The growing season is getting shorter up here if anything.  I dont need some asshole at nasa to tell me its getting warmer when its not getting warmer up here.  I dont trust ground temperature records for the last 10-15 years for one reason.  It used to be average people recording temperatures up here.  Now everything is automated and 9 times out of 10 temperatures are recorded by unmanned equipment at airports.  I had a family member that used to do it and she got replaced by automated equipment that no one watches.  When somebodys life depends on the weather your going to tell me something else then my own eyes are telling me?

The fact that average temperature around the glob is rising doesn't mean it can't get colder in some places.

Rather the opposite in fact. climate being something incredibly sensitive it's logical any kind of change can have huge and various impact all around the world.

The fact that your family member was replaced by an automatic machine has nothing to do with this. Yell at capitalism.

yup yup rising everywhere else but here really makes sense and I suppose the rise in major hurricanes help your argument too.  I suppose the arctic is ice free and polar bears are disappearing too.  Where do you live?

Europe. And here it's getting more and more extreme. Temperatures records are broken every year so I see things differently from you I suppose.

Talking about hurricanes, compare the last 20years to last century:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html

And yes rising globally meaning it disturbs the air streams and hence disturbs distribution of warmth around the earth makes sense.

Are you recording temperatures too or do you just believe everything you hear.  So the disturbed air streams arent melting the artic ice or are they?

I believe the national weather agency if that's what you ask. If you don't then it's complicated to think about anything you don't do yourself...

The theory is that global warming lead to ice melting which leads to change of salinity in the ocean which leads to change of air stream hence distribution of warmth.

Have you checked the hurricanes records? Cause they seem rather in a up trend to me...

[Wilikon]

Ten years after Katrina: let’s learn from those predictions of more & bigger hurricanes


Summary — Most 10-year anniversary articles about Katrina omit one chapter of that sad story: its exploitation by climate activists. They predicted more and stronger hurricanes. Let’s grade them. Every time activists falsely cry “wolf” we become weaker, less able to prepare for real threats. Remembering is the first step to learning.

“Sooner or later, everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences.”
— Attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson.

Contents


    Katrina and Wilma hit America.
    Alarmists exploit the disaster.
    Hurricanes go MIA.
    Forecasts of  hurricanes.
    Conclusions.




http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/27/ten-years-after-katrina-lets-learn-from-those-predictions-of-more-bigger-hurricanes/

[mainpmf]

Ten years after Katrina: let’s learn from those predictions of more & bigger hurricanes


Summary — Most 10-year anniversary articles about Katrina omit one chapter of that sad story: its exploitation by climate activists. They predicted more and stronger hurricanes. Let’s grade them. Every time activists falsely cry “wolf” we become weaker, less able to prepare for real threats. Remembering is the first step to learning.

“Sooner or later, everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences.”
— Attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson.

Contents


    Katrina and Wilma hit America.
    Alarmists exploit the disaster.
    Hurricanes go MIA.
    Forecasts of  hurricanes.
    Conclusions.




http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/27/ten-years-after-katrina-lets-learn-from-those-predictions-of-more-bigger-hurricanes/

This article is actually saying that hurricanes will come more numerous and stronger but that people will be badly prepared because Climate change scientists warned them? Oo

How can you support such a claim?

[Wilikon]

Ten years after Katrina: let’s learn from those predictions of more & bigger hurricanes


Summary — Most 10-year anniversary articles about Katrina omit one chapter of that sad story: its exploitation by climate activists. They predicted more and stronger hurricanes. Let’s grade them. Every time activists falsely cry “wolf” we become weaker, less able to prepare for real threats. Remembering is the first step to learning.

“Sooner or later, everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences.”
— Attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson.

Contents


    Katrina and Wilma hit America.
    Alarmists exploit the disaster.
    Hurricanes go MIA.
    Forecasts of  hurricanes.
    Conclusions.




http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/27/ten-years-after-katrina-lets-learn-from-those-predictions-of-more-bigger-hurricanes/

This article is actually saying that hurricanes will come more numerous and stronger but that people will be badly prepared because Climate change scientists warned them? Oo

How can you support such a claim?

You will be surprised to learn this thread, unlike reddit, is about not banning any thoughts, perspectives, hypothesis. Yes, coming from your point of view, this revelation is shockingly new and unheard of...