Climate change prediction facts

[Soggy in NOLA]

Way to ignore the facts. Even when put in terms that might mean something to those who think every facet of life should be monetized , dollars that is, you still want to deny.

Never mind, just put your head back in the sand.

I love how you guys see trends in a 30 year period out of 4,500,000,000 years. So oh great scientific wonder, 0.00000066667% is a trend? Man you guys are dumb.

 

[PredFan]

The clue to the scam is in his OP. It's what the AGW scammers "label" a climate event. Everything is included.

If it's hot, climate change!
If it's cold, climate change!
Lots of rain? Climate Change!
Drought? Climate Change!
Hurricanes? Climate Change!
Tornadoes? Climate Change!
No snow, climate change!
Too much snow, climate change!

That's how the scam works.

 

[OKTexas]

The climate is changing as predicted by climate scientists. Their prediction is proved right by the statistics. No scientist can say for sure that any particular weather event is directly caused by global warming, but what has been predicted is that extreme weather events will increase in number. What is an extreme weather event? It could be any of the following; hurricane, tornado, flood, extraordinary heat and or wild fires, extraordinary cold, snowfall/crop freeze event. The inclusive requirement being at least $1billion in property damages (in inflation adjusted $).

So has there been an increase?

Let's go to the numbers. Following are the average number of extreme weather events by decade since 1980 when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (a division of NASA ) began compiling the data.
1980's - 2.7 events per year
1990's - 4.9 events per year
2000's - 5.4 events per year
2010's - 10.3 events per year

We are now experiencing extreme weather events of at least $1 billion dollar in property damage at triple the rate we were in the 1980's. Science deniers will of course deny this information, because that is what they do...

To make it worse, Trump just nominated a science denying politician to head up NASA. Rep.Jim Bridenstine R. Oklahoma, who has no science background (first nominee ever without a science background) to head NASA. Already there is bipartisan push back. The Senate should reject this nominee. We must have someone leading who understands the scientific method and believes what the science shows.

Science makes predictions all the time that turn out to be true, for instance my wife and I just made a 1100 mile journey to a place predicted by science to be an optimal viewing location for the solar eclipse. We were there on the appointed day at the exact predicted time and low and behold the eclipse was exactly as predicted! Science works! Even on climate science!

Wasn't the northern polar ice caps supposed to be gone and FL and large parts of the US coast under water by now? So much for predictions.


.

 

[FJO]

Not a single rebuttal on point. No I'm not surprised. Not a single reply to the fact that extreme weather events, which have always happened are now happening at triple the rate they were just a few decades ago.

Don't forget Trump's Chumps, extreme weather events are those that cause a minimum of $1Billion dollars in damages. That's a bad thing, not ok even though it's happened before.

Apparently, Trumps Chumps don't know that more of a bad thing is bad.

Can it be stated any more plainly, simply? Not for Trumps Chumps.

Is a catastrophic earthquake causing a $billion damage an "event" in your prediction?

Is is also caused by republican callous indifference toward science?

 

[Theowl32]

By the way the climate change predictions also say the the extreme weather events in some cases will exceed past events in destructiveness. Harvey produced the greatest rainfall from a single storm in history and Irma has now by classified as strong a hurricane as any before.

Delay of El Nino may spur more hurricanes in the Atlantic during 2017; US on alert for impacts

All predicted by those same meteorologists that you love to quote. Just so you know the ACTUAL reasons for the frequency of this Cape Verde season. Which every year is from Aug 1st till November.

Every single Cat 3 or stronger to ever hit this country has been a Cape Verde storm. This years hurricanes no different.

Of course the delayed El Nino is the cause and your meteorologists confirmed it before Cape Verde season started.

You, are wrong. Plus, you do nothing for the environment anyway. As you claimed my rhetorical questions were strawman arguments. Funny.

You are funny.

 

[BlindBoo]

Not a single rebuttal on point. No I'm not surprised. Not a single reply to the fact that extreme weather events, which have always happened are now happening at triple the rate they were just a few decades ago.

Don't forget Trump's Chumps, extreme weather events are those that cause a minimum of $1Billion dollars in damages. That's a bad thing, not ok even though it's happened before.

Apparently, Trumps Chumps don't know that more of a bad thing is bad.

Can it be stated any more plainly, simply? Not for Trumps Chumps.

No one can rebut your unnamed source, ever!

My source is NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). I said that in the OP. Did you go to their site? They have a list of every extreme weather event since 1980 when they began compiling the data. It tells what, where, when the event was as well as the cost in dollars (minimum $1Billion).

These guys?

Global Warming and Hurricanes – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

• It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).
• Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
• There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.
• Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day ones, with a model-projected increase of about 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.

 

[hazlnut]

Climate "Science" is a joke. It's the only "Science" where the practitioners try to kill off the skeptics and jump up and down like monkeys and say they have "Consensus"

Riddle me this, EnviroMarxists, why didn't we have a similar hurricane season in the Atlantic in the last 15 years? Was the extra 2PPM CO2 the deciding factor?

Um… we didn't.

Someone lied to you.

Sorry.

 

[BlindBoo]

The climate is changing as predicted by climate scientists. Their prediction is proved right by the statistics. No scientist can say for sure that any particular weather event is directly caused by global warming, but what has been predicted is that extreme weather events will increase in number. What is an extreme weather event? It could be any of the following; hurricane, tornado, flood, extraordinary heat and or wild fires, extraordinary cold, snowfall/crop freeze event. The inclusive requirement being at least $1billion in property damages (in inflation adjusted $).

So has there been an increase?

Let's go to the numbers. Following are the average number of extreme weather events by decade since 1980 when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (a division of NASA ) began compiling the data.
1980's - 2.7 events per year
1990's - 4.9 events per year
2000's - 5.4 events per year
2010's - 10.3 events per year

We are now experiencing extreme weather events of at least $1 billion dollar in property damage at triple the rate we were in the 1980's. Science deniers will of course deny this information, because that is what they do...

To make it worse, Trump just nominated a science denying politician to head up NASA. Rep.Jim Bridenstine R. Oklahoma, who has no science background (first nominee ever without a science background) to head NASA. Already there is bipartisan push back. The Senate should reject this nominee. We must have someone leading who understands the scientific method and believes what the science shows.

Science makes predictions all the time that turn out to be true, for instance my wife and I just made a 1100 mile journey to a place predicted by science to be an optimal viewing location for the solar eclipse. We were there on the appointed day at the exact predicted time and low and behold the eclipse was exactly as predicted! Science works! Even on climate science!

Wasn't the northern polar ice caps supposed to be gone and FL and large parts of the US coast under water by now? So much for predictions.


.

No. That was politicians taking the worst case scenario and trying to frighten the bejesus out of folks with it. If I recall correctly the consensus was sometime after 2050 there would be Ice free summers in the Arctic. Greenland's Ice would melt and cause sea level to rise a good deal but I don't recall the date on that shit right now. I'm sure it was sometime late in this century as most likely.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Not a single rebuttal on point. No I'm not surprised. Not a single reply to the fact that extreme weather events, which have always happened are now happening at triple the rate they were just a few decades ago.

Don't forget Trump's Chumps, extreme weather events are those that cause a minimum of $1Billion dollars in damages. That's a bad thing, not ok even though it's happened before.

Apparently, Trumps Chumps don't know that more of a bad thing is bad.

Can it be stated any more plainly, simply? Not for Trumps Chumps.

No one can rebut your unnamed source, ever!

My source is NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). I said that in the OP. Did you go to their site? They have a list of every extreme weather event since 1980 when they began compiling the data. It tells what, where, when the event was as well as the cost in dollars (minimum $1Billion).

These guys?

Global Warming and Hurricanes – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

• It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).
• Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
• There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.
• Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day ones, with a model-projected increase of about 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.

That's like saying we haven't detected God yet, but that doesn't mean God is not there.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The climate is changing as predicted by climate scientists. Their prediction is proved right by the statistics. No scientist can say for sure that any particular weather event is directly caused by global warming, but what has been predicted is that extreme weather events will increase in number. What is an extreme weather event? It could be any of the following; hurricane, tornado, flood, extraordinary heat and or wild fires, extraordinary cold, snowfall/crop freeze event. The inclusive requirement being at least $1billion in property damages (in inflation adjusted $).

So has there been an increase?

Let's go to the numbers. Following are the average number of extreme weather events by decade since 1980 when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (a division of NASA ) began compiling the data.
1980's - 2.7 events per year
1990's - 4.9 events per year
2000's - 5.4 events per year
2010's - 10.3 events per year

We are now experiencing extreme weather events of at least $1 billion dollar in property damage at triple the rate we were in the 1980's. Science deniers will of course deny this information, because that is what they do...

To make it worse, Trump just nominated a science denying politician to head up NASA. Rep.Jim Bridenstine R. Oklahoma, who has no science background (first nominee ever without a science background) to head NASA. Already there is bipartisan push back. The Senate should reject this nominee. We must have someone leading who understands the scientific method and believes what the science shows.

Science makes predictions all the time that turn out to be true, for instance my wife and I just made a 1100 mile journey to a place predicted by science to be an optimal viewing location for the solar eclipse. We were there on the appointed day at the exact predicted time and low and behold the eclipse was exactly as predicted! Science works! Even on climate science!

Wasn't the northern polar ice caps supposed to be gone and FL and large parts of the US coast under water by now? So much for predictions.


.

No. That was politicians taking the worst case scenario and trying to frighten the bejesus out of folks with it. If I recall correctly the consensus was sometime after 2050 there would be Ice free summers in the Arctic. Greenland's Ice would melt and cause sea level to rise a good deal but I don't recall the date on that shit right now. I'm sure it was sometime late in this century as most likely.

2012 the arctic was to be ice free.

Most prolific period of life on earth was when palm trees grew in the arctic. Embrace change.

 

[OKTexas]

The climate is changing as predicted by climate scientists. Their prediction is proved right by the statistics. No scientist can say for sure that any particular weather event is directly caused by global warming, but what has been predicted is that extreme weather events will increase in number. What is an extreme weather event? It could be any of the following; hurricane, tornado, flood, extraordinary heat and or wild fires, extraordinary cold, snowfall/crop freeze event. The inclusive requirement being at least $1billion in property damages (in inflation adjusted $).

So has there been an increase?

Let's go to the numbers. Following are the average number of extreme weather events by decade since 1980 when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (a division of NASA ) began compiling the data.
1980's - 2.7 events per year
1990's - 4.9 events per year
2000's - 5.4 events per year
2010's - 10.3 events per year

We are now experiencing extreme weather events of at least $1 billion dollar in property damage at triple the rate we were in the 1980's. Science deniers will of course deny this information, because that is what they do...

To make it worse, Trump just nominated a science denying politician to head up NASA. Rep.Jim Bridenstine R. Oklahoma, who has no science background (first nominee ever without a science background) to head NASA. Already there is bipartisan push back. The Senate should reject this nominee. We must have someone leading who understands the scientific method and believes what the science shows.

Science makes predictions all the time that turn out to be true, for instance my wife and I just made a 1100 mile journey to a place predicted by science to be an optimal viewing location for the solar eclipse. We were there on the appointed day at the exact predicted time and low and behold the eclipse was exactly as predicted! Science works! Even on climate science!

Wasn't the northern polar ice caps supposed to be gone and FL and large parts of the US coast under water by now? So much for predictions.


.

No. That was politicians taking the worst case scenario and trying to frighten the bejesus out of folks with it. If I recall correctly the consensus was sometime after 2050 there would be Ice free summers in the Arctic. Greenland's Ice would melt and cause sea level to rise a good deal but I don't recall the date on that shit right now. I'm sure it was sometime late in this century as most likely.

Al the whore, hight priest of climate change, said it already should have happened.

Al Gore Ice-Free Arctic Update

The fact is, it's thicker than it has been in decades.


.

 

[Markle]

Why do Climate Scientists spend 99% of their time trying to prove what can't be proved? In the meantime, they all but ignore the solid waste pollution that is turning our Oceans into a liquid landfill? In another 20 years you won't be able to drive a boat 100 yards without bumping into a plastic carton or a dead fish.

Do you or your family buy bottled water or soft drinks?

 

[Markle]

The climate is changing as predicted by climate scientists. Their prediction is proved right by the statistics. No scientist can say for sure that any particular weather event is directly caused by global warming, but what has been predicted is that extreme weather events will increase in number. What is an extreme weather event? It could be any of the following; hurricane, tornado, flood, extraordinary heat and or wild fires, extraordinary cold, snowfall/crop freeze event. The inclusive requirement being at least $1billion in property damages (in inflation adjusted $).

So has there been an increase?

Let's go to the numbers. Following are the average number of extreme weather events by decade since 1980 when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (a division of NASA ) began compiling the data.
1980's - 2.7 events per year
1990's - 4.9 events per year
2000's - 5.4 events per year
2010's - 10.3 events per year

We are now experiencing extreme weather events of at least $1 billion dollar in property damage at triple the rate we were in the 1980's. Science deniers will of course deny this information, because that is what they do...

To make it worse, Trump just nominated a science denying politician to head up NASA. Rep.Jim Bridenstine R. Oklahoma, who has no science background (first nominee ever without a science background) to head NASA. Already there is bipartisan push back. The Senate should reject this nominee. We must have someone leading who understands the scientific method and believes what the science shows.

Science makes predictions all the time that turn out to be true, for instance my wife and I just made a 1100 mile journey to a place predicted by science to be an optimal viewing location for the solar eclipse. We were there on the appointed day at the exact predicted time and low and behold the eclipse was exactly as predicted! Science works! Even on climate science!

The fact is, the predictions didn't get any facts even close to the proximity of being right.

That 30,000 doesn't count thousands that exist on the interior of Greenland.

 

[BlindBoo]

The climate is changing as predicted by climate scientists. Their prediction is proved right by the statistics. No scientist can say for sure that any particular weather event is directly caused by global warming, but what has been predicted is that extreme weather events will increase in number. What is an extreme weather event? It could be any of the following; hurricane, tornado, flood, extraordinary heat and or wild fires, extraordinary cold, snowfall/crop freeze event. The inclusive requirement being at least $1billion in property damages (in inflation adjusted $).

So has there been an increase?

Let's go to the numbers. Following are the average number of extreme weather events by decade since 1980 when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (a division of NASA ) began compiling the data.
1980's - 2.7 events per year
1990's - 4.9 events per year
2000's - 5.4 events per year
2010's - 10.3 events per year

We are now experiencing extreme weather events of at least $1 billion dollar in property damage at triple the rate we were in the 1980's. Science deniers will of course deny this information, because that is what they do...

To make it worse, Trump just nominated a science denying politician to head up NASA. Rep.Jim Bridenstine R. Oklahoma, who has no science background (first nominee ever without a science background) to head NASA. Already there is bipartisan push back. The Senate should reject this nominee. We must have someone leading who understands the scientific method and believes what the science shows.

Science makes predictions all the time that turn out to be true, for instance my wife and I just made a 1100 mile journey to a place predicted by science to be an optimal viewing location for the solar eclipse. We were there on the appointed day at the exact predicted time and low and behold the eclipse was exactly as predicted! Science works! Even on climate science!

Wasn't the northern polar ice caps supposed to be gone and FL and large parts of the US coast under water by now? So much for predictions.


.

No. That was politicians taking the worst case scenario and trying to frighten the bejesus out of folks with it. If I recall correctly the consensus was sometime after 2050 there would be Ice free summers in the Arctic. Greenland's Ice would melt and cause sea level to rise a good deal but I don't recall the date on that shit right now. I'm sure it was sometime late in this century as most likely.

2012 the arctic was to be ice free.

Most prolific period of life on earth was when palm trees grew in the arctic. Embrace change.

Prove it!

The poles have not always been where they are today.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The climate is changing as predicted by climate scientists. Their prediction is proved right by the statistics. No scientist can say for sure that any particular weather event is directly caused by global warming, but what has been predicted is that extreme weather events will increase in number. What is an extreme weather event? It could be any of the following; hurricane, tornado, flood, extraordinary heat and or wild fires, extraordinary cold, snowfall/crop freeze event. The inclusive requirement being at least $1billion in property damages (in inflation adjusted $).

So has there been an increase?

Let's go to the numbers. Following are the average number of extreme weather events by decade since 1980 when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (a division of NASA ) began compiling the data.
1980's - 2.7 events per year
1990's - 4.9 events per year
2000's - 5.4 events per year
2010's - 10.3 events per year

We are now experiencing extreme weather events of at least $1 billion dollar in property damage at triple the rate we were in the 1980's. Science deniers will of course deny this information, because that is what they do...

To make it worse, Trump just nominated a science denying politician to head up NASA. Rep.Jim Bridenstine R. Oklahoma, who has no science background (first nominee ever without a science background) to head NASA. Already there is bipartisan push back. The Senate should reject this nominee. We must have someone leading who understands the scientific method and believes what the science shows.

Science makes predictions all the time that turn out to be true, for instance my wife and I just made a 1100 mile journey to a place predicted by science to be an optimal viewing location for the solar eclipse. We were there on the appointed day at the exact predicted time and low and behold the eclipse was exactly as predicted! Science works! Even on climate science!

Wasn't the northern polar ice caps supposed to be gone and FL and large parts of the US coast under water by now? So much for predictions.


.

No. That was politicians taking the worst case scenario and trying to frighten the bejesus out of folks with it. If I recall correctly the consensus was sometime after 2050 there would be Ice free summers in the Arctic. Greenland's Ice would melt and cause sea level to rise a good deal but I don't recall the date on that shit right now. I'm sure it was sometime late in this century as most likely.

2012 the arctic was to be ice free.

Most prolific period of life on earth was when palm trees grew in the arctic. Embrace change.

Prove it!

The poles have not always been where they are today.

Your ignorance of facts is why you're a lefty.

Antarctica once covered in palm trees, scientists discover

Fossilized Tropical Forest Found — in Arctic Norway

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/technology/nunavut-dinosaur-fossil-is-most-northern-ever-found-1.2598606

 

[BlindBoo]

The climate is changing as predicted by climate scientists. Their prediction is proved right by the statistics. No scientist can say for sure that any particular weather event is directly caused by global warming, but what has been predicted is that extreme weather events will increase in number. What is an extreme weather event? It could be any of the following; hurricane, tornado, flood, extraordinary heat and or wild fires, extraordinary cold, snowfall/crop freeze event. The inclusive requirement being at least $1billion in property damages (in inflation adjusted $).

So has there been an increase?

Let's go to the numbers. Following are the average number of extreme weather events by decade since 1980 when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (a division of NASA ) began compiling the data.
1980's - 2.7 events per year
1990's - 4.9 events per year
2000's - 5.4 events per year
2010's - 10.3 events per year

We are now experiencing extreme weather events of at least $1 billion dollar in property damage at triple the rate we were in the 1980's. Science deniers will of course deny this information, because that is what they do...

To make it worse, Trump just nominated a science denying politician to head up NASA. Rep.Jim Bridenstine R. Oklahoma, who has no science background (first nominee ever without a science background) to head NASA. Already there is bipartisan push back. The Senate should reject this nominee. We must have someone leading who understands the scientific method and believes what the science shows.

Science makes predictions all the time that turn out to be true, for instance my wife and I just made a 1100 mile journey to a place predicted by science to be an optimal viewing location for the solar eclipse. We were there on the appointed day at the exact predicted time and low and behold the eclipse was exactly as predicted! Science works! Even on climate science!

Wasn't the northern polar ice caps supposed to be gone and FL and large parts of the US coast under water by now? So much for predictions.


.

No. That was politicians taking the worst case scenario and trying to frighten the bejesus out of folks with it. If I recall correctly the consensus was sometime after 2050 there would be Ice free summers in the Arctic. Greenland's Ice would melt and cause sea level to rise a good deal but I don't recall the date on that shit right now. I'm sure it was sometime late in this century as most likely.

Al the whore, hight priest of climate change, said it already should have happened.

Al Gore Ice-Free Arctic Update

The fact is, it's thicker than it has been in decades.


.

Al Gore is not a scientist. He's a politician.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170724133153.htm

This older multiyear ice, once the bulwark of the Arctic sea ice pack, has dramatically thinned and shrunk in extent along with the warming climate: in the mid-1980s, multi-year ice accounted for 70 percent of total winter Arctic sea ice extent; by the end of 2012, this percentage had dropped to less than 20 percent.

"Most of the central Arctic Ocean used to be covered with thick multiyear ice that would not completely melt during the summer and reflect back sunshine," said Nathan Kurtz, IceBridge's project scientist and a sea ice researcher at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. "But we have now lost most of this old ice and exposed the open ocean below, which absorbs most of the sun's energy. That's one reason the Arctic warming has increased nearly twice the global average

 

[Markle]

My source is NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). I said that in the OP. Did you go to their site? They have a list of every extreme weather event since 1980 when they began compiling the data. It tells what, where, when the event was as well as the cost in dollars (minimum $1Billion).

From 1980 to present is a fraction of a second compared to six billion years.

As you know, Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University. Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information. The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever. Data used by the United Nations IPCC and NASA findings came from EAU.

14th February, 2010

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing (it has now been disclosed that all the “raw data” was DUMPED!

There has been no global warming since 1995

Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be.

WHAT????
[…]

Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

Phil Jones has said that he considered suicide for his part in this worldwide scam.

Let us also recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports. It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them -- in violation of Freedom of Information laws. In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like Science and Nature.

We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative." No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities. But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken. Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Daily Mail Online

 

[Markle]

By the way the climate change predictions also say the the extreme weather events in some cases will exceed past events in destructiveness. Harvey produced the greatest rainfall from a single storm in history and Irma has now by classified as strong a hurricane as any before.

And for how many years now have we had NONE? What's the average over the past couple hundred years?

 

[sartre play]

We have had so much negative info re climate from all sides, and each side uses it in a political manner, so any one who just wants facts are left shaking there head.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The climate is changing as predicted by climate scientists. Their prediction is proved right by the statistics. No scientist can say for sure that any particular weather event is directly caused by global warming, but what has been predicted is that extreme weather events will increase in number. What is an extreme weather event? It could be any of the following; hurricane, tornado, flood, extraordinary heat and or wild fires, extraordinary cold, snowfall/crop freeze event. The inclusive requirement being at least $1billion in property damages (in inflation adjusted $).

So has there been an increase?

Let's go to the numbers. Following are the average number of extreme weather events by decade since 1980 when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (a division of NASA ) began compiling the data.
1980's - 2.7 events per year
1990's - 4.9 events per year
2000's - 5.4 events per year
2010's - 10.3 events per year

We are now experiencing extreme weather events of at least $1 billion dollar in property damage at triple the rate we were in the 1980's. Science deniers will of course deny this information, because that is what they do...

To make it worse, Trump just nominated a science denying politician to head up NASA. Rep.Jim Bridenstine R. Oklahoma, who has no science background (first nominee ever without a science background) to head NASA. Already there is bipartisan push back. The Senate should reject this nominee. We must have someone leading who understands the scientific method and believes what the science shows.

Science makes predictions all the time that turn out to be true, for instance my wife and I just made a 1100 mile journey to a place predicted by science to be an optimal viewing location for the solar eclipse. We were there on the appointed day at the exact predicted time and low and behold the eclipse was exactly as predicted! Science works! Even on climate science!

Wasn't the northern polar ice caps supposed to be gone and FL and large parts of the US coast under water by now? So much for predictions.


.

No. That was politicians taking the worst case scenario and trying to frighten the bejesus out of folks with it. If I recall correctly the consensus was sometime after 2050 there would be Ice free summers in the Arctic. Greenland's Ice would melt and cause sea level to rise a good deal but I don't recall the date on that shit right now. I'm sure it was sometime late in this century as most likely.

Al the whore, hight priest of climate change, said it already should have happened.

Al Gore Ice-Free Arctic Update

The fact is, it's thicker than it has been in decades.


.

Al Gore is not a scientist. He's a politician.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170724133153.htm

This older multiyear ice, once the bulwark of the Arctic sea ice pack, has dramatically thinned and shrunk in extent along with the warming climate: in the mid-1980s, multi-year ice accounted for 70 percent of total winter Arctic sea ice extent; by the end of 2012, this percentage had dropped to less than 20 percent.

"Most of the central Arctic Ocean used to be covered with thick multiyear ice that would not completely melt during the summer and reflect back sunshine," said Nathan Kurtz, IceBridge's project scientist and a sea ice researcher at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. "But we have now lost most of this old ice and exposed the open ocean below, which absorbs most of the sun's energy. That's one reason the Arctic warming has increased nearly twice the global average

Al Gore was given the Nobel Peace prize, he should be listened to.