This warm winter we're having

[frigidweirdo]

No. People can be easily manipulated. Scientists included. Money is a factor in all of it.

And who you believe, where are they getting their money from? Oil companies?

No. The majority of climate change research funding comes from the federal government.

Zing!

That's got nothing to do with anything here.

Firstly, I didn't say you agreed with the majority, I was talking about those you believe, potentially not producing the "majority" of the research, yet you'd believe them over what the govt says. So, your comment doesn't respond to my comment at all.

The question is, why would the govt, that is normally on the take, doesn't go on the take for oil companies when it comes to man made climate change. Surely it's better for the govt if rich people are richer.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Firstly, I didn't say you agreed with the majority, I was talking about those you believe, potentially not producing the "majority" of the research, yet you'd believe them over what the govt says.

Why should I?

 

[Billy_Bob]

2015 Will Go Down as Warmest Year on Record

It'll be a few more days before it's official, but 2015 will go down in the record books as the warmest year since those books were first kept 135 years ago.

In parts of the U.S., this year will be remembered for unusually warm weather when the season typically brings snow and ice. On much of the East Coast, December has felt like spring, complete with early blooming flowers and sprouting daffodils.

But the warming trend also has brought more extreme weather in other parts of the country, with severe storms causing tornadoes across the Midwest and snowstorms in Texas and New Mexico.

Read more at CNBC.com: Scenes from the severe holiday storms

Last month brought the highest monthly temperature, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, with the average global surface temperature running 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.0 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 135-year average.



The difference was even greater in the northern hemisphere, where much of the developed world lives. Despite those who reject mainstream climate science, the majority of the world's climate scientists attribute the warming trend to increased man-made carbon dioxide.

"Global climate is changing and this is apparent across the United States in a wide range of observations," according to the third U.S. National Climate Assessment. "The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels."

As we enter 2016, we will have seen two record years back to back, with a probable third in a row coming up. But that doesn't represent a warming according to our wingnuts.

More adjusted bull shit from our resident moron...

 

[TemplarKormac]

The NASA global temperature data, separated into Northern and Southern Hemisphere curves. Note the greater variation in the North. (Warming was especially pronounced in the Arctic, as predicted.)

For latest figures see the NASA-GISS site

The 1999 "hockey stick" reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperaturesfor the past 1000 years (relative to the average of 1961-90); the dark line shows mean values and the gray band, often overlooked, shows the range of uncertainty:

The Modern Temperature Trend

The American Institute of Physics seems to think differently concerning the work of Dr. Mann. Bet they wouldn't be nearly as impressed with the drivel you post, Silly Billy.

Hansen Et AL... REALLY?

My gawd man its been torn to shreds so many times its pointless to show you again the lie..

Oh doodness, our resident Atmospheric Physicist and Certified Meterologist is once again flapping his yap. LOL

This is the same Hansen who keeps getting himself arrested at coal and pipeline protests outside the White House. Even the IPCC AR5 disagreed with his paper on multi-meter sea level rise.

James Hansen and the scary 'known unknowns' of global warming

 

[frigidweirdo]

Firstly, I didn't say you agreed with the majority, I was talking about those you believe, potentially not producing the "majority" of the research, yet you'd believe them over what the govt says.

Why should I?

It's up to you, you're free to believe who you like. However you're saying that we shouldn't trust this and that, but then we should trust those who say what you think is right. Why?

So we're stuck anyway, can we believe anyone? Well, then we go with what we've got.

 

[Muhammed]

Quite extensive it is

(CNN)The North Pole is getting a taste of the warm late-December temperatures that have caused such havoc in the United States.

Thanks to the same low-pressure system that produced blizzards in New Mexico, tornadoes in Texas and flooding in Missouri, the North Pole was about 40 degrees above the seasonal average high on Wednesday, according to the Washington Post's weather team.

Why the freakishly warm December?

The Post's Capital Weather Gang examined buoy data from near the North Pole and reported a record high temperature of 33 degrees Fahrenheit.

It wasn't close to the 40 degrees Fahrenheit forecast in some estimates, but it was substantially warmer than the usual late-December highs of -10 degrees F.

Above-freezing December temperatures at the North Pole have occurred only three times since 1948, Weather Underground blogger Bob Henson tweeted Monday.

CNN Senior Meteorologist Brandon Miller pointed out that two strong weather systems -- the low-pressure mass that's moved through the United States and northern Europe, and a high-pressure system over Siberia -- have helped pull warm air from southern Europe and northern Africa.

"Because of the strength of the two systems, it's allowing that air to travel farther north than it normally would," he said.

You are panicking to a major degree! When is your hairy conniption going to begin?

 

[skookerasbil]

duh


NASA: The worst of El Nino is still to come


Leave it to the AGW k00ks to try and take advantage of a weather anomaly!!!!


Well......gotta say.......they are predictable!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

duh


NASA: The worst of El Nino is still to come


Leave it to the AGW k00ks to try and take advantage of a weather anomaly!!!!


Well......gotta say.......they are predictable!!!

OMG!!!!

That is down right funny as hell and flies in the face of empirical evidence. The northern hemisphere temps dropped like stone the last three weeks indicating the latent heat is GONE from this El NADA... Looks like Gavin Schmidt and Tom Karl are altering the NASA/NOAA data again to keep the hype up..

I am going to go look at the unaltered buoy data from NON - NOAA and NASA sources to see if the "warming" is actual or made up horse shit. I suspect the later, as the US CRN stations show the latent heat gone as well.

 

[Old Rocks]

Lordy, lordy, here ol' Silly Billy is trumpeting the El Nada again. Guess we will just have to bring up the thread where he continually makes bogus predictions concerning the EL Nino. Stupid bastard never got it right once.

 

[TemplarKormac]

However you're saying that we shouldn't trust this and that, but then we should trust those who say what you think is right. Why?

So you're asking me to abandon my skepticism purely because there's a consensus? All I'm hearing is "the evidence is undeniable!"

You can likewise believe what you want to believe, but being a skeptic has educated me far more than blind acceptance.

 

[frigidweirdo]

However you're saying that we shouldn't trust this and that, but then we should trust those who say what you think is right. Why?

So you're asking me to abandon my skepticism purely because there's a consensus? All I'm hearing is "the evidence is undeniable!"

You can likewise believe what you want to believe, but being a skeptic has educated me far more than blind acceptance.

No, I'm not.

I'm asking you to consider your sources in the same way you consider other sources.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm asking you to consider your sources in the same way you consider other sources.

Believe it or not, I do. You're asking me to reconsider my sources without giving me sufficient reason to. When a source like the IPCC consistently gets its predictions wrong, and when it bastardizes the field of science, I am not going to trust them. For example this:

World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER

And this:

Even the IPCC's AR4 report and website attributes the rise of CO2 levels to the amount of global warming, however, the assertion can be proven false with this RSS Temperature anomaly chart, and this HadCRUT4 model here (below) showing that CO2 has had a negligible impact on overall warming. And the nail is the mistake the IPCC made regarding the Himalayan glaciers. They predicted that they would have completely "melted away" by the year 2035. They admitted that such a prediction was unfounded.

So I can deduce from this source that it is consistently wrong and is prone to lying:

Think what you will of "Climategate" but in addition to being wrong on a great deal many predictions, you have scientists involved in the IPCC peer review process hoping to exclude reviews that don't match the climate change narrative. For that, the IPCC, and any affiliated scientists, have, for me, been completely discredited as a viable source:

Climategate 2 and Corruption of Peer Review

 

[Crick]

I'm asking you to consider your sources in the same way you consider other sources.

Believe it or not, I do. You're asking me to reconsider my sources without giving me sufficient reason to. When a source like the IPCC consistently gets its predictions wrong, and when it bastardizes the field of science, I am not going to trust them.

I don't believe you because you are not doing so. You have applied no skepticism to the material you presented. You assume it is true because you think it allows you to reject the IPCC, a position popular in some political circles. And then you call that being skeptical.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm asking you to consider your sources in the same way you consider other sources.

Believe it or not, I do. You're asking me to reconsider my sources without giving me sufficient reason to. When a source like the IPCC consistently gets its predictions wrong, and when it bastardizes the field of science, I am not going to trust them.

I don't believe you because you are not doing so. You have applied no skepticism to the material you presented. You assume it is true because you think it allows you to reject the IPCC, a position popular in some political circles. And then you call that being skeptical.

Haven't I? How do you know?

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm asking you to consider your sources in the same way you consider other sources.

Believe it or not, I do. You're asking me to reconsider my sources without giving me sufficient reason to. When a source like the IPCC consistently gets its predictions wrong, and when it bastardizes the field of science, I am not going to trust them. For example this:

World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER

And this:

Even the IPCC's AR4 report and website attributes the rise of CO2 levels to the amount of global warming, however, the assertion can be proven false with this RSS Temperature anomaly chart, and this HadCRUT4 model here (below) showing that CO2 has had a negligible impact on overall warming. And the nail is the mistake the IPCC made regarding the Himalayan glaciers. They predicted that they would have completely "melted away" by the year 2035. They admitted that such a prediction was unfounded.

So I can deduce from this source that it is consistently wrong and is prone to lying:

Think what you will of "Climategate" but in addition to being wrong on a great deal many predictions, you have scientists involved in the IPCC peer review process hoping to exclude reviews that don't match the climate change narrative. For that, the IPCC, and any affiliated scientists, have, for me, been completely discredited as a viable source:

Climategate 2 and Corruption of Peer Review

Silly kid. I apply the most critical empirical data that I can see with my own eyes. The decades long recession of glaciers in the Cascades, the Rockies, and the Sierra's. The ealier springs, and a later winters I have seen in the course of my lifetime.

The corruption I see is that the liars for the GOP will state whatever the energy corporations pay them to state. Regardless of how much it disagrees with reality. And, given the events we are seeing right now, and have seen for the past year, that is going to bite them in the ass in the coming elections.

 

[Crick]

Haven't I? How do you know?

Because that material wouldn't survive the most trivial of reviews

 

[Wyatt earp]

I'm asking you to consider your sources in the same way you consider other sources.

Believe it or not, I do. You're asking me to reconsider my sources without giving me sufficient reason to. When a source like the IPCC consistently gets its predictions wrong, and when it bastardizes the field of science, I am not going to trust them. For example this:

World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER

And this:

Even the IPCC's AR4 report and website attributes the rise of CO2 levels to the amount of global warming, however, the assertion can be proven false with this RSS Temperature anomaly chart, and this HadCRUT4 model here (below) showing that CO2 has had a negligible impact on overall warming. And the nail is the mistake the IPCC made regarding the Himalayan glaciers. They predicted that they would have completemelted away" by the year 2035. They admitted that such a prediction was unfounded.

So I can deduce from this source that it is consistently wrong and is prone to lying:

Think what you will of "Climategate" but in addition to being wrong on a great deal many predictions, you have scientists involved in the IPCC peer review process hoping to exclude reviews that don't match the climate change narrative. For that, the IPCC, and any affiliated scientists, have, for me, been completely discredited as a viable source:

Climategate 2 and Corruption of Peer Review

Silly kid. I apply the most critical empirical data that I can see with my own eyes. The decades long recession of glaciers in the Cascades, the Rockies, and the Sierra's. The ealier springs, and a later winters I have seen in the course of my lifetime.

The corruption I see is that the liars for the GOP will state whatever the energy corporations pay them to state. Regardless of how much it disagrees with reality. And, given the events we are seeing right now, and have seen for the past year, that is going to bite them in the ass in the coming elections.

Wow you thought the glaciers were permanent ? What kind of person would think that after graduating from the 2nd grade after they talked about mile high glaciers in the midwest and forming the great lakes?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'm asking you to consider your sources in the same way you consider other sources.

Believe it or not, I do. You're asking me to reconsider my sources without giving me sufficient reason to. When a source like the IPCC consistently gets its predictions wrong, and when it bastardizes the field of science, I am not going to trust them. For example this:

World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER

And this:

Even the IPCC's AR4 report and website attributes the rise of CO2 levels to the amount of global warming, however, the assertion can be proven false with this RSS Temperature anomaly chart, and this HadCRUT4 model here (below) showing that CO2 has had a negligible impact on overall warming. And the nail is the mistake the IPCC made regarding the Himalayan glaciers. They predicted that they would have completely "melted away" by the year 2035. They admitted that such a prediction was unfounded.

So I can deduce from this source that it is consistently wrong and is prone to lying:

Think what you will of "Climategate" but in addition to being wrong on a great deal many predictions, you have scientists involved in the IPCC peer review process hoping to exclude reviews that don't match the climate change narrative. For that, the IPCC, and any affiliated scientists, have, for me, been completely discredited as a viable source:

Climategate 2 and Corruption of Peer Review

Silly kid. I apply the most critical empirical data that I can see with my own eyes. The decades long recession of glaciers in the Cascades, the Rockies, and the Sierra's. The ealier springs, and a later winters I have seen in the course of my lifetime.

The corruption I see is that the liars for the GOP will state whatever the energy corporations pay them to state. Regardless of how much it disagrees with reality. And, given the events we are seeing right now, and have seen for the past year, that is going to bite them in the ass in the coming elections.

While you ignore the ones growing or the antarctic which has gained more ice in the last three years than it has lost in over 60 years... You really need to pull your head out of where its impacted... Your vision is obscured and your objectivity challenged..

 

[TemplarKormac]

You assume it is true because you think it allows you to reject the IPCC, a position popular in some political circles.

Newsflash:

A "popular position" isn't always true.

Talk about not applying any skepticism, you just blindly agree with whatever they have to say. Don't lecture me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I apply the most critical empirical data that I can see with my own eyes.

More commonly known as selective reading.