This warm winter we're having

[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. For example this:

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

A prediction is a prediction. You know what you're getting with a prediction. So it might be wrong. Why might it be wrong? There are plenty of reasons, for example, not taking into account other things that might be difficult or impossible to measure.

Your example, from the Daily Mail, hardly a great source to be trusted in itself, has one guy making a claim. Why do you suddenly believe a guy who you didn't believe before? Could it be that what he says now confirms what you want to believe.

Second, it's only a quarter what they said in 2007, does this mean it's not a problem any more? Or are you agreeing that there is a problem, even if it's only a quarter what they said in 2007?

Now, my view on climate change is that the Earth is in a natural cooling period. Man made global warming isn't happening in a stable environment with which you can make simple comparisons. Now, scientists may get this wrong because it's impossible to tell where the Earth's climate should be. They can't formulate statistics and charts to show this.

So, warming isn't as high as they expected, does this mean they're wrong? Not necessarily (doesn't mean they're right either), but it could just mean that other factors are at play that they hadn't considered.

Does this mean there isn't a problem? No it doesn't.

Predictions were made on a "the Earth's done this, and so if it continues at the same rate we'll have this", it's a prediction, chances of being right with a prediction of something so complex is very small.

But then the other side of the debate merely say "you're predictions were wrong, therefore man made global warming isn't happening", which is far worse a statement that making a prediction and getting it wrong.

Here's the chart they use. Computers making predictions. How many of these predictions have seen something worse? There's a yellow and blue line below this. Most of the lines appear to start ABOVE THE BLACK LINE in the first place. Er... what? Why would you predict in 1980 that the temperatures in the time you can see are higher than they actually are?

"Head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked summary showed that 'the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux'"

Here's a quote which sums it up. We don't know everything, and no one is claiming to know everything. The science isn't settled, no one has definitive statistics to prove this and that. Does that mean there isn't a problem? No it does not.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

Then I'd say you don't know how to read predictions. A prediction can be a sound prediction and it can be very wrong.

Look at weather forecasters, they get it wrong a lot. Why? Because they can't predict the future with 100% certainty.

They can offer people something which is a best guess.

So, you have scientists making predictions which are best guesses, are they lying? No, they're not.

 

[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 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?

Wow, did you ever finish the second grade, silly ass? Ever hear of the Milankovic Cycles? Since you constantly demonstrate your willful ignorance, I think it safe to state that I already know far more about glaciers, and about glacial cycles, than you ever will.

We should be in a gradual cooling trend, not the rapid warming trend that we are seeing. And that is just from the Milankovic Cycles. By the TSI, we should have seen a drop in temperatures in the last three years. Instead, we have seen two of the hottest years on record. And, likely, a third coming up.

 

[peach174]

Warm Winter?
For the East but not the West.
Southern Az. and the West has been unusually cold this year.
You think only the East Coast is relevant?

 

[Old Rocks]

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

More commonly known as selective reading.

Not at all, you coach bound little corksmoker, personal observation. Since I got out of high school in '62, my fun has been traveling to areas in the mountains of the west. All the way from the Mexican border to the NWT.

 

[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. 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?

Wow, did you ever finish the second grade, silly ass? Ever hear of the Milankovic Cycles? Since you constantly demonstrate your willful ignorance, I think it safe to state that I already know far more about glaciers, and about glacial cycles, than you ever will.

We should be in a gradual cooling trend, not the rapid warming trend that we are seeing. And that is just from the Milankovic Cycles. By the TSI, we should have seen a drop in temperatures in the last three years. Instead, we have seen two of the hottest years on record. And, likely, a third coming up.

Wow, start post with an insult. Well, no point in reading further then is there?

 

[Old Rocks]

Warm Winter?
For the East but not the West.
Southern Az. and the West has been unusually cold this year.
You think only the East Coast is relevant?

And we had unusually warm and dry weather here in the Pacific Northwest until the end of November, then normal temperatures, but very, very wet December, and now, a bit cool and clear for a few days. All in all, 2015, for us, was a very unusual weather year, extremes in both directions as far as precipitation goes, overall, rather warm.

 

[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 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?

Wow, did you ever finish the second grade, silly ass? Ever hear of the Milankovic Cycles? Since you constantly demonstrate your willful ignorance, I think it safe to state that I already know far more about glaciers, and about glacial cycles, than you ever will.

We should be in a gradual cooling trend, not the rapid warming trend that we are seeing. And that is just from the Milankovic Cycles. By the TSI, we should have seen a drop in temperatures in the last three years. Instead, we have seen two of the hottest years on record. And, likely, a third coming up.

Wow, start post with an insult. Well, no point in reading further then is there?

For whom was that meant?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

Wow, did you ever finish the second grade, silly ass? Ever hear of the Milankovic Cycles? Since you constantly demonstrate your willful ignorance, I think it safe to state that I already know far more about glaciers, and about glacial cycles, than you ever will.

We should be in a gradual cooling trend, not the rapid warming trend that we are seeing. And that is just from the Milankovic Cycles. By the TSI, we should have seen a drop in temperatures in the last three years. Instead, we have seen two of the hottest years on record. And, likely, a third coming up.

Wow, start post with an insult. Well, no point in reading further then is there?

For whom was that meant?

Who wrote "Wow, did you ever finish the second grade, silly ass?"????

 

[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 titake 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?

Wow, did you ever finish the second grade, silly ass? Ever hear of the Milankovic Cycles? Since you constantly demonstrate your willful ignorance, I think it safe to state that I already know far more about glaciers, and about glacial cycles, than you ever will.

We should be in a gradual cooling trend, not the rapid warming trend that we are seeing. And that is just from the Milankovic Cycles. By the TSI, we should have seen a drop in temperatures in the last three years. Instead, we have seen two of the hottest years on record. And, likely, a third coming up.

We should be??????

You fear mongering jerk off you just let it slip.

I thought you said over and over again all the s scientist predictions were right?

We should be


We should be


We should be



The Coming Ice Age - 1978:

 

[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 titake 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?

Wow, did you ever finish the second grade, silly ass? Ever hear of the Milankovic Cycles? Since you constantly demonstrate your willful ignorance, I think it safe to state that I already know far more about glaciers, and about glacial cycles, than you ever will.

We should be in a gradual cooling trend, not the rapid warming trend that we are seeing. And that is just from the Milankovic Cycles. By the TSI, we should have seen a drop in temperatures in the last three years. Instead, we have seen two of the hottest years on record. And, likely, a third coming up.

We should be??????

You fear mongering jerk off you just let it slip.

I thought you said over and over again all the s scientist predictions were right?

We should be


We should be


We should be



The Coming Ice Age - 1978:

Were actually overdue for the next glacial cycle of 90,000 years..

 

[Wyatt earp]

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

More commonly known as selective reading.

Not at all, you coach bound little corksmoker, personal observation. Since I got out of high school in '62, my fun has been traveling to areas in the mountains of the west. All the way from the Mexican border to the NWT.

Temp, old rocks is the empathy of a pompous arrogant American, he probably thinks that when he was born the Colorado river stoped carving into the grand canyon and the Niagara falls stoped it's march upstream.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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 titake 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?

Wow, did you ever finish the second grade, silly ass? Ever hear of the Milankovic Cycles? Since you constantly demonstrate your willful ignorance, I think it safe to state that I already know far more about glaciers, and about glacial cycles, than you ever will.

We should be in a gradual cooling trend, not the rapid warming trend that we are seeing. And that is just from the Milankovic Cycles. By the TSI, we should have seen a drop in temperatures in the last three years. Instead, we have seen two of the hottest years on record. And, likely, a third coming up.

We should be??????

You fear mongering jerk off you just let it slip.

I thought you said over and over again all the s scientist predictions were right?

We should be


We should be


We should be



The Coming Ice Age - 1978:

Were actually overdue for the next glacial cycle of 90,000 years..

Not the point.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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?

Wow, did you ever finish the second grade, silly ass? Ever hear of the Milankovic Cycles? Since you constantly demonstrate your willful ignorance, I think it safe to state that I already know far more about glaciers, and about glacial cycles, than you ever will.

We should be in a gradual cooling trend, not the rapid warming trend that we are seeing. And that is just from the Milankovic Cycles. By the TSI, we should have seen a drop in temperatures in the last three years. Instead, we have seen two of the hottest years on record. And, likely, a third coming up.

We should be??????

You fear mongering jerk off you just let it slip.

I thought you said over and over again all the s scientist predictions were right?

We should be


We should be


We should be



The Coming Ice Age - 1978:

Were actually overdue for the next glacial cycle of 90,000 years..

Not the point.

That is True.

If there is something to worry about however, it is not warming. Man takes huge set backs during cooling cycles and I doubt the next one will be different unless we make changes today. The AGW hype is taking money from the poor and the countries which need to build infrastructure to keep people alive. Depopulation is their long term goal (cloaked as sustainable development). AGW is their method of killing millions through deception.

If we take the mean temp for the last 450 thousand years it is much lower than today's temperatures. I am still waiting for Old Socks to produce what earth's 'correct' temp should be..

 

[AquaAthena]

We are having abnormally cold weather this year. Today 38 ° brrrr.

 

[Wyatt earp]

We are having abnormally cold weather this year. Today 38 ° brrrr.

Yea it's to damn cold out down here in South Carolina to even smoke a cigar..

 

[Crick]

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?

Wow, did you ever finish the second grade, silly ass? Ever hear of the Milankovic Cycles? Since you constantly demonstrate your willful ignorance, I think it safe to state that I already know far more about glaciers, and about glacial cycles, than you ever will.

We should be in a gradual cooling trend, not the rapid warming trend that we are seeing. And that is just from the Milankovic Cycles. By the TSI, we should have seen a drop in temperatures in the last three years. Instead, we have seen two of the hottest years on record. And, likely, a third coming up.

We should be??????

You fear mongering jerk off you just let it slip.

I thought you said over and over again all the s scientist predictions were right?

We should be


We should be


We should be



The Coming Ice Age - 1978:

Were actually overdue for the next glacial cycle of 90,000 years..

Not the point.

That is True.

If there is something to worry about however, it is not warming. Man takes huge set backs during cooling cycles and I doubt the next one will be different unless we make changes today. The AGW hype is taking money from the poor and the countries which need to build infrastructure to keep people alive. Depopulation is their long term goal (cloaked as sustainable development). AGW is their method of killing millions through deception.

If we take the mean temp for the last 450 thousand years it is much lower than today's temperatures. I am still waiting for Old Socks to produce what earth's 'correct' temp should be..

Depopulation? Was there some reason you gave up on your claim that liberals want to destroy the world's economies?

 

[Old Rocks]

We are having abnormally cold weather this year. Today 38 ° brrrr.

Yep, all three days of it. LOL

 

[jc456]

I stated in 2010 that the next major El Nino was going to set some records. That was based on exchange of heat between the ocean and the atmosphere in 1998. And the present prediction is based on what we have seen in 1998 and this year.

still waiting on the el nino in Chicago. Any fnn day now, I'm tired of cold.

Hey, BTW, why on a perfectly sunny day, high sun at that, the temp can't get over 32 degrees in Chi town? What happened to the CO2 and where is el nino? They say 18 tonight. a lot of warm there don't you think? How cold is near the north pole you think today? At least 18?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, the climate didn't actually change in NY. We're having a normal winter.

Another failed AGW Prediction