Thousands March Through Snow Protesting Global Warming

[jc456]

Of course you don't care about data. That's why you're called a denier. You know what you know, and those dirty liberals aren't going to fool you with any stupid "facts" and "data". You're too smart for that, which is why you know it's all faked.

exactly!!!!

 

[jc456]

I know what will be said by the fearists, this type of weather is not abnormal and to that they are exactly right.

Thousands March Through Snow Protesting Global Warming The Daily Caller

The “Gore effect” has struck again, this time forcing thousands of Canadian eco-activists to march through the snow over the weekend, rallying against global warming on a cold Quebec City day.

The Globe and Mail reports the “Act On Climate Change” march included “representatives from First Nations, environmental activists and political groups” who are trying to convince politicians to ban oil sands extraction and prevent pipelines from being built to bring that oil to market.

You deny the planet has warmed?

since when? Yeah, it was covered with ice, and has been warming for millions of years. What's your point?

 

[jc456]

As expected, Westwall quotes one unknown guy in England who says snow in England might go away at some indeterminate future time, and pretends it means all scientists said snow will immediately vanish over the entire earth. He lies shamelessly, that is.

He lies about the models. He lies about a lack of warming. He lies about data being faked. You name it, he lies about it. It's for the cult, so he considers it justified.

And it's escalating. He's now lying to justify his censorship. There is no requirement for topical content in a Zone 3 forum like the Environment forum. Westwall absolutely knows that, being I've directly informed him of it more than once. He's lying about board rules so he has an excuse to fly his Stalinist freak flag and censor opinions he doesn't like.

anytime you wish to sponsor that experiment that proves any claim you have made, feel free to post it up here. We've all been waiting.

 

[jc456]

Are you kidding? I hate global warming. haven't seen snow for over a month, at that is was like 1/4 inch here in Denver. This place used to get tons of snow November to May. Who is Protesting? The rest of us are left begging! Now there is global climate change going on here, and we are all hurting one way or the other.

you should go into your shelter, lock the door and don't ever come out if you're that afraid of normal weather.

 

[jc456]

I know what will be said by the fearists, this type of weather is not abnormal and to that they are exactly right.

Thousands March Through Snow Protesting Global Warming The Daily Caller

The “Gore effect” has struck again, this time forcing thousands of Canadian eco-activists to march through the snow over the weekend, rallying against global warming on a cold Quebec City day.

The Globe and Mail reports the “Act On Climate Change” march included “representatives from First Nations, environmental activists and political groups” who are trying to convince politicians to ban oil sands extraction and prevent pipelines from being built to bring that oil to market.

You deny the planet has warmed?

You denying that the US has not for at least the last 15 years?

What I deny is the need for such fear from the GW fear mongers.

Yep I do.

Power said that 1998, the start of the 'pause', was a particularly hot year due to the natural El Niño climate pattern that has a warming influence on worldwide temperatures.

Power said that if you choose a 15-year period starting in 1996 instead of 1998 then the rate of warming almost triples to 0.14°C per decade.

"Globally average surface temperature is just one measure of changes in the Earth'sclimate system," he says.

During the 15-year 'hiatus' period, studies of other aspects of the climate system have continued to show warming as expected.

The world's oceans have continued to gain heat, a recent study has found. And, in late March, a study in the prestigious journalScience found Antarctica's ice sheets were melting at an accelerating rate.

Many scientists have pointed to the recent extended periods of ocean cycles that are in phases that tend to have a cooling effect on temperatures at the surface of the planet.

The sun has also been in a state of unusually low activity, which can also have a cooling influence.

Global warming hiatus explained and it s not good news

so hiatus means it's warming. Interesting spin on that. Admit there is a hiatus and say it means warming. cute. Holy crap.

 

[Dante]

Let's, for the sake of argument, ignore all the data and say global warming is occurring.

Now answer me this one question:

How does protesting stop it?

I agree. Protesting doesn't do anything. US patriots didn't hold marches against the British, they used 'other means.'

Martin Luther King Jr. is on line 1...


Ghandi is on line 2

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Let's, for the sake of argument, ignore all the data and say global warming is occurring.

Now answer me this one question:

How does protesting stop it?

I agree. Protesting doesn't do anything. US patriots didn't hold marches against the British, they used 'other means.'

Martin Luther King Jr. is on line 1...


Ghandi is on line 2

Both of whom got assassinated. American Patriots often lived full happy lives before dying of natural causes.

 

[jc456]

You denying that the US has not for at least the last 15 years?

What I deny is the need for such fear from the GW fear mongers.

Yep I do.

Power said that 1998, the start of the 'pause', was a particularly hot year due to the natural El Niño climate pattern that has a warming influence on worldwide temperatures.

Power said that if you choose a 15-year period starting in 1996 instead of 1998 then the rate of warming almost triples to 0.14°C per decade.

"Globally average surface temperature is just one measure of changes in the Earth'sclimate system," he says.

During the 15-year 'hiatus' period, studies of other aspects of the climate system have continued to show warming as expected.

The world's oceans have continued to gain heat, a recent study has found. And, in late March, a study in the prestigious journalScience found Antarctica's ice sheets were melting at an accelerating rate.

Many scientists have pointed to the recent extended periods of ocean cycles that are in phases that tend to have a cooling effect on temperatures at the surface of the planet.

The sun has also been in a state of unusually low activity, which can also have a cooling influence.

Global warming hiatus explained and it s not good news

Fear fear fear. Have you ever noticed that when someone in power is trying to steal your money they always try and make you afraid so you will willingly hand it over? It's a well known propaganda tool and what I find hilarious is these so called deep thinkers can't figure that out.

If anything the recent observations should quell the runaway global warming fears. Better to study how we can adapt rather than how we can change human behavior. Besides, a warmer earth has been a boon for mankind.

The recent observations have shown beyond doubt that can't occur. Of course we have a very good paleo climate record that confirms when it was much warmer in the past not a single catastrophe the AGW supporters claim is possible, ever happened. But, they have never let a thing like facts dissuade their hysteria.

Well no not really. If we have another strong el Nino combine with a strong solar cycle you never what might happen.

NASA GISS Science Briefs Sea Level Rise After the Ice Melted and Today

huh? you know what's going to happen now? Really, you're saying that? Where is the next tornado going to hit then, let's send out the warnings now.

 

[jc456]

BAD science is. I refer you to phrenology and the particularly vile eugenics...oh wait, you espouse eugenic ideals from time to time....why am I not surprised you espouse this crap too.

Phrenology was considered BAD science by the mainstream professionals.

Eugenics? was considered bad public policy

your examples don't back up your premise. good gawd, your lack of anything resembling a critical thinking skill set is astounding

Phrenology was popular for about 30 years (roughly the same time that AGW has enjoyed its popularity, and like the phrenologists of old the climatologists are desperate to be taken seriously. That's why they are so deeply invested in the failed theory of AGW.

popular with whom? not mainstream science

Phrenology has been almost universally considered completely discredited as a science since the mid-19th century. Even during the peak of its popularity between the 1820s and 1840s, phrenology was always controversial and never achieved the status of an accredited science, which was so coveted by its main proponents, such as

​

the Edinburgh lawyer, George Combe and his circle.
History of Phrenology on the Web​

Why do you think I chose that for my example. This passage in the history is particularly applicable to climatologists today....

"So it was believed that by examining the shape and unevenness of a head or skull, one could discover the development of the particular cerebral "organs" responsible for different intellectual aptitudes and character traits. For example, a prominent protuberance in the forehead at the position attributed to the organ of Benevolence was meant to indicate that the individual had a "well developed" organ of Benevolence and would therefore be expected to exhibit benevolent behaviour.

However, like so many popular sciences, Gall and the phrenologists sought only confirmations for their hypotheses and did not apply the same standard to contradictory evidence. Any evidence or anecdote which seemed to confirm the science was readily and vociferously accepted as "proof" of the "truth" of phrenology. At the same time, contradictory findings, such as a not very benevolent and disagreeable person having a well-developed organ of Benevolence were always explained away. This was often done by claiming that the activity of other organs counteracted Benevolence. What was never accepted by phrenologists, however, was that admitting that the activity of a particular faculty could be independent of the size of its organ undermined the most fundamental assumptions of the science- and thereby rendered all of its conclusions inconsistent and meaningless."


The History of Phrenology

Applicable to climatologists today? What i sup with your people? Weird. Seriously.

The climate science today is recognized by consensus in the science community as a whole:NASA recognizes global warming as does mainstream science.

phrenology never was

your example is fruitcake-nutty


the old popular science is akin to the denial science today..as in pop-science...popular science accepted by a population of dimwits, not accepted by the scientific community as a whole

so find me one definition that states science has consensus. Just one.

 

[Dante]

Let's, for the sake of argument, ignore all the data and say global warming is occurring.

Now answer me this one question:

How does protesting stop it?

I agree. Protesting doesn't do anything. US patriots didn't hold marches against the British, they used 'other means.'

Martin Luther King Jr. is on line 1...


Ghandi is on line 2

Both of whom got assassinated. American Patriots often lived full happy lives before dying of natural causes.

If myth were only true.

Most of the average patriots were screwed out of money and more. What they fought for did not include being screwed during the debates over assumption and debts. The average American was leaning towards counter revolution (as happens with most revolutions) when they awoke and found out they were pawns in a larger game.

Colonial and early American history is fabulously rich with stories that make most everything that most of us think we know about America's past look very much like myth

 

[Dante]

Phrenology was considered BAD science by the mainstream professionals.

Eugenics? was considered bad public policy

your examples don't back up your premise. good gawd, your lack of anything resembling a critical thinking skill set is astounding

Phrenology was popular for about 30 years (roughly the same time that AGW has enjoyed its popularity, and like the phrenologists of old the climatologists are desperate to be taken seriously. That's why they are so deeply invested in the failed theory of AGW.

popular with whom? not mainstream science

Phrenology has been almost universally considered completely discredited as a science since the mid-19th century. Even during the peak of its popularity between the 1820s and 1840s, phrenology was always controversial and never achieved the status of an accredited science, which was so coveted by its main proponents, such as

​

the Edinburgh lawyer, George Combe and his circle.
History of Phrenology on the Web​

Why do you think I chose that for my example. This passage in the history is particularly applicable to climatologists today....

"So it was believed that by examining the shape and unevenness of a head or skull, one could discover the development of the particular cerebral "organs" responsible for different intellectual aptitudes and character traits. For example, a prominent protuberance in the forehead at the position attributed to the organ of Benevolence was meant to indicate that the individual had a "well developed" organ of Benevolence and would therefore be expected to exhibit benevolent behaviour.

However, like so many popular sciences, Gall and the phrenologists sought only confirmations for their hypotheses and did not apply the same standard to contradictory evidence. Any evidence or anecdote which seemed to confirm the science was readily and vociferously accepted as "proof" of the "truth" of phrenology. At the same time, contradictory findings, such as a not very benevolent and disagreeable person having a well-developed organ of Benevolence were always explained away. This was often done by claiming that the activity of other organs counteracted Benevolence. What was never accepted by phrenologists, however, was that admitting that the activity of a particular faculty could be independent of the size of its organ undermined the most fundamental assumptions of the science- and thereby rendered all of its conclusions inconsistent and meaningless."


The History of Phrenology

Applicable to climatologists today? What i sup with your people? Weird. Seriously.

The climate science today is recognized by consensus in the science community as a whole:NASA recognizes global warming as does mainstream science.

phrenology never was

your example is fruitcake-nutty


the old popular science is akin to the denial science today..as in pop-science...popular science accepted by a population of dimwits, not accepted by the scientific community as a whole

so find me one definition that states science has consensus. Just one.

Do you people live in an alternate reality?

 

[Dante]

English usage:

Many say that the phrase consensus of opinion is redundant and hence should be avoided: The committee's statement represented a consensus of opinion.The expression is redundant, however, only if consensus is taken in the sense “majority of opinion” rather than in its equally valid and earlier sense “general agreement or concord.”

Consensus Define Consensus at Dictionary.com​

now, what people see in the denial clan is a framing and misuse of English. Even the writer
critchon(sp?) has gone off teh rails here

 

[westwall]

In each of those cases, improved observations, improved knowledge of astronomy, geography and physics led to better understanding that quickly came to dominate - to form a new consensus. In all of these cases, the new consensus was the correct view. There were holdouts - deniers. But eventually everyone came to realize they were simply holdouts who had nothing going for them in the way of evidence, logic, reason or scientific knowledge.

Sound familiar?

Yes it does. In every case so far whenever a AGW claim has been empirically tested it has FAILED! Sound familiar? Unlike you silly people the flat earthers went away. You guys though are desperate to keep the gravy train going so now yo try and control all input into the discussion, and alter data to fit your very tall tales.

Eventually the flat earthers figured out they were wrong. You've figured that out, but you want the money and the power so you'll lie cheat and steal to keep it going.

 

[Dante]

https://www.lpl.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/resources/globalwarming/oreskes-chapter-4.pdf
Lunar and Planetary Laboratory - science?

primer:

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Let’s start with a simple question: What is the scientific consensus
on climate change, and how do we know it exists?
Scientists do not vote on contested issues, and most scientific...

...

Second, to say that global warming is real and happening
now is not the same as agreeing about what will happen in
the future. Much of the continuing debate in the scientific community
involves the likely rate of future change. A good analogy
is evolution. In the early twentieth century, paleontologist...
​

 

[westwall]

Remember, "Denier" and "Consensus" are Cult words, and are never used by scientists

That's for sure. They are also the language of propaganda.

 

[Dante]

1. No, the Earth Hasn’t Stopped Warming Since 1998 (or 1996 or 1997)
This claim was popularized by “Lord” Christopher Monckton, a prominent British climate “skeptic” with no scientific background who presented himself as a member of the House of Lords until the Parliament published a cease and desist order demanding that he stop...

​

2. No, the IPCC Makes Projections, Not Predictions
In the real world, we have natural climate variability, and then we have human-caused warming,” says Ben Santer, a climate researcher at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory who ranked 12th in a 2002 study of the most frequently cited scientists in the field. “And that human-caused warming is embedded in the rich, day-to-day, month-to-month, year-to-year and decade-to-decade noise of natural climate variability.”

Ben Santer
Climate researcher, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Santer was explaining the misleading nature of the claim that because the earth hasn’t warmed as quickly as some previous projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggested it would, the science is somehow suspect...

Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists BillMoyers.com

 

[Dante]

people like the Climate Depot folks are out to deny the science by attacking every trivial piece of data or news and attack every scientist personally

 

[Dante]

Just as FOX News was created specifically to skew news in favor of right wing views (name a network who had the left wing as it's main target audience in it's creation) anti AGW web sites and orgs were specifically created to attack the science, which means they have an opinion and view in search of data to back it up -- the opposite of science.

 

[westwall]

1. No, the Earth Hasn’t Stopped Warming Since 1998 (or 1996 or 1997)
This claim was popularized by “Lord” Christopher Monckton, a prominent British climate “skeptic” with no scientific background who presented himself as a member of the House of Lords until the Parliament published a cease and desist order demanding that he stop...

​

2. No, the IPCC Makes Projections, Not Predictions
In the real world, we have natural climate variability, and then we have human-caused warming,” says Ben Santer, a climate researcher at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory who ranked 12th in a 2002 study of the most frequently cited scientists in the field. “And that human-caused warming is embedded in the rich, day-to-day, month-to-month, year-to-year and decade-to-decade noise of natural climate variability.”

Ben Santer
Climate researcher, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Santer was explaining the misleading nature of the claim that because the earth hasn’t warmed as quickly as some previous projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggested it would, the science is somehow suspect...

Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists BillMoyers.com

So, instead of addressing the fact that there hasn't been any measurable warming you attack the messenger. Can you say propagandist anyone? Face it dainty, you're nothing more than a propagandist. Instead of attacking the evidence (which you can't) you attack the people spreading the message which is exactly what charlatans have done for millennia.

You're just very bad at it.

 

[jc456]

Phrenology was popular for about 30 years (roughly the same time that AGW has enjoyed its popularity, and like the phrenologists of old the climatologists are desperate to be taken seriously. That's why they are so deeply invested in the failed theory of AGW.

popular with whom? not mainstream science

Phrenology has been almost universally considered completely discredited as a science since the mid-19th century. Even during the peak of its popularity between the 1820s and 1840s, phrenology was always controversial and never achieved the status of an accredited science, which was so coveted by its main proponents, such as

​

the Edinburgh lawyer, George Combe and his circle.
History of Phrenology on the Web​

Why do you think I chose that for my example. This passage in the history is particularly applicable to climatologists today....

"So it was believed that by examining the shape and unevenness of a head or skull, one could discover the development of the particular cerebral "organs" responsible for different intellectual aptitudes and character traits. For example, a prominent protuberance in the forehead at the position attributed to the organ of Benevolence was meant to indicate that the individual had a "well developed" organ of Benevolence and would therefore be expected to exhibit benevolent behaviour.

However, like so many popular sciences, Gall and the phrenologists sought only confirmations for their hypotheses and did not apply the same standard to contradictory evidence. Any evidence or anecdote which seemed to confirm the science was readily and vociferously accepted as "proof" of the "truth" of phrenology. At the same time, contradictory findings, such as a not very benevolent and disagreeable person having a well-developed organ of Benevolence were always explained away. This was often done by claiming that the activity of other organs counteracted Benevolence. What was never accepted by phrenologists, however, was that admitting that the activity of a particular faculty could be independent of the size of its organ undermined the most fundamental assumptions of the science- and thereby rendered all of its conclusions inconsistent and meaningless."


The History of Phrenology

Applicable to climatologists today? What i sup with your people? Weird. Seriously.

The climate science today is recognized by consensus in the science community as a whole:NASA recognizes global warming as does mainstream science.

phrenology never was

your example is fruitcake-nutty


the old popular science is akin to the denial science today..as in pop-science...popular science accepted by a population of dimwits, not accepted by the scientific community as a whole

so find me one definition that states science has consensus. Just one.

Do you people live in an alternate reality?

what can i say, since you all have no form of reality, I'd say yes. My reality is definitely different than yours. In my reality, you and your side still haven't supplied evidence of any issue with the climate. Also, after all of your clamoring about, no solution to which you are afraid of.