Seduction Spa
Toronto Escorts

Grand Solar Minimum: Almost 100% Of Canada Is Still Covered In Snow

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
Of course it does. The problem is we haven't had billions of humans trying to survive before.



Sorry but I'll take the word of scientists who clearly disagree with you (but who needs science).

Despite the news coverage from places like Time trying to sell copy, there was never a real scientific belief that an ice age was coming (and your peer reviewed article is NOT saying an ice age was imminent and was focused mainly on aerosols, not CO2).


p.s. Even if your interpretation of that article was correct, it would explicitly mean there was man made climate change.
You missed the point ! Climate scientist have been wrong in the 1970's about co2 will cause a new ice age. And in the 1990's this same climate scientists says co2 will causes global warming! They have been wrong in the past and they are wrong now! What I post is a peer review article showing exactly the opposite of what conclusion of co2 . This climate alarmist is full of shit.

PS article was focusing both
Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth ...

PPS . Climate scientists have got it all wrong in the past and in the present!
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
p.p.s. I noticed you didn't bother answering my question. If this "grand minimum" has resulted in temps slightly dipped from their historic highs butwell above the 20th century average, what will happen once the minimum is over and we're back to normal?
Absolutely nothing ! Climate always changes! Just like it will always rain, snow, etc. Just look at the ice core! We had 6 ice age during earth history of with ice reaching down as far as southern USA. Co2 concentration was higher in the dinosaur era..according to the ice core. And in the dinosaur age there weren't over a billion people & cars.


PS. I also believe by 2030 ...CO2 will go up and the temperature will go down . This will debunk the global warming theory aka rebranded as climate change!
 
Last edited:

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle/


Unable to address Texas senator Ted Cruz’s questions about “the Pause” — the apparent global-warming standstill, now almost 19 years long — at Tuesday’s meeting of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Sierra Club president Aaron Mair, after an uncomfortable pause of his own, appealed to authority: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists concur and agree that there is global warming and anthropogenic impact,” he stated multiple times.

The relevant exchange begins at 1:39 (though the whole segment is worth watching):



The myth of an almost-unanimous climate-change consensus is pervasive. Last May, the White House tweeted: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” A few days later, Secretary of State John Kerry announced, “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.”

“Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists” say no such thing.

There are multiple relevant questions: (1) Has the earth generally warmed since 1800? (An overwhelming majority of scientists assent to this.) (2) Has that warming been caused primarily by human activity? And, if (1) and (2), is anthropogenic global warming a problem so significant that we ought to take action?

In 2004, University of California-San Diego professor Naomi Oreskes reported that, of 928 scientific abstracts from papers published by refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, “75% . . . either explicitly or implicitly accept[ed] the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.” Also remarkably, the papers chosen excluded several written by prominent scientists skeptical of that consensus. Furthermore, the claims made in abstracts — short summaries of academic papers — often differ from those made in the papers themselves. And Oreskes’s analysis did not take up whether scientists who subscribe to anthropogenic global warming think the phenomenon merits changes in public policy.


RELATED: On Climate, Science and Politics Are Diverging

The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”

A year later, William R. Love Anderegg, a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to determine that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The sample size did not much improve on Zimmerman and Doran’s: Anderegg surveyed about 200 scientists.

#share#Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.

RELATED: Scientists Don’t Actually Know What’s Causing ‘Extreme Weather’

Studies showing a wider range of opinion often go unremarked. A 2008 survey by two German scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation, sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased. Most did express concerns about global warming and a desire for “immediate action to mitigate climate change” — but not 97 percent.

#related#A 2012 poll of American Meteorological Society members also reported a diversity of opinion. Of the 1,862 members who responded (a quarter of the organization), 59 percent stated that human activity was the primary cause of global warming, and 11 percent attributed the phenomenon to human activity and natural causes in about equal measure, while just under a quarter (23 percent) said enough is not yet known to make any determination. Seventy-six percent said that warming over the next century would be “very” or “somewhat” harmful, but of those, only 22 percent thought that “all” or a “large” amount of the harm could be prevented “through mitigation and adaptation measures.”


COMMENTS
And according to a study of 1,868 scientists working in climate-related fields, conducted just this year by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, three in ten respondents said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity, or that they did not know.

Given the politics of modern academia and the scientific community, it’s not unlikely that most scientists involved in climate-related studies believe in anthropogenic global warming, and likely believe, too, that it presents a problem. However, there is no consensus approaching 97 percent. A vigorous, vocal minority exists. The science is far from settled.
 
Last edited:

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,860
6,342
113
You missed the point ! Climate scientist have been wrong in the 1970's about co2 will cause a new ice age....
No they weren't. The masses of the scientific community never believed that was the case. The media jumped on the few fringe scientists simply to sell copy.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,860
6,342
113
Absolutely nothing ! ...
Wait. You are now saying that solar activity does "absolutely nothing" to affect climate. I guess you should just delete the whole thread then.


Speaking of missing the point, we never had to support 8 billion people before. I'm not worried that the Earth will survive; the issue is how human society will be effected by the rapid changes from rapidly increasing CO2.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
Wait. You are now saying that solar activity does "absolutely nothing" to affect climate. I guess you should just delete the whole thread then.


Speaking of missing the point, we never had to support 8 billion people before. I'm not worried that the Earth will survive; the issue is how human society will be effected by the rapid changes from rapidly increasing CO2.
Don't put word in my mouth.. It all part of the climate cycle on earth that what I mean!
Solar activity is the main driver of climate and once grand solar mininium is over then it goes into the next cycle which will be grand solar maximum... It a fucking cycle!!

Just like we had 6 ice age in the history of the earth . We came out ice age 6 time and the earth warm up everyt time when we came out of the ice age.
Earth had the grand solar maximum in 90's and now will have the grand solar mininium all causes by the sun!

The sun will effect climate and the sun is the major driver of climate and life on planet!!
NOT THE BULSHIT CO2 as driver of CLIMATE!!!
What saying is when the temperature will drop due to grand solar minimum and CO2 will still raises and that will debunk the bullshit of climate changes due to rapidly increasing co2 once and for all.

And that hopefully all the climate alarmist , climate alarmist scientists & mainstream media & environmentalist & Al Gore & Liberal & USA Democratic Party will put on trial for crimes against humanity!!
Billions to trillions dollars wasted on this bullshit global warming rebranded aka as climate changes
!!

Due to advancement of technology the earth will support the 8 billion people or 16 billion people ! Reason we haven't populated the ocean yet . 70% of Earth is water while about 30% is land (US Geological Society). The second is the more specific 71% of Earth is water while 29% is land.

70% of the Earth is covered in water Changes in technology and advancement in technology & advancement in robotic and AI and biotechnology, nanotechnology, quantum computer, mankind is smart enough to find a solution to problems they will encounter or yet to encounter. It all about money and if mankind don't waste on fuckup like going to war or spend billions dollars in wars!,

Just look at China creates a man made island or Dubai creates a man made island also.
Cities built undersea .. It about money and technology. Mankind built a space lab above the earth orbit.

We had the same BULSHIT about peak oil and then came advancement in fracking technology for oil !
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
No they weren't. The masses of the scientific community never believed that was the case. The media jumped on the few fringe scientists simply to sell copy.
Bullshit !! The masses of scientific community believes in it!!
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
80,700
17,860
113
You should research the slowing of AMOC and its effect on the East Coast and Atlantic nations climates.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,860
6,342
113
Bullshit !! The masses of scientific community believes in it!!
Actually not.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

"1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2."

"A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case."
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,860
6,342
113
Don't put word in my mouth.. It all part of the climate cycle on earth that what I mean!
Solar activity is the main driver of climate and once grand solar mininium is over then it goes into the next cycle which will be grand solar maximum... It a fucking cycle!!
Which doesn't answer my question. You say this solar minimum is the cause of a colder than normal winter (where the global temps are still well above 20th C avg). What does that mean 6 years from now during the grand maximum?

Jan 2018 was 0.71 C above average despite La Nina and the solar minimum. That is the 5th highest recorded January temperature (the other 4 being 2013-2017) so La Nina and the solar activity have done nothing but cause a minuscule dip from the previous record 5 years. If you are okay with this being our new low point then I hope you are already stocking your bunker.

...
70% of the Earth is covered in water Changes in technology and advancement in technology & advancement in robotic and AI and biotechnology, nanotechnology, quantum computer, mankind is smart enough to find a solution to problems they will encounter ...
I love this line. Changing climate is not a problem but hopefully we'll come up with technology to solve the problem.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
Actually not.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

"1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2."

"A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case."

Skeptical science is a useless website !!! Created & Run by a person who has no climate background or climate education expertise!!
Australian and native Queenslander John Cook has a day job. And it’s not in the climate science !!


‘Skeptical’ ‘Science’ gets it all wrong – yet again
Anthony Watts / December 4, 2012
Guest post by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Even the name of the “Skeptical” “Science” blog is a lie. The blog is neither skeptical nor scientific. It is a malicious, paid propaganda platform for rude, infantile, untruthful, and often libelous attacks on anyone who dares to question whether global warming is a global crisis.

That poisonous blog has recently attacked 129 climate researchers, of whom I am one, for having dared to write an open letter to the U.N. Secretary-General asking him not to attribute tropical storm Sandy to global warming that has not occurred for 16 years.

The following are among the blog’s numerous falsehoods and libels:


1. On at least four occasions we are referred to as climate “denialists” – a term as unscientific as it is malevolent. We do not deny that there is a climate, or that it changes, or that the greenhouse effect exists, or that Man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases enhance that effect and may cause some warming. We raise legitimate scientific questions about how much warming Man may cause, and about whether attempted mitigation can ever be cost-effective.

2. It is claimed that our “preferred route” to air our “grievances about global warming is via “opinion letters published in the mainstream media” rather than via peer review. Yet most of the signatories named by the blog as having “no climate expertise” have published papers in the reviewed literature. To take one example named by the blog, Professor Nils-Axel Mörner of the University of Stockholm has published some 550 papers, nearly all of them in the reviewed literature, and nearly all of them on sea-level rise, which he has been studying for 40 years.

3. It is claimed that our arguments are “unsubstantiated”. Yet our letter offered a great deal of substantiation, as will become evident.

4. Tom Harris of the Climate Science Coalition, one of the letter’s organizers, is described as “best known for grossly misinforming … university students about climate change in a Climate and Earth Science class he should never have been teaching”. The only sources given for this grave libel are a farrago of childish falsehoods on the “Skeptical” “Science” blog and its sole citation, an error-ridden screed circulated by the dishonestly-names “Canadian Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism”.

5. The fact that there has been no statistically-significant global warming for 16 years is described as a “myth”. Yet the least-squares linear-regression trend on the Hadley Centre/CRU dataset favoured by the IPCC indeed shows no statistically-significant warming for 16 years. The minuscule warming over the period is within the margin of uncertainty in the measurements and is, therefore, statistically indistinguishable from zero.

6. It is claimed that we were wrong to say there has been no statistically-significant global warming because the oceans have warmed. However, the standard definition of “global warming” is warming of the near-surface atmosphere. Also, measurements to date are inadequate to tell us reliably how much – if at all – the oceans have warmed in recent years.

7. It is claimed that we were wrong to say that computer models are now proven to exaggerate warming and its effects. Yet we had pointed out, correctly, that a paper by leading climate modelers, published in the NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008, had said that 15 years or more without global warming would indicate a discrepancy between the models’ projections and real-world observations and that, therefore, the models were proven incorrect by their creators’ own criterion.

8. It is claimed that we were wrong to state that some scientists point out that near-term natural cooling, linked to variations in solar output, is a distinct possibility. Yet some scientists have indeed pointed out what we said they had pointed out, though our use of the word “some” fairly implies there is evidence in both directions in the literature.

9. It is claimed that we used “careful wording” in saying that there is an absence of an attributable climate change signal in trends in extreme weather losses to date. Yet we were merely citing the IPCC itself on this point.

10. It is claimed that we were wrong to state that the incidence and severity of extreme weather has not increased. Though it is trivially true that temperature maxima have increased with warming, there has been no trend in land-falling Atlantic hurricanes in 150 years, and there has been a decline in severe tropical cyclones and typhoons during the satellite era.

11. It is claimed that we “falsely” accuse the U.N. Secretary General of “making unsupportable claims that human influences caused” tropical storm Sandy, and that “in reality, Ban Ki-Moon did not say climate change caused Hurricane (sic) Sandy”. Yet he had said: “Two weeks ago, Hurricane (sic) Sandy struck the eastern seaboard of the United States. A nation saw the reality of climate change. The recovery will cost tens of billions of dollars. The cost of inaction will be even higher. We must reduce our dependence on carbon emissions.” We had rightly written: “We ask that you desist from exploiting the misery of the families of those who lost their lives or properties in tropical storm Sandy by making unsupportable claims that human influences caused that storm. They did not.”

12. It is claimed that we are “a list of non-experts”. Yet half of the 129 signatories are Professors; two-thirds are PhDs, and several are Expert Reviewers for the IPCC’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report.

One day, the useless “Skeptical” “Science” blog may perhaps have a curiosity value to historians studying the relentless, lavishly-funded deviousness and malice of the tiny clique who briefly fooled the world by presenting themselves as a near-unanimous “consensus” (as if consensus had anything to do with science) and mercilessly bullied anyone with the courage and independence of mind to question their barmy but transiently fashionable beliefs. The blog’s falsehoods have made no serious contribution to the scientific debate that we who are genuinely skeptical and truly scientific have by our patient endurance now largely won.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,860
6,342
113
‘Skeptical’ ‘Science’ ....
I see instead of responding to the claim you simply spam bullshit to claim it's a faulty source. The vast majority of scientists in the 70's believed that the Earth was warming due to CO2.

If you don't like them, here's the source peer reviewed article where that graph came from.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1




And to review the predictions of that 1971 paper, Rasool and Schneider's prediction was based on the amount of atmospheric aerosols quadrupling. Thankfully at that time governments acted to prevent this and atmospheric aerosols have been decreasing since then. I would be quite happy with government regulations solving the CO2 problem as well.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
I love this line. Changing climate is not a problem but hopefully we'll come up with technology to solve the problem.
Get through your thick skull.

the repeated ice ages and warmings are natural cycles of the earth.

Don't put word in my mouth.. I saying technology will solve the population of 8 billion people so called "over population". New technology in agriculture and biotechnology will able to feed billions of people and more. Also new technology will able to find new habitants where once it was inhabitable like putting city under the sea or ocean.

Changing climate is normal ... Just like the 6 ice age in earth history. Climate aways changes .. Global warming is fake ...it the fake claim of made man increasing co2 cause a dramatic increasing in raising global temperatures.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
Actually not.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

"1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2."

"A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case."

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook (who apparently pretends to be a Nazi). It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored, while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site's oxymoronic name "Skeptical Science" is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions.

John Cook is now desperately trying to cover up his background that he was employed as a cartoonist for over a decade with no prior employment history in academia or climate science
.

Thanks to the Wayback Machine we can reveal what his website originally said,

"I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist" - John Cook, Skeptical Science






LOL CHECKMATE!!! YOU LOSE!!


Haha a cartoonist!!!

 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
It has been a rough winter full of snow all over the northern hemisphere, as this newest NOAA-20 satellite image shows:



With stunning clarity and unsurpassed detail, the newest polar orbiting satellite in the NOAA fleet, NOAA-20, took this image of the North Pole. The satellite passed over this area of the Earth at least 14 times to capture it.


NOAA-20 satellite shares first polar view, captured April 12, 2018

The VIIRS instrument onboard the satellite created this synthesized view of Earth with the North Pole directly in the center of the image. If you look closely, you’ll see the outline of the North American continent and the Baja Peninsula on the left hand side. Scientists use the data from the VIIRS sensor to create the ‘true-color’ product you see here. Like a photograph, the satellite reads the appearance of clouds, land, vegetation and water to create these images.

This is the image we have of our planet as it would appear if we could take a single photograph of the entire Northern Hemisphere. The swath line shown on the left hand side represents the start and end of the 24-hour period taken by the satellite to create the image.

PS. FUCK YOU CLIMATE ALARMIST & Al GORE. Look at the North Pole more ice and snow!!
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,860
6,342
113
...
Haha a cartoonist!!!

...
What a surprise. You refuse to actually look at the peer-reviewed article that proves the next to no one in the 70's was believing that an ice age was coming. Are you afraid to face how ridiculous your assertion is?
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Only 7 out of 71 papers published in the 60's and 70's discussed the world cooling.
And they were based on the faulty assumption of significant increases in atmospheric aerosols which didn't happen because of governmental action.

Does putting it in a larger font help you face reality?
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,860
6,342
113
...

PS. FUCK YOU CLIMATE ALARMIST & Al GORE. Look at the North Pole more ice and snow!!
And at the same time, the GLOBAL temperatures are still well above 20th century average. The Northern Hemisphere has generally been colder than normal but overall March was the 6th highest in recorded history (+0.89 C).
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
80,700
17,860
113
It has been a rough winter full of snow all over the northern hemisphere, as this newest NOAA-20 satellite image shows:
Climate Change.

Which is why there was also a record heat wave at the North Pole.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/2/27/17053284/arctic-heat-wave-north-pole-climate

And ice levels hit another record low.
http://www.noaa.gov/news/january-was-5th-warmest-on-record-for-globe

The question should be, is this cold weather now related to a slowdown of the AMOC.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...antics-circulation-is-weakest-in-1-600-years/
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
What a surprise. You refuse to actually look at the peer-reviewed article that proves the next to no one in the 70's was believing that an ice age was coming. Are you afraid to face how ridiculous your assertion is?
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Only 7 out of 71 papers published in the 60's and 70's discussed the world cooling.
And they were based on the faulty assumption of significant increases in atmospheric aerosols which didn't happen because of governmental action.

Does putting it in a larger font help you face reality?

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook (who apparently pretends to be a Nazi). It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored, while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site's oxymoronic name "Skeptical Science" is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions.

John Cook is now desperately trying to cover up his background that he was employed as a cartoonist for over a decade with no prior employment history in academia or climate science
.

Thanks to the Wayback Machine we can reveal what his website originally said,

"I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist" - John Cook, Skeptical Science






LOL CHECKMATE!!! YOU LOSE!!


Haha a cartoonist!!!

 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
Climate Change.

Which is why there was also a record heat wave at the North Pole.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/2/27/17053284/arctic-heat-wave-north-pole-climate

And ice levels hit another record low.
http://www.noaa.gov/news/january-was-5th-warmest-on-record-for-globe

The question should be, is this cold weather now related to a slowdown of the AMOC.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...antics-circulation-is-weakest-in-1-600-years/
What a load of crap... Global warming!!! Aka rebranded as man made " climate change" . Man made CO2 warming the planet & melting the ice cap!!
For millions of year the climate have been aways changing on earth!!


Look at all the ice & snow in the NORTH POLE !!

It has been a rough winter full of snow all over the northern hemisphere, as this newest NOAA-20 satellite image shows:



With stunning clarity and unsurpassed detail, the newest polar orbiting satellite in the NOAA fleet, NOAA-20, took this image of the North Pole. The satellite passed over this area of the Earth at least 14 times to capture it.


NOAA-20 satellite shares first polar view, captured April 12, 2018

The VIIRS instrument onboard the satellite created this synthesized view of Earth with the North Pole directly in the center of the image. If you look closely, you’ll see the outline of the North American continent and the Baja Peninsula on the left hand side. Scientists use the data from the VIIRS sensor to create the ‘true-color’ product you see here. Like a photograph, the satellite reads the appearance of clouds, land, vegetation and water to create these images.

This is the image we have of our planet as it would appear if we could take a single photograph of the entire Northern Hemisphere. The swath line shown on the left hand side represents the start and end of the 24-hour period taken by the satellite to create the image.

PS. FUCK YOU CLIMATE ALARMIST & Al GORE. Look at the North Pole more ice and snow!!
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts