I see, so you think the Nobel's aren't as smart and informed about the science as you are.
A Meteorologist Said This Might Be Among The Worst Winters In Over Two Decades For Ontarians And We Could Even See Some Snow In October
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
Actually I've brought up the last 30 winters in previous threads.
There's been virtually no warming, all winters have stayed cold as fuck.
I really hope you Leftie sheeple are right this time though and we have a nice hot winter
Climate scientists, unlike people who work for oil and gas, aren't allowed to lobby or be political. All they are allowed to do is write reports.
They worry more than even Greta, and they get drowned out by the millions your industry spends on disinformation.
I get it, no matter how many Nobel prizes, no matter how much the global temp changes, no matter how extreme the weather you will always find an excuse like 'explain a cold month in Antarctica'.
No, you are incredibly wrong.Actually I've brought up the last 30 winters in previous threads.
There's been virtually no warming, all winters have stayed cold as fuck.
I really hope you Leftie sheeple are right this time though and we have a nice hot winter
Maybe you should look at the data instead of relying on your perceptions.Actually I've brought up the last 30 winters in previous threads.
There's been virtually no warming, all winters have stayed cold as fuck.
I really hope you Leftie sheeple are right this time though and we have a nice hot winter
But one year (1921?) was hotter than (2105?) so obviously there can't be a warming trend....
You have it wrong. The research is much more detailed.
Phil's grandfather who lived in several different Canadian locales told him that the weather has not changed in his lifetime.
Right, Phil? That's your incontrovertible evidence. Hahahahaha.
You DO know that we're talking about the world, not your grandfather's last residence.Actually I've brought up the last 30 winters in previous threads.
There's been virtually no warming, all winters have stayed cold as fuck.
I really hope you Leftie sheeple are right this time though and we have a nice hot winter
Those winters havent gotten any warmer either. Just ask the UK:
UK weather: January 2021 was coldest in 10 years with more wintry conditions this week
The average temperature last month was 2.2C - the coldest January since 2010.
Weather vs climate fail with a bonus for cherry picking one year with a Polar Vortex hit as if it were a trend.
Well, this oughta be interesting.
Climate scientists are the MOST political people out there, because their jobs depend on it.
Are these people scientists?
The millions are coming from GOVERNMENT to support climate hysteria, not the oil industry. Big government is bigger than big business.
There are too many examples, its just crazy. Just ask Susan Crockford, a polar bear expert, who wrote that , contrary to the hystericist narrative , polar bears are doing fine, which is exactly what the Inuit have been saying. Her University career disappeared. she addressed the famous 'starving polar bear" photo here:
Starving polar bears: the fake news face of climate change | Principia Scientific Intl.
Summary: Climate activists have made polar bears “the face of climate change.” This week we see how they have done so: with fake news. That they do so instead of relying on science tells us much about them — and why they have achieved so few policy changes after 30 years of these tactics.
principia-scientific.com
Climategate emails show the extent to which "Scientists" beholden to the climate gravy train were willing to bend the truth and suppress evidence to the contrary of their hystercist views.
The Hockey Stick was a pathetic fabrication. Science? Why weren't the creators of the hockey stick so unwilling to release their data? That's not science. that's suppression of science on behalf of an agenda.
Probably the only “consensus” among climate scientists is that human activities can have an effect on local climate and that the sum of such local effects could hypothetically rise to the level of an observable global signal. The key questions to be answered, however, are whether the human global signal is large enough to be measured and if it is, does it represent, or is it likely to become, a dangerous change outside the range of natural variability? On these questions, an energetic scientific debate is taking place on the pages of peer-reviewed science journals.
In contradiction of the scientific method, IPCC assumes its implicit hypothesis – that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions -- is correct and that its only duty is to collect evidence and make plausible arguments in the hypothesis’s favor. It simply ignores the alternative and null hypothesis, amply supported by empirical research, that currently observed changes in global climate indices and the physical environment are the result of natural variability.
The results of the global climate models (GCMs) relied on by IPCC are only as reliable as the data and theories “fed” into them. Most climate scientists agree those data are seriously deficient and IPCC’s estimate for climate sensitivity to CO2 is too high. We estimate a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels (from 280 to 560 ppm) would likely produce a temperature forcing of 3.7 Wm-2 in the lower atmosphere, for about ~1°C of prima facie warming. The recently quiet Sun and extrapolation of solar cycle patterns into the future suggest a planetary cooling may occur over the next few decades.
In a similar fashion, all five of IPCC’s postulates, or assumptions, are readily refuted by real-world observations, and all five of IPCC’s claims relying on circumstantial evidence are refutable. For example, in contrast to IPCC’s alarmism, we find neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability, nor was it in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth’s climatic history. In any case, such evidence cannot be invoked to “prove” a hypothesis, but only to disprove one. IPCC has failed to refute the null hypothesis that currently observed changes in global climate indices and the physical environment are the result of natural variability.
Rather than rely exclusively on IPCC for scientific advice, policymakers should seek out advice from independent, nongovernment organizations and scientists who are free of financial and political conflicts of interest. NIPCC’s conclusion, drawn from its extensive review of the scientific evidence, is that any human global climate impact is within the background variability of the natural climate system and is not dangerous.
In the face of such facts, the most prudent climate policy is to prepare for and adapt to extreme climate events and changes regardless of their origin. Adaptive planning for future hazardous climate events and change should be tailored to provide responses to the known rates, magnitudes, and risks of natural change. Once in place, these same plans will provide an adequate response to any human-caused change that may or may not emerge.
Policymakers should resist pressure from lobby groups to silence scientists who question the authority of IPCC to claim to speak for “climate science.” The distinguished British biologist Conrad Waddington wrote in 1941 (Waddington, C.H. 1941. The Scientific Attitude. London, UK: Penguin Books),
This prescient statement merits careful examination by those who continue to assert the fashionable belief, in the face of strong empirical evidence to the contrary, that human CO2 emissions are going to cause dangerous global warming.
Press briefing European Climate Declaration
There is no climate emergency, say 500 experts S
THE LATEST U.N. climate summit begins in New York, a new, high-level global network of 500 prominent climate scientists and professionals has submitted a declaration that there is no “climate emergency”. The group has sent a European Climate Declaration with a registered letter to António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Professor Guus Berkhout of The Netherlands, who organized the Declaration, said: “So popular is the Declaration with scientists and researchers worldwide that signatories are flooding in not only from within Europe but also from other countries such as the United States and Canada, Australia and New Zealand.” The group’s letter warns the U.N. that “the general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose”. The Declaration adds that the models, which have predicted far more warming than they should (see diagram), “are not remotely plausible as policy tools”, in that “they … exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2” and “ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial”.
The “climate emergency” that never was: Global warming predicted by climate models (purple and red cursors) is three times warming expected on the basis of officially-estimated manmade influences on climate (orange cursor) and four times observed warming (green cursor). The letter invites the Secretary-General to work with the global network to organize a constructive, high-level meeting between world-class scientists on both sides of the climate debate in early 2020.
There is no climate emergency, say 500 experts S
THE LATEST U.N. climate summit begins in New York, a new, high-level global network of 500 prominent climate scientists and professionals has submitted a declaration that there is no “climate emergency”. The group has sent a European Climate Declaration with a registered letter to António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Professor Guus Berkhout of The Netherlands, who organized the Declaration, said: “So popular is the Declaration with scientists and researchers worldwide that signatories are flooding in not only from within Europe but also from other countries such as the United States and Canada, Australia and New Zealand.” The group’s letter warns the U.N. that “the general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose”. The Declaration adds that the models, which have predicted far more warming than they should (see diagram), “are not remotely plausible as policy tools”, in that “they … exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2” and “ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial”.
The “climate emergency” that never was: Global warming predicted by climate models (purple and red cursors) is three times warming expected on the basis of officially-estimated manmade influences on climate (orange cursor) and four times observed warming (green cursor). The letter invites the Secretary-General to work with the global network to organize a constructive, high-level meeting between world-class scientists on both sides of the climate debate in early 2020.
Re-read this occasionally, it will ;put current hysteria in perspective:
cei.org
Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions - Competitive Enterprise Institute
Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and...
cei.org
CEI?Re-read this occasionally, it will ;put current hysteria in perspective:
Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions - Competitive Enterprise Institute
Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and...
Scientist to CEI: You Used My Research To “Confuse and Mislead”
The Competitive Enterprise Institute runs ads saying 'The Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker.' A professor objects, saying CEI deliberately misrepresents his research.
Here's the thing, barny.
The 'letters' you posted are garbage, filled with non-scientists and people who didn't even sign the thing.
If you want to compare what you claim are biased scientists because they are government paid, never mind the fact that they are paid by conservative governments just as often as liberals, then the biggest contrast is to compare IPCC scientists with those the oil companies hired. Because the oil companies would clearly never hire a scientist who would only make them look bad and not just do the science, would they?
Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago
A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation
Just look at the polar ice caps. Just look at polar bears migrating further and further south.Those winters havent gotten any warmer either. Just ask the UK:
UK weather: January 2021 was coldest in 10 years with more wintry conditions this week
The average temperature last month was 2.2C - the coldest January since 2010.news.sky.com
