DAMN, there's so much snow in Calgary...

[enlightenment]

Is this the initial response you speak of where you insult and belittle from the beginning while providing nothing new, irrefutable, or enlightening to the conversation and ending with an attack on my intelligence through a comment questioning my education and being a total hypocrite to boot?

Lol - go screw yourself

Great, so then I hope you can see how all hypotheses use natural variation as a NULL HYPOTHESIS.

It really might be time for people to consider there are natural cycles within nature impacting weather more than man himself.

Think about it: how did the Ice Age end without cars warming up the atmosphere?

How has the earth land temperature stayed the exact same for 17 years despite an increase of 25% in carbon dioxide?


Just because it sounds like a believable story doesn't make it true.... or even accurate.

This was from a comment on page 5, and my explanation to NATURAL VARIATIONS and how science deals with that was on page 2. Thus, you never read what I wrote, stuck your fingers in your ears, and continued to complain about cycles.

[enlightenment]

This is exactly the science that you lack the background to make claims about. The world operates in cycles, that is a given. The scales of these cycles are vast, and there might be some we do not know about at scales we have not yet detected. However, that is why the operative term is: "change beyond the natural variations of the Earth." There are statistical techniques that can give us confidence in one hypothesis over a random hypothesis. If you want to show that there is a variation we have not accounted for, that is a claim you have made and now have to back up with evidence. The best available evidence (which is not perfect) shows that the increases we have go beyond the natural glaciation cycles. It is now the denier crowd that must postulate a hypothesis as to how those increases could occur through some natural variation that we have not learned about yet.

That is, learn something about this earth that can account for the evidence, that we have not learned yet. You can throw numbers that sound convincing to the layman, but you don't how they are dealt with through the models and evidence, and you don't know what kind of known factors lead to such variations.

As for temperature plateaus specifically, you don't know the science to state that is against the hypothesis of global warming. It could be a cooling cycle of the earth neutralized by anthropogenic warming that leads to the plateau. What occurs when the earths cycle directs towards warming in the next decade, and instead of neutralizing anthropogenic warming, they reinforce each other? The warming we experienced for 60 years between 1940s and 2000s, included plateaus, yet cannot be accounted for by all-natural models.

Also, you forgot about this post, the post right after the one you posted.

[mcHAPPY]

Also, you forgot about this post, the post right after the one you posted.

You took yourself out of conversation when you continuously personally and admittedly ridiculed me.

I've countered 97%, land temp claims, ice levels, etc.

So yet again:
Climate change is not fact.
Taxes are not answer.
Regardless should still aim to cut emissions.

[RandomGuy]

Guys, whats the average temperature in Ontario during October?

[mcHAPPY]

"Uh oh, I have no idea how science works. They were wrong before, so they are wrong now! I am unaware that science progresses through being proven wrong, so Im going to critic the entire method without giving credence to its usefulness in helping us understand the world"

Your mentality belongs in the stone age. Pre-science. Go read on how science works, go read philosophies on consensus and knowledge. Go pick up a fucking book.

Oh c'mon guys, did this really turn into this? Lets clean it up.

Everybody has raised some fantastic points, (all of which have been referenced) so I'd hope everyone could objectively look at and discuss in a mature, adult manner.

I don't want to lock the thread as its a great conversation, but it seems there's not much left to be said by either side ...

You're right, there isn't much left to be said and I think it should be locked up.

I find it fascinating when the above comment and other comments like it by enlightenment were being hurled my way there was very little moderation except a bunch of 'likes' that fit the popular but inaccurate view. enlightenment violated numerous guidelines of the forums on numerous occasions.

I've provided a number of sources and all sorts of science (after JimiCliff's post) that debunked the 97% mantra (which unfortunately was deleted) and supported the idea that the alarmists claims are false (in some cases fraud) with actual scientists who were said to be a part of the 97%. I've also provided evidence in stark contrast to the normal climate change hype. Yet I've also agreed that efforts should be made to curb emissions (and all sorts of pollution for that matter) regardless. Unfortunately tax incentives and/or breaks flies against many of the preconceived notions of our socialist society and therefore I'm stooopid. People seem to forget that government consumes, it does not produce.

[Axel]

And I thought the Demar Derozan thread was where all the real animosity was. Turns out it's all in the weather thread.

[Doc]

[Apollo]

Damn it guys...

Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk

[mcHAPPY]

Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.

One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html

Very unscientific poll on the link above but 89% of nearly 95K believe global warming has been exaggerated by scientists.

The truth is slowly coming out.