Is it Game Over on the climate front?

[Genava]

The doomsday cult of man-made global warming is becoming satirical fodder for conservative journalists:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...idiculous.html

Scientist (in environmental geography): "We've predicted by 2020 to lose something like 60 per cent of the snow cover of the Australian Alps,"

Idiotic interpretation from MAGA boys paid by the Koch brothers: Catherine Pickering says snow is rapidly disappearing because of global warming and by 2020 Australia may not have any left.

Data: https://snowriders-australia.com/2017/03/04/test3/amp/

The doomsday cult

Doomsday argument you are making up yourselves. The unintelligent and blind cult of ideological zealots in your case.

[Daruwind]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmc.../#33063b857c4f

If anything B.W. there are really big companies who are spending millions just to keep status quo. Because it could really hurt them if humanity decide to alter radically its current way (not that it would or could, simply there are companies to loose anyway..)

It like big food companies sponsoring research which will prove that smoking,sugar...are perfectly healthy ;-)

And on positive side, ozone layer is in the best state for long time

https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/?fb...HHh85tNtjKmQPM

So yes, humanity can influence earth on global scale....

[B. W.]

Scientist (in environmental geography): "We've predicted by 2020 to lose something like 60 per cent of the snow cover of the Australian Alps,"

Idiotic interpretation from MAGA boys paid by the Koch brothers: Catherine Pickering says snow is rapidly disappearing because of global warming and by 2020 Australia may not have any left.

Data: https://snowriders-australia.com/2017/03/04/test3/amp/


Doomsday argument you are making up yourselves. The unintelligent and blind cult of ideological zealots in your case.

There you go again. That article is 3 years old. Snowfall in Australia this year has been exceptional.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmc.../#33063b857c4f

If anything B.W. there are really big companies who are spending millions just to keep status quo. Because it could really hurt them if humanity decide to alter radically its current way (not that it would or could, simply there are companies to loose anyway..)

It like big food companies sponsoring research which will prove that smoking,sugar...are perfectly healthy ;-)

And on positive side, ozone layer is in the best state for long time

https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/?fb...HHh85tNtjKmQPM

So yes, humanity can influence earth on global scale....

The thing I find interesting about the Man-made Global Warming Doomsday Cult is that they are completely unaware of how their cult came into being. Here's some enlightening and insightful information you should read:

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti..._the_west.html

Here's a good one. AGW "fact checker" gets caught manipulating the facts. Why act like you're surprised?

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ow_stones.html

[Genava]

There you go again. That article is 3 years old. Snowfall in Australia this year has been exceptional.

You are such a sheep... this has nothing exceptional https://www.sott.net/article/281220-...ore-on-the-way

This is only a year with more snow than the average. Maybe if you were less overreacting like a snowflake and less thinking that the scientists are conspiring against you and your country, you could take the time to understand what they are saying.

[B. W.]

You are such a sheep... this has nothing exceptional https://www.sott.net/article/281220-...ore-on-the-way

This is only a year with more snow than the average. Maybe if you were less overreacting like a snowflake and less thinking that the scientists are conspiring against you and your country, you could take the time to understand what they are saying.

Who's a snowflake? Properly described, I'm a college educated veteran.

You on the other hand just posted an article that is old and yet undercuts the previous article you posted as proof of Man Made Global Warming.

[Genava]

Who's a snowflake? Properly described, I'm a college educated veteran.

Come on, you are the kind of person focusing on the headline of any article with little critical thinking and reading about the core text of the articles we share here. The thread is full of your reptilian reflexes and of your spamming. This issue about the snowfalls in Australia is again an example of your usual refuse to think critically about the BS you are posting. Nobody is saying that each winter will be less snowy than the previous year. Snowfalls are linked to weather, this is like temperature, sometimes the year is above the average and sometimes below. What is important is the trend, decade to decade. Your blind and dogmatic blog is making up the argument, creating a strawman by deforming the statement of a scientist.

Edit: And if I call you a snowflake, this is because you are as much sensitive than the SJW. Each subject is interpreted through your ideological framework, everything that challenges your view is interpreted as a threat against your identity. This political tribalism has the same basis, whether it be from the left or the right. Ending by believing to a global conspiracy of scientists from different fields is an extreme position that roots itself in irrational interpretations. Yes, you are overreacting like the snowflake generation. Moreover, you are not helping yourself and your fellow American conservatives to look intelligent in this thread.

[B. W.]

Come on, you are the kind of person focusing on the headline of any article with little critical thinking and reading about the core text of the articles we share here. The thread is full of your reptilian reflexes and of your spamming. This issue about the snowfalls in Australia is again an example of your usual refuse to think critically about the BS you are posting. Nobody is saying that each winter will be less snowy than the previous year. Snowfalls are linked to weather, this is like temperature, sometimes the year is above the average and sometimes below. What is important is the trend, decade to decade. Your blind and dogmatic blog is making up the argument, creating a strawman by deforming the statement of a scientist.

Edit: And if I call you a snowflake, this is because you are as much sensitive than the SJW. Each subject is interpreted through your ideological framework, everything that challenges your view is interpreted as a threat against your identity. This political tribalism has the same basis, whether it be from the left or the right. Ending by believing to a global conspiracy of scientists from different fields is an extreme position that roots itself in irrational interpretations. Yes, you are overreacting like the snowflake generation. Moreover, you are not helping yourself and your fellow American conservatives to look intelligent in this thread.

^Doomsday cultist tries to sound intelligent by calling a realist a snowflake and at the same time contradicts himself again.

You posted an article that was based on one years snowfall as an example of a coming climate catastrophe.

I posted an article pointing out that the article's predictions were false because of present snow conditions and incidentally another article showed excessive snowfalls before the year that the article you claimed was proof of global warming.

The fact is that the one year of less snowfall was the exception instead of vice versa.

You're so indoctrinated by false and manipulated data that you are the one incapable of critical thinking. You don't realize it because you're enraptured by the false doctrine of man-made global warming.

[The spartan]

^Doomsday cultist tries to sound intelligent by calling a realist a snowflake and at the same time contradicts himself again.

The desperation is real. Keep trying to label things as you want them to be rather than how they really are.

[Cyclops]

There you go again. That article is 3 years old. Snowfall in Australia this year has been exceptional...l

Nah its been decent. There's been a mix of hotter days and colder nights because there's less rain (you know, drought).

Our main problem ATM is excessive drying out in out main agricultural regions, as rain bands shift south. On the positive side if the monsoon belt shifts south too then we'll get a massive payoff in south flowing rivers into the interior. The one thing that's certain is our weather patterns are changing, and it looks to be in a fundamental way.

That said, the snowfields are dwindling due to rising temperatures:
https://www.climatechangeinaustralia...Report_WEB.pdf (page 49)

That report is from CSIRO, one of the most trusted scientific bodies in the world (and they invented wifi: if you doubt them then you need to turn your wifi off). No doubt you have some wretched Koch sponsored American Thinker article to spam, but they can go to hell. I will trust the boring shorts and glasses of the CSIRO over some filthy lying journalist (left right or centre) any day.

Overall the ski fields are looking at a shutting down completely before the end of the century.

[B. W.]

Nah its been decent. There's been a mix of hotter days and colder nights because there's less rain (you know, drought).

Our main problem ATM is excessive drying out in out main agricultural regions, as rain bands shift south. On the positive side if the monsoon belt shifts south too then we'll get a massive payoff in south flowing rivers into the interior. The one thing that's certain is our weather patterns are changing, and it looks to be in a fundamental way.

That said, the snowfields are dwindling due to rising temperatures:
https://www.climatechangeinaustralia...Report_WEB.pdf (page 49)

That report is from CSIRO, one of the most trusted scientific bodies in the world (and they invented wifi: if you doubt them then you need to turn your wifi off). No doubt you have some wretched Koch sponsored American Thinker article to spam, but they can go to hell. I will trust the boring shorts and glasses of the CSIRO over some filthy lying journalist (left right or centre) any day.

Overall the ski fields are looking at a shutting down completely before the end of the century.

I see. They can't give an accurate forecast for the next two weeks, but they can tell with certitude what the weather will be in 70 years. That's the sort of logic that liberals buy into.

[Genava]

I see. They can't give an accurate forecast for the next two weeks, but they can tell with certitude what the weather will be in 70 years. That's the sort of logic that liberals buy into.

26 pages of thread to reach this bottomless pit of unintelligence.

[Love Mountain]

I see. They can't give an accurate forecast for the next two weeks, but they can tell with certitude what the weather will be in 70 years. That's the sort of logic that liberals buy into.

There's a difference between using atmospheric data to predict the exact temperature and wind speeds in the next 12 hours, and studying weather trends and factors that affect them. Not that I'd expect an American Thinker to understand this sort of thing, even if you could simply take a class or read a wikipedia page.

[Daruwind]

I see. They can't give an accurate forecast for the next two weeks, but they can tell with certitude what the weather will be in 70 years. That's the sort of logic that liberals buy into.

B.W. you are able to say that and claim that you were working with any data, statistics? You are again failing knowledge from first year of high school/uni for any technical/math/physics...field. No, you know jack and just try to post things you read somewhere with deepest understanding at level of "there is snow" and "there is not snow now"...you know what this is? My three year old niece...

EDIT: i wanted to post here for you some basic videas about statistics, chaos in differencial equasions and other very basic topics. But why. Go,study real science. Learn and we can talk later. You just keep repeating things like brainless zombie..because after all this is not thread about basic stuff like common statistical methods.

(just for record, this is not attack on B.W. as his personality,just his knowledge which he try to present us here. If somebody keeps writing 1+1=3, laughting is all he will get...)

[Cyclops]

I see. They can't give an accurate forecast for the next two weeks, but they can tell with certitude what the weather will be in 70 years. That's the sort of logic that liberals buy into.

Yeah you've confused the CSIRO with the BOM, maybe deliberately? I don't think you're arguing in good faith, your trite refusal to acknowledge the point about Muller is another example of this. I feel that discussing this with you is a waste of time.

[Ludicus]

26 pages of thread to reach this bottomless pit of unintelligence.

Well, it's a question of faith...Trump, asked about the findings of his own Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, ( previous post), simply replied: "I don’t believe it".For Trump, climate change is a " hoax", and the President of the US has a genius-level IQ:"my I.Q. is one of the highest -and you all know it!"
I have said this before, we are moving closer to a new Dark Age characterized by beliefs and wilful ignorance. Trump is a poor reincarnation of Torquemada,The silenced: meet the climate whistleblowers muzzled by Trump
---
This is what we're talking about- for those who understand French- or use google translate,Lettre aux Maldiviens et à ceux dont les îles seront englouties

Chers Maldiviens en exil... Shanghai, New York, Bombay, Singapour, Hô Chi Minh-Ville ou Rangoun. Ces grandes métropoles, imprudemment construites au bord de l’eau par les puissances coloniales, seront submergées quelques décennies seulement après les Maldives.

[B. W.]

26 pages of thread to reach this bottomless pit of unintelligence.

There's a difference between using atmospheric data to predict the exact temperature and wind speeds in the next 12 hours, and studying weather trends and factors that affect them. Not that I'd expect an American Thinker to understand this sort of thing, even if you could simply take a class or read a wikipedia page.

B.W. you are able to say that and claim that you were working with any data, statistics? You are again failing knowledge from first year of high school/uni for any technical/math/physics...field. No, you know jack and just try to post things you read somewhere with deepest understanding at level of "there is snow" and "there is not snow now"...you know what this is? My three year old niece...

EDIT: i wanted to post here for you some basic videas about statistics, chaos in differencial equasions and other very basic topics. But why. Go,study real science. Learn and we can talk later. You just keep repeating things like brainless zombie..because after all this is not thread about basic stuff like common statistical methods.

(just for record, this is not attack on B.W. as his personality,just his knowledge which he try to present us here. If somebody keeps writing 1+1=3, laughting is all he will get...)

Yeah you've confused the CSIRO with the BOM, maybe deliberately? I don't think you're arguing in good faith, your trite refusal to acknowledge the point about Muller is another example of this. I feel that discussing this with you is a waste of time.

Well, it's a question of faith...Trump, asked about the findings of his own Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, ( previous post), simply replied: "I don’t believe it".For Trump, climate change is a " hoax", and the President of the US has a genius-level IQ:"my I.Q. is one of the highest -and you all know it!"
I have said this before, we are moving closer to a new Dark Age characterized by beliefs and wilful ignorance. Trump is a poor reincarnation of Torquemada,The silenced: meet the climate whistleblowers muzzled by Trump
---
This is what we're talking about- for those who understand French- or use google translate,Lettre aux Maldiviens et à ceux dont les îles seront englouties

^As expected. Doomsday cultists respond to vexing dilemma the very same way they did when it was first brought up years ago.^

Instead of embracing something that has been proven true Doomsday cultists embrace something that can't be proven. In this case, it can be, and is proven weekly, that weather forecasters have extreme difficulty when trying to forecast over a short period of just two weeks, but instead of accepting that, they accept a weather forecast that takes place 80 years in the future and that can't possibly be proven.

In fact, the man-made global warming folks, for the most part, have given up on making 10 year climate forecasts because they've done it twice and been wrong both times. Now they come up with a time frame that goes beyond the lifespan of anyone who would be alive to check on its accuracy. It's a fathom forecast because no one who is making it can ever be brought to task for being wrong.

In Obama's eight years as President he was one of the biggest voices saying the oceans were rising and the coastal areas would be underwater. Well, Obama just spent several million dollars buying waterfront property in the Hamptons' that is only a few feet above sea level. If he truly believed the seas were rising he wouldn't have bought the property. That should be clue enough that the folks peddling this BS don't believe it themselves.

No matter, lets just say for the sake of argument that a little extra portion of a trace gas in the atmosphere is responsible for increasing global temperatures. This is the result, as they say of one hundred years of industrial human activity and it has changed a climate system on this planet that took billions of years to develop.

Well, if that is the case, this is indeed wonderful news! We can now control the climate of the entire world by adding or subtracting a portion of one our atmosphere's trace gases. Rising Co2, no problem. We put it there, we can take it out and the technology to do has been around for decades. As it turns out, it is an engineering problem. All we have to do is build C02 scrubbers on an industrial scale and we can make the climate however we want it. Just think of all the jobs that could be created.

Problem solved! No more man-made global warming problem.

Now everyone. Altogether, let's sing:

"Oh happy day..!"

[Genava]

In fact, the man-made global warming folks, for the most part, have given up on making 10 year climate forecasts because they've done it twice and been wrong both times.

Wrong?


In comparison with the deniers:

[Common Soldier]

Wrong?
[I

In comparison with the deniers:

It is Climate Change proponents like yourself use of words like denier that why so many people are skeptical of Climate Change. They might not understand all the science, but they can often understand when they are being conned, and when they are being insulted, and they don't trust people who are jerks and insulting like many Climate Change proponents like yourself are.

And if is all about trust. All the graphs in the world won't mean a thing if people don't trust you. Maybe the correlation that you see between the predicted and actual temperatures is because the same people the who came up with the predictions are the same people who are determing the average temperature. Are they going to calculate average temperatures that prove Climate Change and themselves wrong? Of course not. And these average temperatures are not obseverd values, there is no thermometer you can set outside and measure average world temperature. You determine the temperature from lots of observations and there are many ways you can bias the results in you chose. You could declare all the cold readings bad date and throw them out, using all kinds of justifications, etc.

Right now, many just don't trust the Climate Change proponents. It isn't just a matter of deliberately lying, scientist could be biasing the data by ignoring certain contrary data or adjusting it for what they genuinely believe are justified reasons, but despite their genuine belief they could be wrong to do so. You have to trust the Climate Change proponents haven't and right now they don't. When you experience record breaking cold temperatures and the scientist proclaim it the warmest year ever, it makes you skeptical.

When it is pointed out that Al Gore made reported predictions that have not come to pass, it doesn't help Climate Change proponents case when they try to shrug it off as "Gore is not a scientist" or "he was merely reporting the work of a few scientist". Gore got a Nobel prize for his work on Global Warnings so you can't dismiss his failed predictions that easily.

Nor does it help when some Global Warming Alarmist make wild predictions such as "Climate Change could lead to human extinction", without other Climate Change proponents taking them to task. The silence of other Climate Change proponents means they are endorsing such views, and the excuse when the predictions don't come to pass that they only represent a minority isn't going to cut any slack.



Climate Change proponents could take a lesson from the late Stephen Gould. He had a regular article in Nature magazine where he discussed evolution. Instead of just dismissing creationist arguments out of hands he took them seriously, even acknowledging when they had made valid points against some of the simplistic arguments by some evolution supporters, and patiently explained why they were wrong. He never said "the science is settled", and it impressed me all these years later the respect he showed toward those he knew were complete wrong.


Yes, I know it must be annoying for a professional who has devoted their life to the study of climate to have their expert judgment questioned by amateurs who have not examined the date for themselves. But showing disrespect and dismmissing argunents of the skeptic out of hand is not going to convince them. And if your are not attempting to persuade them, why are you bothering to respond or argue? Just shout "Climate Change is real, darn it!" and the skeptics can keep electing people like Trump.

[sumskilz]

The silence of other Climate Change proponents means they are endorsing such views

True, just as...

[Common Soldier]

True, just as...

There is a major difference in that String Theory is outside her area of interest. Her silence is no different than her silence on whhat is the world's best soccer team, who is the world's best chess player etc.

When someone is making a dire prediction of Global Warming, that is a topic that Climate Change proponents care very much about and are constantly warning the public other bad effects of global warming, if not quite so drastic. If extreme unrealistic dire predictions go unchallenged, how will the public distinguish between the real efffects.and those that are exaggerated dangers? Why wouldn't the public just conclude all the claims the dire results of global warming equally exaggeration?

I remember my Climate Change skeptic friends that Climate Change proponents were not predicting the extinction of humanity when they were dismissing the dire warnings of Climate Change, when I came acrossam article that did precisely that (it warned that warming could cause huge reservoirs of methane hydrates at the bottom of the ocean to melt, releasing vast amounts of methane which is a much more effective green house gas). I know such an article would only strengthen their skepticism, and just justify their skepticism on all the other predictions of Climate Change proponents.