Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

See you in five years. You'll be dancing to another tune, i predict.

Not likely unless someone starts producing data that is actually reliable.

That might be a valuable point, since until now reliable data are only collected.

That is incorrect. No reliable data exists presently. Cherry picked data is biased and is therefore unreliable.

Exhibit E.

The guy who claims to have the astronomical IQ doesn't comprehend the difference between "producing" data and collecting it.

My IQ is better than yours. In fact it's perfect. That's why I understood Walter's point and you couldn't.

Don't be silly. I understood that Walter was attempting to pointlessly nitpick over word usage. The fact that I don't bother to acknowledge attempted nitpicking does not mean that I don't understand it.

Unlike you, I also understand that Walter's attempt at nitpicking was factually incorrect. You and Walter should go brush up on your dictionary skills.

And don't be so sensitive about your inferiority. Your desperation to show me up as being wrong about something only makes you look silly when you turn out to be the person who is actually wrong.

(US) National Weather Service: Collecting Meteorological Data

Besides that: a handbook (if you haven't taken academic courses) in practical meteorology is considered to be more accurate than a dictionary. But "collecting" and "producing" data is used in other sciences as well ...

Oxford English Dictionary:

3 Show or provide (something) for consideration, inspection, or use.
'he produced a sheet of paper from his pocket'

http://www.lexico.com/en/definition/produce

But seriously. Even if you'd actually been right about your silly attempt to nitpick over word usage, so what?

This fits under the "Fine With Me!" heading
BuzzFeed

I'm still undecided on executions.

Inferiority? I scored a perfect 100.

Not on "basic familiarity with the English language" you didn't.

He did. I marked his work. And as I'd earlier scored 100, you can be confident of this result.

That claim is nonsense. IT IS VBASED ON A PAPER THAT WAS NOT PUBLISHED BECAUSE IT CAME TO A CONCLUSION NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE. tHAT IT WAS NOT PUBLISHED WAS NOT BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPRESSE BUT BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE DID NOT BEAR IT OUT. Generslizing that to reject ll evidence however independently derived by thousands of researchers is logically indefensible, no matter how high you claim your iq is. ( Sorry about the capslock. I was touchtyping without looking at the screen. Small keyboard.)

No we're not.

In January 2005, NOAA began recording temperatures at its newly built U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). USCRN includes 114 pristinely maintained temperature stations spaced relatively uniformly across the lower 48 states. NOAA selected locations that were far away from urban and land-development impacts that might artificially taint temperature readings.

The USCRN has eliminated the need to rely on, and adjust the data from, outdated temperature stations. Strikingly, as shown in the graph below, USCRN temperature stations show no warming since 2005 when the network went online.

Graph can be seen at this link:

https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/08/23/climate_alarmists_foiled_no_us_warming_since_2005.html

Uh huh. There's been a lot of that kind of thinking going on throughout the years.

Remember this:

1895-Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again
– New York Times, February 1895

•1902 -“Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.”
– Los Angeles Times

•1912 - Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age
–New York Times, October 1912

•1923 - “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, –
Chicago Tribune

•1923 - “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” –Washington Post

•1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age–
New York Times, Sept 18, 1924

•1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” –
Los Angeles Times

•1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” –
The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World

•1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise
– New York Times, March 27th, 1933

•1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?”
– Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”

•1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society

•1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades”
– Chicago Tribune

•1939 - “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer”
-Washington Post

•1952 - “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century”
– New York Times, August 10th, 1962

•1954 - “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing”
– U.S. News and World Report

•1954 - Climate – the Heat May Be Off
– Fortune Magazine

•1959 - “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures”
– New York Times

•1969 - “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two”
– New York Times, February 20th, 1969

•1970 - “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight”
– Washington Post

•1974 - Global cooling for the past forty years
– Time Magazine

•1974 - “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age”
– Washington Post

•1974 - “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed”
– Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger

•1974 - “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence”
– New York Times

•1975 - Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable
– New York Times, May 21st, 1975

•1975 - “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor,
New Scientist magazine, in an article in International
_______________________________________________________

1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975

1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)

1970: Ice Age By 2000

1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980

1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030

1972: New Ice Age By 2070

1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast

1974: Another Ice Age?

1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life

1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent

1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes

1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend

1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s

1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs

1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)

1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000

1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)

2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is

2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy

2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024

2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018

2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013

2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World

2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’

2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014

2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015

2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
____________________________________________________________________________________________

It's called "sucker fodder."

Facts are inconvenient to progressives. But facts are not nonsense.



That is incorrect. The paper was reporting evidence. The effort to suppress the paper was because that evidence was inconvenient to the leftist narrative.



It is clear that data on global warming is being cherry picked. Global warming data is therefore biased and unreliable. And so are any conclusions derived from that data.

Yes yes, we all understand your emotional reaction to AFA. However, it appears that you are hiding behind your anger towards them in an effort to draw attention from your lack of intelligent response to the quote from the NOAA found in that text. If you would like, I could bring the quote right from the horse's mouth. That way, you might be able to get past your contempt for AFA and just offer your response to the quote.

From the NOAA:

“In the Atlantic, it is premature to conclude with high confidence that human activities–and particularly GHGs that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on hurricane activity...In short, the historical Atlantic hurricane frequency record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase.”
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Do you really believe that I am your comrade? You should look up the meaning of that word before using it.

The paper came to an incorrect conclusion as subsequent research has shown. Snoowpac is decreasing across the cascades. The paper was not suppressed. It was somply not accurate. You ignore literally millions of data points collected independently by thousands of researchers because of your phony illogic.

When reality contradicts the leftist narrative, it's not reality that is wrong.



Cherry picked data is biased and unreliable.



That is incorrect. When inconvenient data is blocked from publication, that is suppression.



When reality contradicts the leftist narrative, it's not reality that is wrong.



Disregarding biassed and unreliable data is neither phony nor illogical.

I have the choice to take you or Montarys opinion so since I have been on this site long enough to have observed both of your veracity i believe Monetary is much more truthful than you will ever be. Even though you have a 170 IQ.

Even though he claims to have an IQ of 170. Have you ever read any response from him that makes you think, "Wow, this character's a genius."
I didn't think so.