Since the big freeze up north they are being very quiet.

 

  

Been quiet for 12 months. They bob up every so often in the left wing media flogging the pseudo science.

 

 

The North Pole just had an extreme heat wave for the 3rd winter in a row

As snow falls in Rome, the Arctic is getting alarmingly hot in the middle of winter.

 

While there are year-to-year variations in Arctic temperatures, it’s concerning that this is the third year in a row where we’ve seen a heat wave during winter, according to Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado Boulder.

And the heat wave, along with an overall warmer winter, is having a direct impact on the Arctic sea ice that should be at its maximum extent this time of year but is instead at record lows. In January, we saw the lowest extent of Arctic sea ice for this time of year since records began in 1979.
 

 

Look out. Here they come with 40 year meaningless stats.

 

 

25 minutes ago, Justfine said:

Look out. Here they come with 40 year meaningless stats.

 

 

When it comes to climate change, I trust scientists and statisticians in preference to cartoonists.

it’s caused by temperatures in the arctic being 20 degrees celsius above the norm for this time of year, that’s global warming.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

22 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

When it comes to climate change, I trust scientists and statisticians in preference to cartoonists.

Me too. Science says flat temps for 20 years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some people just don't want to listen to experts and facts.

Probably you also think god created the world 6,000 years ago.

Yeah, just ignore facts and believe whatever you want to believe.

3 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Some people just don't want to listen to experts and facts.

Probably you also think god created the world 6,000 years ago.

Yeah, just ignore facts and believe whatever you want to believe.

Slartibartfast

4 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Some people just don't want to listen to experts and facts.

Probably you also think god created the world 6,000 years ago.

Yeah, just ignore facts and believe whatever you want to believe.

What are the facts?

 

 

1 minute ago, Justfine said:

What are the facts?

 

 

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=global+warming

 

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=global+warming

 

Google link. You need to research this topic a bit more. That way they won't con you anymore.

5 minutes ago, Justfine said:

Google link. You need to research this topic a bit more. That way they won't con you anymore.

I am not the one who ignores experts and facts...

Just now, OneMoreFarang said:

I am not the one who ignores experts and facts...

Yes you are. You just ignored 31,000 scientists.

 

Only 0.05% of scientists are alarmists.

 

Pity you have done no research.

1 hour ago, Justfine said:

 

See here

Moments after the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) released a summary of its latest global-warming report on September 27, top climate scientists and experts were already reading through it and trashing the methods, findings, claims, and more. In fact, based on leaked drafts of the controversial report, critics had been debunking and ridiculing the UN’s climate claims for weeks prior to the official release. Once the summary report was officially released in Stockholm, the deluge of criticism accelerated, with more than a few top scientists calling for the UN IPCC to be disbanded entirely.

So much for "your facts"

 

Go educate yourself on the topic.

Confused look? Says it all. Go study science.

More than 1,000 internationally renowned scientists have gone further; they have not merely signed a petition, but have made public statements challenging key claims of the AGW alarmists. 

 

 

. The 1,000+ lineup of scientists reads like a Who’s Who of the global scientific community. It includes:

Dr. William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Bracket professor of physics, Princeton University;

Dr. Leonard Weinstein, 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and presently a senior research fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace;

Nobel Prize-winning Stanford University physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory;

Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of the geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences;

Swedish climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University;

Burt Rutan, renowned engineer, inventor, and aviation/space pioneer;

Dr. Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center astrophysicist;

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, emeritus professor of physics, and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks;

Dr. Bjarne Andresen, physicist, and professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark;

Dr. Ian D. Clark, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, University of Ottawa, Canada.

 

How many how to speak out before people wake up to the scam?

 

 

The whole premise of this - that temperatures are cold up north now - shows a complete lack of understanding on the difference between climate and weather.

What about Obama's fake 97% claim??

 

 

That’s a 0.3% consensus, not 97%

We’ve already found enough flaws, but Christopher Monckton analyzes John Cook’s 97% consensus paper and sharpens the scythe. He finds:

1. It should never have been done, it’s an unscientific method — “consensus”
2. The “consensus” was defined in three different ways. (Which hypothesis are they testing?) None of the three definitions is specific enough to be falsifiable.
3. The paper strangely omitted the key results. (Why make 7 classifications, if they were not going to disclose how many papers fell into each category?)
4. Of nearly 12,000 abstracts analyzed, there were only 64 papers in category 1 (which explicitly endorsed man-made global warming). Of those only 41 (0.3%) actually endorsed the quantitative hypothesis as defined by Cook in the introduction. A third of the 64 papers did not belong.
5. None of the categories endorsed “catastrophic” warming — a warming severe enough to warrant action — though this was assumed in the introduction, discussion and publicity material.
6. The consensus (such as there is, and it being irrelevant) appears to be declining.

The nice thing about this commentary is that Monckton provides a summary of the philosophy of science (showing Cook et al are 2,300 years out of date). Monckton has also checked Cook’s own data which was finally provided (several weeks after publication) and compares Cook to Oreskes, Anderegg, and Doran and Zimmerman and explains why they are wrong too.

Previously I’ve also pointed out the 12 reasons the paper fails,

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, thedan663 said:

The whole premise of this - that temperatures are cold up north now - shows a complete lack of understanding on the difference between climate and weather.

Climate is 100 years to 4 billion years.

 

Science shows it was warmer 800 years ago and 10,000 years ago.

 

 

Natural climate changes have occurred frequently in the planets history. They were not "man-made". It's different this time.
One dosn't have to rely on "scientists" (pro or con).

I probably could produce a number of "scientists" that claim that God lives in Toledo and drives a Harley Davidson.
Some Physics will do: What will (must) happen if too much Greenhouse-Gas reaches the upper athmosphere? (The question and the imperative answer are inseperably linked together, with no if's or but's. Leaving no leeway for ideological interpretations of climate/physics.

On rare occasions, we may "win" an argument with the beloved wife, but to argue with physics is the ultimate "no-win" situation.
Cheers.

Some good replies, on both sides.

I think it's a shame that while the pro side has the running it doesn't do more to reduce pollution which is bad for all of us, concentrating more on arguing about it that actually doing something about pollution.

I have no problem with more public transport and less private cars in cities, and less air travel.

20 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I am not the one who ignores experts and facts...

They're not facts without Youtube links