ANSWERS: 8
  • I don't know Archie, they've been messing with the weather since at least 1966, here's a download link to document, it's safe. https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/documents/19680002906_1968002906.pdf
    • Archie Bunker
      Actually it started back in the 30's when they were messing around with cloud-seeding. But what all of this bullshit climate change talk going around, why can no one tell me if it's going to rain tomorrow with any certainty? Why can they not say what the weather will be like this week but we're all gonna die in 12 years according to AOC. "All the scientists agree" is what they always say. Well, science isn't based on consensus. It's based on facts. Just because 100 people agree on something doesn't make it fact. Dumb.
    • B.H. Wilson
      About 10,000 years ago, the world musta shifted on it's axis because a glacier came down from the north. I found a piece of coral while rototilling my midwest garden and that is really wacky since I live over 1000 miles from the ocean. Maybe Fred Flintstone's carbon footprint was too big?
    • Creamcrackered
      I share your sentiment Archie
    • Archie Bunker
      It all went downhill for Fred and Wilma when she discovered AquaNet and the evil of CFCs.
    • bostjan64
      All those dinosaurs and saber-toothed tigers they put to work must have released some greenhouse gases, too. LOL
    • Linda Joy
      They probably gave off a lot of methane when they were living!
  • The world has been consumed by a new situation.... that of the Trump Dynasty.
    • Archie Bunker
      Why worry about the Trump Dynasty when AOC, the socialist savior, says the world is gonna end in 12 years anyway. That scary global warming and all that foolishness. Gotta hurry up and kill the cows and build trains across the ocean. After she gets a raise that is.
  • Weather and climate are not synonymous. You can be pretty certain the Sahara will still be an arid desert next year; on the other hand it may rain across the street today while you get a suntan on the other side.
    • bostjan64
      "But if the Earth is warming, why are my feet cold!!!"
  • Alabama used to be half covered in water. We'll figure it out, we always do! We have already invented heating and air conditioning and biodomes for that matter what's the big panic? I do think the ice age that follows the warming period is of greater concern than the warming trend we are experiencing now.
    • Archie Bunker
      I don't think either one are concerns. Everyone's uptight about the warming, but forget that Iceland used to have a nice grain harvest. Or Northern England used to grow grapes. And you used to even be able to ice skate on the Thames (there are photos). Things change, but that doesn't mean it's bad.
    • Linda Joy
      Everyone is not uptight. That's just the the media clamoring for ratings and the idiots stupid enough to watch are eating it up and letting the medial control how they feel. I think everyone should turn it off and go do something that destresses them. My neighbor watches that crap every night and literally goes into screaming tirades against Trump. Why does anyone want to feel like that? She acts like she doesn't even realize she has a choice!
  • 1. I'm not sure anything happened to the dilemma. 2. Which folks? The climate scientists? I guess it doesn't matter. As you said before, the facts don't care who believes in them. 3. The weatherman here is actually pretty good. If he says 0% chance of rain, it doesn't rain. When he says 10% chance of rain, it doesn't typically rain, but sometimes it does. Not sure how much better than that one would expect a forecast to be. 4. Predicting the weather a week from now is totally different than predicting the type of climate zone a geographic region of the Earth will be 100 years from now, so it's an apples-to-oranges situation. 5. Like I've proposed in other threads, if you have data that you would like to present to disprove the work that organizations like NASA have done in the past couple of decades regarding climate change, then, by all means, let's have at it. Otherwise, these sorts of threads come off kind of sounding like you are sitting on the jungle gym shouting "liar liar, science choir, I'm a climate-change denier."
    • Archie Bunker
      The NASA data doesn't support the climate change panic mongers. Even the IPCC's own data doesn't support it's own conclusions. Sorry. :(
    • bostjan64
      Can you explain? The NASA data shows exponential average temperature rise: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
    • Linda Joy
      What's YOUR source, Mr. 'I'm rubber you're glue?' I'd like to see both sides.
    • Archie Bunker
      Here's one - https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/#69b157165f23 - Here's another - https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/32706-climate-alarmists-caught-manipulating-temperature-data-yet-again - I can keep going if we want more reports of alarmists manipulating the data.
    • Archie Bunker
      Here's some more - https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/24/gore-admits-the-the-ipcc-climate-report-was-torqued-up-to-get-attention/ - And another - https://principia-scientific.org/climate-bombshell-audit-exposes-ipcc-data-as-careless-and-amateur/
    • Archie Bunker
      You have to look carefully since Google tries to steer you wrong when looking for IPCC data.
    • bostjan64
      Thanks for providing those links. Unfortunately, though, three of the four of them are opinion pieces from think tanks, so I don't have much to say about them. I do have a lot to say about the first article, though, which is indeed from a reputable source: 1. The article is from 2011, and offers a correction to the predictive models used by IPCC and WCRP that downplays the temperature changes predicted for future dates, as measured by NASA. It's a moot point, though, in 2019, as those predicted temperatures have been observed by NASA already, as shown in the link I already provided, and those temperatures do not even remotely match the predictions published in the Remote Sensing journal via Forbes. I think that's a long dead horse by now. The argument you might be making from your other articles seems to be that the NASA data is dishonest. So, let me get the low-hanging fruit next. The third article you posted is easily debunked by watching the video included in the article. The context added in print by the article, that the data was "torqued up," is clearly not present at all in the video, so it can only be a dishonest website. Period. The fourth article makes fun of spelling mistakes and predicts a temperature rise of 0.4 degrees C, but when you click the link in the article for the source, it shows a calculated temperature rise of 0.9 degrees C, and when you click the link to the source for that data, it oddly takes you back to the first article! There might be something to it, but without the source data or even a traceable reference to whence the data in question came, you have to ignore the article, as it has no merit. And that's not because it "doesn't fit the narrative," it's because there's no trace-ability and a serious contradiction, which is exactly what the article is accusing the scientific community of doing. So, that leaves the second article. It might take some time to go through the sources, but there are a number of issues I've found already. The argument that climatologist lied about sea level rise links (ultimately) to a study where sea level was measured independently by a small team of climate-change-deniers, and if you look at the trending, it actually shows more (!) rise than the mainstream data. They use this discrepancy to argue that there is no ocean rise, because the data is no good, completely ignoring their own actual data itself, by focusing only on the fact that their trend doesn't match the published results. Wow. As for the meat of the article, though, politifact has already looked into Tony Heller's accusations: https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/25/steve-doocy/foxs-doocy-nasa-fudged-data-make-case-global-warmi/ and rated his narrative as "pants on fire" (i.e. he's lying). But this entire argument essentially boils down to cherry-picking, because skeptics are saying that all data is cooked up to match the climate-change narrative. If you read those articles you posted, every one of them still draws the conclusion that global temperatures are rising at a significant rate. So, what's your point?
    • bostjan64
      If you want to ignore the data from NASA and IPCC, then there is still the EPA: https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-change-science/methane-and-black-carbon-impacts-arctic-communicating-science_.html , the NOAA (old article, but independent of other sources: https://web.archive.org/web/20190222152103/https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/polar-opposites-arctic-and-antarctic also https://web.archive.org/web/20190228065905/https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level ), and the AMS https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0007.1 (article references multiple independent sources for estimating global temperature rise). So, if your claim is that global temperatures are not rising, you are not only contradicting the NASA and IPCC data, but also these data sets I've presented and even the data sets included in the articles you cited. Also, you claimed that the IPCC's data didn't support its own conclusions. That may be - I can't say, since I don't know what you are talking about.
    • bostjan64
      And if the point you are trying to make is that the global temperature rise isn't as fast as half of these sources say, you may be right, since there is a spread in numbers, but that's how experimental science works. The global average temperature might be rising less than 0.02 degrees C per year, it might be 0.016 degrees C per year, or it might be 0.024 degrees C per year. Hard to say in the moment, particularly since it isn't a constant rate, but rather an accelerating rate. But generally speaking, with any measurement, there is a measurement tolerance. If I buy a part that is specified 0.75 inches in diameter, the particular piece I receive might be 0.74 inches instead. But if the specified tolerance is plus/minus 0.02 inches, then who cares? I may be assuming that you are being overly pedantic, but you aren't giving me too many specifics to go off of, other than that you think NASA and IPCC are wrong, and that you read a lot of political opinion pieces as your source of scientific knowledge.
    • Archie Bunker
      64, there are many examples of the scientists who were members of the IPCC who say that their data was manipulated to give the predetermined outcome that the politicians were looking for. I'm not going to provide links for them, you can do that research yourself if you're that interested. Many have claimed that not only was the data manipulated, but data that went against the grain was completely ignored and other data was just made up. Also concerning is reports from former IPCC members, that their names were added to reports to show a consensus when they patently disagreed with the results. And this isn't just one or two people either. Like I've said before, science isn't based on a consensus of like minded people, it's based on fact. And the facts I've seen don't support the alarmists argument.
    • bostjan64
      Do you see what you are doing? You keep saying that all that matter are facts, then you are saying that you don't believe the facts because they don't match your opinion. Do you realize how silly that argument is?! Also, if the IPCC is modifying data to fit their political goals, what does that have to do with the NASA data?! If you are saying that IPCC data was massaged in such a way to make the situation seem worse than it really is, then how does that jive with your claim that the IPCC data doesn't even fit its own story?! That makes zero sense. Either the data doesn't fit the story or the data was modified to fit the story; it can't be both!
  • C'mon Hardcore, It was a cartoon! Of course its true! hahaha My weatherman is causing a regional warming trend in the panties of his lady fans down here in the southern region! They can't wait for the storms to come so he'll rip his jacket off and show his suspenders! He's actually pretty good with the predicting of the weather as well!
    • Archie Bunker
      Singalong - It's gettin hot in here, so take off all yo clothes!
    • Linda Joy
      Well it was up to 95 today! Haha
  • You read it wrong. They can only suggest as best as the data allows. Just as no one can tell you when you are going to die. But make the best estimate based on the data in your health files.
    • Linda Joy
      The person holding the gun to your head can make a fairly accurate prediction.
    • Archie Bunker
      The best data shows that climate is cyclical and has been since the beginning of time. It changing now (we're coming out of an ice age so it's gonna warm up) doesn't mean catastrophe for the world.
    • Archie Bunker
      But another point, trying to raise my taxes (the government taking money from me at gunpoint) to pay for their bullshit science projects, that I especially have a problem with. Climate change science has become more of a cult than anything resembling actual science. Look at it this way...who's gonna get the grant money? The grants go to those who abide by the narrative that man is causing global warming, even though there is nothing to prove that. So, if I'm getting money to prove something, and I want to keep getting money, the line has to be toed.
  • There are those who believe the depletion of the ozone will actually cause global freezing. They can't make up thier minds.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy