What's really disturbing about the article is the debate about whether to tell the truth in order to avoid giving skeptics data.

But the NOAA report that said global warming didn't slow down was flat out wrong.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...0s-or-not/

Cant wait for the excuses from the left...

(02-25-2016 04:56 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

Did you read the article? Nobody in it is claiming that global warming isn't occurring. They're just disagreeing over the change in it over one 15-year period.

I beg for someone to post another that shows the same...............................nobody has a goddammmmed fk'n clue.....

it's disturbing shite from both sides with fangs......derp tards to all...happy fk'n hannakuh down the roe-add.....

(02-25-2016 05:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Did you read the article? Nobody in it is claiming that global warming isn't occurring. They're just disagreeing over the change in it over one 15-year period.

Did the poles melt in 2012?

(02-25-2016 05:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 04:56 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

Did you read the article? Nobody in it is claiming that global warming isn't occurring. They're just disagreeing over the change in it over one 15-year period.

15 yrs????.....that's intellectually stimulating......whoooooty whooooooooo

(02-25-2016 04:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  What's really disturbing about the article is the debate about whether to tell the truth in order to avoid giving skeptics data.

That's a bit of a misrepresentation.

Quote:It is possible that the scientific disagreement could spill over into the skeptic blogosphere. But that is not reason enough to sweep the slowdown under the rug, said Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University and a co-author.
“As scientists, we must go where the evidence takes us, we can’t allow our worries about climate contrarians and how they might seek to misrepresent our work to dictate what we do and do not publish,” he said...

...Answering these fundamental science questions should take precedence over worries about skeptics, Mann of Penn State said. Moreover, the slowdown is over. Record warmth occurred in 2014 and 2015.

There isn't a debate about this in the article and nobody talks about hiding data at all. It just says that scientists shouldn't worry about having disagreement jumped on by skeptics, which they will as evidenced by this thread. Essentially, as scientists we want to know what's going on first and foremost and worry about the ramifications of the facts later, which is the opposite of what skeptics often claim scientists are doing.

(02-25-2016 05:16 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 04:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  What's really disturbing about the article is the debate about whether to tell the truth in order to avoid giving skeptics data.

That's a bit of a misrepresentation.

Quote:It is possible that the scientific disagreement could spill over into the skeptic blogosphere. But that is not reason enough to sweep the slowdown under the rug, said Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University and a co-author.
“As scientists, we must go where the evidence takes us, we can’t allow our worries about climate contrarians and how they might seek to misrepresent our work to dictate what we do and do not publish,” he said...

...Answering these fundamental science questions should take precedence over worries about skeptics, Mann of Penn State said. Moreover, the slowdown is over. Record warmth occurred in 2014 and 2015.

There isn't a debate about this in the article and nobody talks about hiding data at all. It just says that scientists shouldn't worry about having disagreement jumped on by skeptics, which they will as evidenced by this thread. Essentially, as scientists we want to know what's going on first and foremost and worry about the ramifications of the facts later, which is the opposite of what skeptics often claim scientists are doing.

The fact that they are having to say that (over and over) means a lot of them are thinking that very thing or being told that very thing.

(02-25-2016 05:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 05:16 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 04:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  What's really disturbing about the article is the debate about whether to tell the truth in order to avoid giving skeptics data.

That's a bit of a misrepresentation.

Quote:It is possible that the scientific disagreement could spill over into the skeptic blogosphere. But that is not reason enough to sweep the slowdown under the rug, said Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University and a co-author.
“As scientists, we must go where the evidence takes us, we can’t allow our worries about climate contrarians and how they might seek to misrepresent our work to dictate what we do and do not publish,” he said...

...Answering these fundamental science questions should take precedence over worries about skeptics, Mann of Penn State said. Moreover, the slowdown is over. Record warmth occurred in 2014 and 2015.

There isn't a debate about this in the article and nobody talks about hiding data at all. It just says that scientists shouldn't worry about having disagreement jumped on by skeptics, which they will as evidenced by this thread. Essentially, as scientists we want to know what's going on first and foremost and worry about the ramifications of the facts later, which is the opposite of what skeptics often claim scientists are doing.

The fact that they are having to say that (over and over) means a lot of them are thinking that very thing or being told that very thing.

It's an article about scientific disagreement. That skeptics will jump on this to misrepresent the data is obvious, as proven by you and how to deal with this is an important question.

Still, this article does not contain anybody saying that we shouldn't release data or hide facts from skeptics, so you saying that this is the most disturbing part of the article is disingenuous and I'd like to make that point for anybody who didn't want to read the whole thing.

(02-25-2016 04:56 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

Is this the meme equivalent of someone asserting global warming is BS because its cold today?

(02-25-2016 05:13 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 05:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Did you read the article? Nobody in it is claiming that global warming isn't occurring. They're just disagreeing over the change in it over one 15-year period.

Did the poles melt in 2012?

Did anyone say they would? No.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/18...ction-2013

(02-25-2016 05:16 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 04:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  What's really disturbing about the article is the debate about whether to tell the truth in order to avoid giving skeptics data.

That's a bit of a misrepresentation.

Quote:It is possible that the scientific disagreement could spill over into the skeptic blogosphere. But that is not reason enough to sweep the slowdown under the rug, said Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University and a co-author.
“As scientists, we must go where the evidence takes us, we can’t allow our worries about climate contrarians and how they might seek to misrepresent our work to dictate what we do and do not publish,” he said...

...Answering these fundamental science questions should take precedence over worries about skeptics, Mann of Penn State said. Moreover, the slowdown is over. Record warmth occurred in 2014 and 2015.

There isn't a debate about this in the article and nobody talks about hiding data at all. It just says that scientists shouldn't worry about having disagreement jumped on by skeptics, which they will as evidenced by this thread. Essentially, as scientists we want to know what's going on first and foremost and worry about the ramifications of the facts later, which is the opposite of what skeptics often claim scientists are doing.

science I do love....science in scope is what? hint: discovery via the 'scrubbing process'

all the ice cores have done is provide evidence that 'continual change' = 'mother earth'

the best humans can predict is only as valuable as the next one....not the day after......

I disagree. This has been the warmest winter I have ever experienced. I have not had to cut the heat on, and have even had to run the AC.

(02-28-2016 10:35 AM)dcCid Wrote:  I disagree. This has been the warmest winter I have ever experienced. I have not had to cut the heat on, and have even had to run the AC.

This year the lowest temp recorded so far in Ft Lauderdale has been 44F. Thats 5 degrees cooler than the coldest temp last year. Do you know what the coldest recorded temp was in 1974, back when the so-called scientists were concerned about global cooling? 65 degrees. Thats right, in the middle of the global cooling crisis, Ft Lauderdale never made it below 65 degrees.

And just two years before the poles were supposed to melt, Ft Lauderdale made it down to 34F.

(02-28-2016 12:25 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 10:35 AM)dcCid Wrote:  I disagree. This has been the warmest winter I have ever experienced. I have not had to cut the heat on, and have even had to run the AC.

This year the lowest temp recorded so far in Ft Lauderdale has been 44F. Thats 5 degrees cooler than the coldest temp last year. Do you know what the coldest recorded temp was in 1974, back when the so-called scientists were concerned about global cooling? 65 degrees. Thats right, in the middle of the global cooling crisis, Ft Lauderdale never made it below 65 degrees.

And just two years before the poles were supposed to melt, Ft Lauderdale made it down to 34F.

I was being a little facetious in that I just moved down from DC in December.

But from what I have read locally, this has been one of the warmest and wettest winters in this area in years. There were serious loses in many argrituctaral crops that depended on cool and dry.

There was also a record of the number of days where the high was 85 or above last year.

It is not the high or low temperature for a year, it is the average of the highs and lows. Plus global warming results in changing weather patterns, some areas can actually turn colder (such as Europe if the gulf stream is impacted).

Overall natural warming and cooling is part of nature, but I do believe Humans can accelerate it or make it worse my destroying natural things that helps keep it in checks and balances (such as rainforest).

(03-01-2016 05:32 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 12:25 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 10:35 AM)dcCid Wrote:  I disagree. This has been the warmest winter I have ever experienced. I have not had to cut the heat on, and have even had to run the AC.

This year the lowest temp recorded so far in Ft Lauderdale has been 44F. Thats 5 degrees cooler than the coldest temp last year. Do you know what the coldest recorded temp was in 1974, back when the so-called scientists were concerned about global cooling? 65 degrees. Thats right, in the middle of the global cooling crisis, Ft Lauderdale never made it below 65 degrees.

And just two years before the poles were supposed to melt, Ft Lauderdale made it down to 34F.

I was being a little facetious in that I just moved down from DC in December.

But from what I have read locally, this has been one of the warmest and wettest winters in this area in years. There were serious loses in many argrituctaral crops that depended on cool and dry.

There was also a record of the number of days where the high was 85 or above last year.

It is not the high or low temperature for a year, it is the average of the highs and lows. Plus global warming results in changing weather patterns, some areas can actually turn colder (such as Europe if the gulf stream is impacted).

Overall natural warming and cooling is part of nature, but I do believe Humans can accelerate it or make it worse my destroying natural things that helps keep it in checks and balances (such as rainforest).

I have to ask the question.....why do you believe that relative to the planet? or are you really saying that it's the lack of population control that this rock can only absorb within a certain range....

the planet is going to be just fine and dandy until the sun sucks it in....

it's too funny how people think they matter in scope.....woofy woof little ants.....that's all humans are....that god thingy just keeps getting in the way....

one can only do what is necessary to survive....if that means mass genocide via a virus or genetic engineering....oh wellzy....if that means keeping people alive as long as possible while they exponentially propagate....oh wellzy....

there is one thing I do know when it comes to all this bs.....the planet will do just fine regardless how she plays out in any of our lifetimes....or my child's....or her's....or their's....or their their's....or any heir....humans are only a problem relative to other humans and how they move forward.....

food and water....it's only a matter of where one chooses to live and how much coin you have in the back pocket....the rest is utter bs.....