In another dramatic failure of dire warning from climate change nutcases...

Prof Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, and Prof Wieslaw Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, have regularly forecast the loss of ice by 2016

Yet it didnt happen. Again. In fact, there was more arctic Sea Ice in September of 2016 than there was in September 2012. And Antarctic sea ice is at an all time high since satellite measurements began.

Now global warming nutcases are getting mad at these scientists who keep making these dire, near-term projections that turn out to be completely and utterly wrong, because they fear it will turn the public off of their message of doom and gloom, and basically cause them to lose funding.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/...ember-201/

(12-30-2016 03:31 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  In another dramatic failure of dire warning from climate change nutcases...

Prof Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, and Prof Wieslaw Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, have regularly forecast the loss of ice by 2016

Yet it didnt happen. Again. In fact, there was more arctic Sea Ice in September of 2016 than there was in September 2012. And Antarctic sea ice is at an all time high since satellite measurements began.

Now global warming nutcases are getting mad at these scientists who keep making these dire, near-term projections that turn out to be completely and utterly wrong, because they fear it will turn the public off of their message of doom and gloom, and basically cause them to lose funding.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/...ember-201/

There's your magic words... "and basically cause them to lose funding."

It's obvious to everyone except fools that the reason there's so many scientists are pro-climate change is MONEY. Heck, you have to give the scientists credit, they know what butters their bread, "the climate change controversy."

Why do you think Al has so much money? What butters his bread?

(12-30-2016 03:31 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  In fact, there was more arctic Sea Ice in September of 2016 than there was in September 2012. And Antarctic sea ice is at an all time high since satellite measurements began.

Have you ever heard of the term cherry picking?

(12-30-2016 09:49 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 03:31 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  In fact, there was more arctic Sea Ice in September of 2016 than there was in September 2012. And Antarctic sea ice is at an all time high since satellite measurements began.

Have you ever heard of the term cherry picking?

Your graph does not show 2016 data.

(12-30-2016 09:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 09:49 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 03:31 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  In fact, there was more arctic Sea Ice in September of 2016 than there was in September 2012. And Antarctic sea ice is at an all time high since satellite measurements began.

Have you ever heard of the term cherry picking?

Your graph does not show 2016 data.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/...3_0301.png


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(12-30-2016 09:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 09:49 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 03:31 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  In fact, there was more arctic Sea Ice in September of 2016 than there was in September 2012. And Antarctic sea ice is at an all time high since satellite measurements began.

Have you ever heard of the term cherry picking?

Your graph does not show 2016 data.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/--z55lMtiGds/V...7-2016.png


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(12-30-2016 10:01 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 09:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 09:49 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 03:31 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  In fact, there was more arctic Sea Ice in September of 2016 than there was in September 2012. And Antarctic sea ice is at an all time high since satellite measurements began.

Have you ever heard of the term cherry picking?

Your graph does not show 2016 data.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/--z55lMtiGds/V...7-2016.png


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The second graph does not appear to be consistent with your first graph.

(12-30-2016 10:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 10:01 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 09:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 09:49 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 03:31 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  In fact, there was more arctic Sea Ice in September of 2016 than there was in September 2012. And Antarctic sea ice is at an all time high since satellite measurements began.

Have you ever heard of the term cherry picking?

Your graph does not show 2016 data.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/--z55lMtiGds/V...7-2016.png


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The second graph does not appear to be consistent with your first graph.

They both represent the same data. One just has more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(12-30-2016 10:04 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 10:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 10:01 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 09:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 09:49 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

Have you ever heard of the term cherry picking?

Your graph does not show 2016 data.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/--z55lMtiGds/V...7-2016.png


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The second graph does not appear to be consistent with your first graph.

They both represent the same data. One just has more months and includes 2016.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They don't plot the same.

To clarify, I don't contest that the climate is changing. But if you're making the argument, don't be so sloppy with your data.

(12-30-2016 10:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  They don't plot the same.

To clarify, I don't contest that the climate is changing. But if you're making the argument, don't be so sloppy with your data.

I can't find the same plot with September 2016 data, so you'll have to make do with this one. Googling on a mobile phone at a mall is annoying.

Besides, it's only an inconvenience that you have to read this graph differently. The data is still there to be read.

The point is that 2012 was a local minimum, it's deceptive to pick that year and that year only to make a comparison.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So go buy a boat, dmac.

(12-30-2016 10:13 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 10:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  They don't plot the same.

To clarify, I don't contest that the climate is changing. But if you're making the argument, don't be so sloppy with your data.

I can't find the same plot with September 2016 data, so you'll have to make do with this one. Googling on a mobile phone at a mall is annoying.

Besides, it's only an inconvenience that you have to read this graph differently. The data is still there to be read.

The point is that 2012 was a local minimum, it's deceptive to pick that year and that year only to make a comparison.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK.

So what percentage of climate change is man-made and what percentage is just the natural change? If we stopped using all fossil fuels right now what effect would it have on the changing climate?

(12-31-2016 12:12 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 10:13 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 10:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  They don't plot the same.

To clarify, I don't contest that the climate is changing. But if you're making the argument, don't be so sloppy with your data.

I can't find the same plot with September 2016 data, so you'll have to make do with this one. Googling on a mobile phone at a mall is annoying.

Besides, it's only an inconvenience that you have to read this graph differently. The data is still there to be read.

The point is that 2012 was a local minimum, it's deceptive to pick that year and that year only to make a comparison.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK.

So what percentage of climate change is man-made and what percentage is just the natural change? If we stopped using all fossil fuels right now what effect would it have on the changing climate?

What percentage do you think scientists attribute to humans?

(12-31-2016 01:15 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 12:12 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 10:13 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 10:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  They don't plot the same.

To clarify, I don't contest that the climate is changing. But if you're making the argument, don't be so sloppy with your data.

I can't find the same plot with September 2016 data, so you'll have to make do with this one. Googling on a mobile phone at a mall is annoying.

Besides, it's only an inconvenience that you have to read this graph differently. The data is still there to be read.

The point is that 2012 was a local minimum, it's deceptive to pick that year and that year only to make a comparison.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK.

So what percentage of climate change is man-made and what percentage is just the natural change? If we stopped using all fossil fuels right now what effect would it have on the changing climate?

What percentage do you think scientists attribute to humans?

.....It depends on who is funding them and what answers those paying the freight want to see.

(12-31-2016 02:00 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 01:15 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 12:12 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 10:13 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 10:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  They don't plot the same.

To clarify, I don't contest that the climate is changing. But if you're making the argument, don't be so sloppy with your data.

I can't find the same plot with September 2016 data, so you'll have to make do with this one. Googling on a mobile phone at a mall is annoying.

Besides, it's only an inconvenience that you have to read this graph differently. The data is still there to be read.

The point is that 2012 was a local minimum, it's deceptive to pick that year and that year only to make a comparison.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK.

So what percentage of climate change is man-made and what percentage is just the natural change? If we stopped using all fossil fuels right now what effect would it have on the changing climate?

What percentage do you think scientists attribute to humans?

.....It depends on who is funding them and what answers those paying the freight want to see.

Proof?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(12-31-2016 02:02 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 02:00 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 01:15 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 12:12 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 10:13 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  I can't find the same plot with September 2016 data, so you'll have to make do with this one. Googling on a mobile phone at a mall is annoying.

Besides, it's only an inconvenience that you have to read this graph differently. The data is still there to be read.

The point is that 2012 was a local minimum, it's deceptive to pick that year and that year only to make a comparison.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK.

So what percentage of climate change is man-made and what percentage is just the natural change? If we stopped using all fossil fuels right now what effect would it have on the changing climate?

What percentage do you think scientists attribute to humans?

.....It depends on who is funding them and what answers those paying the freight want to see.

Proof?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't need no stinkin' proof. Always follow the money.......for either position - and view all of it with the skepticism of who is paying the bills...

(12-30-2016 09:49 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 03:31 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  In fact, there was more arctic Sea Ice in September of 2016 than there was in September 2012. And Antarctic sea ice is at an all time high since satellite measurements began.

Have you ever heard of the term cherry picking?

Yea. How about 35 years in a millennial or even far longer?

That count?!?

(12-30-2016 03:39 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 03:31 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  In another dramatic failure of dire warning from climate change nutcases...

Prof Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, and Prof Wieslaw Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, have regularly forecast the loss of ice by 2016

Yet it didnt happen. Again. In fact, there was more arctic Sea Ice in September of 2016 than there was in September 2012. And Antarctic sea ice is at an all time high since satellite measurements began.

Now global warming nutcases are getting mad at these scientists who keep making these dire, near-term projections that turn out to be completely and utterly wrong, because they fear it will turn the public off of their message of doom and gloom, and basically cause them to lose funding.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/...ember-201/

There's your magic words... "and basically cause them to lose funding."

Yep, as with damn near everything, always follow the money and the real answers will be revealed.

Proof? I just read 10 pages of drivel on another thread of libs throwing **** at the wall without proof and now you're demanding it?