Climate Change

[gwb-trading]

Who's talking about hurricanes? The consistent flooding is a continuing problem. You don't see it, of course, but that doesn't stop it.

Well in that case please point me to all the recent news stories about severe flooding on the coastline in the Southeastern U.S.

Hint - The insurance claims for flooding in the Southeast along the coast are at a record low for the past decade - both for the number of claims and the financial payout.

 

[dbphoenix]

Well in that case please point me to all the recent news stories about severe flooding on the coastline in the Southeastern U.S.

Hint - The insurance claims for flooding in the Southeast along the coast are at a record low for the past decade - both for the number of claims and the financial payout.

The articles have already been posted. You denied them all.

Have a nice day.

 

[gwb-trading]

The articles have already been posted. You denied them all.

Have a nice day.

You have not posted articles demonstrating flooding issues on the Southeast coast. You and FC posted articles claiming the sea level would rise by a meter - projections that have been debunked as nonsense.

 

[dbphoenix]

You have not posted articles demonstrating flooding issues on the Southeast coast. You and FC posted articles claiming the sea level would rise by a meter - projections that have been debunked as nonsense.

If you like.

 

[Max E.]

 

[dbphoenix]

Old cars banned over Delhi's dirty air
Vehicles more than 15 years old are being ordered off the streets in the Indian capital New Delhi in an attempt to cut pollution.

BBC

Better late than never . . .

 

[futurecurrents]

The problem is that this has been tried for more than 20 years. There are only so many times that one can yell 'fire' in a crowded theater before most of the audience stops listening. We're past that point.

There are problems on both sides of the AGW argument, but the catastrophic predictions that have failed to materialize has done significant damage to the AGW argument.

However, the thing I find MOST DISTURBING in all of this are the data adjustments in the GISS and HadCRUT databases. Dr James Hansen, while director of GISS, had the GISS historic temperature database adjusted for 'anomalies'. The old dataset was not retained and the adjustments were not recorded so it is now impossible to retrieve an uncorrupted temperature database. The practice continues today. The UK Met office did the same with the HadCRUT historical database and did not save the unadjusted data or the adjustments. This is like the director of the Library of Congress going through each rare book in the library with bottles of whiteout and 'correcting' every perceived misspelling and improper sentence construction. Or the director of the Louvre 'smoothing' Mona Lisa's appearance so that it's more appealing to the public.
That's not science, it's outright destruction of historical records.

As a result, I have more confidence in Chinese government economic reports than I do of IPCC and government climate reports. But sure, keep trying to scare the public with silly catastrophic predictions that have a very low probability of coming true.

What catastrophic predictions? What you think were predictions were not predictions by the climate science community as a whole but were guesses by individual scientists. Not the same thing. By 1980 the climate science community predicted global warming. They were right.

The data was adjusted to make it more accurate. To adjust for the urban heat island effect. If you knew the details of what and why they did it you would understand and what they did makes sense. But all you know is what some hit piece on Breitbarf says about it. And how do you know the old data set was not retained? Seems unlikely.

 

[WeToddDid2]

iflyjetzzz,

You presented a logical reasonable argument. Fraudcurrents doesn't do well with logic.

 

[WeToddDid2]

For example, he will continuously state something like if you don't believe every lie the GW libtards tell you, you are a idiot that doesn't believe in the brilliant scientist at NASA, etc. You believe you are smarter than a scientist at NASA.

Then when NASA scientist publish an article in a scientific journal that doesn't match his religious GW beliefs, he will state that he doesn't believe the NASA scientist's findings. It is impossible to have any sort of reasonable discussion with someone like this.

 

[futurecurrents]

For example, he will continuously state something like if you don't believe every lie the GW libtards tell you, you are a idiot that doesn't believe in the brilliant scientist at NASA, etc. You believe you are smarter than a scientist at NASA.

Then when NASA scientist publish an article in a scientific journal that doesn't match his religious GW beliefs, he will state that he doesn't believe the NASA scientist's findings. It is impossible to have any sort of reasonable discussion with someone like this.

What the hell are you babbling about? What article from NASA? The one that jerm misrepresented about CO2 acting as a coolant in the stratosphere? All I ever see from you denier nitwits like you is bullshit from Breitbarf or LOLWUWT or stuff from that fraudulent fool Salby.

The fact is that there are no predictions that the climate science community as a whole predicted that did not come true and the data is better than ever. NOT fraudulently manipulated. The deniers mistake their ignorance and delusions about what the science said for reality. Not the same.

For instance, in the seventies the climatologists were NOT predicting an ice age. More recently they were NOT, as a whole, predicting more tornadoes. There has been some back and forth on it but there was never any consensus about that. The strong hurricanes ARE becoming more numerous. Heavy rainfalls ARE becoming more numerous. Sea levels ARE rising, at faster rates. The world IS heating up and the ice IS melting.