2014 Was The Warmest Year in Modern Record

[Ace Boobtoucher]

And last year we had record snowfalls and the hysteria inducing "polar vortex" that the Chicken Littles couldn't counter logically.

"The science of climate change is not settled; it is evolving rapidly with critically important discoveries, many of which contradict IPCC findings, coming out every month," asserted ICSC science advisor, Dr. Robert M. Carter, also a Challenge endorser and Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University (Townsville, Australia). "The already weak case for dangerous man-made global warming is getting weaker still as our understandings advance, so governments need a several decade long time-out while the science matures before even considering the possibility of GHG emission restrictions."

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...e-change-not-settled-scientists-78751522.html

There is nothing more infuriating than some hammerhead claiming it's settled science. A theory is an explanation which encompasses and is consistent with all observations and every piece of data. When NASA research didn't include satellite imaging or data in their findings I became even more skeptical.

A former high-ranking Obama administration official says climate science and the implications of global warming are not "settled," insisting such claims are "misguided" and stifle debate on the matter.

Models that show Arctic ice melting over the past 20 years forget to note the almost equal growth of ice across Antarctica, which he says is “now at a record high.”
A prediction that the “lower atmosphere in the tropics will absorb much of the heat of the warming atmosphere” has not materialized.
The fact global sea levels in the first half of the 20th century rose at almost the same rate as today.
Climate sensitivity— "that is, the warming induced by a hypothetical doubling of carbon-dioxide concentration," he says is "no different, and no more certain" than it was 30 years ago.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/climate-change-science/2014/09/21/id/595969/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565

There's a lot of bad science and obfuscation going on within the global climate hysteria industrial complex.

 

[sean miguel]

The science of climate change is not settled; it is evolving rapidly with critically important discoveries

Heresy.

Isn't that what's supposed to separate science from religion in that it's not "settled"? It's always open to new discoveries?

Science is supposed to invite criticism, not stifle it.


Acolytes in da hizouse.

The sun revolving around the earth was once "settled science" until those geocentric deniers Copernicus and Galileo came along.

 

[Johan]

Heresy.

Isn't that what's supposed to separate science from religion in that it's not "settled"? It's always open to new discoveries?

Science is supposed to invite criticism, not stifle it.


Acolytes in da hizouse.

The sun revolving around the earth was once "settled science" until those geocentric deniers Copernicus and Galileo came along.

The difference is that there wasn't proofs that the sun was revolving around the earth: people were looking at the sky, seing sunrises and sunsets, seing the sun going from east to west, then they thought the sun was revolving. Then it got written in the Bible and became an undisputable fact. So, when Galileo said it was the earth that was revolving around the sun and not the other was round and proving it with facts and observations, the Vatican accused him of heresy.

Today we have facts that show climate change is real, the same way Galileo had facts proving that the earth was revolving around the sun.

 

[sean miguel]

The difference is that there wasn't proofs that the sun was revolving around the earth: people were looking at the sky, seing sunrises and sunsets, seing the sun going from east to west, then they thought the sun was revolving. Then it got written in the Bible and became an undisputable fact. So, when Galileo said it was the earth that was revolving around the sun and not the other was round and proving it with facts and observations, the Vatican accused him of heresy.

Today we have facts that show climate change is real, the same way Galileo had facts proving that the earth was revolving around the sun.

Yet even today we still say the sun "rises and sets" which is true from our perspective.

If we're to get technical, our sun isn't in a fixed position. Our solar system is rotating around the galaxy and the galaxy around who knows fuck what.

 

[laidoff2]

Obviously due to boob jobs and the associated increase in boners and the correlation with jerking off.

 

[Rattrap]

If 2014 was the coldest/mildest year on record it would still be attributed to man-made global warm ... err... climate change.

you will note that the scientific community has moved on from the term global warming because they got that wrong and they admit it.

What's in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change

If that were a physical bookmark, it would already be long worn through.

 

[xfire]

Yes. Eastern Oregon and Idaho in the fall for one.

How about in the middle of January? Yesterday we had a balmy high of 78° with a low yesterday morning of 33°.

 

[Jack Davenport]

I have said this many times on this board before, Global Warming/Climate change has not been verified beyond a doubt nor can it be discredited as a hoax. To implement ecological standards because it is a possibility is just as irresponsible as those that dismiss it based upon political and ideological grounds. We can argue this until we are blue in the face but the fact remains that we are years away from conclusive data. Well beyond our lifetimes, so I will let the generations of the future determine who was right or who was wrong.

 

[Rattrap]

To implement ecological standards because it is a possibility is just as irresponsible...

Here's my problem with this whole debate: no it isn't. Take away man's contribution to climate change, entirely - just set it aside from the debate - we still know we're fucking up the environment left and right. We still know that our energy policy is unsustainable. Hell, the world's economic policy of reaching for never-ending growth is a physical impossibility. There's a pretty damn long list of irrefutable, adverse affects on our environment caused by man without ever mentioning the weather/climate/temperatures.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Here's my problem with this whole debate: no it isn't. Take away man's contribution to climate change, entirely - just set it aside from the debate - we still know we're fucking up the environment left and right. We still know that our energy policy is unsustainable. Hell, the world's economic policy of reaching for never-ending growth is a physical impossibility. There's a pretty damn long list of irrefutable, adverse affects on our environment caused by man without ever mentioning the weather/climate/temperatures.

Ok, we have taken man out of the equation.. now who are the we're and our you are talking about? The Tassled Wobbegong? And as I have also said before, we only have about 125 years at best of documented environmental studies/data to even analyze. Some of the simplest concepts for man to comprehend are those that are easily visible to the untrained eye. So sick of "Climatologists" and other scientists telling us things as fact when their own science is in it's infancy. And that is not to mention many of the conspiracies associated with the climate change ideology that have been exposed. *cough* cough* emails...etc... Even geospatial analysis is a flawed process. Science and climatology in particular is an evolving process (pardon the pun) . Climatology, especially since it is a relatively new science is not the end all determining what is happening to this planet in regards to warming and cooling trends. I have not yet seen one area of science in my lifetime that has not been revamped, reconsidered rehashed or rebuffed by dissenting opinion. What makes climatology so damn special?

The people that make our drugs are scientists, they have introduced bad drugs before. The people launching rockets missiles and satellites are scientists, some of their work ends up as pieces at the bottom of the ocean floor or left smoldering on the launch pad. Having said that I am for certain environmental regulations because I know how sick some people can be when it comes to poisoning people and other living things in the name of making a buck. So in that regard I am with you but not to the point where industry and business is hampered in the name of science and those that don't accept everything that is put out there are subjected to ridicule only because they aren't drinking the scientific Kool-aid as scientific fact when it is still theory.

Your sig is from Dr. Carl Sagan a brilliant man whom I respected but he believed we evolved from fish. The last time I checked he didn't prove what he believed before he passed on. Neil deGrasse Tyson as brilliant as he is, is coming from an ideological POV and I actually think any scientist that can't put their biases aside when considering evidence or data should refrain from making scientific findings. I know in my profession, those incapable of doing that, don't stay in the career very long.

 

[Rattrap]

Ok, we have taken man out of the equation.. now who are the we're and our you are talking about?

Not what I said.

And as I have also said before, we only have about 125 years at best of documented environmental studies/data to even analyze.

More than enough to tell us that oil spills aren't a good thing for the environment. More than enough to show us clear effects of deforestation, erosion along riverbanks, hunting X animal to the brink and beyond, lacing our waterways with mercury, spitting CFCs into the atmosphere, etc., etc...

Some of the simplest concepts for man to comprehend are those that are easily visible to the untrained eye.

Exactly. Go to LA or Phoenix (just for some examples at home - if you really want to go for gold, go to Beijing) and tell me, absolutely regardless of what you think about global climate change, that a little more environmentally-friendly action wouldn't be a good thing.

Having said that I am for certain environmental regulations because I know how sick some people can be when it comes to poisoning people and other living things in the name of making a buck. So in that regard I am with you...but not to the point where industry and business is hampered in the name of science...

Not in the name of science. In the name of the environment. And of course industry and business will be hampered; that's what happens when business and industry is predicated on unsustainable, environmentally-damaging policies. It's an absolute guarantee - and this is by the law of conservation - that industry and business, as much of it works today, will be hampered. It's debatable when, and certainly people are doing that (see peak oil, for example), but not if. If is a physical certainty. So business and industry will have to change. The question is, will they change sooner while they still have relatively easy means to make these transitions in a controlled manner, or will they change later when physical and environmental realities stop them like a train wreck?

To reiterate my earlier point: one of my biggest beefs with this debate is this resistance to doing anything, because there is doubt to this human contribution to climate change. There's so much we can do that is undisputably better for the environment than current practices, and therefore us. And yeah, it'll cost us. But it'll cost more later otherwise.

 

[Jack Davenport]

It never fails as I am getting a little busy there is a post that I want to respond to. I will say this in response to one point that you made. The ocean gives up oil and natural gas seeps naturally that make anything that man causes pale in comparison. An absolute fact!

 

[mikexmoran]

Ok, what has been done about it?

 

[Jack Davenport]

The AP has walked this back a bit and issued a clarification

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d737...edium=email&utm_term=0_a28eaedb56-a45f177a9b-

 

[SabrinaDeep]

"The globe is warmer now than it has been in the last 100 years and more likely in at least 5,000 years," climate scientist Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University told the Associated Press. "Any wisps of doubt that human activities are at fault are now gone with the wind."

Warmer now than in the last 100 years...wow! For a 4.5 billion years old planet, now that's a reliable statistic.
More likely in at least 5k years...more likely based on what? Arbitrary assumptions?
And even if it was true => Any wisps of doubt that human activities are at fault are now gone with the wind. Really? The previous statement implies that 5k years ago and over the planet might have been warmer than today: was it due to Sivathere's farts? Egyptians lightning too many incense sticks? Atlanteans renown smog emissions?

Climate change? Doh! What a surprise that earth goes through climate changes cyclically.

What were city ports in the middle ages are now miles away from the sea; there are hundreds of examples worldwide which clearly show that the sea level, hundreds of years ago, was higher than now, with small human population and close to zero carbon emissions. You can't buy nature, but politicians and business lobbies can buy human brains, apparently.
And remember: if it's not a global warming, it's a global cooling. As long as it's possible to exploit nature cycles to attract votes and money, it's all good.

 

[Jack Davenport]

But it's man made climate change! See the difference? We have cars now and airplanes, shit we didn't have 125 years ago. And the thing is, that everything that is causing it comes from the Earth itself. I said before that I am not going to discount it because we have introduced things on this planet that didn't exist before, but I am also not going to back restrictions just because their "science" is rooted in an ideology with the ultimate goal of restricting business and fossil fuel extraction and exploration. So now the memo is to ridicule anyone that doesn't drink their Kool-Aid. Such a transparent tactic. Science is fallible in so many other instances, yet this science is infallible. I usually just tell them to take a hike.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

We're expecting three feet of climate change in Allentown.

 

[xfire]

It's currently sunny and 81° in the Piney Woods of Deep East Texas after a brisk morning low of 38°. Enjoy your climate change, Ace, I'll be taking a walk outside in the Daffodils.

 

[Jack Davenport]

It's currently sunny and 81° in the Piney Woods of Deep East Texas after a brisk morning low of 38°. Enjoy your climate change, Ace, I'll be taking a walk outside in the Daffodils.

Take a hike, instead

 

[xfire]

Take a hike, instead

Don't be butthurt because I got the good end of climate change in the winter. My eyeballs will be boiling in their sockets come 120°/100% humidity in June/July/August.