Extreme climate events

[Gregg]

The consensus is already there from a scientific standpoint. Why would highlighting specific events (i.e. data points) that contradict the scientific consensus do anything other than further add to the misinformation that is already ubiquitous?

No, science contradicts the scientific consensus all the time. Something new comes up that has to be explored.

That said I do not think that the fact we are having the coldest Nov on record has any bearing on global warming being true or false.

[DMT]

No, science contradicts the scientific consensus all the time. Something new comes up that has to be explored.

That said I do not think that the fact we are having the coldest Nov on record has any bearing on global warming being true or false.

I'm not arguing against the scientific method. What I'm arguing against is pretending that global warming isn't happening. The science is overwhelmingly supportive and the consequences of not addressing it will be catastrophic.

[Fresno Bob]

any single data point is near meaningless, but the trend data is terrifying clear

[Sour Masher]

I'm not arguing against the scientific method. What I'm arguing against is pretending that global warming isn't happening. The science is overwhelmingly supportive and the consequences of not addressing it will be catastrophic.

Yeah, but most of us will likely be dead by then, so who cares?!?! Also, other countries aren't doing enough either, so why should we!!!! Plus, herd mentality. If everyone else does start caring enough and changing their behavior, it will fix things so we won't have to, because we are super special and should have to sacrifice for the future!!! And finally, it's not even real, China invented it to prey upon on western liberal guilt and fall behind them in the race to pollute the world! It won't work! We will win! USA! USA! USA!

Here is video the embodies the baller USA lifestyle. Real winners don't care about bitch ass mother earth, or the billions of peon losers that are not the person looking back at you in the mirror.

[cardboardbox]

Well I knew it was cold but didnt know we set records!

An incredible sight danced over the city’s glistening skyscrapers of Houston this morning and likely caused many to rub their eyes and shake their heads. No, it wasn't your lying eyes but rather the earliest snowfall ever observed in the city of Houston and surrounding areas.

I can't stress how big of a deal this is. As Brooks told me, this is like getting a freeze in Boston in August. It's extreme by any measure. Anecdotally speaking, having grown up here, I have never witnessed anything like this in the past 30 years.

https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/snow-vember-the-earliest-houston-snowfall-ever-just-happened/285-614153347

[chancellor]

I'm not arguing against the scientific method. What I'm arguing against is pretending that global warming isn't happening. The science is overwhelmingly supportive and the consequences of not addressing it will be catastrophic.

The science is overwhelmingly biased, and as is typical, full of errors. Another example is the most recent fiasco of a paper published by Nature on ocean warming.

[Teenwolf]

The science is overwhelmingly biased, and as is typical, full of errors. Another example is the most recent fiasco of a paper published by Nature on ocean warming.

Wow. This actually made me sad.

[B-Fly]

Wow. This actually made me sad.

Tell me about it. Yeah, the whole global scientific community is biased and they've got the whole world snowed. Thank G-d for the one remaining shining light of scientific objectivity in the world...the American right.

[gcstomp]

The science is overwhelmingly biased, and as is typical, full of errors.

This is a dangerous, arrogant and ignorant pov. It is dismissive of science itself. When teams of think tanks, assembled by cherry picking the very best minds in ivy league schools, and are given resources, and the foundation of bit by bit data from prior generation of the best minds, and are invited to work, for instance at the large hadron collider, to work on the planets most important questions and problems, it is never asked, do you identify as an american Republican supportive of Trump ideology. Every step of way, only best ideas from best thinkers win out, backed by endless mountains of data, resulting in science that eventually makes its way into classrooms to be taught to next generation to further build.

Or you could, just like magic, dismiss it, claim its full of errors, you know better.

Very much like when more than 2400 law professors from across country,and in less than 2 days so clearly given more time more would have signed on, and coming from every ivy league school, saying that Supreme Court pick Brett M. Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial restraint at a Senate hearing. The letter stressed the behavior by itself was disqualifying for any court nominee for any court, but most especially SC. This again was nothing to do with partisan, they were not measured by are they D or R, the point is that the establishment that is responsible for interpreting ethics and law itself, and churning out next generation of lawyers, were in agreement with how unfathomable a pick this was. Asking if these 2400+ were D or R, same as asking those who make up think tanks and work on LHC this silliness, is like asking for their bloodtype. Its equally meaningless.

[Fresno Bob]

The science is overwhelmingly biased, and as is typical, full of errors. Another example is the most recent fiasco of a paper published by Nature on ocean warming.

you are right, the science is biased, TOWARDS SCIENCE not conjecture, or what you would like to believe, or the Bible, or Trump.

[revo]

Right wingers:

On Global Warming: Science is flawed! It's biased! We don't believe it!

On Treating Mental Illness instead of common sense Gun Control: Science isn't flawed! It's not biased! We'll believe it!

[DMT]

chance, you really do sound ridiculous with your argument that "science is biased". The Koch brothers have been funding an anti-global warming agenda for decades but you somehow got suckered into buying their bs along with all the other suckers.

[chancellor]

you are right, the science is biased, TOWARDS SCIENCE not conjecture, or what you would like to believe, or the Bible, or Trump.

Hardly. This "science" is far more religion and faith than fact. It's why repeated climate change claims (i.e, "Snowfalls are a thing of the past" or that the Himalayas would be snow free) have been repeated debunked. Many of the "peer reviewed" studies have used falsified data or corrupted the results (as did the most recent study published by Nature, which was almost instantly debunked).

Just remember, we had four years left...four years ago. Link: https://www.theguardian.com/environm...m-hansen-obama

Or, we had a decade left....in 2006: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14834318/n.../#.W-51ROhKjIU

By the way, you'll note a common thread there: "Scientist" James/Jim Hansen

Oh, and we had ten years left in 1989, too: https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

[chancellor]

chance, you really do sound ridiculous with your argument that "science is biased". The Koch brothers have been funding an anti-global warming agenda for decades but you somehow got suckered into buying their bs along with all the other suckers.

Please see above for documented "BS" by "scientists". Your "scientists" have been predicting a variety of cataclysmic disasters for 30 years now, all of which have not come true. Much like the fake prophets who claim "We know the end day! Jesus is coming on <this day>", your "scientists" have been as accurate as they have been.

[nullnor]

i think there has been some examples where nature has compensated the increase in greenhouse gases or did unexpected things that caused some of the many scientific doomsday predictions to fail spectacularly. for example the effects of pollution in reflecting sunlight or the ocean able to absorb more co2 than was predicted. but there seems to be an trend towards a greenhouse effect. greenhouse gases have served mankind well so far the last 10,000 years since we started farming. perhaps the earth would've had another ice age or we prevented the planet from having one right now. it's not bad to be wrong because a runaway greenhouse effect hasn't happened yet. as long as scientists can keep explaining why they were wrong. yet it doesn't change the overall trend i guess.

edit: i would think that would be something they could figure out. if we didn't start warming the planet gradually 10,000 years ago, would earth be in an ice age right now?