cobran20

Debunking The Man-Made Global Warming Myth Consensus

954 posts in this topic

47 minutes ago, staringclown said:

So? The solar minima happens every 11 years. The records showing warming go back over multiple solar minima

Records also show that the earth has gone through major cycles of cooling & warming, including ice ages. Nothing new under the sun here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, staringclown said:

Of course you don't. You just regard anything that scientists predict as unworthy of examination from any point of view other than that interpreted by the media and their vested interest overlords. Never mind an impartial reading of the data from the source itself. You just think that the whole climate change debate is a conspiracy by the left to destroy global capitalism. That every scientist, every weather station monitor, every person that is old enough to notice the warming in on the great conspiracy. 

If a doctor diagnosed you with an illness you would likely treat it as an attempt to extract money from you for unnecessary health expenditure.

No you don't. You read denialist websites and repost their disinformation. You don't even understand who is responsible for what? The climate is forecast by the IPCC based on models vs observations and research. The weather is predicted by the weather bureaus. Met office, NOAA and the BOM. Conflating the two makes you look a fool.

I only read denialist websites? So this forecast and this actual are both from denialist websites, published by denialists?

The fact that IPCC & Co have failed in their predictions and others (in this case Armstrong & Inigo) have proved accurate makes me a denialist? In that case, I'm proud of it.

I didn't immediately & blindly accept Armstrong & Inigo's forecast. I monitored them for accuracy. How they do it and the fact they are both forecasting the same outcome is co-incidental. I don't have a relationship with any of them.

Perhaps a movement can be started like Hillary's Deplorables. Rather be a denialist than a sheeple, who blindly believes erroneous forecasts and think turd world country energy reliability (at  higher prices) is acceptable.

Edited by cobran20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, staringclown said:

It's got nothing to do with the IPCC. The data shown to you is from the met office from observations. One more time, Is the frequency of snowfall decreasing in the UK? Is it increasing? Is it staying the same. I look forward to hearing your evidence to support your claim.

Nobody else has set up an alternative monitoring site to compete with them. So it is whatever the Met office publishes. But we do get snippets that show inconsistencies with the official mantra, as per example below:

Quote

"Such quantities of snow above 800m altitude only happen once every 30 to 100 years," said Alexander Radlherr from Austria's Central Institution for Meteorology and Geodynamics.

The solar minima is just beginning. Looking forward to the spin that will be used in the coming years to keep the mantra going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, cobran20 said:

I only read denialist websites? So this forecast and this actual are both from denialist websites, published by denialists?

The fact that IPCC & Co have failed in their predictions and others (in this case Armstrong & Inigo) have proved accurate makes me a denialist? In that case, I'm proud of it.

I didn't immediately & blindly accept Armstrong & Inigo's forecast. I monitored them for accuracy. How they do it and the fact they are both forecasting the same outcome is co-incidental. I don't have a relationship with any of them.

Perhaps a movement can be started like Hillary's Deplorables. Rather be a denialist than a sheeple, who blindly believes erroneous forecasts and think turd world country energy reliability (at  higher prices) is acceptable.

Clearly, you aren't capable of understanding the headline. In spite of a few days of cold weather this winter in the US is mild. The prediction has proved correct! This has been demonstrated to you here with warm records broken versus cold records at a ratio of 2:1. The ratio including the polar vortex days (8th Jan - 7th Feb) is higher. 3.3:1. This is not a prediction. This is observed data. You can check it yourself.

This is the ratio from 8th Jan - 7th Feb 

Highest Max temp daily records tied or broken: 982

Highest Min temp daily records tied or broken: 1776

Lowest Max temp daily records tied or broken: 548

Lowest Min temp daily records tied or broken: 284

Highs:Lows ratio 2758:832 or ~ 3.3:1. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cobran20 said:

Records also show that the earth has gone through major cycles of cooling & warming, including ice ages. Nothing new under the sun here.

So where is the little ice age for each of the solar minima that your express journalist "predicted"?

Quote

Nothing new under the sun here.

Good one. I geddit. ;)

Edited by staringclown
humour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, cobran20 said:

Nobody else has set up an alternative monitoring site to compete with them. So it is whatever the Met office publishes. But we do get snippets that show inconsistencies with the official mantra, as per example below:

The solar minima is just beginning. Looking forward to the spin that will be used in the coming years to keep the mantra going.

What do you mean "just beginning". It's an 11 year cycle. Presumably that means the next solar maxima is 5.5 years away.

Is the frequency of snow fall decreasing in the UK or not?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, cobran20 said:

Nobody else has set up an alternative monitoring site to compete with them. So it is whatever the Met office publishes. But we do get snippets that show inconsistencies with the official mantra, as per example below:

The solar minima is just beginning. Looking forward to the spin that will be used in the coming years to keep the mantra going.

Maybe we should privatise the weather bureau? I'm sure the fossil fuel industry would be very interested in providing the service. Taxpayers could subsidise it. I'm sure the accuracy of a privatised service would be an improvement. They could afford better scientists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, cobran20 said:

I only read denialist websites? So this forecast and this actual are both from denialist websites, published by denialists?

The fact that IPCC & Co have failed in their predictions and others (in this case Armstrong & Inigo) have proved accurate makes me a denialist? In that case, I'm proud of it.

I didn't immediately & blindly accept Armstrong & Inigo's forecast. I monitored them for accuracy. How they do it and the fact they are both forecasting the same outcome is co-incidental. I don't have a relationship with any of them.

Perhaps a movement can be started like Hillary's Deplorables. Rather be a denialist than a sheeple, who blindly believes erroneous forecasts and think turd world country energy reliability (at  higher prices) is acceptable.

Clearly, you aren't capable of understanding the headline. In spite of a few days of cold weather this winter in the US is mild. The prediction has proved correct! This has been demonstrated to you here with warm records broken versus cold records at a ratio of 2:1. The ratio including the polar vortex days is higher. 3.3:1. This is not prediction. This is observed data. You can check it yourself.

This is the ratio from 8th Jan - 7th Feb 

Highest Max temp daily records tied or broken: 982

Highest Min temp daily records tied or broken: 1776

Lowest Max temp daily records tied or broken: 548

Lowest Min temp daily records tied or broken: 284

Highs:Lows ratio 2758:832 or ~ 3.3:1. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, staringclown said:

So where is the little ice age for each of the solar minima that your express journalist "predicted"?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, cobran20 said:

Nobody else has set up an alternative monitoring site to compete with them. So it is whatever the Met office publishes. But we do get snippets that show inconsistencies with the official mantra, as per example below:

The solar minima is just beginning. Looking forward to the spin that will be used in the coming years to keep the mantra going.

Incidentally, the link you posted supports the "predictions" of Dr David Viner of Independent article infamy. In particular, his prediction that that heavy snow events would cause chaos in a future world where heavy snow was less frequent due to new generations being unused to such events. Remarkably prescient I'd say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, staringclown said:

So where is the little ice age for each of the solar minima that your express journalist "predicted"?

Good one. I geddit. ;)

Who those scientists are is inconsequential. The point I was making in that article is  a major change of trend due to the solar minima. That would be an event IPCC & Co would totally not expect, but since their forecasting has not met actuals too well, then I'd expect that it would be on the back of their mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, staringclown said:

Incidentally, the link you posted supports the "predictions" of Dr David Viner of Independent article infamy. In particular, his prediction that that heavy snow events would cause chaos in a future world where heavy snow was less frequent due to new generations being unused to such events. Remarkably prescient I'd say.

Quote

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

It is now 2019 and children in the northern hemisphere well an truly know what record cold and ice are!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, staringclown said:

Clearly, you aren't capable of understanding the headline. In spite of a few days of cold weather this winter in the US is mild. The prediction has proved correct! This has been demonstrated to you here with warm records broken versus cold records at a ratio of 2:1. The ratio including the polar vortex days is higher. 3.3:1. This is not prediction. This is observed data. You can check it yourself.

This is the ratio from 8th Jan - 7th Feb 

Highest Max temp daily records tied or broken: 982

Highest Min temp daily records tied or broken: 1776

Lowest Max temp daily records tied or broken: 548

Lowest Min temp daily records tied or broken: 284

Highs:Lows ratio 2758:832 or ~ 3.3:1. 

So all the records broken to the downside, all the way down to southern USA qualify as a mild winter? Very interesting. Does anybody outside IPCC & Co believe it?

Since NOAA from where you get your data, published the 'mild winter' forecast and you claim to confirm that, then would you agree that farmer's will not be suffering from bad crops due to frost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, staringclown said:

Maybe we should privatise the weather bureau? I'm sure the fossil fuel industry would be very interested in providing the service. Taxpayers could subsidise it. I'm sure the accuracy of a privatised service would be an improvement. They could afford better scientists.

I'd have no problems with a service that is results/accuracy based. I have never been an advocate of endlessly supporting incompetence. I have seen enough of it contracting to the public service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cobran20 said:

Nobody else has set up an alternative monitoring site to compete with them. So it is whatever the Met office publishes. But we do get snippets that show inconsistencies with the official mantra, as per example below:

The solar minima is just beginning. Looking forward to the spin that will be used in the coming years to keep the mantra going.

Again, there is no "coming years" apart from the approach back to solar maxima. And we've gone through multiple of those cycles. To which cycle are you referring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cobran20 said:

So all the records broken to the downside, all the way down to southern USA qualify as a mild winter? Very interesting. Does anybody outside IPCC & Co believe it?

Since NOAA from where you get your data, published the 'mild winter' forecast and you claim to confirm that, then would you agree that farmer's will not be suffering from bad crops due to frost?

Of course it qualifies as a mild winter for the US if records on the upside are broken at such a ratio. The headline you posted was "Wet and mild: Warm winter predicted for much of the US" Not all. The US is a big place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, cobran20 said:

I'd have no problems with a service that is results/accuracy based. I have never been an advocate of endlessly supporting incompetence. I have seen enough of it contracting to the public service.

Surely your presence in the public service is raising the bar? Lifting the eyes of those hapless public servants to achieve greater things through your leadership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, cobran20 said:

I'd have no problems with a service that is results/accuracy based. I have never been an advocate of endlessly supporting incompetence. I have seen enough of it contracting to the public service.

And you think there are better scientists than the current rabble?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, cobran20 said:

Who those scientists are is inconsequential. The point I was making in that article is  a major change of trend due to the solar minima. That would be an event IPCC & Co would totally not expect, but since their forecasting has not met actuals too well, then I'd expect that it would be on the back of their mind.

Inconsequential you say. Einstein no different from fake Inigo Jones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

54 minutes ago, cobran20 said:

Who those scientists are is inconsequential. The point I was making in that article is  a major change of trend due to the solar minima. That would be an event IPCC & Co would totally not expect, but since their forecasting has not met actuals too well, then I'd expect that it would be on the back of their mind.

The IPCC blindsided by the savvy journalist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, staringclown said:

Of course it qualifies as a mild winter for the US if records on the upside are broken at such a ratio. The headline you posted was "Wet and mild: Warm winter predicted for much of the US" Not all. The US is a big place.

and the cold hit all the way to the southern states!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, staringclown said:

Surely your presence in the public service is raising the bar? Lifting the eyes of those hapless public servants to achieve greater things through your leadership.

I certainly have been more productive that the permanents, which is why they have kept renewing my contracts.

Lucky for them, I don't have a senior position to wipe the slate clean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, staringclown said:

Inconsequential you say. Einstein no different from fake Inigo Jones?

Einstein's theories proved correct. The IPCC & Co's forecasts on the other hand...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, staringclown said:

And you think there are better scientists than the current rabble?

If there no better ones around, then why pay for such an expensive service and more importantly, why change the fundamentals of society when the science is not settled.

Like the ice age predictions of 50 years ago, it would be best ignored and let the research continue in Universities (or elsewhere) until there is sufficient predictability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, staringclown said:

Again, there is no "coming years" apart from the approach back to solar maxima. And we've gone through multiple of those cycles. To which cycle are you referring?

Armstrong is obviously predicting a trend for decreasing number of sun spots over the next cycles. Even your beloved brethren of scientists acknowledge a link between sunspots and winter weather, which is looks like a more accurate prediction to the current northern winter.

A lay person like myself is simply looking at the accuracy of one side vs the other and literally putting money on the side which has proved the most accurate so far.

If I'm wrong, I will get punished with no help from tax payers, most unlike the IPCC & Co.

1.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now