Climate Change Is Here: It’s Going To Get Cooler, Says NASA

*Snip*


A note published in a New Zealand paper 106 years ago today (Aug. 14) predicted the Earth's temperature would rise because of 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide produced by coal consumption.

"The effect may be considerable in a few centuries," the article stated.

The clip was one of several one-paragraph stories in the "Science Notes and News" section of The Rodney and Otamatea Times, published Wednesday, Aug. 14, 1912.


When Molena's story was published, scientists had already been predicting the effects of coal combustion on climate for the past few decades. Researchers were studying the topic at least as early as 1882, as evidenced by H.A. Phillips' paper titled "Pollution of the Atmosphere," published that year in the journal Nature.

 

That would not support the political agenda. Data must be cherry-picked.


Plus one needs to make up stories about studies in the 70’s which proved man made global warming during a period of time we were being frightened to death over the predictions of a coming Ice Age.

 

So goofy.

You don't know who did it, or what they did, or how science works.

But you've got your line to parrot, and that's enough, apparently.

 

The study that found cooling was retracted almost immediately, and the scientists that did it were roundly criticized for screwing up that badly.

But the popular press had seen it, and there were a ton of stories about it.

You're the one doing the cherry picking...

 

These predictions are always made far enough out that those who make these predictions don’t look like fools when they don’t come to pass.

 

Link? Iwatched that television show "In search of: the coming of the next ice age" live when it came on the air,..

 

I’m cherry-picking by calling out the inconsistencies of the climate fear mongers? Interesting.

 

The climate fear mongers are all over the map, but still over recorded history the earth’s climate has been remarkably stable.

Wherever you go in the world, you are going get what we’ve always gotten depending on season.

 

No, you haven't got the first idea how science works.

The cooling guys were peer reviewed, and failed spectacularly.

What you are doing is propaganda, and you know it, but you just plain suck at it.

 

You don't think they look at data from throughout earth's history?

 

So now your trashing Spock????

If you can't trust him in science who can you trust????

Once again Leonard Nimoy

 

Science doesn’t work by starting with a conclusion and using data which supports that conclusion.

But I’m sure you’re still trying to avoid all of those rattlesnakes in Maine.

 

Do you even know what proxies are? Or when the thermometer was invented???

Or the difference between analog and digital?

Or the year we started collecting ocean temperature data with buoys ?

Or when the first weather satellite was launched?

 

Climate can be studied from before satellites were invented, lol. Here's a brief article with some examples.

https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/past-climate

 

No I did not get a thing from GOD.

 

True statement.

 

Haha, good to know.

 

It’s almost like some climate scientists will study temps in a desert area over a year, but only use the hours of 11:00 am to 6:00 pm then claim the average daily temps are climbing.

 

This whole thread got started on the basis of a blatant and purposeful misrepresentation by the anti-science crowd.

Here's what the quoted NASA scientist says is actually going on. From it, it's clear how the science deniers went about concocing a series of blatantly false articles:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/yes-the-sun-is-less-active-no-youre-not-likely-to-notice

The continuig assault on science referenced in the OP is sickening, as it not only denies science by does so using tactics that are just flat out disgusting.

 

All real world data on the scale of climate gets modeled.

There is no other way to address a problem that has the dimensions of climate.

The idea that climate data could be meaningfully addressed without modeling is just flat out absurd.

 

Computer models. Garbage in, garbage out. That it in a nutshell.

 

I don't believe you even know what you're saying here.

Suggesting that science can't use statistics is just plain silly.

 

It was pretty plain. Computer models are unreliable brcsuse when you you input garbage, the output is garbage.

Climate science is no longer about science. It’s been corrupted by political influences. Scientific research is not supposed to consider politics.

 

Again I ask you do you know what proxies are?