Global warming is causing all this cold! Don't you know anything?

Unfortunately for you I actually study Earth Science.

It'll take a moment to explain. The arctic is actually warming faster right now than the temperate and tropical zones. This much is easy enough to find information on you can just google it.

nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warmingpoles.html

Because the Earth's atmosphere is separated into cells called the Hadley, Farrel, and Polar cells this means that if one warms faster, in this case the Polar cell, the difference in temperature between them decreases. So the arctic is becoming more like the temperate zone. This means that what was once a barrier between cells is much less of a barrier and cold polar air is not as much trapped in the arctic as it once was allowing it to cross into the temperate zone more easily bringing cold arctic weather down into the United States, Europe, and Asia.

Does that make any sense to you or are you too stupid for real science?

Talking about this here is pointless due to paid shills.

This is why you get shat on.

extreme weather is a facet of climate change

OP BTFO

I'm smart enough to see when people create mumbo jumbo every few years to explain their failed models.
Studying Climate science. So who exactly will be paying you for your "skill" once you graduate? Soros? Clinton Foundation? Government in general? Carbon taxes?
Curious...

>I'm smart enough to see when people create mumbo jumbo
Apparently not, since you post purposely misleading graphs.

I'm just a brainlet, but this is what I have come to accept is most likely happening: as I understand it, we were actually supposed to be entering a cooling period right about now, but instead global temperatures are sharply rising since the start of the industrial revolution (as a global average, not talking about recent bizarro weather in the north).

Using phrases like
>Soros
>Clinton Foundation
just makes me filter out anything you say. Why can't you just stick to the science itself? Political lines like that aren't convincing in the slightest.
>The science is rigged by the Rothschilds.
If you can't trust science, you literally can't trust anyone or anything, and I can't comprehend how you've convinced yourself that you can. How have you come to choose the sides you seem to have chosen in this debate? Because your choices seem completely arbitrary.
>Because it's _my_ side. The side I was born with. The side of my mom and dad and uncle.
It's the only explanation I can come up with, and it's wholly illogical. Either that or you're a teenage memester who thinks he's being really clever triggering all these strangers on the internet.

I'll give you a little bit of trivia to help out user.

Ask if they've ever heard of an LP or kerosene refrigerator, the kind they commonly have in an RV. It uses the LP or kerosene to heat one section of a closed loop made of steel tubing. As one area of the loop gets heated another gets cold. If they are sophisticated enough to understand how that whole system works then you can actually have intelligent debate, otherwise it shuts up the idiots because it's a real working device you can point to.

I have never heard of such a thing. Thank you for that.

I post peered reviewed charts, you post cartoons...
You're on the wrong board Those aren't phrases, those are names. Grade three grammar.
Ok, so what exactly is your point? Is this board general mechanics or science? Your attempt to deflect is typical, and pathetic.

Still waiting...

Who exactly will pay you for your "skills"?

Nice buzzwords

So, if the engine on your car is running hot, than somewhere in that warmer than average system, there's a "cold spot", that's cooler than it would be on average?

Sounds legit.

No. We're saying that the closed Earth system has an uneven distribution of energy, and that although there are spots that can be colder than normal, the overall system can still be heating up.

In your example, it would be like saying you've just started the engine, there are spots that are higher than normal, and yes, that anomaly has not yet distributed evenly.

You're comparing an evolving system with one that has already matured.

Apples and oranges.

>it's another retards at /pol/ trying to raid Veeky Forums with IQ's equal to the room temperature thanks to the global warming episode

You know if you teens stopped following shitty narratives to find a meaning for your empty lives actually studied to learn things you would be more helpful to the cause you're supposedly supporting right?

>I post peered reviewed charts
It's like you can't make a post without lying. Pathetic.

>graph stops at 1855
>see, recent warming is tiny!
this has been posted and thoroughly debunked so many times I have to conclude you're just trolling. 2/10

>peer reviewed charts
ackshually you didn't. think you did? show me one peer-reviewed paper authored by David Lappi, who made the chart. show me one peer-reviewed paper that contains the chart in question. protip: you can't.
>so what exactly is your point
that guy's point is that heating an object can actually cause parts of it to cool. which is why global warming causing localized cooling is perfectly reasonable.

I.Q. 132, sanctioned test. I'm more than bright enough to be here.
Can you actually answer questions, or just constantly deflect them?
I'll ask this again. Who or what exactly, funds all this "climate science"?

Uhh... ExxonMobil? It's ExxonMobil, right?

I see. You consider half the planet locked in a deep freeze, to be localized cooling. Interesting...

is this the daily climate bait thread? it's been disproven because they did the math wrong

It's snowing in Africa right now...

No, don't you see that the kikes fund all ur (((science))) al gore as well. your climate (((science))) is a joke, it's completely funded by al gore and obama, u kno this tho right? who pays u shill? u on obama's payroll to? Fucking kike, i'll nevr trust ur lies, just like everything else you (((nasa))) jews spread, like roung earth. Fuck you shill, I am redpilled, ur just a bluepilled kike shill faggot. All climate (((science))) is lies to regulate every aspect of our lives. WE NEED FOSSIL FUELS. the entire world runs on fossil fuels no matter what, and man can't change the climate ONLY GOD CAN. ur a fucking retard, you would know if you ever opened the bible once in ur life. Fucking kike. Go ahead, post your (((peer review))) corrupt science. Remember climategate? No one believes your jew lies anymore kike shill. ur DONE.

Europe and parts of North America is not half the planet. You probably think the European continent alone occupies a quarter of the Earth's surface.

...

It's winter in the northern hemisphere.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter

>Extreme and unusual weather patterns year after year are totally normal and fine. Certainly not a sign of any CHANGES to the CLIMATE.

Semantics, Is that the best you got?
lame

Define unusual? Please use an exact comparison to weather patterns between say 720-890 A.D.
I'll make it easy...

>half the planet locked in a deep freeze
are you referring to the fact that it's currently winter in the northern hemisphere?
winter happens every year, my child.

but no, this is localized cooling. notice how some areas were warmer and some were cooler in January 2015 (relative to January averages 1981-2010), despite the fact that the globe as a whole was significantly warmer than the 20th century average for January.

Hahahahaa son, wow, just wow. Using "data" from NOAA which receives all of its funding in order to promote "climate change" paranoia. Unreal, do you have any links to some Al Gore speeches I should watch?
I'm going to debate my dog now. I need to bring up the competition a bit...

>are you referring to the fact that it's currently winter in the northern hemisphere?

He's referring to snow in Georgia, US and Greece.

Pay attention.

Thank you, why doesn't anyone else get it? Completely blinded by bias disguised as "science"?
cheers

>it's another /pol/ thread made by reddit kids who only got concerned with global warming because of trump's tweets

lol i know right? these stupid (((science))) dogs trust obama and al gore, fucking climate priests, its a disgrace to real science. all science today is jew funded, all kike lies. (((noaa))) what a joke, just like (((nasa))), not going to believe there lies. all these climate (((scientists))) do is fake the data, fake everything to satisfy their kike overlords pushing for carbon taxes, fucking shills. look at all the milllionare climate (((scientists))) out there like spreading the propaganda flying in there private jets. Fuck al gore. ipcc shills. what happened to (((science)))?

That's funny. Once upon a time they said the "breaking of the cell barriers," i.e., change of the polar vortex was caused by global cooling.

>nb4 warmist paper claiming global cooling was just a journalism fad
notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.dpbs
notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/#sthash.lRcCIvlK.dpbs
notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/#sthash.Tw3Ix8qy.dpbs

>An 83% Global Cooling/Weak CO2 Influence Scientific ‘Consensus’ During 1960s, ’70s
>As will be shown here, the claim that there were only 7 publications from that era disagreeing with the presupposed CO2-warming “consensus” >is preposterous. Because when including the papers from the 1960s and 1970s that indicated the globe had cooled (by -0.3° C between the >1940s and ’70s), that this cooling was concerning (leading to extreme weather, drought, depressed crop yields, etc.), and/or that CO2’s climate >influence was questionable to negligible, a conservative estimate for the number of scientific publications that did not agree with the alleged >CO2-warming “consensus” was 220 papers for the 1965-’79 period, not 7. If including papers published between 1960 and 1989, the
>“non-consensus” or “cooling” papers reaches 285.

Oh look this shit again. You the same person that posted this last time, you know when I responded to you and you never replied after I proved your source (notrickzone) lied about those 285 papers being all from peer-reviewed, scientific sources? Do I seriously need to do this again man. Fine. Reply this time don't run off with your tail between your legs (i'll continue next post).

>notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.dpbs
>notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/#sthash.lRcCIvlK.dpbs
>notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/#sthash.Tw3Ix8qy.dpbs
You've posted those links before, and there's still just as bullshit now as they were then.
Most of the shit there isn't peer-reviewed papers at all, and the stuff that is is mostly analysis of aresol forcings, not predictions of a long-term cooling trend.

Stop reposting discredited bullshit.

No it's another Veeky Forums thread with nothing but deflections and insults, rather than sensible answers.
Because there are no sensible answers that don't involve manipulated and skewed "data".
Therefore, no sensible answers period.

>Because there are no sensible answers that don't involve manipulated and skewed "data".
Well, I guess that's one way of "winning" an argument - just claim any evidence you don't like is fake.

Let's start here. The 9th link on that page links to this:
readcube.com/articles/10.1038/254014a0

Is this a peer-reviewed paper? Is this published in a scientific journal? No. This is an editorial piece, it's not a scientific paper. It's simply talking about the concept of Global Cooling, not supporting a position on the concept.

If you had actually bothered to read the Thomas Peterson paper on the myth of the 1970s Global Cooling consensus here:
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

You would know that the methodology involved looking at PEER-REVIEWED scientific papers published in the climatological sciences at the time during the 1970s. A newspaper article, or an editorial in Nature is not a peer-reviewed paper and is not evidence for a consensus.

The paper discusses how in the scientific literature of the time, there were far more papers published about potential warming, or papers that had no opinion on the phenomenon than global cooling.

I'll post more bullshit sources he uses in the next post. You going to respond this time or have you already run away?

okay now I KNOW you're just trolling
take your (You) and your 4/10 and go beddy-bye
>I'm going to debate my dog now. I need to bring up the competition a bit
actually, I'm your dog. you've been arguing all this time with your dog, retard. now go fill my water bowl or I'm going to shit in your bed.

>it's SNOWING
>in WINTER
>GOSH

>Well, I guess that's one way of "winning" an argument - just claim any evidence you don't like is fake.
His eyes open!

No, claim that the evidence (which isn't even based on reality, it's all modelling) wrong, because it's wrong.
I am very leery about any "science" that says the debate is over, it's a closed case.
That smacks in the face of everything science is supposed to be.
Any person with even a shred of objectivity would see that.

Triggered son?

>Most of the shit there isn't peer-reviewed papers at all,
> Stop reposting discredited bullshit.
> Gosh, I'm tired of getting my ass kicked.
> I know, I"ll pretend that 285 papers which show global cooling/skeptical of CO2 induced dangerous warming never happened.

Yeah, those fantasy responses of yours. Back in the real world, reality has reared its ugly head.
If I ever had any doubts about the level of delusion of warmists you certainly disabused me.

>the evidence (which isn't even based on reality, it's all modelling)
you know they've literally got a bunch of thermometers sitting around at stations all around the globe, right? and they can measure air temperature from orbit using microwave cameras on satellites, right?
apparently you've moved on from claiming that the measurements are fake to claiming that there aren't actually any measurements at all.

Among other sources, he links to things like the "CIA" as a legitimate scientific body on climate science.

This entire post is such a load of massive horseshit, and what's hilarious is it was meant to discredit the paper I posted above about the 1970s Global Cooling myth, and it completely fails to accomplish this goal because he doesn't use the same methodology that the paper used. He doesn't used peer-reviewed sources, and he treats newspaper / magazine articles as proof of a scientific consensus:
climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

Here, this guy is claiming that the CIA is a research entity that did research on the climate during the 1970s or some shit.

Nice response by completely ignoring everything I typed. Keep your head buried in the same though, it's working out real well.

Explain how what I posted was inaccurate, I used a DIRECT LINK provided by your source. Go read the picture I posted, that is directly from one of the "studies" that this guy claims supports a global cooling "consensus" (Hilarious how now deniers care about a consensus when it supports something they want to believe, but when there's a real consensus based on actual, current scientists in the climate science field, it's ignored).

Again, you said this:
> I know, I"ll pretend that 285 papers which show global cooling/skeptical of CO2 induced dangerous warming never happened.

I've already shown that the author of your links apparently doesn't know what a real scientific paper is. Many of his links are in fact not to peer-reviewed scientific papers, and much of those that actually are have no opinion on global cooling, and he has cherrypicked quotes out of context, hoping his readers don't actually bother to read the papers themselves.

Here's another quote that the guy cherrypicks to make it seem like it supports a global cooling "consensus" despite it making no clear opinion on the topic:
ecommons.usask.ca/bitstream/handle/10388/5865/Magill_Bonnie_L_1980_sec.pdf?sequence=1

Keep in mind, this paper he links to is from a graduate student in the field of GEOGRAPHY, not Earth Sciences or even climate science, KEK.

>general consensus that a major upheaval in climate is taking place. …There is no way of determining, however, whether or not the world is entering into another major ice age or if the present cooling of temperatures is simply a pause in the warming trend that began in the mid 1800s

Do I need to continue blowing you the FUCK out using your own """sources""" or will you give up again and run away, just like last time?

>If you had actually bothered to read the Thomas Peterson paper on the myth of the 1970s Global Cooling consensus here:
> The rapid response team worked for hours to deny 285 papers! Look at our great "response"

>read our politically motivated garbage!
>>journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Read it, nice cherry picking. Ignored all the inconvenient articles that didn't fit the warmist narrative.

It is not a coincidence that Connolly was a co-author of that paper. Yeah, the same Connolly who "edited" 1000s of wikipedia articles to erase global cooling references and pretend there was always a consensus on warming. You warmists are nothing if not fraudulent.

notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/#sthash.K86uuCYs.dpbs

>nb4 evil denier blog.
Try facts and logic buddy. I know that all you've got is Muh Popularity, Muh Authority and Muh Ad Hominem.

Again, that picture is from a fucking letter, or newspaper article, NOT A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL.
>Corpus-Christi Caller Times is not a scientific academic accredited journal

HOW FUCKING DUMB ARE YOU?

You're the equivalent of quoting that Newsweek / Time magazine cover as proof of a scientific consensus that DIDN'T EXIST.

The worst part is you will never, ever admit you are wrong.

You mean the thermometers that were all brought in from the countryside into city centres? Those thermometers?
Wow I wonder how the temperatures went up? What next wrapping thermometers in black canvas then shrieking OH MY GOD THE TEMPS ARE THROUGH THE ROOF!
Climate "science" has discredited itself through disinformation. It's the MSM of science...

> The rapid response team member, "Bob Basement Boy" told me to get to Veeky Forums and start the ad hominem as fast as possible.
>Do I need to continue blowing you the FUCK out using your own """sources""" or will you give up again and run away, just like last time?
> Geographers don't count!!!!! So climate change is TRUE!

Clearly cartoonists turned psychologists count. As your fraudulent buddy shows:
> skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html
Yeah, I posted a link to one of your fraudsters. And you posted a paper authored by a guy CONNOLLY, who was KICKED OFF WIKIPEDIA for his demagoguery. You probably admire him. But do you really expect me to take you seriously?

>Again, that picture is from a fucking letter, or newspaper article, NOT A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL.
>>Corpus-Christi Caller Times is not a scientific academic accredited journal
>HOW FUCKING DUMB ARE YOU?

Really getting your panties in a bunch, aren't you? Oh, I forgot, only publications that are pal reviewed by warmists and run by warmist editors count. How convenient. You're as bad as a fundamentalist who will only argue Christianity based on Bible quotes. What a self-serving echo chamber you live it.

Apparently you yourself don't like facts or logic either.

Here's another example about how bunk and bogus your "285 papers" source is:
Page 1, link # 13 Stewart and Glantz 1885
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00140504
Here's an actual quote from this article:

>By the late 1970s that prevailing view had seemingly shifted 180 degrees to the belief that the earth’s atmosphere was being warmed as a result of an increasing CO2 loading of the atmosphere

>Clearly cartoonists turned psychologists count. As your fraudulent buddy shows:
I literally have no fucking idea what you're talking about faggot. I don't even read skepticalscience, but keep on being deluded. Not ONCE have you refuted a single thing I have said. You run around using newspaper articles as evidence of consensus, it's hilarious.

Also hilarious how you call me a "rapid response team" when you're doing the exact same thing, KEK.

>The worst part is you will never, ever admit you are wrong.
What did you say?
> I'll never admit that I'm a Paid Shill
ftfy

>I literally have no fucking idea what you're talking about faggot. I don't even read skepticalscience
Me thinks thou doth protest too much. Hope the Soros Foundation is paying you well.

Yes, you ignorant douche. THAT IS HOW THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS HAS WORKED FOR THE PAST 300+ YEARS. We don't advance science through opinion pieces in newspapers. We advance science through the PEER-REVIEW PROCESS.

Nice rapid responses here. Who are YOU shilling for buddy?

Again, not ONCE have you refuted me dismantling your source. NOT ONCE. You have no response other than calling me a shill, or completely ignoring my arguments.

Another paper from your source is a paper on migratory habits of the armadillo (KEK)
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0033589472900555

This is what this guy is using as evidence as a global cooling consensus in the 1970s, papers that have nothing to do with climatology. You going to respond to this Specifically? You going to ignore my evidence like you ignore the evidence for climate change as well?
>The nine-banded armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus) have been moving northward in the Great Plains region from the late 1800s to the 1950s but now seem to be retreating from their lately acquired northern range. The armadillos have a nontypical homoiothermic blood system which makes them fairly vulnerable to cold climates. Many other adjustments of animal ranges have taken place in the Holocene, even during the past few centuries and evidence indicates that in many cases climate changes played an important role.

LOL, this is the evidence this guy is using to prove there was a SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS on global cooling.

So typical.

The paper your picture is from doesn't even mention global cooling or predict what will happen in the future. The arrow is not original to the picture. Deniers are pathetic and gullible.

>Another paper from your source is a paper on migratory habits of the armadillo (KEK)
>sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0033589472900555

Idiot, Armadillo migration correlates/changes with global cooling/warming.

Meanwhile you've given exactly ONE paper. I gave 285. Your paper was by a Wikipedia Fraudster. Connolly. Who cherry-picked the papers he "found." Wow! Pal Review. I'm so not impressed.

>The paper your picture is from doesn't even mention global cooling
God forbid that the paper actually shows global cooling with graphed data. It looks like it wasn't even tampered. The nerve of some scientists!

I'M THIRSTY. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES TO FILL MY BOWL BEFORE I DELIVER THE GOODS.
BARK BARK WOOF

>ANYONE WHO RESPONDS TO MY BULLSHIT IS A SHILL

Still failing to address a single argument I have made, but no worries, it's easy to just ignore evidence and call others shills, takes ALL the effort away from actually having to form a coherent thought!

Another one of his sources debunked, do I need to continue?
there is no evidence that further cooling is likely in the immediate future

Look at this shit, # 22 of his links. Keep in mind, I'm only on the FIRST PAGE of THREE and I've already pointed out numerous errors that this guy apparently skimmed through.
ecommons.usask.ca/bitstream/handle/10388/5865/Magill_Bonnie_L_1980_sec.pdf?sequence=1
Title:
>Temperature Variations in Southern Saskatchewan 1921-1970 Regional Identification of Trends
What does this have to do with Global Cooling? Read the image I posted. This paper doesn't even have the slightest thing to do with global climate, it is about regional climate and it talks NOTHING about global cooling.

It's also a scan of a fucking Graduate student's thesis, kek not even a link to if it was actually published to peer review or anything.

How can you take anything this guy posts seriously when he has already shown that he is willing to be deceptive to try and build his fake scientific consensus on global cooling? Read through his fucking sources. The most hilarious part is people like you claim to be "skeptics," yet you NEVER question your own bullshit sources.

Look at the images you're posting, it's almost like you have these prepared responses, almost like you're WOW, A SHILL!
>Lincoln Evening Journal
newspapers.com/title_1093/lincoln_evening_journal/
ANOTHER NEWSPAPER! WOW! MUCH EVIDENCE YOU HAVE THERE!
This surely looks like a scientific paper written by a practicing climatologist during the 1970s / 80s, correct? No, it's just another fucking opinion piece, probably citing other opinion pieces about global cooling at the time, like the Newsweek / Time articles.

yup...triggered.

LOL you're comparing two completely different data sets. In the 1970s NCAR did not have the data from the Southern Hemisphere that NASA has now.

Why do people care about climate change science? Because energy companies pay them to care? Propaganda? I literally do not give a shit beyond knowing that yes, man is having an effect on the climate and weather patterns on earth. This is literally indisputable.

If killing a few million humans in the 1200s when we had no heavy industry by comparison literally cooled the earth then I would imagine we are doing something now.

The only people who post these kinds of threads are either shills or autists who get some kind of enjoyment out of contrarianism for the sake of it, or I guess, maybe politically motivated posters.

Energy company jobs aren't coming back, the employment and industry based around many fossil fuels is going to go away, and not because of legislation, but because they will be simply out competed by cheaper alternatives than digging shit out of the ground and then shipping it around the planet to burn it and introduce a host of secondary costs in their local area.

if you're saying that we can accurately measure trends in global temperature by observing changes in the range of one mammal in the south-central United States...you really don't have much of a leg to stand on regarding methodology. yes, climate change could be affecting the distribution of armadillos. but so could hundreds of other factors. given how the article doesn't actually assess current changes in climate...
you can keep yammering on about 285 papers however much you like, but when so many of them don't say what you claim they're saying, that number becomes meaningless. and I think that other user has done a satisfactory job in demonstrating that that is the case.

>Meanwhile you've given exactly ONE paper. I gave 285
One paper? I've posted at least 5 links, yes DIRECT LINKS from your source and am debunking them as I go. The author of your shitty website (Hmm, are you perhaps the guy that runs it?) has made numerous errors in claiming a scientific consensus on global cooling existed, by posting NON-SCIENTIFIC newspaper articles, and articles that have nothing to do with the Earth sciences whatsoever, like the Armadillo paper. What makes a fucking scientist studying Armadillos qualified at all to understand climatic trends, or ascertain an opinion on climate change?

Ken Richards, is that you? You shilling here on Veeky Forums of all places for your terribly-researched claims? A fucking 2nd grader could debunk your bullshit with ease.

You never even responded to one of the first links I posted above
Can you not read? This is one of the pieces of evidence Ken is using to prove a global cooling consensus. Here is a DIRECT QUOTE from this article:
>there is no evidence that further cooling is likely in the immediate future
This is one of the sources he is using to support his claim. It directly contradicts Ken's entire point, IN HIS OWN SOURCE.

You going to actually reply to the evidence I have posted, or are you just going to call me a shill again? Probably call me a shill because you have NO ARGUMENT. Pathetic.

Yawn, ok fully bored now, good night trigger.
We'll meet again.

>still bitching about something that can be fucked just by burning oil on an industrial scale instead of developing solutions to be safe from the whims of planetary environments by developing regenerative artificial environments in space we can easily control
baka, this is why i'm glad trump is taking away your funding. you people are useless. truly the brainlets of stem.

>Imma just rescale one graph, superpose it over another different graph, and call it a day

Holy shit, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

sleep tight, I left something for ya
:^)
arf

One more thing before I go. How can any argument against "global warming" be made, when ALL "scientific" journals refuse to publish anything even remotely contrary to the narrative, and all that "scientists" will accept is peer reviewed "science"?
That's quite the nice little loophole you made for yourselves. It could even be called cowardly.
Spock would not be impressed.

Another example of this guy's "285 papers" bullshit, he links to the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council Report here:
archive.org/stream/understandingcli00unit/understandingcli00unit_djvu.txt

Direct quotes from the source again:
>we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate
Sure sounds like the NAS was absolutely certain Global Cooling was occurring and there was a scientific consensus from this quote, right?
>Climatic change has been a subject of intellectual interest for many years. However, there are now more compelling reasons for its study: the growing awareness that our economic and social stability is profoundly influenced by climate and that man's activities themselves may be capable of influencing the climate in possibly undesirable ways. The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know

Also notice how this NAS article from 1975 is using the term CLIMATE CHANGE. So where are all the faggots now that always claim Climate Change was the "new term" to replace Global Warming? Where the fuck are you faggots now? BTFO. Before Al Gore, before any of your conspiracy crap existed, Climate Change was being used.

I see the guy has already scurried off though, think he got BTFO a few too many times.
The only way to get these people to fuck off is to look at their sources, find the contradictions and shut them the fuck up, forcing them to run away with their tail between their legs. Absolutely pathetic.

Whenever I see threads like this I hope that cern manages to cause catastrophic vacuum decay.

You're far to emotional to ever be considered a real scientist.
Religion might work better for you. Maybe performance arts?

So John Christy, Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen are all blacklisted from publishing? These are just three scientists in the actual field of climatology that continue to publish peer-reviewed papers outside of the consensus. Guess what though, the majority of climate science has nothing to even do with climate change itself, most is studying local climates, or paleoclimatology, or any number of the other disciplines involved in the science.

Once again, people like yourself show how absolutely ignorant you are of the Earth Sciences in general.

Post your evidence for
>ALL "scientific" journals refuse to publish anything even remotely contrary to the narrative

Or is this all, dare I say CONJECTURE? You have no evidence, you just spew out claims. No, sir. Spock would be ashamed of YOU because you lack even the slightest evidence to back up any of your claims.

The real cowards are individuals like yourself who refuse to even acknowledge the evidence exists in the first place.

Man, nice response to the evidence I laid out, do you have any other real responses other than ad hom? It's so hilarious that I've posted so much evidence to discredit this 285 papers nonsense and not once has any of you guys been able to attack my evidence. All you can result to is name-calling like a little child.

>I am very leery about any "science" that says the debate is over, it's a closed case.
>That smacks in the face of everything science is supposed to be.
"Settled" doesn't mean "indisputable", you twit. It means there's a broad consensus that it's true.

>You mean the thermometers that were all brought in from the countryside into city centres? Those thermometers?
Uh, I've not heard of any trend of thermometers being moved towards urban areas. I'm pretty sure that it's actually the opposite - the urban areas have moved towards the thermometers.
In any case it doesn't matter: adjusting data to remove UHI effects is considered normal.

>Arguing science using peer-reviewed data is like arguing Christianity using Bible quotes.
Holy fuck, just stop before you hurt yourself.

>One more thing before I go. How can any argument against "global warming" be made, when ALL "scientific" journals refuse to publish anything even remotely contrary to the narrative, and all that "scientists" will accept is peer reviewed "science"?
Lies.
You can't just make shit up and except people arguing with you will accept it.

>You're angry about how wrong I am, so that means I'm not wrong :-)
Well, that's a completely novel debating tactic.

Valium might help, maybe Prozac?
You should look into something at any rate. Please calm down before you give yourself a heart attack.
Spock has gone from unimpressed to concerned. That's saying something considering Vulcans don't typically get concerned. Must be his human side...

Ice Ages have more to do with rotational obliquity than anything else you pingus.

...

Again failing to respond or address a single point. Honestly, it's amazing how people like yourself have such an amazing capacity for mental gymnastics in order to avoid questioning your echo chambers.

What makes the irony even more delicious is that people like yourself consider yourselves to be "skeptics." I thought a skeptic was supposed to question the evidence, even their own? A good skeptic does exactly that, looks at their own sources of information and questions them for their authenticity.

Yet all you can do is turn back towards the character assassination / ad hom crap, because deep down, you known you have nothing of value to present.

Well to be fair the effect would go either way. If you cool the temperate zone faster than the arctic you would get more breaches in the cell barriers. So arctic weather making it's way into the temperate zone is not a disproof of climate change.

I wasn't trying to "assassinate" you, i was trying to lighten you up. I failed.
I am very sceptical about all things, my life has forced me to be that way. I'm glad it did, because I have the innate ability to view all things objectively because of it, and it has offered me broad insights.
What really concerns me is the blatant misinformation. Example, 98% of scientists believe in "climate change". What that misleading statement fails to mention is that many of those 98% of scientists don't think human activities contribute in any substantial way. However that is not the way it is disseminated to the general population.
Another problem i have is that it is glaringly obvious that a great deal of emotion has been allowed into the topic. Emotion has no place in real science. Emotion causes people to do irrational things, like falsify data. There is also the financial aspect. I.E. who or what provides the funding for climate scientists? No one seems to be willing to disclose that.
This is ultimately why I don't trust it. Sorry.

>Example, 98% of scientists believe in "climate change".
Do you have a source for a figure on what percentage *do* subscribe to anthropomorphology as a reason?

Emotion is literally the only "evidence" that people like you can point out to dispute the evidence for climate change, whether it's through conspiracies, or conjecture.

Who or what provides funding for the deniers of climate science? Have you ever asked yourself that question? Who would have a vested interest in propping up voices that claim to be skeptical of the scientific evidence? Is there perhaps a multi-trillion dollar industry with a track record of monetary efforts to spread anti-science conjecture?
nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/06/science/exxon-mobil-global-warming-statements-climate-change.html?_r=0
insideclimatenews.org/content/long-tale-exxon-and-climate-change

This is just one single corporation. Look at other entities like the Global Climate Coalition to see just how hard fossil fuel interest will fight to spread misinformation and propaganda to dispute the scientific evidence.
researchgate.net/publication/228892927_The_oil_industry_and_climate_change_Strategies_and_ethical_dilemmas
earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2000/alert6

Also, it's 97% with the consensus claim, and guess what, that claim doesn't matter whatsoever, consensus does not drive science, only EVIDENCE drives science, which is something climate skeptics repeatedly fail to understand. The evidence supports the scientific consensus on climate change, but the opinions of scientists in a consensus is non-scientific, thus it's better to simply look at the evidence yourself.

The whole 97% applies to climate scientists as well, not scientists who aren't in the field of climatology, which guess what, is itself a multi-disciplinary field with multiple experts in subfields, because climate itself is incredibly complex. Of course you have crackpots who aren't even Earth sciences dolling our their shitty opinions on subjects they aren't experts in.

Not sure what the total is, could look into it for you. While I'm trying to figure that out please watch this video from two days ago. It's about 4 minutes long, it's basically what I said. Thank you
youtube.com/watch?v=X6XsuBKgXAA

Please watch this, thanks.

The earth is getting warmer... So what? What are we going to do about it?