Science says so. Science!
thenewamerican.com/tech/envi … g-industry
All those reports of snowfall are lies by the science deniers.
I love when people like you try to reduce “science” to a few people. Like the few dudes in that article who made bad predictions are somehow representing SCIENCE, and if they were wrong, obviously so was science. :loco:
I know it sounds crazy, but do you even know what science means? You use the word a lot, but I’m really starting to wonder…
[quote=“BrentGolf”]I love when people like you try to reduce “science” to a few people. Like the few dudes in that article who made bad predictions are somehow representing SCIENCE, and if they were wrong, obviously so was science. :loco:
I know it sounds crazy, but do you even know what science means? You use the word a lot, but I’m really starting to wonder…[/quote]
The 2nd warmest winter on record was just interrupted by a cold front and all of a sudden rowland thinks he is right about global warming. It is a brilliant use of sample size. Keep it up.
Wasn’t 2015 the warmest year in recorded history too, globally?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/science/earth/2015-hottest-year-global-warming.html?_r=0
I was going to say earlier that some GW-denier would claim the snowstorm as a sign that the whole thing was fake, but then I refrained, thinking “Nah, not even they could be that stupid”.
Record cold in Taipei… and of course the global warming deniers think it disproves GW when it’s far more likely a consequence of it.
A week ago the polar circle was reported to be 30 C above it’s normal temperature.
Now, we have a cold front from Taiwan, Europe to the US.
If the temperatures are higher, cold air can move faster, thus causing freezing temperatures where they are not supposed to be.
I wonder if anything could possibly happen that you wouldn’t blame on global warming.
[quote=“BrentGolf”]I love when people like you try to reduce “science” to a few people. Like the few dudes in that article who made bad predictions are somehow representing SCIENCE, and if they were wrong, obviously so was science. :loco:
I know it sounds crazy, but do you even know what science means? You use the word a lot, but I’m really starting to wonder…[/quote]
I don’t think these global warming people know what science means.Or much care.
These few people aren’t nearly few enough. They pretty much dominate the field.
This is the same level of denial that rowland has as to what is happening around him. I think there are some sketchy doomsday scenarios floated around (by supposed scientists) and I don’t know what the end effect of global warming will be but it is nearly impossible to claim that it isn’t happening.
For the record, I think that global warming (due to greenhouse gases) is real. But that has little or nothing to do with our recent weather.
The actual cause of this week’s cold snap in the northern hemisphere is the behavior of the Arctic Oscillation…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_oscillation
…and it’s close cousin, the Polar Vortex:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex
Until this week, we were actually experiencing a warmer than average winter, due to a strong El Nino and strong Polar Vortex occurring at the same time. The suddenly weak polar vortex has sent a lot of cold air spilling south, while the north polar region itself suddenly got a lot warmer. That’s going to change in the next couple of days and we’ll be back to normal, but it’s still not certain how the rest of the winter is going to play out. This is the way things looked last week in the northern hemisphere just before the cold front hit us (the illustration shows temperature anomalies):
I don’t think it’s a good idea to read too much into a single weather event. Weather is not climate. So no, this week’s cold wave does not prove that “global warming has arrived,” nor that “global warming is a hoax.”
Would be nice if climate change was not so politicized. Climate is driven by the laws of physics, and the laws of physics don’t care about politics at all. But maybe that is naive of me to think so.
Quite right, weather is not climate and what happens in a few isolated incidents like our recent snowstorm or cold weather says absolutely nothing about climate change. Which was also my original point to our friend Rowland. What a few people who happen to be scientists say does not represent “science.”
I think Rowland actually thinks the word science means individual opinions held by scientists. That’s really what he thinks. That he can scour the web for stupid things that scientists have said and then boom, you’ve disproved “science.” :loco:
Angry derp from Al Gore worshipers is clearly not a thing of the past.
When even tsunamis have been blamed on global warming, I think that you will find that the propensity to conflate weather and climate exists in far greater proportion among the global warming alarmist/fanatics. No?
When even tsunamis have been blamed on global warming, I think that you will find that the propensity to conflate weather and climate exists in far greater proportion among the global warming alarmist/fanatics. No?[/quote]
Of course, but do I care about what some people incorrectly do? There are idiots in every single label you can come up with. Idiotic liberals, idiotic scientists, idiotic climate change alarmists, idiotic atheists, idiotic feminists, idiotic ______. That does not do anything to disprove the general truths about the world though does it? It just means there are stupid people in all walks of life.
The fact that you can find idiotic scientists who have proposed all kinds of ridiculous theories that didn’t come true does not disprove the science.
[quote=“BrentGolf”]
The fact that you can find idiotic scientists who have proposed all kinds of ridiculous theories that didn’t come true does not disprove the science.[/quote]
So what proves the science?
Just asking.
[quote=“rowland”][quote=“BrentGolf”]
The fact that you can find idiotic scientists who have proposed all kinds of ridiculous theories that didn’t come true does not disprove the science.[/quote]
So what proves the science?
Just asking.[/quote]
Can we prove science?
I am kind of recalling something like science can only be confirmed.
Like it’s a sum of confirmations that are always open for debates.
For now, the most important predictions made about global warming are confirmed. Of course, you can debate or challenge each of them. However, most scientist will not challenge the mainstream opinions unless they have some solid evidence.
Ah, someone recalls his Popper.
Now, if only we can grasp the lesson of Lysenko: not everything that gets sold to us as science is science.
Oh, and and anyone who sincerely thinks that climate can exist independently of weather is a hopeless nincompoop.
[quote=“rowland”][quote=“Hamletintaiwan”]
I am kind of recalling something like science can only be confirmed.
Like it’s a sum of confirmations that are always open for debates.
[/quote]
Oh, and and anyone who sincerely thinks that climate can exist independently of weather is a hopeless nincompoop.[/quote]
A scientist will ask, what’s the weather like in Taipei? , and draw some conclusions from there.
Of course you are free to to ask, how is the weather in Taipei? , and use that for your arguments.
Still, the first question, I had answered with rainy and the second with sunny since it was sunny today.