• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2015 Was Hottest Year in Recorded History, Scientists Say

flogger said:
Oh look another alarmist 'group hug' thread :bolt
Click to expand...

LOL...

And they think that since they wait for their pundits to tell them what to say, that others do as well.

How sad...
 
Lord of Planar said:
It is supported by manipulated records!
Click to expand...

Wasn't 2014 proclaimed with loud fanfare to the sensationalist media be the warmest year ..... only quietly admitting they were just 38% certain of that claim a few months later (what the f*** does that even mean ! ) :roll:

For post 2015 caveats ..... watch this space :cool:
 
flogger said:
Wasn't 2014 proclaimed with loud fanfare to the sensationalist media be the warmest year ..... only quietly admitting they were just 38% certain of that claim a few months later (what the f*** does that even mean ! ) :roll:

For post 2015 caveats ..... watch this space :cool:
Click to expand...

For those of us who are rational, it means it was 62% likely is wasn't the hottest!

I notice they didn't give a statistical percentage this time. They probably don't want the same shame!
 
flogger said:
Given the tiny sliver of time that has ever been recorded whether it is or isn't is entirely academic and far too short a timescale to be making determinations about anything frankly
Click to expand...

"Entirely academic". Good to know. Those in the scientific community are under the impression there is significant practical meaning behind it. Any thoughts why so many of them in your country, my country, everyone's country, could be so wrong?
 
JackA said:
"Entirely academic". Good to know. Those in the scientific community are under the impression there is significant practical meaning behind it. Any thoughts why so many of them in your country, my country, everyone's country, could be so wrong?
Click to expand...

The temperature has gone through many cycles like this since the last ice age and todays is relatively modest.

Historically its the colder temperatures that should concern us more not the warmer
 
flogger said:
Given the tiny sliver of time that has ever been recorded whether it is or isn't is entirely academic and far too short a timescale to be making determinations about anything frankly
Click to expand...

Says the guy who googles his information in order to contradict the thousands of scientists that actually work in the field...
 
dadalus said:
Says the guy who googles his information in order to contradict the thousands of scientists that actually work in the field...
Click to expand...

Its the politicians and the poltical pundits who are waving the shroud the hardest not the scientists
 
flogger said:
Its the politicians and the poltical pundits who are waving the shroud the hardest not the scientists
Click to expand...

True. Scientists go quietly about their work while Deniers call them nincompoops or patrons of the Dark Side.
 
flogger said:
The temperature has gone through many cycles like this since the last ice age and todays is relatively modest.

Historically its the colder temperatures that should concern us more not the warmer
Click to expand...

No kidding.

With the sun going quiet for the next two or three cycles, we may need CO2 to keep from entering another ice age.

I wonder where that tripping point is to snap back into an ice age?
 
JackA said:
True. Scientists go quietly about their work while Deniers call them nincompoops or patrons of the Dark Side.
Click to expand...

No skeptics point out where their work has been exaggerated and misrepresented by those pundits and politicians to fit their agendas. Theres a difference
 
JackA said:
True. Scientists go quietly about their work while Deniers call them nincompoops or patrons of the Dark Side.
Click to expand...

I don't know what deniers say. I have only seen two or three in these forums since I joined.

Do you speak with very many?
 
Lord of Planar said:
No kidding.

With the sun going quiet for the next two or three cycles, we may need CO2 to keep from entering another ice age.

I wonder where that tripping point is to snap back into an ice age?
Click to expand...

Don't worry if that happens it will still be all our fault.

I'm sure they will be working on another 97% approved hypothesis covering that eventuality as we speak ..... just in case :cool:
 
Lord of Planar said:
I don't know what deniers say. I have only seen two or three in these forums since I joined.

Do you speak with very many?
Click to expand...

I've heard or read the comments of many, though not here. I've just recently joined the forums. To answer your question, I speak with very few.
 
JackA said:
I've heard or read the comments of many, though not here. I've just recently joined the forums. To answer your question, I speak with very few.
Click to expand...
Do you see any of us as deniers?

What do we deny? That we are doomed?
 
Lord of Planar said:
I don't know what deniers say. I have only seen two or three in these forums since I joined.

Do you speak with very many?
Click to expand...

Well, you deny that the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to be a significant problem by the end of the century. Science disagrees.

You then will deny that science disagrees, despite multiple published papers that are quite clear about it, and dozens of respected scientific organizations making that very statement that there is an overwhelming consensus and they generally agree with the IPCC .

You will deny that those organizations are composed of scientists and call them 'pundits', and do calculations at your kitchen table showing that longstanding conclusions (like satellites being inaccurate because of orbital drift, among many others ) were 'disproven'. You then classify anything you cant dispute as 'manipulation' and basically imply a conspiracy theory.

And then, you'll deny that you are a denier!

So you're right. You're not just a denier, you are a denier[SUP]3[/SUP], sort of like Peter in the garden, to use a biblical analogy.
 
flogger said:
Don't worry if that happens it will still be all our fault.

I'm sure they will be working on another 97% approved hypothesis covering that eventuality as we speak ..... just in case :cool:
Click to expand...

Of course you're sure. You base your hypotheses on guesses, not data.
 
dadalus said:
Of course you're sure. You base your hypotheses on guesses, not data.
Click to expand...

A prediction not a hypothesis. If it happens in the next 20 years it will be the second doomsday man made ice age eco scare of my lifetime too :wink:
 
JackA said:
Neither is it "debunked". Rather it is evidence that 2015 was exceptionally warm, one of the warmest years ever, leaving it to additional evidence to determine just how high the year's ranking will be.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
Jack Hays said:
NCDC / NCEI / NOAA
[h=1]Failed Math: In 1997, NOAA claimed that the Earth was 3.83 degrees warmer than today[/h] Steve McIntyre always told us to “watch the pea under the thimble” when it comes to climate change pronouncements, this is one of those cases. Yesterday, to much media fanfare, wailing, and gnashing of teeth NOAA pronounced that 2015 was the hottest year on record, ever! There’s only one problem with that…the Internet never forgets. Back…
Click to expand...

They apparently need to have someone on staff that knows how to add and subtract numbers, according to the link! :shock:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom