Lots of unusual cold weather around... must be global warming...

First topic message reminder :




https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6081919/scotland-weather-cold-freezing-september-snow-record/


https://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/1339496/UK-weather-forecast-charts-ice-met-office-snow-latest-greenland-temperature-bbc-weather


https://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/1339330/bbc-weather-forecast-latest-thunderstorm-warning-met-office-autumn-september-2020


And this news for The Alps...


https://planetski.eu/2020/09/24/snow-is-on-the-way-folks/



And this news for Australia...


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8764559/Parts-Australia-set-coldest-spring-day-23-years-rain-snow-hit-south-east.html

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:If he saw the thread, the decent thing would have been to say something, anything. If he didn't see it, fair enough, but let's not pretend he saw it but is so gutted that he can't bring himself to say anything. That's ridiculous.

We shouldn't pretend anything.  Grieving is such a sensitive subject that it shouldn't be used in 'shaming' someone...least of all should it be brought into a thread about climate change.

Well Wolf certainly brought his ill-feelings about Tommy into a thread about climate change so your point falls flat on its arse.

Let’s leave it there. I’m sure he didn’t see it, or as you pointed out, his grief is such that he cannot bring himself to post a comment on the fact Vic has died.

[quote="Ben Reilly"]

Tommy Monk wrote:



You obviously know nothing about what the ice core data from GISP2 and Vostok actually tells us...

the carbon brief post but it would not post as i am not allowed to post links for 7 days (despite is was contained in the post i quoted )
If i remember correctly Tommy doesn't read links provided, hence why he doesn't cite/rebut the information contained there in
He has only a couple of arrows in his quiver "the little ice age" and a misleading graph from 1997
and while it can be entertaining to rebut his "opinion" it is ultimately a some what pointless en-devour

Ben Reilly wrote:Tommy, do you never get bored of repeating the same old shit?

Because I certainly get bored of pointing out that the so-called "Little Ice Age" has nothing to do with global climate change, since it was a regional event.

I get bored of pointing out that while the climate is of course constantly changing, the overwhelming evidence says that we're causing it to change more rapidly than ever before.

And I get bored of pointing out that nobody said global warming means it's never going to get cold anywhere, ever again.

Wasn't a 'regional event' at all... It is just that it was more noticed in this region because the difference of a few degrees lower here means the difference between things being much more snowier and frozen here than usual... Plus there are more people here to notice it and record details of it...


Whereas huge parts of the rest of the world weren't really affected by it being a little bit cooler and/or were vastly underpopulated...

You always have been superfluous to any intelligent debate...


Yawn...!

Me ? well thanks for that ......They say yawning, is the body's attempt to supply more oxygen to the brain.....have you considered Hiring a ventilator for personal use ?

No need when you're around cos you're still as boring as ever and I will get plenty of yawns...

Oh dear the forums most ridiculed and derided posters looking for a Fight.
Seems just like your "facts",you haven't changed much over the past 6 years.
Still the forum clown....move on sonny, i dont have the time or the inclination to give you what you want

Tommy Monk wrote:
You always have been superfluous to any intelligent debate...

Yawn...!

Eds: "well [Tommy] certainly brought his ill-feelings about [Korban] into a thread about climate change so your point falls flat on its arse."  

And Ben and Eddie wonder why posters no longer can be asked to debate with cretins like Monk.
Quill, Korben and Wolfie's shit has more intellect than Tommy.

Guys...thank you. But best not give him what he obviously craves conflict,he has already made himself look foolish as fools often do.

Korban wrote:Guys...thank you. But best not give him what he obviously craves conflict,he has already made himself look foolish as fools often do.

Korban, my comment goes not just to defending you, but addressing the co-owners of the Forum.  The RW bent of this site drove Wolf (and many others) away, and as soon as he returns, instead of welcoming him, he is reprimanded...as if to drive him away again.

I just took advantage of an incident of Tommy doing the same to you, Korban, without a similar reprimand, as a reminder of why they have no LW posters (save your return, thank god, and Andy and I).  It's a part of an on-going conversation wherein you might be the object, but not necessarily the agent.

Cheers!

Korban wrote:Oh dear the forums most ridiculed and derided posters looking for a Fight.
Seems just like your "facts",you haven't changed much over the past 6 years.
Still the forum clown....move on sonny, i dont have the time or the inclination to give you what you want

...says the troll who popped up after years and immediately started throwing hostilities my way...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Korban wrote:Oh dear the forums most ridiculed and derided posters looking for a Fight.
Seems just like your "facts",you haven't changed much over the past 6 years.
Still the forum clown....move on sonny, i dont have the time or the inclination to give you what you want

...says the troll who popped up after years and immediately started throwing hostilities my way...

Hostility's ? er... nope i pointed to the fact you have two arguments mini ice age and Greenland if you see that as hostile you have deeper problems

They is much truth in your words Quill .

Tommy is typical of the "RW" mentality.in that they are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who do not adhere to there views, it is a defense mechanism.

conspiracy theory's, as in his denial of climate change, becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proved or disproved with facts or indeed evidence.

He posted a link earlier in the thread to a Wiki wikipedia dot org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
Now i have no problem with citing a wiki article

what he failed to point out was under Possible causes

Scientists have tentatively identified seven possible causes of the Little Ice Age: orbital cycles; decreased solar activity; increased volcanic activity; altered ocean current flows; fluctuations in the human population in different parts of the world causing reforestation, or deforestation; and the inherent variability of global climate.

Orbital forcing
from cycles in the earth's orbit around the sun has, for the past 2,000 years, caused a long-term northern hemisphere cooling trend that continued through the Middle Ages and the Little Ice Age. The rate of Arctic cooling is roughly 0.02 °C per century.  This trend could be extrapolated to continue into the future, possibly leading to a full ice age,

but the twentieth-century instrumental temperature record shows a sudden reversal of this trend, with a rise in global temperatures attributed to greenhouse gas emissions he conveniently ignored that or never read the full page

Another possibility is that there was a slowing of thermohaline circulation The circulation could have been interrupted by the introduction of a large amount of fresh water into the North Atlantic, possibly caused by a period of warming before the Little Ice Age known as the Medieval Warm Period. There is some concern that a shutdown of thermohaline circulation could happen again as a result of the present warming period

Ben mentioned this when he referred to the movie "the day after tomorrow "

He relies on old misleading graph purporting to show that past changes in Greenland’s temperatures dwarf modern climate change has been circling the internet since at least 2010.

Based on an early Greenland ice core record produced back in 1997, versions of the graph have, variously, mislabeled the x-axis, excluded the modern observational temperature record and conflated a single location in Greenland with the whole world.

carbonbrief dot org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change.

then we have Scientific consensus on climate change

As he quoted wiki so shall i
/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

There is currently a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.

Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–98%( support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, and the remaining 2% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors.A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%


Quite simply no amount of evidence or fact based peer reviews study will change his view,
All he has is what he had 6 years ago, a debunked misleading graph from 1997 and a wholly inept misunderstanding of the little so called ice age.

he will not accept cannot accept he is wrong or misinformed.

Tommy would have us believe Ross McKitrick Professor of Economics, University of Guelph whose article he cites is best placed to dispute what 100% of climate scientists have said .....i think not

Now i am sure Tommy will find some obscure internet piece that will discount what i have written but unless its peer reviewed by actual climate scientists its worth nothing to the actual debate ,he will perhaps continue with the name calling and derision of peoples intellect  as he did
Or completely ignore data like Bens post/link on the Greenland ice cores, ignore it for a few months ,come back and regurgitate his little ice age and the debunked 1997 Greenland ice core data because that's all he has apart from a complete misunderstanding of the science

in the end if the six years of posts on this site that really lay waist to his argument are not enough for him to reevaluate his view then nothing will

Because its not about facts for him its about faith

trolling? (antisocial online behaviour in general) i would say you fit that more than i

however fortunately i can just ignore you